Ted, the example I come back to is an NBER study on the affect that ethnic names has on job interview callbacks, when controlled for other issues.

Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination

Here's a recent discussion that might be interesting:

https://www.si.com/mlb/2020/07/17/pr...k-lives-matter

"Baseball is an expensive sport: Many play year-round, spending as much as $4,000 to play in the winter. They return to their high school teams more polished—and more likely to get playing time—than the kids who can’t afford the extra coaching. According to the Brookings Institution, the average net worth of a white family in 2016 was $171,000. The average net worth of a Black family was $17,150. That alone puts young Black players at a disadvantage."

Does this mean that all white people have more money than all Black people? It does not. Does it mean that the system is full of white people actively working to keep Black people out of the sport? It does not. Does it mean that, overall, white people have an advantage that Black people don't because wealth in this country is tied to race? Yes. It's systemic, not based on intentionally racist actions by individuals.

Also, there's research on whether race affects rookie card values for Hall of Fame players. Google "Race, performance, and baseball card values" and you should get it.



Ted Clayton

Also a good one. Or we could look at how likely people are to get mortgages, or many (too many) other things. Thanks for bringing this in.

Ted Clayton

Education was one of two variables illustrated in the chart.

Or a small bunch of arachnophobes threatened the club

Not a fan of name changes. Once all the so called offensive names have been changed the woke crowd will find something else to be offended by. The Orioles are offensive to bird lovers, etc. But a franchise is not defined by its name, it’s defined by its history. So change away.

So before you are reprimanded for this, WTF? Do you really think you can threaten someone's life on this forum and not have any repercussions?

First of all, what evidence do you have to back this claim? Blacks were doing better in the 1950's in most measurable ways, despite the rampant racism of the period, than they are today. Why has poverty among black increased so much since the 1960's? Could it be tied to government?

Watch this from the 16:49 mark and please comment.

https://www.hoover.org/research/thom...mic-inequality

It is an excerpt from Navy Seal Copypasta, a satirical Internet meme. It is an over-the-top parody of someone acting tough on the internet. To quote the Wikipedia article:

The Navy Seal copypasta is a lengthy, comically written, aggressive attack paragraph against a "kiddo", written in the voice of the stereotypical "tough guy", listing absurd accomplishments such as having "over 300 confirmed kills" and being "trained in gorilla [sic] warfare". This copypasta is often reposted as a humorous overreaction to an insult and is thought to have originated in a post on a 4chan message board from 11 November 2010.

When sdimag offered to "play", I figured he wasn't inviting me to his Friday night poker game and it amused me. Since the meme often comes up in these contexts, I used it it figuring that it was so comically over-exaggerated that it wouldn't confuse it for a real threat. But, being a belt and suspenders kinda guy, I added the link to the site that specifically identifies it as satirical.

If you want me to edit it out or add a disclaimer, I will.

There is, along with a handful of other US presidents. The article below also has some interesting remarks from Washington’s British contemporaries about him. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mil...-soil.html/amp

Ever look at the values of Michael Jordan RCs, or those of a dozen other popular Black players? Check out some Goldin Auctions results. Racism indeed. Yes, of course it exists, but the notion of seeing it everywhere and in everything is out of control.

I don't want this kind of stuff on the forum anymore, satire or not.
thanks

Leon, throw this guy off the site

Longstanding members are almost never banned for a first offense. If it happens again then that's a different story.

For the logo, why couldn’t they use one of the statues? Beautiful Art Deco artwork that doesn’t get a lot of attention today, but instead they went with a rip-off of an ugly ‘90s logo.

When I was a kid, we played Cowboys and Indians. We never played Jews, Negroes, Muslims, Asians or Africans. But that was just the kids I played with. Maybe it was different in other parts of the country? :confused:

Yup.

I (over 60) consulted my daughter (under 30) and when I mentioned the words "copypasta" and Navy SEAL she immediately knew what I meant and after a few seconds started reading it to me from her phone. This seems to be one of the most famous ones. Here is another one that is less controversial: "Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?"

That being said, I had never heard the term "copypasta" before (and was obviously not aware of this particular one and if I saw it without realizing what it was would have said "wtf you can't post that").

On the other hand, if I told my daughter I used to watch a cartoon called "Go Go Gophers" and described it she probably would not believe me. It just goes to show you something....I am not sure what exactly.

