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.

 d-usa wrote:

Your fancy wall of text fails at the basic level that you appear to think that white privilege relies on white people doing stuff for other white people.

And that is where your entire idea of what white privilege really is falls apart.

so ad hominem insults then?

I am perfectly aware of what it is, maybe answer the questions instead of just assuming lil old me cant fathom the idea.

so now, in contrast to your earlier statements where its something white people actually do and benifit from,

white privilage is now something that no one does?

so if no one is doing it, how can anyone benifit from it?

it just "happens".... a force of nature, like hurricanes or lightning...

right,

You are avoiding the hard questions because you dont have good answers D-usa.

answer the very simple, yes/no question, and list the what specific benifits white privilage is granting white people in 2014

 d-usa wrote:
It's being out of touch with reality to think that everybody should have equal access to equal education?

You said:

 d-usa wrote:
Running your mouth about equal outcomes is irrelevant as long as we are not all starting with the same resources.

Fact of life is that everyone will come from different background, location and resources. It's a fact of life.

You can't pretend to be the country of boot strapping when some people don't even get boots to begin with.

Depends on the context when you use the word "boot strapping"...

When you use that word, I get the sense that you're implying that a person who bootstraps is able to to do so without help.

That's not what it means in a conventional sense... it means:

get (oneself or something) into or out of a situation using existing resources.

The degree of those resources will be different for everyone. Yes, some will have it easier than others... that's life.

 easysauce wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Your fancy wall of text fails at the basic level that you appear to think that white privilege relies on white people doing stuff for other white people.

And that is where your entire idea of what white privilege really is falls apart.

so ad hominem insults then?

Feel free to inform me or any of the MODs about what part of that text was an insult.

 easysauce wrote:
oh so white privilage is something that no one does?

it just "happens".... a force of nature, like hurricanes or lightning...

right,

You are avoiding the hard questions because you dont have good answers D-usa.

answer the very simple, yes/no question, and list the what specific benifits white privilage has granted white people.

Are we honestly pretending that we never covered this on Dakka?

Okay then, let's pretend that nobody has every explained this to you before. Here are three big ones:

People living in poverty:


Likelihood of ending up in prison (giant picture):

Wage discrepancy


White people are statistically less likely to live in poverty, are statistically less likely to be arrested and if they are arrested they are get smaller sentences for similar crimes (crack cocaine vs powder cocaine is a wonderful example of racially based sentencing guidelines), if they do have a job they are more likely to make more money.

That's not because white people give other white people a break. That's not because white people are actively trying to keep the minority down. It is because through decades of bad laws and bad policies we have created a class of people (largely overlapping with race) that is stuck in a pit and can't get themselves out without any help. We now pretend that these people don't exist and that they don't suffer from the cycle of misery that our policies have created.

White Privilege is not about White People helping out other White People. White Privilege is about White People being statistically much less likely to have to deal with any of that crap, and therefore having a much better change to not be affected by it and moving up, and then not even realizing that they are benefiting from that statistical difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It's being out of touch with reality to think that everybody should have equal access to equal education?

You said:

 d-usa wrote:
Running your mouth about equal outcomes is irrelevant as long as we are not all starting with the same resources.

Fact of life is that everyone will come from different background, location and resources. It's a fact of life.

You can't pretend to be the country of boot strapping when some people don't even get boots to begin with.

Depends on the context when you use the word "boot strapping"...

When you use that word, I get the sense that you're implying that a person who bootstraps is able to to do so without help.

That's not what it means in a conventional sense... it means:

get (oneself or something) into or out of a situation using existing resources.

The degree of those resources will be different for everyone. Yes, some will have it easier than others... that's life.

And you might accept that is is pure coincidence that white people have it easier.

Many, including me, will not.

I'm confused. Per NBC hispanics are white or black too.

Wouldn't be more appropriate to target the poor. Defining "white" and "Asian" as privileged is... interesting. Indians evidently are privileged as well.
Women in contrast appear to be unprivileged despite being a majority of the population.

So... D... in other words:


amrite?

 Frazzled wrote:


Wouldn't be more appropriate to target the poor.

Which targets blacks more than white, because more blacks are poor than whites.

Women in contrast appear to be unprivileged despite being a majority of the population.

Obama has been talking a lot about that lately

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Wouldn't be more appropriate to target the poor.

Which targets blacks more than white, because more blacks are poor than whites.

How about you target all, else its discriminatory impact against poor whites, Asians, Indians, hispanics, eskimoes, native Americans, and Pacific Islanders. .

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Wouldn't be more appropriate to target the poor.

Which targets blacks more than white, because more blacks are poor than whites.

How about you target all, else its discriminatory impact against poor whites, Asians, Indians, hispanics, eskimoes, native Americans, and Pacific Islanders. .

If you target ALL poor people, you will target more black people than white people because there are more of them.

