White Privilege

[Scaff]

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.

Destroy a position and not been refuted?

Rather bold and aggressive words to use for a position that seems to undermine your own.

So to be clear. Racism doesn't require general superiority, but bias does?

I have to be honest and say that the degree of semantics you are willing to engage in with regard to this makes it quite clear that we are at a total impasse.

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.

I've not denied any of that occurs (quite the opposite), I disagree with the terminology you use to describe it.

To you if it relates to race then its all racism, I disagree.

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

I wasn't aware it was a contest to win?

I was under the impression is was a debate on the topic at hand?

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

Just wanted to be sure.

So let me just check I understand this. If its a preference for a single individual then its not racism, but if its a preference for a group then it is?

Ok, I'll take another stab at it:

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.

Privilege both provides an advantage to the party being privileged and a disadvantage to the party not being privileged.

In short White Privilege is a problem.

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.

I thought I would give him a chance.

More like I don’t,

That which can be presented without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Your not stating an opinion with that (utterly context free post), you citing a fact. As such the onus is on you to support it.

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.

No you didn;t. You copied and pasted something from an other source without context or explination.

That is not presenting an argument, its weak plagiarism.

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.

Once again you didn't present a logical argument, you copied and pasted a piece of text from an unknown source, with zero context and zero explanation.

I also never asked where you were from, nor presented you with a strawman, ad-hominem or red hearing.

I asked you to provide the source for a citation, that's it. A perfectly responsible request given that you provided no context or explanation for it.

That's not odd, your refusal however most certainly is.[/QUOTE]

 

[Groundfish]

Destroy a position and not been refuted?

Rather bold and aggressive words to use for a position that seems to undermine your own.

So to be clear. Racism doesn't require general superiority, but bias does?

I have to be honest and say that the degree of semantics you are willing to engage in with regard to this makes it quite clear that we are at a total impasse.




I've not denied any of that occurs (quite the opposite), I disagree with the terminology you use to describe it.

To you if it relates to race then its all racism, I disagree.




I wasn't aware it was a contest to win?

I was under the impression is was a debate on the topic at hand?





Just wanted to be sure.

So let me just check I understand this. If its a preference for a single individual then its not racism, but if its a preference for a group then it is?




Privilege both provides an advantage to the party being privileged and a disadvantage to the party not being privileged.

In short White Privilege is a problem.



I thought I would give him a chance.



That which can be presented without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Your not stating an opinion with that (utterly context free post), you citing a fact. As such the onus is on you to support it.



No you didn;t. You copied and pasted something from an other source without context or explination.

That is not presenting an argument, its weak plagiarism.



Once again you didn't present a logical argument, you copied and pasted a piece of text from an unknown source, with zero context and zero explanation.

I also never asked where you were from, nor presented you with a strawman, ad-hominem or red hearing.

I asked you to provide the source for a citation, that's it. A perfectly responsible request given that you provided no context or explanation for it.

That's not odd, your refusal however most certainly is.

[/QUOTE]


Where did I copy and paste? Was it post 1120 in which I presented an argument? Pretty clear there I provided links to my source for the definitions I provided. None of the questions I posed were responded to.
Post 1061 I asked how we move forward. Post 1071 reference provided. Post 1073 was some of my life experience.
I suggest referencing the post number and the specific text, otherwise this is an example of a straw man attack.
For those who may not know, this is an attack involving intentional misrepresentation of a position and then attempting to refute said position and claiming victory in an argument.
Personally, I feel it is disrespectful.
Reference the post,
I am simply trying to offer help to what I see as a significant amount of confusion in this thread which is why I posted the questions in post 1120 which everyone here ignored.
I believe I am the only person in this thread who has offered suggestions on how a person might make a positive impact on their society.
What I have seen is a lot of shifting goalposts, or perhaps more specifically, as I understand the position being espoused by the majority, it is that if one disagrees with the position, they are in denial.
To me this is a strange way to attempt to communicate which is why I recommended defining the terms being used, which I believe are intended to be divisive and unproductive. Again, I offered ideas on how I view effective communication.
Everyone imo has a right and responsibility to present their point of view, which I have done.
To be honest, I simply won’t answer questions until my questions are addressed, particularly all of them in post 1120.
The reason being is that without answers to those, I don’t believe we can communicate in a rational way.

 

[Scaff]

Where did I copy and paste? Was it post 1120 in which I presented an argument? Pretty clear there I provided links to my source for the definitions I provided. None of the questions I posed were responded to.
Post 1061 I asked how we move forward. Post 1071 reference provided. Post 1073 was some of my life experience.
I suggest referencing the post number and the specific text, otherwise this is an example of a straw man attack.
For those who may not know, this is an attack involving intentional misrepresentation of a position and then attempting to refute said position and claiming victory in an argument.
Personally, I feel it is disrespectful.
Reference the post,
I am simply trying to offer help to what I see as a significant amount of confusion in this thread which is why I posted the questions in post 1120 which everyone here ignored.
I believe I am the only person in this thread who has offered suggestions on how a person might make a positive impact on their society.
What I have seen is a lot of shifting goalposts, or perhaps more specifically, as I understand the position being espoused by the majority, it is that if one disagrees with the position, they are in denial.
To me this is a strange way to attempt to communicate which is why I recommended defining the terms being used, which I believe are intended to be divisive and unproductive. Again, I offered ideas on how I view effective communication.
Everyone imo has a right and responsibility to present their point of view, which I have done.
To be honest, I simply won’t answer questions until my questions are addressed, particularly all of them in post 1120.
The reason being is that without answers to those, I don’t believe we can communicate in a rational way.[/QUOTE]

No.
I mean this post

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/white-privilege.360616/page-39#post-12623160

the one I quoted.

