Invisapeeps 2.0

winds55 · Guru

RE: From the Root: I Want to Change My "Ghetto" Name

Papa Bear · Senior Member

Forty-two wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
dqm either wrote:
winds55 wrote:
Oh goodie, nothing like white men lecturing on how tough it is to be white, after insults and lectures on how anyone who isn't white only got where-ever they are in life because of special treatment.
Anybody who says that having a ghetto name gets you into college has zero credibility.
No college is going to admit you based on how you spell your name. If they did EVERYONE would have ghetto names.
Then the Wall Street Journal has zero credibility:
In 2003, the Supreme Court said affirmative action at universities might be necessary for another quarter-century to ensure that classrooms reflect the nation's racial diversity. Soon after they return Monday from summer vacation, however, the current justices plan to reconsider that 5-4 decision—less because the nation has changed than because the court has.
The 2003 decision's author, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, retired in 2006, and her successor, Justice Samuel Alito, has indicated greater skepticism of racial preferences to promote diversity. That suggests the University of Texas at Austin—despite backing from the Obama administration, many corporations and virtually the entire higher-education establishment—faces tough odds when it defends its race-conscious admissions policies at arguments Oct. 10.
Ghetto names are almost always for black individuals, and the affirmative action at the University of Texas (and elsewhere) are intended to benefit, among other people, the black applicants. Therefore, yes: A ghetto name would improve admission to a college.
You're free to assign credibility as you like. I'll stick with the Journal.
Nothing in the WSJ piece you cited mentions names it mentions race. So you don't think it is the fact that they check the box that identifies their race as black but their name? So black Leslie will be overlooked in favor of black La'Quita, Shaniqua, Ja'shawnda?

-- Edited by Forty-two on Tuesday 21st of May 2013 06:48:04 AM

Technically, this is true. And if the "DaLaMa" names you refer to weren't given to black students 99% of the time, that might be relevant.

Papa Bear · Senior Member

winds55 wrote:
You really don't get it, PB.

So let there be light. I probably don't understand a great deal.

Here's what I do understand. Every so often, be it in life or in the news or in cyberspace, someone comes along stating the desire for "an honest and frank dialogue about race." And (fool that I am), I often enter the fray believing that someone actually wanted an honest and frank dialogue on race.

What ends up happening is that any observation I share -- no matter how well-documented or grounded in fact - is shot down by those who would presume to tell me that my observations are the wrong ones, "just because I don't get it." And I'm all, okay fine but did you want that honest discussion or not?

There is nothing I can communicate on this topic, outside of dictated orthodoxy, that won't earn me insults.

That's what I understand, very well.

Aqua · Veteran Member

Papa Bear wrote:
Aqua wrote:
winds55 wrote:
Oh goodie, nothing like white men lecturing on how tough it is to be white, after insults and lectures on how anyone who isn't white only got where-ever they are in life because of special treatment.
I wonder how much longer the "I'm not white" gravy train will last.
Aqua if you mean college admissions, I have really bad news for you. Again from the Journal:
Affirmative-action debates usually focus on how whites, blacks and Hispanics are impacted. But last week four Asian-American organizations filed a brief with the Supreme Court that challenges racial preferences in college admissions.
The case under consideration by the court, Fisher v. University of Texas, concerns Abigail Fisher, a white woman who was rejected by the University of Texas at Austin. The brief was filed by the 80-20 National Asian-American Educational Foundation; the National Federation of Indian American Associations; the Indian American Forum for Political Education; and the Global Organization of People of Indian Origin. It argues that racial preferences intended to help black and Hispanic applicants are detrimental not only to whites but also to Asians.
The brief notes that admission to the nation's top schools is a zero-sum proposition. "As aspiring applicants capable of graduating from these institutions outnumber available seats, the utilization of race as a 'plus factor' for some inexorably applies race as a 'minus factor' against those on the other side of the equation," it says. "Particularly hard-hit are Asian American students, who demonstrate academic excellence at disproportionately high rates but often find the value of their work discounted on account of either their race, or nebulous criteria alluding to it."
In the past, Asian groups have typically favored racial preferences in admissions even though Asians applicants often have much to gain from their elimination. Elite schools, in particular, are worried about Asian kids being overrepresented on campus, so they find ways to cap their numbers. When elite schools ban preferences, however, Asians as a group almost always benefit the most in terms of increased enrollment.
Sucks to be informed.

I was being sarcastic... confuse

Papa Bear · Senior Member

Aqua wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
Sucks to be informed.
I was being sarcastic...

