[hrothgar]

Here's what I don't understand: Why do folks think that I should identify more with rural working class whites than with Mexican immigrants or Syrian refugees?

[helene_t]

In Scandinavia and the Netherlands, governments of any colour have done plenty for the working class, rural or otherwise, but people still vote for right extremists and abandon the social democrats.

I somehow doubt that the problem is that dems didn't do enough for the working class.

[Kaitlyn S]

 mikeh, on 2016-November-15, 14:51, said:

You accuse me of childish insults but you make posts that reflect, usually, the intellectual capacity of a spoiled 8 year old, devoid of logic and reason, and full of right wing lies and distortions, and expect to be treated as an adult?

You want to debate...that's fine. But contrary to what right wing 'thinkers' appear to believe, proper debate requires a degree of intellectual honesty. Why not try some?

To Jon: Congratulations on being thought of as three grades ahead of me since I was compared to a 5-year old.

I personally see most of your posts as quite sound. However they aren't going to be taken seriously here.

It's situation normal. You must assume that their "facts" are right and your "facts" are wrong. That's the starting point. For you will quote from a conservative source and they will claim Bullsh*t, citing contradictory information from a liberal source. And their source is believed because the majority of people here implicitly trust the liberal source and call any source that disagrees with their preconceived notions as absolute nonsense. So how can you ever be right when your sources are deemed to be invalid and their sources are deemed to be the gospel truth?

You can't. So I bring to you some very wise words from a very wise person that I should have paid attention to a long time ago.

 diana_eva, on 2016-October-26, 11:32, said:

Oh Kaitlyn, get out while you still can. Not referring to this thread or your posts in particular. The WC Forum is not like any other. Sometimes I feel people post with their evil twin here.

I enjoy discussing issues but not under these conditions. It is not a fair debate when it is always assumed that the other side's facts are correct and your side's facts are wrong (and racist!) If they want to play this way, they can play among themselves. Let me know if some reasonable people join the fray, for I can discuss things with the reasonable people and ignore the other ones.

[Winstonm]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-15, 17:58, said:

To Jon: Congratulations on being thought of as three grades ahead of me since I was compared to a 5-year old.

I personally see most of your posts as quite sound. However they aren't going to be taken seriously here.

It's situation normal. You must assume that their "facts" are right and your "facts" are wrong. That's the starting point. For you will quote from a conservative source and they will claim Bullsh*t, citing contradictory information from a liberal source. And their source is believed because the majority of people here implicitly trust the liberal source and call any source that disagrees with their preconceived notions as absolute nonsense. So how can you ever be right when your sources are deemed to be invalid and their sources are deemed to be the gospel truth?

You can't. So I bring to you some very wise words from a very wise person that I should have paid attention to a long time ago.



I enjoy discussing issues but not under these conditions. It is not a fair debate when it is always assumed that the other side's facts are correct and your side's facts are wrong (and racist!) If they want to play this way, they can play among themselves. Let me know if some reasonable people join the fray, for I can discuss things with the reasonable people and ignore the other ones.

Perhaps the place for you to begin is to understand that facts are neither right nor wrong - they simply are.

[mikeh]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-15, 17:58, said:

To Jon: Congratulations on being thought of as three grades ahead of me since I was compared to a 5-year old.

I personally see most of your posts as quite sound. However they aren't going to be taken seriously here.

It's situation normal. You must assume that their "facts" are right and your "facts" are wrong. That's the starting point. For you will quote from a conservative source and they will claim Bullsh*t, citing contradictory information from a liberal source. And their source is believed because the majority of people here implicitly trust the liberal source and call any source that disagrees with their preconceived notions as absolute nonsense. So how can you ever be right when your sources are deemed to be invalid and their sources are deemed to be the gospel truth?

You can't. So I bring to you some very wise words from a very wise person that I should have paid attention to a long time ago.



I enjoy discussing issues but not under these conditions. It is not a fair debate when it is always assumed that the other side's facts are correct and your side's facts are wrong (and racist!) If they want to play this way, they can play among themselves. Let me know if some reasonable people join the fray, for I can discuss things with the reasonable people and ignore the other ones.

