White Power

[Ravi]

50 Cent or Billy Bob is a straight culture connection. Ayisha/John is a straight race connection.

I can't agree with that. Unless you ask the people making the calls, you can only guess what is motivating them.

 

[Larkinn]

how so? Are there no blacks named John? No whites named Andre? How does this study indicate a clear racial motivation without clarifying the race of the test subjects?

What does the race of the test subjects have anything to do with anything?

Who cares if the test subjects are black, white, hispanic, whatever. Is it somehow ok for them not to hire black sounding names, because they are white?

 

[Shogun]

I haven't ignord the possibility, I've stated its irrelevant.

yet, it's not irrelevant when looking for a cause outside of anyother reason to blame whitey.



When whites have the "traditional" names, and blacks have the non-traditional names, you better believe there is a convincing racial argument.

Yet you ignore all the black Johns and White Andres. I'm afraid that i'll have to disagree with you on how convincing the interpretation of the data is.


By the way, this is purely anecdotal, but my name isn't traditional in the least and I've never had a problem getting jobs. But it still sounds white.

which is why I brought up my name. Does Leroy sound too white to you? i put it on my resume and still got a job. Now, would you still charge racism after knowing that my employer is a minority owned company that didn't hire a Jeff McWhite in my place?


Wow, you mean other countries are racist as well? Your point?

My point is that you arbitrarily blame racism when cultural business tradition seems a greater culprit. Again, a white guy with the name Igthuk'yhuk Truman may not get as many call backs as a black guy named George Jones. Does this say more to you about the RACE of each candidate or their names falling well outside of the first three standard deviations of the group of Average American names?


Your just stating racism in a different form.

OR, you are just assuming racism because you are looking for such.



Sorry, the Jamals were busy being slaves.

oh rly? You really think the name Shaniqua was popular on the plantation isntead of TRADITIONAL AMERICAN NAMES like ABIGAIL? Nice lunge at an appeal for emotion though.



Black owners discriminating wouldn't change anything except make it clear that the white owners are discriminating at even a HIGHER rate than shown by the stats.


How do you figure? If a black owned company preferred JOHN over Shabazz wouldn't it burst a few holes in the theory of racism?


3% v. 10% callbacks isn't a meager difference. Its the difference between having to apply 10 times and having to apply 33 times. Ever applied for a real job Shogun? Its a pain in the ass.


and, your source days, specifically, 10 resumes for whites and 15 for blacks. Can you tell me what page of your source you are pulling 33 from?

Put another way, a White job seeker would have to send out at least 10 resumes to receive a single contact from a potential employer. A Black candidate, meanwhile, would have to send out 15--and this in a "soft" economy with a relatively low rate of new job creation.

page 1.

10 vs 15? With no clarification of test subject race? indeed, meager.

Feel free to start talking shit though.. I have a real job and my experience in HR allows me to wade through the the bullshit that others may not even notice.


Are whites institutionally discriminated against? Once they are, then you can have white power groups.

Racism is still racist even if you want to rationalize a double standard based on history. Again, without comparing THESE results to the same data set from a period of actual rampant discrimination you get no perspective on the significance of your charge of racism.

Indeed, affirmative action IS institutional discrimination against whites. Feel free to assume otherwise.


John isn't inherently white. But ayisha is inherently black. They pick the ambigious names over the black names. Thats called racism.


Whose being the racist now? Is ANDRE inherently black? Is AYISHA a TRADITIONAL AMERICAN NAME? no? check.


Not quite. I have no idea the race of the business owners. Could be white, asian, black, hispanic, whatever. Regardless, it seems that the aggregate is discriminating against blacks.


according to you. Who, I would charge, is LOOKING for exactly the kind of result that you are waving around here. I don't see your posted study indicating racism without being a little deeper than assuming that American business is A) white enough to restrict hiring Shaniqua and B) is racist when having affinity for common American names over uncommon names despite the race of both candidate or employer.

 

[Shogun]

I can't agree with that. Unless you ask the people making the calls, you can only guess what is motivating them.

Bingo.

 

[Shogun]

What does the race of the test subjects have anything to do with anything?

Who cares if the test subjects are black, white, hispanic, whatever. Is it somehow ok for them not to hire black sounding names, because they are white?

It has EVERYTHING to do with the implied RACISM of American business that you are charging is RACIST in it's discrimination against one sample over the other.