You do not provide a source for that at all.

 

[Danoff]

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

Sounds like a good idea.

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.

Privilege both provides an advantage to the party being privileged and a disadvantage to the party not being privileged.

In short White Privilege is a problem.

Does anyone "benefit" from the existence of "white privilege"? I don't think so. White privilege is the privilege of not having to worry about racism, are we in at least violent agreement there? White privilege is then how life ought to be, for everyone. No one ought to have to worry about racism. So to say that a white person is receiving the benefit of white privilege is really just to say that they're receiving the benefit of being treated fairly. Is that a benefit? It sounds more like a lack of an obstacle.

Do you think that people with vision are receiving the benefit of being sight privileged? Isn't it really that blind people are denied that which would be fair? It depends entirely on where you want to draw the line. What, for you, is "zero"? No advantage, no disadvantage. No unearned benefits, no unearned detriments. Where does that fall in your mind? It must fall somewhere below what white people have now.

I'll admit that you can make a claim for drawing that line somewhere below where the level of discrimination that white people have against them right now. You could draw the line of "normal" or "zero" somewhere between where a straight white male in America is today, and where a transgender black female is today (or where someone locked in with ALS and prognosis of a month to live is). But I think in doing so you would be undermining any sense of fairness.

The reality is that white people are discriminated against in US society today. Maybe not to the degree that other groups are, but some. The fact that I know of a hiring manager who literally uttered the words, in seriousness, "I can't hire him, he's a white guy", is enough to demonstrate that discrimination against white people is non-zero. You may not think it's a problem that needs to be addressed right now, but it is not what I would accept as even meeting the standard of "normal", or acceptable or "zero", or "fair". There is bound to be some unfairness, but institutionalized and widely accepted unfairness is very undesirable. You'd like for unfairness to be a random noise function around a zero average.

So the "privilege" or "benefit" you describe that people are enjoying, to me looks like a slight disadvantage compared to where we ought to be. It isn't a benefit or privilege at all, it's just a smaller problem.

So getting back to the underlying principle, to me this conversation looks like telling someone who is missing one eye that he has the unfair benefit of sight because someone is blind. Both of them should have two eyes. They're both disadvantaged. One's reduced hindrance is not a privilege, it's a smaller hindrance.

In short, white privilege is not a problem, it's at least a goal for people who don't have it. It's something we'd like them to achieve, a goal, a pursuit, a good thing, and that we should all want to rise beyond.

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.

Ok, I think you at least see where I am coming from.

So to be clear. Racism doesn't require general superiority, but bias does?

Nope, and I thought I made that clear with specific examples, but I agree that we're not making progress, and the thread must be bored of our discussion by now.

I have to be honest and say that the degree of semantics you are willing to engage in with regard to this makes it quite clear that we are at a total impasse.

I'll agree that we're at an impasse over semantics, and it's not very interesting to the thread.

If its a preference for a single individual then its not racism, but if its a preference for a group then it is?

No. But we're at an impasse, so I think explaining that again is not productive.

 

[Scaff]

Sounds like a good idea.





Does anyone "benefit" from the existence of "white privilege"? I don't think so. White privilege is the privilege of not having to worry about racism, are we in at least violent agreement there? White privilege is then how life ought to be, for everyone. No one ought to have to worry about racism. So to say that a white person is receiving the benefit of white privilege is really just to say that they're receiving the benefit of being treated fairly. Is that a benefit? It sounds more like a lack of an obstacle.

Do you think that people with vision are receiving the benefit of being sight privileged? Isn't it really that blind people are denied that which would be fair? It depends entirely on where you want to draw the line. What, for you, is "zero"? No advantage, no disadvantage. No unearned benefits, no unearned detriments. Where does that fall in your mind? It must fall somewhere below what white people have now.

I'll admit that you can make a claim for drawing that line somewhere below where the level of discrimination that white people have against them right now. You could draw the line of "normal" or "zero" somewhere between where a straight white male in America is today, and where a transgender black female is today (or where someone locked in with ALS and prognosis of a month to live is). But I think in doing so you would be undermining any sense of fairness.

The reality is that white people are discriminated against in US society today. Maybe not to the degree that other groups are, but some. The fact that I know of a hiring manager who literally uttered the words, in seriousness, "I can't hire him, he's white guy", is enough to demonstrate that discrimination against white people is non-zero. You may not think it's a problem that needs to be addressed right now, but it is not what I would accept as even meeting the standard of "normal", or acceptable or "zero", or "fair". There is bound to be some unfairness, but institutionalized and widely accepted unfairness is very undesirable. You'd like for unfairness to be a random noise function around a zero average.

So the "privilege" or "benefit" you describe that people are enjoying, to me looks like a slight disadvantage compared to where we ought to be. It isn't a benefit or privilege at all, it's just a smaller problem.

So getting back to the underlying principle, to me this conversation looks like telling someone who is missing one eye that he has the unfair benefit of sight because someone is blind. Both of them should have two eyes. They're both disadvantaged. One's reduced hindrance is not a privilege, it's a smaller hindrance.

In short, white privilege is not a problem, it's at least a goal for people who don't have it. It's something we'd like them to achieve, a goal, a pursuit, a good thing, and that we should all want to rise beyond.