Maybe if fewer of your facts were urban myths, disproven by even 30 seconds on google, or unattributed, unsourced, and thus unverifiable anecdotes and more were based on peer-reviewed studies in recognized journals (see your posts on racial discrimination), people would be prepared to give roughly equal weight to your 'facts' as they give to the 'liberal' facts.

How about it? Do you even agree that there is a qualitative difference between your anecdotes and urban myths and our documented facts?

You whine, and I use the word advisedly, about how unfair it is that your facts aren't given proper weight, but not once do you offer a substantive rebuttal to the liberals who allege that you are spouting factual nonsense. I don't mean quoting opinion and countering with your own opinion...an opinion is a personal interpretation of the facts and the implications arising therefrom. Arguing about whose opinion is best is a different exercise than arguing about the underlying facts.

Thus, if your professor story had been true, we could have a debate about what that example shows, if anything, about the state of higher education, or the value of the 'socialism' that the story was intended to reflect.

However, since the story was a right wing fabrication, based on an idiotic understanding of what 'socialism' is there is nothing to debate.

On your 'someone told me that a professor said that a black professor was kept on simply because he or she was black' combined with stories about how HR firms had were getting legal advice about hiring blacks......these were again unattributed and thus unverifiable anecdotes, to which I responded by citing two well-known recent studies, the results of which were accepted by the organizations who were criticized, showing that in fact racial discrimination was widespread in the US.

Now, we can't have a debate about what inferences to draw from your anecdotes, because there is no objective reason to think that those anecdotes are true. We can have a debate about the inferences from the Uber and AirBnB studies because there is solid reason to accept the findings as true.

You could argue, for example, that modern hiring practices, and some employment laws, create a different environment in hiring than exists in the housing or transportation fields. You could argue, if you have facts to back you up, that anti-discrimination employment laws create unintended adverse consequences. However, you don't seem to have any facts to support that.

Do you actually understand the difference between facts and rumour? Between studies and anecdotes? Or do you think that they are of equivalent value in debate?

Maybe you should reflect on these differences, take another look at the posts where you have been criticized and see whether the criticisms are justified.

[Kaitlyn S]

 mikeh, on 2016-November-15, 18:55, said:

Maybe you should reflect on these differences, take another look at the posts where you have been criticized and see whether the criticisms are justified.

OK, one example.

I was criticized because I said that blacks where hired less often because employers sensibly wanted to avoid the extra possibility of litigation.

While I have no data to back me up, I know that this would be one factor in hiring if I was running a small business. I also know that if it weren't for the possibility of litigation, I would have absolutely no bias against hiring someone if he was black. Why would I? Absent other factors, I would hire the person that I thought would perform the best. I have no evidence that tells me blacks perform either better or worse as a whole so it would not be a factor. The only factor is the possible litigation that comes with a black and does not come with a white. Is this racist? Perhaps by some peoples' definition but it is also practical, sensible, and a good business decision. For my family's welfare depends on me making a profit on my small business and if I lose all my profits and my children's college funds to a discrimination lawsuit (or even paying the legal fees when I end up victorious because I was right to fire the person) then I am truly a sad excuse for a businessperson.

I have talked to many of my friends about this and they all feel the same way. Granted, there is a strong bias there because (a) most of my friends are also conservative and (b) I am less likely to discuss this with a liberal friend for obvious reasons (if it's not obvious - then just assume they would treat me like you do.) However, to a man (or woman!) they say the sole reason for not wanting to hire the black is the threat of litigation expenses, and that they have nothing against black people.

Now, you may choose not to believe me. For it is my word that I have consulted several friends that have the same opinion. You are allowed to assume that I am lying. I'm not, but you can assume that I am. However, many small business owners are conservative, and it is not at all unlikely that they feel the same way my friends and I feel.

However, you are never, ever going to find statistics to back this up. For nobody that does any real hiring is ever going to admit the true motive for not hiring a black person. Why? Litigation!!!!!!!

So, my point is, that it is discrimination litigation that is stopping blacks from getting hired, and it is discrimination litigation that will make it impossible for that fact to ever be proven.