I hate the whole iPhone social media culture lol.

In real life, there were Native Americans and US Cavalry sometimes confronting each other in the late 1800s and early 1900s. This cartoon (because it is a cartoon) represents both in caricature; unflattering Indians and stupid Cavalry.

But as Wikipedia sums it up: However, the Gophers prove to be very clever and always manage to foil the plans of Colonel Coyote and Sergeant Oakey Homa.

So, I suppose someone desperate to find something to be offended by could find it here....... I guess. Or, people could lighten up a bit.

Spiders would have been so damm cool. Would have immediately been an iconic name. I would have bought a cap the next day. This just smacks of a bland safe corporate decision. Not horrible but a missed opportunity.

Just to be clear, I didn't say I (or anyone else) was offended by the cartoon (certainly I wasn't as a youngster). I just meant that it was not likely such a cartoon would be made today. And yes, The Gophers, while speaking mostly gibberish, did always outsmart the Cavalry.

They don't put Chief Wahoo on the uniforms, but last I heard the team still owns the copyright and I believe they still have Chief Wahoo adorned items selling in their gift shops. So they did not completely dump the mascot and are still apparently making some money off it.

Personally, I think the name change is long overdue, but I don't think they made a great choice with "Guardians".

Also, out of curiosity–with all the discussion of "white privilege" and "cancel culture"–is there is a single post on this thread from someone who is not white?

There is all this talk about cancel culture etc. but the same people who rally against cancel culture, which is ultimately based around respect, are people who took huge issue with things like kneeling during a song or wanting to have a say in what bathrooms people use. Everyone on either side thinks the argument is dumb to be having in the first place.

I personally have no issue with players kneeling respectfully during the anthem to make a point, but at the same time I think cancel culture is getting out of hand when it targets people like Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson.

That might be because you weren't affected by their lived lives.

Do I think cancel culture can go too far? Yes, but ultimately it is a social view based in respect and shifting attitudes toward social issues that would have either been indifferent to an issue or even encouraged it by omission. For example, I don't think there's any reason for a woman to put up with sexual harassment at work while they're trying to make a living. If you're accused and guilty of that behavior, you haven't been cancelled. You've been held accountable. And while people might like calling it cancel culture in a detrimental way, it's more about accountability for me.

I have no problem with people taking a strong stand against sexual harassment (and worse) in the workplace. It's the token gestures against historical figures who are long since dead, that I find more problematic in some cases. Learn from history, don't pull a 1984 and try to erase it.

By the way I'd be willing to bet many highly respected names from history were anti-Semitic. Should we cancel them too?

I don't think they're token. I think in each case the side moving toward change has carefully thought about what they're doing. To dismiss them just because is worse than anything cancel culture can bring about. Monuments are public structures that are a part of people's lives who live around them. I would have a big issue with a Hitler statue in my neighborhood. I don't care if that makes me a cancel culture person. It's how I feel about a person who impacted my family.

Groot should be the teams first mascot

Abraham Lincoln is not Hitler, nor is Woodrow Wilson. That isn't persuasive. How do you feel about removing Lincoln's name from schools? How carefully thought out was what the SF School Board did? Or what Princeton did in renaming the Woodrow Wilson School?

I don't live in those places so how could I answer those questions? If you're interested why not contact people involved with both causes?

No need, the reasoning in each case was explained, I just disagreed with it and viewed the acts as token political correctness that weren't at all helpful to the presumed goal of improving society. Maybe we should be talking, for example, about the huge problem of children born to single mothers rather than worrying who a dorm is named after.

And yet that statue isn't actually on British soil so the point stands.

Why? What does one thing have to do with the other? If I'm living in a dorm named after someone who wronged my family, regardless of what you might think of them from afar, how does my issue with living in a place named for them relate to single mothers?

Because the effort and energy of certain groups are directed at the dorm, not the real issue hurting people.

That is correct:

https://magazine.promomarketing.com/...erican-groups/

Just curious.... Should we use your standards to cancel Martin Luther King (and his national holiday?) Or will we choose to be hypocritical?

