Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Seaward wrote:

We can reduce this down to, "Either you have reasons for not subscribing to categorical imperative ethics or you do not. In either case, you are wrong." As a guy who, I'm assuming, did a philosophy degree, you're surely aware that there are plenty of ethical systems that do not make use of moral imperatives, and the existing body of criticism of the moral imperative regardless.

Nah, nah, there you go and misinterpret what I've said. It's not that either way you are wrong. What I said is that if you don't tell us the reasons why you reject deontological ethics, then we have nothing to discuss ; we don't have the subject matter required. You could still be right, but we couldn't know. In the second eventuality, you may have many valid reasons to subscribe to another system which doesn't use moral imperatives, but you still haven't explained why you shouldn't hold as an obligation helping others. Knowing Manchu's inclination toward natural law theories, you could assume that he was referencing a rationnalist account of deontological ethics. In the case of Azazel, since he so often bitches on Kant, that's harder to swallow. Here, his maxim could simply relate to the phenomena of helping each other, and an empirical decision that it should be made an absolute.

 Seaward wrote:

We can reduce this down to, "Either you have reasons for not subscribing to categorical imperative ethics or you do not. In either case, you are wrong." As a guy who, I'm assuming, did a philosophy degree, you're surely aware that there are plenty of ethical systems that do not make use of moral imperatives, and the existing body of criticism of the moral imperative regardless.

Or we can reduce it down to a guy who never read philosophy attempting to use Wikipedia in order conceal an intellectual blind spot.

Kovnik Obama wrote: Knowing Manchu's inclination toward natural law theories, you could assume that he was referencing a rationnalist account of deontological ethics. In the case of Azazel, since he so often bitches on Kant, that's harder to swallow. Here, his maxim could simply relate to the phenomena of helping each other, and an empirical decision that it should be made an absolute.

Oh, I've done that like twice.

All the same, you've pretty much got the right of it. (two-level utilitarianism FTW?)





EDIT: heh, my moral prerogative is way cooler than yours, but you probably wouldn't have heard of it [/philosphy hipster?]

 azazel the cat wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote: Knowing Manchu's inclination toward natural law theories, you could assume that he was referencing a rationnalist account of deontological ethics. In the case of Azazel, since he so often bitches on Kant, that's harder to swallow. Here, his maxim could simply relate to the phenomena of helping each other, and an empirical decision that it should be made an absolute.

Oh, I've done that like twice.

Today any way, you kant shut up about it

Sorry for this but there are a string of Polonius's comments from various posts that I want to ask about.

@ Polonius

Polonius wrote:
And white kids don't have to deal with the peer pressure of a black street culture that often ridicules academic success. Now, nobody thinks the nerds are cool in white communities, but being academically oriented isn't seen as "selling out." And the first person that wants to dismiss negative peer pressure as a consideration needs to get a clue.

How is this a matter of white privelege?

This seems more of an issue within the culture of the black community. labeling it as white privilege comes across as it being the caucasian cultures fault that such an attitude exists.

Polonius wrote:I still haven't gotten an answer to my question, which is that if there isn't white privilege, are we just going say that white people are smarter and harder working than black people?

Why are you trying to pin the issue to race(as in genetics)?

Your quote that was previous to this one suggests that there are issues and attitudes within the black-american community which add obstacles & impediments that have nothing to do with white privilege.

Polonius wrote:Then why is there such a disparity in income, wealth, and so on? Is it a massive coincidence? Lizard people?

Yes, "Why is there such a disparity?"
Whe you answer, don't over simplify and limit your perceptions of it being about racism. Examine all of the possibilities. When all possibile causes are identified then everyone can work to fix the issue. This is much better than laying blame on one group and telling them that they have to fix the problem for everyone else.

As to your question:
I think that many view such disparities as to having less to do with all white people having an advantage and more to do with a small percentage of white elite families that throw the curve off for the rest of the population. These elite families do not spread their advantage to all other white people, The fact that ivy league schools have legacy policies that give enrollment slots to less qualified individuals before more qualified applicants regardless of race suggests that this is an issue of elitism.

More to the point: Privileged Whites does not equate to white privilege.

