White Privilege

  • Thread starter Earth
  • 1,707 comments
  • 78,703 views
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.
Inclination or prejudice.

Inclination: "a person's natural tendency or urge to act or feel in a particular way; a disposition." I'm not seeming superiority as a factor in that, maybe we need to look at disposition.

Disposition: "a person's inherent qualities of mind and character." Nope, its not in that one either.

Seems that bias can have two routes one which does have a concept of superiority in it, and another that doesn't.

Give it up.
Seriously. Brow-beating and demands is now what you're going to?



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?
Nope, good job I didn't say that. Again please stick to what I actually said, not what you want me you have said.


Yes, for at least some purpose yes. It's inescapable.
I disagree. In this regard green is simply my favorite colour, its has no root in me thinking that green is in anyway inherently superior to other colours. I have absolutely no hierarchy of superiority on the colour wheel at all.


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.
It returns 22 million hit.

Male Privilege is the first auto complete on google, with 138 million hits.
Straight Privilege is the second auto complete, with 45 million hits
White Privilege gets the tops sport on hits with 142 million, but on its own does even make the auto complete top ten

It seems that in terms of what people search for white and male are petty much neck and neck.


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?
You feel that it has an accusational tone. I feel it has no more of an accusational tone that any other form of privilege, further more I feel that that tone will vary depending on how its explained and who is receiving the message and how much it may challenge the pre-conceptions they have.


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.
I'm not attempting to 'lawyer' out of anything, I'm explaining what I wrote, as it seems to be needed.

You also seem to have missed the end of my sentence "...even as a suspicion". which is odd given that you quoted it.
 
Inclination or prejudice.

Inclination: "a person's natural tendency or urge to act or feel in a particular way; a disposition." I'm not seeming superiority as a factor in that, maybe we need to look at disposition.

Disposition: "a person's inherent qualities of mind and character." Nope, its not in that one either.

Seems that bias can have two routes one which does have a concept of superiority in it, and another that doesn't.


Seriously. Brow-beating and demands is now what you're going to?

You're not even trying to follow this discussion at this point. Re-read definition number 3 and look for "superior" or "superiority". You're possibly intentionally getting lost in semantics, and you keep shying away from the actual statement.

Bias against someone based on their skin color is... I'm just going to copy paste the dictionary here: "racial prejudice or discrimination" (definition number 3, Mirriam-Webster).

Done, moving on.

I disagree. In this regard green is simply my favorite colour, its has no root in me thinking that green is in anyway inherently superior to other colours.

I don't know what you mean by "inherently" but it wasn't in your original statement. If I were you at this point I'd say "stick to what I actually said", but instead I'll just say that if green is your favorite color, you think it's superior in at least some degree.

Again, you've got nowhere to go.

It returns 22 million hit.

Male Privilege is the first auto complete on google, with 138 million hits.
Straight Privilege is the second auto complete, with 45 million hits
White Privilege gets the tops sport on hits with 142 million, but on its own does even make the auto complete top ten

It seems that in terms of what people search for white and male are petty much neck and neck.

"Turtle privilege" returns 4.3 million.
"Mexico privilege" returns 43.9 million.

Don't be ridiculous.

Also, google's autocomplete is personalized.

You feel that it has an accusational tone. I feel it has no more of an accusational tone that any other form of privilege,

They all do. Because they all attempt to put the focus away from the actual disadvantaged individual, and people are left wondering what the reason for that is.

I'm not attempting to 'lawyer' out of anything, I'm explaining what I wrote, as it seems to be needed.
You also seem to have missed the end of my sentence "...even as a suspicion". which is odd given that you quoted it.

Didn't miss it. It wasn't a suspicion, it was a hope. "Stick to what I actually said".
 
You're not even trying to follow this discussion at this point. Re-read definition number 3 and look for "superior" or "superiority". You're possibly intentionally getting lost in semantics, and you keep shying away from the actual statement.

Bias against someone based on their skin color is... I'm just going to copy paste the dictionary here: "racial prejudice or discrimination" (definition number 3, Mirriam-Webster).
Not following it?

I'm not the one ignoring a word in the definition of Bias, once again: Inclination or prejudice.

I've agreed with you all along that prejudice has a basis in superiority and in the context racism. Its the other word (the one before the OR as yu seem to keep missing it). Inclination, which has no such requirement in its definition, nor do any of the words that make up its defintion.

As such Bias has two roots, not just the one you keep focusing on.


Done, moving on.
Good for you, shame you ignored one of the two roots of bias.


I don't know what you mean by "inherently" but it wasn't in your original statement. If I were you at this point I'd say "stick to what I actually said", but instead I'll just say that if green is your favorite color, you think it's superior in at least some degree.
This has to be some of the most hilarious cod psychology I've seen in a long while.

You have no idea what makes me like the colour green, you have no real idea of who I am, my background, my upbring, etc. But you KNOW that I must somehow think its superior in at least some degree!

That's quite frankly some grade A horse****.


Again, you've got nowhere to go.
All because Danoff has said so.


"Turtle privilege" returns 4.3 million.
"Mexico privilege" returns 43.9 million.

Don't be ridiculous.

Also, google's autocomplete is personalized.
And?

Seems people talk about quite a lot more than you insist they do.


They all do. Because they all attempt to put the focus away from the actual disadvantaged individual, and people are left wondering what the reason for that is.
Is that people or you?


Didn't miss it. It wasn't a suspicion, it was a hope. "Stick to what I actually said".
So you hope I didn't do it.

What lead to that hope, was it a suspicion I may have?

If not, what was it.

You made a thinly veiled accusation, at least have the balls to stand by it.
 
Not following it?

I'm not the one ignoring a word in the definition of Bias, once again: Inclination or prejudice.

I've agreed with you all along that prejudice has a basis in superiority and in the context racism. Its the other word (the one before the OR as yu seem to keep missing it). Inclination, which has no such requirement in its definition, nor do any of the words that make up its defintion.

