White Privilege

[Scaff]

No?

I'm merely using language. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

That you are reducing every incidence to racism.

Your family doesn't have to be white, in fact you yourself don't even need to be white, for you to have an absolutist view on the word racism. You seem to think it only applies in very specific scenarios.

I do, not everything is a result of a belief in racial superiority.

Sure. It even applies in situations that include racism.

And those that don't.

In what context? Superior in terms of? You just described a bias.

Nope.

Prejudice against another group is an indication of superiority of that group for the purposes of the person with the prejudice.

For example, if I prefer a sandwich spreader for the purposes of spreading mayonnaise, I can consider the sandwich spreader superior for that purpose. Even without considering a sandwich spreader superior in all ways. Likewise an overtly, thorough, supremacist, racist can consider white people superior at thinking and black people superior at sports.

Can you please point out where in the definitions of bias, prejudice and preference it states a requirement for superiority?

These three words can be based around superiority, but its not a requirement for them to be. However for Racism it is a requirement.

I'm aware that it can be used in those cases, I was answering your question.

In which case people do go around using it, which is odd as you said they didn't.

Probably I'd go with naturally intelligent people being the most privileged group in western societies. Or maybe people who have the use of their extremities. Or maybe just people who can see. Definitely people who are not blind are up there for most privileged. Way beyond straight white male. We haven't had a blind president, for example. I wonder if there's ever been a blind CEO?

Edit:

Ah yes. There is one, but it's his company that he's CEO of. Not quite what I had in mind.

Blind people are the most privileged group? I'm going to have to ask for a citation on that one.

 

[G.T.Ace]

Sneaking this in:

 

[Northstar]

Blind people are the most privileged group? I'm going to have to ask for a citation on that one.

You may want to re-read that part.

 

[Scaff]

You may want to re-read that part.

That makes it even worse now we have arguments to the absurd.

 

[Groundfish]

Sneaking this in:

Lol. The video begins somewhat okay, but about 3:00 non sequitur leaps of faith are made and it spins off into fantasyland.
Quite humorous and I assume tongue in check.


This is what happens when the program gets an input but there’s no logic to generate an output for said input.



https://dailycaller.com/2017/09/18/white-privilege-is-a-racist-concept/

Good point made in the article. I believe he said the concept marginalizes his accomplishment because the converse is true.
Ie the logic of white privilege applied in reverse would mean that a hard working man only achieved what he did because of affirmative action. Again this idea is disgusting.

 

[Groundfish]

edit, sorry unintentional double post

 

[G.T.Ace]

 

[Scaff]

Lol. The video begins somewhat okay, but about 3:00 non sequitur leaps of faith are made and it spins off into fantasyland.
Quite humorous and I assume tongue in check.


This is what happens when the program gets an input but there’s no logic to generate an output for said input.



https://dailycaller.com/2017/09/18/white-privilege-is-a-racist-concept/

Good point made in the article. I believe he said the concept marginalizes his accomplishment because the converse is true.
Ie the logic of white privilege applied in reverse would mean that a hard working man only achieved what he did because of affirmative action. Again this idea is disgusting.

It's good to see that you are still not resorting to 'affluant pseudo intellectual journalist with no background, experience or qualifications in the subject.'
Oh wait, you posted a clip from Tucker Carlson. Remind me what his down to earth background and experience on this subject is (you might want to also explore so of the dog whistle comments he's made in the past as well).

Tucker Carlson is to be blunt, a moron.

The second piece is so full of inaccuracies, anecdotes and logical fallacies, however that's fine as it's an opinion piece that makes not attempt to support the claims it makes.

 

[Biggles]

I see Danoff's point. White privilege may be a thing, but so are many other forms of privilege: good-looking privilege, tall privilege, intelligence privilege etc.

So a big step forward was made when Obama, a person of colour, became President, but Trump similarly struck a blow against ingrained privilege when he proved that even a ****ing moron could become President of the United States. Progress!

 

[Groundfish]

Let’s look at this logically...The definition of white...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white

The definition of privilege...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/privilege

So the term being espoused which disgusts me for so many reasons is white plus privilege...Well what does that equal?