Personally, I feel the answer to your above question has a variety of reasons. The answer isn't just there is a dicrepancy so x must be the reason. Instead it is that a, b, c & d are the answer. Any attempt to oversimplify does a grave disservice who are in need by not addressing the all of the issues that create the problem.

Sure, one issue is economic, but when you remove the upper 5%, the statistics deflect much closer to the population percentages.

Education is another issue but it seems to be less of a matter of racial genetics and more of expectations within the peer cultures. The first quote of yours that I posted would seem to suggest such.
also
When looking at the education statistics there is a difference betwwen the races as to who majors in what field. You might say that this is due to discrimination, but I would counter with the differences possibly being cultural.
I bring this up because some majors lead to higher paying jobs than others, which also contributes to pay discrepancy when looking at overall pay per race.

Polonius wrote:I think it's because we live in this world were we all adopt the fiction that hard work and diligence will get you ahead. Now, most of the time it does, but sometimes it don't. So, for a lot of white people, hearing they had some sort of advantage is immediately translated into "you were given what you have." Now, since that's what we hate about the poor, we can't accept that we were given something. Even if it was a good family life, a decent educaiton, money to start a business or go to school, or the benefit of the doubt from a cop.

Could it be that many white people did not have an advantage based upon their genetics?

Imo, "race" (as in genetics) has nothing to do with a percieved advantage.

I am willing to admit that there might be an advantage in being raised in a culture that nurtures and supports their children with 2 parent families and embraces education as a priority. Your argument seems to be that being raised in such an enviroment is a privlege. My argument is that it should be considered the norm and that we should work to fixing a culture or community that chooses to not embrace these priorities.

Polonius wrote:Most successful people know that their personal success comes from hard work, but also from a good foundation they had little to do with. Now, the odds of getting that foundation go up if you're white. they just do.

As I mentioned before, When you remove the upper 5%, the statistics fall very close to being in line with racial population densities.
The only statistic that stands out after such an adjustment is the incarceration rates. It improves but there is still an issue.

The question then is, "Why is this one out of line?"
The answer could be latent racism, it could also be explained by the lower percentage of 2 parent families or by a few other possible causes. Again, just labling it as racism is overly simplistic and prevents a full examination of the possible causes.
Once all causes are determined then we as a nation can take steps to correct these issues.

Polonius wrote:
the argument is, "there can't be white privilege, I had to work hard for what I have." Thus, implying that all it takes to succeed is hard work. thus, those that don't succeed didn't work hard. Thus, black people are lazy.

I find that you keep making this connection mildly racist and offensive. You are the one that keeps connecting lack of success to laziness. Any adult knows that life is not fair and that you can work hard and not succeed for a variety of reasons. The argument of there "not being white privilege because a white person works hard" is said in response to an accusation of racism(which white privilege is).
In the context of a defense, the statement means that "I work as hard as you" There is no judgement or racism, merely a defense that they didn't get what they have because of some conspiracy.

Polonius wrote:Denying white privilege is a way to reinforce the ideas 1) that the system is fair, and 2) other races are inherently inferior.

You keep making that equation.

Couldn't denying white privilege just be a statement that the average white person doesn't have an unfair advantage?
If white privilege exists, then the economic and demographic shifts over the past 20 years would not have occured.

Yes, at one time there was overt and covert racism that limited those of non-white descent. Those days are gone. What we do have is an upper 5% of predominantly white elites whose wealth and affluence stem from those times. Those elites do not usually share their privilege with any who are not also privileged. This means that they discriminate based upon class rather than by race.
In other words, a small privileged elite(wealthy) class, dominated by white people who seek to maintain their advantages over those who are not elite(wealthy) does not equate to the rest of the white citizenry having those advantages.


Edited for quotes and to add:

For those that mentioned White Male Pivilege, Men (including white men) are a minority in the US. Just sayin'.

Captain Avatar wrote:Sorry for this but there are a string of Polonius's comments from various posts that I want to ask about.

*snip!*

In other words, a small privileged elite(wealthy) class, dominated by white people who seek to maintain their advantages over those who are not elite(wealthy) does not equate to the rest of the white citizenry having those advantages.

That's a bigass post. And I think that on the last six pages, either myself or Manchu has likely addressed every point and question you've brought up.

 azazel the cat wrote:

djones520 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

djones520 wrote:
It seems to me like there was some who were a lot more privilidged then us.