And I'm sure that you will all jump all over me and say I'm arguing like an ignorant five year old with no facts to back her up. And I am telling you that the same litigious society that makes blacks less likely to be hired will also make it impossible for those facts to exist. So yeah, I have no facts to back it up. And I never will. But I'm right. I guarantee it. The only way I'm wrong is if every single business owner totally ignores the possibility of discrimination litigation when hiring people. This includes many conservative people that probably think about protecting themselves, and think like my friends and I do. If you want to tell me I'm wrong, then you are admitting that you think that there has never been a business owner who hired a white person simply because they were thinking that future litigation brought forth by a black employee or fired employee might hurt (or annihilate) their bottom line. For it happened just once, I'm right - a black didn't get hired that might have got hired without anti-discrimination litigation that has run rampant enough to make the employer fear the possibility. I am guessing it's happened a lot more than once; I wouldn't be surprised if it's happened several thousand times.

All I'm asking is for you to debate fairly. I think I have a strong point here but it doesn't help when you say that I haven't shown proof when it is impossible for me to show proof unless some business owner wants to become a martyr and admit the reason he didn't hire a black is because he feared the possibility of litigation down the road. So saying I'm a full of sh*t racist because I can't supply proof seems highly unethical when you know damn well that proof is impossible.

[Winstonm]

 hrothgar, on 2016-November-15, 17:34, said:

Here's what I don't understand: Why do folks think that I should identify more with rural working class whites than with Mexican immigrants or Syrian refugees?

Tribalism.

[Winstonm]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-15, 19:38, said:

OK, one example.

I was criticized because I said that blacks where hired less often because employers sensibly wanted to avoid the extra possibility of litigation.

While I have no data to back me up, I know that this would be one factor in hiring if I was running a small business. I also know that if it weren't for the possibility of litigation, I would have absolutely no bias against hiring someone if he was black. Why would I? Absent other factors, I would hire the person that I thought would perform the best. I have no evidence that tells me blacks perform either better or worse as a whole so it would not be a factor. The only factor is the possible litigation that comes with a black and does not come with a white. Is this racist? Perhaps by some peoples' definition but it is also practical, sensible, and a good business decision. For my family's welfare depends on me making a profit on my small business and if I lose all my profits and my children's college funds to a discrimination lawsuit (or even paying the legal fees when I end up victorious because I was right to fire the person) then I am truly a sad excuse for a businessperson.

I have talked to many of my friends about this and they all feel the same way. Granted, there is a strong bias there because (a) most of my friends are also conservative and (b) I am less likely to discuss this with a liberal friend for obvious reasons (if it's not obvious - then just assume they would treat me like you do.) However, to a man (or woman!) they say the sole reason for not wanting to hire the black is the threat of litigation expenses, and that they have nothing against black people.

Now, you may choose not to believe me. For it is my word that I have consulted several friends that have the same opinion. You are allowed to assume that I am lying. I'm not, but you can assume that I am. However, many small business owners are conservative, and it is not at all unlikely that they feel the same way my friends and I feel.

However, you are never, ever going to find statistics to back this up. For nobody that does any real hiring is ever going to admit the true motive for not hiring a black person. Why? Litigation!!!!!!!

So, my point is, that it is discrimination litigation that is stopping blacks from getting hired, and it is discrimination litigation that will make it impossible for that fact to ever be proven.

And I'm sure that you will all jump all over me and say I'm arguing like an ignorant five year old with no facts to back her up. And I am telling you that the same litigious society that makes blacks less likely to be hired will also make it impossible for those facts to exist. So yeah, I have no facts to back it up. And I never will. But I'm right. I guarantee it. The only way I'm wrong is if every single business owner totally ignores the possibility of discrimination litigation when hiring people. This includes many conservative people that probably think about protecting themselves, and think like my friends and I do. If you want to tell me I'm wrong, then you are admitting that you think that there has never been a business owner who hired a white person simply because they were thinking that future litigation brought forth by a black employee or fired employee might hurt (or annihilate) their bottom line. For it happened just once, I'm right - a black didn't get hired that might have got hired without anti-discrimination litigation that has run rampant enough to make the employer fear the possibility. I am guessing it's happened a lot more than once; I wouldn't be surprised if it's happened several thousand times.