Damn. Conservative and sarcastic? It's like a whole new Aqua!

Aqua · Veteran Member

Sorry, PB, I'm as flamingly left wing as always!

Papa Bear · Senior Member

Aqua wrote:
Spoiler
Papa Bear wrote:
Cactus wrote:
I thought this was an interesting article:
http://www.theroot.com/views/i-hate-my-ghetto-name-can-i-change-it
It appears to be not only common, but rather accepted, to discriminate based on names.
Obviously, some people are simply racist or classist, so will, for example, not consider a resume with a name that suggests the applicant is black or from a lower class. But there are others who would claim they are neither racist nor classist and that they would not discriminate against a person-in hiring or other things-on these grounds, yet still express open dislke, contempt, or mockery of names like Shaniqua etc.
When people express dislike of or contempt towards something, there is often an underlying class or racial (or other) issue, which goes unacknowledged or unchallenged.
While it has become less socially acceptable to openly discriminate against people based purely on race, class, gender, sexual orientation, religion etc, it seems quite widely accepted to discriminate against people based on traits strongly associated with a particular race, class, gender, orientation and so on.
What are your thoughts?
Give children standard, regular names. Problem solved.

I would tend to agree. I know the prejudices exist. If I planned on children, I'd plan on trying to give them a good start, and part of that is, IMO, giving a classic name that won't raise eyebrows.
Is that technically right in that it helps to combat such attitudes? No, but I wouldn't really care, on a practical level.

-- Edited by Aqua on Friday 17th of May 2013 02:49:33 PM

A flaming left-winger said the bolded? You're being far too modest.

Forty-two · Guru

Papa Bear wrote:
Aqua wrote:
Spoiler
Papa Bear wrote:
Cactus wrote:
I thought this was an interesting article:
http://www.theroot.com/views/i-hate-my-ghetto-name-can-i-change-it
It appears to be not only common, but rather accepted, to discriminate based on names.
Obviously, some people are simply racist or classist, so will, for example, not consider a resume with a name that suggests the applicant is black or from a lower class. But there are others who would claim they are neither racist nor classist and that they would not discriminate against a person-in hiring or other things-on these grounds, yet still express open dislke, contempt, or mockery of names like Shaniqua etc.
When people express dislike of or contempt towards something, there is often an underlying class or racial (or other) issue, which goes unacknowledged or unchallenged.
While it has become less socially acceptable to openly discriminate against people based purely on race, class, gender, sexual orientation, religion etc, it seems quite widely accepted to discriminate against people based on traits strongly associated with a particular race, class, gender, orientation and so on.
What are your thoughts?
Give children standard, regular names. Problem solved.

I would tend to agree. I know the prejudices exist. If I planned on children, I'd plan on trying to give them a good start, and part of that is, IMO, giving a classic name that won't raise eyebrows.
Is that technically right in that it helps to combat such attitudes? No, but I wouldn't really care, on a practical level.

-- Edited by Aqua on Friday 17th of May 2013 02:49:33 PM
A flaming left-winger said the bolded? You're being far too modest.

I don't think Aqua's statement has any bearing on her political leanings it just says that she is not stupid and wants to do the right thing by her fictitious children, as any intelligent person would do.

Papa Bear · Senior Member

Forty-two wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
Aqua wrote:
Spoiler
Papa Bear wrote:
Cactus wrote:
I thought this was an interesting article:
http://www.theroot.com/views/i-hate-my-ghetto-name-can-i-change-it
It appears to be not only common, but rather accepted, to discriminate based on names.
Obviously, some people are simply racist or classist, so will, for example, not consider a resume with a name that suggests the applicant is black or from a lower class. But there are others who would claim they are neither racist nor classist and that they would not discriminate against a person-in hiring or other things-on these grounds, yet still express open dislke, contempt, or mockery of names like Shaniqua etc.
When people express dislike of or contempt towards something, there is often an underlying class or racial (or other) issue, which goes unacknowledged or unchallenged.
While it has become less socially acceptable to openly discriminate against people based purely on race, class, gender, sexual orientation, religion etc, it seems quite widely accepted to discriminate against people based on traits strongly associated with a particular race, class, gender, orientation and so on.
What are your thoughts?
Give children standard, regular names. Problem solved.

I would tend to agree. I know the prejudices exist. If I planned on children, I'd plan on trying to give them a good start, and part of that is, IMO, giving a classic name that won't raise eyebrows.
Is that technically right in that it helps to combat such attitudes? No, but I wouldn't really care, on a practical level.

