White Privilege

[Groundfish]

I'm not surprised you ran through this the same way you ran through the transgender thread. You came in with an opinion, were challenged, were annoyed that anyone had questions for you, and quit. More than anything I want to convey that that's what we do here. We challenge each other's opinions, and it's very valuable.

No. When confronted with critical thinking, it immediately devolves.
Just as @Scaff could not answer a simple question.
Ad hominem is nonsense as much as groupthink.
I ain’t got time for that.
Any opinion besides the current groupthink will be smothered.
First thing people did was start trying to find personal info to build ad hominem.
Typical. I’m not into that.

 

[Danoff]

No. When confronted with critical thinking, it immediately devolves.
Just as @Scaff could not answer a simple question.
Ad hominem is nonsense as much as groupthink.
I ain’t got time for that.
Any opinion besides the current groupthink will be smothered.
First thing people did was start trying to find personal info to build ad hominem.
Typical. I’m not into that.

I'm not seeing people attacking you. Can you quote them? Personal attacks are really not well tolerated in the opinions section, or on GTPlanet in general. I don't think there's really much group think going on in this thread, especially in this thread. I've been attacking the notion of white privilege as meaningful throughout the entire thread's history, and some people seem to agree with that take. Others definitely do not. I saw @Scaff use the line, moments ago, that things statistically would have been harder for you if you had not been white... I completely destroyed that line of reasoning earlier in this thread. I think he knows I very much disagree with how meaningful a statement like that is.

The only thing I've seen you do is run from actual discussion. Prove me wrong, be willing to dive into the underpinnings of your position, be willing to challenge yourself and others. So far you haven't been - which is why you keep saying "I'm done".

 

[Scaff]

No. When confronted with critical thinking, it immediately devolves.
Just as @Scaff could not answer a simple question.
Ad hominem is nonsense as much as groupthink.
I ain’t got time for that.
Any opinion besides the current groupthink will be smothered.
First thing people did was start trying to find personal info to build ad hominem.
Typical. I’m not into that.

I've answered every question you asked don't cry foul if I've also pointed out where you moved the goal posts.

To try and argue critical thinking is also absurd, given that you have demonstrated zero of it so far.

I've not attacked you in any way, and to claim I have is misleading to a massive degree

 

[Groundfish]

Open question...
How could a term applied to all people of a given skin color NOT be racist?

 

[huskeR32]

If you accuse someone of a given skin color as having a trait across the board isn’t that racism?

I think this is actually a pretty good question to pose to you.

You seem to think that success is strictly down to hard work:

I grew up sucked it up and put my nose to the grindstone to earn a level of economic ‘success.’

Now, U.S. Census data tells us that 24.1% of black Americans live below the poverty line, compared to 9.1% of non-Hispanic whites. In other words, blacks are roughly 2.5x more likely to live in poverty, and that's far too large a difference to just be a statistical anomaly; it's significant.

You've already told us that the entrenched "power structure" doesn't really have anything to do with race. So what explains that gap, then?

It must just come down to hard work, right? Blacks just aren't as willing to "grow up, suck it up, and put their noses to the grindstone."

So, you tell me - is it racist to accuse blacks, across the board, of being lazier?

(To be clear, I don't think you actually are racist. I think you would say there are other factors besides a simple willingness to work hard at play here. And if any of those factors affect non-whites more than whites, well, that's the white privilege you're so offended to hear about.)

 

[Scaff]

Open question...
How could a term applied to all people of a given skin color NOT be racist?

Why would it automatically be?

Black people have a higher melanin count that people with ginger hair.

I've just used it in an utterly non-racist context.

 

[G.T.Ace]

Ben Shaprio is an idiot.

I don't have much to discuss here, but this needs to be repeated.

 

[Groundfish]

Why would it automatically be?

Black people have a higher melanin count that people with ginger hair.

I've just used it in an utterly non-racist context.

Interesting, so does your assertion from post 1037 still apply?
Because what you just said would then be contradicting that assertion.

 

[Danoff]

Interesting, so does your assertion from post 1037 still apply?
Because what you just said would then be contradicting that assertion.