As such Bias has two roots, not just the one you keep focusing on.

An inclination for one skin color over the other is racial prejudice or discrimination. I made your preferred substitution, it didn't help you.


This has to be some of the most hilarious cod psychology I've seen in a long while.

You have no idea what makes me like the colour green, you have no real idea of who I am, my background, my upbring, etc. But you KNOW that I must somehow think its superior in at least some degree!

That's quite frankly some grade A ********.

Uh... no. I mean you told me all I needed to know - which is that you prefer one over the other. That's why I said it was inescapable - your preference is your own admission that one is superior in at least some degree. Not only do I not need to know who you are, or why you like it... you don't need to know either!


You made a thinly veiled accusation, at least have the balls to stand by it.

I chose my words carefully. You chose to infer more meaning, exactly your own pet peeve, but ironically not one of mine.

Words have meaning, not just technically, but, especially, in context. And if you go back and read my sentence, you'll see that the context full acknowledged alternative possibilities. I pointed it out because if it was happening (and again, I wasn't convinced that it was), I wanted to make sure that it didn't continue happening. I understand that that might be upsetting to you, and I knew that when I made the statement, which is why I provided the alternative. Apparently I didn't soften it enough. So here you go... get ready...

I apologize for making the inference.

Far from having the "balls" (sexist) to stand by it, I'll recognize that I offended you and back off. I know that's not what a man is supposed to do, but you interpreted it more harshly than it was intended, and that's my fault.

Now, back on topic:

I understand at least some form of racism. Keep in mind I'm not saying that I agree with it, but I understand it. I know it, because I have multiple racist relatives, and I've heard what they say behind closed doors when they're in company they trust. I can't deny that it exists, because I've heard the justifications, quite recently in fact. I want to preface what follows by saying that these are not my thoughts (and I think most of you will know that). They are the thoughts of a disturbed individaul that I have the unfortunate privilege of spending time with on occasion.

A racist or sexist may be fully capable of saying that black are good at sports or lazy (weird how those two contradict and yet the same person can hold both views), mexicans good at landscaping or lazy (again), and women good at taking care of children. These are areas where the racist/sexist individual (and I'm thinking of at least two examples from my own experience) can think that others are superior to themselves. To the racist/sexist person there may be nothing inherently wrong or demeaning about being female, or non-white. There's nothing inherently wrong or inferior about those things - it's just that when one belongs to one of those groups, one needs to recognize that their traits (the traits that go along with those skin colors, or gender) do not align with other endeavors, like thinking, or running a country, or running a business, or voting.

The racist may think that other races are suprior at certain activities (such as at sports) and inferior at other activies (such as at thinking). And this merely implies that in the area of playing sports, the white person may have defernce to the non-white person's superior skills... basketball is the specific example that was presented to me by this racist... and yet a self-actualized non-white person should know better than to think that they can keep up with a white person, especially a white male, in the area of IQ (again, specific example presented to me). And this is clearly borne out in statistics, where black people dominate in basketball and white people dominate in IQ.

It's not a matter of one race or gender being superior in all aspects. We need people to run the country, we need people to raise the children, and we need people to work the fields. And the people with each of those aptitudes should be proud to fullfill those roles. A white man should never presume to tell a white woman how best to care for her children, that's her domain. Of course if she were to point out that mistakes that a black woman was making, that would only be natural since she has the superior intelligence genetics, but maybe not the same stamina for manual labor. I know this sounds insane, trust me I know. But I'm also telling you with absolute certainy, that there are (old) people alive today that think this and tell me directly.

Some of this works its way back into regular society in the form of benevolent sexism. In fact, in times past, benevolent racism used to exist. Civil war era writing (and current thinking, again, expressed directly to me), includes the idea that it is in non-whites' best interest to be removed from situations where their particular aptitudes are not suited. And some of these statements are expressed against the very group that these people belong to. I have literally had a woman tell me that women should not be allowed to vote - because they are not smart enough to do so. This person also believes that women are uniquely superior at many particular things... just not critical thinking. She may actually believe that women are the nobler, better, sex, I'm not entirely sure. But she definitely believes that intelligence, leadership, decision making, and philosphy are not the persuits of a woman, and better left to men. This woman voted against Hillary (in case you were doubting).

It is every bit as racist when these people say that black people are superior atheletes. It is every bit as sexist when these people say that women are better suited for homemaking. Recognition of superiority in some aspect does not preclude racial discrimination or prejudice. "Benevolent" sexism and racism, and even ascribing a paritcular talent (such as picking cotton) to a particular group, is still sexist or racist.
No superiority needed.
 
Hmmm.
It seems the elephant in the room is that no matter how much you write think etc.
The reality is that not all humans are equal in their qualities.
In a free society people are free to do their best to maximize their potential.
Yes, the truth is some people are just lucky to be born into economic privilege.
Life is competitive.
No matter how much you try you cannot theorize the perfect society or way of thinking.
You cannot equalize everything for all.
That is a fools errand.
 
An inclination for one skin color over the other is racial prejudice or discrimination. I made your preferred substitution, it didn't help you.
Not according the definition provided. As such its perfectly reasonable for bias to exist in two difference circumstances, based on context and circumstance.



Uh... no. I mean you told me all I needed to know - which is that you prefer one over the other. That's why I said it was inescapable - your preference is your own admission that one is superior in at least some degree. Not only do I not need to know who you are, or why you like it... you don't need to know either!
So preference has to mean superiority?

My preference is not admission that one is superior to another. I have a preference for red wine over white, that doesn't mean I consider it superior, particularly given that I've had many great white wines. It simply means that given a choice I tend to opt for the red, not that its automatically better than the white on offer.



I chose my words carefully. You chose to infer more meaning, exactly your own pet peeve, but ironically not one of mine.

