Are poor white people priviliged?

[Bomb#20]

....so now your afraid/angry there is a chance you have to give up a piece of your pie to give to the other guy.

That's the point. The reason for talking about "white privilege" is to try to justify making poor white people give up a piece of their pie.

That is just what you believe is the point. The fact (and it is a fact) that one can read about, consider and study white privilege without it necessarily involving making poor white people give up a piece of their pie just makes you, I'm sorry, de facto and demonstrably plain wrong.

One can study electrical resistance of a person's skin and claim what one is studying are his engrams and thetan, but that doesn't make it a fact that one can study engrams and thetans. When you claim it's a fact that one can study white privilege, what observable empirical phenomena are you referring to that one can study? Why do you think "white privilege" is a sensible name for those phenomena? What property does the phrase "white privilege" signify that you intend to ascribe to those phenomena?

Well, mostly because it's bloody daft imo to aspire to be intelligent and rational person and deny it.

Well, religious people usually think it's bloody daft in their opinion to aspire to be an intelligent and rational person and deny the doctrines of their various religions. What makes your opinion about your doctrine different from those of other people who find themselves surrounded by apparently daft unbelievers? Which publicly verifiable and repeatable observations, and what definition capturing what common people commonly understand the word "privilege" to mean, make it daft to deny this particular doctrine currently being aggressively preached by left-wing ideologues?

You understand, don't you, that normal English speakers perceive "a right" and "a privilege" to be contrary categories? Poor white people don't have much. Out of what little they have, what is it that poor white people have, that they wouldn't have if they weren't white, that they have no right to?

If you are choosing the word "privilege" with the intent of expressing the opinion that poor people have no right to whatever it is they have that you are referring to, then please explain the psychology that would drive a person to emphasize that poor people have no right to it, if the person has no thought of making poor people give up that piece of their meager pie.

Contrariwise, if you are choosing the word "privilege" not with the intent of expressing the opinion that poor people have no right to whatever it is they have that you are referring to, but with the intent of expressing something else, then please explain why it's daft for one who aspires to be an intelligent and rational person to interpret the word "privilege" according to common usage instead of interpreting it according to whatever it happens to mean in your idiolect.

I am of course aware that you personally might agree that you (I don't know the colour of your skin or your social status or financial situation or a lot about your background) and others (many/most 'western' whites for example) have white privileges and that what you are mainly objecting to is unhelpful social or political aspects (or perceptions) associated with the public use or misuse of the term, but even then (and you can clarify to me how much if any of what I wondered is accurate or not about you) I think I would still quite strongly advocate for more acknowledgement of it than you appear to.

I certainly have privileges, one already acknowledged upthread, more due to my healthy financial situation, still more due to dumb luck. But no one has shown me a reason to think my privileges came from being white, let alone a reason to think somebody who lacked my advantages and was in fact kicked in the teeth by organizational policies, by the economic system, and by lady luck is nonetheless a privileged person merely on account of sharing a skin color with actually privileged people like me.

I have of course encountered many Christians who strongly advocated for more acknowledgement of their "God" than I appear to. Their advocacy was never accompanied by demonstration that there actually existed anything of the sort for me to acknowledge. What makes you different from them? They could and naturally did point to many things they interpreted as indications of their "God". You can no doubt point to many things you interpret as indications of "white privilege". The question in both cases is this: why should an infidel interpret a believer's observations the same way as the believer?

 

[Bomb#20]

No, that is not the point.


That's the point. The reason for talking about "white privilege" is to try to justify making poor white people give up a piece of their pie. Raising awareness of inequality doesn't require poor white people who are working hard and receiving little to have to give up a piece of their pie to give to the other guy.

All it takes to raise awareness of inequality is to point out that others work hard too, and receive even less. If the "white privilege" peddlers were only trying to raise awareness, then they'd say to poor white people "You should be aware, others work hard too, and receive even less." But instead they say "You have a privilege". That's not raising their awareness of inequality. That's threatening them.

If you pretend the problem doesn't exist, maybe it will go away. Heck, if you oppress brown people, maybe you can get more for yourself.

So, even though the point isn't to insult poor white people, you're unable to resist the impulse to insult poor white people. Stands to reason -- you're threatening them, but you still want to feel noble. Insulting people you mean to hurt is one of the most popular ways there is to convince yourself they deserve it.

I don't think enough is done to show the hard costs of white privilege in society.

So which piece of pie do you mean to take away from white people who are working hard and receiving little? And what hard costs will taking pie away from them eliminate?

It's not a zero sum game. We can all be treated with respect.

Yes, that's what I said, way back in post #24. So why do so many progressives insist on using disrespectful language like "white privilege" that implies it is a zero sum game, and that threatens to take pie away from people who've done nothing to deserve having their pie taken away? And more particularly, why are you going the extra mile and disrespecting poor white people even more by insinuating that they're pretending and insinuating that they're oppressing brown people?

 

[ronburgundy]

.... should piss blacks off.....

Using racial categories to decry the use of racial categories I see.

Seriously though, you weren't. By using the term, 'blacks' you were not treating those you referred to as nothing more than members of a racial category.