Strictly speaking, he was referring to gene presentation and association between gene presentation. For example, association between hair color and skin color. That's not necessarily a "race". At what point does a linking between genes become a classified race? It's a very messy thing to sort out.

 

[Scaff]

Interesting, so does your assertion from post 1037 still apply?
Because what you just said would then be contradicting that assertion.

Nope, sorry it doesn't at all.

Once again you seem to be unable to separate social construct from genetics.

 

[Groundfish]

@Scaff


Let’s say we assume the concept of race is a social construct, that’s an idea I largely agree with.
If we all want to move forward as humanity why do we continue to label folks by color?
Isn’t that a perpetuation of a social construct that brought us evil things like the Holocaust and slavery?
We can freely choose to eliminate (what I am referring to as racist) terms.
Why is it that we continue to perpetuate the construct?
We continue to invent racist terms like white privilege. Now, I am not arguing like let’s take the USA that slavery didn’t exist.
But, frankly, for folks today, they were not personally responsible for any of those atrocities. Should people of a certain color in the USA lead lives of guilt and try to somehow repay others of different color because of white privilege? The term white privilege seems to me to imply other colors underprivilege.
So is that any better or less racist? I mean to imply that because of a persons color that they are entitled to things that were not earned?
I mean, it’s such an incendiary subject to discuss.
How do we move forward?
I just do not believe that that can be done by continuing the use of terminology as it currently is. Maybe I am too sensitive I dunno.
I definitely don’t believe it’s just that a person should be forced to give rewards for their labor to another simply because of color. Again that’s racism in reverse.
Sorry for the long post, but to me the real question is what is the best way to move forward? Since we said we took the assumption that it’s a social construct then why wouldn’t we simply choose not to use terms that group folks by color?
I think the terminology we use to describe aspects of our world is important. It can burn concepts implicitly into us that flaw our thinking.

 

[Scaff]

@Scaff
Let’s say we assume the concept of race is a social construct, that’s an idea I largely agree with.

No assumption is required, it's a fact.

If we all want to move forward as humanity why do we continue to label folks by color?

Because social constructs are hard things to change and are not in themselves inherently harmful (which is flawed concept you seem fixated on).

Isn’t that a perpetuation of a social construct that brought us evil things like the Holocaust and slavery?
We can freely choose to eliminate (what I am referring to as racist) terms.
Why is it that we continue to perpetuate the construct?

Once again your are conflating a descriptive term with one use of it.

Are you honestly naive enough to think that if we stop using race as a social grouping then racism will automatically end? As if that is the only cause of it.

That's akin to saying that if we stop using the term poor it will end poverty.

We continue to invent racist terms like white privilege. Now, I am not arguing like let’s take the USA that slavery didn’t exist.
But, frankly, for folks today, they were not personally responsible for any of those atrocities. Should people of a certain color in the USA lead lives of guilt and try to somehow repay others of different color because of white privilege? The term white privilege seems to me to imply other colors underprivilege.

White privilege isn't a racist term, and one again stopping using it will not end privilege in any way. Its a nonsensical argument.

So is that any better or less racist? I mean to imply that because of a persons color that they are entitled to things that were not earned?
I mean, it’s such an incendiary subject to discuss.
How do we move forward?

By acknowledging the fact that certain groups in society have a privelaged position because of certain factors about them. Factors they may or may not be able to control.

Is really not an incendiary subject at all, simply one that a surprising number of people are in denial about

I just do not believe that that can be done by continuing the use of terminology as it currently is. Maybe I am too sensitive I dunno.
I definitely don’t believe it’s just that a person should be forced to give rewards for their labor to another simply because of color. Again that’s racism in reverse.

Once again doing using a term alone will not fix anything, quite the opposite is likely to occur.

Sorry for the long post, but to me the real question is what is the best way to move forward? Since we said we took the assumption that it’s a social construct then why wouldn’t we simply choose not to use terms that group folks by color?
I think the terminology we use to describe aspects of our world is important. It can burn concepts implicitly into us that flaw our thinking.

Because stopping using a term doesn't change the last 400 or so years of human history that has built a society based around class, wealth and race.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Should people of a certain color in the USA lead lives of guilt and try to somehow repay others of different color because of white privilege?