Sorry, I know this conversation is with MikeH but sometimes something is so obviously wrong it must be pointed out: Of course your position is racist because you are making a determination - based on nothing but a biological difference in the amount of melanin present in a person - that people with dark skin are more litigious than others.

It is accurate that small businesses fear litigation - it is a serious problem. That is a fact. It is your personal bias (and that of those whom you talk to) that makes you form the opinion that fear of black litigation is widespread.

[PassedOut]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-15, 19:38, said:

While I have no data to back me up, I know that this would be one factor in hiring if I was running a small business. I also know that if it weren't for the possibility of litigation, I would have absolutely no bias against hiring someone if he was black. Why would I? Absent other factors, I would hire the person that I thought would perform the best. I have no evidence that tells me blacks perform either better or worse as a whole so it would not be a factor. The only factor is the possible litigation that comes with a black and does not come with a white. Is this racist? Perhaps by some peoples' definition but it is also practical, sensible, and a good business decision. For my family's welfare depends on me making a profit on my small business and if I lose all my profits and my children's college funds to a discrimination lawsuit (or even paying the legal fees when I end up victorious because I was right to fire the person) then I am truly a sad excuse for a businessperson.

I have talked to many of my friends about this and they all feel the same way. Granted, there is a strong bias there because (a) most of my friends are also conservative and (b) I am less likely to discuss this with a liberal friend for obvious reasons (if it's not obvious - then just assume they would treat me like you do.) However, to a man (or woman!) they say the sole reason for not wanting to hire the black is the threat of litigation expenses, and that they have nothing against black people.

Now, you may choose not to believe me. For it is my word that I have consulted several friends that have the same opinion. You are allowed to assume that I am lying. I'm not, but you can assume that I am. However, many small business owners are conservative, and it is not at all unlikely that they feel the same way my friends and I feel.

Okay. I am a conservative have run my own businesses for many years. Two years after college, I bought my own home and three years after that I bought my first rental property -- using savings from my regular job to accumulate both down payments. Since then, I've never been without a side business even while working for corporations. When our family businesses became profitable enough that it was a waste of time work for a salary, I left the corporate world and have never regretted it.

I totally disagree with your notion that a fear of litigation should factor into any hiring decision. What possible litigation should I fear?

I don't fear hiring women, for example, because I don't engage in sexual harassment, nor do I permit it. I don't fear hiring black people because I treat people fairly. I don't fear litigation simply because I don't give people a reason to sue. If we're sued unfairly, why it be more likely to come from a black person than from anyone else? I just don't get it.

What kind of friends do you have anyway?

[Kaitlyn S]

 Winstonm, on 2016-November-15, 20:02, said:

Sorry, I know this conversation is with MikeH but sometimes something is so obviously wrong it must be pointed out: Of course your position is racist because you are making a determination - based on nothing but a biological difference in the amount of melanin present in a person - that people with dark skin are more litigious than others.

How many times has a black sued for racial discrimination compared to the number of times that a white has sued for racial discrimination?

It's not so much that blacks are more litigious, it's that their suits are much more expensive. A white's case is likely to be tossed as frivolous; a black's case will be an expensive ordeal even if won by the employer, and disastrous if lost by the employer.

It's expectations. Why don't you try to drop the singleton king with five trumps out? Because the finesse is so much more likely. Do you balance at IMPS with a 50% chance of a gain but give up 1100 when wrong? Of course not. You are playing expectations. Why would an employer fear a black suing for discrimination? Because if a black sues it's going to cost big time. If a white sues, probably no problem. Who is more litigious is irrelevant. The employer is playing expectations.

It is totally unbelievable that you come up with this crap and yet all your buddies in this forum will say that your point is valid and mine is crap. It should be obvious to the most casual of observers that I did not say that blacks were more litigious. They may be, I don't know. The courts would certainly reward them to be as they win a lot more of their anti-discrimination cases. (I'm not saying the courts are wrong.) But as I have pointed out, whether they are or not is irrelevant and you totally missed what I was saying.