And so it is with 'whites' and indeed 'white privilege'.

The problem is not with recognizing that there are social categories along racial lines (which is all that the word "blacks" or "whites" assumes), but with phrases that assume an inherent link between belonging to that category and having a particular trait, which is what "white privilege" and "black criminality" assume.

While you may be okay with "black criminality", I bet 99.99% of others who defend the concept of "white privilege" are hypocritically not okay with it. While non-racists have a problem with bother terms.

 

[ruby sparks]

That is just what you believe is the point. The fact (and it is a fact) that one can read about, consider and study white privilege without it necessarily involving making poor white people give up a piece of their pie just makes you, I'm sorry, de facto and demonstrably plain wrong.

One can study electrical resistance of a person's skin and claim what one is studying are his engrams and thetan, but that doesn't make it a fact that one can study engrams and thetans. When you claim it's a fact that one can study white privilege, what observable empirical phenomena are you referring to that one can study? Why do you think "white privilege" is a sensible name for those phenomena? What property does the phrase "white privilege" signify that you intend to ascribe to those phenomena?

Well, mostly because it's bloody daft imo to aspire to be intelligent and rational person and deny it.

Well, religious people usually think it's bloody daft in their opinion to aspire to be an intelligent and rational person and deny the doctrines of their various religions. What makes your opinion about your doctrine different from those of other people who find themselves surrounded by apparently daft unbelievers? Which publicly verifiable and repeatable observations, and what definition capturing what common people commonly understand the word "privilege" to mean, make it daft to deny this particular doctrine currently being aggressively preached by left-wing ideologues?

You understand, don't you, that normal English speakers perceive "a right" and "a privilege" to be contrary categories? Poor white people don't have much. Out of what little they have, what is it that poor white people have, that they wouldn't have if they weren't white, that they have no right to?

If you are choosing the word "privilege" with the intent of expressing the opinion that poor people have no right to whatever it is they have that you are referring to, then please explain the psychology that would drive a person to emphasize that poor people have no right to it, if the person has no thought of making poor people give up that piece of their meager pie.

Contrariwise, if you are choosing the word "privilege" not with the intent of expressing the opinion that poor people have no right to whatever it is they have that you are referring to, but with the intent of expressing something else, then please explain why it's daft for one who aspires to be an intelligent and rational person to interpret the word "privilege" according to common usage instead of interpreting it according to whatever it happens to mean in your idiolect.

I am of course aware that you personally might agree that you (I don't know the colour of your skin or your social status or financial situation or a lot about your background) and others (many/most 'western' whites for example) have white privileges and that what you are mainly objecting to is unhelpful social or political aspects (or perceptions) associated with the public use or misuse of the term, but even then (and you can clarify to me how much if any of what I wondered is accurate or not about you) I think I would still quite strongly advocate for more acknowledgement of it than you appear to.

I certainly have privileges, one already acknowledged upthread, more due to my healthy financial situation, still more due to dumb luck. But no one has shown me a reason to think my privileges came from being white, let alone a reason to think somebody who lacked my advantages and was in fact kicked in the teeth by organizational policies, by the economic system, and by lady luck is nonetheless a privileged person merely on account of sharing a skin color with actually privileged people like me.

I have of course encountered many Christians who strongly advocated for more acknowledgement of their "God" than I appear to. Their advocacy was never accompanied by demonstration that there actually existed anything of the sort for me to acknowledge. What makes you different from them? They could and naturally did point to many things they interpreted as indications of their "God". You can no doubt point to many things you interpret as indications of "white privilege". The question in both cases is this: why should an infidel interpret a believer's observations the same way as the believer?

Very interesting post.

 

[ruby sparks]

But no one has shown me a reason to think my privileges came from being white...

Gosh.

 

[ruby sparks]

.... should piss blacks off.....

Using racial categories to decry the use of racial categories I see.

Seriously though, you weren't. By using the term, 'blacks' you were not treating those you referred to as nothing more than members of a racial category.

And so it is with 'whites' and indeed 'white privilege'.

The problem is not with recognizing that there are social categories along racial lines (which is all that the word "blacks" or "whites" assumes), but with phrases that assume an inherent link between belonging to that category and having a particular trait, which is what "white privilege" and "black criminality" assume.

While you may be okay with "black criminality", I bet 99.99% of others who defend the concept of "white privilege" are hypocritically not okay with it. While non-racists have a problem with bother terms.

I don't remember quite saying straight out I was "okay with 'black criminality'". To an extent (see below) perhaps I am, but only in specific ways.

As to inherent links (in either case) what does 'inherent' mean? If we mean that there is at least some sort of significant correlation then there are, arguably, inherent links in both cases (white privilege and black criminality), yes, in group terms. There may also be common definitions of inherent which would mean that neither qualifies adequately.

But either way, that doesn't equate them. First, as I said before, they may not be equatable in terms of degree of adverse outcomes as a result of misuse of the terms. Also, most blacks, as far as I know, are not criminals, so the accuracy of the term can go awry quite easily. On the other hand, most whites have at least some white privileges, possibly the great majority of whites, possibly even all in many (probably not all) circumstances, because all other factors being equal, it is less of a disadvantage to be white than black (with some exceptions) particularly, it would seem, in the USA (though elsewhere too, including here).