-- Edited by Aqua on Friday 17th of May 2013 02:49:33 PM
A flaming left-winger said the bolded? You're being far too modest.
I don't think Aqua's statement has any bearing on her political leanings (1) it just says that she is not stupid and wants to do the right thing by her fictitious children, as any intelligent person would do. (2)

1. It certainly encompasses politics, but conservatism is about more than that. It's about being careful, prudent, humble, respectful of forces beyond our control. (I was being sarcastic when I mentioned her being "Republican" up-thread.)

2. I know, right?

Aqua · Veteran Member

Papa Bear wrote:
Aqua wrote:
Spoiler
Papa Bear wrote:
Cactus wrote:
I thought this was an interesting article:
http://www.theroot.com/views/i-hate-my-ghetto-name-can-i-change-it
It appears to be not only common, but rather accepted, to discriminate based on names.
Obviously, some people are simply racist or classist, so will, for example, not consider a resume with a name that suggests the applicant is black or from a lower class. But there are others who would claim they are neither racist nor classist and that they would not discriminate against a person-in hiring or other things-on these grounds, yet still express open dislke, contempt, or mockery of names like Shaniqua etc.
When people express dislike of or contempt towards something, there is often an underlying class or racial (or other) issue, which goes unacknowledged or unchallenged.
While it has become less socially acceptable to openly discriminate against people based purely on race, class, gender, sexual orientation, religion etc, it seems quite widely accepted to discriminate against people based on traits strongly associated with a particular race, class, gender, orientation and so on.
What are your thoughts?
Give children standard, regular names. Problem solved.

I would tend to agree. I know the prejudices exist. If I planned on children, I'd plan on trying to give them a good start, and part of that is, IMO, giving a classic name that won't raise eyebrows.
Is that technically right in that it helps to combat such attitudes? No, but I wouldn't really care, on a practical level.

-- Edited by Aqua on Friday 17th of May 2013 02:49:33 PM
A flaming left-winger said the bolded? You're being far too modest.

Oh for goodness...well at least now I know where that came from?

yes, I'm flamingly liberal. I'm also practical. I don't think naming my hypothetical child Shaniqua is going to help matters.

Overruling my husband and sending said child through the public school system instead of a private school? Maybe. But I think that's a far more practical way for one family to make a difference instead of giving a child a name that has no meaning for us AND will cause him/her potential difficulties in the name of not being conservative!

Papa Bear · Senior Member

Forty-two wrote:
I cannot agree with you. Most of the black people I know are extremely liberal but they want their kids to get jobs so they did not name them ghetto names it has zero to do with politics. (1)

Which takes us back to the other post that you did not address. I cannot believe you think ghetto-named kids get preference over non-ghetto named kids in college entrance. (2)

1. If they want their kids to get jobs, why do they vote for candidates that strangle job creation?

2. I did address it but to recap.

Fact: Race-based admissions are a reality, and the biggest beneficiaries are the black applicants. (That's what the fuss was about in Fisher v. Texas.)

Fact: The names you mention are black names, 99% of the time.

QED: Ghetto-named kids would get a preference in any university with race-based admissions.

Papa Bear · Senior Member

Aqua wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
Aqua wrote:
Spoiler
Papa Bear wrote:
Cactus wrote:
I thought this was an interesting article:
http://www.theroot.com/views/i-hate-my-ghetto-name-can-i-change-it
It appears to be not only common, but rather accepted, to discriminate based on names.
Obviously, some people are simply racist or classist, so will, for example, not consider a resume with a name that suggests the applicant is black or from a lower class. But there are others who would claim they are neither racist nor classist and that they would not discriminate against a person-in hiring or other things-on these grounds, yet still express open dislke, contempt, or mockery of names like Shaniqua etc.
When people express dislike of or contempt towards something, there is often an underlying class or racial (or other) issue, which goes unacknowledged or unchallenged.
While it has become less socially acceptable to openly discriminate against people based purely on race, class, gender, sexual orientation, religion etc, it seems quite widely accepted to discriminate against people based on traits strongly associated with a particular race, class, gender, orientation and so on.
What are your thoughts?
Give children standard, regular names. Problem solved.

I would tend to agree. I know the prejudices exist. If I planned on children, I'd plan on trying to give them a good start, and part of that is, IMO, giving a classic name that won't raise eyebrows.
Is that technically right in that it helps to combat such attitudes? No, but I wouldn't really care, on a practical level.