It's pretty indicative if a black owned company follows the same pattern as the white owned company when choosing John over Malcolm that racism is not the cause of their choice. Is it OK? I guess that depends on what you assume is their motivation: racism or the business status quo. Strangely, business also don't accept a daishiki or sombrero on a candidate during the interview. Does this say something about RACISM or Traditional Business Attire?

 

[Ravi]

Bingo.

Are you as creeped out that we agree on something as I am?

Maybe the perception is that people with non-traditional names come from poor families and are poorly educated.

 

[Shogun]

it doesn't creep me out at all, ravi. You are wrong about a number of things but, it seems, you are paying attention to details here.

I think more professional Johns than Te'Rhonda's get jobs for much the same reason that there is a standard business dress that apply. A glowing resume and traditional name wont land a job if you show up in ripped jeans, a kung fu top, and platinum grill either. This, I think, is why the study didn't try to determine the race of the test subject since it would destroy the assumption of racism rather than American traditions.

 

[Larkinn]

yet, it's not irrelevant when looking for a cause outside of anyother reason to blame whitey.

As I said, I haven't assumed the race of the business owners, merely that they are racist against blacks.

Yet you ignore all the black Johns and White Andres. I'm afraid that i'll have to disagree with you on how convincing the interpretation of the data is.

As all stereotypes are, they are generalizations.

which is why I brought up my name. Does Leroy sound too white to you? i put it on my resume and still got a job. Now, would you still charge racism after knowing that my employer is a minority owned company that didn't hire a Jeff McWhite in my place?

If a black-owned company was only hiring blacks, or hiring people because they are black, yes thats racism.

My point is that you arbitrarily blame racism when cultural business tradition seems a greater culprit.

Cultural business tradition? Of doing what, hiring whites?

Again, a white guy with the name Igthuk'yhuk Truman may not get as many call backs as a black guy named George Jones.

Probably. Thats why its called stereotyping, its not always accurate.

Does this say more to you about the RACE of each candidate or their names falling well outside of the first three standard deviations of the group of Average American names?

You mean Average American white names. There are plenty of Jamals and Aiyishas out there. I don't see exactly how those aren't American.

OR, you are just assuming racism because you are looking for such.

Not quite. I would love it if there was no racism. But there is, and thats that.

oh rly? You really think the name Shaniqua was popular on the plantation isntead of TRADITIONAL AMERICAN NAMES like ABIGAIL? Nice lunge at an appeal for emotion though.

No idea, actually.

How do you figure? If a black owned company preferred JOHN over Shabazz wouldn't it burst a few holes in the theory of racism?

No. Whites aren't the only ones who can be racist. I know that blows a hole in your whole "blame whitey" bullshit, but its true.

and, your source days, specifically, 10 resumes for whites and 15 for blacks. Can you tell me what page of your source you are pulling 33 from?

If you have a 3% chance of getting a job each time you apply, guess how many times you need to apply?

Put another way, a White job seeker would have to send out at least 10 resumes to receive a single contact from a potential employer. A Black candidate, meanwhile, would have to send out 15--and this in a "soft" economy with a relatively low rate of new job creation.

page 1.

It was using an average, I just picked one example.

10 vs 15? With no clarification of test subject race? indeed, meager.

The test subject race is irrelevant.

Feel free to start talking shit though.. I have a real job and my experience in HR allows me to wade through the the bullshit that others may not even notice.

Congrats, I've had "real" jobs as well.

Racism is still racist even if you want to rationalize a double standard based on history. Again, without comparing THESE results to the same data set from a period of actual rampant discrimination you get no perspective on the significance of your charge of racism.

I don't really care the difference between now and when blacks were slaves. Is it better than it was then? Yes. Is this difference acceptable just because its better than them being enslaved? No.

Indeed, affirmative action IS institutional discrimination against whites. Feel free to assume otherwise.

Its discrimination because they have an edge, not because they are percieved to be inferior.

Whose being the racist now? Is ANDRE inherently black? Is AYISHA a TRADITIONAL AMERICAN NAME? no? check.

I'm stereotyping based on culture. White culture is more likely to name their kid John. Black culture more likely to name their kid Aiyisha. It has nothing to do with the inherent properties of being black or white.

according to you. Who, I would charge, is LOOKING for exactly the kind of result that you are waving around here.

Of course you would charge that. It wouldn't be an argument with you if you didn't try to make it personal and throw around the ad hominems.