Ok, I think you at least see where I am coming from.




Nope, and I thought I made that clear with specific examples, but I agree that we're not making progress, and the thread must be bored of our discussion by now.



I'll agree that we're at an impasse over semantics, and it's not very interesting to the thread.




No. But we're at an impasse, so I think explaining that again is not productive.

We agree to disagree then?

 

[Danoff]

We agree to disagree then?

For now.

I wouldn't want this to be misunderstood... I'm not saying that you can have your opinion and that I think it's valid. Where we're leaving the semantic discussion for now (I think) is that you think White Privilege is not racism, and I think you're completely wrong.

 

[Scaff]

For now.

I wouldn't want this to be misunderstood... I'm not saying that you can have your opinion and that I think it's valid. Where we're leaving the semantic discussion for now (I think) is that you think White Privilege is not racism, and I think you're completely wrong.

Not quite.

White Privilege can be racism, it depends on the exact situation and the context.

 

[PocketZeven]

I think it boils down to white privilege being the inaccurate name for the problem we are discussing. The name is controversial in that most white people do not perceive any "privilege" and are offended by the suggestion they are where they are not because of merit.

I think some here made right point to change the point of view and call it minority bias. With the majority being treated on merit and minorities having to not only prove their merit, but also face negative bias (which the majority dont face).

"White privilege" should actually there for called be "minority bias" in my opinion. 2 different names to describe the same phenomena.

Edit: added additional comment @Scaff

Not quite.

White Privilege can be racism, it depends on the exact situation and the context.

White privilege (or lack of minority bias) is a form of discrimination based on appearance. I dont see any situation/context where it isnt racist.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I think it boils down to white privilege being the inaccurate name for the problem we are discussing. The name is controversial in that most white people do not perceive any "privilege" and are offended by the suggestion they are where they are not because of merit.

I think some here made right point to change the point of view and call it minority bias. With the majority being treated on merit and minorities having to not only prove their merit, but also face negative bias (which the majority dont face).

"White privilege" should actually there for called be "minority bias" in my opinion. 2 different names to describe the same phenomena.

So why, in the test, do black and white people alike only treat the white randoms as less likely to be criminal or lying?

 

[PocketZeven]

So why, in the test, do black and white people alike only treat the white randoms as less likely to be criminal or lying?

Public perception, because of cultural appropiation. It might well be a cultural phenomena. It wasnt that long ago black people werent even considered "human" in certain circles.

 

[huskeR32]

Does anyone "benefit" from the existence of "white privilege"? I don't think so.

Yes, they do. It's pretty much baked into the term.

White privilege is the privilege of not having to worry about racism, are we in at least violent agreement there?

Yes, the "privilege" is in fact an absence of obstacles. I feel I've said as much many times in this thread.

White privilege is then how life ought to be, for everyone. No one ought to have to worry about racism.

Absolutely.

So to say that a white person is receiving the benefit of white privilege is really just to say that they're receiving the benefit of being treated fairly. Is that a benefit? It sounds more like a lack of an obstacle.

Yep.

Do you think that people with vision are receiving the benefit of being sight privileged? Isn't it really that blind people are denied that which would be fair?

Yes, as with white privilege, I'd say that most forms of privilege essentially boil down to a lack of obstacles.

It depends entirely on where you want to draw the line. What, for you, is "zero"? No advantage, no disadvantage. No unearned benefits, no unearned detriments. Where does that fall in your mind? It must fall somewhere below what white people have now.

I don't think that's true. With any form of privilege, the goal should be to eliminate the obstacles for the unprivileged, and give them the same experience that the privilege already enjoy. Why must it be "below" the level enjoyed by the privileged? What makes it a necessarily zero-sum game?

I'll admit that you can make a claim for drawing that line somewhere below where the level of discrimination that white people have against them right now. You could draw the line of "normal" or "zero" somewhere between where a straight white male in America is today, and where a transgender black female is today (or where someone locked in with ALS and prognosis of a month to live is). But I think in doing so you would be undermining any sense of fairness.

As I don't understand why it must be a zero-sum game, I have no answer for any of this. Treat everyone the same, and make that treatment the same as what white/straight/male/etc. people already enjoy. Where's the problem?

The reality is that white people are discriminated against in US society today. Maybe not to the degree that other groups are, but some. The fact that I know of a hiring manager who literally uttered the words, in seriousness, "I can't hire him, he's a white guy", is enough to demonstrate that discrimination against white people is non-zero. You may not think it's a problem that needs to be addressed right now, but it is not what I would accept as even meeting the standard of "normal", or acceptable or "zero", or "fair". There is bound to be some unfairness, but institutionalized and widely accepted unfairness is very undesirable. You'd like for unfairness to be a random noise function around a zero average.

I don't really want this to turn into a debate about affirmative action, but without it, racial bias would absolutely still be a significant problem. Yeah, it isn't fair. But it certainly isn't any fairer to just let racial bias run unimpeded. If you have any better ideas of how to try and level the playing field that wouldn't in the process discriminate against whites, I'm sure the entire world is all ears.

So the "privilege" or "benefit" you describe that people are enjoying, to me looks like a slight disadvantage compared to where we ought to be.

Whites in this country are still significantly better off than their black or brown peers. Sure, whites aren't as far above as they would be without affirmative action, but that doesn't strike me as a particularly worthy goal to aim for.

It isn't a benefit or privilege at all, it's just a smaller problem.

This is just another way of making the case that privilege means "lack of obstacles," which we've already agreed to. That point has been made. Even if we'd prefer a different term be used, we can still discuss it because we both understand what it means.

