White privilege - What to do about it?
Privilege is defined as “a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most.” White privilege means that there are rights, immunities or benefits enjoyed only by whites because society places whites in a higher position than minorities. Some examples of this include better access to loans, bandaids matching the colour of your skin and shampoos suited for typical white hair.
So let's assume white privilege exists. Now that it's recognized, what are we supposed to do about it?
Friendly reminder that, while this may be a sensitive topic of discussion, we should try to keep it civil and understand the opposite point of view. Let's not repeat the mistakes of the last thread. Looking forward to your suggestions.
Source on white privilege definition and examples: http://www.cpt.org/files/Undoing%20Raci … endall.pdfHere in the UK, the opposite is true, minority groups, and their members (whatever their colour), tend to have more influence and priority over such things as policy, employment, media etc.
As to your examples, they are marketing to their customer base. I have seen plenty of beauty products catering to non-whites. Loans and mortgages in the UK are based on criteria such as earnings, credit ratings, etc., not skin colour.
So, no, I don't agree with your assumption as it applies to my experience. However, you may only be referring to the US, in that case, I can't comment.Thanks for the response theraggededge. Believe me, I'm more than aware that there are serious flaws with these examples. I didn't come up with them. I'm just accepting them as valid for the sake of argument because I want to know what those who insist on the existence of white privilege want to do about it.
Incidentally, I've seen the same pattern in Canada and the US to varying degrees. An ubiquitous statement like white privilege is easily debunked with examples of minorities having more influence and priority, but I'm going to be charitable and assume they mean "on average."Those accustomed to privilege often perceive measures to ensure racial equality as examples of minorities being given "more influence and priority" (my emphasis). For those accustomed to being disadvantaged, the same measures are just seen as examples of levelling an uneven playing field. So I think it's a mistake to suggest the notion of white privilege has been debunked. It doesn't follow that because some advances have been made in levelling a playing field, that the field is now level.
The examples you cite in your (hypothetical) acceptance of white privilege are not representative of the range of issues related to racial inequality. Examples of the wider range of issues you could have used include the privilege of:
Receiving sentences for drug offenses that are 20 times shorter than black defendants who commit the same crime, and who have a similar criminal history;
Being stopped less often by police while driving, and searched less often when stopped, despite statistics showing that a higher percentage of white drivers searched are found to be carrying contraband and/ or weapons in their vehicle;
Being less likely to be excluded from school, or receive sanctions than non-white children, for the same types of infractions;
Being 50% more likely to have a CV accepted for interview than CV's with "ethnic sounding" names, despite listing the same knowledge, skills and experience.
Being charged less interest on personal loans, than those from ethnic minorities, despite having the same personal risk profile.
Being shown 17% more properties than black people, despite both being equally qualified to buy or rent.
The justice system, law enforcement, education housing, finance; all fundamental aspects of society. Examples of racial inequality that negatively impacts non white people have been highlighted in all of them.
What should we do about racial inequality?
1) Stop playing the blame/ guilt game. These inequalities do not imply personal racism. They are systemic issues, and although such issues do stem from individual prejudices (pre-judgments), that prejudice is not always conscious and deliberate.
2) Stop pretending racial inequality does not exist, and that non white people are disproportionately affected by it. It does, and they are.
3) Listen to what others are saying about it
I think that would be a useful start."Those accustomed to privilege often perceive measures to ensure racial equality as examples of minorities being given "more influence and priority" (my emphasis). For those accustomed to being disadvantaged, the same measures are just seen as examples of levelling an uneven playing field."
You're right; that's why I don't trust either biased perspective. Here's my suggestion: instead of disputing the ability or inability to perceive privilege (an unfalsifiable statement), how about we examine evidence of the playing field, its balance and how it came about?
"So I think it's a mistake to suggest the notion of white privilege has been debunked."
I qualified white privilege when it's used ubiquitously. Saying that all white people are more privileged than all minorities is demonstrably false. The term does invoke that notion even if it does not intend to - unfortunately, that is the nature of making a statement in the form of race + a negative trait.
"It doesn't follow that because some advances have been made in levelling a playing field, that the field is now level."
I never said the field is now level. I am suggesting that the field may not be level for reasons outside of racism, and that expecting 100% level balance is very likely a mistake.
"The examples you cite in your (hypothetical) acceptance of white privilege are not representative of the range of issues related to racial inequality."
They were the only examples cited in a paper of white privilege by a notable author. They are common examples outside of that source. If they're not representative perhaps you should contact the authors with better, less ridiculous examples.
"Being stopped less often by police while driving, and searched less often when stopped, despite statistics showing that a higher percentage of white drivers searched are found to be carrying contraband and/ or weapons in their vehicle;"
The first part can be explained if black drivers are more likely to speed or break traffic laws than white drivers. I can't speculate any further unless you give me a source. I know that the Department of Justice commissioned a study on the New Jersey Turnpike and found that blacks were more likely to speed than whites in the early 2000s. Funny enough, that study was commissioned specifically because of accusations of profiling. It's almost like correlation doesn't equal causation.
As for your other examples, I'd like specific sources on them as well.
"1) Stop playing the blame/ guilt game."
As I alluded to earlier, using a near-ubiquitous term like white privilege is playing the blame game, especially when you are using a superficial trait like skin colour, which does not account for the living realities of individual white people. I'm sure there are whites which have been searched disproportionately, excluded from school, denied interviews, charged more on loans and shown less properties, who had been historically oppressed in the past (Irish, anyone?) and yet you lump them into a category of privilege based on skin.
"2) Stop pretending racial inequality does not exist, and that non white people are disproportionately affected by it. It does, and they are."
Never said racial inequality doesn't exist. I am just questioning the reasons this inequality exists.
"3) Listen to what others are saying about it"
That's why I made this thread. I'm listening, not really convinced though."You're right; that's why I don't trust either biased perspective. . . ".
(And from a previous post)
"An ubiquitous statement like white privilege is easily debunked with examples of minorities having more influence and priority . . . "
You accept that attitudes towards white privilege are biased due to the differences in perspective of those with different experiences of the issue. And you believe that ("ubiquitous") white privilege is debunked with examples of minorities having more influence and priority. Unfortunately these two positions (assuming I have understood you correctly) are self defeating. By the logic of your own argument, the first turns the second into a biased mis-perception that cannot be relied on.
Moreover, you are making a common mistake made by authors and commentators who consider white privilege in isolation from other types of social privilege, such as that relating to wealth, sex, gender, age, sexual orientation etc. All of these things intersect, making social privilege at an individual level, the product of a combination of different variables.
It's entirely possible for a person to be privileged in certain ways because she is white, but disadvantaged in certain ways because she is a woman, but privileged in certain ways because she is heterosexual. Or for a person to be privileged by the fact he is male, disadvantaged by the fact he is a person of color, further disadvantaged by the fact he is homosexual, but privileged by the fact he is wealthy etc. So isolating race from gender and other personal attributes when discussing privilege/disadvantage is unhelpful in my opinion.
"Here's my suggestion: instead of disputing the ability or inability to perceive privilege (an unfalsifiable statement), how about we examine evidence of the playing field, its balance and how it came about?"
Sure. Start with slavery and go from there if you like.
"I qualified white privilege when it's used ubiquitously. Saying that all white people are more privileged than all minorities is demonstrably false. The term does invoke that notion even if it does not intend to - unfortunately, that is the nature of making a statement in the form of race + a negative trait."
White privilege is, by definition, ubiquitous. That's what a social privilege is. An advantage available only to a particular social group. Whether a specific individual is able to personally utilise that advantage, is irrelevant to whether the advantage exists.
"I never said the field is now level. I am suggesting that the field may not be level for reasons outside of racism, and that expecting 100% level balance is very likely a mistake."
Straw man. Who's saying the inequalities we see in society are exclusively the result of racial inequality? Inequalities are the result of a complex combination of various levels of privilege/disadvantage associated with different personal attributes, one of which is race.
"They were the only examples cited in a paper of white privilege by a notable author. They are common examples outside of that source. If they're not representative perhaps you should contact the authors with better, less ridiculous examples."
The source of these examples, or how common they are, is irrelevant. They are not representative of the range of issues related to racial inequality. Nevertheless, I didn't call them ridiculous. You made that part up.
"The first part can be explained if black drivers are more likely to speed or break traffic laws than white drivers. I can't speculate any further unless you give me a source. I know that the Department of Justice commissioned a study on the New Jersey Turnpike and found that blacks were more likely to speed than whites in the early 2000s. Funny enough, that study was commissioned specifically because of accusations of profiling. It's almost like correlation doesn't equal causation.
As for your other examples, I'd like specific sources on them as well."
I've posted the sources elsewhere on the forum. I'll see if I can dig them out. If not I won't be finding the original sources again. Too much work. If you're genuinely interested you can do some google research, it's all publicly available information. In the meantime, tell me some examples of racial inequality you think are based on racial discrimination. No sources needed. Just tell me what you think. because even though you don't believe racial discrimination is 100% the reason for racial inequality, I assume you accept it is the cause of some racial inequality, right?
"As I alluded to earlier, using a near-ubiquitous term like white privilege is playing the blame game . . ."
Once again, social privilege is ubiquitous by definition because it's an advantage that applies to a group. The only way to not have that advantage is to not be in the group. Whether a specific individual is able to personally utilise that advantage, is irrelevant to whether the privilege exists.
"Never said racial inequality doesn't exist. I am just questioning the reasons this inequality exists."
Great. Again, can you give some examples of racial inequality that you believe are the result of racial discrimination? Or is it your contention that no example of racial inequality currently in existence, is the result of racial discrimination?
"That's why I made this thread. I'm listening, not really convinced though."
I don't think being "convinced" is necessarily the goal of listening. Be great if we all agreed, but disagreement is natural and inevitable. How we deal with that reveals more about us in my opinion."You accept that attitudes towards white privilege are biased due to the differences in perspective of those with different experiences of the issue. And you believe that ("ubiquitous") white privilege is debunked with examples of minorities having more influence and priority. Unfortunately these two positions (assuming I have understood you correctly) are self defeating. By the logic of your own argument, the first turns the second into a biased mis-perception that cannot be relied on."
Only if you reduce truth-checking a basic premise into invoking biased misperceptions. That would mean anyone talking about privilege is biased and cannot be relied on. Your logic, not mine. Or are you trying to suggest that you are the only one qualified to speak on whether privilege does or does not exist?
"Moreover, you are making a common mistake made by authors and commentators who consider white privilege in isolation from other types of social privilege, such as that relating to wealth, sex, gender, age, sexual orientation etc. All of these things intersect, making social privilege at an individual level, the product of a combination of different variables.
I'm not making any such mistake. Feel free to read the rest of the thread, where I question why we only talk about male, white and heterosexual privileges. Why aren't we talking about height privilege? Weight privilege? Health privilege? Genetic privilege? None of these distinctions are particularly helpful. What is the point of talking about things that are largely determined by probability or individual choice? What is your end goal with such discussions?
"Sure. Start with slavery and go from there if you like."
I have. That's why I mentioned the Irish, for instance. As you said, those slave descendants are still privileged, somehow, because you're the one limiting the analysis to skin colour, not me.
"White privilege is, by definition, ubiquitous. That's what a social privilege is. An advantage available only to a particular social group."
Every single example of yours is not an advantage exclusive to a particular social group (Asians have similar advantages to whites, for instance). Those examples are differences in outcome on average. They wouldn't even be advantages, they'd be disproportionate punishments, again, on average.
"Whether a specific individual is able to personally utilise that advantage, is irrelevant to whether the advantage exists."
so white privilege is ubiquitous (present, appearing, or found everywhere) but it's also not ubiquitous at the same time. Can this be tested scientifically? Can you find a white guy who is using absolutely none of his privileges and get him to become privileged? I wonder how you'll do that, given how apparently we're all biased in discussions of privilege...how will we know objectively that this advantage exists and is not a misconception?
"Inequalities are the result of a complex combination of various levels of privilege/disadvantage associated with different personal attributes, one of which is race."
Yes, probabilistic events determine how well off you will be. That's called life. I don't know what you want to do about that.
"Straw man. Who's saying the inequalities we see in society are exclusively the result of racial inequality?" why would you accuse me of strawmanning if you don't even know who I am referring to? Am I even quoting anyone in particular? What if I'm simply suggesting something for the edification of all readers? Please re-read what I've stated, you're getting trigger happy with these fallacy accusations.
"The source of these examples, or how common they are, is irrelevant. They are not representative of the range of issues related to racial inequality."
1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4 ,5 ,6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Which number is representative of the average number? 2. Can 2 be representative of the range? Not really. Expecting a few examples to be representative of the entire range of examples sounds nonsensical to me. Would love a clarification.
Note the definition of representative: typical of a class, group, or body of opinion. You might be operating on a different set of rules if you think that the source of the example and its frequency is irrelevant to it being typical.
"Nevertheless, I didn't call them ridiculous. You made that part up."
I never said you called them ridiculous. Seems one of us is making things up, but it's not me.
"I've posted the sources elsewhere on the forum. I'll see if I can dig them out. If not I won't be finding the original sources again. Too much work. If you're genuinely interested you can do some google research, it's all publicly available information."
I'm not going to go on a wild goose chase to find the specific sources you were referring to. If you have those sources, great. If not, too bad. I am genuinely interested, which is why I've already been reading. Note that I've given you a source specifically from the Department of Justice.
"In the meantime, tell me some examples of racial inequality you think are based on racial discrimination"
There are plenty of examples of racial discrimination on an individual level, against every race, by every race. Are these incidents enough to cause statistical disparities in education, housing, income, legal punishments etc.? I haven't seen evidence of that in Western countries.
"Once again, social privilege is ubiquitous by definition because it's an advantage that applies to a group. The only way to not have that advantage is to not be in the group. Whether a specific individual is able to personally utilise that advantage, is irrelevant to whether the privilege exists."
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt because you could explain white privilege as an average advantage, but you opted to go the route that suggests every white person has an inherent advantage relative to every black person, nuance be damned. At least you've agreed that it is playing the blame game though.
"Or is it your contention that no example of racial inequality currently in existence, is the result of racial discrimination?"
You almost got it. My contention is that no current statistical disparity between races is primarily the result of current racial discrimination. Individual examples of racial discrimination will always be there, but not enough to be statistically significant and are almost always rectified anyway.
"I don't think being "convinced" is necessarily the goal of listening."
It should be, if we're talking about an explanation of reality."Only if you reduce truth-checking a basic premise into invoking biased misperceptions. That would mean anyone talking about privilege is biased and cannot be relied on. Your logic, not mine. Or are you trying to suggest that you are the only one qualified to speak on whether privilege does or does not exist?"
No, it means that the idea minorities have "more influence and priority" (presumably than white people) is only your perception. If your supposed debunking of white privilege is based on that assertion, which by your own admission it is, then it is unreliable. If you would like to present evidence from reliable sources that minorities do in fact have "more influence and priority" than white people, I'd be happy to look at it, but I predict that any such evidence could be countered by evidence indicating that minorities do not have more influence and priority, which I suspect you already know.
"I'm not making any such mistake. Feel free to read the rest of the thread, where I question why we only talk about male, white and heterosexual privileges."
Is it because there is a worldwide conspiracy against white heterosexual men? Are all the females, and nonwhites jealous of that maleness, whiteness, and straightness? Are they all in cahoots and hell bent on tearing down white heterosexual men?Or do you think those three things might be referenced most because they appear to have the highest levels of privilege/disadvantage associated with them? Which do you think is more likely? Or do you think there's some other reason I haven't thought of?
"Why aren't we talking about height privilege? Weight privilege? Health privilege? Genetic privilege? None of these distinctions are particularly helpful. What is the point of talking about things that are largely determined by probability or individual choice? What is your end goal with such discussions?"
There is some discussion about weight, e.g. the idea of "body-shaming" etc.. But why do you think these distinctions are made? Do you think people sit around trying to think up more and more ways to categorise different people? Do you think people categorise by race, sexual orientation etc. because they believe it's "helpful"? Or do you think perhaps it's because people have noticed that society treats people differently based on certain attributes like color, sex, sexual orientation etc. So in order to talk about that, people have to reference those attributes? Again, which do you think is more likely, or do you have another explanation you'd like to share?
The end goal? If I were given a job (where height is irrelevant) purely on the grounds that I'm taller than you? And this happened to you time and again. So you raised it as an issue. What would be the end goal of you raising it?
"I have. That's why I mentioned the Irish, for instance. As you said, those slave descendants are still privileged, somehow, because you're the one limiting the analysis to skin colour, not me."
Oh dear, alarm bells are ringing. Are you one of those history revisionists who perpetuate the myth that the "Irish were treated worse than black people in America". That has been thoroughly debunked, it would be such a waste of time to revisit. I hope that's not what you are referring to.
"Every single example of yours is not an advantage exclusive to a particular social group (Asians have similar advantages to whites, for instance). Those examples are differences in outcome [i]on average. They wouldn't even be advantages, they'd be disproportionate punishments, again, on average."[/i]
The whole issue can be framed in terms of advantages or disadvantages. They are two sides of the same coin. Once again, there will be a matrix of different levels of advantage/disadvantage between different groups, but that is irrelevant to the idea of white privilege. You are essentially asking for a list of all the social inequalities associated with being asian, black, latino specifically relative to being white. That information is available.
" so white privilege is ubiquitous (present, appearing, or found everywhere) but it's also not ubiquitous at the same time. Can this be tested scientifically? Can you find a white guy who is using absolutely none of his privileges and get him to become privileged? I wonder how you'll do that, given how apparently we're all biased in discussions of privilege...how will we know objectively that this advantage exists and is not a misconception?"
That's the equivalent of a saying: "It's really cold today, therefore global warming doesn't exist", or "the president is black, therefore racism doesn't exist". It's nonsense. The fact that some white people are poor does not mean white privilege doesn't exist.
"Yes, probabilistic events determine how well off you will be. That's called life. I don't know what you want to do about that."
I didn't make myself clear. I'm was referring to socially constructed advantages/disadvantages. These are not born of probabilistic events, they are born of (often arbitrary) discrimination. You are conflating the two.
If being successful at a particular task required someone to be tall, then someone who happened to be tall, would have a natural advantage.
If, on the other hand, the task in question was accountancy (as a random example) then being tall would confer no significant advantage. So if accountancy jobs were mostly filled by tall people in a way that is not representative of the tall/short demographic, and some of those tall people had expressed prejudicial negative attitudes towards short people, and there was a history in the country of short people being mistreated by tall people, and there were other examples of short people (all other things equal) being treated less favorably than tall people within various social institutions, then one might (reasonably I think) conclude that there is an inequality between tall and short people which is a social construct.
Unfortunately the above scenario would also likely produce people who would, upon seeing the relative dominance of tall people in society, erroneously conclude that tall people must in fact be inherently superior, and that the inequality is therefore somehow justified.
" why would you accuse me of strawmanning if you don't even know who I am referring to? Am I even quoting anyone in particular? What if I'm simply suggesting something for the edification of all readers? Please re-read what I've stated, you're getting trigger happy with these fallacy accusations."
In response to my charge that the playing field is still uneven, you said "I never said the field is now level. I am suggesting that the field may not be level for reasons outside of racism, and that expecting 100% level balance is very likely a mistake". Your response implies you are addressing my argument. You weren't. It also implies that you are addressing someone's argument. You weren't. So it was perfectly reasonable to conclude it was a straw man. By your own admission you were playing to the gallery and your comment was apropos nothing. I think it's unreasonable to expect me to assume that. If you want to make pronouncements for the edification of "all readers", I suggest you highlight them. to ensure I don't mistakenly think you are addressing an actual argument.
"1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4 ,5 ,6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Which number is representative of the average number? 2. Can 2 be representative of the range? Not really. Expecting a few examples to be representative of the entire [i]range of examples sounds nonsensical to me. Would love a clarification."[/i]
It's very simple. I'm talking about the range of severity in relation to the effects of white privilege. While the issues you quote are valid examples, they give no indication as to the full range of severity. In the same way that 2 gives no indication of the range of numbers in the above list. Sure 2 is the median, and the most frequent number, but that gives no indication of the upper or lower ranges. That list could go up as high as 1 million, or down as low as minus 1 million. 2 gives no indication of that. Of course, in a list of numbers the extremes could be infinite, but in relation to social issues, the extremes will be finite. The most severe effect being death. The least severe being no significant impact. The point is that in only mentioning examples that relate to cosmetic issues, you (and the author you quoted) give the impression that the severity of effects related to white privilege are less severe than they actually are.
"Note the definition of representative: typical of a class, group, or body of opinion. You might be operating on a different set of rules if you think that the source of the example and its frequency is irrelevant to it being typical."
Again, straw man. I didn't say frequency was irrelevant to something being typical. I said the examples are not typical of the full range of issues, which is true. Including examples of issues that have severe impact on people, would be more representative of the full range of issues. I'm not sure why you find that difficult.
"I never said [i]you called them ridiculous. Seems one of us is making things up, but it's not me."[/i]
Which suggests you think they those examples are ridiculous. Therein lies the problem with not giving examples that are representative of the full range of issues related to white privilege.
"There are plenty of examples of racial discrimination on an individual level, against every race, by every race. Are these incidents enough to cause statistical disparities in education, housing, income, legal punishments etc.? I haven't seen evidence of that in Western countries."
Examples such as . . . ? And does that mean you don't believe systemic racial discrimination exists?
"I was giving you the benefit of the doubt because you could explain white privilege as an average advantage, but you opted to go the route that suggests every white person has an inherent advantage relative to every black person, nuance be damned. At least you've agreed that it [i]is playing the blame game though."
[/i]
You seem to be unsure, so let me be very clear in what I am saying. If two people (one white, one nonwhite) have the same amount of money, the same level of education etc. the white person still has a social advantage. Not because of an inherent superiority/inferiority related to race, but because society is currently structured in a way that artificially maintains the dominance of a particular social group. That's only about blame if you are incapable of distinguishing between individual racial discrimination, and structural and systemic racial discrimination. I am capable of doing that, so I fully understand that I am not personally responsible for the inequality that stems from systemic racial discrimination. However, I also understand that I am responsible for acknowledging it, and ensuring that it is not continued. I hope that clarifies my position for you.
"You almost got it. My contention is that no current statistical disparity between races is primarily the result of current racial discrimination. Individual examples of racial discrimination will always be there, but not enough to be statistically significant and are almost always rectified anyway."
If you left it at ". . . no current statistical disparity between races is primarily the result of current racial discrimination" (my emphasis) I'd be in agreement. People are discriminated against on the basis of other attributes, and those attributes all intersect. But I disagree with your suggestion that systemic racial discrimination does not exist. I think it's unreasonable to hold that view in light of the extent of literature indicating otherwise.