I don't see your posted study indicating racism without being a little deeper than assuming that American business is A) white enough to restrict hiring Shaniqua and B) is racist when having affinity for common American names over uncommon names despite the race of both candidate or employer.

The race of the employer is irrelevant. I've already demonstrated that. And an "affinity for common American names over uncommon names" is just code for "affinity for white names over black names". Nobody is not going to call me back because my name is Larkin. Thats absurd.

 

[Larkinn]

It has EVERYTHING to do with the implied RACISM of American business that you are charging is RACIST in it's discrimination against one sample over the other.

Yes, it is.

It's pretty indicative if a black owned company follows the same pattern as the white owned company when choosing John over Malcolm that racism is not the cause of their choice.

No, actually its not. Your assuming that blacks aren't racist against other blacks.

Is it OK? I guess that depends on what you assume is their motivation: racism or the business status quo. Strangely, business also don't accept a daishiki or sombrero on a candidate during the interview. Does this say something about RACISM or Traditional Business Attire?

You do realize the difference between what someone wears (a choice) and ones name (not quite a choice), right?

 

[Larkinn]

Shogun, try reading the other link I posted about race and peoples preconceived notions. Blacks aren't immune to seeing other blacks and crossing the street because they think they must be thugs either.

 

[Shogun]

No, actually its not. Your assuming that blacks aren't racist against other blacks.

No, thats exactly the point. Blacks discriminating against black names isn't racism any more than blacks not hiring a candidate dressed in a diashiki or sombrero is racism. It's a business standard that puts more value on FAMILIAR names rather than UNFAMILIAR names. Much like, and heres where I blow you out of the water, you are told to SELL YOURSELF on a resume businesses follow the same behaviour as any other consumer group that identifies with the familiar. Shantawgwa being less culturally FAMILIAR than John or Bill. This is why, I think, you avoid all the black Johns and white Andres.


You do realize the difference between what someone wears (a choice) and ones name (not quite a choice), right?

You do realize that, culturally, a person's background is just as much NOT a choice as his name, right? Ever see a tibettan in a robe chumming it up with anyone dressed in a SUIT from the west? Should an AMERICAN business be forced to allow robes instead of business dress because you are a little too quick with the charge of racism?

 

[Shogun]

Shogun, try reading the other link I posted about race and peoples preconceived notions. Blacks aren't immune to seeing other blacks and crossing the street because they think they must be thugs either.

Hey dude.. THIS is why I asked the question about your sources initially. Maybe another arrogant, pompous response would be in order next time.


Indeed, and if blacks are just as willing to discriminate as whites then it kind of takes the wind out of comparing John to Andre, eh?

 

[Larkinn]

No, thats exactly the point. Blacks discriminating against black names isn't racism any more than blacks not hiring a candidate dressed in a diashiki or sombrero is racism.

Yes, actually it IS racism.

It's a business standard that puts more value on FAMILIAR names rather than UNFAMILIAR names.

You think, maybe, just maybe, that to someone who was black the name Jamal might be more familiar than John?

Much like, and heres where I blow you out of the water, you are told to SELL YOURSELF on a resume businesses follow the same behaviour as any other consumer group that identifies with the familiar.

So when the white and black person come in for an interview, they choose the white person because they are more "familiar"? And somehow thats not racism?

Shantawgwa being less culturally FAMILIAR than John or Bill. This is why, I think, you avoid all the black Johns and white Andres.

I know at least 4 people named Jamal. How is it so culturally unfamiliar?

You do realize that, culturally, a person's background is just as much NOT a choice as his name, right?

You do realize that the background is the PAST, and can be changed?

Ever see a tibettan in a robe chumming it up with anyone dressed in a SUIT from the west? Should an AMERICAN business be forced to allow robes instead of business dress because you are a little too quick with the charge of racism?

Ever seen a Tibettan apply for one of those jobs? Its not like they are trying and getting turned away, unlike blacks in American jobs.

 

[Larkinn]

Hey dude.. THIS is why I asked the question about your sources initially. Maybe another arrogant, pompous response would be in order next time.

No, you asked because you wanted to jump in without reading the thread first. You should have done so.

Indeed, and if blacks are just as willing to discriminate as whites then it kind of takes the wind out of comparing John to Andre, eh?

No, it really doesn't. It makes the racism even more pervasive.

 

[Shogun]

As I said, I haven't assumed the race of the business owners, merely that they are racist against blacks.

well, at least you admit that your observation is based on assumptions.