So getting back to the underlying principle, to me this conversation looks like telling someone who is missing one eye that he has the unfair benefit of sight because someone is blind. Both of them should have two eyes. They're both disadvantaged. One's reduced hindrance is not a privilege, it's a smaller hindrance.

I don't think it's all that productive to compare a natural obstacle to a societal one (is that a feature or a bug of your argument?). We simply can't do anything about somebody being born blind. We can do something about black or brown people being treated like crap.

In short, white privilege is not a problem, it's at least a goal for people who don't have it. It's something we'd like them to achieve, a goal, a pursuit, a good thing, and that we should all want to rise beyond.

We agree on this. You're just letting your wish that a different term be used get in the way of helping attain that goal. In the end, is being put off by the word "privilege" really so important that it should derail our attempts to make things better?

 

[Danoff]

Yes, they do. It's pretty much baked into the term.

You kinda contradict this point, I mean... I think I see how that sits in your mind, but you almost directly argue against it when you say that it's a lack of obstacles.

Yes, the "privilege" is in fact an absence of obstacles. I feel I've said as much many times in this thread.

Great, at least we agree on what we're talking about.

I don't think that's true. With any form of privilege, the goal should be to eliminate the obstacles for the unprivileged, and give them the same experience that the privilege already enjoy. Why must it be "below" the level enjoyed by the privileged? What makes it a necessarily zero-sum game?

If you think someone white is receiving an unearned benefit, then you must think that the line for "zero", some level of no unfair benefit, no unfair hindrance, is below where white people are. Because you think they received an unfair benefit, and zero is set at NO unfair benefit. It's not a zero-sum game. Imagine a spectrum, with unearned benefit on one side, and unearned hindrance on the other. Zero is the point right in the middle, where there is none of either. If you think white people get an unearned benefit, they're on the right (or above, depending on whether it's a horizontal or vertical axis) of that break-even point. I put white people to the left (or below) that break even point, claiming that not only do they have no unearned benefit, but actually have a slight amount of unearned hindrance.

I can already hear you saying that it can be both. You can have an unearned benefit and be hindered - that you can have a benefit with respect to someone who has less. But that completely misses my point. The spectrum can be recreated for the same person for a different issue and come out differently.

My point is that there are problems and there are non-problems. Someone being treated fairly is not a problem. It's right at zero on our spectrum. It's not an ill-gotten benefit, and it's not an ill-delivered hindrance. It's fair. White privilege as a term, as we have agreed upon, is a description of white people sitting right at zero (they don't, but that's what the term means). It means that white people (with respect to this issue) are treated fairly. That's not a social problem, that's not an unfair benefit. It's just how things ought to be - people being treated fairly. The problem is that other folks sit to the left on the skin-color benefit spectrum, having been handed hindrances due to skin color.

...and that's my issue with the term.

This is just another way of making the case that privilege means "lack of obstacles," which we've already agreed to. That point has been made. Even if we'd prefer a different term be used, we can still discuss it because we both understand what it means.

We do. It means racism. Or slightly more verbose - it references a group which encounters less racism than... others. Which is racism.

I don't think it's all that productive to compare a natural obstacle to a societal one (is that a feature or a bug of your argument?). We simply can't do anything about somebody being born blind. We can do something about black or brown people being treated like crap.

We can't do anything about someone being born blind, and we can't do anything about someone being born brown. But we can recognize that both groups receive unearned obstacles. Maybe you think we can do more for the brown folks, I'm not so sure. I think maybe helping the blind is lower-hanging fruit. You can't fix their problem, but it's much easier to impact their lives. Google rolled out a blind touchscreen interface not that long ago. You'd be hard pressed to impact the lives of brown people as dramatically.

We agree on this. You're just letting your wish that a different term be used get in the way of helping attain that goal. In the end, is being put off by the word "privilege" really so important that it should derail our attempts to make things better?

I don't think I'm derailing anything. I'm actually trying to make those attempts more effective, by suggesting that a term which is argued against for all the wrong reasons be ditched in favor of something that more accurately conveys the point.

 

[PocketZeven]

We do. It means racism. Or slightly more verbose - it references a group which encounters less racism than... others. Which is racism.

Perhaps discrimination should be used. The word "Racism" seems to exclude other minorities or disenfranchised. I have to stress white privilege is not always solely about race.

"White privilege" mostly refers to white males and certain social status having less "obstacles". Women, colored people and perhaps italian, irish etc. all face or faced more obstacles of bias, prejudice etc. then the "white privileged" we are generally referring to in certain societies.

Am I correct in my assesment that in the media it often seems that "racism" seems to have a much bigger controversy surrounding it then "discrimination". Even though it basically means the same?

 

[Danoff]

Perhaps discrimination should be used. The word "Racism" seems to exclude other minorities or disenfranchised. I have to stress white privilege is not always solely about race.

"White privilege" mostly refers to white males and certain social status having less "obstacles". Women, colored people and perhaps italian, irish etc. all face or faced more obstacles of bias, prejudice etc. then the "white privileged" we are generally referring to in certain societies.

Am I correct in my assesment that in the media it often seems that "racism" seems to have a much bigger controversy surrounding it then "discrimination". Even though it basically means the same?

Well if we're turning white privilege into discrimination, it's really discrimination based on skin color right? Thus the "white" part? Which would be... racism. Discrimination is also accurate, just not as precise.