Which brings us back to the problem of why AA was implemented in the first place.

Whew..glad I am a White Asian

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

And what if there are no standards? People will work as little as possible.

I don't mean having no standards (that would defeat the purpose) but the way standardized testing works as we have it now is to break everything down to the lowest common denominator. The only people who can't past those tests are complete idiots, and everyone who passes basically just memorized some run of the mill answers (honestly the SAT is the same way. It's a really basic logic test that really only says you bothered to study basic math and word roots). Their ability to read critically is minimally tested or trained, and their ability to look at material and draw conclusions isn't tested at all.

Can we institute a new thing called Dakka Lottery that you auto win as soon as someone mentions privilege (or privilidge as the case may be). Everytime someone mentions privilege I feel the only people who make any sense of the argument may be hotsauceman due to studying sociology.

( I also think kidneys devilled in hotsauce may sound very tasty)

This whole privilege thing boils down to one thing, economics. People are poor , in a user pays system there will be less access for the poor , this creates an underclass for menial jobs, which lets face it are the most important jobs that need to be done in society.

These AA programs will take GENERATIONS to take effect. Not everyone who can be given a better educational opportunity who exists in a poor socio-economic group will take it , only a small few who can actually see a way out of the gak hole they are in.

Unless the program is applied to all under a certain income level regardless of race it is racist , pure and simple. I'm all for increasing higher education for poorer people (be aware I am in a low income bracket) but giving out benefits for race with quotas is wrong.

The problem is money/education not race. Put anyone in a similar situation regardless of genes and the outcomes will be very similar, essentially it is a social problem not a genealogical one.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Wouldn't be more appropriate to target the poor.

Which targets blacks more than white, because more blacks are poor than whites.

How about you target all, else its discriminatory impact against poor whites, Asians, Indians, hispanics, eskimoes, native Americans, and Pacific Islanders. .

If you target ALL poor people, you will target more black people than white people because there are more of them.

Which brings us back to the problem of why AA was implemented in the first place.

How exactly is that a problem???

You ought to see how AA works in awarding government contracts

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Wouldn't be more appropriate to target the poor.

Which targets blacks more than white, because more blacks are poor than whites.

How about you target all, else its discriminatory impact against poor whites, Asians, Indians, hispanics, eskimoes, native Americans, and Pacific Islanders. .

If you target ALL poor people, you will target more black people than white people because there are more of them.

Which brings us back to the problem of why AA was implemented in the first place.

How exactly is that a problem???

It's not a problem, it just helps us understand why AA targeted who they targeted. They didn't target blacks because they were black, they targeted blacks because they were the most affected. They screwed the pooch by implementing quota systems and acting like sending X minority kids to college would fix anything without actually looking at who they were sending. I think that AA wouldn't have the reputation as a jacked up reverse racist program if they would have managed to stay away from the damn quota BS.

This ruling is a step in the right direction, but how will this be enforced?

I don't know how the school system works in the US, if it is based on a test score than it can easily be checked, but if it is subjective it will be more difficult to check.

 Ahtman wrote:
White Privilege isn't about having nice things, or being wealthy, nor has it ever meant those things. It has to do with unearned, systematic, institutional things that are often overlooked or unnoticed when you are white, which also makes it difficult to explain to some people.

The fact that it's hilarious pixie dust bs also plays a role in making it hard to explain, I think.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
White Privilege isn't about having nice things, or being wealthy, nor has it ever meant those things. It has to do with unearned, systematic, institutional things that are often overlooked or unnoticed when you are white, which also makes it difficult to explain to some people.

The fact that it's hilarious pixie dust bs also plays a role in making it hard to explain, I think.

It also has something to do with not growing up in a social area with endemic unemployment. I agree with seaward that the less angel dust taken the better.

It's only pixie dust if you can't read simple charts.

Maybe they don't teach that to some white kids...

 d-usa wrote:
It's only pixie dust if you can't read simple charts.

Maybe they don't teach that to some white kids...

Nah. It just doesn't fit into the whole bootstrapping myth thing, so they pretend it doesn't exist.

Can't have anything suggesting one's worldview is terribly flawed. That might ruin their self image.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
White Privilege isn't about having nice things, or being wealthy, nor has it ever meant those things. It has to do with unearned, systematic, institutional things that are often overlooked or unnoticed when you are white, which also makes it difficult to explain to some people.

The fact that it's hilarious pixie dust bs also plays a role in making it hard to explain, I think.

Yeah, im still waiting for the list of specific things granted to whites to make them so privileged.

Especially the institutionalized benefits written into our law granting special things.

The reason why people like D-usa cannot provide a list or answer simple yes/no questions with a yes/no, is because they are talking out of their butts on this one.


the fact that D-usas own chart shows that currently, asian people are BETTER off then whites as a group, despite asians undergoing the same racism in ye olde america, is proof that white privilege is a lie.

or is it asian privilege too?

or maybe all the white people are just specifically holding back black people only, and asians get a pass....

yeah, right, that makes sense (rolls eyes)

 easysauce wrote:
Yup, didnt take long for people to start throwing around the white privilidge and so on BS.

