Thank Moshe for the excellent debate! Here are the studies I cited:https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/0956797615570365/suppl_file/DS_10.11770956797615570365.pdfhttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/17/jobs-search-hiring-racial-discrimination-resume-whitening-callbackshttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/298795100_Whitened_Resumes_Race_and_Self-Presentation_in_the_Labor_Markethttps://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2017/03/black-men-threatening.aspxhttps://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/psp-a0035663.pdfhttps://www.deepdyve.com/lp/sage/stereotypes-of-black-american-women-related-to-sexuality-and-IJCNrIUKTu?Holler with questions. I look forward to debating again soon!
Hey Moshe I just watched it. In my opinion in this particular subject... she trounced you. I am saying this as someone coming in and thinking there was no systemic white privilege. One thing I will say is that she didn’t demonstrate that the white privilege was organized (such as, say, discrimination against Jewish kids in the USSR, even though the policy was unofficial).But she did demonstrate right off the bat, with studies and data - that IF those studies are true, then OF COURSE there is widespread (not top-down organized but widespread nevertheless) bias against Black kids.A couple points:1) The reason the studies she picked were GOOD is because they literally controlled for everything except being white or black. There was no previous interaction with the person on the resume or report and that person likely didn’t even exist. It was just a test of how people would react in a HYPOTHETICAL scenario hiring a black worker or punishing a black student, all things being equal.2) You lost the debate at 26:28 where you just admitted THAT IS A BAD THING. So if it’s a bad thing when it comes to men and women, it’s a bad thing when it comes to whites and blacks.3) Throughout this whole debate she was addressing the points you were bringing up directly. You are agreeing that stereotypes get perpetuated, and you ask if the biases manifest in tangible form. She says well, yes, punishing and hiring are tangible things.I didn’t watch the last 3 mins so I don’t know about whether you discussed Black kids being perceived as 3-4 years older than White kids but that’s another significant disadvantage (since they are held to higher standards in many areas by people who don’t know their age, or even if they do and then react viscerally based on what they see).So I came away convinced that there is white privilege — but this did not demonstrate the existence of systemic INSTITUTIONAL racism.Bottom line if you say it’s a bad thing that women get a lighter sentence than men for the same crime, then the same applies to race.Let’s unbundle two things:1) Thinking someone is more likely to commit the crime2) Given that you KNOW the crime was committed, giving a harsher sentence for the SAME crimeSo you both agree #2 is bad, hence it’s bad in the child report and resume example.Now as far as #1, RACIAL PROFILING can be a mixed bag. It could make police work much more efficient. The cost is perpetuating racial disparities.For example if the news always zeroed in on the most sensational things and always showed Arabs trying to blow something up, then you’d likely not hire Arabs in your business and therefore the COLLECTIVE actions of Israeli employers would affect the employment of the average Arab which may then cause more resentment and poverty for them overall, and cause them to also view Israelis as discriminatory. Not to mention that it would further keep the two groups from having regular interactions that might normalize relations more in ways that might act against a constantly widening chasm. Same with any other groups.This happens all the time. A small group of X commits a crime, way out of proportion with the rest of the the population. Now this makes most people suspicious of every X. So now it sucks slightly or greatly more to be the vast majority of X who didn’t ever commit crimes. And it may even add up just enough to perpetuate the statistics.To be honest, looking back on my own behavior this was aways obvious to me and I always slightly went out of my way to favor women or other “minority” applicants for my jobs online. After I had like 8 guys I wanted to balance it out. Even when I had 1 guy, I was consciously going to give equal chance.Did I find equally qualified women for the same hourly salary? NO! Seems enough people were doing what I was doing that the similarly priced female workers were way worse than the male workers. I gave it a try and it didn’t justify itself.Will I still treat each woman individually from now on? Probably. If I was burned 99 out of 100 times though I may stop.So that’s the difference. If 99 out of 100 times someone disappoints you then YES you are justified in not always treating the next person like an individual. Maybe even if happens 80% if the time.But if only 2-3% of the people are bad apples then you’re not justified.I think that the studies controlled for all those factors though. So I was just explaining the dynamics outside those studies.
Now having said that, I want to point out that even though only 5-10% of candidates would be less qualified for a job or college major, if everyone would specifically try to give them more privilege (affirmative action) this will actually backfire downstream if 90% don’t live up to their expectations by being given a chance. (Thomas Sowell talks about this with Blacks and affirmative action.)Meaning when I see someone with the same qualifications, I would have more suspicions hat they really got there fairly. This doesn’t apply to standardized tests though (which makes it seem Sarah has a knack for choosing hood examples).And as I already mentioned, this causes women with the exact same hourly salary to be worse than men. In my field, the difference is way more than 5-10% coming in, though. There is 1 woman for every 40-50 men so it would stand to reason that people tryingto reverse the discrimination / give equal chance would actually bid the woman’s hourly price up significantly higher. So she ends up receiving more for a worse performance. And that is overcompensating the other way — the “diversity privilege”.