This
: being a member of a group or race characterized by light pigmentation of the skin
b: of, relating to, characteristic of, or consisting of white people or their culture
c[ from the former stereotypical association of good character with northern European descent ] : marked by upright fairness

plus this...
: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor : PREROGATIVEespecially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office.

Equals a group or race that has a right or immunity granted to them.

What is the higher authority granting this privilege? God?
So where is the dividing point between having light pigmentation of the skin and having some other pigmentation? Is this something an individual has control over without medical intervention?

Privilege is easy to use in a sentence. A person in America can earn a drivers license by passing a test and then they are granted the privilege of being able to operate a vehicle lawfully.

I am having trouble with the white part here. The definition from Merriam Webster literally says it’s a group or race defined by light skin pigmentation. What is the definition of light in relation to skin pigmentation?
Is there only light and then dark? Where is the lightness or darkness level dividing line between white and nonwhite?


This is the definition of light according to the same source.


: something that makes vision possible
b: the sensation aroused by stimulation of the visual receptors
c: electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength that travels in a vacuum with a speed of 299,792,458 meters (about 186,000 miles) per secondspecifically : such radiation that is visible to the human eye
2a: DAYLIGHTwas up each morning at the first light— Frank O'Connor
b: DAWN

another was not dark?

If two people are going to have a rational discussion then there must be a concrete definition of terms up front or really it ends up with ad hominem as we just saw.
Tucker made an argument, there was no direct rebuttal given, just as there has been no direct rebuttals given to others in this thread who have clearly refuted those espousing the use of illogical intentionally racially divided terminology.

The dog whistle poppycock is a red herring. Recently a regressive leftist in the USA accused the president of being a racist. When asked why she replied “the words he uses” “dog whistles”

So, she has been elected to public office in the USA, and is a Socialist leftist dingbat. When asked to support her position with reason she was unable to do so.

Ultimately, I am still left absolutely where I was in the beginning of my participation in the discussion here.
I offered a suggestion to improve the discourse, and anyone can go back and read my and others posts which have refuted the position of the people who advocate the continued use of divisive terminology.

I have not been convinced that the terminology is positive or useful, my faith has only been strengthened in my own position by attempted refutations that have a lot of problems. Calling people morons doesn’t solve anything.

Furthermore using a term associating a privilege with a skin pigmentation, in order to be true must be true of all people with that skin pigmentation. If there is even one individual in the history of humanity which has the skin pigmentation but has not been granted the privilege,
then the term is false.

I think it would be more useful and positive to listen to this song on repeat than try to use a soft science educational job to reinvent etymology in a divisive and negative manner...

 

[G.T.Ace]

You're not understanding what a social construct is.
This piece might be able to explain a lot to you: https://www.communitysolutionsva.org/files/WhitePrivilege_Complicity.pdf

Also:

 

[Scaff]

Why are you ignoring the sources that have already been provided in this thread about racial groups in the US?

It seems that once again you have resorted to ingoing questions asked, answers and sources given, and are again just rephrasing the same misunderstanding in a different way.

BTW, when Trump was managing his father's rental business in NY they had policies in place to actively bar black tenants. They were sued (successfully) by the DoJ. So I'm quite comfortable calling him a racist.

 

[novcze]

Feel free to call it White Bias if you like.

yeah white bias, that's totally better ... what about other "colored" biases or is only white one problematic? Or is it because "whites" are majority in some nations so their subconscious bias is a problem?

 

[Scaff]

yeah white bias, that's totally better ... what about other "colored" biases or is only white one problematic? Or is it because "whites" are majority in some nations so their subconscious bias is a problem?

I don't belief I've even said that via its limited to only a single group.

In fact I've reprehensible said that it's doesn't, and done so repeatedly.

Feel free to keep going I'm sure your path isn't at all predictable.

 

[G.T.Ace]

yeah white bias, that's totally better ... what about other "colored" biases or is only white one problematic? Or is it because "whites" are majority in some nations so their subconscious bias is a problem?

Please watch all of the videos plus the .PDF I posted in my last couple of posts.
All of this stuff covers exactly what you're asking about.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Or is it because "whites" are majority in some nations so their subconscious bias is a problem?

