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.

It's a testament to the strength of the Dakka OT that This thread is still going on it second page when the OP admitted in their second post that they weren't looking to "learn about White Privilege in case it comes up at work" but rather looking to deny it's existence at all.

It takes some pretty powerful cognitive dissonance to assert that White Privilege doesn't exist.

However, Iron Captain and others are right in that the ultimate arbiter of privilege is Class, specifically Class based on Wealth.

I read that article pol, it in no way refers to white privilege, do you have another ?

Yes. Because the main argument against White Privilige is not at all that the term is insulting, needlessly divisive and often (as just now) used to kill an argument, and totally that the underlying goal (be more empathic) and principles are wrong because racism doesn't exist anymore.

...

Warning: I hope your sarcasm detector didn't overload there.

 feeder wrote:
It's a testament to the strength of the Dakka OT that This thread is still going on it second page when the OP admitted in their second post that they weren't looking to "learn about White Privilege in case it comes up at work" but rather looking to deny it's existence at all.

It takes some pretty powerful cognitive dissonance to assert that White Privilege doesn't exist.

However, Iron Captain and others are right in that the ultimate arbiter of privilege is Class, specifically Class based on Wealth.

it doesn’t take “cognitive dissonance” to deny something doesn’t exist when no one has proven it does exist.


So let’s try this, a different tact if you will, you offer up a clearly defined view on what white privilege is, we will try to work off that premise and then you can try to “change my mind” as crowder puts it.

So... change my mind.

 Formosa wrote:

 feeder wrote:
It's a testament to the strength of the Dakka OT that This thread is still going on it second page when the OP admitted in their second post that they weren't looking to "learn about White Privilege in case it comes up at work" but rather looking to deny it's existence at all.

It takes some pretty powerful cognitive dissonance to assert that White Privilege doesn't exist.

However, Iron Captain and others are right in that the ultimate arbiter of privilege is Class, specifically Class based on Wealth.

it doesn’t take “cognitive dissonance” to deny something doesn’t exist when no one has proven it does exist.


So let’s try this, a different tact if you will, you offer up a clearly defined view on what white privilege is, we will try to work off that premise and then you can try to “change my mind” as crowder puts it.

So... change my mind.

Other, better posters than me have neatly defined it previously in this thread. If anyone is not "getting it" yet, it's because they are unwilling or perhaps unable.

 feeder wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 feeder wrote:
It's a testament to the strength of the Dakka OT that This thread is still going on it second page when the OP admitted in their second post that they weren't looking to "learn about White Privilege in case it comes up at work" but rather looking to deny it's existence at all.

It takes some pretty powerful cognitive dissonance to assert that White Privilege doesn't exist.

However, Iron Captain and others are right in that the ultimate arbiter of privilege is Class, specifically Class based on Wealth.

it doesn’t take “cognitive dissonance” to deny something doesn’t exist when no one has proven it does exist.


So let’s try this, a different tact if you will, you offer up a clearly defined view on what white privilege is, we will try to work off that premise and then you can try to “change my mind” as crowder puts it.

So... change my mind.

Other, better posters than me have neatly defined it previously in this thread. If anyone is not "getting it" yet, it's because they are unwilling or perhaps unable.

No other posters have posted circumstantial and anecdotal stories with little to no basis in the real world, so again, you define it, in realistic terms and we can discuss it.

Let’s keep it civil though eh.

 feeder wrote:
It's a testament to the strength of the Dakka OT that This thread is still going on it second page when the OP admitted in their second post that they weren't looking to "learn about White Privilege in case it comes up at work" but rather looking to deny it's existence at all.

It takes some pretty powerful cognitive dissonance to assert that White Privilege doesn't exist.

However, Iron Captain and others are right in that the ultimate arbiter of privilege is Class, specifically Class based on Wealth.

So you post just to troll the entire Dakka OT? Well played sir!

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

The 50 percent gap in callback rates is statistically very significant, Bertrand and Mullainathan note in Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination (NBER Working Paper No. 9873). It indicates that a white name yields as many more callbacks as an additional eight years of experience.

Another tangible example is in online dating, where black women receive far fewer responses. OK Cupid did a huge study that I'll link to later when I'm not on my work computer, but it's pretty easy to find.