Problems might arise if the term 'white privilege' is overstated. For very poor white people, their white privilege may not contribute very much at all to their general predicament, depending on circumstances, so it would be dubious (arguably just wrong) to label a poor white person as 'privileged' if they are overall 'underprivileged', with the caveat that they will still arguably have a white privilege component to their predicament in the majority of cases. I can understand a poor white person taking umbrage at being described as privileged, because their white privilege is perhaps only a small (possibly very small in certain situations) factor when taken into the wider scheme of things.

So the term white privilege can be overplayed. The cause of otherwise equally disadvantaged white people can be neglected by comparison. Also, to complicate matters, almost everyone has a mixture of different sorts of relative advantages and disadvantages, so it isn't easy to compare people at least some of the time, except in a nuanced way, though it is possible and often useful to compare group or general situations. Also, privileges are not the only factors in determining situations and social/economic outcomes, so imo the role of privileges (of any sort) can be overstated in that sense too (people can 'do badly' despite their advantages and others can 'do well' despite their disadvantages). Finally, white privilege is in decline and much progress has been made in reducing its associated unfairness, so it can be overstated for this reason too, imo, with the caveat that its legacy can be understated also.

None of these are good reasons to deny that white privilege is real, imo, as a separate consideration, or to be offended by or reject proper and appropriate use of the term. They are reasons to be careful, balanced and if possible accurate when using the term, and or to question inappropriate use of it.

There are also different ways to apply an appreciation or understanding of such things. There is the social/political and there is the personal/psychological (even if to some extent they interact). I'm not very political, so I tend to try to acknowledge my privileges for personal reasons, to which end it's not really much more than a version of counting one's blessings in one's own daily life, which I think is a healthy thing to do.

 

[JohnG]

I think when we talk of white privilege (the term is so college campusy) we are referring to social studies where, when things are otherwise equal, people of colour don't get hired at the same rate, don't get bank loans as easily, car loans, etc...

There's loads of robust studies with large data sets one can easily find.

It's not a question about whether it exists, that we know for a fact. It's about recognizing the cost to everyone and what to do about it.

Some might say keep them out and increase the birth rate of white babies to cover the difference, others might say we can solve it through awareness.

I'm think that some may not agree with the premise because they don't like the term "white privelidge". For sure it comes off as virtue signalling from the accuser, when the term inequality would do. Inequality is less accusory, even though a bit of harshness may be helpful in this situation. If the derogatory "white privilege" makes someone stop and think about their own actions, maybe it's not so bad.

 

[Bomb#20]

I think when we talk of white privilege (the term is so college campusy) we are referring to social studies where, when things are otherwise equal, people of colour don't get hired at the same rate, don't get bank loans as easily, car loans, etc...

There's loads of robust studies with large data sets one can easily find.

It's not a question about whether it exists, that we know for a fact.

You mean it's a fact that there's "white privilege"? Or you mean it's a fact that when things are otherwise equal, people whose skin has colors other than whichever colors you choose to classify as non-colors don't get hired at the same rate, don't get bank loans as easily, car loans, etc.?

If you mean the former is a fact, how exactly did the loads of robust studies with large data sets determine it's a fact that whatever quantity they were measuring was "privilege"?

Contrariwise, if you mean the latter is a fact, what property is it that you intend to ascribe to that fact by labeling it "privilege" instead of labeling it "don't get hired at the same rate, don't get bank loans as easily, car loans, etc."?

It's about recognizing the cost to everyone

Since you appear to be stipulating that "don't get hired at the same rate, don't get bank loans as easily, car loans, etc." imposes a cost on everyone, can you explain what it is that motivates you to label it with a word that any normal non-ideologically-trained fluent English-speaker it's thrown at will understand to mean "you people benefit from this"?

and what to do about it.

The fact that you choose the word "privilege" will imply to a normal fluent English-speaker that you've probably already made up your mind what to do about it. A "privilege" is something a government threatens to take away from people. "Non-custodial fathers who don't make court-ordered child-support payments will have their driving privileges revoked.", for example. So you appear to be implying that "what to do about it" is to reduce the rate at which poor white people get hired, get bank loans, get car loans, etc. If that is not the impression you intend to convey, why do you choose a word that can't help but convey that impression?

Some might say keep them out and increase the birth rate of white babies to cover the difference,

Do you also intend to convey the impression that you feel that you're one of the anointed and you feel that when the great unwashed don't accept the word of their betters as settling a matter, putting them in their place by making up the worst motivation you can imagine and ascribing it to them qualifies as a substantive argument?

When "white-privilege" preachers talk like that, why would it be reasonable for the poor white people you accuse of having "white privilege" to infer anything other than that you're a bunch of elitist pricks?

others might say we can solve it through awareness.

I'm think that some may not agree with the premise because they don't like the term "white privelidge". For sure it comes off as virtue signalling from the accuser,

Ya think?

when the term inequality would do. Inequality is less accusory, even though a bit of harshness may be helpful in this situation.