"It should be, if we're talking about an explanation of reality."
Only the rigors of scientific method bring about that type of consensus in relation to an explanation of reality. If that were possible with social issues, I'd be all for it, but I don't think it is, or at least it's extremely difficult. Being rational and reasonable is a must though. In applying reason to this subject, we could ask, what is more conducive to a harmonious society: discrimination against people based on their skin color, or treating people equally regardless of their color?“No, it means that the idea minorities have "more influence and priority" (presumably than white people) is only your perception.”
The idea that minorities have “less influence and priority” is also only your perception. Again, do you think your perception is the only one qualified to speak on the issue of privilege?
“If your supposed debunking of white privilege is based on that assertion, which by your own admission it is, then it is unreliable”
I was speaking of a ubiquitous statement related to white privilege, that all white people have more advantages than all minorities. That statement is easily debunked by having a single minority have more advantages than whites. The debunking of such a statement unaffected by our perceptions of privilege. Unless you think that just examining the facts is also unreliable?
“Or do you think those three things might be referenced most because they appear to have the highest levels of privilege/disadvantage associated with them?”
The idea that white, heterosexual men have the highest levels of privilege associated with them is only your perception. We can do this all day, can’t we?
Funny enough, wealth, height, environment and intelligence are better indicators of success than maleness, whiteness or straightness. For some reason we don’t talk about those privileges.
“There is some discussion about weight, e.g. the idea of "body-shaming" etc”
Not height or health or genes though, huh? Maybe they'll get around to it tomorrow. Maybe they'll eventually realize not everyone wins the lotto.
What did you think about the Protein World Controversy? Who was being body shamed there? Was it the lack of different types of body shapes and sizes, many of which are not attractive, especially in beach attire? Or was it the model of the ad who, despite being of average weight, was harassed for being too skinny and anorexic?
“Do you think people sit around trying to think up more and more ways to categorise different people?”
Of course they do, that’s why new “privileges” are being discovered every day.
“Or do you think perhaps it's because people have noticed that society treats people differently based on certain attributes like color, sex, sexual orientation etc.”
Society does treat people differently based on certain attributes. This is almost always with good reason. Intelligent people are demonstrably more capable in complex tasks and thus qualify for better jobs and better salaries. This is not equal to discriminating against those of us with lower IQs except on a technical level.
Society as a whole already doesn’t condone discriminatory behaviour with the largely superficial attributes that you mentioned, which is why discrimination on those grounds is routinely punished, even if it’s just perceived discrimination. Unfortunately, in its efforts in combating discrimination, our society conflates equality of outcome with equality of opportunity and punishes disparities in the latter as if they were disparities in the former.
“If I were given a job (where height is irrelevant) purely on the grounds that I'm taller than you? And this happened to you time and again. So you raised it as an issue.”
How would I know that I was being discriminated time and time again because of height? My perception is flawed, remember?
No really, it is. There’s a reason why I wouldn’t raise it as an issue even if it appeared to be happening to me time and time again. There may be a relevant underlying factor correlated to height that I’m mistaking for a height advantage. For instance, confidence: https://contently.com/strategist/2015/0 … r-success/
Of course, looking at such factors actually takes work, self-introspection and skepticism, along with some understanding of statistics. It would be much easier to act like I’m a victim of misfortune.
“Oh dear, alarm bells are ringing. Are you one of those history revisionists who perpetuate the myth that the "Irish were treated worse than black people in America". That has been thoroughly debunked, it would be such a waste of time to revisit. I hope that's not what you are referring to.”
No. If I were saying that, I would have said “the Irish were treated worse than black people in America.” But I don’t play victimology games. Let’s miss the underlying point for a quasi-strawman some other time.
“The whole issue can be framed in terms of advantages or disadvantages.”
That’s the whole point. You’re conflating equality of outcome with equality of opportunity. You’re conflating correlations with causations.
“That's the equivalent of a saying: "It's really cold today, therefore global warming doesn't exist", or "the president is black, therefore racism doesn't exist". It's nonsense.”
No, it’d be the equivalent of saying “it’s always colder in Toronto than it is in California” and then pointing to an instance where California was actually colder than Toronto. That’s because I was challenging the specific notion that all white people are more advantaged than all minorities.
By the way, how are we going to test the existence of white privilege on those white folks who are not taking advantage of that privilege? Clearly you’re convinced they have privilege, so let’s design a scientific test proving that white privilege is there even if it’s not being used.
“These are not born of probabilistic events, they are born of (often arbitrary) discrimination.”
You have not demonstrated that once.
“So if accountancy jobs were mostly filled by tall people in a way that is not representative of the tall/short demographic, and some of those tall people had expressed prejudicial negative attitudes towards short people,and there was a history in the country of short people being mistreated by tall people, and there were other examples of short people (all other things equal) being treated less favorably than tall people within various social institutions”
All of the above are likely to be true and you would still not have demonstrated institutional discrimination. Refer to the article I posted. Tall people have greater confidence earned from their teenage years, translating to better job prospects and performance in those various social institutions. The relevant factor is confidence, not height. Correlation does not equal causation.
“Your response implies you are addressing my argument. You weren't. It also implies that you are addressing someone'sargument. You weren't.”
How does my response imply that? Do you know what a suggestion is?
“So it was perfectly reasonable to conclude it was a straw man.”
Maybe for someone with faulty perception.
“By your own admission you were playing to the gallery and your comment was apropos nothing”
Not nothing, because my comment is my hypothesis regarding statistical discrepancies between outcomes based on race (that extends to gender, orientation etc.) I don’t know why you would think that restating my hypothesis for your clarification is a strawman of your or anyone else's argument.
I mean, you do realize you have been doing the same thing, right? You attacked the claim that the playing field was even when nobody here made that claim. Was that a strawman? Or was that you navigating through the discussion?
“If you want to make pronouncements for the edification of "all readers", I suggest you highlight them.”
If you want to avoid erroneous accusations of fallacies, I suggest you read more carefully.
“The point is that in only mentioning examples that relate to cosmetic issues, you (and the author you quoted) give the impression that the severity of effects related to white privilege are less severe than they actually are.”
Except that the most frequent issue is closer to the typical issue, and thus the typical severity, of the effects of white privilege. Range does not really tell you the severity of the issue overall, it tells you the extremes. The KKK create issues ranging from “minor nuisance” to “death”. ISIS creates issues ranging from “minor nuisance” to “death”. Which is more severe?
“Again, straw man.”
“Again”? Hasn't it gotten through to you that it wasn't a strawman to begin with?
“I didn't say frequency was irrelevant to something being typical.”
I never said you did. I said if you think that, you might be operating on a different set of rules. Which you are; you’d rather look at the range of issues (even if their frequency is barely measurable) instead of the median, mode or mean of the issue. Obviously the range is representative of the range and the median is representative of the median, but which of those is representative of the issue?
“Which suggests you think they those examples are ridiculous.”
No kidding. It doesn’t suggest that you think those examples are ridiculous, though.
“Therein lies the problem with not giving examples that are representative of the full range of issues related to white privilege.”
That’s a problem with your analysis, not mine. You’d rather investigate the range as if the range is representative of the issue. It’s not.
“You seem to be unsure, so let me be very clear in what I am saying.”
That’s just your perception.
“If two people (one white, one nonwhite) have the same amount of money, the same level of education etc. the white person still has a social advantage.”
Name one advantage that can be testable in those conditions. I want a way to test this. I mean, someone has tested this, right?
“But I disagree with your suggestion that systemic racial discrimination does not exist. I think it's unreasonable to hold that view in light of the extent of literature indicating otherwise.”
Extensive literature is not enough to establish truth or even fact, especially from one-dimensional sources approaching the problem from the same angle and with a preconceived ideology:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who%27s_A … ake_papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
This is why I asked for specific sources, so we can go through them and evaluate their methodologies and limitations.
“Only the rigors of scientific method bring about that type of consensus in relation to an explanation of reality.”
Which is why I wonder how you have the sort of predictive power to claim “If two people (one white, one nonwhite) have the same amount of money, the same level of education etc. the white person still has a social advantage“ simply because he's white.
“In applying reason to this subject, we could ask, what is more conducive to a harmonious society: discrimination against people based on their skin color, or treating people equally regardless of their color?”
Obviously the former, nobody here is against that (is that another strawman?). The question is how pervasive is discrimination against people based on skin colour in society to merit this accusation of white privilege, not whether it’s good or bad.(from a previous post)
"That's why I made this thread. I'm listening, not really convinced though."
But you're not listening are you. Case in point: "As I alluded to earlier, using a near-ubiquitous term like white privilege is playing the blame game" and "I qualified white privilege when it's used ubiquitously."
I've said this before: white privilege is a term that has a well-established meaning that includes ubiquitousness. That is simply what it means. Yes, there are varying definitions of the concept, but every definition of white privilege I have seen implicitly includes ubiquitousness.
So if you want to suggest there is a social privilege related to race that is not ubiquitous, that's fine, but then you're no longer talking about the concept of white privilege as commonly and implicitly defined. You're talking about something else.
Likewise, if you want to suggest that most definitions of white privilege do not implicitly include ubiquitousness, that's fine too. I'm happy to look at your evidence for that.
And if you want to suggest the concept of white privilege doesn't exist as a social phenomenon, or the effects associated with it are caused by something else. No problem. Happy to look at your evidence for that as well.
But saying "I qualified white privilege when it's used ubiquitously." or suggesting it is "near-ubiquitous" is not fine, because it suggests you literally don't know what you are talking about. As much as you might want to, you can't unilaterally decide that white privilege now means something else, and expect everyone to ignore the established meaning because you don't like it, or disagree with it.
So don't object to the concept of white privilege "when it's used ubiquitously", because using it any other way is a contradiction in terms. And don't refer to it as a "near-ubiquitous term", because that's like referring to a triangle as a near-three-sided shape. It's nonsensical.
I know you made lots of other comments, which I'm happy to reply to, but for the time being can we establish these simple points of fact. I think it's relatively important."Yes, there are varying definitions of the concept, but every definition of white privilege I have seen implicitly includes ubiquitousness."
Yes, implicitly, which is why I give people the benefit of the doubt in thinking that maybe they are referring to advantages on average instead of every white person having a ubiquitous advantage over every minority. The former makes more sense than the latter in light of almost all white privilege examples relying on average outcomes instead of ubiquitous outcomes. Being stopped for speeding "less often" does not mean white people are never stopped for speeding, which would be the ubiquitous advantage that I am referring to. If that is the universal definition of white privilege then it becomes that much easier to disprove it.
"And if you want to suggest the concept of white privilege doesn't exist as a social phenomenon, or the effects associated with it are caused by something else. No problem. Happy to look at your evidence for that as well."
The burden of proof is on the person who made the claim. You've made the claim that white privilege exists, so provide evidence.
"But saying "I qualified white privilege when it's used ubiquitously." or suggesting it is "near-ubiquitous" is not fine, because it suggests you literally don't know what you are talking about."
I am sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt. I'm now going to assume you are incapable of distinguishing between average outcomes and ubiquitous outcomes. It does make you look even sillier when using average outcomes as evidence of ubiquitous advantages.
"So don't object to the concept of white privilege "when it's used ubiquitously", because using it any other way is a contradiction in terms."
Where did I object to such a thing? Feel free to use white privilege as a ubiquitous term, it makes it that much easier to disprove it. Though I am puzzled why you'd want to use it in such a way. It's rare to find ubiquitous forces and only the most rigorously tested facts and phenomena become ubiquitous in science, something like gravity or even the aptly named ubiquitin protein. That's because a ubiquitous fact necessitates a preponderance of evidence. Even then scientists are careful to state that things like ubiquitin are present in virtually all types of cells. If the hypothesis of white privilege has not been rigorously tested (as you have admitted) then it wouldn't make sense to state that it is ubiquitous.
"And don't refer to it as a "near-ubiquitous term", because that's like referring to a triangle as a near-three-sided shape. It's nonsensical."
Near-ubiquitous, as in, like you, almost every instance I've seen of privilege has implied ubiquitousness, but I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt for the rare person that may use the term as an explanation of average disparities, and thus, average advantages, and not ubiquitous ones. I'm trying to do you a favour here by making your position slightly more defensible, but fine, white privilege is ubiquitous. Good luck proving that.
Your analogy would only make sense if sociological definitions were as universal and well defined as basic mathematical definitions. Even the basic term "racism" has varying interpretations. Triangles? Not so much.Well, Mr. P, it seems like your first paragraph, average verses ubiquitousness on display. The existence of "White Privilege" is the rule rather than the exception. I think that Don explained some of the disparities based on race that are not supported by other causal factors. You once asked me if not being hired, something about Affirmative Action applicability or such. What you should know is that racism is why minorities are not hired when they are otherwise qualified. In a society in which I pay taxes and contribute, people have a right to be evaluated equally on qualifications, only. AA came into play because that was not the way things were being carried out in practice. We all know, or at least most of us know, how race prejudice and discrimination is used to shortchange the object of the bias, this is old as the Pharaohs and has no rational justification. It is just that UNfair. Of course, there are exceptions in every case, nothing is without exception, Oprah Winfrey, among others. Yes, it is ubiquitous, but what exists that is 100 percent true all of the time? Just because there is not a perfect cause and effect correlation can one dismiss the concept as non-existent? I guess that I am now going to be tasked with proving that it is more true than than otherwise.
While you brought up the study about blacks having a tendency to speed on the road (New Jersey), is this the support you provide as to why they are searched more often, arrested more frequently and receive harsher penalties under the legal systems than whites under identical circumstances? What other reason besides race prejudice can explain the disparity? I have to take the time to find a few documented cases to support my contention like , since that is the sort of evidence you seek. But they are there."The existence of "White Privilege" is the rule rather than the exception."
If it's the rule it should be easy to provide an abundance of evidence to support your claim, yet the best you have done is an out of court settlement case where the bank denied any wrongdoing.
"In a society in which I pay taxes and contribute, people have a right to be evaluated equally on qualifications, only. AA came into play because that was not the way things were being carried out in practice."
My question was how did AA change it? Before AA people were not being evaluated equally because of racial biases, regardless of the law. AA is creating an effect that causes equal evaluation of people despite racial biases. What is that effect and how is it getting around the pervasive racial biases of our society?
"Yes, it is ubiquitous, but what exists that is 100 percent true all of the time? Just because there is not a perfect cause and effect correlation can one dismiss the concept as non-existent."
I'm guessing you think it is not ubiquitous but that it is applicable for most cases. That's what I was stating to be a more defensible position. I never said that white privilege must be ubiquitous, in fact it'd be better for your argument if you state it as a general trend rather than an omnipresent force.
To reiterate, I am not asking you to provide evidence of a perfect cause to the correlation. I am pointing out that you are only providing evidence of a correlation and claiming the cause must be racism. Don has not explained the disparities, he's stated the disparities as if the disparities themselves are sufficient evidence of racism. All I am asking is for evidence of the causal link.
"is this the support you provide as to why they are searched more often, arrested more frequently and receive harsher penalties under the legal systems than whites under identical circumstances? What other reason besides race prejudice can explain the disparity?"
All of the above are also true of men relative to women across all races. Does that mean men are being systematically discriminated based on gender? Try to think of a few reasons why men would be searched and arrested more often than women per capita and on aggregate."If it's the rule it should be easy to provide an abundance of evidence to support your claim, yet the best you have done is an out of court settlement case where the bank denied any wrongdoing."
---------------------------------
If you want more, here is more. There are gobs of data to support my point, the statistics are there, what do you think the causation is behind the outcomes? Do you believe that racial prejudice and bias do not play a major role in the differences as to how whites and blacks who commit the same crimes are treated in the criminal justice system? I think that the explanation is a little more complex than the mere 'luck of the draw'. So, that I do not get accused of ideological bias, I have presented information from mainstream sources. This is just one area of interaction between races and ethnicity in this society, without going into employment disparities, etc. So, if you want to speak of mathematics and statistical probabilities and such how does one group always end up with the short end of the stick compared to the other when we compare apples with apples?
http://www.crf-usa.org/brown-v-board-50 … stice.html
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241 … 3789858002
http://www.ibtimes.com/ferguson-protest … ce-1729825
"My question was how did AA change it? Before AA people were not being evaluated equally because of racial biases, regardless of the law. AA is creating an effect that causes equal evaluation of people despite racial biases. What is that effect and how is it getting around the pervasive racial biases of our society?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is a good question. AA cannot change the thoughts of those that insist on applying racial prejudice to an evaluation process, but it can bring attention to their activities where they risk being discovered and being held accountable by management who have been tasked to take into account diversity factors as part of the hiring process. The positive effect is that pervasive racial biases neutralized by the fact that qualified minorities have to be considered for hire regardless of the personal biases of decision makers. The provisions, at least at the federal level, have teeth to insure compliance and not just lip service. While not perfect, it is the right step forward and I like that. The Civil Rights community cannot change the attitudes, but we sure can change the behavior.
"I'm guessing you think it is not ubiquitous but that it is applicable for most cases. That's what I was stating to be a more defensible position. I never said that white privilege must be ubiquitous, in fact it'd be better for your argument if you state it as a general trend rather than an omnipresent force."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing outside physical laws can be considered an omnipresent force, but it is a strong general trend. So, I so state. Using the links that are above, what do you think the explanation for the disparity in law enforcement and criminal justice outcomes are? The same thing that had black men hanging from trees in the South in astounding numbers 100 years ago, lynched without trials, do you think these men and their extralegal treatment were selected at random?
All the while, the Congress spent all of its waking hours resisting any Federal Provision that prevented and punished lynching, could I call that institutional racism? I certainly do not mean to meander away from the topic.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"is this the support you provide as to why they are searched more often, arrested more frequently and receive harsher penalties under the legal systems than whites under identical circumstances? What other reason besides race prejudice can explain the disparity?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know of any other reasons for black men to be distinguished in this way, do you?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the above are also true of men relative to women across all races. Does that mean men are being systematically discriminated based on gender? Try to think of a few reasons why men would be searched and arrested more often than women per capita and on aggregate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biases and bigotry are not just the the domain of African Americans, but can be experienced by others that are not in the Dominant group. There are no reason for men to be searched and arrested more than woman per capita and on aggregate, except based on bias. If a man and women commit identical crimes or are suspected of violating the law under similar circumstances, they should be treated in the same way. Profiling is an unprofessional byproduct of law enforcement far too often.Thank you very much for the comprehensive response. I'm going to take a look at your sources and respond to you in more depth when I have the time.
Just wanted to mention one thing:
"Nothing outside physical laws can be considered an omnipresent force, but it is a strong general trend"
Thank you. This is all I'm suggesting as a possibility; instead of it being an omnipresent force, it is a strong force based on a trend. I don't know why Don is having such difficulty in accepting this slight alteration as the underlying point of the hypothesis remains yet it prevents the hypothesis from being debunked with singular examples.I appreciate your patience in awaiting this reply.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“If you want more, here is more.”
Thanks. I’ll be taking a look and responding to each source in a separate comment after this one. For now I’ll be responding to some particular points you are making.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“There are gobs of data to support my point, the statistics are there, what do you think the causation is behind the outcomes?”
From what I’m seeing the “gobs of data” do not necessarily support your point because they are correlations.
For instance, your first link begins by citing discrepancies in incarceration and punishments by the criminal justice system, and makes this primary hypothesis:
“The question remains whether these statistics come from racism in the criminal justice system”
Off the top of my head, this hypothesis assumes several things:
1) Every race commits all crimes at the same rate, on average and proportionally
2) Every race interacts with police in the same way, on average and proportionally
3)
a. Races are proportionally distributed throughout districts and neighborhoods, on average
b. Crime is evenly distributed across every district and neighbourhood, on average
c. Police activity is the same in every city district and neighbourhood, on average
None of these assumptions hold true upon closer investigation.
Even so, could there still be racist practices? Absolutely. But you need to take into account those relevant factors, what your link alluded to as “other causes” like the rates of crime per race, to make an apples to apples comparison, as you have suggested.
The problem is just that – you aren’t making an apples to apples comparison. That’s been my point from the beginning. I mean, here are just a few factors that affect criminality (taken from https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/about … crime.html):
• Population density and degree of urbanization.
• Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration.
• Stability of the population with respect to residents’ mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors.
• Modes of transportation and highway system.
• Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability.
• Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.
• Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness.
• Climate.
• Effective strength of law enforcement agencies.
• Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement.
• Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational).
• Citizens’ attitudes toward crime.
• Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.
Neither you nor your sources have generally taken any of these factors into account, which is why I’m skeptical of your conclusion that the disparities must be because of systemic racism.
If, when taking those other causes into account the discrepancy vanishes (which it mostly does), then racism can’t be a primary explanatory factor. If the discrepancy remains, then racism could be a primary explanatory factor, but you have still yet to demonstrate that the discrepancy exists when taking such relevant factors into account, let alone that the discrepancy is because of racism.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Do you believe that racial prejudice and bias do not play a major role in the differences as to how whites and blacks who commit the same crimes are treated in the criminal justice system?”
Obviously not, because blacks and whites do not commit the same crimes at the same rates: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/c … s/table-43
Your first source outlines this when it says:
“African Americans accounted for more than a third of the arrests in 2010 for violent crimes. This far surpasses their numbers in the population. Does this disparity come from racial discrimination? Those who say “no” point out that this percentage corresponds to reports from the National Crime Victimization Survey. This survey interviews thousands of victims of crime each year. The percentage of victims who say their perpetrator was black closely matches the percentage of African Americans arrested.”
It then tries to explain this away with a rather unconvincing statement:
“A survey of arrest studies concluded, however, that “police are involved in at least some discrimination against members of racial and ethnic minorities.””
What was this survey of arrest studies? How much is “some” discrimination”? How did they conclude that there was discrimination to begin with?
The arrest rates, the incarceration rates, and the NCV surveys closely match one another. Is this a concerted effort of racism between police, courts, and the victims of crimes? Or is it because blacks commit crimes at higher rates?
Put it another way, blacks are 4-5x (400-500%) overrepresented as perpetrators of crimes relative to their population. How much of that 400-500% overrepresentation is because of racism?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I think that the explanation is a little more complex than the mere 'luck of the draw'”
You’re misunderstanding me. I never said these outcomes are due to the “mere luck of the draw.” There are causalities which can explain the disparities in outcome. The very basic causality (even according to some of your sources) is that blacks commit crimes at a higher rate than other races, resulting in higher rates of arrests and incarceration.