As all stereotypes are, they are generalizations.

generalizations, sure.. not all generalizations are wholly untrue. a John from HArvard might just have more to offer than a Wa-shanda from the ghetto. Should a private company have to pay the price of social disparity at the charge of being racist?



If a black-owned company was only hiring blacks, or hiring people because they are black, yes thats racism.

Unless, of course, we can call it affirmative action.


Cultural business tradition? Of doing what, hiring whites?

or, wearing a specific business attire, acting "professionally" and speaking well. Not to mention, refraining from reflecting on the business with NECK TATTOOS, GOLD GRILLS and DROOPING PANTS.

But, dude.. I thought you said that you DIDNT assume anything about the motivation of blaming whitey????





Probably. Thats why its called stereotyping, its not always accurate.

it's not always inaccurate either.



You mean Average American white names. There are plenty of Jamals and Aiyishas out there. I don't see exactly how those aren't American.

Plenty when compared with the BILLS and JOHNS?


Top 10 Names for 2007 Rank Male name Female name
1 Jacob Emily
2 Michael Isabella
3 Ethan Emma
4 Joshua Ava
5 Daniel Madison
6 Christopher Sophia
7 Anthony Olivia
8 William Abigail
9 Matthew Hannah
10 Andrew Elizabeth
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/

Oh hey.. what do you know.. SHANIQUA is not on the list but, ready for it?

ABIGAIL sure the hell is.



Not quite. I would love it if there was no racism. But there is, and thats that.


not quite THats that. By blindly waving around the charge of racism you really are no better than those you accuse of discrimination.


No idea, actually.

Well, scroll up. Apparently that name beats out every Shaquanda out there in 2007.



No. Whites aren't the only ones who can be racist. I know that blows a hole in your whole "blame whitey" bullshit, but its true.

Yet, blacks avoiding "black" names, as you suggest, isn't proven by your evidence. Hell, for all you know blacks AND WHITE companies know that familiar AMERICAN names provide more business opportunities than a sales staff of non-traditional names. Thus, the motivation isn't racially motivated at all.

It's TRUE, eh? Feel free to believe what you want, dude.




If you have a 3% chance of getting a job each time you apply, guess how many times you need to apply?

trying to snake out of the specific example in your own damn source, eh?

what have I told you before about such scandelous shit, dude. You might wanna review your math, dude.



It was using an average, I just picked one example.

of course you did. In an effort to distort the actua data set of your evidence, no less.



The test subject race is irrelevant.

I disagree. But, as long as your observation is based on assumptions it really doesn't matter.


Congrats, I've had "real" jobs as well.

Then why did you even feel the need to bring it up? Feel free to fall back into talking shit, dude. You of all people know that I thrive on it.



I don't really care the difference between now and when blacks were slaves. Is it better than it was then? Yes. Is this difference acceptable just because its better than them being enslaved? No.

of course you don't care. Showing that the sky isn't falling would minimize the relevancy of your accusation. And, regarding the prerogative of employers whose bottom line depends on who they staff, a meager difference in the chioce of TRADITIONAL names over NON-Traditional names is no more racist than requiring business dress at work.



Its discrimination because they have an edge, not because they are percieved to be inferior.


HA!

yea, OOOk. so, a white kid who loses out to a token statistic ISN'T being discriminated against based soley on race.



sure thing, dude.


I'm stereotyping based on culture. White culture is more likely to name their kid John. Black culture more likely to name their kid Aiyisha. It has nothing to do with the inherent properties of being black or white.


uh, can you PROVE that black sulture is "more likely" to name their kid AIYISHA? 'Cause, just a second ago you admitted that you can't prove Latawna was more popular during slavery than anyo ther standard TRADITIONAL name.. But, I look forward to diving into your evidence that blacks are MORE LIKELY to name their kid Ja'Rosha than William.

nice to know that you can stereotype in order to reach a specific conclusion though. This really is how science, especially a soft science like the one you are using as evidence, works.


Of course you would charge that. It wouldn't be an argument with you if you didn't try to make it personal and throw around the ad hominems.

funny, I don't recall asking you about YOUR "real" job. Like I said, throw down the gauntlet since you cannot support your position, dude. As far as Im concerned you've just been check mated.



The race of the employer is irrelevant. I've already demonstrated that. And an "affinity for common American names over uncommon names" is just code for "affinity for white names over black names". Nobody is not going to call me back because my name is Larkin. Thats absurd.