Helpful to whom and for what? Helpful to the inmates of an ideological bubble? Helpful for patting themselves on the back? Helpful for convincing themselves the rest of us are irrational for not wanting them in charge? Helpful for them group-thinking one another into continuing to act like elitist pricks?

If the derogatory "white privilege" makes someone stop and think about their own actions, maybe it's not so bad.

Which of our own actions do you feel we aren't thinking about? Accepting jobs, bank loans and car loans? I'm sure you'd know what we're thinking about better than we do. Shame on us. We'll try to think better thoughts, Yer Lordship.

 

[Eldarion Lathria]

All White People are Rich and Privileged. And if you doubt it you're RACIST! RACIST! RACIST! Actually much of what is called 'white privilege' is just from being the majority. A lot of Americans especially, have never been where there kind of white people are not the majority. Ever been to Zambia, Paraguay, Brazil, Angola? There's no white privilege there. But then "Everywhere is like MY HOME TOWN. Gabby Guiltwallow."

Eldarion Lathria

 

[DrZoidberg]

All White People are Rich and Privileged. And if you doubt it you're RACIST! RACIST! RACIST! Actually much of what is called 'white privilege' is just from being the majority. A lot of Americans especially, have never been where there kind of white people are not the majority. Ever been to Zambia, Paraguay, Brazil, Angola? There's no white privilege there. But then "Everywhere is like MY HOME TOWN. Gabby Guiltwallow."

Eldarion Lathria

Ehe... what. Yes, belonging to the majority is having privilige. How could it not be? I'm not sure what you think we're talking about?

 

[Kharakov]

Ehe... what. Yes, belonging to the majority is having privilige. How could it not be? I'm not sure what you think we're talking about?

In the USA, the majority is the group that decided to band together to create a socioeconomic wageslave class. The majority includes piece of shit liars and bullshitters from all race and creeds.

As a poor, white male who decided they'd rather not be part of the majority, I can say that the corrupt majority definitely has all the privileges. I suppose the only thing I have is that I decided not to be one of them at an early age, but regret it now. Feeling good about your ethics while others live the good life on your labors isn't very satisfying.

Knowing that the majority are willfully fucking you over is even worse.... and you have to be nice to them, or they will beat the fuck out of you and lock you up with people who will beat the fuck out of you.

Welcome to the minority- it's not about race, it's about deciding not to fuck people over... and if you decided not to, you're part of it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Ehe... what. Yes, belonging to the majority is having privilige. How could it not be? I'm not sure what you think we're talking about?

In the USA, the majority is the group that decided to band together to create a socioeconomic wageslave class. The majority includes piece of shit liars and bullshitters from all race and creeds.

As a poor, white male who decided they'd rather not be part of the majority, I can say that the corrupt majority definitely has all the privileges. I suppose the only thing I have is that I decided not to be one of them at an early age, but regret it now. Feeling good about your ethics while others live the good life on your labors isn't very satisfying.

Knowing that the majority are willfully fucking you over is even worse.... and you have to be nice to them, or they will beat the fuck out of you and lock you up with people who will beat the fuck out of you.

We can group society in any dimension we chose. You are part of the majority or the minority depending on how we slice that cake. It's also not up to you do decide. What constitutes what group is down to statistical tools. You can't opt out of the group white. All this can also be measured.

I come from a white middle class background. But low on money. I've gained a lot of chances simply because of this. And I quickly reached an income bracked so high above my parents that they couldn't help me. Which was a huge handicap. If I made any mistake I had to pay the price. While my friends, from rich backgrounds, always had someone catching their errors. So they had more privilige than me, thanks to this. Not much. But enough to make a difference. I've lost hundreds of thousands in my life on dumb mistakes that could have been easily avoided.

Welcome to the minority- it's not about race, it's about deciding not to fuck people over... and if you decided not to, you're part of it.

I don't agree with this at all. Isn't this the ancient, "if he's rich he must be a crook"-mentality? If you continually fuck people over you won't be rich for long. The people I know who have become rich, especially self made people, always have the mindset, "how can I serve?" That's what got them rich. They were in a mental place that gave them plenty of opportunity to figure out how they can satisfy other people's needs. It's a pretty selfless state of mind. Not the type of person who fucks other people over.

Another way to put it is to call it the "producing" and the "consuming" class. Rich people don't worry about what they want to buy. They worry more about how they can improve themselves to make them better people. I had friends from rich families, who when they were students spent their last cash on massage courses and PT-courses. And then didn't have enough money to buy even a single beer. Not because they wanted to work with these things. Just so they could be better people. Friends with dreams of becoming doctors and lawyers who spent hours practicing the piano, just so they could delight others.

And of course the working class mentality is a result of a negative feedback loop. Because they are poor, effort to improve themselves is less likely to be apreciated. Because people around them, typically, have more serious issues, not putting them in a mental state to be able to be lifted by their efforts. A person who isn't apreciated for their giving, is more likely to start focusing on taking. Which traps these people in poverty.