By the way, if that is what you thought I was saying, I can see why you think I'm a deplorable racist. I would think so too!

That being said, as an employer, I would be less likely to hire someone that was more litigious and I would think that was a sensible decision. In fact, there was this woman that worked in bridge club. She spilled coffee, and then slipped in her own spill, and then sued the owner. I would never, ever hire her. Personally I think she should be banished to the ranks of the unemployed forever for that stunt. However, I am not less likely to hire a black because he is more likely to be litigious, but because the litigation is more likely to be costly.

[Winstonm]

 PassedOut, on 2016-November-15, 20:19, said:

Okay. I am a conservative have run my own businesses for many years. Two years after college, I bought my own home and three years after that I bought my first rental property -- using savings from my regular job to accumulate the savings for both down payments. Since then, I've never been without a side business even while working for corporations. When our family businesses became profitable enough that it was a waste of time work for a salary, I left the corporate world and have never regretted it.

I totally disagree with your notion that a fear of litigation should factor into any hiring decision. What possible litigation should I fear?

I don't fear hiring women, for example, because I don't engage in sexual harassment, nor do I permit it. I don't fear hiring black people because I treat people fairly. I don't fear litigation simply because I don't give people a reason to sue. If we're sued unfairly, why it be more likely to come from a black person than from anyone else? I just don't get it.

What kind of friends do you have anyway?

From what I found, it looks like litigation fear is real - but fear of litigation based on race is a personal bias.
http://www.thecbigro...dLitigation.pdf

Quote

In fact, entrepreneurs place fear of litigation near
the top of their list of business worries. And rightfully so—
America is a lawsuit-happy society

[Kaitlyn S]

 PassedOut, on 2016-November-15, 20:19, said:

I don't fear hiring women, for example, because I don't engage in sexual harassment, nor do I permit it. I don't fear hiring black people because I treat people fairly. I don't fear litigation simply because I don't give people a reason to sue. If we're sued unfairly, why it be more likely to come from a black person than from anyone else? I just don't get it.

What kind of friends do you have anyway?

You are missing the point. It doesn't matter if you are fair. Let's say you hire a black and he turns out to be argumentative and unpleasant and causes an environment with is less conducive to work getting done. You'd like to get rid of him. You are being fair to do so, but to fire him, you may well win the case but may fork out a hundred thousand dollars in legal fees to do so. Lawyers are expensive and if he had gotten the NAACP legal team or Eric Holder behind him, you would be screwed even though you were totally fair.

Are you implying that my friends and I would hire a black person just so we could treat him like crap? I am getting the feeling that many of you think I'm just an awful person. You put motives in my head that just aren't there.

By the way, how often do you think somebody gets sued for sexual harassment when there was none? (Clearly I think it's pretty often.) Now obviously I would have no trouble hiring a woman fearing sexual harassment. But if I were a guy... well let's say you just added one more to the fears of getting sued.

[Kaitlyn S]

 Winstonm, on 2016-November-15, 20:23, said:

From what I found, it looks like litigation fear is real - but fear of litigation based on race is a personal bias.
http://www.thecbigro...dLitigation.pdf

Thanks. I appreciate getting a fair shake here.

[PassedOut]

 Winstonm, on 2016-November-15, 20:23, said:

From what I found, it looks like litigation fear is real - but fear of litigation based on race is a personal bias.
http://www.thecbigro...dLitigation.pdf

Winston, the tips in that article are general knowledge, and of course we have insurance. But I see have no reason to expect that a black person would be more likely to sue than anyone else.

[Winstonm]

 PassedOut, on 2016-November-15, 20:30, said:

Winston, the tips in that article are general knowledge, and of course we have insurance. But I see have no reason to expect that a black person would be more likely to sue than anyone else.

Of course. Fear of black litigation is grossly racist.

[Kaitlyn S]

 PassedOut, on 2016-November-15, 20:30, said:

Winston, the tips in that article are general knowledge, and of course we have insurance. But I see have no reason to expect that a black person would be more likely to sue than anyone else.

