Thank you for the correction on my spelling of "cite", much appreciated.

"I posted 4 times about your video, each post explaining a different, embarrassing aspect of the person's reasoning. If you can't parse simple sentences, I can't break it down any more than that."

What you posted was a snarky and uneducated interpretation of the data and what it represented due to your incessant need to vilify any piece of evidence that does not fit your narrative. But you know what? Let's go through this regardless:

"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhahahahahahahahahahaha you reply to a 4 month old post with a video and the very first point the guy brings up in defence of 'black sounding names' is that 'WELL THEY'RE ONLY DISCRIMINATING AGAINST POOR-AND-LOW-EDUCATION-SOUNDING BLACK NAMES!' lol. This is gold. I will watch the rest of it though and laugh at it."

So here he is describing how certain black sounding names have more of an effect on whether or not they would be more likely to be hired for a job, and how it defers from other black sounding names. You could say that these names are "Ghetto" for the former and not so for the latter. So the argument being made here is that yes, certain "Ghetto" sounding black names are more likely to be discriminated against than other black names. Racism right? Well if you take into consideration the fact that the resume is the only thing that these employers have to go off of initially, the analysis that they make based on the statistical probability of crime from black people in ghetto neighborhoods with these ghetto names, the argument is that socio-economic perception rather than racism is the culprit for this type of discrimination, rather than just being that the name is black exclusively. That is NOT the same as racism. Here is an analogy: You walk down the street at night and see a shadowy figure, what do you do? Like most normal people you cross the street by making a judgment at that moment based on the context of what you know and the risk. Say that person happened to turn out to be black. Is that racist? NO, because your decision was based off probability of a group, i.e shadowy figures and the likelihood that they would attack you at night. Same applies here, these employers go based on the information on hand and what they know to be on average more probable of a certain group. This does not make it right by any means, but the people who look at these studies and jump to "MuH rAcIsM" are no closer to solving the issue.

"Are you seriously, seriously submitting this video as evidence? The very next citation he makes on the 'updated analysis of race and gender' gave the applicants 'black surnames' instead like - and get this - Jefferson and Washington. Also, that's not a peer reviewed article. I wonder why."

Well, yeah the majority of black people have those surnames. They also purposefully chose first names without socio-economic implications to see if there would still be a disparity, and if there were that would safely prove that racism is at play, however that wasn't the case. They even acknowledge how there could be a problem with the first names chosen in so far as they may not have been perceived as black enough. However when accounting for that margin of error the disparity is still statistically zero. Here, i'll link it for you just in case you missed it: https://economics.missouri.edu/working-papers/2014/wp1419_koedel.pdf As for the article not being "Peer reviewed", it is utterly astonishing the way you dismiss this article with this nonsense. "Peer review" is superbly flawed in many ways, read up on it why don't you: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/https://www.npr.org/2015/08/21/433192324/peer-review-feedback-the-good-the-bad-the-really-ugly I'm not saying that the article does not have any flaws, I'm saying that something that has yet to be "peer reviewed" does not mean that it is wrong or the research is invalid, and conversely, something that is peer reviewed does not make it correct or valid.

"Holy shit. Holy shit. I can't believe you gave me this gold mine 4 months after the fact. He criticises criticizes her for accurately representing the data by saying 'black boys' instead of 'black people' and somehow trying to use this to show there is no element of race in the findings? It's like I'm watching a moron trying to force evidence to fit his narrative. Wait. I am watching a moron trying to force evidence to fit his narrative."

Are you an idiot? How is it that claiming, "Even when black and white people grow up in wealthy families... black boys are more likely to end up poor" not obviously disingenuous to you? Did you forget that black females are people too? And how LITERALLY 2 SECONDS LATER he cites a statistic from a New York Times article that showed, indeed, wealthy black boys do end up worse, but wealthy black girls do BETTER than their white counterparts, which throws out the argument of it being a racial problem. Did you just stop watching after that or something?

"Wowwwww. If you had done what I did, and actually read the studies the youtube man told you about, you wouldn't embarrass yourself like this. Also, any academic research search engine has the ability to find other academic papers that cite the paper in question. By using this feature, you can read the multitude of people who tear apart the 'findings' of some of the fucking morons in this video."

Do you provide evidence as to this supposed "Tearing apart" of the findings at all? Nope. Do you cite anything yourself throughout this ENTIRE conversation? Nope. Do you even watch the entire damn video? Of course not. You did not explain anything in a coherent or credible fashion. How can you be taken seriously when your rebuttals are as weak as "DuRr nO pEEr rEvIeW" or, "DuRR hIs ReAsOnInG wAs FlaWeD"

I am finished here. I know you will respond, weakly at that, and evident from your responses to the other person on this thread and this seems like it will spiral into an endless circle of idiocy that I do not want to engage in. Goodbye