White privilege demonstrably doesn't just come from whites. That's part of the point, although your implicit inference to subconscious white bias is interesting.

 

[PocketZeven]

The existence of white privilege does not exclude the existance of black, asian etc. privilege.

 

[Biggles]

yeah white bias, that's totally better ... what about other "colored" biases or is only white one problematic? Or is it because "whites" are majority in some nations so their subconscious bias is a problem?

"White bias" is present in many countries where "whites" are not a majority - obviously, in South Africa during apartheid, but also in many countries in the present that have a very racially mixed population.

 

[Danoff]

That you are reducing every incidence to racism.

Uh... I don't think I am. I'm "reducing" bias against particular skin colors to racism... which is what it is.

I do, not everything is a result of a belief in racial superiority.

But bias against particular skin colors is racism. Sure, not everything is. But that one thing is.

And those that don't.

Yea, like a bias against ugly people.... so... language.

Can you please point out where in the definitions of bias, prejudice and preference it states a requirement for superiority?

Ok. Let's do a test. Ready? Here's a statement "black people are good at sports". Racist?

These three words can be based around superiority, but its not a requirement for them to be. However for Racism it is a requirement.

See the above test.

In which case people do go around using it, which is odd as you said they didn't.

No... that doesn't follow. You said "it can be used", and I agreed. I didn't agree with the notion that people "go around using it". Try again.

Blind people are the most privileged group? I'm going to have to ask for a citation on that one.

NON-blind people are a more privileged group than white, heterosexual, males. Here's a test, I'm a white, heterosexual, male. Would I prefer to be a black, homosexual, female or blind? Um... I'll go with black, homosexual, female. Same for black heterosexual male, asian heterosexual male, asian homosexual male, black homosexual male, and native american/jewish/Hispanic bisexual female. How about you?

 

[Scaff]

Uh... I don't think I am. I'm "reducing" bias against particular skin colors to racism... which is what it is.

Then you will have no problem proving that with an independent, peer reviewed source.

But bias against particular skin colors is racism. Sure, not everything is. But that one thing is.

Then you will have no problem proving that with an independent, peer reviewed source.

Yea, like a bias against ugly people.... so... language.

No, a double standard on your part.

Ok. Let's do a test. Ready? Here's a statement "black people are good at sports". Racist?

A gross generalization. Some black people are good at sport, as are some white people.

See the above test.

Nope. See the dictionary definitions. Or are you under the belief that you get to redefine them?

No... that doesn't follow. You said "it can be used", and I agreed. I didn't agree with the notion that people "go around using it". Try again.

So its not been a commonly used term in the media at all? Odd as a bucket load of people I'm aware of have been using it and talking about it.

The term "white, male straight privilege" returns 22 million google hits, I would say that's a fair bit of use.

NON-blind people are a more privileged group than white, heterosexual, males. Here's a test, I'm a white, heterosexual, male. Would I prefer to be a black, homosexual, female or blind? Um... I'll go with black, homosexual, female. Same for black heterosexual male, asian heterosexual male, asian homosexual male, black homosexual male, and native american/jewish/Hispanic bisexual female. How about you?

Its a non-argument as my position on it is utterly irrelevant (unless a sample size of one is now worth a toss).

You made the claim, you support the claim (and with something other than 'Danoff says so').

I see Danoff's point. White privilege may be a thing, but so are many other forms of privilege: good-looking privilege, tall privilege, intelligence privilege etc.

No-one has denied that other forms of privilege exist.

 

[LeMansAid]

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.

The choice of which problematic aspect to focus on is interesting as well though. My impression is that there are far more people trying to fix the poorer treatment (in some places) of non-white people than there are people trying to fix the treatment of ugly or short people. Having some deniers is a favourable position to be in over having next to no-one give a toss about your plight.

Someone might argue that humpback whales are not actually endangered. You know what? I'm still picking being a humpback whale over being a hooded plover (an endangered "boring" bird). A significant number of people actually give a toss about the humpback's plight and fight for them, and in the same way people actually give a toss about the plight of black people in America. Uglies, shorties and plovers are all out of luck, I reckon.