Words have meaning, not just technically, but, especially, in context. And if you go back and read my sentence, you'll see that the context full acknowledged alternative possibilities. I pointed it out because if it was happening (and again, I wasn't convinced that it was), I wanted to make sure that it didn't continue happening. I understand that that might be upsetting to you, and I knew that when I made the statement, which is why I provided the alternative. Apparently I didn't soften it enough. So here you go... get ready...

I apologize for making the inference.
Many thanks, and as you say "Words have meaning, not just technically, but, especially, in context", which is exactly what I have been saying for the last few days.

Far from having the "balls" (sexist) to stand by it, I'll recognize that I offended you and back off. I know that's not what a man is supposed to do, but you interpreted it more harshly than it was intended, and that's my fault.

Now, back on topic:
You didn't offend me.

I understand at least some form of racism. Keep in mind I'm not saying that I agree with it, but I understand it. I know it, because I have multiple racist relatives, and I've heard what they say behind closed doors when they're in company they trust. I can't deny that it exists, because I've heard the justifications, quite recently in fact. I want to preface what follows by saying that these are not my thoughts (and I think most of you will know that). They are the thoughts of a disturbed individaul that I have the unfortunate privilege of spending time with on occasion.

A racist or sexist may be fully capable of saying that black are good at sports or lazy (weird how those two contradict and yet the same person can hold both views), mexicans good at landscaping or lazy (again), and women good at taking care of children. These are areas where the racist/sexist individual (and I'm thinking of at least two examples from my own experience) can think that others are superior to themselves. To the racist/sexist person there may be nothing inherently wrong or demeaning about being female, or non-white. There's nothing inherently wrong or inferior about those things - it's just that when one belongs to one of those groups, one needs to recognize that their traits (the traits that go along with those skin colors, or gender) do not align with other endeavors, like thinking, or running a country, or running a business, or voting.

The racist may think that other races are suprior at certain activities (such as at sports) and inferior at other activies (such as at thinking). And this merely implies that in the area of playing sports, the white person may have defernce to the non-white person's superior skills... basketball is the specific example that was presented to me by this racist... and yet a self-actualized non-white person should know better than to think that they can keep up with a white person, especially a white male, in the area of IQ (again, specific example presented to me). And this is clearly borne out in statistics, where black people dominate in basketball and white people dominate in IQ.

It's not a matter of one race or gender being superior in all aspects. We need people to run the country, we need people to raise the children, and we need people to work the fields. And the people with each of those aptitudes should be proud to fullfill those roles. A white man should never presume to tell a white woman how best to care for her children, that's her domain. Of course if she were to point out that mistakes that a black woman was making, that would only be natural since she has the superior intelligence genetics, but maybe not the same stamina for manual labor. I know this sounds insane, trust me I know. But I'm also telling you with absolute certainy, that there are (old) people alive today that think this and tell me directly.

Some of this works its way back into regular society in the form of benevolent sexism. In fact, in times past, benevolent racism used to exist. Civil war era writing (and current thinking, again, expressed directly to me), includes the idea that it is in non-whites' best interest to be removed from situations where their particular aptitudes are not suited. And some of these statements are expressed against the very group that these people belong to. I have literally had a woman tell me that women should not be allowed to vote - because they are not smart enough to do so. This person also believes that women are uniquely superior at many particular things... just not critical thinking. She may actually believe that women are the nobler, better, sex, I'm not entirely sure. But she definitely believes that intelligence, leadership, decision making, and philosphy are not the persuits of a woman, and better left to men. This woman voted against Hillary (in case you were doubting).

It is every bit as racist when these people say that black people are superior atheletes. It is every bit as sexist when these people say that women are better suited for homemaking. Recognition of superiority in some aspect does not preclude racial discrimination or prejudice. "Benevolent" sexism and racism, and even ascribing a paritcular talent (such as picking cotton) to a particular group, is still sexist or racist.
No superiority needed.
A very well written piece that outlines your position in this, a position I'm sure you are already know I in part disagree with.

I (and a good body of studies I have already linked to seem to hold the same view) that some bias is subconscious and not based in an individuals belief in superiority.

Now if that's the case (and I know you disagree with it) then the distinction between Racism and White Privilege is a valid one. However even if that's not the case, having numerous terms for the same thing is not exactly unique or novel.
 
So preference has to mean superiority?

Yes. For whatever the purpose of the selection.

My preference is not admission that one is superior to another. I have a preference for red wine over white, that doesn't mean I consider it superior,

It does, for you. For your own tastes... for your own liking.

particularly given that I've had many great white wines. It simply means that given a choice I tend to opt for the red, not that its automatically better than the white on offer.

In which case you believe that white whine is in general better (again, according to your own tastes), but not better in every instance.

Preference, superiority, bias, all has to do with the context in which it exists. And the context in this case is how you generally like wine. For your own tastes, red is superior to white - according to your own statements.


I (and a good body of studies I have already linked to seem to hold the same view) that some bias is subconscious and not based in an individuals belief in superiority.

I think by that you mean general or over-all superiority, and as I have already demonstrated (in multiple ways), racism does not require that. First of all, racism can be only a prejudice or an act of discrimination against someone on that basis of perceived race (that's the definition I quoted you). But also, prejudice can be against the very form that you find generally superior. An example I gave was the woman who believes women should not be allowed to vote. I think she might actually think women are the superior gender, or at least are not inferior in general, but she still holds the sexist-against-women belief that they're not as good at thinking and should not be allowed to vote. It is an act of prejudice and discrimination on the basis of sex.

Now if that's the case (and I know you disagree with it) then the distinction between Racism and White Privilege is a valid one.

I'm going to try to wrap my head around this because it goes against some very organized thoughts of mine. For example, sexual attraction to a particular skin color is a form of racism in my mind (and not necessarily anything to be ashamed of or potentially even "fixed", but something to be recognized). But supposing it was not, supposing that sexual attraction to a particular race is merely "preference" and not racism. And supposing, to keep the terminology as clean as possible here, that this preference was widespread and in favor of white people. You might be tempted to say that "white privilege" has a meaning apart from racism. Ie: sexual attraction to white people, which we defined for the sake of argument as not racist, is creating a privilege among white people of being attractive.