@gregmozart I love how you just posit that everything but skin color was taken into account. Show me a single study cited that shows an actual disadvantage that takes everything but skin color into account.
@gregmozart I will detail why you are wrong and she didn’t even come close to winning this in a fb post on my fb group “ben Shapiro fans” She did not come close to sniffing a win. Js. And no. Not cuz she’s a woman. In case u want to assume my make privilege here. 😂
@gregmozart Thank you Greg for watching and liking my sources! Your detailed thoughts were great. I am out of the country for the next 9 days and trying to stay off the phone but will comment on everything you said + Moshe when he posts sources + anything Chaim responds with when I get back. Cheers and talk soon!
Just subscribed to your YouTube channel, Con. Great debate.
@behind_the_veil_of_ignorance Thank you for subscribing to my channel! I am glad you dug the debate. What are other topics you think would be interesting?
@sarahnicolepress feminism is the one of the most insanely strawmanned ideologies I can think of. Definitely more of this. Perhaps a topic on how intersectionality affects men's issues as well.
Next time Pro should ask more questions about the evidence being presented and be more specific with their own opinions. I believe if Pro had illustrated how income disparities, industry and racism it’s self might effect the studies, he could have challenged Con more. Overall, it was a great debate and I enjoyed watching! I hope to see Con stick around and debate in the future.
So here is a recap of the debate, where I will attempt to explain my position in greater detail along with links to the sources I've cited. There was some sort of disconnect on some issues which can very well have been due to a bad job of explaining on my end, so I will try and clarify that here as well.To begin I need to reiterate and stress a major point which many seem to skip over - You CANNOT posit 'white privilege' as a default explanation for any disparity, so long as there is any other possible explanation for said disparity. This is a discussion to decide if that privilege exists altogether, to presuppose that privilege and then claim, 'see! White privilege!' makes no sense. This is a fallacious way of reasoning, and what is otherwise known as 'begging the question'. The one who is making the claim that 'white privilege' exists, is making a positive claim and the onus lies on THEM to prove it does. Until, and only until it is proven that it does, IT DOES NOT.Now, let's get to unpacking the claims made by my opponent, one at a time, where she tried to prove that this 'white privilege' exists and see if it holds up:Claim 1 - On average black students receive harsher punishments in school than a white student, for committing the exact same infraction. Here is a link to the study:https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/0956797615570365/suppl_file/DS_10.11770956797615570365.pdfNow, you will notice that my opponent did NOT provide any study that shows that blacks in fact DO get punished in a more harsh manner than whites for committing the exact same infraction, should all other variables be taken into account, as no such study exists. Even the left leaning Brookings Institute acknowledges that it is basically impossible to make such a claim, that it is due to biases, when there are just so many other factors in play. (They do try and make a claim that there may be one case where such a bias can be shown, but even that case cannot account for everything, and the disparity is extremely small). https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2017/11/20/discipline-disparities-and-discrimination-in-schools/So instead what she tried doing was point to a study that puts teachers into a hypothetical scenario, a scenario where they KNOW NOTHING (that is very important) about the student in question but for their name. This study finds that on average these teachers were more apt to punish and punish in a harsher manner, blacks over whites. Now this study tries to account for all variables, and let's say they did a perfect job in doing so (I don't think they did, but for arguments sake i'll concede). All that shows is that these teachers are stereotyping. They can very well have a perception that black kids are worse behaved than white kids (legitimately or not, it makes no difference). This can be due to either personal experience, or just some implicit racial bias. That DOES NOT MEAN that when these teachers go back to their classrooms, that they just dish out harsher punishments, in real life, to their black students over white. When they are dealing with their own students and they know their behavior pattern, history, attitude, personality etc., there is no evidence AT ALL that they are giving their black students harsher punishment for no other reason besides for the color of their skin. Just because they have this 'implicit bias' it DOES NOT necessarily follow that it manifests into real life actions. There is not a single person that does not stereotype in some manner. Not one. Some may due it more than others. Some may do it in certain cases and other not, and for others the opposite. It does not follow that evrry single persons actions will reflect those stereotypes. That is not to detract from individualism. When it comes to our actions, we must treat each person as an individual, but that doesn't mean that we don't stereotype. If all implicit bias is, is some mental stereotype which doesn't manifest in people's actions, then so what? And if you are going to make the claim that is in fact DOES manifest in actions, then you would need to show the evidence for THAT. This study does nothing of that sort. So let's move on. Claim 2 -Black kids have the appearance of looking older than white kids of the same age, which results in black juveniles getting treated worse than whites, even resulting in them a much higher chance of getting charged as an adult over whites.https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/psp-a0035663.pdfNow, I'm not sure why con (and this study) brings up the fact that blacks look older than whites, as that somewhat diminishes the claim of implicit bias, as it would not be due to bias, rather a real difference (meaning that a white and black that look the same age will be treated in a similar fashion). That point aside though, this study is utter hogwash. It is unscientific, and simply DOES NOT give and solid support for its conclusions. It shows