 

[JohnG]

You mean it's a fact that there's "white privilege"? Or you mean it's a fact that when things are otherwise equal, people whose skin has colors other than whichever colors you choose to classify as non-colors don't get hired at the same rate, don't get bank loans as easily, car loans, etc.?

If you mean the former is a fact, how exactly did the loads of robust studies with large data sets determine it's a fact that whatever quantity they were measuring was "privilege"?

Don’t get too hung up on the word privilege. I’m not thrilled with it either, but this is what I’m referring to:

LINK


Maybe "cultural advantage" is more PC for you? Either way, it's a real thing.

you appear to be stipulating that "don't get hired at the same rate, don't get bank loans as easily, car loans, etc." imposes a cost on everyone, can you explain what it is that motivates you to label it with a word that any normal non-ideologically-trained fluent English-speaker it's thrown at will understand to mean "you people benefit from this"?

I already did at the end of my last post, and besides, it doesn’t matter whether yours/my politics agrees with it or not, it happens.

fact that you choose the word "privilege" will imply to a normal fluent English-speaker that you've probably already made up your mind what to do about it.

Again, you/re too hung up on the word, I’ve stated several times the term is not great. Calling someone privileged is going to make them defensive and probably unwilling to accept that people are not judged for their race (or gender for that matter).

What to do about it? Writing posts on the internet seems to be working like a charm. Why does it imply I have the answers? I have zero answers. I know it's just plain old tribalism and we all can be guilty of it from time to time. I'm not exempt. My position is that it is a negative and we would all benefit if we could negate inequality. There are governments that recognize that inequality means less taxes collected, higher health care costs, increased social benefit costs...everyone pays - and they are pro-active about it.

"privilege" is something a government threatens to take away from people. "Non-custodial fathers who don't make court-ordered child-support payments will have their driving privileges revoked.", for example. So you appear to be implying that "what to do about it" is to reduce the rate at which poor white people get hired, get bank loans, get car loans, etc. If that is not the impression you intend to convey, why do you choose a word that can't help but convey that impression?

Zero sum means you need to take away from one person in order to give more to another. Opportunity is not a zero sum game. The term white privilege doesn't imply that whatsoever - at all - you are making that bit up. Your assertion implies you feel you are a victim. Who is victimizing you? Are you unwilling to accept that there is inequality in society? Does that concept deny you your victim-hood?

Do you also intend to convey the impression that you feel that you're one of the anointed and you feel that when the great unwashed don't accept the word of their betters as settling a matter, putting them in their place by making up the worst motivation you can imagine and ascribing it to them qualifies as a substantive argument?

Certainly not. I’m a broke white guy myself. I’m in no position to look down my nose at anyone. Am I making up the fact there is inequality? Is it all just a fantasy of left-wing elitists to kick down the poor white man? The irony here is that the whole point is to get rid of divisions (as I said, I'm a broke white guy, I'm not trying to divide myself from...er..myself) but you just see this as another way to create a division.

When "white-privilege" preachers talk like that, why would it be reasonable for the poor white people you accuse of having "white privilege" to infer anything other than that you're a bunch of elitist pricks?

Apples and oranges. I’ll say this, if there are poor people who blame their poverty on minorities, and I’m sure there are, their problems are not going to be solved. If you think minorities are to blame for white poverty, I’d sure like to hear about it.

when the term inequality would do. Inequality is less accusory, even though a bit of harshness may be helpful in this situation.

Helpful to whom and for what? Helpful to the inmates of an ideological bubble?

There is nothing ideological about inequality. It’s a fact:


LINK

You can pretend it’s not there or not, that’s your choice. I’m not an elitist prick (as you say) because I read. My point is it’s bad for all of us, and being aware of inequality might help rid society of its toxicity.

If the derogatory "white privilege" makes someone stop and think about their own actions, maybe it's not so bad.

Which of our own actions do you feel we aren't thinking about? Accepting jobs, bank loans and car loans? I'm sure you'd know what we're thinking about better than we do. Shame on us. We'll try to think better thoughts, Yer Lordship.

Who is we? What group of people are you referring to? Are you a victim? Read the first study I linked. This isn't about someone saying, "I shouldn't accept a job because I'm white." That's pretty off base here as the link will clarify what I was referring to. When I said "thinking about their own actions" I mean not walking to the other side of the street when a black person approaches, or if the news of a murder involves a brown person not automatically assuming it was Islamic terrorism, Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers...that kind of stuff. It's no good.

We can get into the mental and economic costs of racism/gender inequality if you like.

 

[Bomb#20]

I think when we talk of white privilege (the term is so college campusy) we are referring to social studies where, when things are otherwise equal, people of colour don't get hired at the same rate, don't get bank loans as easily, car loans, etc...

There's loads of robust studies with large data sets one can easily find.

It's not a question about whether it exists, that we know for a fact.

You mean it's a fact that there's "white privilege"? Or you mean it's a fact that when things are otherwise equal, people whose skin has colors other than whichever colors you choose to classify as non-colors don't get hired at the same rate, don't get bank loans as easily, car loans, etc.?