You can explain the why of the why, or the causality of that causality, by invoking factors like education, poverty, culture etc. However, these factors are not deterministic forces - you can have a poor and uneducated individual from a primitive culture commit no crimes whatsoever. They are probabilistic factors in the sense that they increase the chances of criminal behaviour, but do not guarantee criminal behaviour.
When I am talking about probabilistic outcomes, I am referring to those probabilistic factors and how racial demographics are not equally/proportionally affected by these factors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“So, that I do not get accused of ideological bias, I have presented information from mainstream sources.”
I am not picky with the origin of the source. The information presented ought to be challenged in the same way regardless of where it comes from. However, I’d rather get primary sources as opposed to secondary or tertiary sources talking about the primary sources.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“AA cannot change the thoughts of those that insist on applying racial prejudice to an evaluation process, but it can bring attention to their activities where they risk being discovered and being held accountable by management who have been tasked to take into account diversity factors as part of the hiring process”
But that same management was not being held accountable by the law, how is it being held accountable by AA if the law itself was not being enforced? (Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn't AA just a set of new laws and policies added on top of the existing laws that were being ignored?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The positive effect is that pervasive racial biases neutralized by the fact that qualified minorities have to be considered for hire regardless of the personal biases of decision makers.”
Not sure how you’d possibly measure consideration of candidates. One can consider a candidate without hiring them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Nothing outside physical laws can be considered an omnipresent force, but it is a strong general trend. So, I so state.”
I’ve read this before, but your sanity is still refreshing in light of the lunacy I’ve had to deal with.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The same thing that had black men hanging from trees in the South in astounding numbers 100 years ago, lynched without trials, do you think these men and their extralegal treatment were selected at random?”
No, those particular cases were not at random.
Likewise, the men arrested in your country are not selected at random, they are primarily selected because they committed crimes or are suspected of committing crimes.
To reiterate, there is a difference between random used in the context of what caused an outcome, and random used in the context of statistical probabilities. Random processes don’t follow a deterministic or discriminate force, they follow a probability distribution based on proportionality. For example, a jar containing 80 red balls and 20 blue balls will have a probability of 80% red ball and 20% blue ball being selected, if the selection is random. But a random selection does not mean there is no rhyme or reason for an outcome (in this case, the outcome was 80-20 because of the proportion of balls that were red-blue).
If we were to do a random selection of criminals, the probability of getting a criminal of a particular demographic would be based on the proportional demographics of criminals. Again, this would be a random selection, but the makeup of the criminal demographic is not random (influenced by poverty, education etc.). Do you see the distinction?
If 40% of crimes in the U.S. are committed by black men, then a random selection of criminals will yield 40% black men.
If 40% of arrests, incarcerations and victim surveys point to black men as the perpetrators, then the selection criteria of police officers, courts and victims is lining up with the random selection of criminals. In other words, it suggests that there is no discriminate force and that the law, police discretion and victim perceptions are being applied equally.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“All the while, the Congress spent all of its waking hours resisting any Federal Provision that prevented and punished lynching, could I call that institutional racism?”
I’m sure you can make a solid case for institutional racism in the past. You’ll know these things better than I do, being a history buff.
Higher incarceration rates don’t point to institutional racism, given everything we’ve discussed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I certainly do not mean to meander away from the topic.”
This is well within the realm of this topic, especially compared to the nonsensical discussions that I’ve had to deal with in this thread.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I don't know of any other reasons for black men to be distinguished in this way, do you?”
Well, now you should. I gave you several reasons, the most basic being that black men disproportionally commit crimes relative to their population.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“There are no reason for men to be searched and arrested more than woman per capita and on aggregate, except based on bias.”
So even if men disproportionally commit more crimes per capita and on aggregate than women (which they generally do), you still think there should be a 50-50 arrest rate for men and women, both per capita and on aggregate?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“If a man and women commit identical crimes or are suspected of violating the law under similar circumstances, they should be treated in the same way.”
Of course, but that’s looking at a specific crime after the fact. You’d already know who the perpetrator was. A search or a profile is trying to identify a suspect. That will play into the proportions/probabilities of crime committed by certain demographics. If all demographics committed crimes at the exact same rate, our primary suspects in crimes would be white and female, because they’re the largest demographic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Profiling is an unprofessional byproduct of law enforcement far too often.”
Depends on what you mean by profiling. From my understanding profiling is used (or at least ought to be used) to find a criminal using pattern recognition to maximize resource efficiency; for instance, if you are looking for a suspect in a violent crime, you should probably not investigate the elderly Japanese woman knitting on her porch as a potential suspect, because chances are she didn’t do it.
However, if it turns out that the elderly Japanese woman did commit the crime, arrest her and apply the law as you would to any other adult. Profiling would not prevent that arrest from occurring.
"Yes, implicitly, which is why I give people the benefit of the doubt in thinking that maybe they are referring to advantages on average instead of every white person having a ubiquitous advantage over every minority."
So instead of addressing what the term white privilege actually means (as established or reinforced in every bit of literature on the subject I have ever read) you're going to tell people what white privilege should mean (according to you). Then, for everyone's benefit, you're going to assume people really mean the same as you when they say white privilege, because (according to you) that's the only possible meaning that can make any sense. And then you're going to point that out by telling people about how you are giving them the "benefit of the doubt" because they can't possibly accept the actual meaning of the term white privilege as established over the course of several decades. . . . Well as grateful as I'm sure everyone is for that, I feel the need to point out the following:
Those of us who understand the well-established meaning of the term white privilege, neither want, nor need, the "benefit" of your doubt. That doubt is only of real benefit to those who don't understand the meaning of the term to such a degree that it doesn't make sense to them. In that regard, it only serves as a way to turn the concept into something that makes sense to you, based on your (evidently incorrect) understanding of it. Case in point:
"The former makes more sense than the latter in light of almost all white privilege examples relying on average outcomes instead of ubiquitous outcomes. Being stopped for speeding "less often" does not mean white people are never stopped for speeding, which would be the ubiquitous advantage that I am referring to. If that is the universal definition of white privilege then it becomes that much easier to disprove it."
You said previously "That's why I made this thread. I'm listening. . .". Well this is the part where you need to actually listen (as opposed to just paying lip service to the idea) because your comment strongly indicates you don't have a clear understanding of what the term white privilege means. It's not about the outcomes as you have described it. It's about the underlying assumptions and social patterns, and how they relate to those outcomes. So take the example of being stopped.
The issue is that non white people have experienced enough occurrences of racial discrimination by law enforcement officers, that certain social groups (e.g. African American) have reasonable grounds to fear they are being stopped, or shown less favourable treatment, because of racial discrimination. Fear being the operative word. In contrast another social group (White) does not have reasonable grounds for such fear because the same cultural and historical basis just doesn't exist for it. The result is less likelihood of fear and uncertainty about being stopped by law enforcement due to racial discrimination in one social group (White), than in another (African American). Want evidence? Ask a representative sample of people from each social group to describe what they think the chances are of them being stopped by law enforcement due to racial discrimination, and what their feelings are about that. EDIT: a fully representative sample would likely be impractical for an individual to ask, but you could do a straw poll by simply asking as many people of color as you know. That would at least give you an indicator.
Even if an individual African American driver is genuinely stopped for a traffic violation, and there is no racial discrimination, that does not change the fact it is more likely for people in that social group to experience fear and uncertainty in that scenario. In other words, the advantage/disadvantage conferred at group level remains the same regardless of an individual outcome. So in the very broadest sense white privilege equates to equality of opportunity (at group level), not equality of outcome (at a personal level), e.g. the greater opportunity to drive without the increased likelihood of fear and uncertainty around being stopped by law enforcement due to racial discrimination, vs. the outcome of a specific interaction. The former is the advantage, not the latter.
"The burden of proof is on the person who made the claim. You've made the claim that white privilege exists, so provide evidence."
Ditto. You are making the claim that probabilistic events are the sole cause of every instance of racial inequality. The burden of proof is on your to demonstrate that claim. Also what exactly do you believe are the causes of racial inequalities in society? Give some examples.
"I am sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt. I'm now going to assume you are incapable of distinguishing between average outcomes and ubiquitous outcomes. It does make you look even sillier when using average outcomes as evidence of ubiquitous advantages."
Once again you are conflating white privilege with equality of outcome, which is simply not what it means. You keep swinging and missing, and that's because you clearly do not have a comprehensive understanding of the concepts involved. You also seem to be trying to apply scientific method but falling short, and then concluding that the relevant concepts are therefore unsound. I fully suspect you do not understand the concept of whiteness in general as it relates to this subject, nor how it was created, let alone white privilege. I won't criticise you for not knowing things. No one knows everything. But I will criticize you for trying to explain to others, something you are clearly ignorant of yourself.
"Where did I object to such a thing? Feel free to use white privilege as a ubiquitous term, it makes it that much easier to disprove it. "
Only for someone who doesn't fully grasp what it means.
"Though I am puzzled why you'd want to use it in such a way. It's rare to find ubiquitous forces and only the most rigorously tested facts and phenomena become ubiquitous in science, something like gravity or even the aptly named ubiquitin protein. That's because a ubiquitous fact necessitates a preponderance of evidence. Even then scientists are careful to state that things like ubiquitin are present in [i]virtually all types of cells. If the hypothesis of white privilege has not been rigorously tested (as you have admitted) then it wouldn't make sense to state that it is ubiquitous.[/i]"
Sociology is not a hard science, but to use gravity as an imperfect analogy, the fact that things can sometimes appear to be defying gravity, does not mean gravity is not ubiquitous. It just means that at a local level you can make it so the effects of gravity are not always immediately obvious, or at least appear contrary to people's expectations. Likewise, just because individual outcomes can sometimes appear to defy the notion of social advantage, that doesn't mean white privilege is not ubiquitous. It just means that at an individual level social advantage is not always immediately obvious, or at least appears to be contrary to common expectation.
"Near-ubiquitous, as in, like you, almost every instance I've seen of privilege has implied ubiquitousness, but I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt for the rare person that may use the term as an explanation of average disparities, and thus, average advantages, and not ubiquitous ones. I'm trying to do you a favour here by making your position slightly more defensible, but fine, white privilege is ubiquitous. Good luck proving that."
Once again your lack of understanding of the concept is leading you to false conclusions.
"Your analogy would only make sense if sociological definitions were as universal and well defined as basic mathematical definitions. Even the basic term "racism" has varying interpretations. Triangles? Not so much".
The point stands. Any concept with a well-established underlying meaning will suffice to illustrate it. Take your pick.I apologize in advance for the lack of brevity, but your inability to properly understand my arguments is only forcing me to repeat myself at this point. I urge you to follow your own advice and listen carefully.
"So instead of addressing what the term white privilege actually means (as established or reinforced in every bit of literature on the subject I have ever read) you're going to tell people what white privilege should mean (according to you)."
No. I'm saying if people prefer to use it in a way that is not totally ubiquitous (like Credence2 in this very thread) I am allowing that option, because I am encouraging discussion from all viewpoints, not just from the literary sources that you have read. But I am also allowing the option to use it as ubiquitously as you like. How is that telling people what white privilege should mean (according to me)? Jesus, did you miss the part where I said "Feel free to use it as ubiquitously as you like"?
"Then, for everyone's benefit, you're going to assume people really mean the same as you when they say white privilege, because (according to you) that's the only possible meaning that can make any sense."
I never said it's the only possible meaning that makes sense, nor am I demanding people use it in one particular meaning. I said it makes more sense to use a definition operating on averages when your evidence is based on average trends.
"Those of us who understand the well-established meaning of the term white privilege, neither want, nor need, the "benefit" of your doubt."
Then don't use it. I can't believe you've spent two paragraphs so far complaining about an option I've provided, not enforced.
"That doubt is only of real benefit to those who don't understand the meaning of the term to such a degree that it doesn't make sense to them. In that regard, it only serves as a way to turn the concept into something that makes sense to you, based on your (evidently incorrect) understanding of it."
Not at all true. Do you not see the benefit in allowing people to use a near-ubiquitous hypothesis as opposed to a ubiquitous one? The latter makes a much stronger claim than the former, thus the former would be easier to prove. Has nothing to do with turning the concept into something that makes sense to me, and has everything to do with reducing the demand of proof from an omnipresent force to an average trend.
"Well this is the part where you need to actually listen (as opposed to just paying lip service to the idea)"
I'm listening. Two way street, by the way.
"because your comment strongly indicates you don't have a clear understanding of what the term white privilege means."
Your comment strongly indicates you don't have a clear understanding of my understanding of what the term white privilege means.
"It's not about the outcomes as you have described it."
Then why was every example you've provided an outcome? It's not so much how I described it as it is how you've exemplified it, really.
"The issue is that non white people have experienced enough occurrences of racial discrimination by law enforcement officers, that certain social groups (e.g. African American) have reasonable grounds to fear they are being stopped, or shown less favourable treatment, because of racial discrimination. Fear being the operative word."
Okay. Provide evidence that the fear is reasonable. I hope that your evidence is not a hand waving of “enough occurrences.”
"Want evidence? Ask a representative sample of people from each social group to describe what they think the chances are of them being stopped by law enforcement due to racial discrimination, and what their feelings are about that."
That would demonstrate evidence of their fear relative to another group, not that their fear is grounded in reality. Women on average are also more likely to experience fear of violent crimes than men in identical circumstances (e.g. walking late at night), even though men are significantly more likely to be the victims of a violent crime. Women's fear and men's lack of fear relative to either group is not shaped by reality, it's shaped by evolutionary forces. This is typically why feelings are poor indicators of reality.
"So in the very broadest sense white privilege equates to equality of opportunity (at group level), not equality of outcome (at a personal level), e.g. the greater opportunity to drive without the increased likelihood of fear and uncertainty around being stopped by law enforcement due to racial discrimination, vs. the outcome of a specific interaction. The former is the advantage, not the latter."
I'd like to remind you, again, that your original examples only stated average group outcomes (I never invoked personal outcomes), for instance, "being stopped less often for speeding." Do you honestly think "being stopped less often" translates to "the greater opportunity to drive without the increased likelihood of fear and uncertainty around being stopped by law enforcement due to racial discrimination"?
I am sorry that minorities feel this way about law enforcement. Is this feeling based on reality?
"Ditto. You are making the claim that probabilistic events are the sole cause of every instance of racial inequality. The burden of proof is on your to demonstrate that claim."
I never said solely, I said largely or primarily. But allow me to elaborate on something. By stating that chance is the primary cause of an event, I am invoking the null or default hypothesis. I am not making any particular claims. The null hypothesis is the default assumption made when examining possible causal relationships between two or more variables.
Note what I said:
"No current statistical disparity between races is primarily the result of current racial discrimination."
This is the null hypothesis.
I presume this to be your alternate hypothesis:
"All current statistical disparities between races are primarily the result of current racial discrimination."
(I would say "all or most" but you seem to have an adverse reaction to such leniency).
By demonstrating that there are third factors or that the outcomes are a result of proportional probabilities (for instance, the proportions of particular demographics) I am demonstrating that the null hypothesis has not been disproven. I can suggest a few alternative hypotheses like education, culture, poverty, behaviour etc. but I am not interested in proving those to be true. Rather, I am interested in evidence that disproves the null hypothesis. There is a slight but significant difference.
The evidence that you've provided, however, can be largely explained by probabilities and third factors. For instance, the Department of Justice study I mentioned demonstrated that black men were more likely to speed than white men (probabilistic event), thus they were stopped more often (probabilistic outcome). Note that by the same token, men generally are also more likely to speed than women (probabilistic event), thus they will be stopped more often (probabilistic outcome).
Am I saying that there are 0 outcomes based on racism or sexism for either scenario? No. I am saying the outcomes for being stopped by police are largely determined by whether or not you speed, and that the minority of events based on discrimination are not the driving force behind any disparities.
Maybe there is a case where racial discrimination is a driving force behind outcomes, but you have yet to provide one, so the null hypothesis still stands.
"Also what exactly do you believe are the causes of racial inequalities in society?"
Education, culture, poverty, behaviour etc.
"Once again you are conflating white privilege with equality of outcome, which is simply not what it means. You keep swinging and missing, and that's because you clearly do not have a comprehensive understanding of the concepts involved. You also seem to be trying to apply scientific method but falling short, and then concluding that the relevant concepts are therefore unsound. I fully suspect you do not understand the concept of whiteness in general as it relates to this subject, nor how it was created, let alone white privilege."
This is rich. I "seem" to be doing this? You "suspect" that I don't understand these concepts? Did you forget your own statements about "perception" being unreliable? Try swinging, missing, falling down and flailing up a hill without the use of your legs.
The text you quoted was referring to your examples of unequal outcomes. Only now have you clarified that you meant unequal opportunities, with the example of "a greater opportunity to drive without fear." I'm not going to get into how nonsensical it is to talk about equality of opportunity in terms of perceived feelings. Just address this simple point: if you were interested in talking about equality of opportunity (greater opportunity to drive without fear) then why did you only state the outcomes (being stopped less often)?
"But I will criticize you for trying to explain to others, something you are clearly ignorant of yourself."
Please point to one such instance of me explaining to others something I am ignorant of. All I did was allow a slightly more flexible definition of white privilege to be used in this discussion, a definition which has been commonly used elsewhere and is presently being used in this thread by folks like Credence. I really don’t see why you have a problem with that.
"Only for someone who doesn't fully grasp what it means."
Now I know that you don't have any grasp on the relationship between strength of claim and strength of evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Stronger claims require stronger evidence. A ubiquitous claim is stronger than a near-ubiquitous claim or a claim regarding averages. Forgive me for trying to make your job easier but you are, again, more than welcome to use the stronger claim. I'm sure you'll manage in light of the fact that you have yet to provide a single source.
"the fact that things can sometimes appear to be defying gravity, does not mean gravity is not ubiquitous. It just means that at a local level you can make it so the effects of gravity are not always immediately obvious, or at least appear contrary to people's expectations"
Like what? Name a few examples so I know we're on the same page. (Also, can't help but notice you didn't address the near-ubiquitousness of ubiquitin)
"Likewise, just because individual outcomes can sometimes appear to defy the notion of social advantage, that doesn't mean white privilege is not ubiquitous."
Ideally we'd prove that in some fashion, instead of just assuming it is ubiquitous.
"Once again your lack of understanding of the concept is leading you to false conclusions."
Once again your poor interpretation of my statements is leading you to nonsensical conclusions.
"The point stands."
Because you said so? Look, you're consistently misunderstanding me about a rather minor point. Please listen carefully for clarification.
The first instance I referred ubiquitousness was in the context of "every white person is using more advantages than every minority." This is a demonstrably false statement. You yourself concede that some whites are not able to personally utilize white privilege when you state "Whether a specific individual is able to personally utilise that advantage, is irrelevant to whether the advantage exists."
So at this point, you conflated my particular statement of whites using more advantages to whites having more advantages. I was referring to the former, not the latter. Even if you think that white privilege is exclusively talking about whites having advantages, I am free to talk about privilege in the context of using advantages, especially for clarification purposes. Note that I don’t think anyone made such a claim about all whites using advantages, but I would rather point out that if such a claim were made it would be demonstrably false, to make sure we are all on the same page.
From there I noticed that your examples are:
1) not ubiquitous, because they're outcomes based on averages
2) not demonstrating how all whites "have" privilege; instead, they only demonstrate how on average whites are "using" more privileges relative to other groups
Which is why I offered the suggestion that white privilege could be defined as an average trend of utilized advantages relative to another group, opening up the possibility that most white people utilize more advantages than most minorities - what I referred as near-ubiquitousness.
You refuse to acknowledge that possibility, citing "all of the sources you have read" as evidence. And now here we are, you using average trends of utilized privileges to somehow establish ubiquitousness of privilege existing, and me trying to make sense of all this nonsense.
Either way, it's incredibly shortsighted/arrogant/foolish to think that there is only one applicable definition of any concept, and that being flexible to less demanding definitions must mean you lack any understanding of said concept.
By the way, here's a "near three-sided triangle":
"I apologize in advance for the lack of brevity . . ."
Brevity shmevity . . .
"No. I'm saying if people prefer to use it in a way that is not totally ubiquitous (like Credence2. in this very thread) I am allowing that option, because I am encouraging discussion from all viewpoints, not just from the literary sources that you have read. But I am also allowing the option to use it as ubiquitously as you like. How is that telling people what white privilege should mean (according to me)? Jesus, did you miss the part where I said "Feel free to use it as ubiquitously as you like"? "
"I never said it's the only possible meaning that makes sense. . . ."
You aren't "allowing" anything. You are not the arbiter of what white privilege does or doesn't mean. And no, you aren't simply responding to different uses of the term, you are suggesting that the established meaning objectively makes less sense than the meaning you subscribe to. In actual fact that is merely your opinion, which is based on the mistaken belief that white privilege means equality of outcome. It doesn't, which is why much of what you say that is based on that understanding is incorrect.
"Not at all true. Do you not see the benefit in allowing people to use a near-ubiquitous hypothesis as opposed to a ubiquitous one? "
Again, no "allowing" going on. You have no choice in the matter. Again, it's only a "benefit" because you mistakenly believe white privilege is about equality of outcomes, and again, it is not.
"The latter makes a much stronger claim than the former . . . ."
Again, only relative to your mistaken understanding of the term.
"Your comment strongly indicates you don't have a clear understanding of my understanding of what the term white privilege means."
Your comments demonstrate that you believe white privilege is all about equality of outcomes.
"Then why was every example you've provided an outcome? It's not so much how I described it as it is how you've exemplified it, really."
I assumed you had a greater understanding of the concepts involved, and recognised the importance of the underlying assumptions and social patterns relating to those outcomes. I acknowledge I was mistaken in that assumption.
"Okay. Provide evidence that the fear is reasonable."
Sure: the totality of the social, cultural and political history of the country including every example of systemic, oppressive racial discrimination expressed to and/or inflicted on this minority social group past and present. That's a fair amount to sift through, but suffice it to say, it's more than enough for any reasonable person within this minority group to have a fearful expectation of racial discrimination, especially by those in positions of authority. That doesn't mean every person in a position of authority actually demonstrates racial discrimination against African Americans. And that is the key to understanding your misunderstanding.
Those outcomes are not where the ubiquitousness lies. In this case, it lies in the fact that the advantage (less likelihood of fear and uncertainty around being stopped by the police due to racial discrimination) is a product of being in the social group identified as white, not a product of individual circumstances.It's as simple as this: if you are in the social group identified as white, then you can't not have this advantage, because it is an aspect of being in that social group. In the same way that if you are in that social group, you can't not be white, because that is an aspect of being in that social group.