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...uments-227042/


The most shocking claim Garrow relates is that King was present in a hotel room when a friend of his, Baltimore pastor Logan Kearse, raped a woman who resisted participating in unspecified sexual acts. The FBI agent who surveilled the room asserted that King “looked on, laughed and offered advice.” Other allegations include that King’s philandering—long known to be extensive—was even more rampant than historians knew; that King took part in group sex; that King may have fathered a child with one of his mistresses; and—less pruriently—that King continued taking money from his onetime ally Stanley Levison, a Communist Party member, even after he was supposed to have broken off ties.

How does a random single mother enter into the equation if I'm a student in a dorm named after someone who affected my life negatively, in addition to the lives of others, who may similarly be involved in the effort to change the name of the building? You're deflecting now because you don't think things are as important as others. But that is what I've been saying. Maybe you could consider the lived lives of other people and what's important to them.

Take up any cause that means something to you. I don't decide what you're interested in.

You know as well as I do that this is not just done at the local/micro level and that there are national groups articulating their priorities.

I would ask how you know that if you're not involved in any one cause.

If you are male, the justice system is even more biased against you. Why is that never mentioned?

Pretty much everyone who is not armed has virtually no risk of being killed in an interaction with the police. 81 unarmed people in 2020 killed by police, an average of 49 per year by lightning. And recent statistics have shown that, on a per-interaction basis, whites are actually more likely to be killed.

FINA absolutely made the wrong decision. One that they will undoubtedly change very, very soon.

None of the comments above should be taken as ignoring any real issues. However, what we have today is an overblown hysteria/reaction driven by media and social media that care not one iota for truth. Consider the false "Hands up, don't shoot" narrative that still pervades the Michael Brown case. The media and social media have so inflamed people that there's no time for investigation or facts - just reactions based on outcomes. No care if something was justified or not. And a lot of that is based on race - the media knows that killings of black people by police are hot news and will run with stories and inflame people without regard to truth or balance. We've all heard of George Floyd and Derek Chauvin. Why has there not been similar mass coverage of Tony Timpa who died in an identical fashion to Floyd - with the added fact that the police literally mocked him as they killed him?

There are other cases where police overreact and kill unarmed white people -- there was just one in Massachusetts and also a case of a mentally disabled young man in perhaps Louisiana. They just don't get the media and Twitter airplay they would if the victims were Black. They don't fit the narrative.

There's also the current Colorado case where police tased a 75-year old white man for no reason, knocking him unconscious and eventually causing a stroke and burst appendix. That one has gotten a little media attention but nowhere near as much as it should.

No reflexive tweets screaming outrage even before any of the facts are known, eh?

If you have a cell phone (or any other object) in your hand in a dark alley, on a dark night, and the officers can't identify the object but repeatedly ask you to drop whatever you're holding, that is just as good as being armed.

I personally believe that officers should only have to ask someone one time to comply and, if they don't, then have the authority to use deadly force.

I think you have to look at these things on a case by case basis but two things. One, yes, at some point the police have the right to self defense if the suspect doesn't stand down; and two, the reflexive presumption and outrage any time a Black person is involved that the police acted BECAUSE the suspect was Black is misplaced. It may be the case, it may not be, but wait for the facts.

I couldn't disagree more strongly with this. It's a scientific fact that people's minds and bodies shut down in response to high stress situations (i.e. police interactions). Requiring compliance on the first order - especially since police orders are often shouted from multiple directions and conflict with each other - is a completely unrealistic, ridiculous standard. Have you ever said "what?" in response to a question or instruction from your spouse/significant other? Yes? Now imagine that in a police interaction - under your idea, the police would be justified in killing you. "Show me your license and registration" "what?" *BLAM*. C'mon.

2 Things:

1) You are the typical closet racist. Your politically correct term gives it away. How many "African Americans" do you actually know? I live in the 4th largest city in the US and I don't know any "African Americans" (that I know of). I do however know many Black people. Please be sure to mention next how many "African American" friends you have (as is also typical of the closet racist to want to be made known).

2) I had "the talk" with my daughter, 2 step daughters and 1 step son. It went something like this: "If a police officer gives you a lawful command, comply." Whew! That was a hard one.

If memory serves, in the late 1980s the Rev. Jesse Jackson led the movement to adopt that term, but it started to fall out of vogue in the mid 2010s.

There is a difference between a request such as, "Show me your license and registration...BLAM" and "put the f'ing gun down...BLAM" Most will get that, but apparently not all.

Edited to add: Jacob Blake is a good example of what I am referring to. Why did it take so many commands until the officer finally shot? Personally, I think that officer needs to spend more time training on the pistol range. How do you squeeze off 4 shots and not get one kill shot?