Now divide that 9.2 million dollars by the number of students in Detroit, and compare that to your school's budget divided by about 120, as you said.

My class was about 120. 134 schools in Detriot, 66,000 students. 492 kids per school. Benzie County averaged out around 500 (can't find an exact number) per school.

Something is wrong with those numbers... I'm calling shenanigans on the idea that an urban school district averages 492 kids per school. I live in Vancouver, Canada and most of the suburban high schools here have 2000+ students.

He's saying that his entire school district had a little over half the average budget per school in Detroit. I don't know about the accuracy of the numbers given, but it seems every response was misreading it (I had to read it several times before I realized it was entire school district budget versus average individual school budget). Also, urban schools tend to be smaller but more plentiful. A suburban school can sprawl as the population it serves grows, but an urban one can't, so much, meaning to increase the total capacity or the system you need more schools wherever you can find the land, which is necessarily at a much higher premium in cities.

 Captain Avatar wrote:

I think that many view such disparities as to having less to do with all white people having an advantage and more to do with a small percentage of white elite families that throw the curve off for the rest of the population. These elite families do not spread their advantage to all other white people, The fact that ivy league schools have legacy policies that give enrollment slots to less qualified individuals before more qualified applicants regardless of race suggests that this is an issue of elitism.

More to the point: Privileged Whites does not equate to white privilege.

You're completely and utterly wrong, statistically speaking. If we look not at the mean income, but the median (the person exactly in the middle of all people) we're effectively excluding that very wealthy top few. And that tells us the median white American income is $55,012. The median black American income is $34,751.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income

 sebster wrote:

 Captain Avatar wrote:

I think that many view such disparities as to having less to do with all white people having an advantage and more to do with a small percentage of white elite families that throw the curve off for the rest of the population. These elite families do not spread their advantage to all other white people, The fact that ivy league schools have legacy policies that give enrollment slots to less qualified individuals before more qualified applicants regardless of race suggests that this is an issue of elitism.

More to the point: Privileged Whites does not equate to white privilege.

You're completely and utterly wrong, statistically speaking. If we look not at the mean income, but the median (the person exactly in the middle of all people) we're effectively excluding that very wealthy top few. And that tells us the median white American income is $55,012. The median black American income is $34,751.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income

Those figures seem about right when you compare what major each group tends to get there degrees in. Sad fact is that social sciences and humanities degrees don't pay as well as business & engineering degrees.

There are some good studies as to why each gender and race tends toward one field of study than another. So far, the best answer is that there are many reasons and that it can not be attributed to just one. Doing such is an oversimplification.


Also note that Black women have the highest college completion rate right now while black males are one of the lowest. This trend is being echoed to a lesser extent by white women having a higher college completion rate while white men numbers are falling.
The reason why this is important is that it argues strongly against white privilege and the chosen carreers of those completing college dirrectly affects both the mean and median earnings statistics.


edit to remove duplicated word

 Captain Avatar wrote:


How is this a matter of white privelege?

This seems more of an issue within the culture of the black community. labeling it as white privilege comes across as it being the caucasian cultures fault that such an attitude exists.

Again, white privilige is not the argument that black culture is white people's fault. I've only explained that once or twice, but I'll try again.

This isn't about racism. I mean, yeah, I'm sure there's a lot more racism than most of my "when is white history month" colleagues here, but hatred between groups does not have to exist for one group to have an advantage.

Not growing up in black culture is an advantage, IMO. It's not just for white kids, and hell, not a lot of black kids grow up outside of black street culture. Still an advantage.

Polonius wrote:I still haven't gotten an answer to my question, which is that if there isn't white privilege, are we just going say that white people are smarter and harder working than black people?

Why are you trying to pin the issue to race(as in genetics)?

Your quote that was previous to this one suggests that there are issues and attitudes within the black-american community which add obstacles & impediments that have nothing to do with white privilege.

Polonius wrote:Then why is there such a disparity in income, wealth, and so on? Is it a massive coincidence? Lizard people?

Yes, "Why is there such a disparity?"
Whe you answer, don't over simplify and limit your perceptions of it being about racism. Examine all of the possibilities. When all possibile causes are identified then everyone can work to fix the issue. This is much better than laying blame on one group and telling them that they have to fix the problem for everyone else.