 

[huskeR32]

You kinda contradict this point, I mean... I think I see how that sits in your mind, but you almost directly argue against it when you say that it's a lack of obstacles.

It's beneficial to not face obstacles. That feels so self-evident to me that I feel a bit silly saying it.

If you think someone white is receiving an unearned benefit, then you must think that the line for "zero", some level of no unfair benefit, no unfair hindrance, is below where white people are.

I've not said that white people receive anything at all. In fact, I've said the opposite:

The idea of "white privilege" doesn't say that you've just had stuff handed to you.

It would be clearer to say that non-whites face undeserved obstacles. It feels to me that you're belaboring this point, and finding a dozen different ways to say it.

Because you think they received an unfair benefit,

That's the thing - I don't. On this spectrum you're describing, I view whites as at zero, or so slightly left of/below it that it's not worth quibbling over. Non-whites are significantly left of/below it, and that's the problem. And you don't fix large gaps like that by addressing the needs of the ever-so-slightly disadvantaged first. You pull the disadvantaged up to the same level, then iron out whatever small wrinkles still remain - though I'd reckon most of those would just work themselves out once things approach anything like a truly even playing field.

I can already hear you saying that it can be both. You can have an unearned benefit and be hindered - that you can have a benefit with respect to someone who has less. But that completely misses my point. The spectrum can be recreated for the same person for a different issue and come out differently.

No, you can't hear that, because I don't think there are any unearned benefits going to anybody. Only undeserved obstacles, and disproportionately to some groups more than others.

My point is that there are problems and there are non-problems. Someone being treated fairly is not a problem. It's right at zero on our spectrum. It's not an ill-gotten benefit, and it's not an ill-delivered hindrance. It's fair. White privilege as a term, as we have agreed upon, is a description of white people sitting right at zero (they don't, but that's what the term means). It means that white people (with respect to this issue) are treated fairly. That's not a social problem, that's not an unfair benefit. It's just how things ought to be - people being treated fairly. The problem is that other folks sit to the left on the skin-color benefit spectrum, having been handed hindrances due to skin color.

I'm pretty much in agreement with all of that.

...and that's my issue with the term.

But ya know what? It's the term we have. And since we agree on its meaning, we should just get on with the conversation of how to fix it. People getting caught up on the word "privilege," and inferring a bunch of extra stuff that needn't be inferred, isn't a good use of anybody's time.

We can't do anything about someone being born blind, and we can't do anything about someone being born brown.

You're right, but that wasn't my point, and you know it. We can't help someone being brown, but we can help the obstacles they face, considering they're all socially-imposed in the first place.

But we can recognize that both groups receive unearned obstacles. Maybe you think we can do more for the brown folks, I'm not so sure. I think maybe helping the blind is lower-hanging fruit. You can't fix their problem, but it's much easier to impact their lives. Google rolled out a blind touchscreen interface not that long ago. You'd be hard pressed to impact the lives of brown people as dramatically.

"It's too hard" is a terrible reason to not fix the problem.

I don't think I'm derailing anything. I'm actually trying to make those attempts more effective, by suggesting that a term which is argued against for all the wrong reasons be ditched in favor of something that more accurately conveys the point.

If you want to try and get hundreds of millions of people to ditch it for something else, good luck. In the meantime, there's no reason the conversation can't continue.

 

[Danoff]

That's the thing - I don't. On this spectrum you're describing, I view whites as at zero, or so slightly left of/below it that it's not worth quibbling over. Non-whites are significantly left of/below it, and that's the problem. And you don't fix large gaps like that by addressing the needs of the ever-so-slightly disadvantaged first. You pull the disadvantaged up to the same level, then iron out whatever small wrinkles still remain - though I'd reckon most of those would just work themselves out once things approach anything like a truly even playing field.

I think we're definitely in pretty good agreement then. And to me, this just describes racism - the problem, the degree to which non-whites find themselves to the left of zero.

"It's too hard" is a terrible reason to not fix the problem.

It's kinda like how you were saying you wanted to fix the large gap before the small one. I just happen to see people of all disadvantages, and see some big ones, far bigger than non-whites face for being non-white.

If you want to try and get hundreds of millions of people to ditch it for something else, good luck. In the meantime, there's no reason the conversation can't continue.

Sure. I think the first thing to do when someone comes in denying that white privilege exists, is to do what I did in this thread which sparked all of this discussion, which is to explain to them that what is meant is racism. White privilege is just the fact that white people presumably do not have to worry about racism. Done. People will get it and stop arguing about how they've not had an easy life.

 

[huskeR32]

It's kinda like how you were saying you wanted to fix the large gap before the small one. I just happen to see people of all disadvantages, and see some big ones, far bigger than non-whites face for being non-white.

Here would be where we disagree. But I don't think either of us is particularly interested in running around that circle again.

Sure. I think the first thing to do when someone comes in denying that white privilege exists, is to do what I did in this thread which sparked all of this discussion, which is to explain to them that what is meant is racism.

But that's oversimplifying it.

As I said earlier, the the entrenched, societal-wide underpinnings of white privilege are racism; but a person benefitting from that isn't a racist act.

So depending on which aspect of white privilege you're talking about, white privilege = racism isn't always true.

And when you just gloss over that distinction and call it all "racism," many people are hearing that as "you're white, so you're racist." Your insistence on reducing it all down to "racism" doesn't add anything to the conversation, and in fact, it enables the unnecessary defensiveness that so often pops up.