No, that would be idiocy.

The term white privilege seems to me to imply other colors underprivilege.

If I can be frank it seems that you still haven't bothered to look at the link defining white privilege as the academic construct it is. Simple question: do you agree with the "knapsack" idea, yes or no?

 

[Groundfish]

No, that would be idiocy.



If I can be frank it seems that you still haven't bothered to look at the link defining white privilege as the academic construct it is. Simple question: do you agree with the "knapsack" idea, yes or no?

I read the knapsack paper.
The answer is no. I do not agree with its inanity.

 

[Danoff]

But, frankly, for folks today, they were not personally responsible for any of those atrocities.

I totally agree. And folks today are not morally culpable for the crimes of those in the past. We do not prosecute children for the crimes of their parents. The idea behind white privilege is really the opposite, it's non-white disadvantage. Every time I've delved into the subject, that's really what it turns out to be. It's not that white people are being given something that they do not deserve, it's the assumption that everyone who is not white is denied something that they deserve. So it's a bit of a misnomer from the beginning. But when you see it, think "non-white disadvantage" it's closer to what is usually intended.

The thing that it forgets, and I won't labor this point very long because I've gone over it thoroughly in the past, is that we all have disadvantages. It's terrible that someone with black skin might be at a disadvantage through no fault of their own because of their black skin. But it is also terrible that someone who is ugly, or someone who is short, or someone who is blind might be at a disadvantage through no fault of their own because of those characteristics. None of it is justice, none of it is right, and our society should strive to treat these people equally to the best possible. The fact that we keep talking about this one, the racially based one, seems to suggest that it's more important. But it's not. We need to treat ugly people better. We need to treat all people with respect, and I hate that we keep circling back to this issue as if it's the only one.

Let me know when we elect, and then re-elect a very short president, and then get back to me on the whole race thing.

 

[huskeR32]

I read the knapsack paper.
The answer is no. I do not agree with its inanity.

What parts do you disagree with? Why?

People who have spent entire careers thinking about and studying race relations have come to the opposite conclusion than you have. What makes you so confident in your dismissal of their work?

--

The thing that it forgets, and I won't labor this point very long because I've gone over it thoroughly in the past, is that we all have disadvantages. It's terrible that someone with black skin might be at a disadvantage through no fault of their own because of their black skin. But it is also terrible that someone who is ugly, or someone who is short, or someone who is blind might be at a disadvantage through no fault of their own because of those characteristics. None of it is justice, none of it is right, and our society should strive to treat these people equally to the best possible. The fact that we keep talking about this one, the racially based one, seems to suggest that it's more important. But it's not. We need to treat ugly people better. We need to treat all people with respect, and I hate that we keep circling back to this issue as if it's the only one.

You've always missed the point here. Everybody knows that tall people, pretty people, heterosexual people, rich people, non-disabled people, etc. have privilege. Those privileges don't keep getting brought up because nobody denies that they exist.

Those of us who keep talking about "this one" (white privilege) do so not because it's "more important," but because it's the only form of privilege that people, for some reason, consistently deny the existence of.

Let me know when we elect, and then re-elect a very short president, and then get back to me on the whole race thing.

C'mon, you know this is entirely too reductive and simplistic.

 

[novcze]

Race is a social construct and has no basis at all in genetics.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/political-correctness.166413/page-62#post-12606902

yes ... but I'm confused why are you replying to me, because physical characteristics around which modern definition and usage of race revolves do not include genetics.

But I understand why there is a need to abandon use of race, too much controversy and ambiguity ... maybe we can also abandon white privilege while we are at it.

 

[Dotini]

I'm trying to imagine policies that would force equality of outcome. One way might be a system of communism wherein all property and wealth belongs to the state and is distributed proportionately at birth and confiscated at death.

 

[G.T.Ace]

Language warning, but Destiny made some good points here:

 

[Scaff]

yes ... but I'm confused why are you replying to me, because physical characteristics around which modern definition and usage of race revolves do not include genetics.

Apologies it read to me as if your were reinforcing that link.