If you mean the former is a fact, how exactly did the loads of robust studies with large data sets determine it's a fact that whatever quantity they were measuring was "privilege"?

Don’t get too hung up on the word privilege. I’m not thrilled with it either, but this is what I’m referring to:

LINK

The study's casual equating of race neutralization with "whitening" weakens its case. The authors appear to have made no attempt to control for that.

... we whitened the experience section by removing the words “African American” and “Black.” Thus, “Aspiring African American Business Leaders” became “Aspiring Business Leaders,”​

That's all very well as far as it goes; but the authors neglected to also send out fake resumes from fictional students telling prospective employers about their participation in the "Aspiring White Business Leaders" organization, and measure how many of those got callbacks. Consequently, the study results conflate two different quantities.

But never mind that -- let's assume for the sake of argument that the study really measured what it purported to measure. I asked you which of two things you were calling a "fact". From your answer, it appears it was the latter option -- the study examines hiring, not "privilege". Then I asked you two followup questions, one for if you meant the former and another for if you meant the latter. So you meant the latter, but you quoted my "If you mean the former" question back to me and snipped my "If you mean the latter" question. Here it is again.

Contrariwise, if you mean the latter is a fact, what property is it that you intend to ascribe to that fact by labeling it "privilege" instead of labeling it "don't get hired at the same rate, don't get bank loans as easily, car loans, etc."?​

Did you not understand the question, or are you refusing to answer it?

As far as "get too hung up on the word privilege" goes, it's not the word I'm hung up on. It's the concept. And it's the topic of the thread.

Maybe "cultural advantage" is more PC for you? Either way, it's a real thing.

I don't know if this has happened to you, but more than once I've had the experience of revealing to a Christian that I'm an unbeliever in his God, which he reacted to by urging me not to get too hung up on the word "God", and surely I believed there was some sort of Supreme Being. Is that the guy you want to be? Have I said anything in our exchange to lead you to you suspect that I'm trying to make the "white privilege" concept politically correct? It's already politically correct. Prattling on about "white privilege" is about as PC as you can get.

If what your evidence actually shows is that "people of colour" don't get hired at the same rate, but what you claim it shows is that "cultural advantage" is a real thing, then answer the question:

What property is it that you intend to ascribe to that fact by labeling it "cultural advantage" instead of labeling it "don't get hired at the same rate"?​

If that's too abstract for you, let's see if I can make it more concrete for you. Why are you so single-mindedly determined to label the discrimination with terms like "privilege" and "advantage" that convey the implication that white people benefit from racism? Do you believe white people benefit from racism?

fact that you choose the word "privilege" will imply to a normal fluent English-speaker that you've probably already made up your mind what to do about it.

Again, you/re too hung up on the word, I’ve stated several times the term is not great.

That and 49 cents gets you a stamp. Your opinion that it is not great counts for nothing, when you keep on using the word and you keep insisting that "white privilege" is a "fact". If the word is important then how does it make sense to claim I'm too hung up on it? If the word is unimportant then why won't you give it up?

My position is that it is a negative and we would all benefit if we could negate inequality.

Yes. So why on earth do you choose language that implies inequality benefits white people?

Zero sum means you need to take away from one person in order to give more to another. Opportunity is not a zero sum game. The term white privilege doesn't imply that whatsoever - at all - you are making that bit up.

Dude, I'm a native English speaker. You can claim until you're blue in the face that words mean what you say they mean, but it won't be persuasive, because I'm already familiar with common usage. Common usage wins this sort of dispute. Sheer force of your will won't make "privilege" and "advantage" stop implying benefit.

Your assertion implies you feel you are a victim.

No, it doesn't. You don't have a reason to think it does; you're just trying to give yourself an excuse to dismiss my arguments without coming to grips with them.

Who is victimizing you? Are you unwilling to accept that there is inequality in society?

Obviously not, since I didn't object to your "don't get hired at the same rate, don't get bank loans as easily, car loans" claim.

Does that concept deny you your victim-hood?

Oh for the love of god. Stop acting like a prick. Are you in this to find truth or just to high-five yourself for scoring rhetorical points that exist only in your mind?

If you think minorities are to blame for white poverty, I’d sure like to hear about it.

See above. I get that you're offended so you're lashing out, but you're getting into strawman territory.

when the term inequality would do. Inequality is less accusory, even though a bit of harshness may be helpful in this situation.

Helpful to whom and for what? Helpful to the inmates of an ideological bubble?

There is nothing ideological about inequality. It’s a fact:

LINK

You can pretend it’s not there or not, that’s your choice. I’m not an elitist prick (as you say) because I read. My point is it’s bad for all of us, and being aware of inequality might help rid society of its toxicity.

So the reason you call it "privilege" and "advantage" instead of "inequality" is because inequality is a fact. Got it.

 

[JohnG]

Don’t get too hung up on the word privilege. I’m not thrilled with it either, but this is what I’m referring to:

LINK

The study's casual equating of race neutralization with "whitening" weakens its case. The authors appear to have made no attempt to control for that.