Why is this the case? It relates to the social, cultural and political history of the country, and the current power-dynamic that has created, which is maintained and perpetuated (consciously or not) mainly by (but not necessarily restricted to) those within the majority social group.
"That would demonstrate evidence of their fear relative to another group, not that their fear is grounded in reality."
The fear and uncertainty of this minority social group, relative to the majority social group is exactly the point. The social advantage lies in the absence of that fear and uncertainty, or the reduced likelihood of it, which stems from the current power dynamic between social groups, not necessarily from individual outcomes, some of which may be entirely positive.
As for your implied suggestion that this fear is not grounded in reality. It stems from the real social history of the country, and the real contemporary examples of racism people in that minority group continue to experience. If you think those experiences of racism are not grounded in reality, go to a real KKK meeting, or a real neo-nazi rally, or a real Donald Trump convention, or just just go to any comment section on the web under anything that relates to race (and often not related to race) for a dose of "reality" about contemporary racism.
"Women on average are also more likely to experience fear of violent crimes than men in identical circumstances (e.g. walking late at night), even though men are significantly more likely to be the victims of a violent crime."
This is further demonstration of your mistaken belief that white privilege (male privilege in this case) is about outcomes.
"Women's fear and men's lack of fear relative to either group is not shaped by reality, it's shaped by evolutionary forces. This is typically why feelings are poor indicators of reality."
I suggest it's as much to do with real social and political history (and oppression) of women as it is to do with any evolutionary issues. But the main point is that this fear is now being perpetuated by the very real examples of misogyny, depictions of violence against women, and threats of violence against women for things like . . . expressing an opinion on something. Examples can be found in virtually any medium you care to choose, and is based on the power-dynamic that exists between men and women.
"I'd like to remind you, again, that your original examples only stated average group outcomes (I never invoked personal outcomes), for instance, "being stopped less often for speeding." Do you honestly think "being stopped less often" translates to "the greater opportunity to drive without the increased likelihood of fear and uncertainty around being stopped by law enforcement due to racial discrimination"?"
Many examples cited in literature on white privilege refer to outcomes, but they usually include a fuller explanation of how it works. I should have done the same. Not doing so was a mistake on my part. I assumed you had read and understood at least some literature on the subject. Here is an example of what I mean; a paper on white privilege that quotes the same definition of "privilege" you use, including examples related to hair-care products etc, but also goes on to say:
"White privilege is an institutional (rather than personal) set of benefits granted to those of us who, by race, resemble the people who dominate the powerful positions in our institutions. "
In other words, it's not all about individual personal benefits. Another explanation include:
"Privileges are bestowed on us by the institutions with which we interact solely because of our race, not because we are deserving as individuals. While each of us is always a member of a race or races, we are sometimes granted opportunities because we, as individuals, deserve them; often we are granted them because we, as individuals, belong to one or more of the favored groups in our society."
Which is another way of saying white privilege is about inequality of opportunity based on race, not merely inequality of outcome. So yes, it is valid to use the example of white drivers being stopped less, as an example (assuming you have that fuller understanding, which unfortunately you did/do not). Even then, your alternative explanation about drivers serves to further highlight the underlying power-dynamic in the following way:
The numbers of traffic stops, or citations, for one social group, compared to another social group do not tell us how many times each group broke traffic laws. They only tell us how many times police stopped and cited one social group, compared to another. To eliminate racial bias as a factor in these numbers, you would need to know how many in each group were observed breaking traffic laws and not stopped, and how many in each group were stopped even when they were not observed breaking any laws. Without those figures your conclusion is dependent on the assumption that the law has been enforced equally.
Based on my understanding of white privilege, I would predict this assumption is more likely held among the majority social group (which controls the significant institutions in society, including law enforcement) than the minority social group. And reports do indeed show that to be the case. So there is evidence to suggest that your alternative explanation to white privilege in relation to drivers being stopped, is itself a manifestation of that very privilege, i.e. being able to assume the default position that of not being discriminated against on the grounds of of race.
"I am sorry that minorities feel this way about law enforcement. Is this feeling based on reality?"
This assumes the problem is about how some people "feel" about law enforcement. It isn't, the problem lies in the fact that a power-dynamic created through centuries of oppressive policies and actions (some deliberate, some not) exists, and is (consciously or not) perpetuated in modern society.
"I presume this to be your alternate hypothesis:
"All current statistical disparities between races are primarily the result of current racial discrimination.""
Then you presume wrong. My position is that racial inequality is not the result of inherent differences, as white supremacists would suggest, but instead a combination of social factors, that includes racial discrimination etc. And I believe there is plenty of evidence that demonstrates that to be the case.
"By demonstrating that there are third factors or that the outcomes are a result of proportional probabilities (for instance, the proportions of particular demographics) I am demonstrating that the null hypothesis has not been disproven."
I didn't say there wasn't other factors, but the existence of other factors doesn't negate the concept of white privilege.
"I can suggest a few alternative hypotheses like education, culture, poverty, behaviour etc. but I am not interested in proving those to be true. Rather, I am interested in evidence that disproves the null hypothesis. There is a slight but significant difference."
The pervasive and insidious nature of white privilege means education, culture, poverty, behaviour are not isolated from it.
"The evidence that you've provided, however, can be largely explained by probabilities and third factors. For instance, the Department of Justice study I mentioned demonstrated that black men were more likely to speed than white men (probabilistic event), thus they were stopped more often (probabilistic outcome)."
Again, your conclusions are dependent on assumptions of fairness and equality. Some people are not "privileged" enough to be in a position where they can safely make such assumptions. Remember that white privilege is not all about individual outcomes. However, it is worth noting that reports show black drivers are more likely to be stopped for "vehicle defects" and "record checks" than speeding, and a greater percentage of black drivers are given no reason for being stopped at all compared to white drivers. Tellingly fewer black drivers believed they were stopped for a legitimate reason, compared to white drivers, which aligns with the suggestion that the likelihood someone will be fearful and uncertain about being stopped due to racial discrimination increases or decreases depending on their social group. In fact a new term has been coined that reflects this situation; the crime of "driving while black".
"Note that by the same token, men generally are also more likely to speed than women (probabilistic event), thus they will be stopped more often (probabilistic outcome)."
First, even if male drivers were stopped more often than female drivers due to probabilistic events, that doesn't mean black drivers are therefore being stopped more often than white drivers due to probabilistic events too. That's a non-sequitur. Second, you are comparing apples to oranges. If there were centuries of historic, systematic social, cultural and political oppression of men (based on the fact they are men) then this example still wouldn't come close to being the same as the situation faced by African Americans, or even the power dynamic that affects women. So nice try, but no cigar.
"Am I saying that there are 0 outcomes based on racism or sexism for either scenario? No. I am saying the outcomes for being stopped by police are largely determined by whether or not you speed, and that the minority of events based on discrimination are not the driving force behind any disparities. Maybe there is a case where racial discrimination is a driving force behind outcomes, but you have yet to provide one, so the null hypothesis still stands."
Once again, I reject the male/female driver example as ludicrous a example of false equivalence. In relation to black drivers, it is the underlying assumptions and social patterns that are important not the outcomes. I'm certain there are positive interactions between black people and law enforcement every day. That's irrelevant to the fact that it's more likely for people within that social group to experience uncertainty as to whether they are being subjected to racial discrimination by law enforcement. Those in the social group identified as white have the privilege of being able to assume no significant racial inequality, as you have done, even when there are reasons to conclude there is.
[other points that relate to things I have already answered]
"Also, can't help but notice you didn't address the near-ubiquitousness of ubiquitin"
Because again, I know it's based on misunderstanding. I'm reluctant to spell something out when I know it stems from a misunderstanding , but as you wish. . . .
Firstly, all scientific knowledge is tentative. That's the nature of science. No good scientist would (or could) claim absolute certainty about anything, because science is based on inductive reasoning, i.e. making generalisations from specific instances. To (accurately) claim absolute certainty a scientist would need to observe every instance of a phenomenon past, present and future to verify it does not falsify their hypothesis. Not very practical. So in science, "we know this" is always only ever shorthand for "currently available evidence suggests this hypothesis is the current best explanation for this phenomenon". So no, scientists are not especially tentative about ubiquitin. They are tentative because all good science is tentative by its very nature. Secondly . . .
. . . trying to apply the standards of scientific method to a soft science like sociology in the same way it's applied in hard sciences like biology is admirable, but foolish. That is why there is a distinction between "hard" and "soft" sciences in the first place. If it's your aim to apply the rigours of scientific method to the social sciences the same way it's applied to physical sciences, then I wish you the best of luck. But we digress. . .
. . . because, we are not talking about science. We are talking about complex social issues that may be informed by science, but are still not science. The reason you think ubiquitin is relevant to this discussion is because of your misunderstanding of relevant terms. You mistakenly think/thought it means all outcomes would be more favorable for white people in every individual instance of every situation, and as that's not the case, qualifying it as "near" ubiquitous would make more sense. But again, that isn't what it means.
"Because you said so?"
Nope. The point stands because if concept X has an established meaning, then if you refer to something that is different from that then, by definition,you are referring to something else. Sure, established meanings change over time. But in this case it hasn't. I'm sorry you presumed you could assign a different meaning to something with an already established meaning and not be challenged, but I think it's an unreasonable presumption in the first place.
"The first instance I referred ubiquitousness was in the context of "every white person is using more advantages than every minority. . ."
Now you're going into semantics? How about this, does this clarify it for you? White privilege is the idea that being white is a social advantage due to the underlying power-dynamic between social groups that exists in the present as a result of the socio-political history of the country. Is that clear enough?
"By the way, here's a "near three-sided triangle" The established meaning of triangle is: "a polygon with three edges and three vertices." Is that a polygon with three edges and three vertices? Nope. Therefore, by definition, it's not a triangle. The established meaning of triangle is why I understand you are referring to a polygon with three edges etc. when you say "triangle", and not one with four edges and four vertices. Meanings are useful like that. That's why we have them. You can call that shape an almost-triangle if you really want to, but however much you wish it to be so, an almost-triangle is still not a triangle.There is so much wrong and so much vacuousness in your responses that I’m not going to waste my time responding to each point of contention, because I’d be here all day and you wouldn’t understand the retort anyway. I’m only going to list out the more prominent mistakes you continue to make and hope that other readers have a bit more common sense than you:
First: I never said or implied I was the arbiter of what white privilege does or does not mean. I’m simply willing to accept different definitions and explanations of the phenomena that have been commonly attributed to white privilege (differences in stopping rates between races, different products catered etc.), as long as they have merit. In my opinion, there is one definition of white privilege which makes more sense relative to the other, but neither make as much sense as other explanations like supply and demand and probabilistic outcomes. I already gave my reasons why. And yes, obviously it’s my opinion. I am not forcing it on anyone. You can operate under whatever definition you want and utilize whatever explanations you see fit.
The real arbiter of white privilege would be you by forcing the literary definitions you’ve read to be the only acceptable definitions of privilege. You’ve astutely observed that definitions change over time. You think it makes sense to not give any choice in the matter of different definitions or explanations because there's some established literature that's been written about it? By that logic, we can’t ever improve on this definition of white privilege because it’s already established. We cannot have any discussion outside of the boundaries of any established literature nor can we challenge those boundaries because you personally think it would constitute talking about something else. Newton’s theory of universal gravitation is the only acceptable explanation of gravity, because it’s been well established by literature since the 1600s. Einstein’s expansion with his theory of relativity and subsequent proofs of spacetime in the early 1900s were irrelevant and talking about something other than gravity, because Einstein’s notions of gravity are very different than Newton’s. The scientists trying to further explore and challenge the limitations of Einstein’s theory and reconcile it with quantum mechanics are even more irrelevant, etc. etc. To demand this sort of static notion of concepts based on “established literature” is a combination of arrogance and ignorance that I did not think possible.
I suspect you’ll hide behind the “hard science vs social science” dichotomy that you’ve pulled out of your rear, but this is so easily applicable to social concepts as well. There are numerous examples of “well established” philosophical, religious and social definitions that have changed over time, often for the better of humanity. Some past (and present, depending on where you look) definitions of human rights and what it means to be a human being excluded slaves, women etc. from the definition. We are constantly improving on these definitions as we extend our empathy not only to other humans but to things that can suffer like humans i.e. animals and other life forms. Perhaps in the future we’ll again challenge our preconceived definitions if we successfully create an artificial intelligence capable of suffering. Were we to follow your logic we’d argue “No! The established meanings and definitions of human rights and what it means to be a human do not include these things, therefore your understanding is incorrect, because you are not talking about what it means to be a human, you are talking about something else by definition.” It’s quite troubling to witness this simplistic rationale in light of such basic facts about the development of concepts over time.
Regardless, you’re continuing to miss the point about my contextual use of ubiquitousness in that specific instance. I wasn’t even utilizing that particular instance as something I believe to be true or to be a definition of privilege, or that it must be the only definition of privilege I accept. Here’s an example of a prominent media critic doing the same thing I did in an article about male privilege:
http://www.polygon.com/2014/4/23/564067 … while-male
The relevant paragraph:
“I want to emphasize that this list is not meant to suggest that everything is always a cakewalk for male gamers. Male critics, developers, and gamers are also at times bullied or subjected to online nastiness, but it is not based on or because of our gender. This is a critical distinction. The pattern of unearned advantage also does not mean that all men are powerful as individuals or that all women are powerless as individuals. It simply means that men in gamer culture can, on average, count on these advantages, whereas women can not.
When I referred to ubiquitousness the first time, I was attacking the portion analogous to the one I emphasized. Can you understand why I would be doing that? Do you not realize this is a common misconception of privilege? Can you understand the distinction between attacking a misconception of white privilege, believing in said misconception of white privilege, and believing that said misconception is an accurate descriptor for white privilege?
Second: I never said white privilege means equality of outcomes. I said your evidence of white privilege exclusively points to outcomes instead of what those outcomes mean. You admit it was a mistake yet you somehow pin it on my lack of understanding. No, your poor arguments are not dependent on a listener’s understanding, they are dependent on your poor arguments. If you are trying to argue that an outcome was based on unequal opportunity, you are to give evidence of that unequal opportunity, not just state the outcome as if the unequal opportunity is self-evident from the outcome. Not only did you fail to provide that evidence for the majority of the discussion, when you finally attempted to make that distinction it amounted to perceived feelings of fear which are, yet again, outcomes, not opportunities.
Third: to reiterate, I never said that ubiquitousness in outcome is a definition of privilege. You are actively misunderstanding me when you state things like “That doesn't mean every person in a position of authority actually demonstrates racial discrimination against African Americans. And that is the key to understanding your misunderstanding.” I never said anything that would indicate I believe something like the aforementioned quote is an accurate definition of white privilege. You are simply conflating things as usual. See the first point.
Fourth: the historical events of your country, while they can explain the fear and mistrust minorities have, are not indicative of current reality. Astonishingly, you make a sincere connection between mean internet comments and fear of police discrimination regarding car stops based on race. At this point no rational person should take you seriously. Likewise with your example of supremacy groups. The KKK and neo-nazi groups are allowed to spout white supremacist rhetoric just like the Black Panther Party and the Nation of Islam are allowed to spout black supremacist rhetoric. Neither group is indicative of pervasive societal attitudes, let alone of specific interactions with police. All that is indicative of is free speech rights in your country and the internet, something you should take pride in if you understood its implications.
Fifth: like I said, Women's fear of violence relative to men's is not based on present reality. Men are more likely to be the victims of violent crimes and more likely to be threatened for expressing opinions. Which is the privileged group: the group that is more susceptible to fear, or the group that is more susceptible to attacks? You conclude the former, because there was a supposedly oppressive history against women by men. You have a tainted view of history that wants to make things simplistically black and white, oppressed and oppressor. Women generally had fewer rights and responsibilities because greater security means lesser freedom. Men generally had more freedoms and responsibilities because they had lesser security, as they were and still are largely disposable entities relative to women. There are good explanations for this but you’d need a better understanding of our species’ sexual dimorphism and evolution.
Sixth: the semantics are being played entirely by you, not me, which is why you’ve continued to argue about a minor point of established definitions for the majority of this discussion. It’s ironic because you are completely misusing the meanings of definitions when it suits you. Experiencing fear is objectively an outcome, not an opportunity. Fear is an outcome as much as being pulled over is. Equality of opportunity has nothing to do with what you personally feel (in this case, fear of being pulled over), it has everything to do with whether the police officer is applying his discretion to stop cars equally. Follow your own suggestion and try to understand the meanings of terms like equality of opportunity, it makes no sense to consider a personal feeling as an opportunity provided by another person. To use your own silly argument: all of the literature I’ve read on equality of opportunity has never been under a context of feelings, therefore feelings are not equality of opportunity.
Seventh: “White privilege is an institutional (rather than personal) set of benefits granted to those of us who, by race, resemble the people who dominate the powerful positions in our institutions.” That’s not a benefit unless you only identify with your representatives if they look like you. Ridiculous from my point of view. Either way this would be an outcome of probabilities based on who tends to successfully run for powerful positions in societal institutions. As I mentioned elsewhere, there is no literature that attempts to make this argument of resemblance in countries that are not majority white. No such thing as black privilege in black majority countries, no such thing as Asian privilege in Asian majority countries. The selective targeting of white privilege is rather telling. It mistakes the causality as whiteness when it’s simply population demographics.
Eighth: The probabilities I’m referring to are, for instance, the fact that men are more likely to speed than women, and thus are more likely to be stopped. That example is not trying to equate anything to black drivers. That example simply establishes that the outcome of being stopped more often is not by itself evidence of discrimination, which is the extent of your evidence. Adding “fear” to the mix doesn’t add any evidence of discrimination, either.
Ninth: Your point about hard sciences vs. social sciences needs specific addressing.
First, sciences do not exclusively operate on inductive reasoning. The very process of testing and using hypothesis for predictions is deductive. It’s called the hypothetico-deductive model for a reason. If you are trying to distinguish hard sciences as being inductive and soft sciences as being deductive then you have no idea what you’re talking about. Both sciences utilize both types of reasoning to varying degrees. That is the closest thing to a distinguishing factor you’ve made between hard science and social science, and it's wrong on several levels.
Second, this egregious pair of statements:
“trying to apply the standards of scientific method to a soft science like sociology in the same way it's applied in hard sciences like biology is admirable, but foolish. That is why there is a distinction between "hard" and "soft" sciences in the first place. “
There is no “why” in either statement. You’ve just said “trying to do this is foolish” and followed with “that’s why there’s a distinction.” This is typical of your content: nonsensical and without substance. That entire paragraph contains no explanation about why they are colloquially (not even established by literature!) called hard and soft sciences, nor why I am not allowed to use sociological hypotheses on what you call “tentative” certainty. All you’ve done is state “they have different standards of certainty because they’re called hard and soft, and that’s why they operate on different standards of certainties.” Utterly ridiculous circular reasoning.
You then follow it up with this gem:
“We are talking about complex social issues that may be informed by science, but are still notscience.”
At this point you’ve simultaneously stated that soft sciences discuss about social issues, but social issues are not science. Aside from that glaring contradiction, the scientific method is not limited to hard sciences. You’re conflating two definitions of science: science as referred to the scientific method (which can be applied in pretty much any field), and science as referred to the typical areas where the scientific method is commonly and effectively utilized, the hard sciences. Your very basic misunderstanding of relevant terms is in stark contrast to your accusation of my misunderstanding of relevant terms. You're also bafflingly implying that a field which is not as rigorous as hard sciences should adapt a stance of absolute certainty, when even hard sciences are humble with their findings despite having incredible predictive power.
Allow me to provide the actual reason: the distinction between hard and soft sciences is precisely because hard sciences follow rigorous scientific methodology and by virtue of that fact, come up with meaningful explanations of reality. Soft sciences are so poor in scientific methodology, objectivity and execution that they routinely come up with nonsensical concepts like privilege and accept absolute gibberish as in the Sokal affair. I was trying to elevate your pathetic standards to potentially discover something about reality, but I now see that that was a doomed endeavour from the beginning.
Tenth: I agree entirely that definitions and meanings matter. Remember, you invoked the semantics of near-ubiquitousness by comparing it to near three-sided triangles. Near-ubiquitousness means almost-ubiquitousness (near and almost are synonymous in this context), and near three-sided triangles would be almost three-sided triangles which would be almost-triangles, which you’ve admitted can be an apt descriptor of the omega triangle. Your analogy, therefore, is actually perfectly in accordance with reality, unless you think near three-sided triangles would not classified as almost-triangles. And somehow, you do think that. Semantics of the highest order.
Of course, the above is largely moot. The omega triangle is still a triangle by definition. It has three sides, two of which extend and meet at a point in infinity, a vertex called the omega point. The two vertices that connect the side AB are ordinary. Thus we have a polygon with three sides and three vertices. Again, note the stark contrast between your accusing me of misunderstanding relevant terms, and you objectively misunderstanding relevant terms out of ignorance. But here, let me invoke a method of argumentation you are more comfortable with: today there is plenty of literature that establishes the omega triangle as a type of triangle, thus it must be a triangle (I won’t conclude that it must be the only type of triangle; I’ll leave such nonsense to you).
The problem here is not the meanings of words like triangle and privilege – the problem is your profound ignorance coupled with an inability to accept slightly different variations of existing concepts, a process which can actually strengthen concepts over time. You’d be the guy in the early 19th century arguing against the merit of non-Euclidean geometry because all of the established geometrical literature that you’ve read doesn’t include non-Euclidian geometry, therefore it’s not [true] geometry. It’s the type of silly and narrow-minded thought process I’ve come to expect from your comments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your continual defense of one particular definition based on all the literature you’ve read strongly implies that you don’t understand how concepts develop over time, how they change and adapt to more information and how we can potentially do that in this very discussion, were you not spending your time complaining about that very process. The real point is that there are slightly different explanations and interpretations of triangles/privilege that can be invoked in this discussion. Your arrogance is insisting that every explanation and interpretation of triangles/privilege must operate under your rules, in a discussion where the OP is perfectly accepting of altered versions of triangles/privilege that can potentially be more accurate or useful descriptors of reality.
I’ve given you more than enough opportunities to understand my position. At this point you are either intentionally attacking strawmen of my positions (which would be ironic, given your repeated accusations), or you are incapable of objectively understanding reality. I’d argue it’s a little from column A and a little from column B.