-- Edited by Aqua on Friday 17th of May 2013 02:49:33 PM
A flaming left-winger said the bolded? You're being far too modest.
Oh for goodness...well at least now I know where that came from?
yes, I'm flamingly liberal. I'm also practical. I don't think naming my hypothetical child Shaniqua is going to help matters.
Overruling my husband and sending said child through the public school system instead of a private school? Maybe. But I think that's a far more practical way for one family to make a difference instead of giving a child a name that has no meaning for us AND will cause him/her potential difficulties in the name of not being conservative!

Aqua, are you pro-choice?

Aqua · Veteran Member

Papa Bear wrote:
Aqua wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
Aqua wrote:
Spoiler
Papa Bear wrote:
Cactus wrote:
I thought this was an interesting article:
http://www.theroot.com/views/i-hate-my-ghetto-name-can-i-change-it
It appears to be not only common, but rather accepted, to discriminate based on names.
Obviously, some people are simply racist or classist, so will, for example, not consider a resume with a name that suggests the applicant is black or from a lower class. But there are others who would claim they are neither racist nor classist and that they would not discriminate against a person-in hiring or other things-on these grounds, yet still express open dislke, contempt, or mockery of names like Shaniqua etc.
When people express dislike of or contempt towards something, there is often an underlying class or racial (or other) issue, which goes unacknowledged or unchallenged.
While it has become less socially acceptable to openly discriminate against people based purely on race, class, gender, sexual orientation, religion etc, it seems quite widely accepted to discriminate against people based on traits strongly associated with a particular race, class, gender, orientation and so on.
What are your thoughts?
Give children standard, regular names. Problem solved.

I would tend to agree. I know the prejudices exist. If I planned on children, I'd plan on trying to give them a good start, and part of that is, IMO, giving a classic name that won't raise eyebrows.
Is that technically right in that it helps to combat such attitudes? No, but I wouldn't really care, on a practical level.

-- Edited by Aqua on Friday 17th of May 2013 02:49:33 PM
A flaming left-winger said the bolded? You're being far too modest.
Oh for goodness...well at least now I know where that came from?
yes, I'm flamingly liberal. I'm also practical. I don't think naming my hypothetical child Shaniqua is going to help matters.
Overruling my husband and sending said child through the public school system instead of a private school? Maybe. But I think that's a far more practical way for one family to make a difference instead of giving a child a name that has no meaning for us AND will cause him/her potential difficulties in the name of not being conservative!
Aqua, are you pro-choice?

Yes. And against the death penalty. And a pacifist. And heavily in favor of same sex marriage. Opposed all of the pieces of Dayton's tax plan that were regressive taxes.

Papa Bear · Senior Member

Aqua wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
Aqua, are you pro-choice?
Yes.

Same. Welcome to the Republican party!

Spoiler

And to think, you used to be an authoritarian control freak.

Papa Bear · Senior Member

Forty-two wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
Forty-two wrote:
I cannot agree with you. Most of the black people I know are extremely liberal but they want their kids to get jobs so they did not name them ghetto names it has zero to do with politics. (1)

Which takes us back to the other post that you did not address. I cannot believe you think ghetto-named kids get preference over non-ghetto named kids in college entrance. (2)
1. If they want their kids to get jobs, why do they vote for candidates that strangle job creation? This is your opinion not theirs
2. I did address it but to recap.
Fact: Race-based admissions are a reality, and the biggest beneficiaries are the black applicants. (That's what the fuss was about in Fisher v. Texas.) I agree
Fact: The names you mention are black names, 99% of the time. I agree
QED: Ghetto-named kids would get a preference (only to white kids not fellow black kids without ghetto names) in any university with race-based admissions. They are not getting preference due to their name but due to their race. If you supposition was correct ghetto named kids would get into college more than traditionally-named black kids.
And again you are missing the point. Ghetto-named kids do not get preference over non-ghetto named kids of the same race. You are mixing apples and oranges

-- Edited by Forty-two on Tuesday 21st of May 2013 11:47:22 AM

I'm not missing Cactus' point, which is all I was really addressing. The prospective hiring manager can't tell whether the ghetto-named applicant beat out someone else at the university, but he/she can reasonably infer some quota system at work there.

And again (again!), the problem disappears in a generation if all race-based admissions policies disappeared everywhere for a generation.