There's an analog to this that already exists, which is the preference for attractive people over ugly people. And it has a term, and it's not "attractive privileged", it's called "lookism", and it means the discriminatory treatment of unattractive people.

See, once again, suggestion is not that attractive people have something unearned, it's a recognition of poor treatment of individuals who did not through any fault of their own create that poor treatment. So if sexual attraction to white people were a thing, and if that were not racist (which I would say it is), I would still not label it white privilege. I would label it a discrimination against non-white people - ie: the problem.

Getting back out of the hypothetical and on-topic, the problem is not that white people are not discriminated against. It's not that attractive people are found attractive. The problem is that anyone is discriminated against. By labeling the non-problem, you attempt to blame the non-problem, and that's why the denials come.

However even if that's not the case, having numerous terms for the same thing is not exactly unique or novel.

In this case, one of the numerous terms is causing a backlash.
 
Yes. For whatever the purpose of the selection.
And yet I do not think green is superior to any other colour. Odd that.


It does, for you. For your own tastes... for your own liking.

In which case you believe that white whine is in general better (again, according to your own tastes), but not better in every instance.
And yet I don;t consider red wine to be superior. I would actually consider, given the vast range of wines, grapes, vintages, storage conditions, etc to be far to variable to make such a blanket statement.

Its a reductionist approach that strips away all context and meaning, to the point that your making a binary choice, on my behalf that doesn't match reality.


Preference, superiority, bias, all has to do with the context in which it exists. And the context in this case is how you generally like wine. For your own tastes, red is superior to white - according to your own statements.
See above, no it doesn't.



I think by that you mean general or over-all superiority, and as I have already demonstrated (in multiple ways), racism does not require that. First of all, racism can be only a prejudice or an act of discrimination against someone on that basis of perceived race (that's the definition I quoted you). But also, prejudice can be against the very form that you find generally superior. An example I gave was the woman who believes women should not be allowed to vote. I think she might actually think women are the superior gender, or at least are not inferior in general, but she still holds the sexist-against-women belief that they're not as good at thinking and should not be allowed to vote. It is an act of prejudice and discrimination on the basis of sex.
The definition of racism disagrees with you.


I'm going to try to wrap my head around this because it goes against some very organized thoughts of mine. For example, sexual attraction to a particular skin color is a form of racism in my mind (and not necessarily anything to be ashamed of or potentially even "fixed", but something to be recognized). But supposing it was not, supposing that sexual attraction to a particular race is merely "preference" and not racism. And supposing, to keep the terminology as clean as possible here, that this preference was widespread and in favor of white people. You might be tempted to say that "white privilege" has a meaning apart from racism. Ie: sexual attraction to white people, which we defined for the sake of argument as not racist, is creating a privilege among white people of being attractive.
Have you considered that the "very organized thoughts of mine" are forcing a reductionist to the point that context, nuance and meaning have been lost

There's an analog to this that already exists, which is the preference for attractive people over ugly people. And it has a term, and it's not "attractive privileged", it's called "lookism", and it means the discriminatory treatment of unattractive people.

See, once again, suggestion is not that attractive people have something unearned, it's a recognition of poor treatment of individuals who did not through any fault of their own create that poor treatment. So if sexual attraction to white people were a thing, and if that were not racist (which I would say it is), I would still not label it white privilege. I would label it a discrimination against non-white people - ie: the problem.

Getting back out of the hypothetical and on-topic, the problem is not that white people are not discriminated against. It's not that attractive people are found attractive. The problem is that anyone is discriminated against. By labeling the non-problem, you attempt to blame the non-problem, and that's why the denials come.
So we call it "discrimination against non-white people" and you think that's all that is required for white people to go 'ah got it, that makes perfect sense'?

I would argue that simply not going to happen, and that people will still either deny they are the problem and/or that it exists.

In this case, one of the numerous terms is causing a backlash.
Because being labeled a racist has never caused a backlash, either historically or contemporary. After all no one has ever started a conversation with "I'm not racist, but...".

Seriously the people who deny that White Privilege exists, or that they may benefit from it are not going to suddenly start nodding away if they get called racists as an alternative.

I mean we have had members here at GTP in the past deny that racism is even a thing....

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/racism-ignored.70720/


...as such dropping White Privilege and calling it all racism isn't going to solve a damn thing. Those that deny it are still going to deny it.

That thread also contains a blast from the past " I don't think it's racist to not find a particular race or characteristic attractive." How time changes things.
 
So we call it "discrimination against non-white people" and you think that's all that is required for white people to go 'ah got it, that makes perfect sense'?

I would argue that simply not going to happen, and that people will still either deny they are the problem ...

...and there it is. In all it's glory.

Ok several points to make here:
1) That's racist
2) That's the real reason you don't want to call "white privilege" racism, because you don't want self-described non-racists to think they are not "the problem".
3) This is why people don't like the term "white privilege", because it appears to be an attempt at labeling white people "the problem".
 
...and there it is. In all it's glory.

Ok several points to make here:
1) That's racist
Best make good use of that report button then.

2) That's the real reason you don't want to call "white privilege" racism, because you don't want self-described non-racists to think they are not "the problem".
Not what I said at all.

3) This is why people don't like the term "white privilege", because it appears to be an attempt at labeling white people "the problem".
No its labeling a problem, a rather key difference.

But I'm sure that labeling them racist doesn't come across as them being a problem at all.
 
One sentence is this entire threads worth of gobbledygook.
Correlation is not causation.
If the pseudo intellectual soft science people who push this divisive terminology would have had to excercise their analytical powers to figure out how to stop the Holocaust we would be speaking German, if we were even alive at all.
My advice was already posted. If there is a discourse to be had then definitions MUST be agreed to before reason can be applied. This is elementary.
If definitions are not agreed upon up front you end up with this thread.
 