Again, not about blame.

As to your question:
I think that many view such disparities as to having less to do with all white people having an advantage and more to do with a small percentage of white elite families that throw the curve off for the rest of the population. These elite families do not spread their advantage to all other white people, The fact that ivy league schools have legacy policies that give enrollment slots to less qualified individuals before more qualified applicants regardless of race suggests that this is an issue of elitism.

Exactly why both I and sebster cited medians, not mean. I mean, the fact that we all agree that nearly all the super rich are white without comment is an interesting side note, but the stats I cited already took care of your problem.

More to the point: Privileged Whites does not equate to white privilege.

Personally, I feel the answer to your above question has a variety of reasons. The answer isn't just there is a dicrepancy so x must be the reason. Instead it is that a, b, c & d are the answer. Any attempt to oversimplify does a grave disservice who are in need by not addressing the all of the issues that create the problem.

Sure, one issue is economic, but when you remove the upper 5%, the statistics deflect much closer to the population percentages.

Education is another issue but it seems to be less of a matter of racial genetics and more of expectations within the peer cultures. The first quote of yours that I posted would seem to suggest such.
also
When looking at the education statistics there is a difference betwwen the races as to who majors in what field. You might say that this is due to discrimination, but I would counter with the differences possibly being cultural.
I bring this up because some majors lead to higher paying jobs than others, which also contributes to pay discrepancy when looking at overall pay per race.

I think we agree on that there are a lot of reasons blacks do worse than white, which have little to do with inherent characteristics of genetics. You seem to be thinking I"m arguing it's racism, when I'm not. White's still have the advantages though.

Polonius wrote:I think it's because we live in this world were we all adopt the fiction that hard work and diligence will get you ahead. Now, most of the time it does, but sometimes it don't. So, for a lot of white people, hearing they had some sort of advantage is immediately translated into "you were given what you have." Now, since that's what we hate about the poor, we can't accept that we were given something. Even if it was a good family life, a decent educaiton, money to start a business or go to school, or the benefit of the doubt from a cop.

Could it be that many white people did not have an advantage based upon their genetics?

Imo, "race" (as in genetics) has nothing to do with a percieved advantage.

I am willing to admit that there might be an advantage in being raised in a culture that nurtures and supports their children with 2 parent families and embraces education as a priority. Your argument seems to be that being raised in such an enviroment is a privlege. My argument is that it should be considered the norm and that we should work to fixing a culture or community that chooses to not embrace these priorities.

I agree completely. Which is why recognizing the advantages you had in your success, when looking at the success of others, is the whole point of raising awareness. Lots of things should be the norm. The fact that they aren't, and aren't even close to the norm in certain demographics that just happen to share a skin color, shows a disparity on racial lines.

Polonius wrote:Most successful people know that their personal success comes from hard work, but also from a good foundation they had little to do with. Now, the odds of getting that foundation go up if you're white. they just do.

As I mentioned before, When you remove the upper 5%, the statistics fall very close to being in line with racial population densities.
The only statistic that stands out after such an adjustment is the incarceration rates. It improves but there is still an issue.

Well, no. You didn't show that. You are assuming that based on faulty reading of my data.

The question then is, "Why is this one out of line?"
The answer could be latent racism, it could also be explained by the lower percentage of 2 parent families or by a few other possible causes. Again, just labling it as racism is overly simplistic and prevents a full examination of the possible causes.
Once all causes are determined then we as a nation can take steps to correct these issues.

Again, you're attributing motive, racism, when I'm looking at affects. Regardless of why, a ton of black men end up in jail.

Polonius wrote:
the argument is, "there can't be white privilege, I had to work hard for what I have." Thus, implying that all it takes to succeed is hard work. thus, those that don't succeed didn't work hard. Thus, black people are lazy.

I find that you keep making this connection mildly racist and offensive. You are the one that keeps connecting lack of success to laziness. Any adult knows that life is not fair and that you can work hard and not succeed for a variety of reasons. The argument of there "not being white privilege because a white person works hard" is said in response to an accusation of racism(which white privilege is).
In the context of a defense, the statement means that "I work as hard as you" There is no judgement or racism, merely a defense that they didn't get what they have because of some conspiracy.