In my opinion, faced with @Danoff's question about why there's a focus on "this one", the almost complete inaction on "other ones" more than cancels out the relevance of deniers of "white privilege" when doing a comparison. I'm left thinking that as with whales it's just a more attractive crusade for people keeping up with the plight de jour.

 

[novcze]

White privilege demonstrably doesn't just come from whites. That's part of the point, although your implicit inference to subconscious white bias is interesting.

It wasn't me who defined white privilege as subconscious bias, so if it doesn't matter if that bias comes from white or "colored" people (btw. I really dislike using this racial bs) why call it white privilege, is that because "whites" benefit from it? That would be silly.

 

[Scaff]

I see Danoff's point. White privilege may be a thing, but so are many other forms of privilege: good-looking privilege, tall privilege, intelligence privilege etc.

No-one has denied that other for

It wasn't me who defined white privilege as subconscious bias, so if it doesn't matter if that bias comes from white or "colored" people (btw. I really dislike using this racial bs) why call it white privilege, is that because "whites" benefit from it? That would be silly.

Rather simply because in Western societies they are

 

[Biggles]

No-one has denied that other forms of privilege exist.

If you're going to keep quoting me, you should include the second half of my post ...

So a big step forward was made when Obama, a person of colour, became President, but Trump similarly struck a blow against ingrained privilege when he proved that even a ****ing moron could become President of the United States. Progress!

Ie. for a person of colour to become President, he had to be Barack Obama, for (another) white person to become President, he only had to be Donald J. Trump.

The choice of which problematic aspect to focus on is interesting as well though. My impression is that there are far more people trying to fix the poorer treatment (in some places) of non-white people than there are people trying to fix the treatment of ugly or short people. Having some deniers is a favourable position to be in over having next to no-one give a toss about your plight.

Perhaps the other major "problematic aspect to focus on" has been "male privilege". You may have noticed, there have been a lot of people trying to fix that over the last century.

 

[Scaff]

If you're going to keep quoting me, you should include the second half of my post ...

Why?

I was only replying to the first point (and agree utterly with the second point).

 

[Danoff]

Then you will have no problem proving that with an independent, peer reviewed source.

I need a peer-reviewed journal to support the claim that a bias against a skin color is racism? Wow. I know that you like to jump to the "find me scientific evidence" angle in arguments, but this is an impressive one to me. I think the fact that you absolutely dodged my example about a racist statement later in your post actually just makes it clear that you get it, and you might even agree. Even if, for some very strange reason, you think that bias against a particular skin color is not racism, do you seriously have such a problem with me using the term that way? I have no idea why. You seem to be looking for a way to define your way around the idea that white privilege is anything but racism, and it's a totally unnecessary, confusing, and undermining exercise that will do nothing but cause further backlash against the term white privilege and confuse people about what racism is.

No, a double standard on your part.

You're gonna have to walk me through this one, because I'm completely missing any double standard on my part. Please do explain.

A gross generalization. Some black people are good at sport, as are some white people.

Racist? Or not racist? I didn't ask whether it was true.

Nope. See the dictionary definitions. Or are you under the belief that you get to redefine them?

Maybe take a stab at answer my question (the one we're talking about right above this), and you'll see that your dictionary definition is lacking.

So its not been a commonly used term in the media at all? Odd as a bucket load of people I'm aware of have been using it and talking about it.

You've shifted the argument completely away from where it was. I'm not claiming that white privilege is not a commonly used term. Try again.

Its a non-argument as my position on it is utterly irrelevant (unless a sample size of one is now worth a toss).

Then I suppose you'll have no trouble providing a peer-reviewed independent source that confirms that white-straight-males are the most privileged group of all groups. Good luck with that, it's impossible. I gave you a quick counter example to show you how nonsensical that claim is, and you're not interested.

You made the claim, you support the claim (and with something other than 'Danoff says so').

And from the above statement, you'll see that all I did was provide a quick counter-example to your absurd claim which is literally impossible to support. You'll find no documentation that credibly claims that of any of the infinite possible groups you can create, the group consisting of white male straight people is the most privileged. You should probably retract.