In any case I’m going to stop responding to your commentary. I occasionally enjoy hitting my head against a wall but my masochistic tendencies only go so far. You are of the opinion that there is no choice, the discussion must be limited to whatever literature you personally read on white privilege, to whatever literature you personally read on triangles, because you said so. I am not limiting the discussion to such terms. You don’t like it? Then best of luck with limiting yourself to Euclidean notions of geometry. The rest of us look to advance our collective knowledge of reality.Arbiter
"I never said or implied I was the arbiter of what white privilege does or does not mean. I’m simply willing to accept different definitions and explanations of the phenomena that have been commonly attributed to white privilege (differences in stopping rates between races, different products catered etc.), as long as they have merit."
I think you genuinely believe your use of "accept" in the above statement does not imply you are some kind of gatekeeper who decides which meanings are "of merit". And therein lies the problem. You have a blind-spot. Whether you intended it or not, these are the messages you have been conveying:
"My personal acceptance/rejection of the idea that certain phenomena are aspects of something called white privilege, is relevant to whether or not they actually are".
"My personal acceptance is the standard by which ideas, meanings or concepts can be objectively judged to be of merit".
"I give more weight to my personal understanding of white privilege than the entire body of work that has explored this concept and the surrounding issues".
I hope these are not the messages you intended to convey. If you say they aren't I believe you, but if that's the case you need to work on how you convey your message. And you can do it. Take this statement as an example:
"In my opinion, there is one definition of white privilege which makes more sense relative to the other, but neither make as much sense as other explanations like supply and demand and probabilistic outcomes."
This has none of the "acceptance" nonsense that only comes across as arrogant and ignorant. It's just a statement of opinion and the reasoning behind it.
Meaning
First, the difference between the hard and soft sciences is well noted. Look it up.
Second, no, I have no issue with new meanings. But Einstein had a full understanding of Newtonian mechanics. Heisenberg had a full understanding of the theory of relativity. My issue is with people who use "new meaning" as a cover for ignorance. Suggesting something as a new meaning is not a valid excuse for being ignorant of the current meaning.
If you wanted an in-depth discussion on what to do about white privilege then should have made yourself aware of the body of work that informs our current understanding of the subject, or at least the basic concepts. Instead you started the thread with arrogant pronouncements about what (you think) white privilege is all about. Rather than accept you may not know as much as you thought about the subject, you think it's more useful to put your pronouncements about white privilege in the same category as Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's theory of relativity. An Einstein you are clearly not.
Ubiquitous
"The pattern of unearned advantage also does not mean that all men are powerful as individuals or that all women are powerless as individuals. It simply means that men in gamer culture can, on average, count on these advantages, whereas women can not."
That's a good description from that writer. I hope you see the difference between "counting on" an advantage, and having the advantage bestowed in the first place. That is what ubiquitous refers to in this context, which you showed no evidence of understanding at the start of this thread.
Equality of opportunities
Not experiencing the fear and uncertainty that an interaction with law enforcement will be based on negative racial bias, is an opportunity. In fact it's several: the opportunity to feel safe around law enforcement when you haven't done anything wrong. The opportunity for communities to have better, more constructive relationships with law enforcement. The opportunity for some communities to enjoy more effective policing. As things stand, these opportunities don't exist in some communities, because historical and current socio-political conditions (among other things) restrict the vital ingredient: trust. Clearly, if trust does not exist between this social group and law enforcement, then any opportunity that requires trust is unavailable.
Perception
Of course perception is important. Perception affects people's attitudes and behaviour. You can't go from commonplace, overt racial discrimination to less often, not quite as overt racial discrimination, and expect people on the receiving end to be grateful. It's still the same thing: injustice, and many people (rightly) see it that way.
Also, someone's personal and familial history is part of reality, as is their racial history. People in the present don't exist in isolation from everything that's happened to them, their loved ones, or their social group in the past. It forms part of who people are. The fact that something happened in the past doesn't mean it's not part of reality. Of course it is. Besides, there are plenty of contemporary examples.
The results of a risk assessment "algorithm" that's been used by judges to determine who gets bail were analysed with the following results:
White people labeled higher risk, but did not re-offend 23.5%
Black people labeled higher risk, but did not re-offend 44.9%
White people labeled lower risk, yet did re-offend 47.7%
Black people labeled lower risk, yet did re-offend 28.0%
So even though race is supposedly not one of the factors used in the assessment (as claimed by the provider) it remains the case that if your risk rating is wrong, it is more likely to be wrong in a way that harms you if you happen to be black, and more likely to be wrong in a way that benefits you if you happen to be white. The consequences of this bias (whatever the reasons for it) are all too real. It can be the difference between someone being jailed and someone being given bail. So don't tell me that the fear and mistrust of African American communities towards law enforcement, and the justice system in general, is not based on reality. The racial injustices you are lucky enough to be able to consider merely historical events, are very much a reality for lots of people who continue to experience them because they happen to be black. Not having to think about that, or being able to ignore that because it doesn't affect you, is an aspect of white privilege.
Men and Women
You do understand oppression of women is wrong, regardless of the reason? You do get that? Because for a minute I thought you were saying it's all just a matter of sexual dimorphism and evolution, so women haven't really been oppressed. Sure they were denied the right to vote until the 20th century on the grounds that they didn't have a penis, but hey . . . sexual dimorphism and evolution. Sure they were discouraged from getting an education for anything other than "household duties", but's it's ok because . . . sexual dimorphism and evolution. Sure women were not considered as heirs worthy of their parents fortune because, again, they didn't have a penis, but again that's just . . .sexual dimorphism and evolution. I must have been mistaken though. You wouldn't do something as idiotic as suggest that oppression of women is ok because it's the result of a biological process.
"Black Privilege"
"No such thing as black privilege in black majority countries, no such thing as Asian privilege in Asian majority countries. The selective targeting of white privilege is rather telling. It mistakes the causality as whiteness when it’s simply population demographics."
I can't speak to experiences in other countries, but I think there is particular attention to white privilege due to the fact that people of European descent colonised a large geographical area, so it has impacted more people. And I don't think privilege is exclusively associated with a majority. In india in the 19th century there were around 160,000 British people, and around 280,000,000 Indian people. While it definitely is the case that white people represent the majority in the US, I don't think that majority is the exclusive reason for white privilege, and I certainly don't think it is the only reason white people control positions of power. So "controlling" social group is probably more accurate than" majority" social group.
Speeding
I repeat: the numbers of traffic stops, or citations, for one social group, compared to another do not tell us how many times each group broke traffic laws. They only tell us how many times police stopped and cited one social group, compared to another. To eliminate racial bias as a factor, you would need to know how many in each group were observed breaking traffic laws and not stopped, and how many in each group were stopped even when they were not observed breaking any laws. Without those figures your conclusion is dependent on the assumption that the law has been enforced equally. Not everyone is privileged enough to be able to safely make that assumption.
Triangles
The fact that you genuinely think the geometry of triangles in the euclidean plane vs those in the hyperbolic plane, is the most important aspect of the point being made, tells me that you can't see the woods for the trees here.
The fact that you think the role evolutionary biology plays in our social structure, means women were only "supposedly" oppressed, tells me something also.
The the fact that you think the concerns about negative racial bias from law enforcement is not based in reality, tells me something too.
The attitudes you have expressed in general, sadly, only reinforce the view that white privilege is alive and well in 2016.Since when does the word “accept” imply arrogance/ignorance or a position of gatekeeper/arbiter?
The definition of accept that I am using is the following:
7. to regard as true or sound; believe: to accept a claim. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/accept
Note the example, because it’s literally what I am doing. I am stating a willingness to accept claims. I am basing this acceptance of claims on my own personal judgement of merit. The statement in question is thus as follows:
"I am willing to regard as true or sound different definitions and explanations of white privilege outside of the literature, if they have merit.”
Or even more simply
“I am willing to believe different definitions and explanations of white privilege outside of the literature, if they have merit.”
Now listen carefully, because this is important: I never once stated or implied that my judgement call of what does or does not have merit is the judgement call that others must follow. It should be obvious that individuals will make their own determinations as to what does or does not have merit. It should be obvious that I am not implying that my determination has ultimate authority.
You are perfectly aware of this definition of accept when you use it yourself:
“And you believe that ("ubiquitous") white privilege is debunked with examples of minorities having more influence and priority”
“You accept that attitudes towards white privilege are biased due to the differences in perspective of those with different experiences of the issue.”
“even though you don't believe racial discrimination is 100% the reason for racial inequality, I assume you accept it is the cause of some racial inequality, right?”
“And I believe there is plenty of evidence that demonstrates that to be the case.”
“Again, can you give some examples of racial inequality that you believe are the result of racial discrimination?”
“Do you think people categorise by race, sexual orientation etc. because they believe it's "helpful"?”
“And does that mean you don't believe systemic racial discrimination exists?”
“Also what exactly do you believe are the causes of racial inequalities in society?”
“Again, it's only a "benefit" because you mistakenly believe”
“Your comments demonstrate that you believe white privilege is all about equality of outcomes.”
“Tellingly fewer black drivers believed they were stopped for a legitimate reason, compared to white drivers”
And most ironic of all
“I think you genuinely believe your use of "accept" in the above statement does not imply you are some kind of gatekeeper who decides which meanings are "of merit".”
Which amounts to:
“I believe you genuinely believe your use of “believe” in the above statement does not imply you are some kind of gatekeeper.”
The only thing you need to do to understand my conveyed meaning is to know that the word accept = believe in this context. Apparently, you don't know that. Remember your diatribes about the meaning of words? You should listen to them.
Put it simply, I've not once conveyed those messages that you've accused me of. Those are simply messages you've been schizophrenically and selectively seeing in my posts, but which are otherwise not there. It's why instead of just directly quoting me for evidence, you typed out what I've been supposedly conveying, because you simply won't find me actually claiming anything of the sort. It's why you're digging yourself a smaller and smaller hole by claiming "accept" as a word that "comes across" as arrogant or ignorant, despite it having a perfectly innocuous meaning which you yourself have utilized in an identical fashion on several occasions.
Concede this point and I’ll move on to the next. Fail to acknowledge it and I’ll do as I should have done from the beginning and ignore those who are blindly unwilling to acknowledge their mistakes."Since when does the word “accept” imply arrogance/ignorance or a position of gatekeeper/arbiter?"
When it's used along with statements like: "I'm trying to do you a favour" and "I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt" etc. You have explicitly stated in this very thread that those definitions or meanings you personally disagree with, are objectively false/easier to disprove, but you are "willing to accept" these obviously incorrect (according to you) ideas as a "favor" because you are being "charitable". I am simply trying to point out to you that, regardless of your intent, this comes across as arrogant and patronising.
And yes I do think you genuinely believe you are not coming across this way. Unfortunately that belief is indicative of the blind-spot I mentioned. The only way you could accept that you are conveying the message that you are the arbiter of meaning, is if someone gave a direct quote of you saying "I am the arbiter of meaning". You seem unable to understand the subtext, connotations or implications of your words. Even worse, you are tone-deaf on the issue. Your comment about the historical oppression of women is an example. You were more interested in outlining what a "good explanation" there is for the oppression, than considering the horrible, negative effects that oppression had/has on women. That's quite worrying.
"Concede this point and I’ll move on to the next. Fail to acknowledge it and I’ll do as I should have done from the beginning and ignore those who are blindly unwilling to acknowledge their mistakes."
If I didn't seem overly concerned the first time you said you wouldn't respond, that's because I'm not. Your choice to engage in discussion with those who challenge your views, is exactly that, your choice. Word of advice though, if you're frustrated, annoyed, or just tired of a discussion, then not responding is a reasonable action. But saying to someone "agree with me now, or I'll stop talking to you!" isn't reasonable. It's a tantrum. Respond, or don't respond, but don't throw a tantrum. The fact that you have does you no credit, and it opens you up to accusations of being immature and controlling, which is unfortunate."When it's used along with statements like: "I'm trying to do you a favour" and "I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt" etc."
In other words, it had nothing to do with "accept" and instead with "trying to do you a favour" and "giving you the benefit of the doubt." One wonders why you'd not just quote those things in the first place instead of hiding under the supposed implicity of "accept."
Unfortunately, trying to be accommodating of definitions is not arrogance:
do yourself a favour (British & Australian) also do yourself a favor (American & Australian)
something that you say when you are advising someone to do something which will have a good effect or will give them an advantage
do someone a favor and do someone a good turn
to perform a helpful service to someone
And neither is a willingness to accepting claims:
give somebody/something the benefit of the doubt
to decide you will believe someone or something
Pay special attention to the things I've emphasized. They're things you've done at several points in this discussion. Are you saying your advises and willingness to believe someone on their word are not evidence of arrogance for you, but they are evidence of arrogance for me? What is your barometer for arrogance, and is it accurate in a medium like the internet?
"You have explicitly stated in this very thread that those definitions or meanings you personally disagree with, are objectively false/easier to disprove"
They are objectively easier to disprove. A definition that relies on ubiquity of evidence requires more evidence than a definition that relies on near-ubiquity. In other words, by accepting lower standards of evidence I am giving you an advantage/trying to be helfpul/more accommodating in terms of lower standards of evidence. This has nothing to do with what I personally believe, this has everything to do with the motif that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
"You seem unable to understand the subtext, connotations or implications of your words."
One of the best suggestions for reducing arrogance in tone is literally to do what I've been trying to do i.e. to give people the benefit of the doubt and to be charitable with their intended meanings: https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-tone-do … ssiveness.
It's something you've been failing to do throughout this discussion in light of your baseless accusations. Instead of erring on the side of caution and assuming that I genuinely mean to be helpful and more accommodating in believing claims, you chose to assume that I'm being arrogant, trying to be an arbiter of truth/definition, strawmanning your position etc. etc.
"I am simply trying to point out to you that, regardless of your intent, this comes across as arrogant and patronising."
I am simply trying to point out to you that, no, those phrases do not inherently come off as arrogant or patronizing.
"The only way you could accept that you are conveying the message that you are the arbiter of meaning, is if someone gave a direct quote of you saying "I am the arbiter of meaning""
Not remotely true. The problem is that your accusation of arrogance is based on my intention of being accommodating to claims and in trying to be helpful. It's completely backwards to reality.
"You seem unable to understand the subtext, connotations or implications of your words."
Are you suggesting that trying to advise or accommodate someone implies arrogance?
"Even worse, you are tone-deaf on the issue."
It's understandable why you think that. There is a limitation on understanding tone in a medium like the internet: https://levynewsnetwork.wordpress.com/2 … -internet/
People commonly misinterpret perfectly normal statements as indicative of anger or arrogance or alternative meanings because they lack information. Word of advise: you should be more charitable to people's interpretations and meanings and give them the benefit of the doubt more often, especially in a medium where interpretations are commonly misunderstood. It's what I was advocating for from the very beginning and... you call it arrogance.
"Your comment about the historical oppression of women is an example. You were more interested in outlining what a "good explanation" there is for the oppression, than considering the horrible, negative effects that oppression had/has on women."
Quite the opposite actually. My simplified explanation outlined the different roles genders had in their history. Women have the limiting factor of reproduction, the egg. A long gestation period leaves them vulnerable to dangers. An adaptive strategy to this problem could and has been to limit the autonomy of women in other to keep them safe and preserve reproductive success. For men it's the opposite, one man could feasibly account for the reproductive capacity of an entire tribe. They are thus expendable and relied upon to protect women from dangers.
What you've done is point out that the limited autonomy of women in certain points of history was oppressive, and it was. But men were also oppressed in their own way via their expendability. What I was pointing out is that you selectively cry about the former and ignore the latter, amounting to a simplistic worldview of our species' history. Essentially, you are more interested in talking exclusively about the negative effects oppression had on women, whereas I am interested in talking about the different ways both genders suffered oppression.
"But saying to someone "agree with me now, or I'll stop talking to you!" isn't reasonable. It's a tantrum."
Actually it's an ultimatum. In light of the overwhelming amount of evidence you still double down on your claim of arrogance. Perhaps you are well meaning, but my charitability has been exhausted with your baseless accusations.Good grief man, at least be true to your word. The one thing more foolish than a rage quit, is coming back after you've quit. Anyways, here is a solution: if you don't want to be called out for comments that are arrogant and patronising, don't make comments that are arrogant and patronising.
Now I'm sure the women of the world are grateful to you for mansplaining about how being oppressed is for their own good, but this is kind of what I'm talking about.
Anyways, for future reference, so you can always come back to this page if you need a reminder, here is a recap on the nature of white privilege. Good luck fixing that blind spot.
White privilege is, by definition, ubiquitous because that's what a social privileges is: a privilege bestowed on a particular social group. Whether a specific individual counts on that privilege or not, is irrelevant to whether the privilege is bestowed.Hats off to you for wading in and hanging out in the water for so long. I don't have the patience for it. You're spot on.
Ahhhhh, the veil is finally lifted. You are a social justice warrior. "Mansplaining"
finally gave it away. That's why you think words like "I'm trying to do you a favour" and "I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt" are arrogant, when they're the exact opposite.
I respect your charade, you had me fooled for quite some time as a rational human being. Don't worry, I'm no longer giving you the benefit of the doubt on that matter.
One last bit of clarification for the readers who are not blighted by your particular condition:
"Now I'm sure the women of the world are grateful to you for mansplaining about how being oppressed is for their own good"
Do you see what he's done here? He's translated "an adaptive evolutionary strategy for reproduction" into "being oppressed is for women's own good." His glasses are that tinted.Lol, no, but your own self-protective veil is visible, except to yourself, of course. Never forget that this discussion began with your defense of a ludicrously racist thread started by one of your peers.
I'm sorry that you don't understand the meanings of words. If you did, you would not schizophrenically associate every disagreement with racism or sexism.
I don't. I operate on the assumption that a bias is subconscious until shown to be otherwise. I recognize that I have unconscious biases and work very hard to mitigate them, sometimes unsuccessfully. You have unconscious biases and you are working very hard to protect them. At some point, one starts to question whether they are unconscious.
I want to be clear that you understand I am not trying to demonize you. I know many good people who operate similarly. Often, the only thing that will open their eyes is some kind of dramatic personal experience that ccompletely upends their deeply held beliefs."You have unconscious biases and you are working very hard to protect them."
Or is that your unconscious bias projecting your insecurities onto me? No way to test either statement, no way to falsify either statement. This is typically why such statements are meaningless and outside of the realm of rational discourse.
Edit:
"Often, the only thing that will open their eyes is some kind of dramatic personal experience that ccompletely upends their deeply held beliefs."
I hope you realize this statement is applicable to you as well.Quite possible. At least I will explore that idea. Will you do the same?
Who says I haven't been doing the same? But it's a moot point, I can explore the idea all I want and it won't verify or falsify the notion.
The closest to that would be a bias test I took online a while back: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/aboutus.html
My result was a slight automatic preference to African Americans.
Of course, those tests are barely indicative of anything. For instance, the one I took was just based on reaction time. This is the extent of testing that soft sciences can muster.
Just for clarity, will this be your final, final, final comment before you go off in a sulk, or do you intend to extend your dramatic exit indefinitely? And do you really want to do the identity politics thing? It does you no credit.
Listen, I'm sure you're a very nice person in "real life". I'm genuinely not trying to offend you, but every time you say something about black people, or women, it comes out really bad. Like really bad. Like describing the oppression of women as "an adaptive evolutionary strategy for reproduction" kind of bad. And if you're thinking to yourself right now "What's wrong with that statement? It's factually correct" then just pause, for a second.
I get it, you like science. Nothing wrong with that. I love science. But here's the thing: you aren't Mr. Spock. You aren't genetically predisposed to be purely logical. You're not Vulcan, or even half Vulcan. You're a human being, with feelings. And the issues we're discussing are about human beings, with feelings. Sure, we can't let everything we say and do be based solely on our passions and emotions. But at the same time, if we suppress our empathy and compassion, then we suppress our humanity.
You talk about oppression of human beings without compassion. For you, black people's fear of racial bias is about "average group outcomes", the oppression of women through history is about "sexual dimorphism and evolution". Come on, you're not a robot.
I don't know anything about your life experience, and I don't want to make any assumptions, but I know you were a child once. And you probably fell over and cut your knee, like we all did, or looked up in a crowded place and couldn't see your parents and for a moment were terrified you were lost. Even if those are the only experiences of pain and fear you've had in your life, you still know what it means to be in pain. You know what it means to be afraid. And that's what oppression is about, pain and fear inflicted by one group of people on another group of people. It's not just an abstract concept or an intellectual pursuit.
Black bodies hanging from trees less than a hundred years ago, is as real as it gets. Wives, daughters, sisters being beaten for not fulfilling a man's ideal of what a real woman should be, is at real as it gets. You can bury that under a layer of abstraction, but if you do you will pay the price. A disconnection from the people you are talking to.
That's the biggest issue I have with what you're saying and how you're saying it. It's disconnected. It lacks empathy, and so it lacks a sense of humanity. If we were talking face-to-face, I could look you in the eye, see what's there. Hopefully I'd see your compassion beneath all the talk. I'm usually pretty good at cutting through masks.
When there's only words on a page, then you need to show your humanity through the words. That's what allows people to connect with you as a person. So even if your views on the reasons for oppression differ from others, there is still a shared sense of horror at the despicable injustices that have been committed, a shared sense of empathy, a sense of humanity. And that is something that has been seriously lacking in much of what you've said. Now if these words, which I hope show my humanity, cause you to mark me as a "social justice warrior", then fine, I shall wear that badge with pride.May I just say that, at this moment, you are my hero?
*claps* beautifully crafted appeal to emotion.
Still, even if you think that expressing empathy is important in discussions about anything related to humans (it's not), I have demonstrated empathy. You just haven't been listening:
"There are numerous examples of “well established” philosophical, religious and social definitions that have changed over time, often for the better of humanity. Some past (and present, depending on where you look) definitions of human rights and what it means to be a human being excluded slaves, women etc. from the definition. We are constantly improving on these definitions as we extend our empathy not only to other humans but to things that can suffer like humans i.e. animals and other life forms. Perhaps in the future we’ll again challenge our preconceived definitions if we successfully create an artificial intelligence capable of suffering. Were we to follow your logic we’d argue “No! The established meanings and definitions of human rights and what it means to be a human do not include these things, therefore your understanding is incorrect, because you are not talking about what it means to be a human, you are talking about something else by definition.”
I've extended my empathy from humans to other life forms and as far as hypothetical AIs - and you think this amounts to a suppression of humanity.
Sorry. Really, I am genuinely sorry that you are incapable of objectively seeing reality. I am genuinely sorry that you can't separate your personal feelings from the facts. I am sorry that you're seemingly incapable of reading directly emphasized quoted dialogue. But this does not reflect poorly on me."In any case I’m going to stop responding to your commentary."
Yet here you are 4 (or is it 5) comments later, still proving my point.