Polonius wrote:Denying white privilege is a way to reinforce the ideas 1) that the system is fair, and 2) other races are inherently inferior.

You keep making that equation.

Couldn't denying white privilege just be a statement that the average white person doesn't have an unfair advantage?
If white privilege exists, then the economic and demographic shifts over the past 20 years would not have occured.

 DiAF wrote:
I think a better idea for the wrist band would be one that everyone wears. It would be transparent, and have the word "human" written on it. To help remind us that regardless of our skin colour we're all human, and should all treat each other with respect and care.

Ooh I like that.

Frazzled wrote:

 DiAF wrote:
I think a better idea for the wrist band would be one that everyone wears. It would be transparent, and have the word "human" written on it. To help remind us that regardless of our skin colour we're all human, and should all treat each other with respect and care.

Ooh I like that.

Go dance with your New Age crystals, Hippie!

 Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Please enlighten me as to how you don't consider "helping those who need help" to be a moral obligation. I'm really eager to hear your justification.

Simple. I don't buy into deontological ethics in the first place, so have a very hard time granting the premise when it comes to a moral imperative, especially about something so small scale.

Moral obligation to help others is a Christian concept. A preChristian Roman would have disagreed with you strongly and would find you weak. Indeed, if your nation was like that they'd send a legion to educate you on morality...
Romans, kicking ass and partying hard since 500BC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Please enlighten me as to how you don't consider "helping those who need help" to be a moral obligation. I'm really eager to hear your justification.

Simple. I don't buy into deontological ethics in the first place, so have a very hard time granting the premise when it comes to a moral imperative, especially about something so small scale.

So because you don't believe it that makes it so? Human civilization is based on helping each other.

(Looks at al the wars). Really?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

 DiAF wrote:
I think a better idea for the wrist band would be one that everyone wears. It would be transparent, and have the word "human" written on it. To help remind us that regardless of our skin colour we're all human, and should all treat each other with respect and care.

Ooh I like that.

Go dance with your New Age crystals, Hippie!

"I remember when men were men and hippies were yippies. The beer was cold and you were warm." Yee hah!

 azazel the cat wrote:

Captain Avatar wrote:Sorry for this but there are a string of Polonius's comments from various posts that I want to ask about.

*snip!*

In other words, a small privileged elite(wealthy) class, dominated by white people who seek to maintain their advantages over those who are not elite(wealthy) does not equate to the rest of the white citizenry having those advantages.

That's a bigass post. And I think that on the last six pages, either myself or Manchu has likely addressed every point and question you've brought up.

Epic discussions guys...

Both sides are eloquently expression their points!

One request... Manchu, Kovnic, Azzazel... given our discussions so far, where would you peg me at? "Pragmatic Ethical Dude"? "Ethical Egoist Douchebag"?

Frazzled wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Please enlighten me as to how you don't consider "helping those who need help" to be a moral obligation. I'm really eager to hear your justification.

Simple. I don't buy into deontological ethics in the first place, so have a very hard time granting the premise when it comes to a moral imperative, especially about something so small scale.

Moral obligation to help others is a Christian concept. A preChristian Roman would have disagreed with you strongly and would find you weak. Indeed, if your nation was like that they'd send a legion to educate you on morality...
Romans, kicking ass and partying hard since 500BC.

That's not even remotely correct. The Roman Republic was virtually defined by the duty of its citizens to perform deeds good for the whole.

whembly wrote:
One request... Manchu, Kovnic, Azzazel... given our discussions so far, where would you peg me at? "Pragmatic Ethical Dude"? "Ethical Egoist Douchebag"?

Whatever FoxNews tells you to be.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Please enlighten me as to how you don't consider "helping those who need help" to be a moral obligation. I'm really eager to hear your justification.

Simple. I don't buy into deontological ethics in the first place, so have a very hard time granting the premise when it comes to a moral imperative, especially about something so small scale.

Moral obligation to help others is a Christian concept. A preChristian Roman would have disagreed with you strongly and would find you weak. Indeed, if your nation was like that they'd send a legion to educate you on morality...
Romans, kicking ass and partying hard since 500BC.