A white name? I wonder if someone named 'Ivan Kuznetsov' or 'Juan Herrero' would get the same amount of callbacks as someone named 'John Smith'? Is this really a racial issue, or is it a more broad issue with xenophobia in that any people that do not have a name associated with the dominant ethnic group get rejected more often, regardless of race? Before they can claim that "white names" result in more callbacks, they should have had a more representative sample of "white" names. Because now it proves nothing beyond having an Anglo-American name results in more callbacks, but Anglo-American does not equate to "white". In European countries with a Germanic majority (like England, Germany etc.), Slavic people get discriminated against, even though both are equally white (again, it is usually set along class lines, Slavic people in those countries typically being lower class). Is this different in the US (Seeing as that the US is predominantly Germanic as well)? Does having a Slavic name yield the same kind of benefits as having a Germanic name? And what about Spanish, Italian or other Latin names? Do all whites have "white" privilege? Or is there discrimination against certain white groups as well?

This is very true, and why "White Privilege" has a context related to North America and some European countries.

In USA, the Irish people where discriminated agaisnt for some years, and they are 100% white.
The only problem I see with the term "White privilege" is that some people believes that is something that only white people can do. As if, if the dominant ethnic group would be other of a different ethnicity things would be different, when as Iron_Captain has pointed out, it does not matter. Russia, Japan, China, Rwanda, India, the dominant ethnic group always has the privilege of being the "Norm" over the minorities, even when they are all blacks, whites, asians, etc... theres always some difference to discriminate.
The same happens when some people believes that if the world was run by females things would be different, when the root of the problem is the existence inequality, not what group is in the top and what one is in the bottom.

 Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:
It's a testament to the strength of the Dakka OT that This thread is still going on it second page when the OP admitted in their second post that they weren't looking to "learn about White Privilege in case it comes up at work" but rather looking to deny it's existence at all.

It takes some pretty powerful cognitive dissonance to assert that White Privilege doesn't exist.

However, Iron Captain and others are right in that the ultimate arbiter of privilege is Class, specifically Class based on Wealth.

So you post just to troll the entire Dakka OT? Well played sir!

No, I was being sincere. Despite the OP starting the discussion in bad faith, this community was able to move this topical hot potato forwards anyway.

 Formosa wrote:

No other posters have posted circumstantial and anecdotal stories with little to no basis in the real world, so again, you define it, in realistic terms and we can discuss it.

You reject out of hand the answers to your question. You'll never be able to discuss it.

White privilege is an acceptable racist term that can be openly talked about in the UN without fear of reprisal. Whites have earned the discrimination they receive because their life is easier than yours (if you aren't white). All other races should have a handicap advantage placed on them (standardization)(affirmative action).

It's dumb ideas like this that put the country in the state it is currently in. This will never lead to "healing". It actually makes things worse.

There is an inherent amount of racism ingrained in everyones instincts. People natural fear what is different from them. People naturally favor their own culture over others. This is the human condition. It's can't be corrected for.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

No other posters have posted circumstantial and anecdotal stories with little to no basis in the real world, so again, you define it, in realistic terms and we can discuss it.

You reject out of hand the answers to your question. You'll never be able to discuss it.

I reject anecdotes and studies that do not pertain to the discussion we are having, so far in this thread I have yet to see credible realistic proof that “white privilege” exists, pol posted a study that literally had nothing to do with it so I asked for another example, which is quite fair.

So again, define it, it’s an open question for everyone to answer, once we settle with that premise we can move on, if you cannot even agree on the central premise then your entire argument is invalid.

This is everyone’s opertunity to change my mind, go for it.

 Galas wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

The 50 percent gap in callback rates is statistically very significant, Bertrand and Mullainathan note in Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination (NBER Working Paper No. 9873). It indicates that a white name yields as many more callbacks as an additional eight years of experience.

Another tangible example is in online dating, where black women receive far fewer responses. OK Cupid did a huge study that I'll link to later when I'm not on my work computer, but it's pretty easy to find.