In a discussion that has touched upon racial inequality, sexual inequality, oppression, violence and slavery, the best example you can give of showing empathy is saying we "extend our empathy" to animals and other life forms. I rest my case."Yet here you are 4 (or is it 5) comments later, still proving my point."
was your point that my tendency to challenge false notions outweighs my discipline in interacting with immalleable ignorance?
Or was it that the word "accept" implies I'm an arbiter of definition? Or was it arbiter of merit? Or was it implied arrogance? Or was it the words "accept" + "benefit of the doubt" + "charitable"? Or was it that I didn't express empathy? Or was it that I didn't express enough empathy? Was it A? Or was it B? Or was it C?... Or was it Z?
You have no point, you've been digging a smaller and smaller hole for yourself because you can't back up your statements with evidence, even regarding a singular, fallacious attack on my supposed implied tone.
"In a discussion that has touched upon racial inequality, sexual inequality, oppression, violence and slavery, the best example you can give of showing empathy is saying we "extend our empathy" to animals and other life forms. I rest my case."
As predictable as ever, now the problem is because I didn't express enough empathy. Fantastic display of moving goalposts.
As I told you earlier, appealing to emotion and ad hominems attacking my humanity only demonstrate your inability to engage in rational discussion. Emotions are not required in rational discourse and are often inhibitory. Odd though, that you opted to be some kind of arbiter of empathy, in a place where empathy is not a requirement.
Your accusations could be avoided altogether if you just followed your own advice and listened. Not only are your accusations irrelevant, they're blatantly false:
"There are numerous examples of “well established” philosophical, religious and social definitions that have changed over time, often for the better of humanity. Some past (and present, depending on where you look) definitions of human rights and what it means to be a human being excluded slaves, women etc. from the definition. We are constantly improving on these definitions as we extend our empathy not only to other humans
You think that I only extended my empathy to animals and other lifeforms. We'll ignore the obvious implications of the word "extend" especially in conjunction with my examples of women and slaves. For now, try to focus on this last sentence:
We are constantly improving on these definitions as we extend our empathy not only to other humans
as we extend our empathy not only to other humans
not only to other humans
other humans
humans
In other words, we, humans, are improving humanity by using our empathy in a more encompassing manner towards other humans, other animals and other life forms that are capable of suffering. This is one of the more universal stances of empathy that anyone can make, and you're using that very statement to conclude that I am lacking in empathy. Up is down in your world.
On the other hand, you consider individuals who have no need to express their feelings in discussion (like myself) or individuals who are incapable of properly expressing their feelings (like many in the autism spectrum or even those suffering from depression), as lacking in empathy and humanity. Your empathy and definition of what it means to be a human only extends to those who visibly express their feelings, even though there are millions, if not billions, of people feeling, empathizing and suffering in silence.
If you personally need some irrelevant or superfluous display of empathy in order for you to be able to identify a human with feelings, then fine. But that's your limitation, not mine or anyone else's."was your point that . ."
No, my point is that you continue to comment after you've expressed a strong desire not to, which is amusing (if not slightly odd).
"Your empathy and definition of what it means to be a human only extends to those who visibly express their feelings, even though there are millions, if not billions, of people feeling, empathizing and suffering in silence."
Viola! You just showed some empathy, albeit not in any of the comments you highlighted. You may not appreciate why, so I'll break it down: you considered the lived experience of another group of people, those with autism or depression; put yourself in their shoes, and then expressed the understanding that those people ("millions, if not billions") are suffering in silence. That not only shows some empathy, it also shows the difference between talking about empathy and actually being empathic. I hope you see that difference. It's ironic this came about because you perceived my criticism about empathy as a slight on this group of people, but there it is. And far from being a superfluous display of feelings, it's an important part of how human beings engage with other human beings.
I don't know your motivations for saying the things you're saying. It could be because you're unaware of how you come across, or it could be because you're a white supremacist and misogynist who thinks it's ok to oppress black people and women, or it could be something else. That's why knowing what you feel about women and black people being oppressed is as important as knowing what you think about it. You are a stranger on the web, so sadly I can't just assume you feel the same sense of profound disgust for racist and sexist ideology as I do.
That's why your lack of empathy talking about these issues raises a red flag. Your scientific focus does nothing to help either. However, I think it's reasonable not to assume someone has a condition on the autism spectrum, or depression, unless they say otherwise. I think it would be very unwise, and presumptuous, for me to make some kind of amateur diagnoses purely on the basis of a web discussion.
If I were talking to someone experiencing either of those, my expectations would be different. But I'm not. I'm talking you. You just think there's no need to express your feelings in discussion. Perhaps not, if we were talking about the mathematical model behind string theory. But if we're talking about some of the worst aspects of human history: oppression, violence, racism etc. I think it's appropriate to acknowledge and try to understand the human suffering involved (to empathise, if you will). After all, this is not a seminar on the social effects of sexual dimorphism in humans. An approach that might be fine among a group of professionals discussing their field of study, can come across as callous and lacking empathy on a public web forum, or worse, could be interpreted as a cover for someone harboring racist ideology.
Anyway, I said a while ago the solution is simple. If you don't want your comments to be deemed arrogant and patronising, or callous and lacking empathy, don't make comments that are arrogant and patronising, or callous and lacking empathy. I've shown you two examples of things you've written that don't come across like that. So it's doable. Of course you're perfectly entitled to ignore this feedback. But I strongly suspect you'll encounter the same barriers to discussion again in the future if you do. Once again, good luck with it.“No, my point is that you continue to comment after you've expressed a strong desire not to”
It boggles the mind how you can say “no” to a statement that says the exact same thing that you’ve said. I’m continuing to comment after I expressed a strong desire not to because my tendency to challenge false notions outweighs my discipline in interacting with immalleable ignorance.
In other words, you should be saying “yes, that is my point.” Christ.
"albeit not in any of the comments you highlighted."
This should be good. How much smaller is the hole going to get? What is it now? Was it because I didn’t express enough empathy while singing Kumbaya during a full moon?
“you considered the lived experience of another group of people, those with autism or depression; put yourself in their shoes, and then expressed the understanding that those people ("millions, if not billions") are suffering in silence.”
Okay, so you see empathy when I:
1) Consider the lived experience of a group of people (autistic or depressed people)
2) Stated what they’re experiencing (suffering)
3) Put myself in their shoes (?)
Let’s look back at what I posted earlier:
Some past (and present, depending on where you look) definitions of human rights and what it means to be a human being excluded slaves, women etc. from the definition. We are constantly improving on these definitions as we extend our empathy not only to other humans but to things that can suffer like humans i.e. animals and other life forms.
Let’s review your arbitrary checklist:
1) Consider the lived experience of a group of people (slaves, women, humans, animals and other life forms)
2) Stated what they’re capable of experiencing (suffering)
3) Put myself in their shoes (extend our/my empathy)
So… where's the distinction? I've considered the lived experience of a group of people, I've stated their experience and I put myself in their shoes. Now how are you going to shift the goalposts?
“That not only shows some empathy, it also shows the difference between talking about empathy and actually being empathic.”
You are aware that "we extend our empathy" is essentially the act of being empathetic, right? And you are aware that the word “we” also includes myself in this act, right?
"It's ironic this came about because you perceived my criticism about empathy as a slight on this group of people"
Because it is. You are more inclined to judge individuals who don’t express their feelings to be inhuman robots, white supremacists or misogynists, instead of judging that individual to be someone who doesn't want to or can’t adequately express their feelings in a discussion where feelings are not relevant.
"And far from being a superfluous display of feelings, it's an important part of how human beings engage with other human beings."
Generally, yes. In discussions about facts, no.
"or it could be something else"
For instance, you could be an oversensitive ninny irrationally crying "racism" and "sexism" when people don't express their emotions on a given subject.
“That's why knowing what you feel about women and black people being oppressed”
Good grief. Am I talking to a 5 year old? Do I need to spell it out for you that oppression is bad? Oppression is B-A-D.
"You are a stranger on the web, so sadly I can't just assume you feel the same sense of profound disgust for racist and sexist ideology as I do."
Yes, you can! This is called giving people the benefit of the doubt. Instead of assuming people are white supremacists or misogynists for not expressing feelings, assume they are on your side regarding our collective disgust of racism and sexism but that they choose not to visibly express their feelings. Contrary to your ridiculous assessment, giving people the benefit of the doubt is not arrogance.
"That's why your lack of empathy talking about these issues raises a red flag. Your scientific focus does nothing to help either.""
I cannot control people's faulty perceptions of my commentary. If they mistake scientific focus with a lack of empathy, that's their own silly rationalizations to justify their constant grasping at straws.
"However, I think it's reasonable not to assume someone has a condition on the autism spectrum, or depression, unless they say otherwise."
You think it's unreasonable to give people the benefit of the doubt in their choice or capability in expressing emotion, but you find it perfectly reasonable to assume they are white supremacists or misogynists for not expressing their emotions. Incredible. Let me spell it out for you: that’s B-A-D.
“I think it would be very unwise, and presumptuous, for me to make some kind of amateur diagnoses purely on the basis of a web discussion.”
You clearly don’t understand the meaning of giving people the benefit of the doubt, which is why you called it arrogance when I tried giving that benefit to you. This has absolutely nothing to do with making amateur diagnoses of people’s conditions.
Very simply, giving the benefit of the doubt is to believe something good/innocent about someone, rather than something bad, when you have the possibility of doing either.
If someone provides a definition that is different from literature, I don’t assume that they’re ignorant on the subject (bad). I assume that there are other possible explanations and definitions that may differ from literature sources (good).
If someone makes a statement that was not in response to any particular thing, I don’t assume that they’re attempting to strawman someone (bad). I assume that they made a statement for clarity or to better establish their own position (good).
If someone chooses not to express their empathy, I don’t assume that they’re robots lacking humanity (bad). I assume that there are other potential reasons that may influence their ability to express feelings (like cognitive conditions) or that they personally chose not to express their feelings (good).
If someone chooses not to express their disgust of racism or sexism, I don’t assume that they’re white supremacists and misogynists (bad). I assume that there are other potential reasons that may influence their ability to express feelings (like cognitive conditions) or that they personally chose not to express their feelings (good).
You’ve irrationally called me arrogant for assuming the best of people by giving them the benefit of the doubt. At the same time you’ve been constantly assuming the worst of people. It’s despicable behaviour on your part. It's B-A-D.
"You just think there's no need to express your feelings in discussion. Perhaps not, if we were talking about the mathematical model behind string theory. But if we're talking about some of the worst aspects of human history: oppression, violence, racism etc. I think it's appropriate to acknowledge and try to understand the human suffering involved (to empathise, if you will). After all, this is not a seminar on the social effects of sexual dimorphism in humans. An approach that might be fine among a group of professionals discussing their field of study, can come across as callous and lacking empathy on a public web forum"
I cannot control people's faulty perceptions of my commentary. If they mistake scientific focus with a lack of empathy, that's their own silly rationalizations to justify their constant grasping at straws.
Also, I don't know if you understand this, but I made this thread. The discussion as I established is not based on demonstrations of empathy, it's based on evidence. If it were based on demonstrations of empathy, I'd title it something like "Oppression is bad, right guys? Let's talk about how human suffering is bad and how bad we feel about it. Because it's super bad and if we don't say it, how will we know it's bad?" But then I’d be talking to children.
If you want a thread that stresses the need to empathize about the human suffering involved in oppressive regimes, go ahead and make your own thread. I choose to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they understand perfectly well the horrors of oppressive regimes and are morally against them, because most people truly are against them.
"Anyway, I said a while ago the solution is simple."
Simple, and demonstrably ineffective.
"If you don't want your comments to be deemed arrogant and patronising, or callous and lacking empathy, don't make comments that are arrogant and patronising, or callous and lacking empathy."
I have an alternative solution. Grow some thicker skin and learn to read things as they are. If you don’t want to misread comments as arrogant and patronizing, or callous and lacking empathy, don’t misread comments as arrogant and patronizing, or callous and lacking empathy. If you are unsure, give people the benefit of the doubt.
“I've shown you two examples of things you've written that don't come across like that. So it's doable.”
Yes, it’s perfectly doable for you to be able to twice perceive things in an innocuous manner. What’s that saying? A broken clock is right twice a day?
“Of course you're perfectly entitled to ignore this feedback”
I’d love to accept feedback from someone that judges me to be a white supremacist or misogynist for not visibly expressing emotion, but no thanks. You’ve long lost all credibility by intentionally misreading and omitting my statements to suit your own prejudged notions.
“But I strongly suspect you'll encounter the same barriers to discussion again in the future if you do”
That will happen regardless. I cannot control people's faulty perceptions of my comments. There will always be idiots that think perfectly innocuous commentary to be something more insidious. I empathize with their condition (mostly in silence) but there’s little I can do for them.I was just in the middle of writing a very honest (and blunt) reply to your last comment, then something struck me, and that reply morphed into this one, which is just as honest and blunt, but not in the way you might think.
You see, in the beginning I was amused by your seemingly compulsive need to comment despite your own clearly expressed desire not to. I also found it amusing that you were so indignant about the fact that your comments were being challenged as too pretentious.
Now I'm concerned the compulsion is a vulnerability, and this interaction is causing you harm in a way I'd not considered, and which you either don't recognize; or worse, do recognize but aren't able to bring it to an end yourself for some reason.
The continued, agitated nature of your comments is starting to look like a sign of distress. And the thing that struck me was that it's no longer amusing to see you obsessively trying to disprove what I, a complete stranger, thinks of you. It's just troubling. It's starting to feel like I'm poking a bear with a stick through the bars of a cage.
So I'm bringing this to an end now. But I'm not just saying it. I'm actually going to stop responding to you, because that's what people do in this situation when they want to stop responding to someone.
I hope I haven't inadvertently encouraged unhealthy behaviour in you, or harmed your well-being. That was not my intention. I also hope I'm entirely wrong in my reading of the situation. If so, I'm very glad, but I can't continue in good-conscience with the concerns I have. I'd rather be entirely wrong in this case than right.
I hope some thoughts about emotional intelligence have been planted, that you may be able to ruminate on at some point in the future, which will help you on your personal journey, and I wish you the best of luck on that journey.
I'm glad I opted for this response instead of the other one I was writing, and I hope one day you'll be able to appreciate why. Until then, may you live long and prosper.
Welcome, reading the material provided, you can now acknowledge the existence of 'white privilege' even if grudgingly.
So, it is not a figment of the imagination from the Left and/or minority groups. As the enlightened ones, as few as they may be, recognize its existence.
So what do we do about it?
What had to be done about it when it certainly played a role in the social, economic and political exploitation of an entire group of people? This is direct conflict with the vaunted claims of American society, that of equal standing before the law and equal opportunity. Can't have that if certain groups of people feel that based on superiority and privilege they can withhold from others, no?
And while the extreme cases that I used as example no longer exist to the same extent, the priniciple of the thing remains.
Application of pressure, agitation, using the Courts, Lawsuits, whatever it takes to balance the scales to make sure the 'advantaged' people are not able to use that advantage to torment others. That was a start.
There is a lot more involved than just shampoo and bandaids. The first thing to do is what you seem to have done, acknowledge the existence of 'White Priviliege'.
Next, The Left and minority groups will keep up pressure to make sure that we do not backslide, holding authorities accountable promoting for a society that lives up to American creed, not reducing it to no more than a scrap of paper.
The rest are the interactions between people and cannot be changed. But, as a minority, understanding its existence is an education of what to be aware of and what I can expect to anticipate and therefore, protect against."Welcome, reading the material provided, you can now acknowledge the existence of 'white privilege' even if grudgingly.
So, it is not a figment of the imagination from the Left and/or minority groups. As the enlightened ones, as few as they may be, recognize its existence."
Enlightened one, allow me to clarify something: I have stated for the sake of argument that we are assuming its existence to be real. Please note the distinction. And I really shouldn't have to say this, but the fact that there exists reading material about the subject does not mean the subject is real or that the reading material is accurate.
"Can't have that if certain groups of people feel that based on superiority and privilege they can withhold from others, no?"
Who is withholding opportunities from others? If they are instances of people withholding opportunities from others, are the perpetrators not punished? If they are punished, aren't we already doing all that we can?
"Application of pressure, agitation, using the Courts, Lawsuits"
I could have sworn there were some in the last thread stating that the courts are comprised of corrupt old, white men that would only buy into racist arguments. Well, if courts and lawsuits are effective at punishing discriminatory practices, aren't we already doing all we can?
"There is a lot more involved than just shampoo and bandaids."
The link I was provided with used those examples as prominent examples. I assume the underlying point is that disparities in accessibility to products and services is a racial privilege. How would you solve disparities in accessibility to products and services? Are you sure these disparities are based on race, as opposed to economic factors and statistical probabilities?
"The first thing to do is what you seem to have done, acknowledge the existence of 'White Priviliege'."
Again, refer to my first point.
Also, if you could answer some questions for me, I'd appreciate it:
1) How does privilege, in general, come about? Surely privilege did not come into existence because some people were white. Why aren't we using a term that accurately encompasses the true nature of privileges?
2) Not all whites are privileged and not all minorities are disprivileged. There are also some things, like affirmative action and quotas, that are exclusively minority privileges. Why is the term called "white privilege" if it is not a ubiquitous and accurate representation of reality?
3) Why aren't we talking about privilege in other dimensions? Height privilege, weight privilege, strength privilege, inheritance privilege, intelligence privilege, genetic privilege etc etc? Why is the scope of the discussion limited to race, sex and orientation?
4) What is the end game objective to the problem of privileges? How do you determine that you've arrived there?
5) You mentioned a strategy of putting pressure and agitation on institutions to "balance the scales". Here is a case study where pressure and agitation was put on an institution in an attempt to do just that:
The UVA rape scandal had various demonstrations in support of the accuser and widespread condemnation and punishments towards the accused, including social isolation, drudgery through the university kangaroo courts, loss of university and personal rights, public shaming/abuse, and death threats. Much of the condemnation involved attacking his entitlement in the form of "white, patriarchal privilege" which had supposedly enabled him to attack and rape the accuser without a second thought. He was found not guilty due to lack of evidence and because there was plenty of evidence indicating that the accuser was lying about the nature of the event and their relationship. In stark contrast to the accused, she received an incredible amount of support from the very beginning by university officials and media, and was even allowed to use the event in a public manner as her senior thesis. The accuser was never punished for the false accusation nor for her public shaming and abusing of the accused.
The result of the above strategy was a complete and utter failure of due process and justice.
Do you think that inciting a group of people to put pressure on an institution to get the outcome you want is the appropriate way to resolve incidents? Who do you think is really privileged, if it only takes an accusation of injustice to get what you want?I am not assuming at all about its existence, I live here as an African-American that is exactly how things have been. I have lived the over 60 years here in the trenches while you can only have an inaccurate and dispassionate view from the outside. Oh, yes, it is quite real, alright.
"Who is withholding opportunities from others? If they are instances of people withholding opportunities from others, are the perpetrators not punished? If they are punished, aren't we already doing all that we can?"
Yes, this is better, are you saying that what was being done a couple of generations ago without a thought is completely wiped out today? The EOC can attest that the attempts at discrimination do not stop and those that are inclined to use it are simply more clever at concealing it to avoid being prosecuted, that is all. Let's not capitulate to the Right and ignore the fact that what progress that had been made in this area has been at great cost and must stay on course. Yes, do all the best that we can and keep doing better!!
The courts and the lawsuits are just tools, weapons to be employed in an never ending struggle.
I am not unreasonable, I have lived in the State of Montana for a few years and hair pomade for my nappy little head was hard to come by. It is pure economics and I am well aware of that. But, it is interesting to think that Band-Aid never gave a thought to producing a product to reflect the differing skin tone of its customers. Since White people are considered the norm and everyone else, a mere aberration of humanity, how could I have expected anything more?( A complaint found in your original attachment)
I will do the best that I can to answer your questions...
The first question is very philosophical and I can only focus on the circumstance that we see in America to make the case of what it is. European-Anglo/Saxon having acquired advantages over other groups of people out of sheer luck of geography and resources available where they were located acquired a technological edge. They used the edge of firearms, steel, and plague germs to overwhelm and conquer. Of course, to keep conquered people in subjection, the conqueror distinguished himself and his culture from the conquered. They overran the indigenous natives, taking millions of square miles of land while profited from the Slave trade enriching themselves at the expense of conquered people. So, of course they and their kind make the advantage of the conqueror in all realms of life relative to the vanquished. You overwhelm the conquered in every sense simply to maintain control, this is physical as well as psychological.
I will address the other questions in separate posts, very soon.2) Not all whites are privileged and not all minorities are disprivileged. There are also some things, like affirmative action and quotas, that are exclusively minority privileges. Why is the term called "white privilege" if it is not a ubiquitous and accurate representation of reality?
According to Bureau of Labor Statistics, Blacks and Hispanics have on average 5% of the net worth of the average white family. Or, here is another one, whites families have 90 percent of the national wealth compared with Blacks having only 2.6 percent. Am I to believe that the Anglo is so clever and resourceful while minority groups so inept, to explain so great a disparity of wealth and income?? I have worked in the Civil Service for the length of my career, Affirmative Action was used more often to promote opportunities for White females. Affirmative Action is not a minority privilege, it was a tool to allow one to compete with others on an equal basis. Without Affirmative Action, I was not even considered whether I was qualified or not. Why is it a privilege to insist upon being treated like everyone else? That was the reality of my apprenticeship into my chosen profession and I am familiar with it, first hand. White privilege is based partially on folks given the benefit of the doubt giving preferences relative to me that they did not earn and on the other coin, the right to deny, out of hand, fair treatment even when I meet or exceed the standards of Anglo competition.
3. Why aren't we talking about privilege in other dimensions? Height privilege, weight privilege, strength privilege, inheritance privilege, intelligence privilege, genetic privilege etc etc? Why is the scope of the discussion limited to race, sex and orientation
3. The other 'privileges' are incidental and are not broad, there are distinctions between individuals that will always be there. How can one distinction, having the advantage of being white and male have so profound effect on the life chances of those who are not? You can acquire an advantage limited in scope with any of your examples. No one was prevented from voting because they weighed too much, or denied a bank loan because they were not strong enough..."I am not assuming at all about its existence, I live here as an African-American that is exactly how things have been. I have lived the over 60 years here in the trenches while you can only have an inaccurate and dispassionate view from the outside. Oh, yes, it is quite real, alright."
Perhaps I spoke poorly, but I never said you were assuming anything. I am assuming it is real for the sake of argument so that we (and by we, I mean anyone who wants to participate in this thread) can carry out a discussion without needing to believe anything one way or another. The original argument contains no opinion on whether white privilege exists.