That's not even remotely correct. The Roman Republic was virtually defined by the duty of its citizens to perform deeds good for the whole.

whembly wrote:
One request... Manchu, Kovnic, Azzazel... given our discussions so far, where would you peg me at? "Pragmatic Ethical Dude"? "Ethical Egoist Douchebag"?

Whatever FoxNews tells you to be.

Yes in a world of slavery and dictators, please refresh my recollection on what the duty of the citizenry was to each other.

 Frazzled wrote:
Yes in a world of slavery and dictators, please refresh my recollection on what the duty of the citizenry was to each other.

I believe it had something to do with the common good and democracy. Clearly your memory is kaput even about the most important matters.

But as someone who lived in those days, I suppose you have a good excuse!

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Yes in a world of slavery and dictators, please refresh my recollection on what the duty of the citizenry was to each other.

I believe it had something to do with the common good and democracy. Clearly your memory is kaput even about the most important matters.

But as someone who lived in those days, I suppose you have a good excuse!

They had democracy in the Roman Empire? Quick, someone wake up the Imper Ator. Some people are trying to vote!

Roman Republic, I believe azazel said. Of course, the Senate existed even after the fall of the Republic.

 Manchu wrote:
Roman Republic, I believe azazel said.

Oh ok-didn't see that. Democracy doesn't mean you have a duty to help others. It means you get to vote on stuff.

I like rock voting myself. No hanging chads there!

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:
One request... Manchu, Kovnic, Azzazel... given our discussions so far, where would you peg me at? "Pragmatic Ethical Dude"? "Ethical Egoist Douchebag"?

Whatever FoxNews tells you to be.

I don't watch FoxNews... except, maybe to peek at Megyn Kelly if I'm not working .

Would CNN tell me?

Anyhoo... still reading up on all the buzzwords thrown around here. o.O

 Captain Avatar wrote:
Those figures seem about right when you compare what major each group tends to get there degrees in.

Ah, so you don't retract your previous claime when it was clearly shown to be in error, but just keep on rolling and come up with some other nutbar reason why the discrepancy exists. Well that's just the perfect example of arguing in good faith and I can see continuing this line of questioning would be a useful and productive experience for both of us.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Oh ok-didn't see that. Democracy doesn't mean you have a duty to help others. It means you get to vote on stuff.

Sure, but democracy becomes quite disfunctional without some notion of the common good.

Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Roman Republic, I believe azazel said.

Oh ok-didn't see that. Democracy doesn't mean you have a duty to help others. It means you get to vote on stuff.

Yeah, but it was the duty of all Roman citizens during the Republic to perform deeds towards the common good of the citizens. That was one of its defining characteristics. This is entitely separate from its democratic structure, the same way a restaurant obligates its cooks to wash their hands, but in no way does policy that affect how the deep fryer actually works.

And the slaves? Those weren't Roman citizens. The duty to help others towards the common good was specific to the common Roman good.

sebster wrote:

 Captain Avatar wrote:
Those figures seem about right when you compare what major each group tends to get there degrees in.

Ah, so you don't retract your previous claime when it was clearly shown to be in error, but just keep on rolling and come up with some other nutbar reason why the discrepancy exists. Well that's just the perfect example of arguing in good faith and I can see continuing this line of questioning would be a useful and productive experience for both of us.

I seem to recall you chiming in with support for the exact argument he's using here on the matter of perceived income disparity between men and women. He also gave that reasoning in the post you addressed, so he's not exactly pulling in some new justification. The income numbers you quoted are also massively different from Polonius' (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) numbers of $100k+ versus $5k. I don't know the actual relevant numbers, so I can't comment on who's right here, I just couldn't help but notice the discrepancies in the argument.


This whole thread seems to revolve around a very confusing perception of the situation that appears to take mutually contradictory stances: people are saying in one breath that the idea of "white privilege" isn't saying anything about racism and is all about just admitting that "for whatever reason" in the first world those of European descent have it significantly better than anyone else, and then in the next breath blaming racism and demanding some vague cessation of it from people it just said weren't racist, just lucky. I cannot figure out exactly how this reconciles internally.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
I seem to recall you chiming in with support for the exact argument he's using here on the matter of perceived income disparity between men and women. He also gave that reasoning in the post you addressed, so he's not exactly pulling in some new justification.