Is it truly a privilege or an entitlement? A privilege can be revoked, like driving is a privilege. Is being born white, black, purple, blue, red, whatever, permanent? Yes, then I believe it’s entitlement. It’s not a privilege that was earned by virtue of hard work, will or desire.

I wish people would stop saying privilege.

And the trolls go wild!! :cheers:
 
And yet I do not think green is superior to any other colour. Odd that.

Funny thing the concept of "superior". I have shoes that are superior for running, and shoes that are superior for snow. Neither is superior over all, and yet, I do consider them superior in certain contexts. Not that a notion of superiority is even required for racism, it's not (and the dictionary, and the sports example, should be enough to demonstrate that). But the notion of superiority of something doesn't require overall superiority.


And yet I don;t consider red wine to be superior. I would actually consider, given the vast range of wines, grapes, vintages, storage conditions, etc to be far to variable to make such a blanket statement.

Its a reductionist approach that strips away all context and meaning, to the point that your making a binary choice, on my behalf that doesn't match reality.

...and yet, in the absence of any other information, you decided that your preference would be red, which means you do find it superior in at least that scenario. Not that a notion of superiority is even required for racism, it's not (and the dictionary, and the sports example, should be enough to demonstrate that). But the notion of superiority of something doesn't require overall superiority.


The definition of racism disagrees with you.

Given that I incorporated almost word for word the dictionary definition of racism "prejudice or discrimination", I'd say it doesn't.

Have you considered that the "very organized thoughts of mine" are forcing a reductionist to the point that context, nuance and meaning have been lost

Considered, but not persuaded.

So we call it "discrimination against non-white people" and you think that's all that is required for white people to go 'ah got it, that makes perfect sense'?

I would argue that simply not going to happen, and that people will still either deny they are the problem and/or that it exists.

So, as noted above, white people are not (all) the problem, and so they should be denying that they are the problem. An accusatory term like "white privilege" attempts to make them the problem, and people correctly fight back against that implication. The problem is racism, including when it's directed at white people, and we have a name for it... racism. A name that should be used to describe the problem.

Because being labeled a racist has never caused a backlash, either historically or contemporary. After all no one has ever started a conversation with "I'm not racist, but...".

You missed the point on that one. The point is that the term is causing a backlash, not the meaning. Unless you think the meaning of the term is that white people are the problem, in which case it's the meaning too.

Seriously the people who deny that White Privilege exists, or that they may benefit from it are not going to suddenly start nodding away if they get called racists as an alternative.

They'll understand the actual issue instead of denying that it exists. They'll even, most likely, if you explain "subconscious racism" carefully, understand whether or not they are the problem. Not by examining their skin color (because white people are not inherently the problem), but by examining their actions and attempting to determine whether they have any racist actions that are causing problems.

I mean we have had members here at GTP in the past deny that racism is even a thing....

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/racism-ignored.70720/

There are flat earthers too...

...as such dropping White Privilege and calling it all racism isn't going to solve a damn thing. Those that deny it are still going to deny it.

No. The same group will not deny it in both instances - because the interpreted meaning is different. The term "white privilege" suggests that anyone who is white is the problem, which is untrue, and which you will get a strong negative reaction to. Once those people understand that it's just racism, a lot of them will stop having an issue with it and realize what's being talked about.


That thread also contains a blast from the past " I don't think it's racist to not find a particular race or characteristic attractive." How time changes things.

14 years, an important 14 years for me. But also, I'm technically not wrong there, there's nothing racist about not finding someone attractive. I was contextually wrong though (which is the point I keep harping here).

I made, back then, the same mistake you are making now. To assume that racism is always bad in all circumstances and needs to be corrected, or even can be corrected. Physical attraction in favor of one race over others (which is the bit missing from my statement 14 years ago), is inescapably racist, but it's not evil. Physical attraction in favor of someone you find beautiful over someone you find ugly is lookist (apparently, this is a new term for me), but it's not evil either.

Not what I said at all.

I'm guessing you're going to run from context here.

No its labeling a problem, a rather key difference.

White people, and the "privilege" of not being discriminated against, are and is not a problem.
 
Last edited:
Funny thing the concept of "superior". I have shoes that are superior for running, and shoes that are superior for snow. Neither is superior over all, and yet, I do consider them superior in certain contexts. Not that a notion of superiority is even required for racism, it's not (and the dictionary, and the sports example, should be enough to demonstrate that). But the notion of superiority of something doesn't require overall superiority.
And yet still I don't.



...and yet, in the absence of any other information, you decided that your preference would be red, which means you do find it superior in at least that scenario. Not that a notion of superiority is even required for racism, it's not (and the dictionary, and the sports example, should be enough to demonstrate that). But the notion of superiority of something doesn't require overall superiority.
And yet still I don't



Given that I incorporated almost word for word the dictionary definition of racism "prejudice or discrimination", I'd say it doesn't.
You mean the dictionary definitions that you pick and chose from, and arbitrarily ignore when you feel like? Like the demand you have made that bias, preference and inclination must be forms of superiority?

The dictonary doesn't incorperate your claims for them at all, yet you get to re-define them to suit your needs. Why is that exactly, what authority do you have over the process used to create dictionary definitions?


Considered, but not persuaded.
A shame, I must try harder.


So, as noted above, white people are not (all) the problem, and so they should be denying that they are the problem. An accusatory term like "white privilege" attempts to make them the problem, and people correctly fight back against that implication. The problem is racism, including when it's directed at white people, and we have a name for it... racism. A name that should be used to describe the problem.
And yet the term 'non-white discrimination' does exactly the same.

Your desire to broaden the term of racism results in everyone being racist, yet that somehow is better and more likley to get people to accept it!