And if you're holding a cellphone? And you have four people screaming at you with a spotlight on you? "Drop the gun!" "Get down!" "Put your hands up!"
Which command do you comply with? Either way, you're not complying with one which justifies deadly force in your eyes. It's *ridiculous*.

At my 20th high school class reunion* - where I was the only white person in attendance - I asked a few of my classmates about this exact subject. Every last one said they would prefer to be called "Black". And, beyond that, there's other reasons that "African-American" is a poor term to use:

1) Not all Africans are black.
2) Not all black people are American.

I recall a CNN news story from a couple years ago where they referred to suspects in a crime in England as "African-American" despite the fact that none of them had ever even been to America let alone being American.

* - without a doubt, one of the two or three most fun weekends in my life. Holy cow, the laughter!

I get what you're saying, but your not addressing the root of the problem. Why did it take four people screaming at you with a spotlight on you in the first place?

You did something wrong. You got caught. Drop whatever you're holding and throw your hands in the air. Why is that difficult? Why does it take 4 officers (or in many cases a lot more).

This has got to be the worst thread yet.

Leon - I'm behind you 100% for an discipline you find warranted.

lots of trash being thrown out. Thought this was a safe-haven from that.


.

Because sometimes a large number of police all respond at once? Surely you've seen that?

Ah, a presumption of guilt. What if you DIDN'T do anything wrong? Do the police absolutely *NEVER* confront anyone who has done nothing wrong?

BLAM, you're dead, for not getting on the ground.

The response (number of responding officers) is usually based on the suspects actions. If the suspect gives up willingly, typically no more than 2 officers are needed. If the suspect decides they want to run, typically more officers are called as backup. Either way, it's usually up to the suspect and their actions.


Innocent or guilty, you still comply with the officer's command. PERIOD!


Now, that part I like.

I feel like I'm talking to a kid. Don't you have a Rubik's Cube to solve or some other childish activity to occupy your time until your parents get home?

I wonder if there are any people on the board as a whole who aren't white men....

Ted

You will see that I also use the term "Black" in my posts. Some people prefer one, and some the other. I tend to use them interchangeably. I don't think anyone finds "African-American" offensive, but if I'm wrong, please let me know.

Ted

Yup, and I'd mentioned before how I wondered had the Cleveland team been giving a cut of their money to native American tribes and/or charities all along, how those native Americans would have reacted had the team decided to change the name anyway, and because of that, informed them they weren't getting money anymore. So as that article you linked to says, the team still sells Chief Wahoo items, but now donates a part of those proceeds to native Americans. So if the native Americans are trully against the use of the term Indians and Chief Wahoo image, wouldn't you expect them to turn down the money and tell the team to just stop all use and sale of items with that name and image? How much anyone want to bet they take the money? Oh, there will still be other native Americans that would complain and want the use stopped, but who can those still dissenting native Americans really blame then?

I don't understand that premise. How do you feel about lawsuits? Should someone accept a monetary award for something they were wronged by?

I'm going to wind this down because I don't see any real value in continuing now that I'm being called a racist.

I could cite a lot of statistics about how non-whites are treated by the criminal justice system; here's one article.

"In an analysis of 4,653 fatal shootings for which information about both race and age were available, the researchers found a small but statistically significant decline in white deaths (about 1%) but no significant change in deaths for BIPOC. There were 5,367 fatal police shootings during that five-year period, according to the Post’s database. In the case of armed victims, Native Americans were killed by police at a rate three times that of white people (77 total killed). Black people were killed at 2.6 times the rate of white people (1,265 total killed); and Hispanics were killed at nearly 1.3 times the rate of white people (889 total killed). Among unarmed victims, Black people were killed at three times the rate (218 total killed), and Hispanics at 1.45 times the rate of white people (146 total killed)."

https://news.yale.edu/2020/10/27/rac...d-over-5-years

I hope everyone's doing well with their collections.

Ted Clayton

Are you suggesting that the fault lies with the recipient of the (legal) bribe rather than the entity offering it?

Went right over your head that you - as in you, vintagetoppsguy - would be dead based on your response.

Well, I do need to practice for my Rubik's Cube competition on August 28th, thanks for the reminder.