I haven't commented at all on income disparity between men and women. I commented entirely on the claim that white incomes were only higher because of some very rich white men skewing the numbers for that demographic. The claim was easy to prove as false.

From there Captain Avatar basically just rolled on, didn't say 'ah yes I see I was wrong I retract that' but just claimed some other piece of nonsense (seriously, black people choose lower paying qualifications just because?!). I've played enough games of whack-a-mole where someone claims crap they just made up or read on Facebook one time, I disprove it, and they make no one fething effort to try and better examine their claims, and instead just claim some other nonsense.

It's a waste of time. It's trying to make someone think when they don't want to.

The income numbers you quoted are also massively different from Polonius' (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) numbers of $100k+ versus $5k. I don't know the actual relevant numbers, so I can't comment on who's right here, I just couldn't help but notice the discrepancies in the argument.

Different figures are produced in different ways (but when it comes to the difference in earning between ethnicities they all tell the same story). The figures I gave were median household income, and could be examined in greater detail through the link provided, if anyone chose to do so.

This whole thread seems to revolve around a very confusing perception of the situation that appears to take mutually contradictory stances: people are saying in one breath that the idea of "white privilege" isn't saying anything about racism and is all about just admitting that "for whatever reason" in the first world those of European descent have it significantly better than anyone else, and then in the next breath blaming racism and demanding some vague cessation of it from people it just said weren't racist, just lucky. I cannot figure out exactly how this reconciles internally.

There's a reason I've stayed out of the thread. Personally, I think it's all dancing around the basic reality - it's a poverty issue. Black people have a higher poverty rate because their parents had a higher poverty rate, because their parents had a higher poverty rate, and so on and so on, until you get back to the original root cause and that is slavery. Basically, racism may not be an active force now, but its effects have held strong through the generations.

As for what we ought to do about that? Well honestly, first things first the people who say 'so what, I didn't do it, why do I have to feel guilty and do something about?' can just feth off and die. Without a basic understanding that society helps the less fortunate*, then any conversation is an utter waste of time. And once that's done, I think there's plenty of scope to engage in a conversation about how race might be something of a distraction to the overall issue of poverty, and that the better solution might be to target overall poverty through improved services and a higher minimum wage.


*And I don't mean that as society ought to help the less fortunate, I mean that it does help the less fortunate, always has and always will. The only question is how society helps them.

 Captain Avatar wrote:

Those figures seem about right when you compare what major each group tends to get there degrees in.

What do South Africans tend to major in?

What I see is a list indicating that recent immigrants tend to perform better than people born in the US. This isn't surprising because emigration and immigration are hard, so you tend to see only the best do either.

 Captain Avatar wrote:

Sad fact is that social sciences and humanities degrees don't pay as well as business & engineering degrees.

Engineering sure, but generic business degrees don't generally pay very well. Conversely, some social science majors (economics, government, political science, IR, etc.) pay quite well.

 sebster wrote:

I haven't commented at all on income disparity between men and women. I commented entirely on the claim that white incomes were only higher because of some very rich white men skewing the numbers for that demographic. The claim was easy to prove as false.

From there Captain Avatar basically just rolled on, didn't say 'ah yes I see I was wrong I retract that' but just claimed some other piece of nonsense (seriously, black people choose lower paying qualifications just because?!). I've played enough games of whack-a-mole where someone claims crap they just made up or read on Facebook one time, I disprove it, and they make no one fething effort to try and better examine their claims, and instead just claim some other nonsense.

It's a waste of time. It's trying to make someone think when they don't want to.

In this thread you, and really all but one of the participants from what I can remember, used an identical argument to explain why women make less money (they disproportionately go into lower paying fields like teaching and the lower tiers of healthcare). Captain Avatar, further, brought this up in the large post further up the page, it wasn't pulled out in response to your figures not lining up with his "remove the top 5% and it's not nearly so disparate across the board" stuff.

The income numbers you quoted are also massively different from Polonius' (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) numbers of $100k+ versus $5k. I don't know the actual relevant numbers, so I can't comment on who's right here, I just couldn't help but notice the discrepancies in the argument.