 

[Danoff]

And when you just gloss over that distinction and call it all "racism," many people are hearing that as "you're white, so you're racist." Your insistence on reducing it all down to "racism" doesn't add anything to the conversation, and in fact, it enables the unnecessary defensiveness that so often pops up.

I think you're missing the usual defensiveness. It doesn't come from people being concerned that they're called racist, it's from this:

but a person benefitting from that

This is directly why you hear "I still haven't gotten that white privilege check" - which is the most common sentiment I have heard against white privilege. It's not that people think you're calling them a racist, it's that people think you're insinuating that they have something they shouldn't. And they don't.

So the fact that you insist on calling fairness a benefit is the misleading bit that they're railing against. It's not a benefit, it's not being harmed. I'm not "receiving the benefit of not being shot in the head", I'm simply "not being harmed". It's how it should be. And we already pretty much agreed on this point.

Edit:

Ok, peace offering... don't call it racism. Just call it white people (presumably) not having to worry about racism while everyone else (presumably) does. Which is racism, but maybe less likely to be misinterpreted.

Edit 2:

And by less likely to be misinterpreted, I mean less likely to be taken as an accusation that all white people are racist, and also less likely to be taken as an accusation that all white people have an unearned benefit.

 

[TenEightyOne]

This is directly why you hear "I still haven't gotten that white privilege check" - which is the most common sentiment I have heard against white privilege. It's not that people think you're calling them a racist, it's that people think you're insinuating that they have something they shouldn't. And they don't.

They do, but it would be inaccurate for anybody to say that they're the active agent in obtaining bearing that privilege. They'd resent that (as would you and I). The point is more about the way the historic interaction between the "races" (I know, I know) has led to endemic society-wide presumptions being baked into the thinking of many people without them being actively, decidedly aware of it.

That's why a consciousness around the issues is so important - we are not (for the most part) the generation that caused this, we're not part of the society that was responsible for it. We are however part of the society that can say "this shouldn't be like this" and try to make a change.

Cue: the chorus of "You raise me up".

 

[Groundfish]

See, to me that’s a consistent point of view above. A person perceives a problem and wants to do something about it. That’s consistent, and bravo.
What avenue do any of us have to make change in a society? Obviously, we can lead by example with our actions as individuals. Which sort of leads in to maybe, in the USA, an action one would take is voting a certain way, or contributing to politicians you believe will do something about the problem you see.
Simple enough. So, you could potentially end up in a situation in which, if the majority agreed with the belief that’s it’s wrong for people to be let’s just say ‘inequal’ (in whatever sense, maybe economically, that’s the biggest one) there could be a move towards more govt control of people’s lives, for example wealth redistribution or a move to regulate people’s freedom, or even thought and belief.
That’s the real problem I see relative to where I am from.
I do not believe it is the job of govt. to determine what people have what or limit freedom. I believe making it illegal to discriminate by skin color is about as much as should be done by govt.
What I perceive in the USA is a younger generation, inculcated by the educational system with liberal beliefs,
Is now marching towards socialism, as evidenced by the young woman in Congress from New York.
So, the tie in to this discussion is the idea that perhaps in the USA this newer generation has
FREEDOM PRIVILEGE. Yes, I made that up.
But, it’s true isn’t it? These folks have always had freedom, they don’t even know what it’s like to be unfree.
So, they sit there, wherever they may be in the USA, free. They are free because of things like the revolutionary war.
They are free because people before them fought tyrannical government. They did not do this, they have freedom privilege.
What irritates me, is that it seems to be there’s a movement towards bigger govt with more control, which I would call tyranny.
Maybe what these folks have is ‘freedom privilege’ They’ve no idea what it’s like to have their freedom impeded, thus they cannot see the error of the direction they are taking politically.
So, if they take control of society to me it’s a regression. Eventually, if the movement goes into more govt control, even over the means of production, then eventually some future generation will have to again have to fight hard to regain what was lost by people who didn’t know what they even had.

 

[TenEightyOne]

What I perceive in the USA is a younger generation, inculcated by the educational system with liberal beliefs,

Teachers are free to believe as they wish, so are students. I've never known a teacher or lecturer who has told their classes what to think, only how to think for theirsens.

 

[novcze]

So why, in the test, do black and white people alike only treat the white randoms as less likely to be criminal or lying?

what is "less likely", like 1% less? ... and does it mean these people are not aware that white person can lie or be criminal?

 

[Danoff]

The point is more about the way the historic interaction between the "races" (I know, I know) has led to endemic society-wide presumptions being baked into the thinking of many people without them being actively, decidedly aware of it.

Subconscious racism. I honestly don't think that very many people will take issue with this notion. In fact, I think that folks will be receptive to that. Certainly the notion of subconscious racism leaves no room for claiming "I haven't received my subconscious racism check".

At the risk of being boring and repetitive...

There are so many historic interactions and society-wide presumptions being backed into the thinking of many people without them being actively, decidedly aware of it, that it's hard for me to stand the notion that there are multiple giant threads full of discussion about racism here, for example, and none about the treatment of people with dwarfism, or heck, how about men below a certain average height (or any of a gazillion other examples I could give). I can't champion all of these issues, so don't look to me to start these threads, I'm best positioned to spend my time championing the issues that I know the most about - like non-genetic families, adoption, and the philosophical state of an embryo. I don't know enough about certain conditions to go off and lead their cause.