You missed the point on that one. The point is that the term is causing a backlash, not the meaning. Unless you think the meaning of the term is that white people are the problem, in which case it's the meaning too.
I've not missed your point at all, I simply don;t agree with it and do not see your alternatives as offering any better solution at all.


They'll understand the actual issue instead of denying that it exists. They'll even, most likely, if you explain "subconscious racism" carefully, understand whether or not they are the problem. Not by examining their skin color (because white people are not inherently the problem), but by examining their actions and attempting to determine whether they have any racist actions that are causing problems.
They'll even, most likely, if you explain "privilege" carefully, understand whether or not they are the problem.


There are flat earthers too...
Indeed their are, but that's not the topic at hand is it.


No. The same group will not deny it in both instances - because the interpreted meaning is different. The term "white privilege" suggests that anyone who is white is the problem, which is untrue, and which you will get a strong negative reaction to. Once those people understand that it's just racism, a lot of them will stop having an issue with it and realize what's being talked about.
Your defintion of racism is exactly the same.

'Don't worry about White Prejudice, you're just racist', yep I can see that going without a hitch!



14 years, an important 14 years for me. But also, I'm technically not wrong there, there's nothing racist about not finding someone attractive. I was contextually wrong though (which is the point I keep harping here).
You do realise you've just argued against your own point here?

The entire point you are making is that is one has a for anything then it shows superiority. If you are showing superiority for one race over an other that is the very definition of racism.

You can't have it both ways. Either its always a superiority, or bias/preference/inclination can exist without the need for considering one superior to the other.



I made, back then, the same mistake you are making now. To assume that racism is always bad in all circumstances and needs to be corrected, or even can be corrected. Physical attraction in favor of one race over others (which is the bit missing from my statement 14 years ago), is inescapably racist, but it's not evil. Physical attraction in favor of someone you find beautiful over someone you find ugly is lookist (apparently, this is a new term for me), but it's not evil either.
Do you not mean to the exclusion of all others?

As if not, its just a list of bias/preference/inclination, and you are still a way from proving that itself requires any form of supremacy.



I'm guessing you're going to run from context here.
That , and its not what I said.



White people, and the "privilege" of not being discriminated against, are and is not a problem.
I've read that a dozen times and it still doesn't scan.
 

capturef1k2g.jpg
 
bias
  1. 1.
    prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
    "there was evidence of bias against foreign applicants"
    synonyms: prejudice, partiality, partisanship, favoritism, unfairness, one-sidednes


  2. Prejudice
  3. noun
    1. 1.
      preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
      "English prejudice against foreigners"
      synonyms: preconceived idea, preconception, preconceived notion;
      prejudgment
      "male prejudices about women
Inclination

un
  1. 1.
    a person's natural tendency or urge to act or feel in a particular way; a disposition or propensity.
    "John was a scientist by training and inclination"
    synonyms: tendency, propensity, proclivity, leaning; More

  2. 2.
    a slope or slant.
    "changes in inclination of the line on the graph"


    If we are to enjoy a civil discourse on anything there is not your definition of a term and mine. It doesn’t make sense. The only true way reason can be applied and a civil discourse can be achieved is if people understand the definitions of the words being used.



 
Last edited:
bias
  1. 1.
    prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
    "there was evidence of bias against foreign applicants"
    synonyms: prejudice, partiality, partisanship, favoritism, unfairness, one-sidednes


  2. Prejudice
  3. noun
    1. 1.
      preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
      "English prejudice against foreigners"
      synonyms: preconceived idea, preconception, preconceived notion;
      prejudgment
      "male prejudices about women
Bias:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/bias

Bias:
  • Inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/bias

Bias:
  • a tendency to prefer one person or thing to another, and to favour that person or thing.
  • a concern with or interest in one thing more than others.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/bias


This is a fun game, which source did you use?
 
It’s not a fun game. It’s the way civil discourse can be achieved and we communicate.
We cannot overtly ascribe properties to people based on their skin pigment and then when they pushback tell them that since we have powers of mental telepathy that we can see they are in denial.
That’s pathology
 
It’s not a fun game. It’s the way civil discourse can be achieved and we communicate.
We cannot overtly ascribe properties to people based on their skin pigment and then when they pushback tell them that since we have powers of mental telepathy that we can see they are in denial.
That’s pathology
You forgot to answer my question.
 
You mean the dictionary definitions that you pick and chose from, and arbitrarily ignore when you feel like? Like the demand you have made that bias, preference and inclination must be forms of superiority?

I'm not ignoring any dictionary definitions. Your preferred definition (Merriam Webster definition number 1), requires a belief in racial superiority. Awesome, I've shown you how that still fits. Also I don't disagree with it, a belief that one race is generally superior to another is racism. My chosen definition (not ignoring yours) is Merriam Webster definition number 3, which does NOT ANYWHERE require a belief in racial superiority. That one fits too, and is still racism. And it reads in its entirety "racial prejudice and discrimination". No "superiority" anywhere to be found in that definition. In otherwords, and I'm going to lay this one out:

RACISM DOES NOT REQUIRE A BELIEF IN GENERAL SUPERIORITY

Not only does Merriam Webster include that among the various definitions of racism, I've also given you examples (which you've attempted to dodge) highlighting exactly why the dictionary would be remiss if it did not include that third definition. My examples were the racist belief that one race can be better at sports (and that belief is used AGAINST that race). And I've given you an example of a sexist who is sexist AGAINST the gender that she is and believes is at least equal (overall).

In other words, I'm thoroughly all over you on this argument. You think racism requires superiority, it doesn't. And that's not just because technically it doesn't, it doesn't because that's not the only way the word is used, and I've given you concrete examples, which you have not chosen to argue against, which demonstrate that that understanding of racism is required.

Then, separately, thoroughly, and unnecessarily, I went on to tackle why your claim of superiority breaks down. It does so because superiority is another broad term which gets used in many ways, and can be used to turn dictionary definition number 1 into dictionary definition number 3. And that happens because the definitions are related.