... we whitened the experience section by removing the words “African American” and “Black.” Thus, “Aspiring African American Business Leaders” became “Aspiring Business Leaders,”​

That's all very well as far as it goes; but the authors neglected to also send out fake resumes from fictional students telling prospective employers about their participation in the "Aspiring White Business Leaders" organization, and measure how many of those got callbacks. Consequently, the study results conflate two different quantities.

But never mind that -- let's assume for the sake of argument that the study really measured what it purported to measure. I asked you which of two things you were calling a "fact". From your answer, it appears it was the latter option -- the study examines hiring, not "privilege". Then I asked you two followup questions, one for if you meant the former and another for if you meant the latter. So you meant the latter, but you quoted my "If you mean the former" question back to me and snipped my "If you mean the latter" question. Here it is again.

Contrariwise, if you mean the latter is a fact, what property is it that you intend to ascribe to that fact by labeling it "privilege" instead of labeling it "don't get hired at the same rate, don't get bank loans as easily, car loans, etc."?​

Did you not understand the question, or are you refusing to answer it?

As far as "get too hung up on the word privilege" goes, it's not the word I'm hung up on. It's the concept. And it's the topic of the thread.

Maybe "cultural advantage" is more PC for you? Either way, it's a real thing.

I don't know if this has happened to you, but more than once I've had the experience of revealing to a Christian that I'm an unbeliever in his God, which he reacted to by urging me not to get too hung up on the word "God", and surely I believed there was some sort of Supreme Being. Is that the guy you want to be? Have I said anything in our exchange to lead you to you suspect that I'm trying to make the "white privilege" concept politically correct? It's already politically correct. Prattling on about "white privilege" is about as PC as you can get.

If what your evidence actually shows is that "people of colour" don't get hired at the same rate, but what you claim it shows is that "cultural advantage" is a real thing, then answer the question:

What property is it that you intend to ascribe to that fact by labeling it "cultural advantage" instead of labeling it "don't get hired at the same rate"?​

If that's too abstract for you, let's see if I can make it more concrete for you. Why are you so single-mindedly determined to label the discrimination with terms like "privilege" and "advantage" that convey the implication that white people benefit from racism? Do you believe white people benefit from racism?

fact that you choose the word "privilege" will imply to a normal fluent English-speaker that you've probably already made up your mind what to do about it.

Again, you/re too hung up on the word, I’ve stated several times the term is not great.

That and 49 cents gets you a stamp. Your opinion that it is not great counts for nothing, when you keep on using the word and you keep insisting that "white privilege" is a "fact". If the word is important then how does it make sense to claim I'm too hung up on it? If the word is unimportant then why won't you give it up?

My position is that it is a negative and we would all benefit if we could negate inequality.

Yes. So why on earth do you choose language that implies inequality benefits white people?

Zero sum means you need to take away from one person in order to give more to another. Opportunity is not a zero sum game. The term white privilege doesn't imply that whatsoever - at all - you are making that bit up.

Dude, I'm a native English speaker. You can claim until you're blue in the face that words mean what you say they mean, but it won't be persuasive, because I'm already familiar with common usage. Common usage wins this sort of dispute. Sheer force of your will won't make "privilege" and "advantage" stop implying benefit.

Your assertion implies you feel you are a victim.

No, it doesn't. You don't have a reason to think it does; you're just trying to give yourself an excuse to dismiss my arguments without coming to grips with them.

Who is victimizing you? Are you unwilling to accept that there is inequality in society?

Obviously not, since I didn't object to your "don't get hired at the same rate, don't get bank loans as easily, car loans" claim.

Does that concept deny you your victim-hood?

Oh for the love of god. Stop acting like a prick. Are you in this to find truth or just to high-five yourself for scoring rhetorical points that exist only in your mind?

If you think minorities are to blame for white poverty, I’d sure like to hear about it.

See above. I get that you're offended so you're lashing out, but you're getting into strawman territory.

when the term inequality would do. Inequality is less accusory, even though a bit of harshness may be helpful in this situation.

Helpful to whom and for what? Helpful to the inmates of an ideological bubble?

There is nothing ideological about inequality. It’s a fact:

LINK

You can pretend it’s not there or not, that’s your choice. I’m not an elitist prick (as you say) because I read. My point is it’s bad for all of us, and being aware of inequality might help rid society of its toxicity.

So the reason you call it "privilege" and "advantage" instead of "inequality" is because inequality is a fact. Got it.

Do we agree that there is discrimination against minorities? Simple yes or no.

And hey - you're being overly aggressive in this conversation, why can't it be a polite discussion? Why the hostility? I welcome opposing views, but do we need the name calling?

 

[Kharakov]

I was talking to this con artist for the past couple of days, and he explained that he needed me because I was white, clean cut, and healthy, and people would feel comfortable around me.

According to Andre, white privilege stems not from some vast conspiracy, it's a very simple thing. Management knows that more people are comfortable with white people- because white people are the majority of the population. To tap into the majority, in predominately white areas, they employ predominately white people. It's the safe bet, the same in any area in which some race is the most common- employ the most common race to attract the most of the most common race.