A white name? I wonder if someone named 'Ivan Kuznetsov' or 'Juan Herrero' would get the same amount of callbacks as someone named 'John Smith'? Is this really a racial issue, or is it a more broad issue with xenophobia in that any people that do not have a name associated with the dominant ethnic group get rejected more often, regardless of race? Before they can claim that "white names" result in more callbacks, they should have had a more representative sample of "white" names. Because now it proves nothing beyond having an Anglo-American name results in more callbacks, but Anglo-American does not equate to "white". In European countries with a Germanic majority (like England, Germany etc.), Slavic people get discriminated against, even though both are equally white (again, it is usually set along class lines, Slavic people in those countries typically being lower class). Is this different in the US (Seeing as that the US is predominantly Germanic as well)? Does having a Slavic name yield the same kind of benefits as having a Germanic name? And what about Spanish, Italian or other Latin names? Do all whites have "white" privilege? Or is there discrimination against certain white groups as well?

This is very true, and why "White Privilege" has a context related to North America and some European countries.

In USA, the Irish people where discriminated agaisnt for some years, and they are 100% white.
The only problem I see with the term "White privilege" is that some people believes that is something that only white people can do. As if, if the dominant ethnic group would be other of a different ethnicity things would be different, when as Iron_Captain has pointed out, it does not matter. Russia, Japan, China, Rwanda, India, the dominant ethnic group always has the privilege of being the "Norm" over the minorities, even when they are all blacks, whites, asians, etc... theres always some difference to discriminate.
The same happens when some people believes that if the world was run by females things would be different, when the root of the problem is the existence inequality, not what group is in the top and what one is in the bottom.

This is also the way I see it.

Being of Irish ancestory I always found the term to be totally "white privileged" Ironic. Irish received serious bigotry and racism when they came to this country. Now look at them (us). It's the dominant heritage in the US. How did they do it? Well I will venture to say it wan't because they went around crying about "English Privilege".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

No other posters have posted circumstantial and anecdotal stories with little to no basis in the real world, so again, you define it, in realistic terms and we can discuss it.

You reject out of hand the answers to your question. You'll never be able to discuss it.

I reject anecdotes and studies that do not pertain to the discussion we are having, so far in this thread I have yet to see credible realistic proof that “white privilege” exists, pol posted a study that literally had nothing to do with it so I asked for another example, which is quite fair.

So again, define it, it’s an open question for everyone to answer, once we settle with that premise we can move on, if you cannot even agree on the central premise then your entire argument is invalid.

This is everyone’s opertunity to change my mind, go for it.

At best the term is a misnomer. I think it actually means "rich people have advantages over poor people". Yeah...No gak right?

 Xenomancers wrote:
White privilege is an acceptable racist term that can be openly talked about in the UN without fear of reprisal. Whites have earned the discrimination they receive because their life is easier than yours (if you aren't white). All other races should have a handicap advantage placed on them (standardization)(affirmative action).

It's dumb ideas like this that put the country in the state it is currently in. This will never lead to "healing". It actually makes things worse.

There is an inherent amount of racism ingrained in everyones instincts. People natural fear what is different from them. People naturally favor their own culture over others. This is the human condition. It's can't be corrected for.

No, this is a white right-winger's understanding of what "human nature" is. I posit that people don't naturally fear what is different from them, that "favouring their own culture over others" is meaningless and that all of this could very much be corrected for. How the hell did you think new culture was developed if people weren't accepting and if people weren't open to change?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Being of Irish ancestory I always found the term to be totally "white privileged" Ironic. Irish received serious bigotry and racism when they came to this country. Now look at them (us). It's the dominant heritage in the US. How did they do it? Well I will venture to say it wan't because they went around crying about "English Privilege".

What Irish-Americans did to become white was to join in on lynching black people. They agreed to enforce white supremacy and where therefore allowed into the club.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
White privilege is an acceptable racist term that can be openly talked about in the UN without fear of reprisal. Whites have earned the discrimination they receive because their life is easier than yours (if you aren't white). All other races should have a handicap advantage placed on them (standardization)(affirmative action).

It's dumb ideas like this that put the country in the state it is currently in. This will never lead to "healing". It actually makes things worse.

There is an inherent amount of racism ingrained in everyones instincts. People natural fear what is different from them. People naturally favor their own culture over others. This is the human condition. It's can't be corrected for.