Different figures are produced in different ways (but when it comes to the difference in earning between ethnicities they all tell the same story). The figures I gave were median household income, and could be examined in greater detail through the link provided, if anyone chose to do so.

My meaning was your numbers supported his point more closely than they did Polonius'.

And my "I don't know the relevant numbers" bit was just a way of saying I'm not sufficiently versed in the matter to come down on one side or the other, I just saw some discrepancies and felt like it would benefit the debate were they pointed out and addressed.

This whole thread seems to revolve around a very confusing perception of the situation that appears to take mutually contradictory stances: people are saying in one breath that the idea of "white privilege" isn't saying anything about racism and is all about just admitting that "for whatever reason" in the first world those of European descent have it significantly better than anyone else, and then in the next breath blaming racism and demanding some vague cessation of it from people it just said weren't racist, just lucky. I cannot figure out exactly how this reconciles internally.

There's a reason I've stayed out of the thread. Personally, I think it's all dancing around the basic reality - it's a poverty issue. Black people have a higher poverty rate because their parents had a higher poverty rate, because their parents had a higher poverty rate, and so on and so on, until you get back to the original root cause and that is slavery. Basically, racism may not be an active force now, but its effects have held strong through the generations.

As for what we ought to do about that? Well honestly, first things first the people who say 'so what, I didn't do it, why do I have to feel guilty and do something about?' can just feth off and die. Without a basic understanding that society helps the less fortunate*, then any conversation is an utter waste of time. And once that's done, I think there's plenty of scope to engage in a conversation about how race might be something of a distraction to the overall issue of poverty, and that the better solution might be to target overall poverty through improved services and a higher minimum wage.


*And I don't mean that as society ought to help the less fortunate, I mean that it does help the less fortunate, always has and always will. The only question is how society helps them.

Yeah. The inclusion of race into the discussion largely serves to do nothing but poison and polarize the debate. Actually addressing the root problems amounts to long term issues revolving around improving education and reducing crime, which are hard enough topics to deal with in any meaningful manner in the US by themselves, and all but impossible when you have people sabotaging the whole process by fomenting conflict with racial rhetoric.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
In this thread you, and really all but one of the participants from what I can remember, used an identical argument to explain why women make less money (they disproportionately go into lower paying fields like teaching and the lower tiers of healthcare). Captain Avatar, further, brought this up in the large post further up the page, it wasn't pulled out in response to your figures not lining up with his "remove the top 5% and it's not nearly so disparate across the board" stuff.

You don't see a difference between the claim that women move into professions which are underpaid relative to their qualifications (teaching, nursing, social work), something which is both pretty obvious from most people's observations of the real world (most everyone had a lot more female teachers than male teachers through their schooling, most people will observe when walking through a hospital that most of the nurses are women) and supported by findings in countless studies (seriously, there is a stupid number of studies showing this in just about any developed country you can think of), and Captain Avatar just claiming that black people go into poorer paid professions just because? Without any decent support for the claim at all?

And you don't see a problem with Captain Avatar making his claim about the incomes of the top 5%, and then just dropping it when evidence to the contrary is provided, without retracting it... just instead re-asserting some other nonsense claim?

My meaning was your numbers supported his point more closely than they did Polonius'.

My numbers didn't support his point at all. They absolutely, completely disproved his claim that white people earn more because of the top 5% being mostly white.

And my "I don't know the relevant numbers" bit was just a way of saying I'm not sufficiently versed in the matter to come down on one side or the other, I just saw some discrepancies and felt like it would benefit the debate were they pointed out and addressed.

Sure thing, and thankyou for that. Too often these debates get clouded because people aren't willing to clarify where their knowledge on an issue, and therefore what they and are not arguing, begins and ends.

Yeah. The inclusion of race into the discussion largely serves to do nothing but poison and polarize the debate. Actually addressing the root problems amounts to long term issues revolving around improving education and reducing crime, which are hard enough topics to deal with in any meaningful manner in the US by themselves, and all but impossible when you have people sabotaging the whole process by fomenting conflict with racial rhetoric.

Sure, the problem is too many people take the realisation that it's an issue of inter-generational poverty and conclude 'and therefore we don't have to do anything about race'... when they should conclude 'and therefore we really need to do more about inter-generational poverty'