To highlight an example, take the movie Shrek. It's a fun kids' movie that turns the notion of the princess story on its head, the princess accepting a different outward appearance that was more in line with her personal feelings rather than the expectations of society, and a man who had been coping with that unfair treatment his whole life, and was having to learn to interact with others anyway. It's a movie with lots of messages about the unfair treatment of society for conditions that you're not responsible for, for not judging a book by its cover, for not getting hung up on outward appearance.

And they spend the entire movie making fun of the antagonist for his height.

We've been championing the cause of racism for a very long time, and have made wonderful progress (thanks Obama... no seriously this time). I think it's time to broaden our perspective a little.

 

[Biggles]

See, to me that’s a consistent point of view above. A person perceives a problem and wants to do something about it. That’s consistent, and bravo.
What avenue do any of us have to make change in a society? Obviously, we can lead by example with our actions as individuals. Which sort of leads in to maybe, in the USA, an action one would take is voting a certain way, or contributing to politicians you believe will do something about the problem you see.
Simple enough. So, you could potentially end up in a situation in which, if the majority agreed with the belief that’s it’s wrong for people to be let’s just say ‘inequal’ (in whatever sense, maybe economically, that’s the biggest one) there could be a move towards more govt control of people’s lives, for example wealth redistribution or a move to regulate people’s freedom, or even thought and belief.
That’s the real problem I see relative to where I am from.
I do not believe it is the job of govt. to determine what people have what or limit freedom. I believe making it illegal to discriminate by skin color is about as much as should be done by govt.
What I perceive in the USA is a younger generation, inculcated by the educational system with liberal beliefs,
Is now marching towards socialism, as evidenced by the young woman in Congress from New York.
So, the tie in to this discussion is the idea that perhaps in the USA this newer generation has
FREEDOM PRIVILEGE. Yes, I made that up.
But, it’s true isn’t it? These folks have always had freedom, they don’t even know what it’s like to be unfree.
So, they sit there, wherever they may be in the USA, free. They are free because of things like the revolutionary war.
They are free because people before them fought tyrannical government. They did not do this, they have freedom privilege.
What irritates me, is that it seems to be there’s a movement towards bigger govt with more control, which I would call tyranny.
Maybe what these folks have is ‘freedom privilege’ They’ve no idea what it’s like to have their freedom impeded, thus they cannot see the error of the direction they are taking politically.
So, if they take control of society to me it’s a regression. Eventually, if the movement goes into more govt control, even over the means of production, then eventually some future generation will have to again have to fight hard to regain what was lost by people who didn’t know what they even had.

An interesting post, but I think you've got it exactly backwards.

Generations of Americans have been brought up to worship unthinkingly at the altar of "freedom" & American Exceptionalism & generations of Americans have been brought up to hate & fear "socialism". They've been inculcated by the American system - corporate America & religious America - with conservative beliefs. Racism & white privilege were so deeply ingrained in the American psyche that it required the concerted action of the civil rights movement to reverse it, against determined & violent opposition. The "freedom" of 19th century America was also the freedom to enslave blacks, displace & murder indigenous people, discriminate against & exploit immigrants & it was all accompanied by government graft & corruption as an accepted fact of life. And ... the American Revolution was not a "conservative" revolution - it was a "liberal" revolution, overthrowing the established order for an incompletely realized, but more democratic vision of society.

The US moved towards some "socialist" policies (along with most of the advanced western economies) after the crisis of international capitalism represented by the First World War & the Great Depression & as a response to the threat of communist revolution. The western countries moved further in that direction after the Second World War which had fostered a new sense of unity & common military (& social) goals in the face of an existential threat. The US & European economies (& Japan) flourished in this new "socialist" environment & international cooperation & economic expansion led to a unprecedented period of (relative) peace & prosperity.

If the "newer generation" in the US are questioning the status quo, it may be because they have experienced, first hand, the negative impacts on the economy caused by the greatest economic recession since the Great Depression. They can see through the BS about "freedom" peddled by the advocates of corporate control & would prefer a little more democratic socialism. But you're right: (IMO) there needs to be a constant re-evaluation of the interplay between government, corporate & democratic control.

 

[Groundfish]

An interesting post, but I think you've got it exactly backwards.

Generations of Americans have been brought up to worship unthinkingly at the altar of "freedom" & American Exceptionalism & generations of Americans have been brought up to hate & fear "socialism". They've been inculcated by the American system - corporate America & religious America - with conservative beliefs. Racism & white privilege were so deeply ingrained in the American psyche that it required the concerted action of the civil rights movement to reverse it, against determined & violent opposition. The "freedom" of 19th century America was also the freedom to enslave blacks, displace & murder indigenous people, discriminate against & exploit immigrants & it was all accompanied by government graft & corruption as an accepted fact of life. And ... the American Revolution was not a "conservative" revolution - it was a "liberal" revolution, overthrowing the established order for an incompletely realized, but more democratic vision of society.

The US moved towards some "socialist" policies (along with most of the advanced western economies) after the crisis of international capitalism represented by the First World War & the Great Depression & as a response to the threat of communist revolution. The western countries moved further in that direction after the Second World War which had fostered a new sense of unity & common military (& social) goals in the face of an existential threat. The US & European economies (& Japan) flourished in this new "socialist" environment & international cooperation & economic expansion led to a unprecedented period of (relative) peace & prosperity.

If the "newer generation" in the US are questioning the status quo, it may be because they have experienced, first hand, the negative impacts on the economy caused by the greatest economic recession since the Great Depression. They can see through the BS about "freedom" peddled by the advocates of corporate control & would prefer a little more democratic socialism. But you're right: (IMO) there needs to be a constant re-evaluation of the interplay between government, corporate & democratic control.

