Trump Derangement Syndrome - Is It Real?

[ElChupacabra]

You are making a much bigger deal out of an observation than is warranted. The issue was people being passed over who had names that made them sound 'black'. And whether that makes the employer racist. My argument is that the employer might be racist, but it cannot be automatically assumed that he/she is.

You kind of expect somebody with the surname Washington or Brown or Williams is likely to be black, especially in some parts of the country. And those people are easily called in for interviews. They might be as much of a pain in the butt as any, but with a name like Bob or Joe or Mike or Sandra or Bellinda, they don't sound like they would be.

But when you have a name that only a black person will have, the employer or HR person is more likely to inadvertently have a little warning flag pop up--possible activist, chip on shoulder, hyper sensitive, takes offense at everything, general trouble maker, likely to accuse us of racism if we don't hire or promote or correct him/her, etc.' The interviewer knows the odds are that the person is not like that too, but when there are a lot of resumes of potentially qualified people, it is just human nature to pick the ones that sounds less likely he/she will be a pain in the butt to interview. It likely has nothing to do with the employer being racist. It has everything to do with the employer being practical and not looking for problems and trying to find a compatible fit for the organization.

And yes, almost certainly some very good people don't get an interview. Almost certainly some very good people don't get an interview who are not African Americans too. In a buyers market for labor, most folks who send in resumes don't get an interview.

We currently have a strong seller's market for labor. Which is good for everybody and the more subtle subjective response to resumes is probably not as much of an issue.

I haven't made a big deal out of it; just pointing out how an absurd practice it is to use names as an indicator of anything relating to someone's potential fit in a workplace. It also potentially creates homogeneous work environments because hiring managers are only going to narrow their choices based on biases that have nothing to do with an applicants abilities to perform their duties or establish good rapport with their coworkers.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I haven't made a big deal out of it; just pointing out how an absurd practice it is to use names as an indicator of anything relating to someone's potential fit in a workplace. It also potentially creates homogeneous work environments because hiring managers are only going to narrow their choices based on biases that have nothing to do with an applicants abilities to perform their duties or establish good rapport with their coworkers.

The bias I described had everything to do with establishing good rapport with their coworkers and did not dismiss abilities of anybody.

The bias Trump supporters have are based not on his style or how he expresses himself or the approach he takes to things, but are based on our experience with the results we see. And a whole bunch of those are quite remarkable. That kind of bias is a good thing. It looks to what has been working rather than take a chance on something that sometimes doesn't work at all.

Their extreme bias against anything Trump seems to make TDS people ignore the results he is getting or try their damndest to dismiss them or they point to something that isn't going well or deflect or change the subject or they try to give Obama the credit. That kind of bias is not commendable.

 

[Skink]

You see my intention was not to convince you and this thread is not about racism so I have little interest in spending a lot of time researching it.

...

Now fast forward to the thread topic and the TDS crowd. They hate President Trump first and foremost because he wasn't supposed to win. It was Hillary's turn. But also he doesn't speak as they demand he speak, he doesn't react to things they way they demand he react, he is politically incorrect, he doesn't do things the way they have always been done, he steps way out of the box to find solutions for problems, and he is willing to break a few eggs to make a good omelet which most President won't do. He is required to be what THEY say he should be in order for him to be acceptable.

Pretty much the same kind of thing.

First paragraph: you and I have some different perspectives/analyses, but you’re correct that this thread wasn’t made for this discussion, so I’ll let it go here. That having been said, I read your post and appreciate the time and effort you spent sharing your views. Thank you.

Second paragraph: I am not a Trump supporter, but I do believe in evidence-based analysis and I worry that most Trump non-supporters knee-jerk respond to every Trump decision with “it was wrong” and then back into some rationale why that’s the case. So I was very pleased watching a discussion in another forum about Trump’s Yucca mountain position in which the posters were debating the democratic primary contenders’ positions. They were indicating that Biden had it right and the progressive candidates had it wrong.

A poster then asked if that meant that Obama had it wrong and Trump had it right. They responded that, yes, this was a case where Trump was in the right. It gave me hope that, in a thread populated by mostly democrats, the Trump Derangement Syndrome was overcome by consistency of policy position.

That was a nice change in this highly team-ball environment.