But I understand why there is a need to abandon use of race, too much controversy and ambiguity ... maybe we can also abandon white privilege while we are at it.

The term or the practice?

 

[Groundfish]

The thing is fighting against these inane concepts is impossible, because if you attempt to do so, they say oh you are in denial.
Wait you made a point I have not been programmed how to respond to.
Auto response clearly you are in denial.

This type of divisive thinking holds people back from becoming unified. Remember I said divide and conquer.
Yep. Brainwashing!

This is an excerpt from tolerance . .Org
So, What Is White Privilege?
White privilege is—perhaps most notably in this era of uncivil discourse—a concept that has fallen victim to its own connotations. The two-word term packs a double whammy that inspires pushback. 1) The word whitecreates discomfort among those who are not used to being defined or described by their race. And 2) the word privilege, especially for poor and rural white people, sounds like a word that doesn’t belong to them—like a word that suggests they have never struggled.

This defensiveness derails the conversation, which means, unfortunately, that defining white privilege must often begin with defining what it’s not. Otherwise, only the choir listens; the people you actually want to reach check out. White privilege is not the suggestion that white people have never struggled. Many white people do not enjoy the privileges that come with relative affluence, such as food security. Many do not experience the privileges that come with access, such as nearby hospitals

I feel this excerpt confirms what I have mentioned regarding terminology.
If the term does not apply to poor rural white people in America, then how is it a good choice of terminology to make sweeping generalizations about ALL people of a given skin color?
If it’s not true for all of those people...

 

[Dotini]

Simple question: do you agree with the "knapsack" idea, yes or no?

I read the knapsack. The idea is that white privilege is unequal outcomes, and that policies need to be devised to force equal outcomes. Sounds like authoritarian communism is the right plan.

 

[Groundfish]

If we want to have a discussion about privilege in America I suggest calling it economic privilege.

So...What privilege exists in my knapsack?
Hmm...let’s go back to my father and his family. They lived in a predominately black low income area of America
My father and his brother were forced to fight at an early age.
They had to run from black gangs past certain areas which were between school and the bus
White privilege? The family was a frequent target of theft and vandalism. White privilege?
My father and his brother worked from too young. They had to to help support the family.
White privilege?
Fast forward so my father married and both working multiple jobs were able to move to a more rural location.
They purchased a home. Sure, maybe privilege.
So. The community was not welcoming. My father was unable to be home much due to having to work so much overtime to support us.
My mother also worked. Something I looked forward to was a Friday night treat which was fast food.
White privilege?
So. In the community we moved into our family was ridiculed because we could not afford newer cars, and nicer things. My father did all the maintenance and repair of EVERYTHING himself, because we could not afford to have other do it.
On weekends when he was available I was generally doing some maintenance of some sort of something with my father.
The first day I was old enough to go to school on the bus, I went to the bus stop excited for my big day. I was met with ridicule so bad I went home in tears. My mother told me the next day basically suck it up, I have to go to WORK and cannot assist getting you to school.
Daily I endured ridicule because of being unable to afford similar things as almost all of the other kids. I was beaten and physically held down by bullies regularly. White privilege?
I remember being one of only 2 kids in class to attend a certain kids birthday party at his home because he was first gen from India and yes that was pretty racist for so many to shun him.
When I received the greatest Christmas present ever my first bicycle and learned to ride it I was ridiculed because it was the cheapest version made and others had name brands. Now, is this treatment economic?
Or was it because of my race?
Fast forward to when I was maybe ten.
Dads working overtime and weekends, Mom has it easy only working 40 hours a week. However she is having a hard time socially due to not having as nice things as the majority of others around us.
She was unable to be promoted at work.
She was 100 percent taking care of us. All the while Totally socially ostracized and demeaned by others of higher economic status.
I guess my white privilege was having to watch her mental breakdown and watch her dragged into an institution physically restrained screaming “I want my children”
Our home was vandalized often and our cars were broken into and stereos stolen.
I began work as a paperboy age 12. That was great and maybe white privilege, while other kids played baseball I rolled up and delivered their families their newspapers.
That was my white privilege.
Thing is, I am not complaining. At least those who physically assualted me several times as a child didn’t use weapons, and I am grateful for that.
I did have a few friends. VERY GRATEFUL for that.
I had freedom. These are just a few of the things in my knapsack from an earlier age. There’s much more, but these were all before I reached puberty.
Looking back I have no regrets. I realize I am quite lucky compared to millions despite being mentally ill.
White privilege?