 

[Scaff]

I need a peer-reviewed journal to support the claim that a bias against a skin color is racism? Wow. I know that you like to jump to the "find me scientific evidence" angle in arguments, but this is an impressive one to me. I think the fact that you absolutely dodged my example about a racist statement later in your post actually just makes it clear that you get it, and you might even agree. Even if, for some very strange reason, you think that bias against a particular skin color is not racism, do you seriously have such a problem with me using the term that way? I have no idea why. You seem to be looking for a way to define your way around the idea that white privilege is anything but racism, and it's a totally unnecessary, confusing, and undermining exercise that will do nothing but cause further backlash against the term white privilege and confuse people about what racism is.

Why do I have a problem with you using the term in that way?

Because I disagree with you and do not believe that you have offered anything close to proof that it is.

Also please don't miss-quote me. I've not said that bias can't have a racist element to it, I've said that its not always the case. I've also never claimed that "white privilege is anything but racism", what I have repeatedly said that as the factors behind the two (racism and white privilege) can be different, that the two terms are not perfectly interchangeable and as such we can't just do away with one of them.

You're gonna have to walk me through this one, because I'm completely missing any double standard on my part. Please do explain.

Unless I'm very much mistaken you seem to be applying a superiority factor to bias against race, but not to bias against other subjects. That seems a lot like a double standard.

Racist? Or not racist? I didn't ask whether it was true.

Why does it have to be a binary choice?

Once again its reductionist down to an absurd point that (in your mind) leaves only two options, with no allowance for context.

Maybe take a stab at answer my question (the one we're talking about right above this), and you'll see that your dictionary definition is lacking.

So the dictionary is wrong, that's quite a claim.

You've shifted the argument completely away from where it was. I'm not claiming that white privilege is not a commonly used term. Try again.

You claimed that other forms of privilege are not talked about commonly, my post was not about a single form, but three. so no I haven't shifted it away from anything, I've simply addressed the claim you have made.

Then I suppose you'll have no trouble providing a peer-reviewed independent source that confirms that white-straight-males are the most privileged group of all groups. Good luck with that, it's impossible. I gave you a quick counter example to show you how nonsensical that claim is, and you're not interested.

And from the above statement, you'll see that all I did was provide a quick counter-example to your absurd claim which is literally impossible to support. You'll find no documentation that credibly claims that of any of the infinite possible groups you can create, the group consisting of white male straight people is the most privileged. You should probably retract.

Go back and re-read what I posted. Its not my claim, I'm point out that many of the articles that come up from a search on the term state it is (I didn't even say that I agreed with it).

 

[Danoff]

Why do I have a problem with you using the term in that way?

Because I disagree with you and do not believe that you have offered anything close to proof that it is.

Why does it have to be a binary choice?

Once again its reductionist down to an absurd point that (in your mind) leaves only two options, with no allowance for context.

So the dictionary is wrong, that's quite a claim.

This is getting rather annoying. I thought you'd back down in the face of what is painfully correct, which is that bias against someone on the basis of skin color is racist. You can't let it go... so let's take a look at your dictionary definition. Racism.

So... definition number 3 then? Are we good? Did we really need to go through this?

Edit:

Still dodging that example I see. Your position is now that it's kinda racism... sorta in-between racist. Seems like unnecessary hoops to jump through to support an unnecessary position.

Unless I'm very much mistaken you seem to be applying a superiority factor to bias against race, but not to bias against other subjects. That seems a lot like a double standard.

Uh... I'm completely not following you.

You claimed that other forms of privilege are not talked about commonly, my post was not about a single form, but three. so no I haven't shifted it away from anything, I've simply addressed the claim you have made.

No... following the conversation back we were talking about one... white privilege. I think you've perhaps not intentionally shifted this away from the argument, but just lost sight of it in the process of all the quoting. I'm only up for one quote-mining exercise at the moment, the next one. We were talking about "white privilege" here. And I'm still not claiming that white privilege is an uncommon term.

Go back and re-read what I posted. Its not my claim, I'm point out that many of the articles that come up from a search on the term state it is (I didn't even say that I agreed with it).