implicit bias in peoples perceptions, then shows disparities in real life, then concludes that those disparities are due to this implicit bias shown. While the first 2 premises may be correct, the conclusion DOES NOT necessarily follow. There are a host of other factors that must be taken into account (this study itself acknowledges this issue somewhat):- It is almost impossible to compare crimes, as the same exact crime can be carried out in a very different fashion. One far more aggressive than the other. - Criminal history. Someone who has a criminal past is far more likely to either be convicted, or get a harsher sentence than someone who has a clean record, who has now committed the exact same crime. - Education. If the defendant is in school vs dropped out.- Besides for criminal history, the demeanor or attitude can play a vital role in how one is sentenced. Someone who shows genuine remorse may be charged lighter than one who shows complete lack of remorse.- The location where the crime took place. A black/white juvenile committing an act in an area that employs broken windows police tactics, may be treated harsher and in a different manner for black/white juveniles committing the exact same act in another jurisdiction. The difference in police tactics can also account for disparity in charging and sentencing. Now whether you agree with this policing tactic or not, is not the subject of this discussion and honestly irrelevant.There are a number of other things that can account for disparities, which is why using 'multivariate regression analysis' isn't that sound as it is only as accurate so long as ALL variable are accounted for. If you read at any of such studies, they make that pretty clear.Claim 3 -People that have white sounding resumes have a higher chance of getting a response than a resume that sounds black.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298795100_Whitened_Resumes_Race_and_Self-Presentation_in_the_Labor_MarketNow again, these studies are only good, so long as all variables are taken into account, such as, what number resume this is in line for this job opening, what type of job, season, location, does the name imply socioeconomic differences, how well were the resumes written, among many other variables. To just see a disparity and posit it is due to 'racial' bias before establishing racial bias exists, makes no sense. But now let's dig a drop deeper into this study and ask ourselves a couple of questions. 1- Are you seriously willing to accept that, Asians who have the lowest unemployment and highest income, and blacks who have the highest unemployment and lowest income, have just about the same odds of having their resumes responded to?? Think about that long and hard.2- Why the disparity between Asians and black that have whitened their first names AND experience? 3- Why does whitening experience over name, give blacks a significant boost yet Asians a lower likelihood. 4- IF (as this study shows) there is a strong bias against Asians as well, then why the big disparity between 'whitening' their first name from 'Lei Zhang' to 'Luke Zhang'? They both sound Asian to me!5- Why the disparity between blacks that whitened their name vs not, so long as they left their experience as a clear indicator to their race? Now, besides for what I believe to be some serious questions on how one can come to the specific conclusion of 'white privilege' from this study, there is another study that has been done which seems to undermine the entire notion of this study. https://economics.missouri.edu/working-papers/2014/wp1419_koedel.pdfThis study also uses Hispanic sounding names (besides for trying to account for the actual names used to rule out socioeconomic differences). Now, does any serious person truly believe that Hispanics have the same likelihood of getting a callback as whites, but blacks aren't even close (assuming that the Black names used in this study aren't fair)???
One last point on this:Even if the study mentioned earlier is accurate!! That means that a white person that has experience working with Black people has a lower chance of a callback than a black person that hasn't!! Meaning if black people decide to give their children white sounding names and work together with whites, then they have no issues. This is something that they have a choice of doing! So where in the world is the inherent white privilege??What it boils down to is 100% life choices. This is evident by the fact that certain black ethnic groups, which focus on schooling and having 2 parent homes, do far better than many white groups. Namely, Guyanese and Nigerian. Yes, there are anecdotal cases where whites would be afforded some sort of privilege (I haven't even gotten into any of the cases where blacks would be privileged as it's not even necessary), but even those are outweighed by many other privileges that have nothing to do with race (looks, personality, charisma, smarts etc.), and life choices.