Papa Bear · Senior Member

OK okay - reading comprehend fail 42 - I'm sorry. You weren't disputing that either.

Papa Bear · Senior Member

Cactus, to bring this home (bc I have stuff to do), let's stipulate that this "From the Root" writer is right and that I and others are wrong. Any problem or holdup with ghetto names could mean only the evil and cretinous bigotry of those of us who are relics from a pathetic and obsolete era. (I couldn't disagree more, but let's say that.)

The fact is, no one individual or family could reverse that dynamic either.

In other words, the job applicants with the ghetto names are going to be at the mercy of something. I believe the applicants are at the mercy of the fallout from affirmative action policies in universities, and a perceived debased worth of such policies' beneficiaries. This columnist believes the applicants are at the mercy of just bigotry.

Whichever way it is, the dynamic is beyond the ability of any individual to reverse. That's why I advise the family to issue standard, regular names, and (if it's too late for that) for the applicant to shorten it to something more common and standard. No one family or individual can trump whatever tide is out there, regardless of how it started or why.

RichardInTN · I believe in I.D.I.C.

Papa Bear wrote:
Aqua wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
Aqua, are you pro-choice?
Yes.
Same. Welcome to the Republican party!
Spoiler

And to think, you used to be an authoritarian control freak.

Having "known" Aqua for many years now, I don't think that even in jest that can be said about her. Are you sure you aren't projecting something?

winds55 · Guru

Richard, he's been projecting since bitching that Lee Phong would have a better chance getting an IT job than John Miller.

RichardInTN · I believe in I.D.I.C.

Lee Phong probably would have a better chance... But not because he's "Lee Phong".

(I knew a John Miller in High School... he was one lazy SOB)

Papa Bear · Senior Member

Not projecting a thing. The video I posted is full of control freaks who presume to tell others that gov't knows how to live their lives better than the people do. What term would you use, aside from "Democrat" or "authoritarian control freak"?

In the past, Aqua posted (several times if memory serves) that she wished the 2nd amendment were repealed. If she is truly pro-choice, she'd support the choice to bear arms, the choice of declining union membership, the choice of eating trans fats, I could go on. However, she claims to be pro-choice. So one can only hope.

Winds, I miss you.

RichardInTN · I believe in I.D.I.C.

Papa Bear wrote:
Not projecting a thing. The video I posted is full of control freaks who presume to tell others that gov't knows how to live their lives better than the people do. What term would you use, aside from "Democrat" or "authoritarian control freak"?

In the past, Aqua posted (several times if memory serves) that she wished the 2nd amendment were repealed. If she is truly pro-choice, she'd support the choice to bear arms, the choice of declining union membership, the choice of eating trans fats, I could go on. However, she claims to be pro-choice. So one can only hope.

Winds, I miss you.

If I recall correctly, she has also posted, in those very same posts, that while she wishes those things would happen, she wouldn't do anything to bring them about because it's unfair to those that disagree.

If I'm mistaken, I hope she will correct me.

As to "what term would [I] use"?... I wouldn't label her. I'd let her pick her own.

Papa Bear · Senior Member

Aqua -- you've actually been a very good sport. I appreciate that. And Cactus, I'm sorry for (however inadvertently) taking this thread down this path.

ETA: If it helps either of you (or anyone), here.

Spoiler

-- Edited by Papa Bear on Wednesday 22nd of May 2013 09:48:42 AM

Aqua · Veteran Member

Papa Bear wrote:
Not projecting a thing. The video I posted is full of control freaks who presume to tell others that gov't knows how to live their lives better than the people do. What term would you use, aside from "Democrat" or "authoritarian control freak"?

In the past, Aqua posted (several times if memory serves) that she wished the 2nd amendment were repealed. If she is truly pro-choice, she'd support the choice to bear arms, the choice of declining union membership, the choice of eating trans fats, I could go on. However, she claims to be pro-choice. So one can only hope.

Winds, I miss you.

Papa Bear · Senior Member

Aqua wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
Not projecting a thing. The video I posted is full of control freaks who presume to tell others that gov't knows how to live their lives better than the people do. What term would you use, aside from "Democrat" or "authoritarian control freak"?

In the past, Aqua posted (several times if memory serves) that she wished the 2nd amendment were repealed. If she is truly pro-choice, she'd support the choice to bear arms, the choice of declining union membership, the choice of eating trans fats, I could go on. However, she claims to be pro-choice. So one can only hope.

Winds, I miss you.

It's OK Aqua. The pain of past foolishness goes away.