You really have not demonstrated anything outside your ability to fabricate bullshit, assume what you will, and insist that relevant variables don't matter. Feel free to email the top baby names source above and bitch to them about their racist, non-representative list. Like I said, My name is Leroy and I managed to keep from blaming my stack of resume's on racism. Life sure is meant to be universally standardized anyway. Thank god i can call shennanigans if I have to use 5 more resumes than the average white guy.

 

[Shogun]

No, you asked because you wanted to jump in without reading the thread first. You should have done so.



No, it really doesn't. It makes the racism even more pervasive.

No, I asked so that you had the chance to show your evidence before I did what you hoped no one would do: actually comb though your evidence.


HA! or, it makes it obvious what YOUR blank check excuse is and how far you will go to provide support for your assumptions.

 

[Shogun]

Yes, actually it IS racism.


im sure you'd label anything such if you thought it would support your assumptions.


You think, maybe, just maybe, that to someone who was black the name Jamal might be more familiar than John?

no. The name John is not in danger of being less familair than a jamal anytime soon. I don't care HOW MANY you know personally.


So when the white and black person come in for an interview, they choose the white person because they are more "familiar"? And somehow thats not racism?

But, you are not stating ANYTHING about an INTERVIEW; only a call back from a resume per your source.

damn, dude. keep up.



I know at least 4 people named Jamal. How is it so culturally unfamiliar?

hehehehehe... I suggest you go ask your statistic prof how your personal list of friends impacts the population of America.


You do realize that the background is the PAST, and can be changed?


so, too, can a name.

ZING!




Ever seen a Tibettan apply for one of those jobs? Its not like they are trying and getting turned away, unlike blacks in American jobs.

Oh, so it's OK to be racist against a Tibettan because they don't apply for jobs as often as blacks? And, if they show up to the interview in a fucking TOGA you are damn skippy they will be turned away. For real, I realize the appeal to emotion seems like it should work better than providing evidence but it is really kinda silly.

 

[Shogun]

Comparative popularity of the names John and Jamal


John

Popularity of the male name John Year of birth Rank
2007 19
2006 20
2005 18
2004 18
2003 17
2002 17
2001 14
2000 14
1999 15
1998 15
1997 15
1996 15
1995 13
1994 15
1993 16
1992 14
1991 10
1990 12

Jamal

Popularity of the male name Jamal Year of birth Rank
2007 537
2006 506
2005 464
2004 445
2003 399
2002 364
2001 348
2000 366
1999 335
1998 372
1997 317
1996 282
1995 266
1994 240
1993 233
1992 242
1991 249
1990 247


http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/babyname.cgi








Popularity of the male name Leroy Year of birth Rank
2007 999
2006 940
2005 958
2004 816
2003 803
2002 810
2001 797
2000 717
1999 695
1998 644
1997 588
1996 598
1995 553
1994 562
1993 542
1992 493
1991 468
1990 441

 

[Larkinn]

well, at least you admit that your observation is based on assumptions.

Way to twist my words. What a surprise.

generalizations, sure.. not all generalizations are wholly untrue. a John from HArvard might just have more to offer than a Wa-shanda from the ghetto.

The resumes were equivalent in experience. The only difference was the name. But nice try.

Unless, of course, we can call it affirmative action.

Affirmative action is racism, its just not negative racism.

or, wearing a specific business attire, acting "professionally" and speaking well. Not to mention, refraining from reflecting on the business with NECK TATTOOS, GOLD GRILLS and DROOPING PANTS.

Because all blacks have those things, right?

But, dude.. I thought you said that you DIDNT assume anything about the motivation of blaming whitey????

I didn't. You making shit up doesn't make it true.

it's not always inaccurate either.

No shit. Which is why its racism when they stereotype that john is white and ayisha is black.

Plenty when compared with the BILLS and JOHNS?


Top 10 Names for 2007 Rank Male name Female name
1 Jacob Emily
2 Michael Isabella
3 Ethan Emma
4 Joshua Ava
5 Daniel Madison
6 Christopher Sophia
7 Anthony Olivia
8 William Abigail
9 Matthew Hannah
10 Andrew Elizabeth
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/

Oh hey.. what do you know.. SHANIQUA is not on the list but, ready for it?

ABIGAIL sure the hell is.