AARGH - you're playing IMPs friend, not matchpoints.

What does it cost if a white sues for racial discrimination? Is that even possible if you have no black employees?

What does it cost if a black sues for racial discrimination? (I suppose you could say "is that even possible if you have no white employees? )

[Winstonm]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-15, 20:29, said:

Thanks. I appreciate getting a fair shake here.

The "fair shake" you received was simply me pointing out the fact that litigation fear by small businesses is real, while your specific fear of black litigation is racism. To be fair, I think you have the ability to change your outlook, that you perceive yourself as non-racist. And when you make that self change to reflect that skin color is nothing more than variation within the species and does not matter in any other fashion, I will be in front of the line to state my friend Kaitlyn is not a racist.

That ain't happening anytime soon, I bet.

[PassedOut]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-15, 20:25, said:

You are missing the point. It doesn't matter if you are fair. Let's say you hire a black and he turns out to be argumentative and unpleasant and causes an environment with is less conducive to work getting done. You'd like to get rid of him. You are being fair to do so, but to fire him, you may well win the case but may fork out a hundred thousand dollars in legal fees to do so. Lawyers are expensive and if he had gotten the NAACP legal team or Eric Holder behind him, you would be screwed even though you were totally fair.

Are you implying that my friends and I would hire a black person just so we could treat him like crap? I am getting the feeling that many of you think I'm just an awful person. You put motives in my head that just aren't there.

What if I hire a white woman and she turns out to be argumentative and unpleasant and we'd like to get rid of her. She decides to claim sexual harassment and gets Gloria Allred and the NOW legal team behind her?

When I was still in the corporate world, a white woman did raise a discrimination suit against the company and my boss in particular (the same boss I mentioned earlier in this thread). I was deposed in that case, and it was an interesting experience, and my only encounter with a situation like that.

But should I hesitate to hire white women because of that experience? Not on your life.

[Kaitlyn S]

 Winstonm, on 2016-November-15, 20:38, said:

The "fair shake" you received was simply me pointing out the fact that litigation fear by small businesses is real, while your specific fear of black litigation is racism. To be fair, I think you have the ability to change your outlook, that you perceive yourself as non-racist. And when you make that self change to reflect that skin color is nothing more than variation within the species and does not matter in any other fashion, I will be in front of the line to state my friend Kaitlyn is not a racist.

Did I not say that if it weren't for litigation fears I would have no problem hiring a black person? It's the legal system that is reflecting that skin color means something other than variation in the species; indeed, the legal system will make you pay more to defend yourself against a black's anti-discrimination suit than a white's. I can't control that.

You bid a heart game more often than a club game because the bridge laws say that hearts are worth more.

In an unwarranted discrimination case, (unwarranted because you are fair), you pay out more when sued by a black than by a white.

Just like the bridge laws make hearts and clubs different, the courts make blacks and whites different. I can't control the courts. If I could sign a contract saying that I will try to be fair and that they aren't allowed to sue for discrimination, and could make it binding, I'd hire the qualified black person in a heartbeat. But I think such a contract would be laughed out of court, so the courts are telling me that the black is like a club and the white is like a heart because my expectation is less with a black employee when possible court costs are factored in.

I think it's simple expectations, not racism that is causing this. As soon as the courts treat blacks and whites equally, the difference in expectation goes away and blacks get hired again.

[Kaitlyn S]

People! It doesn't matter whether you say it's racist to not hire blacks based on fear of litigation, my point is it's going to happen anyway because the fear is real and based on the courts, it's justified. Racist or not, it's going to happen based on pure business motives.

And personally, I think it sucks for the blacks.

But don't blame the employers. They are playing for the highest expectation. A lawsuit is like going down 2600.

Look - I am not trying to screw blacks when I want anti-discrimination lawsuits curbed. I am trying to help them.

Because I think they deserve a fair shake.

They deserve to be hired if qualified.

If an employer doesn't fear being sued, they may be hired. And then promoted. No problem promoting a black person if you can demote him later if you find out he can't hack the job without the danger of being sued.

I'm all for qualified blacks being hired and promoted. Let's make it not scary for that to happen.