No, this is a white right-winger's understanding of what "human nature" is. I posit that people don't naturally fear what is different from them, that "favouring their own culture over others" is meaningless and that all of this could very much be corrected for. How the hell did you think new culture was developed if people weren't accepting and if people weren't open to change?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Being of Irish ancestory I always found the term to be totally "white privileged" Ironic. Irish received serious bigotry and racism when they came to this country. Now look at them (us). It's the dominant heritage in the US. How did they do it? Well I will venture to say it wan't because they went around crying about "English Privilege".

What Irish-Americans did to become white was to join in on lynching black people. They agreed to enforce white supremacy and where therefore allowed into the club.

Incorrect, I’m centre left and I agree with his assessment but not completely, your last statement is racist in the extreme, just as bad as saying “All Black people are thieves” ... you should apologise.

 feeder wrote:
It's a testament to the strength of the Dakka OT that This thread is still going on it second page when the OP admitted in their second post that they weren't looking to "learn about White Privilege in case it comes up at work" but rather looking to deny it's existence at all.

It takes some pretty powerful cognitive dissonance to assert that White Privilege doesn't exist.

However, Iron Captain and others are right in that the ultimate arbiter of privilege is Class, specifically Class based on Wealth.

I’ve been very clear that discrimination exists. But I have yet to see an argument that convinces me that the two are actually distinct. One poster even claimed that it was semantics to make the distinction. Another claimed that this is about not portraying black people as victims. Viewing black people as a criminalised other is discrimination. Or are you saying that such views are irrelevant if I don’t accept the rhetoric and think it’s counter productive to keep insisting that you have accept this new doctrine and language to describe the exact same issue?

So let’s say I made a Twitter post, I dunno, showing an innocent black person who was killed in a shooting and remarked “Discrimination strikes again.”. You are saying that this is racist because it doesn’t acknowledge white privilege? That you would take somebody up on that? You think such a fruitful conversation would help anyone? Because you object to a white person implying black people are victims?

Iam trying to make people see the absurdity of this whole thing.

 Formosa wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
White privilege is an acceptable racist term that can be openly talked about in the UN without fear of reprisal. Whites have earned the discrimination they receive because their life is easier than yours (if you aren't white). All other races should have a handicap advantage placed on them (standardization)(affirmative action).

It's dumb ideas like this that put the country in the state it is currently in. This will never lead to "healing". It actually makes things worse.

There is an inherent amount of racism ingrained in everyones instincts. People natural fear what is different from them. People naturally favor their own culture over others. This is the human condition. It's can't be corrected for.

No, this is a white right-winger's understanding of what "human nature" is. I posit that people don't naturally fear what is different from them, that "favouring their own culture over others" is meaningless and that all of this could very much be corrected for. How the hell did you think new culture was developed if people weren't accepting and if people weren't open to change?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Being of Irish ancestory I always found the term to be totally "white privileged" Ironic. Irish received serious bigotry and racism when they came to this country. Now look at them (us). It's the dominant heritage in the US. How did they do it? Well I will venture to say it wan't because they went around crying about "English Privilege".

What Irish-Americans did to become white was to join in on lynching black people. They agreed to enforce white supremacy and where therefore allowed into the club.

Incorrect, I’m centre left and I agree with his assessment but not completely, your last statement is racist in the extreme, just as bad as saying “All Black people are thieves” ... you should apologise.

If you believe that the natural state of humanity is fear for each other and that this can't be changed then you aren't any kind of left at all because the key aspect of that range of ideologies is that people are equal and should be free to become as they wish to be.

 Formosa wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
White privilege is an acceptable racist term that can be openly talked about in the UN without fear of reprisal. Whites have earned the discrimination they receive because their life is easier than yours (if you aren't white). All other races should have a handicap advantage placed on them (standardization)(affirmative action).

It's dumb ideas like this that put the country in the state it is currently in. This will never lead to "healing". It actually makes things worse.

There is an inherent amount of racism ingrained in everyones instincts. People natural fear what is different from them. People naturally favor their own culture over others. This is the human condition. It's can't be corrected for.