Neither is John, one of the names in the study.

not quite THats that. By blindly waving around the charge of racism you really are no better than those you accuse of discrimination.

Blindly? Sorry, but the study pretty much proves it. Do all the rationalizing you want.

Well, scroll up. Apparently that name beats out every Shaquanda out there in 2007.

2007 is plantation days? Ok then.

Yet, blacks avoiding "black" names, as you suggest, isn't proven by your evidence. Hell, for all you know blacks AND WHITE companies know that familiar AMERICAN names provide more business opportunities than a sales staff of non-traditional names. Thus, the motivation isn't racially motivated at all.

It's TRUE, eh? Feel free to believe what you want, dude.

I never said it was. And I find it funny that you equate black names with non-American names as if blacks are somehow not American.

trying to snake out of the specific example in your own damn source, eh?

what have I told you before about such scandelous shit, dude. You might wanna review your math, dude.

Yeah, the specific example of 3 v. 10, eh?

It was using an average, I just picked one example.

of course you did. In an effort to distort the actua data set of your evidence, no less.

*shrug* regardless. 3 and 10, 10 and 15. The point is that there is a sizable difference.

I disagree. But, as long as your observation is based on assumptions it really doesn't matter.

Its not. But you knew that.

Then why did you even feel the need to bring it up? Feel free to fall back into talking shit, dude. You of all people know that I thrive on it.

Pot, meet kettle.

of course you don't care. Showing that the sky isn't falling would minimize the relevancy of your accusation.

When did I say the sky was falling? I never claimed that it was like 1960 or 1840. So no the comparison is irrelevant. Your like the idiots who try to say that everything in the US is A OK because Darfur is worse.

And, regarding the prerogative of employers whose bottom line depends on who they staff, a meager difference in the chioce of TRADITIONAL names over NON-Traditional names is no more racist than requiring business dress at work.

Meager? Nice how you try and minimize that with rhetorical bullshit.

HA!

yea, OOOk. so, a white kid who loses out to a token statistic ISN'T being discriminated against based soley on race.



sure thing, dude.

Are you retarded? I said it was discrimination, just a different kind.

uh, can you PROVE that black sulture is "more likely" to name their kid AIYISHA?

Than white culture? Do you live under a fucking rock or something? No, I don't have a link that says blacks are more likely than whites to name their kid Ayisha. Nor do I have a link showing that people like pie more than they like to eat babies.

'Cause, just a second ago you admitted that you can't prove Latawna was more popular during slavery than anyo ther standard TRADITIONAL name.. But, I look forward to diving into your evidence that blacks are MORE LIKELY to name their kid Ja'Rosha than William.

Its called the movie Roots and the increase in black heritage pride.

nice to know that you can stereotype in order to reach a specific conclusion though. This really is how science, especially a soft science like the one you are using as evidence, works.

Science generally doesn't feel the need to prove things that are pretty much given if you know even a little bit about black history.

funny, I don't recall asking you about YOUR "real" job.

Thats nice. Me stating facts about myself isn't an ad hominem.

Like I said, throw down the gauntlet since you cannot support your position, dude. As far as Im concerned you've just been check mated.

As far as your concerned, your a genius who has never lost an argument. Those of us who aren't dumbshits know otherwise.

 

[Larkinn]

No, I asked so that you had the chance to show your evidence before I did what you hoped no one would do: actually comb though your evidence.

If you had the thread, you would have noticed that I had already shown my evidence. And feel free to read it. You've provided no decent counterarguments to anything said in it.

no. The name John is not in danger of being less familair than a jamal anytime soon. I don't care HOW MANY you know personally.

Actually familiarity is a personal thing, not a societal thing.

But, you are not stating ANYTHING about an INTERVIEW; only a call back from a resume per your source.

damn, dude. keep up.

I'm pointing out that your justification of the "familiar" is retarded, and obviously wouldn't fly in an interview, even though you seem to think that its ok to do it over the phone.

Oh, so it's OK to be racist against a Tibettan because they don't apply for jobs as often as blacks? And, if they show up to the interview in a fucking TOGA you are damn skippy they will be turned away. For real, I realize the appeal to emotion seems like it should work better than providing evidence but it is really kinda silly.

No, its acceptable because its cultural and can be changed.

so, too, can a name.

ZING!

They aren't racist against the name, genius, they are racist against the race of person they think they are dealing with because of the name. So unless you can tell me how they can change their race, your zing wasn't terribly effective.