Well only white people can be racist. That's a well known fact.















None of what I just said is true.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
Yup, didnt take long for people to start throwing around the white privilidge and so on BS.

Well only white people can be racist. That's a well known fact.















None of what I just said is true.

but that means that last statement is false........

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
Yup, didnt take long for people to start throwing around the white privilidge and so on BS.

Well only white people can be racist. That's a well known fact.















None of what I just said is true.

I'm not sure what you're talking about but it definitely doesn't have anything to do with white privilege.

 easysauce wrote:

the fact that D-usas own chart shows that currently, asian people are BETTER off then whites as a group, despite asians undergoing the same racism in ye olde america, is proof that white privilege is a lie.

or is it asian privilege too?

I could point out that as a group, the discrimination against Asians in the US has always been fleeting compared to that against Blacks, Hispanics, and Natives. I could also point out that many of the racial stereotypes of Asians are viewed positively not negatively, more so as time goes on, and that most Asians in the US were financially well off and successful when they came to the US during the big Asian immigration boom of the last 30 years. I could also say even that a single percentage point on a single chart is hardly a significant issue in what the charts are being used to show.

But that would all just be a waste of time so I wouldn't bother pointing any of it out

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
but that means that last statement is false........

Yeah but... oh... you're right. I created a paradox! AHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
but that means that last statement is false........

Yeah but... oh... you're right. I created a paradox! AHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

I don't know if this has been covered or not cause I haven't read the whole thread but you know what grinds my gears is when I see white people be almost automatically dismissive of other visible minorities opinions on race/ethnicity, you're basically telling them that because of their

race/ethnicity or that their life experiences are different than yours there opinions don't matter, it's condescending. At least give them the benefit of the doubt or try to understand why they came to that conclusion before you judge, that's all I ask. I'm sure someone is going to be dismissive of

this post cause I'm politically liberal/social democrat, young, self-hating white person, have white guilt, social justice warrior or some of other bull gak reason rather than the actual argument but whatever.

 LordofHats wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

the fact that D-usas own chart shows that currently, asian people are BETTER off then whites as a group, despite asians undergoing the same racism in ye olde america, is proof that white privilege is a lie.

or is it asian privilege too?

I could point out that as a group, the discrimination against Asians in the US has always been fleeting compared to that against Blacks, Hispanics, and Natives. I could also point out that many of the racial stereotypes of Asians are viewed positively not negatively, more so as time goes on, and that most Asians in the US were financially well off and successful when they came to the US during the big Asian immigration boom of the last 30 years. I could also say even that a single percentage point on a single chart is hardly a significant issue in what the charts are being used to show.

But that would all just be a waste of time so I wouldn't bother pointing any of it out

well, yes, it is a waste of time to point out things that are incorrect....

If you only see positive asian stereotypes, and no long term racism, then its because you are will fully not looking for it.

I literally just ruined my monitor when you said discrimination against natives was fleeting... you sir owe me a new monitor... and owe yourself a learning, because if you actually consider genocide of an entire race to be "fleeting" it just shows how ill equipped you are to be in this debate.

 LordofHats wrote:


I could point out that as a group, the discrimination against Asians in the US has always been fleeting compared to that against Blacks, Hispanics, and Natives.

Not sure you can really include Hispanics here. I mean, unless there was some Hispanic enlsavement, internment, or forced upheaval leading to genocide that I missed.....

I could also point out that many of the racial stereotypes of Asians are viewed positively not negatively, more so as time goes on, and that most Asians in the US were financially well off and successful when they came to the US during the big Asian immigration boom of the last 30 years. I could also say even that a single percentage point on a single chart is hardly a significant issue in what the charts are being used to show.

But that would all just be a waste of time so I wouldn't bother pointing any of it out

It would probably be a waste of time, then, to point out that Asian "stereotypes" are all predicated on hard work, discipline, and self reliance...attributes that are wholly "Traditional America".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheesecat wrote:


race/ethnicity or that their life experiences are different than yours there opinions don't matter, it's condescending. At least give them the benefit of the doubt or try to understand why they came to that conclusion before you judge, that's all I ask. I'm sure someone is going to be dismissive of

Is that at all similar to the "if you have a penis you can't comment on abortion" theory that's so popular these days?

Also, feth white guilt.

 easysauce wrote:


I literally just ruined my monitor when you said discrimination against natives was fleeting...

Wow... I know reading comprehension is in short supply but... wow...

Read that again;

discrimination against Asians in the US has always been fleeting compared to that against Blacks, Hispanics, and Natives

Like seriously XD I know I complain about people not reading what others post, but god damn.