No, this is a white right-winger's understanding of what "human nature" is. I posit that people don't naturally fear what is different from them, that "favouring their own culture over others" is meaningless and that all of this could very much be corrected for. How the hell did you think new culture was developed if people weren't accepting and if people weren't open to change?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Being of Irish ancestory I always found the term to be totally "white privileged" Ironic. Irish received serious bigotry and racism when they came to this country. Now look at them (us). It's the dominant heritage in the US. How did they do it? Well I will venture to say it wan't because they went around crying about "English Privilege".

What Irish-Americans did to become white was to join in on lynching black people. They agreed to enforce white supremacy and where therefore allowed into the club.

Incorrect, I’m centre left and I agree with his assessment but not completely, your last statement is racist in the extreme, just as bad as saying “All Black people are thieves” ... you should apologise.

He won't. In his definition of racism. Only whites can be racist.

IDK if it's been tested, but it would not surprise me of there was more prejudice against non-anglo-saxon especially latin names in the USA than in Europe.

However all whites whether slavic, anglo-saxon or Italian have white privilege in circumstances where the key factor is whiteness rather than the pronunciation of their name.

Totalwar1402 wrote:...See I was watching a BBC documentary about the term and I really couldn’t understand the distinction between these two definitions. You could watch that film and take either.

It might come up at work so I d rather not get caught out misunderstanding what’s being discussed.

Totalwar1402 wrote:Iam trying to make people see the absurdity of this whole thing.

This is why I accused you of acting in bad faith. Don't do that. If you want to have a discussion, state that. Don't come in all "Gee whiz guys, what's this white privilege I keep hearing so much about?"

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
White privilege is an acceptable racist term that can be openly talked about in the UN without fear of reprisal. Whites have earned the discrimination they receive because their life is easier than yours (if you aren't white). All other races should have a handicap advantage placed on them (standardization)(affirmative action).

It's dumb ideas like this that put the country in the state it is currently in. This will never lead to "healing". It actually makes things worse.

There is an inherent amount of racism ingrained in everyones instincts. People natural fear what is different from them. People naturally favor their own culture over others. This is the human condition. It's can't be corrected for.

No, this is a white right-winger's understanding of what "human nature" is. I posit that people don't naturally fear what is different from them, that "favouring their own culture over others" is meaningless and that all of this could very much be corrected for. How the hell did you think new culture was developed if people weren't accepting and if people weren't open to change?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Being of Irish ancestory I always found the term to be totally "white privileged" Ironic. Irish received serious bigotry and racism when they came to this country. Now look at them (us). It's the dominant heritage in the US. How did they do it? Well I will venture to say it wan't because they went around crying about "English Privilege".

What Irish-Americans did to become white was to join in on lynching black people. They agreed to enforce white supremacy and where therefore allowed into the club.

Incorrect, I’m centre left and I agree with his assessment but not completely, your last statement is racist in the extreme, just as bad as saying “All Black people are thieves” ... you should apologise.

If you believe that the natural state of humanity is fear for each other and that this can't be changed then you aren't any kind of left at all because the key aspect of that range of ideologies is that people are equal and should be free to become as they wish to be.

I am describing natural instincts. Things that are around from when we were apes. It is the natural state of things - it doesn't mean we have to fear each other. Just understand that it's totally normal for little discrimination to happen without people even noticing about it. OFC I am not dismissing that white children have a higher chance of success for a lot of factors. I just disagree with calling the term "white privilege" It is an extremely racist idea and it sends the wrong message all together. Educate people about the issues they might encounter in life and why - give them the tools of knowledge to help them break through the barriers.

Here is just an example . Oh something I heard about on the subject.
Imagine there is a manager looking through applications - quickly. He is unknowingly being prejudicial to any name he doesn't immediately recognize - it's not racist - he doesn't even know the race of the names he's looking at BUT - he still Tosses Shaniqua aside and picks Kimberly instead to look into.

So instead of crying white privilege. Maybe we should just educate parents when they name their children. "Heres a list of 5000 names that will make your child more successful" "heres a list of 500 names you shouldn't name your child". I don't want to hear any crap about "oh thats our culture" BS - that is you kicking yourself in the butt because this is just the way the world works.