Ok, time to quote mine:

I'm surprised you have never heard it mentioned that straight, white, males are the most privileged group in western societies.

Go for it... let's see your peer reviewed articles that support this impossible-to-support claim.

Also, I'm noticing a lot of editing going on in some of these older posts. I'm responding pretty quickly, so if you're editing it shortly after you're posting, I may not be seeing it. I hope you're not editing to change the conversation history though.

 

[Scaff]

This is getting rather annoying. I thought you'd back down in the face of what is painfully correct, which is that bias against someone on the basis of skin color is racist. You can't let it go... so let's take a look at your dictionary definition. Racism

So... definition number 3 then? Are we good? Did we really need to go through this?

Good? Nope, go back to the definitions I provided bias, is not only prejudice.

"Inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair."

Still dodging that example I see. Your position is now that it's kinda racism... sorta in-between racist. Seems like unnecessary hoops to jump through to support an unnecessary position.

I'm not dodging I've explained quite consistently what my position is. I've also asked that you not keep attempting to re-position it to try and support your own view of what I should think.

Uh... I'm completely not following you.

I have a bias towards green cars, does that mean I believe they are superior?

No... following the conversation back we were talking about one... white privilege. I think you've perhaps not intentionally shifted this away from the argument, but just lost sight of it in the process of all the quoting. I'm only up for one quote-mining exercise at the moment, the next one. We were talking about "white privilege" here. And I'm still not claiming that white privilege is an uncommon term.

I didn't say that you did.

What you said was:

"Most people don't label other privileges. We don't walk around saying "oh you're hot privileged". We don't call people who can see "sight privileged". That's why."

My examples show that, yes people do label other privileges.

Ok, time to quote mine:

Go for it... let's see your peer reviewed articles that support this impossible-to-support claim.

Also, I'm noticing a lot of editing going on in some of these older posts. I'm responding pretty quickly, so if you're editing it shortly after you're posting, I may not be seeing it.

Once again not my claim.

I asked a question, "....I'm surprised you have never heard...", I at no point stated it as a personal fact, or that I even agreed with it.

I hope you're not editing to change the conversation history though.

I'm not. Quite a charge to raise, even as a suspicion.

 

[Danoff]

Good? Nope, go back to the definitions I provided bias, is not only prejudice.

"Inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair."

I fail to see how this helps you even a little. I seriously cannot believe you're still not backing down on this. Bias against someone based on skin color is racism according to your own dictionary definition. Give it up.

I'm not dodging I've explained quite consistently what my position is. I've also asked that you not keep attempting to re-position it to try and support your own view of what I should think.

So your official position is that the phrase "black people are good at sports" is semi-racist but not really, but not not racist? Do I have that right?

I have a bias towards green cars, does that mean I believe they are superior?

Yes, for at least some purpose yes. It's inescapable.

My examples show that, yes people do label other privileges.

They don't commonly. Specifically, they don't establish that the term "male privilege" or "man privilege" or the term "heterosexual privilege" or "straight privilege" are commonly used. Nor does it establish that "white straight male privilege" is a commonly used term. Also, you're totally trying to dodge my point with something that is irrelevant.

Once again not my claim.

I asked a question, "....I'm surprised you have never heard...", I at no point stated it as a personal fact, or that I even agreed with it.

Let's go back to where this started. I claimed that the misunderstood "white privilege" has an "accusational tone". You said it was no more accusational than any other and then delivered a phrase which you apparently don't even agree with (edit: or are you still refusing to actually take a position here), including examples that aren't even examples.

"White privilege" does have an unnecessarily accsuational tone, because it attempts to label people who are unaffected by a particular disadvantage instead of labeling the particular disadvantage (which is what we normally do). For some reason, when we rectify this, by properly (at least definition number 3) defining it according to the disadvantage (racism) you seem to think we've lost the message. Why? Because you think that the misguided unsubstantiated accusation is correct?

I'm not. Quite a charge to raise, even as a suspicion.

You don't get to try to lawyer your way out of a claim by saying "I'm surprised you have never heard" is not your own claim, and then claim that I "raised" a charge when I said "I hope". That's a double-standard.