If the tribes refused the money, do you think Cleveland would stop selling the items? If the answer to that is no, if you're the tribes, wouldn't it better to get something out of it if the selling is going to happen anyway?

Lawsuits for what? There is no lawsuit that anyone has officially filed against the Cleveland team to my knowledge. And even so, you usually have to show there are some monetary damages incurred to be able to get anything significant money-wise through the courts.

I was simply speculating earlier on how the use of the word "Indians" and the image of Chief Wahoo may have been perceived by the native American community had the Cleveland team been giving/donating money to them all along as a sort of residual/licensing type of payment for the use of that term and image. I was aware of the fact that even though the team stopped using the Chief Wahoo image after 2018, they still held the copyright to it and have continued to produce and sell items with the image on it. Except now, they are going to be donating some of the future proceeds from those sales to native American groups. I didn't bring that point up before, but since a link to a story telling about the future donations was posted by someone else, I figured I'd bring it into the discussion as something else to keep in mind and look at in the overall scope of things. I am merely putting the question out there that if a group feels wronged about a name or image that is associated with them, does the fact that someone offers them money to more or less pay for the use of that term or image change the situation somehow. Also raising the question of how does it possibly impact the feelings and actions of other members of the "wronged group" that aren't getting any of the money now being paid or, don't care about the money and still want the use of the name and image eliminated entirely. You potentially end up with different factions of the "wronged group" possibly arguing among themselves as to what is the correct thing to do. So now who's right or wrong? Which group do you listen to as to how to make things right if the "wronged group" can't even agree among themselves as to the proper way to handle or fix things?

There are very few universal truths we have in life as humans that are going to be 100% accurate, 100% of the time. The old adage is always about death and taxes, but there are still people currently, and in the past, that have been on this planet that ended up never paying taxes, so that just leaves death as a universal given. However, another universal truth for humans is that we will never all agree 100% on anything. There either is, has been, or will be, at least one human that will disagree with every other human to ever exist on literally every topic, idea or question that ever has or will come up. It is human nature, and the fact that we are all different is possibly the greatest and worst things about us, all at the same time.

Saw this today and from the Washington Post
 

I am not suggesting anything, merely raising the question about how others would perceive this issue given that money may be involved. I was asking the question to you to think about it and how you would answer it to yourself and others. In your response, you didn't answer the question, just asked me a question in return, if I was implying something. And no, I am not.

However, you made a comment about a bribe being made. My understanding of the definition of a bribe is that it is a payment in some form to get someone to do something for, or act in one's favor. So if you are suggesting that such a payment may be being made to get the native Americans to stop complaining about Chief Wahoo while the Cleveland team keeps selling images of him for a profit, I think you are technically correct and that could fall under the perceived definition of a bribe. But my further understanding of a bribe, at least in regards to an illegal one, is that both parties are at fault and equally guilty. So if you assume the same logic holds true for a legal bribe as well, wouldn't you assume that both parties are also guilty in that instance/situation as well?

It doesn’t matter if it is 99%, what matters is that woke whites are offended, which of course they are.

Chris,

In Post #308 I responded to another person's comment referring to the payment of money to the native Americans as a type of bribe, albeit a "legal" bribe as he called it. I mentioned how in the case of illegal bribes that both parties are normally considered guilty, so shouldn't that same logic carry over to both parties in "legal" bribe situations as well then? And if that logic does carry over, then wouldn't the acceptance of a "legal" bribe make the native Americans guilty, at least the ones who took the money, of also not really caring so much about the use of the word "Indians" or the Chief Wahoo image? To be truly innocent, isn't the only real way a party involved in a bribe situation could not be considered guilty or complicit to some extent is to simply not accept the bribe money at all?

Look at the case of Joe Jackson, who is deemed guilty mostly due to his having kept money given to him to allegedly throw a World Series. He supposedly tried to not take the money, and even went so far as to tell the team owner Comiskey about it, and even asked Comiskey what he should do with the money. According to testimony, Jackson was told to keep it, and as the story goes he eventually used it to pay for a relative's hospital bills, so he technically didn't benefit from it himself. Now put the native Americans in Jackson's place and ask yourself the same questions!

I awoke and this thread needs to go to sleep. Peace and prosperity to all.

One of my fave postcards. I paid 2x what an expert said it was worth and don't regret it a bit.

https://luckeycards.com/ppcunc1909nativeindians.JPG