Well, that’s one perspective on historical events and cause and effect. Scholars argue about all that all the time.
Also slavery led to a civil war because half the country disagreed with it.
Re immigrant exploitation why did so many immigrate? Freedom and opportunity.
The cause of ww1 is controversial.
The main point I would say is look at post ww2 economic boom.
A large factor was employment due to technology and industry. People had GOOD jobs, and that’s the key. Good jobs lead to large middle class and disposable income.
There is definitely a philosophical divide here. Clashing worldviews.
But who is an advocate of corporate control? Certainly not me!
Yes, there’s a lot of bs by corporations.
Eisenhower warned in what the early sixties about the military industrial complex? Now you got govt corporate military media complex! It’s almost a century after Ike’s warning!
As I see it younger Americans just want to make it official lol.
Anyhow to me it’s not the setup of the system it’s that there’s too much corruption. Politicians are just talking heads bought and sold by the complex for the most part and that’s sad and wrong.
But what in my opinion is also wrong is the naive assumption that a govt can or has ever existed without corruption and brainwashing.
It’s up to the people to stand up against injustice not throw in the towel and give TOTAL CONTROL to one entity.
To me that’s the opposite. Govt is supposed to break up monopolies. Lol liberals gave us too big to fail.
I appreciate your response and admire you for offering up some solution. I think I agree with you about the overall complex as I refer to it. I just disagree about the solution.
I think the less power in one entity the better.
Govt controlling means of production makes us all slaves.

For The next generation of Americans don’t blame the system blame us all for not paying close enough attention and allowing this to go on too long.
I don’t want to end up like China with a govt score for me that determines the level of freedom I am allowed to have.
Why anyone could advocate that is beyond me.

 

[Biggles]

Well, that’s one perspective on historical events and cause and effect. Scholars argue about all that all the time.
Also slavery led to a civil war because half the country disagreed with it.
Re immigrant exploitation why did so many immigrate? Freedom and opportunity.
The cause of ww1 is controversial.
The main point I would say is look at post ww2 economic boom.
A large factor was employment due to technology and industry. People had GOOD jobs, and that’s the key. Good jobs lead to large middle class and disposable income.
There is definitely a philosophical divide here. Clashing worldviews.
But who is an advocate of corporate control? Certainly not me!
Yes, there’s a lot of bs by corporations.
Eisenhower warned in what the early sixties about the military industrial complex? Now you got govt corporate military media complex! It’s almost a century after Ike’s warning!
As I see it younger Americans just want to make it official lol.
Anyhow to me it’s not the setup of the system it’s that there’s too much corruption. Politicians are just talking heads bought and sold by the complex for the most part and that’s sad and wrong.
But what in my opinion is also wrong is the naive assumption that a govt can or has ever existed without corruption and brainwashing.
It’s up to the people to stand up against injustice not throw in the towel and give TOTAL CONTROL to one entity.
To me that’s the opposite. Govt is supposed to break up monopolies. Lol liberals gave us too big to fail.
I appreciate your response and admire you for offering up some solution. I think I agree with you about the overall complex as I refer to it. I just disagree about the solution.
I think the less power in one entity the better.
Govt controlling means of production makes us all slaves.

For The next generation of Americans don’t blame the system blame us all for not paying close enough attention and allowing this to go on too long.
I don’t want to end up like China with a govt score for me that determines the level of freedom I am allowed to have.
Why anyone could advocate that is beyond me.

Yes, history - the cause & effect of events is a complex thing. But when you criticize the younger generation for having "freedom privilege" I think you have to offer up something more than a 3rd grade level perspective on history.

Just to address one of your points:

Re immigrant exploitation why did so many immigrate? Freedom and opportunity.

I can't pretend to describe the motivation of each immigrant coming to the US, but I'm pretty sure they weren't escaping higher marginal tax rates on the rich & universal health care. They were leaving Europe because conditions there for the poor - social, economic & political - were worse than they were in the US. And the United States (& Canada) offered one thing that no European country could - land.

People still come to the US from poor countries for economic opportunity - including the immigrants arriving at the southern border. Immigrants from wealthy European countries escaping "democratic socialist" countries like Norway ... not so much.

I don’t want to end up like China with a govt score for me that determines the level of freedom I am allowed to have. Why anyone could advocate that is beyond me.

Who is advocating that?

 

[mustafur]

Norway isn't Democratic Socialist anyway.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Norway isn't Democratic Socialist anyway.

It's a (partially) capitalist democracy with strong socialist values, it's a good description of a system that has no real template.

 

[mustafur]

It's a (partially) capitalist democracy with strong socialist values, it's a good description of a system that has no real template.

You mean Social Democracy.

I don't exactly see the means of production being socially controlled, it still is a free market in that sense.

There is a big difference between the two but gets easily mistaken as it sounds similar, I would assume this is what @Biggles meant(Maybe).

 

[Biggles]

You mean Social Democracy.

I don't exactly see the means of production being socially controlled, it still is a free market in that sense.

There is a big difference between the two but gets easily mistaken as it sounds similar, I would assume this is what @Biggles meant(Maybe).

Yes - well who knows exactly what people mean when they call something "socialist", "social democracy" or "democratic socialist". To American conservatives any of those words is a red flag. In fact, as we have seen, many American conservatives even object to the use of the term "democracy" to describe the US.

I consider the mix of free enterprise with social democracy to be a great achievement, but yes - it needs to be constantly assessed & adjusted IMO.