https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3834710
Perhaps you should make fewer assumptions and follow the data where it leads.
Is there a name for a strategy in debate where you just throw a random paper at people and hope they don't click on it?
The sad reality is you tried to hang a lame trope about 'American universities' on me and when that failed you switched to a disingenuous posture of being too cool to engage with an example of a statistically rigorous paper. While you're moaning about humanity's oldest metaphors I'm pointing out that such metaphors are often vehicles for bias which have measurable real world outcomes, deliberate or not.
> The sad reality is you tried to
> While you're moaning about
Let's follow the guidelines:
> Be kind. Don't be snarky.
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
I spent about 15 minutes looking over that paper you linked and it looks like the researchers are discussing systemic problems and biases in the American legal system. Race is one of the variables they studied in their model. Their results show that Non-Black candidates are treated more favorably than Black candidates in the legal system. Am I understanding the part you wanted to highlight? The paper and results makes sense to me but I don't understand how that directly relates to Barrin92's original point.
I understand that someone could see Black people being discriminated against and connect that to the word "dark" being used to describe a negative trait. I get that using the same word to describe someone's race and describe something as negative can be bad. Is that what's happening here though? How do we determine which of the following examples from marriam-webster.com [0] are OK to use?
- They walked into the dark room, it was devoid of light.
- They are wearing dark clothing.
- They prefer/dislike dark rum.
- There were dark powers that lead to war.
- They have a dark view of the future.
- They had a dark period of history.
- They enjoy dark humor.
- Most of their dealings were done in the dark.
I replied by pointing out that said trope doesn't apply to me and citing my preference for a data driven approach, a polite rejoinder which was rudely rebuffed.
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
Barrin92 brought up American universities where it wasn't necessary. I get it. Let's not dismiss their comment because they brought that up. I looked past that and I am trying to keep this on topic by discussing the point they made.
Does the paper you linked say anything about using the words "light" and "dark"?
How do we determine which definitions of "dark" we should use in a professional context?
I think this topic is important to discuss and I am genuinely curious how you and others would address the points in my previous comment.
The Internet argument.
Similarly, you can also use the same term when someone's defense is the first google result for the keywords in the argument you're having, but they didn't actually read the article they linked.
Most horror films don’t take place at 2pm in broad daylight.
Dark-skinned people fear the dark no less than light-skinned people do.
Virtue signaling gets upvotes on Twitter/Reddit.
I had a very off-putting exchange with a redditor in which I argued that the class interests of the working poor and those dependent on welfare were quite different, and that this explained much of the demographic fault-lines in the 2016 election. He immediately accused me of equating ethnic minorities with the welfare class, despite the fact the Trump administration was at the time very publicly talking about the recent drop in black unemployment. For all of the Reddit community's talk about acknowledging one's own problems, the fact that he personally was equating black people with unemployment and his political enemies were doing the opposite wasn't something he could consciously engage with. "America has a racism problem, but only the half I don't identify with". I don't doubt that kind of projection is present all over the place where this subject comes up.
[1]I wouldn't be surprised if the fact much of Europe subsidises post secondary education contributes to the fact that the debate is different there - not enough of a class marker if you don't need a private tutor to make it over the line.
You'll be surprised to find that in some countries, everyone's skin color and look is the same and they still have their own unique twist on racism that has lasted for hundreds of years. In other countries, skin color is the not racism focus point, even though there is skin color variation and other things are!
We can be creative and do better with the terminology, bring something new and improved forward for those who follow. It shouldn't be a big deal.