I've demonstrated, categorically, and undeniably, several different ways, that your attempt to narrow and marginalize the concept of racism is wrong. First, your adherence to one definition over the other is wrong (technically, and from a practical perspective). Second, your adherence to that one definition is also misguided because it can manifest itself more subtly than you give it credit for. My demonstration of BOTH of those two points which are EACH sufficient to destroy your position has not been refuted.


Your desire to broaden the term of racism results in everyone being racist, yet that somehow is better and more likley to get people to accept it!

I'm not a utilitarian. I think they are, I think they're more likely to understand it because it's based on principle rather than wishful thinking. But even if they weren't more likely to accept it, it doesn't matter (I do this a lot by the way, walk down the logic tree on both branches to reach the same conclusion). The fact of the matter is that people do discriminate and have prejudice against other races, and all kinds of unearned features, all the time. People don't want to have sex with someone whose personality they don't like, who has a giant mole on their face, who has a glandular issue that renders them over 200 lbs overweight, who is the gender they do not prefer.... these preferences are not defensible from a rational perspective, and they're not defensible from a fairness perspective. You prefer to take care of your own kids over the kids of your neighbors in part, solely because they are yours - that's genetic discrimination in every way that racism or "lookism" is.

You do not have to defend your personal preferences. It is your right to be as racist as you like. That is your freedom of speech. If you want to associate with beautiful people, nobody should force you to associate with ugly people. But you need to understand what you sacrifice when you make that choice, you might sacrifice an ugly but otherwise very compatible life partner. And that's fine, that's your personal determination.

The bottom line is that you do respond to men and women differently in different situations. You do respond to different races differently in different situations. You do respond to peoples' birth defects and their cancerous growths and their botched plastic surgery. You respond to their breast size, and their height.

There is no denying any of this, and there is no sense in pretending that it cannot manifest itself in countless ways. The important part is to understand these responses so that you can make good logical decisions about them in each of the situations in which they present themselves. You might want to hire the hot secretary who will be incompetent, and in my view, that's your prerogative. But if you recognize that you're doing it, you can control yourself to make a more logical decision.


You can't have it both ways. Either its always a superiority, or bias/preference/inclination can exist without the need for considering one superior to the other.

I win either way. I know what the answer to that question is, and you know what my answer to that question is.



Do you not mean to the exclusion of all others?

No. I mean over an other (which, just fyi, is what I said).


I've read that a dozen times and it still doesn't scan.

Ok, I'll take another stab at it:

you
No its labeling a problem, a rather key difference.
me
White people, and the "privilege" of not being discriminated against, are and is not a problem.

In the term white privilege, there are two elements "white" and "privilege", and there's the combination of the two.

- White people are not a problem, that would be obviously racist and wrong (despite your apparent statement to the contrary)
- Privilege, in this case, is the presumed privilege to not be discriminated against on the basis of skin color. And that's not a problem, that's a good thing. That's what we want.
- White privilege is the presumed privilege of white people to not have to deal with the implications of discrimination on the basis of skin color. And that's not a problem, that's what we want.

In short, white privilege is not a problem, it's how people ought to be treated if they're to be treated fairly. It is the fact that other people presumably don't enjoy that same privilege which is the problem. The problem is not that white privilege exists, the problem is not that white people don't have to worry about being discriminated against on the basis of skin color (and sometimes they do btw). The problem is that people of other colors do have to worry about this. It's the discrimination (in many forms) that's the problem. It's the racism (in many forms) that's the problem.

And as long as you continue to insinuate that it's white people who are the problem, which is something you posted (and haven't bothered to explain how else it should have been interpreted), even just by using the term "White privilege", you will continue to perpetuate the problem.

You forgot to answer my question.
He doesn't answer questions. The information only flows one way with him. He's like a news ticker, his posts just come up every once in a while and say stuff.
 
Last edited:
More like I don’t, when engaged in civil discourse address anything but the arguments.
One cannot reply to leading questions with in built assumptions or worse overt ad hominem or questions which are obvious veiled attempts ar condescension.
I presented an argument. I will reply to questions specifically related to that.
I won’t get drawn into pointless straw man ad hominem red herrings etc.
Either show where the reasoning breaks down by reasoning or the position stands.
Which it does.
I presented a logical argument. Why should I respond to someone asking where I am from.
It’s irrelevant.
Further I identified the problem and presented a solution.
The solution is for people to freely choose to stop defining people by skin pigmentation.
Then we can talk about causation.
Correlation is not causation.
 
More like I don’t, when engaged in civil discourse address anything but the arguments.

It's a discussion forum... we discuss.

Why should I respond to someone asking where I am from.
It’s irrelevant.

...because you keep bringing it up. If it's not relevant, why do you bring it up?

You're very sensitive to anticipated ad hominem that hasn't happened. Instead, you need to learn how to identify it and knock it down when it does, inevitably, happen by well meaning and non-well meaning members alike.
 
So I don't know if this is white privilege, male privilege or class privilege, but...

White male serving MP and government (Conservative/Lib Dem coalition) minister caught speeding, denied it and claimed another person was driving, was subsequently found to be lying, charged with perverting the course of justice and sent to prison.
Black female serving MP in opposition (Labour) caught speeding, denied it and claimed another person was driving, was subsequently found to be lying, charged with perverting the course of justice and sent to prison.

One of the MPs immediately resigned on being charged with the offence and received an eight-month sentence after pleading guilty to it in court. The other refused to resign and denied the offence, but only got a three-month sentence. I think we all know which is which - the upper-class, white, male MP obviously refused to go, and got the more lenient treatment than the working class black female MP, despite denying everything... right?

Huhne - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21737627
Onasanya - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-47040912

... wait, what?


*There were some differences between the cases. Onasanya's lie centred on a Russian man who wasn't in the UK at the time of the offence and for whom she and her convicted drug dealer brother provided fake contact details. Huhne's centred on his wife, who accepted the points and fine of the offence a decade previously, and it only came to light when they split up and she sold dirt to a tabloid newspaper; she got the same sentence as him!
 