So his idea is that he can meet people, using me to break the racial barrier, which I don't mind. He's nice, but still, he's a con man, and I think he's instead using me as someone who projects trustworthyness, so I've got to be very careful if I decide to work with the guy.

I've noticed, while standing on a corner with (mostly) Mexicans and Guatemalans, people hire from within their groups. I almost never get hired by the latino contractors in the area, almost exclusively by other races. The latinos pick their own, and joke about it being the shoes I wear.

They get paid more too.

Andre (the con) said they told him to leave because he was black, which is another reason he wants me to work with him through this company... that he might get a kickback from. Says he can make me lots of money... if I just work with him. Fucking con.

Welcome to the minority- it's not about race, it's about deciding not to fuck people over... and if you decided not to, you're part of it.

I don't agree with this at all. Isn't this the ancient, "if he's rich he must be a crook"-mentality?

No, it's the modern "I know bullshit when I see it" mentality. Someone born into wealth, who has ease of life, etc., and decides to capitalize on it will hardly see themselves as a crook, even if they don't contribute to society an iota of real valued labor. They even have delusions of "I created labor by 'building' that mansion and yacht" type of mentality.

If you continually fuck people over you won't be rich for long.

Not if you fuck over the right people, continually. There are 2 groups on top, the complacent, and the corrupt. The corrupt know what they're doing, the complacent like to believe the corrupt are what you say they are. They're both groups of pieces of shit who live by the internal (seldom spoken) mantra "better them than me". Yeah, some of you want to make it better all around, a little bit, pay some lip service, but you don't want to "wreck the system" that put you in the "lucky" top tier.

It's not turtles all the way down, it's sharks all the way up. Well, til you get to turdsville.

The people I know who have become rich, especially self made people, always have the mindset, "how can I serve?"

Self made. There you go. Complete and utter bullshit. You're going for an unter-badge?

Friends with dreams of becoming doctors and lawyers who spent hours practicing the piano, just so they could delight others.

Practicing the professions that contribute the least to a healthy society, and prop up the corrupt majority. Shocking. Remind me of my corrupt uncle, who played piano to entertain those around him, because he wanted love despite his connections to the corrupt wealth generation (baby boomers).

Fuck if I'm not going to get targeted by one of you pieces of shit with some form of medical ailment. It's easy to inflict ailment when you're a doctor....

And of course the working class mentality is a result of a negative feedback loop. Because they are poor, effort to improve themselves is less likely to be apreciated. Because people around them, typically, have more serious issues, not putting them in a mental state to be able to be lifted by their efforts. A person who isn't apreciated for their giving, is more likely to start focusing on taking. Which traps these people in poverty.

Bullshit. Working class people are very giving. It's only those who make sure they take more than they give that rise up. I suppose the problem is that corrupt pieces of shit (which you appear to be), are more than willing to argue their side, which I why I say you should be tortured before you are killed. I don't want to torture people, but I can't think of another way to make you feel the way you make those you lie to feel. I mean, claiming to have come from a low income background, then speaking as you do? Amazing. It's like you rich people know poor people don't have the time or resources to check up on you, and that your information superiority will allow you to continually bamboozle them if they try.


It's ugly when you do the work and don't get the benefits. Very ugly. And apparently it's very enjoyable when you don't do the work and you do get the benefits. You're very lucky to have born in a position in which you can lie. I am not jealous, because I could never be what you are, because I have a conscience. Which sucks. Enjoy laughing from your side of the line. There is nothing we can do about it.

 

[steve_bank]

I grew up in the 50s 60s mostly in public housing, lower blue collar.

When I turned 19 I called the toll free number for Good Jobs For White People and got a great job with no experience.

 

[JohnG]

I grew up in the 50s 60s mostly in public housing, lower blue collar.

When I turned 19 I called the toll free number for Good Jobs For White People and got a great job with no experience.

I can't really tell if you're serious or not.

I would buy that there was a service in the US called Good Jobs For White People.

 

[steve_bank]

I grew up in the 50s 60s mostly in public housing, lower blue collar.

When I turned 19 I called the toll free number for Good Jobs For White People and got a great job with no experience.

I can't really tell if you're serious or not.

I would buy that there was a service in the US called Good Jobs For White People.

If were livubf here in tgw 69s-70s yes ther was Jim Crow, I witnessed some of it in the south, Thereb was racism in my familiy.

There was also the idea that all whites had some kind of privilegde that made things easy for them which ignored impovershed and the lower class whites. A dergogatory term was 'white trailer trash.

Yes I grew up low class in public housing, some considerd a bad place by whites in the city. It was integrated We had black neighbors and I grew up with bkack kids.


I workd starting at 15 to pay for things. After the Navy I lived in rough areas in Hartford Ct infested with drugs and prostitution working multiple jobs to get by. In one place I answered the door with a wrench behind my back. My point is there was no toll free number for whites to get a job and a great many whites struggled because of what they were born into..

Like many in my geberation people joined the military to get a start and get away from what they were born into.

The idea that there was and is minorities who struggle while all whites live well is bullshit.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The idea that there was and is minorities who struggle while all whites live well is bullshit.

So you're saying that white poor people aren't priviliged?