 

[huskeR32]

The thing is fighting against these inane concepts is impossible, because if you attempt to do so, they say oh you are in denial.

Before making this claim, how about directly answering any of the many questions that have been posed to you?

Wait you made a point I have not been programmed how to respond to.

You are the only person who is coming off this way so far. If you're such a paragon of free thought, then you should be able to answer the many questions that have been posed to you.

I feel this excerpt confirms what I have mentioned regarding terminology.

I feel that excerpt is doing the exact opposite; it's confirming that white privilege is a real thing, but many people with that privilege get too defensive to be able to have constructive conversations about it. This sentence, especially, tends to be where a lot of people get off track:

White privilege is not the suggestion that white people have never struggled.

I'm not sure how you read this line, but it's saying "Yes, some white people struggle now and then, that doesn't change the fact that white privilege is a real thing."

Many people have come into this thread, said "I'm white, and here's my anecdotal story about a time I faced some obstacles in life, which proves that white privilege doesn't exist," and then refused to listen to anything else bigger than or beyond their own personal experience.

If the term does not apply to poor rural white people in America, then how is it a good choice of terminology to make sweeping generalizations about ALL people of a given skin color?
If it’s not true for all of those people...

It does apply to them, though. Nothing in that excerpt you supplied, nor any of your own posts, have shown that to not be the case.

--

If we want to have a discussion about privilege in America I suggest calling it economic privilege.

Before going down this road, how about you directly answer the questions already posed to you about this topic?

If the only privilege that exists is economic, and there are no entrenched disadvantages facing non-whites, then what explains the 2.5x greater poverty rate among black Americans?

People have spent entire careers studying race relations, and have come to the opposite conclusion than you; why exactly are you so confident in your dismissal of those conclusions? On what specific points do you disagree with them? What data do you have to counter theirs?

The rest of your post is exactly what I mentioned above; a bunch of anecdotal grievances that you think invalidate greater truths faced by millions of other people.

Go back to your own excerpt: "White privilege is not the suggestion that white people have never struggled." Anecdotes about your family struggling rebut a claim that nobody has ever made.

 

[Northstar]

Well, this awkward moment happened.

 

[Groundfish]

I am not swayed by a bunch of affluent pseudo intellectual professors who in many cases have never been outside the insulated world of education.
That’s point one.
Point 2. When I have benefited from the freedom afforded to me by virtue of my hugely good luck of being born in a free country and working hard I will absolutely push back against these same people inventing absurd terminology and espousing communism.

 

[huskeR32]

I am not swayed by a bunch of affluent pseudo intellectual professors who in many cases have never been outside the insulated world of education.
That’s point one.

On what specific points do you disagree with them? What data do you have to counter theirs?

C'mon, man. If you're gonna lecture us all as being too dumb to respond with anything other than our "programming," do better than this.

Point 2. When I have benefited from the freedom afforded to me by virtue of my hugely good luck of being born in a free country and working hard I will absolutely push back against these same people inventing absurd terminology and espousing communism.

So it is just hard work and nothing more. Black people face poverty at a 2.5x higher rate because they're lazy. I've asked you three times now to directly say otherwise, and you refuse.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I am not swayed by a bunch of affluent pseudo intellectual professors who in many cases have never been outside the insulated world of education.

It might surprise you to learn that even the most insular professor uses the same day-to-day services as "normal" people, e.g. busses, shops, banks, pavements, cinemas, restaurants... I could go on.

 

[Scaff]

I am not swayed by a bunch of affluent pseudo intellectual professors who in many cases have never been outside the insulated world of education.

However you are swayed by an affluant pseudo intellectual journalist with no background, experience or qualifications in the subject.

 

[novcze]

The term or the practice?

The term is divisive so I don't see any good in using it ... and how can one abandon something that is dependant on ethnic breakup of a nation?