"Yes, this is better, are you saying that what was being done a couple of generations ago without a thought is completely wiped out today?"
No? I said it's being punished when caught. You'll never completely wipe out discriminatory practices because humans are discriminatory creatures. What is your end goal in light of that fact? We are already punishing people for being discriminatory, what more can we do?
"The EOC can attest that the attempts at discrimination do not stop and those that are inclined to use it are simply more clever at concealing it to avoid being prosecuted, that is all."
Yes, and we need to be more clever in discovering it. But I don't really see any cleverness from your strategy, only pressure and agitation tactics often misused against innocent targets.
"Let's not capitulate to the Right and ignore the fact that what progress that had been made in this area has been at great cost and must stay on course. Yes, do all the best that we can and keep doing better!!"
Like what? We punish those that break the law. What more do you want? Let’s not capitulate to the extreme Left and ignore due process.
"The courts and the lawsuits are just tools, weapons to be employed in an never ending struggle."
And many on your side claimed they were corrupt tools of old, white men who believe in racist rationalizations. Why use them if you think they are so ineffective?
"But, it is interesting to think that Band-Aid never gave a thought to producing a product to reflect the differing skin tone of its customers."
1) You said you recognize the economic aspect of it. Have you considered that the company's analysis did not find it economically viable to sell bandaids of different skin tones? That it would be more profitable to have one skin tone that most people would happily use?
2) Do you think Band-Aid and other bandaid companies are obligated to make products that cater to every demographic in the United States? Are they not allowed to focus on specific demographics?
3) If it was such an in-demand product, why didn't anyone, including minorities, think about developing and marketing the product? Was there any legal barrier in coming up with such products?
At the present moment, bandaids of many different shapes, tones and sizes are available for purchase, so the bandaid example is, at best, outdated. We are discussing white privilege right now, not in the past.
"Since White people are considered the norm and everyone else, a mere aberration of humanity, how could I have expected anything more?""
They are the norm in North America because they are the majority. Who has made the claim that non-whites are aberrations of humanity? Do you honestly think such accusations are a true reflection of your society, in light of the fact that discriminatory practices are punished and measures of equality (like affirmative action) are enacted and available?
"I will do the best that I can to answer your questions"
I appreciate that, and your participation in this discussion. So far, you're the only one coming from a "white privilege exists" position that has challenged the argument. That merits respect.
"European-Anglo/Saxon having acquired advantages over other groups of people out of sheer luck"
So like I said in the last thread, this is "chance" privilege, not "white" privilege. Why aren’t we using that term?
"According to Bureau of Labor Statistics, Blacks and Hispanics have on average 5% of the net worth of the average white family. Or, here is another one, whites families have 90 percent of the national wealth compared with Blacks having only 2.6 percent. Am I to believe that the Anglo is so clever and resourceful while minority groups so inept, to explain so great a disparity of wealth and income??"
Have you ever heard of “correlation does not necessarily equal causation”? The classic example is that the more ice-cream is consumed, the more likely people are to drown. Is ice-cream actually causing people to drown? No. It just so happens that summertime causes people to eat ice-cream more often and to go swimming more often. Going swimming more often increases the chances of drowning.
What you’ve presented from the Bureau of Labor Statistics is a correlation, in this case the disparity between race and net worth in the United States. You are now assigning causalities to that correlation. Your main causal hypothesis is that the correlation/disparity of net worth is caused by racism. Unfortunately, you only have the correlation. I don’t see any evidence that you’ve provided to indicate that the causality between net worth discrepancies must be racism.
You’ve provided another mechanism of net worth success in the form of cleverness and resourcefulness (basically, being better at obtaining net worth), but you find that less believable. Is it not possible that some races are better at certain things than others? For instance, I think we can all agree that there is a strong correlation between being an NBA player and being black. Is this due to racism? Is it due to genetic differences? Is it due to cultural differences?
Either way, if I’m to make a case for any one of these causalities, I need to present evidence. I can’t just point to the discrepancy between black basketball players and white basketball players and assume it’s x, y or z that’s causing it.
“I have worked in the Civil Service for the length of my career, Affirmative Action was used more often to promote opportunities for White females”
Just to clarify for anyone that didn’t know, white women are also eligible for affirmative action benefits because they are also considered to have been oppressed.
The pertinent question here is how often were white women applying for affirmative action benefits compared to minorities? If they were more white women applying than minorities then naturally, more white women would obtain benefits. Do you have any evidence to demonstrate that minorities were applying more often than white women?
"Affirmative Action is not a minority privilege, it was a tool to allow one to compete with others on an equal basis. Without Affirmative Action, I was not even considered whether I was qualified or not. Why is it a privilege to insist upon being treated like everyone else?”
How do you earn affirmative action benefits? Do they look at your qualifications, or is it primarily your race? If it’s the former, then contrary to what you’re claiming, institutions are capable of considering you based on your qualifications. If it’s the latter, then you aren’t being treated like everyone else nor are you being considered for your qualifications. You are being given an advantage because of your race, and you are being considered qualified because of your race.
“The other 'privileges' are incidental”
How are intelligence, height, weight and genetics “incidental”? Are you seriously saying these are minor influences in the successes and failures in people’s lives?
“and are not broad”
What are you trying to say here? How is it an advantage to have a broad-brush generalization based on race being applied to individuals? Do you think society would let it slide if someone were to even state “black people are less intelligent” as a broad-brush generalization, let alone apply it to individual black people who may or may not be intelligent?
“there are distinctions between individuals that will always be there”
This is also true regarding race and sex yet you don’t seem to care.
“How can one distinction, having the advantage of being white and male have so profound effect on the life chances of those who are not?”
Correlation does not equal causation.
“You can acquire an advantage limited in scope with any of your examples. No one was prevented from voting because they weighed too much, or denied a bank loan because they were not strong enough...”
Do you think voting and loans are the only measures of privilege? They are obviously not. People are routinely denied opportunities in jobs, education, politics, dating etc. because of intelligence, height, strength, weight, charisma etc.
How do you conclude these advantages are limited in scope? Height advantage, for instance, is nearly universal: http://www.jonathanrauch.com/jrauch_art … index.htmlGot waylaid for a while, but I am back
"We need to be more clever is discovering it and you say that my methods are ineffective, is the choice then to do nothing? Yes, I say keep the punishments on going and work harder to ferret out those that do not comply.
We use the tools of corrupt old white men, as it is a better alternative to doing nothing at all and allowing the race prejudice and discrimination to rule the day in America without challenge. Old White men can be intimidated based on the conflict of the reality of racism verses their vaunted adherence to those scraps of paper 'The Constitution" and the "Bill of Rights". Hypocrisy here would be as having your slip showing....
Your line on the Band-Aid economic argument is ok. I will give you that one.
I get your argument about correlation and causation, Google a little bit and get a consensus on what others feel that the causations factors are that are behind the statistics? Unless you think you know more than the experts, it is only fair that you check this out.
How do you qualify for Affirmative Action benefits? Affirmative Action is a program that make sure that a qualified applicant is considered for a position, rather than being dismissed out of hand because I was a black person. That has been the case all of the time before the institution of the program, everybody knew that. Why do think that even the old white men saw the necessity in its creation?
Do you really think that if people were actually hired based solely on their qualifications there would be an issue? That is true whether you are male, female, fat, thin, whatever. But Black American is a protected class and justifiably so. They did not see the need for the 'protected class' designation for fat people or people who wear mustaches. While that designation may make no sense to you, it is perfected rational to me. That is, of course, unless you think that you are better qualified to make the call than the experts?
You still try to reduce racial strife in America to something you can put in a alchemist's beaker. This is a complicated issue of Social Science and the idea that people who have been oppressed are to blame for their oppression and exploitation being merely incidental denies the whole of American History, but again I forget, you are Canadian..."We need to be more clever is discovering it and you say that my methods are ineffective, is the choice then to do nothing?"
Never said that. Are you familiar with false dichotomies? Saying your methods are ineffective does not mean the only other choice is to do nothing.
"Yes, I say keep the punishments on going and work harder to ferret out those that do not comply."
Sounds like we're already doing that. What is your end goal? How can you determine that the problem of white privilege has been solved?
"We use the tools of corrupt old white men, as it is a better alternative to doing nothing at all and allowing the race prejudice and discrimination to rule the day in America without challenge"
How can you use a corrupt tool to eradicate corruption?
"Old White men can be intimidated based on the conflict of the reality of racism"
What does this mean? Please elaborate. Are you saying old white men are intimidated by racist conflicts? Also, why are you continuing to use a brush as broad as "old white men"? Do you think old white men are generally racist?
"their vaunted adherence to those scraps of paper 'The Constitution" and the "Bill of Rights""
Why are you expressing such disdain for such a well constructed set of legal rights? It's been an exemplary model of governance for the last two centuries.
"I get your argument about correlation and causation, Google a little bit and get a consensus on what others feel that the causations factors are that are behind the statistics? Unless you think you know more than the experts, it is only fair that you check this out."
Like I said to you previously, experts are not infallible. But if you were to give me some sources, I am open to checking them out.
"Affirmative Action is a program that make sure that a qualified applicant is considered for a position, rather than being dismissed out of hand because I was a black person"
Please explain how companies and institutions were willing to consider you on equal terms after AA, but not before.
"Why do think that even the old white men saw the necessity in its creation?"
It's odd, the supposedly racist old white men saw necessity in creating something that supposedly countered racist practices. Why would racist individuals implement something to counteract racist practices?
"Do you really think that if people were actually hired based solely on their qualifications there would be an issue? That is true whether you are male, female, fat, thin, whatever."
That's false. Women are given preferential hiring practices - well, generally, really, thanks to affirmative action - but also in cases where their qualifications are codified to be lower than the men's qualifications e.g. firefighting, military, police force.
Also, we're talking about privilege, remember? Maybe fat people aren't discriminated against in generic hiring practices, I don't know (they certainly are in jobs that require you to be fit - see firefighter, military). But like I already told you earlier, hiring practices is just one aspect of privilege. Thin privilege, for example, would be the privilege to have most products tailored to your specific needs. Clothes that fit them, food that satisfies them, infrastructure that accommodates them, media characters that represent them. This is in line with the white privilege examples of bandaids, shampoo and history lessons in education.
"But Black American is a protected class and justifiably so."
Interesting. Sounds almost like a privilege.
"They did not see the need for the 'protected class' designation for fat people or people who wear mustaches."
Are you serious? I've given you an example of nearly universal height discrimination and you don't care because "they" aren't currently seeing the need? A few decades or centuries ago "they" would not see the need for blacks being a protected class. "They" are not infallible, so stop appealing to their authority.
Also, unless you have any evidence to prove that people with mustaches are discriminated, your example is a false equivalence.
"While that designation may make no sense to you, it is perfected rational to me."
I don't really care whether it is "perfected" rational to you. I just care whether or not it's objectively rational.
"You still try to reduce racial strife in America to something you can put in a alchemist's beaker"
I know you have a certain disdain for the scientific process - despite being a prime beneficiary of its benefits - but can I ask you to just provide evidence of your claims instead of going off on poetic tangents?
"This is a complicated issue of Social Science"
You invoke science as a solution after lambasting me for trying to reduce racial strife to something I can put in a beaker - aka, science. The irony is not lost on me.
"the idea that people who have been oppressed are to blame for their oppression and exploitation being merely incidental denies the whole of American History"
I never said they are solely to blame. I only asked what we are supposed to do about white privilege, what were its causes, what is the end goal etc. Nobody here has adequately answered such questions.
As to whether "privileges" are incidental - well, I never said that. You did, remember? You've been dismissing near universal privileges like height, intelligence, genetics etc. as "incidental." Why?
"but again I forget, you are Canadian"
Being Canadian does not preclude me from having thought-based perspectives on subjects outside of Canada.
I'd love to comment, but since White Privilege isn't a real thing, I'll just have to keep my thoughts to myself.
http://hubpages.com/politics/The-Myth-o … -Privilege
- ahorsebackposted 8 years ago
0In America it's called "Affirmative Action " , and that is just a beginning , state job applications , Federal jobs ,there are many protections for the minorities.. All minorities are pretty well taken care of in professional job markets , I believe 'white privilege " is all but non-existent . I DO believe I saw more of a general minority discriminating cultural in the south in the couple of years I lived there . One needs to look at many large inner cities to realize true minority bias . And there one needs to ask , why Liberal governed cities have the most problems?
Unfortunately affirmative action doesn't solve the bandaid and shampoo disparities that minorities suffer from. What to do about such issues?
I'm also wondering, if minorities are the only group receiving affirmative action benefits, aren't they privileged in this respect?Exactly , and what to do when it works in reversing opportunities for others ? The biggest problem with favoring a pigment color is that no one TODAY is the discriminatory ,victim and no one TODAY is the oppressor ! Although liberal ideologies prefer that simply accusatory agenda for conducting their many needs for social entitlement reforms . Period .
Mr Popo, I just found out listening to Infowars that there was a White Privilege Conference recently in Philadelphia (the 17th annual conference). Who knew?
http://www.whiteprivilegeconference.com/Had no idea but this sort of thing doesn't surprise me, it's been happening quite a bit in universities.
By the way, I enjoy Paul Joseph Watson's work on Infowars. I don't agree with him on everything but he's done great work highlighting some of the recent failures of the left.Yeah, evidently there were a lot of teachers at the conference, its a liberal thing to target whites...which seems racist to me being based on skin color. Am I wrong?
Muslims are okey, but they seem to think racism is Christian's fault. Very liberal brainwashed anti-christian, anti-white organization.
Paul Watson will get to the nuts and bolts of a story. I really get a kick out of him when he gets on a rant. One time he went off because someone was saying he looks gay because of the way he wears his hair. He was hilarious.To me, there's no question that a flawed and selective generalization based on race is more racist than having products and services be made and distributed based on statistical probabilities. They're perhaps well intentioned in eradicating racism, but ironically, they're being more racist than the things they are targeting.
I love his rants, he's got a knack for taking down crazy arguments.
*looks around nervously, steps cautiously into thread.*
Disclaimer: I know very little about this issue, so I wanted to ask a few basic questions that I'm sure have been already answered, but I haven't gotten answers to because every discussion has already developed so far into logical reasoning that bringing it up is pointless. Hence why I ask now, whilst this topic is still new.
Okay, this is going to sound insanely stupid, but here goes: If whites are a majority by numbers in the United States, doesn't this necessarily mean that there's a higher change that they will receive such things as jobs, benefits, education, etc? Just from a mathematical perspective? For example, if there are 1000 whites in a city and one non-white person, wouldn't there be statistically a higher chance of a white person getting a job? Also, wouldn't this be reflected in an economic sense with regard to commercial products, etc? When I lived in Florida, you were hard pressed to find any job being a white caucasian. You had to be hispanic. Also with food products. Most of the stores carried Mexican foods. Also with hair and skin products. Almost all catered to Hispanics.
I do realize you're talking about on a national level, which is why I ask, wouldn't this same concept be reflected on a national scale?
To answer the question in your post, if it truly does exist, then I don't think there is a solution. As long as people are human beings, they will find ways to discriminate against that which they find different, and they will favor those like them, as opposed to those unlike them. Plastering laws and sanctions and restrictions to force people to be fair human beings has rarely caused people to change their deep-rooted prejudices and self-importance, which is where it all starts. That's just my opinion, but perhaps I think too simplistically.Not a stupid question at all, Ashton. I'm glad you brought that point up because it's fundamental to understanding the problem with white privilege accusations.
Just to make a small clarification - I don't believe white privilege is a thing. I believe it's exactly as you said: privilege, as it is described in the West, is simply a function based on statistical probabilities. Unfortunately, statistical probability very often gets confused with prejudice and discrimination. Check out Simpson's paradox for an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox
In the previous thread, someone who did believe in white privilege later stated that it's more like majority privilege, so that Latinos in Latin countries are privileged, Africans in African countries are privileged etc. The problem with that theory is that things like "Latin privilege" and "African privilege" simply don't exist; indeed, if you were to search for privilege in Latin, African and even Asian countries, you'll still only find accusations that it's whites in those countries that are privileged, as opposed to the respective majorities. Accusations of privilege race-wise are, for some reason, exclusive to whites even in other countries which have different racial majorities and dynamics that could benefit demographics other than whites. So majority privilege doesn't quite add up as the explanation for the supposed existence of white privilege. However, your explanation of statistical probability does apply if whites are statistically more likely to be successful per capita, including in countries outside their own. (Incidentally, this also typically applies to Asians and Jews but again, you never hear of Asian privilege or Jew privilege.)
I made this thread for the sake of argument because I am looking for the reason why whites (and only whites) are accused of having privilege - in many cases, shamed for it - and what we are supposed to do about this supposed existence of white privilege. I want someone that believes in white privilege to explain to me what the end goal objective is, how we go about to getting there, and why it's only being primarily discussed in a Western context of race (white privilege), sex (male privilege) and orientation (heterosexual privilege). How did these privileges come about, if they don't operate on statistical probabilities? Why aren't we talking about privilege in other dimensions? What about people who have rich privilege? Or pet privilege? Or perfect eyesight privilege? The responses to these questions (or lack thereof) will tell me a lot about their motivations.
I think your solution is far better than the alternative of silencing and restricting individual liberties. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, so let these individuals spout and act discriminatory all they want; if they're able to openly broadcast their prejudice, we'll know where to steer clear.Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
It makes so much more sense now. Thank you for explaining! As I have no statistical data or prior knowledge to offer on this (as this type of discussion seems to demand), I shall sit back and watch the discussion and do some research.
Thanks
Yes my question and example was to find out what exactly white privilege was in the united states as a starter question, as my knowledge on the subject was basically nothing, not to argue for or against. (note disclaimer)
Someone explained it to me so I got a better understanding of how people are thinking about it now.
Mr. Popo, I have been reading History Is A Weapon "Propaganda" (1928) by Edward Bernays.
"The Secret History of Western Education" by Charlotte Isberbyt, I listened to on YouTube. Then, I read "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America".
There is a reason for everything and nothing new under the sun. Propaganda is a powerful tool that can be used for good or for evil to control groups of people, and the masses. Through an act of Congress the Carnegie Foundation was charted for U.S. education and scientific research in 1906.
Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, and Cornelius Vanderbilt are noted as the devious men who built America.
After reading "Lines of Credit: Ropes of Bondage". I would dare say that the people who desire to not owe anyone anything are the most free. That, those who are the greatest in debt are the most enslaved because of good credit and their material desires.
I think the history of America has been written and rewritten by those who wish to control our minds, feelings, actions, reactions and even the will of people as a whole and by communities and race through propaganda. There lies the root of racism (I believe), because they could use tactics that unit us instead of polarize.
We have been educated for the work force based on what we can do in order to become enslaved, or brainwashed with a slave mentality? Both are based on rewards (dog training).
Recommended Reading:
"None Dare Call It Conspiracy"
"Conspiracy of Silence"
Peace!Just don't live beyond your means.
Means is everything.
means:
2 money; financial resources:
Do whites have attributes which others do not have?? (the word privileges is not workable because it implies that someone has issued them. Whites were not issued privileges / advantages by anyone.)The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them. ~ Albert Einstein
The US education system is in crisis because of the factory model. Children will be taken out of school and brought to learn how to make Cuban cigars, and soon they will be graduating at age 14 and put to work. (Soviet socialism communist scenario)
Unless, we can stop it!yeah, by not electing stupid presidents, pure and simple.
You really have not heard of Affirmative Action?
The significant problems we have =____________________________.
cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them =_________________________________freedom of will is what we have.
pure and simple.
how we guide this will within the limits and opportunities set up by people / their governments is the essence of life.
setting up the environment is the key. What are the perimeters and what are the opportunities.
Only we can figure this out. when some force is encroaching upon our way of life we need to address it …
But here is the problem. The unified force of WE is not on the same page. and we do not know how to get on the same page.
Here is where education comes in.
The Way I See It"Many believe that the diversity of current American society suggests that affirmative action policies succeeded and are no longer required. Opponents of affirmative action argue that these policies are outdated and lead to reverse discrimination which entails favoring one group over another based upon racial preference rather than achievement." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmati … ted_States
RATHER THAN ACHIEVEMENT!
Achievement
1 a thing done successfully, typically by effort, courage, or skill:
2 the process or fact of achieving something:What stands in the way of achievement of ANYONE in the United States of America????
What stands in the way of individual achievement, ability to survive and joy of life?
One thing is being forced.
For instance, this is what school systems do. They are cranking out sheep.
Students are not led to think for themselves.
why? because no one understands their ability to cooperate with love, joy and enthusiasm.
Look at a puppy! Look at a small child!
what do you see?
Joy of Life.
School systems need to keep this joy of life in tact by offering more freedom of choice and more encouragement to follow intrinsic interests as they develop new ones. It is not just a matter of cracking open the brain and pouring in what the school systems / governments think they should know. Only through interest and respect for knowledge is information even retained. So what is the point of forcing students to learn?
What is the point of forcing others to work for others through socialism? It merely shuts down the will.
Sorry, but working for oneself and one's loved ones is the nature of the human soul.
So let us.
The only person that will let us do this is White Ace Trump.
Sorry about that.… most of the time, even laziness is the result of being forced!
other personal faults may be instilled by improper/ ignorant parenting.
Bad diets … stupid peer pressure.
Boundaries can go a long way.
Freedom within appropriate boundaries.
For the past twenty years or so young Native Americans have been committing suicide. They say its because of oppression. It is heartbreaking.
"The truth is most reservations and Indian communities are as poor as, or below, the level of the third world/global south countries. Looking at it from my own experience, my own nation’s reservation is gripped by abject poverty and utter desperation and isolation. Alcohol and drug use are killing more of us than Custer and Sherman could have ever have hoped to with guns and bombs, and there is little hope for the future when faced with the full force of the white supremacist, Christian, patriarchal capital-imperialist machine that is the United States Federal government."
https://revolutionaryfrontlines.wordpre … d-ignored/
Historical insight:
"This Land is My Land
The English valued everything in monetary terms. The Native Americans' goal was to live in harmony with nature. While the Native Americans tried to make political alliances with the colonists, the Europeans were more interested in grabbing as much land as possible.
The Native Americans' social hierarchy was not based on property ownership. They lived in different areas during the year, depending on the season. Their mobile lifestyle meant that their homes had none of the possessions that were the sign of status in Europe. Using matting, bark and pelts, they lived in easily built lodges."
http://www.womenhistoryblog.com/2007/10 … s-bay.htmlBut of course, living in harmony with nature could become an ever increasing, rather than ever diminishing, conscious goal for materialists in America.