So I don't know if this is white privilege, male privilege or class privilege, but...
Heinous as this is it sounds more like a side issue to me rather than a resounding disproof of whatever the concept of white privilege is supposed to be.

I kinda doubt that as a counterexample it'll bring the thread to a screeching halt any more than the example of Obama's reelection did.
 
White privilege != racism, I was talking about the former, and plenty of people in this thread have denied its existence.

White privilege = racism.

White privilege is the notion that white people have something which is denied non-white people, and which they deserve - to be treated fairly without discrimination due to skin color. It is racism.

@Danoff I'd like to approach this from a bit of a different angle than you and Scaff have for the past several pages.

Perhaps I should have specified that, in my view, benefitting from white privilege is not racism. And that, to me, is the key angle from which to approach the problem.

So, to back up a step, this started when you said that white privilege gets focused on too much, and other privileges (tall, pretty, non-disabled, etc.) are ignored. My response was that it gets focused on not because we think it's more important, but because it's the one form of privilege that many people deny the existence of.

Now, if we consider the societal-wide problem of white privilege as separate from an individual person benefitting from it, then yes, you're correct in saying that the former is racism. But I don't think the latter necessarily is; benefitting from privilege can be (and probably often is) a completely passive thing that the beneficiary does nothing to seek out.

So, in my view, a lot of people who deny white privilege get two things wrong:

1. They try and argue against white privilege with personal anecdotes, and;

2. They feel personally attacked and accused of doing something wrong.

Simply put, I don't think that benefitting from white privilege makes one a racist, but that seems to often be inferred, leading to defensiveness, and ultimately making it very hard to have productive conversations.
 
So I don't know if this is white privilege, male privilege or class privilege, but...

White male serving MP and government (Conservative/Lib Dem coalition) minister caught speeding, denied it and claimed another person was driving, was subsequently found to be lying, charged with perverting the course of justice and sent to prison.
Black female serving MP in opposition (Labour) caught speeding, denied it and claimed another person was driving, was subsequently found to be lying, charged with perverting the course of justice and sent to prison.

One of the MPs immediately resigned on being charged with the offence and received an eight-month sentence after pleading guilty to it in court. The other refused to resign and denied the offence, but only got a three-month sentence. I think we all know which is which - the upper-class, white, male MP obviously refused to go, and got the more lenient treatment than the working class black female MP, despite denying everything... right?

Huhne - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21737627
Onasanya - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-47040912

... wait, what?


*There were some differences between the cases. Onasanya's lie centred on a Russian man who wasn't in the UK at the time of the offence and for whom she and her convicted drug dealer brother provided fake contact details. Huhne's centred on his wife, who accepted the points and fine of the offence a decade previously, and it only came to light when they split up and she sold dirt to a tabloid newspaper; she got the same sentence as him!

The difference is surely that Huhne lied and continued to do so for 10 years. In the (ex) Labour MP's case she lied once and was shot down in flames. Her brother was sentenced on three counts rather than one, that gives the disparity in the sentence. Are you saying that the disparities are somehow a race issue?
 
In the (ex) Labour MP's case she lied once and was shot down in flames.
Actually, she's still lying about it. He lied until he was charged with perverting the course of justice (lying about the driver) then pleaded guilty. She lied about it and pleaded not guilty, and is appealing the verdict - while comparing herself to other wrongly convicted people like Jesus and Moses - so she's lying about it even now...

The nearest she's got to admitting guilt of the crimes of texting while 11mph over the speed limit is saying she had an appointment that day that could be consistent with her being the driver, but could not remember if she kept the appointment. Her former comms manager Christian deFeo, whose house she visited on the night the camera caught her and is "close" to the speed camera she triggered, said she drove her car off from his house

Are you saying that the disparities are somehow a race issue?
Not at all - in fact quite the opposite. It seems like Huhne's old, white, male, upper class privileges didn't protect him from being convicted of the same crime as (and even receiving a sterner sentence for it, despite pleading guilty which traditionally attracts a lesser sentence) the young, black, female, working class Onasanya - so race, gender and class privilege seems not to exist in the eyes of the law. He also quit when charged, indicating he felt his position was no longer tenable, while she is still in position even in prison, so that suggests the court of public opinion is blind to it too. And of course Huhne's estranged wife, who was complicit in his offence, got the same sentence as him for the same offence.


I do recall now you mention it that her brother got 10 months for three counts of the same offence (one being the exact same offence). Although that said, Festus did plead guilty, unlike Fiona, so it seems odd he'd get a 30% longer sentence for each count despite her continued protests of innocence. But I guess he does also have previous convictions for possession with intent to supply, criminal damage and robbery, and nine points already on his licence for offences he'd also tried to blame on the same Russian.

Amusingly, in her first trial, she blamed him and said he was using her status as an MP to get himself off the hook :lol:
 
Last edited:
So, in my view, a lot of people who deny white privilege get two things wrong:

1. They try and argue against white privilege with personal anecdotes, and;

2. They feel personally attacked and accused of doing something wrong.

Simply put, I don't think that benefitting from white privilege makes one a racist, but that seems to often be inferred, leading to defensiveness, and ultimately making it very hard to have productive conversations.
I think definitions and connotations play a part as well. Scaff defining privilege as subconscious bias makes it a lot easier to accept, though I still don't like the term X privilege and won't be inclined to use it. When I come across privilege in discussions like this not everyone is using the definition that Scaff is, and even in this thread I was surprised by some thoughts on how widespread the effect of privilege is. I asked a couple of times if people thought that experiencing a lack of privilege/racism is a necessary part of minority life, and while I don't think I received a direct answer, a few replies seemed to imply that it is or nearly so.

In any case I think more common ground might be found in considering ways to prevent needless discrimination from occurring.
 
Back