I love living in harmony with nature. I think everyone should have good relations with descendants of the original people in their country, it is the right thing to do. I have several Native American friends from back in our high school years. Time tested and approved!
I'm disappointed only one person has challenged the premise in my argument. There seemed to be no end of challenges in the last thread, though most were conflating what the OP was saying regarding his argument, specifically the word superior.
Speaking of which, this is what the paper I’ve linked in the OP says:
On the other hand, the creation of a system in which race plays a central part − one that codifies the superiority of the white race over all others − has been in no way accidental or haphazard.
Curious how she used the word superiority while arguing that white privilege exists, and how she specifies this was not accidental.
Like I repeatedly said in the last thread: those of you who believe white privilege exists must necessarily believe that whites were successful in designing a system of superiority unless you think it happened by chance. Kendall clearly thinks this wasn't by chance. If this wasn’t by chance, how did they do it? The answer should be obvious.
All of you frothing at the mouth because of the OP in the last thread should take a hard look at yourselves.On the other hand, the creation of a system in which race plays a central part − one that codifies the superiority of the white race over all others − has been in no way accidental or haphazard.
Okay, I'll bite. I interpret this excerpt to mean that whites systematically and intentionally created a system in which race plays a central part, and that the notion of the superiority of the white race over all others is a central part of that system.
If you agree with her statement, it does not necessarily follow that because whites were successful at creating this system, which included the central notion of white superiority, that whites are actually superior.
Now, I have a question for you. You said: Like I repeatedly said in the last thread: those of you who believe white privilege exists must necessarily believe that whites were successful in designing a system of superiority unless you think it happened by chance. Kendall clearly thinks this wasn't by chance. If this wasn’t by chance, how did they do it? [b]The answer should be obvious. : Since you believe the answer should be obvious, what is this obvious answer?"If you agree with her statement, it does not necessarily follow that because whites were successful at creating this system, which included the central notion of white superiority, that whites are actually superior."
In the context of the last thread, we were talking about whites being better specifically in creating a system of systematic advantages AKA privilege. The OP gave several venues on how this could happen: intelligence, savagery, numbers etc. Nothing about "actual superiority" was invoked, which I presume to mean overall racial supremacy.
Like you've done just now, in the last thread most of you conflated superiority in one specific dimension with overall racial supremacy, which is why many kept giving examples of things like lions winning vs unarmed men (superior unarmed combat ability) as evidence of the lion being better than men (racial/special supremacy) and thus deserving of victory (moral justification). The latter two steps were never invoked by anyone - and yet again and again people this same mistake keeps propping up.
"Since you believe the answer should be obvious, what is this obvious answer?"
I'll use an analogous example provided by your own link:
At some colleges and universities, for example, sons and daughters of alumnae and alumni might have lower grades and test scores than other applicants; they are accepted, however, because their parents graduated from the institutions. That is a privilege that the sons and daughters did nothing to earn; they were put ahead of other possible applicants who may have had higher test scores and grades because of where their parents had gone to school.
How did the alumni parents of the privileged applicants get in university, if not by chance? What are the deciding factors in getting accepted to university? Superior grades, extracurricular activities, volunteering experience etc. relative to other candidates of that particular year. In other words, they were superior relative to the competition, in those particular dimensions, in that particular year.
Apply the same principle to a group of people imposing systematic advantages to another group of people and you should have your answer. I've already stated it in this post and the last. Unless you have a better explanation? I'm all ears. How did someone succeed in something if they were not better than the competition in one or more relevant dimensions and if chance had nothing to do with it?
Reminder that the definition of superior utilized in this context is as follows:
"2. above the average in excellence, merit, intelligence, etc.:
superior math students."
Note the example. Superior math students are no more superior as people than anyone else, but they are superior at being math students.
Note the definition of excellence:
"1. the fact or state of excelling; superiority; eminence:
his excellence in mathematics."
Again, note the use of math as an example. These words are interchangeable in this context.The other thread is no longer here for me to refer back to, unless I'm not seeing it somehow.
So, before I continue further, would you mind just answering the question directly and simply, without all the justifications and qualifications? This would help me immensely, as you said you previously answered it, but I don't feel like wading through a bunch of posts to find it. I can then refer back to your justifications and qualifications as needed.
Here is the quote from you and my previous question: Like I repeatedly said in the last thread: those of you who believe white privilege exists must necessarily believe that whites were successful in designing a system of superiority unless you think it happened by chance. Kendall clearly thinks this wasn't by chance. If this wasn’t by chance, how did they do it? The answer should be obvious. Since you believe the answer should be obvious, what is this obvious answer?It's not there. I'm using my memory but I also have the cached pages saved on my browser somewhere. You can try downloading Chrome Cache View (or something similar) and look for them yourself, if you're interested.
To answer your question: if whites were successful in designing a system of superiority, and this was not due to chance, then whites were superior in the relevant dimensions that enabled them to design this system of superiority. Some possible explanations: technological advantages, disease immunity, savagery, intelligence - basically, anything that gave whites a competitive edge.
It can be summed up as a general rule: if person A won competition X against person B, and this was not due to chance or probability, then person A was better/superior in the relevant dimensions of competition X compared to person B.
So far, nobody has proposed a different mechanism. Either chance or superiority in particular elements dictates outcomes in particular competitions.
It comes down to breeding and child rearing. The white advantage and privilege stems from certain habits of behavior intermingled with individual belief system. It is random and it is chance and it is all influenced by two major factors involving individual will and genetics.
For instance: Adolf Hitler's scientists created humans from test tube fertilizations and they were raised to be superior. They were, in the end, not at all superior because an important ingredient was left out of their lives: No parents = no love. Oops.
No Love = No Joy of Life.
No Joy of Life = No Enthusiasm.
No Enthusiasm = No Intrinsic Motivation.
No Intrinsic Motivation = No Will.
No Will = No Accomplishment.
No Accomplishment = No Superiority …
at all.Superiority cannot be brought about by design. It is random, but based on regions of populations. What made the "white race" superior in the past?
Look at European nations and determine:
1. Education
2. Industry
3. Strong wills of the people stemming from weather conditions which created the urgent necessity to survive.
4. Love of families: closeness of wives and husbands / love for their children / love and care for extended family.
6. Willingly following common sense boundaries and laws protecting individual liberty.
7. Respect for other members in society, golden-rule wise, contributing to networking abilities leading to business / trade / wealth.
8. Acquired standards of Discipline and Expectation within society.P.S. Through experimentation it was determined that worms pass on newly learned behaviors to offspring.
I am sure dog and horse breeders can shed some light on the subject of passing on superior genetic codes and behaviors as well.
Obviously, in the human population no such puposeful breeding, (especially on a mass level,) goes on at a conscious level …
At All.
It is impossible.Perhaps, in the end, white privilege is just a matter of the effect of colder regions on the human population. Do New Yorkers have more privileges than Californians?
Could I, from LA survive in Buffalo?
I am not smart enough to adapt there, therefore no privileges for me!
Could my children or their children survive there? I think they would have a harder time than those born and raised in Buffalo for several generations.Good point. People come here from all over the world for the Arrowhead 135 marathon and find out they were not prepared for the harsh winter elements like the locals.
It was snowing here this past Friday - Saturday. USA- global warming!
I've been 'white' for 42 years now. Where do I sign up for some of that privilege? I'm poor as dirt, been locked up several times for petty crimes, and denied jobs applications in places by people acting like they didn't know what I was asking for.
Where is the white privilege office of affairs? I need to sign up for what I'm due.Despite the sociocultural, sociopolitical, & socioeconomic inroads & progress made by non-Caucasians, females, & formerly marglinalized groups in the United States, there are still remnants of Caucasian hegemony in American culture & society. Besides remnants of Caucasian hegemony, there are also remnants of male, heterosexual, married, & Christian hegemony in American culture & society.
The most important thing to realize that there is wealth hegemony in America. That is whoever has the purse strings or the most concentrated money controls & influences America socioculturally, socio-politically, & socioeconomically. It really does not matter what race, age, marital status, creed, sexual orientation, &/or gender, it is one's socioeconomic class which determines the hegemony h/she has in American society. So skip the so-called Caucasian, male hegemony.
Although Caucasian male hegemony still exists, if one is a Caucasian male.......& in the lower socioeconomic rungs of American society, how much "control", "power", "predominance", & even "preeminence does he has. Well, very little to none unless it's in his immediate environment aside from work. A non-Caucasian woman who is in the upper socioeconomic echelons of society has MUCH MORE control, power, predominance, & even preeminence. So come to think of it, it really ISN'T Caucasian hegemony a/k/a White privilege or even male hegemony a/k/a male privilege. It is more like socioeconomic hegemony a/k/a rich/wealth privilege than any racial or gender privilege.I am not male, married, Christian, or of middle or upper class. Not looking good for me.
Rich privilege would be a more accurate term. What would you do about it?
Any American hegemony is only because of the Globalist's vast amount of money to secure their interests to control the money through their appointed rulers that obey. America is bankrupt.
This is How Corrupt The Political System Is
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBZ2V9LMeDkWell said, yes the money is the ultimate determinate. I deal with 'Wealth Privilege by having law and the courts restrict their ability to do whatever is it they like when it is out of line. Just as I prefer to deal with other 'groups' who 'take advantage'.
There is a lot of residual Caucasian hegemony in this society. The rise of Trump and the racial resentment politics behind his rise attests to that.
White privilege is like the atmosphere. The atmosphere has weight, volume and can react to and employ force, but unless you evaluate the individual atoms and molecules that compose it, people will stare at you in disbelief and say 'where is this so called atmosphere of yours' has it disappeared into thin air?
"White privilege - What to do about it?"
As far as I'm concerned, the law treats white males as second-class citizens these days. In fact, it's been that way for quite awhile.Crede, that is Salon radical left-wing nonsense about Trump.
http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2815189
That site romanticizes pedophilia. Yikes, pure evil agenda. Maybe search for truth instead spreading Salon garbage. Spreading "racial resentment politics" is spreading just that, and pinning it on Trump is BS. Be a solution to the problem, not a part of it. Liberal media is full of propaganda.
The fact is "racial resentment politics" is a deep seeded problem that began long, long ago. Because of the way the government is run, it is doubtful that Trump will be able to change that in 4 or 8 years. The Globalists have the corner on that agenda. Trump is a Nationalist, so no worries (and is an outsider).
Talk about "racial resentment politics"!Colorfulone, It is better than the WND rag and other right wing rubbish things that you quote as legitimate. And it is not just Salon that is saying it. Like you said, I am not your secretary, look it up!!! But according the
Rightwingers, 99 percent of mainstream media is in error, only their erroneous sources are to be trusted, not in my opinion... Trump is part of the problem, he is the last person that will "change it'. While it began long ago, Trump with his attacks on those that are not White Males pours gasoline on a raging fire.
Just a meandering thought, as I follow this thread and absorb the information:
There still has not been any suggestions as to how to correct the issue of white privilege, should it exist based on racial bias...how would one do this without sacrificing the already established rules of non-discriminatory criteria? I feel like we're already doing all that we can; the problem is that people are not following laws of non-discrimination, and that's something that is difficult to prove.
For example, I KNEW that I was being discriminated against when I lived in Florida, because the managers always treated the hispanic and haitians with respect, and treated me with disrespect. In a situation where I had seniority, I always received the benefits of a new hire. I was given write ups for things that the hispanics and haitians did not. There was nothing which separated me from them: I held the same position, was the same age, etc. but consistently received horrible treatment. Now, did I KNOW that I was being discriminated against because I was a white Caucasian? YES. Could I prove it? NO. All I could do is say "look. I'm not being treated like these other people." Their response? "Well each manager evaluates each case differently. Yours may have been different for (such and such a reason...)" and they could explain it away...
My point is, in this given situation, what could I realistically do about it? The managers would still discriminate, they would still come up with [valid] reasons as to why I was treated differently, but what could effectively be done to change it? Nothing. The only thing they could do is re-emphasize the anti-discriminatory rules already in place, and those can be very craftily disobeyed without proof of it.
If I'm remembering correctly Mrpopo, this was your original question [i.e. what could be done about it] and I have yet to see anyone really answer it
I don't know if I can ask you to correct it, Ashton. All I ask is that people acknowledge that it exists and it is hard to get people to recognize that. It is not about individuals but structure and institutions. It is a machine that operates in a certain way that no one thinks much about until it is closely examined.
You have been one of the few Anglo's that actual get to see the shoe on the other foot. It is wholly unfair, is it not? You can see how it is easily concealed and almost impossible to ferret out, so Mr. P's reasoning about adequate identification and punishment for those that practice such things rings hollow.
I liked the public sector as an employer because they had to keep records and support the fact that the successful hire was selected without racial bias. I could take recourse if they were not in compliance and register my complaint to an independent agency. The agency could review the selection process to see that the successful one, won based on job related skills and merit. But, inspite of that, in your experience and mine, which is over a much broader part of American life, you can't cut it off completely. But to apply legal remedies where possible is better than doing nothing. I did not trust the private sector because my time was valuable and discrimination wasted my time and efforts, denying me the just reward for my work that otherwise everybody else was receiving. There more of a problem with arbitrary stuff, working for the private sector much like you experienced with your employer."You can see how it is easily concealed and almost impossible to ferret out, so Mr. P's reasoning about adequate identification and punishment for those that practice such things rings hollow."
One of the great things of your American legal system is the idea of innocent until proven guilty. In other words, your legal system would rather let a criminal get away on lack of evidence than punish an innocent person on lack of evidence. I get that it can be difficult to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (in general, not just with cases about discrimination), but that's the standard we must operate on if we want to avoid punishing innocent people for crimes they did not commit. If that rings hollow to you, I don't know what to say.
Yes. Nobody has given an answer other than "acknowledge it exists," which, as you said, doesn't really solve anything.
Can I ask, in what ways could a manager validly justify their disrespect towards you relative to other workers? I'm sure they could explain it away, I'm just having a hard time coming up with anything.Well, usually it would be dismissed as me "taking something personally." The only witnesses I had were the hispanics and the haitians, who of course said the same thing. My word meant nothing. My observation would be more or less dismissed as being all in my head. You know?
I was referring more to this:
"Well each manager evaluates each case differently. Yours may have been different for (such and such a reason...)"
Let's say you had evidence that the Hispanics and Haitians were given seniority benefits while you weren't, that your transgressions earned you write-ups while theirs were overlooked etc. and you provided this evidence to the management demanding an explanation. What could be a valid justification? I know they could ignore the evidence and dismiss it as you taking it personally but that wouldn't adequately explain the disparity in outcome.Because there really wasn't evidence. I couldn't prove that someone else had done the same error and didn't get a write up. All I'd be able to say was, "I've seen this person do [ this] and the manager didn't reprimand them..." It was more based upon behavior than actual evidence, as whether or not someone actually received a write up was not technically allowed. I could say, "such and such told me they didn't get a write up, therefore..." To which they would say "I'm not allowed to confirm whether or not they did, and there may have been other circumstances influencing, etc." Now as far as seniority, that was easier to defend. Proving however that it was intentional and not simply a mistake was difficult. Now the process of reporting these kinds of cases was also not confidential, no matter how much they said it was. If I went higher up, someone WOULD find out and I feared retaliation or hostile environment. So the attempts I did make were shunned, and I was aware that if I took it higher, there would be a leak of that info, for managers were friends with all the same-race workers.
I understand there wasn't really evidence. I'm saying hypothetically, if you had evidence (logs/records of the events) demonstrating different outcomes under identical circumstances, and you presented it to management/court/body of peers etc., what could they say to explain the disparity? Basically I'm trying to ask what are some possible valid explanations for the difference in outcomes, other than discrimination.
Usually there are none. Discrimination is simply denied without explanation.
For example, hypothetically I have a log showing that at each time I had seniority in choosing which task I took on for that day. I had first choice, but it was given to someone else. Yes I can prove that. So I would take it to management, who would say something like:
"It is possible the manager was not aware of your seniority."
So great, but it continues. So I keep bringing it up.
"This person may have had a difficult work load this week, so they were given priority of choice"
However, I point out that in the same situation, when I had a difficult work load which gave me priority of choice, someone else with "seniority" was given the choice. Should I present this, it becomes,
"It is up to the manager's discretion to determine if the work load was enough to warrant priority of choice."
And if I say, "I feel that their 'discretion' is based on race," then it becomes:
It becomes: "We will look into it," then later..."we could find no solid proof of this in our investigation."
In other words, the managers found an infinite number of factors which may have influenced this decision, whether "true" or not, often resorting to "there were extenuating circumstances I'm not legally allowed to discuss."
Also, the majority of my complaints were an accumulation of little things which managers claimed could not be proven to be logically connected.
In the meantime, word is getting around that I'm complaining about it, only it was spoken in spanish and haitian creole, which I was able to understand, and which they did not know I was able to understand. If I claimed that someone said something which proved there was discrimination going on, it was my word against theirs.
Sorry if I'm failing to understand your question Hopefully that helped explain...No worries, you answered it just fine. I don't think there are any good explanations they could come up with for your particular case, but you've provided two explanations they could invoke:
1) It is possible the manager was not aware of your seniority.
2) This person may have had a difficult work load this week, so they were given priority of choice.
Both of those answers can only explain a handful of outcomes at best. For 1, the manager would be aware of your seniority after one, two, maybe three mistakes, and if they were genuine mistakes they would correct the mistake every time it happened. If the manager remains oblivious of your seniority over months or years (and makes no attempt to correct that mistake) then the manager is either inept or intentionally ignoring your seniority, and in either case the manager should be reprimanded and probably punished to some capacity.
Also, since they'd be admitting these are recurring mistakes on the part of the manager, you'd have a good case in getting them to rectify the situation and provide your rightful seniority benefits for every time it was missed. Example 2 would be more or less similar.
I don't think they'd have a leg to stand on in court if you provided evidence of this behaviour occurring more than a handful of times. Basically, I'm just trying to point out that the main problem isn't really the laws in place or the court system. The problem is the difficulty in gathering evidence, and this is true of just about anything but especially regarding unfair discriminatory practices. And this problem will never go away because we demand evidence beyond a reasonable doubt when establishing guilt, and rightfully so.
I think transparency and public records could help workers with finding evidence, as it did for Credence in the public sector (and I'm glad it did), but I worry about the potential misuse of this information.
Also, note that I didn't invoke race in any the above. Discriminatory practices are not limited to minorities and are not limited to race. Erroneously stating that a group of people have systematic immunities to this problem (as white privilege does) points the blame in the wrong direction and is in some ways a fundamental misunderstanding. Even in your particular case I'd be careful of stating that they were discriminating against you specifically because you were white. We know that they were discriminating against you; this could be because they don't like you specifically (has happened to me before), instead of all whites in general.
Fortunately, we don't need to establish discrimination on racial grounds, just that the discrimination is unfair.Yes I see your point. Discrimination against me could have also been based on cultural factors, as well. I obviously was not aware of Hispanic or Haitian culture, so it may have been more of a cultural discrimination.
Either way like you said, it would still be handled the same
Perhaps if the power was the states' to enforce the laws on the books. Ugh! That would take an act of Congress? Maybe a states' SCOTUS ruling. Who has the money or influence willing to do that?
- ahorsebackposted 8 years ago0
I am not a scientist , nor a archeologist , I am not a professional historian , And I more than suspect that that's why we do not see such professionals in these public forums , But , "White privilege what do we do about it " , not only asks for an assumed answer to an already morally correct and assumed question . In other words , to even answer this question one has to automatically assume that the question itself is ethnically correct in literal composition .
All of the above professions , archeology , historian and science have one great advantage to their professional make up , they lack emotion empathy , personal agenda or political correctness in their professional make -up, they rely completely on cold hard fact , on written words , on an intricate ability to decipher simple and at times obscure pieces of history to make determinations of such fact .
Most times , they can't even be totally conclusive in their outcomes .
White privilege, while at one time a real entity in America , today is nothing more than a bad dream . We can no more assume it's existence today than we can assume that of the Minority Privileged . Since the racially driven make over of the pre-nineteen sixties in America and especially before that of Affirmative Action , civil rights acts and actions , ethnic diversity , population shifts , immigration ebbs and flows , America IS and HAS become a far different platform of a population and culture melting pot .
Accept it or not , There is no more "White Privilege " in America than there is black privilege , brown privilege , yellow privilege , or purple privilege in our country. In fact , The existence of racist ethnic ,or religious bias , is far more prevalent in most other , even culturally more advanced countries ,than in America TODAY !
What there is though , is a mass culturally centered , emotionally driven presence of victim-hood present today , that and a media that continually bottom- feeds on any hysterically driven focus on all cultural wars as if computer "hits " were their moral compass .
Just why is it that all of the "White Privilege " finger pointing comes almost entirely from some factions of the African American community today , especially when given the entirely diverse ethnic make up in America ?That would have been a far better and fairer question . I give you this , That question would have been entirely and far more fair and answerable a question seventy years ago , than today. I believe that the very popular cultural love affair with the all things 1965 in America right now , IS the entire make up of this very question . There is no "White Privilege" in America today , any more than there is black privilege , blue privilege or green privilege .
Related Discussions
- 24
White Privilege???
by Grace Marguerite Williams 5 years ago
Is there such a thing as White Privilege? Or is the concept pure hyperbole?
- 40
Whites are Not Privileged
by Kathryn L Hill 4 years ago
"adjective: privilegedhaving special rights, advantages or immunities." Blacks have the same rights, advantages and immunities under the law as Whites.So what is the real problem behind the complaints of blacks who claim racism and systemic racism? They claim white cops are out to get...
- 10
Does White Privilege Really Exist?
by VC L Veasey 9 years ago
Does White Privilege Really Exist?
- 62
Is THIS institutional racism?
by Readmikenow 4 years ago
“Health officials announced last week residents must wear face coverings in public settings where they may come within six feet of another individual who is not from the same household.But people of color do not have to follow the new rule if they have “heightened concerns about racial profiling...
- 29
Why does America give minority scholarships?
by Jennings 8 years ago
Why does America give minority scholarships?Why does America give minority subjects, but tells us that white people shouldn't think better of themselves because of their skin color? Whites deserve just as much of an education as anyone else and help included. If I moved to Africa or Asia I would...
- 4
What is YOUR assessment of Affirmative Action? Do you believe that there should
by Grace Marguerite Williams 8 years ago
What is YOUR assessment of Affirmative Action? Do you believe that there should be noAffirmative Action as there are unprecedented educational, housing, & socioeconomic opportunities as never before for Blacks? Or do you believe that there should always be Affirmative Action as...