This is just a tiny example. of one factor of "white privilege" which is really most of the time a cultural thing - having nothing to do with skin color. Even white families could doom their child with a name disadvantage. They just don't because they want their kids to be successful.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
White privilege is an acceptable racist term that can be openly talked about in the UN without fear of reprisal. Whites have earned the discrimination they receive because their life is easier than yours (if you aren't white). All other races should have a handicap advantage placed on them (standardization)(affirmative action).

It's dumb ideas like this that put the country in the state it is currently in. This will never lead to "healing". It actually makes things worse.

There is an inherent amount of racism ingrained in everyones instincts. People natural fear what is different from them. People naturally favor their own culture over others. This is the human condition. It's can't be corrected for.

No, this is a white right-winger's understanding of what "human nature" is. I posit that people don't naturally fear what is different from them, that "favouring their own culture over others" is meaningless and that all of this could very much be corrected for. How the hell did you think new culture was developed if people weren't accepting and if people weren't open to change?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Being of Irish ancestory I always found the term to be totally "white privileged" Ironic. Irish received serious bigotry and racism when they came to this country. Now look at them (us). It's the dominant heritage in the US. How did they do it? Well I will venture to say it wan't because they went around crying about "English Privilege".

What Irish-Americans did to become white was to join in on lynching black people. They agreed to enforce white supremacy and where therefore allowed into the club.

Incorrect, I’m centre left and I agree with his assessment but not completely, your last statement is racist in the extreme, just as bad as saying “All Black people are thieves” ... you should apologise.

If you believe that the natural state of humanity is fear for each other and that this can't be changed then you aren't any kind of left at all because the key aspect of that range of ideologies is that people are equal and should be free to become as they wish to be.

The fear of the unknown is part of our basic psychological makeup, this is a fact, through understanding and organic integration we learn to overcome this fear, to the point that it ceases to be a fear and is the norm, so yes I agree with his assessment but not completely.

And yes I’m centre left, but to someone as far left as you appear, we are all alt right, if your not one of us your part of the problem is something I see bandied around by the far left all the time, the sheer and utter refusal to see the world in shades of grey, rather than black and white like they see it.

I see I won't have to go to 4chan today as I can just read this thread.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
IDK if it's been tested, but it would not surprise me of there was more prejudice against non-anglo-saxon especially latin names in the USA than in Europe.

However all whites whether slavic, anglo-saxon or Italian have white privilege in circumstances where the key factor is whiteness rather than the pronunciation of their name.

What circumstances are the key factors whiteness? What do you mean by whiteness anyways. Are we talking about having a name that sound American?

 Ahtman wrote:
I see I won't have to go to 4chan today as I can just read this thread.

Is there dissenting voices on 4chan? I thought it was a circle jerk of disaffected little boys trying to out-egdelord one another. Sort of a 'through the mirror darkly" version of tumblr.

 Formosa wrote:
I read that article pol, it in no way refers to white privilege, do you have another ?

Umm... it was an article literally about how similar resumes got better results when the person had a strongly white name vs. a strongly black name. I cannot think of better evidence for white privilege than a field experiment showing that employers were more likely to call back white applicants than black ones.

 feeder wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I see I won't have to go to 4chan today as I can just read this thread.

Is there dissenting voices on 4chan? I thought it was a circle jerk of disaffected little boys trying to out-egdelord one another. Sort of a 'through the mirror darkly" version of tumblr.

I don't think I would call it dissenting as usually it comes up around things unrelated to the subject at hand. For example it may be a thread about Primaris Marine fluff and someone will start complaining about how white privilege doesn't exist or some other ill informed non-sense. Looking at the ill-informed nonsense happening here and the severe denial of it there is no reason to go there to see that at the moment. All we need now is someone to start using 'SJW' as a slam and the transformation to a 4chan thread will be almost complete.

 Polonius wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
I read that article pol, it in no way refers to white privilege, do you have another ?

Umm... it was an article literally about how similar resumes got better results when the person had a strongly white name vs. a strongly black name. I cannot think of better evidence for white privilege than a field experiment showing that employers were more likely to call back white applicants than black ones.

That’s not white privilege though, that’s not showing how white people have an advantage based solely on being white, if I had a “black” name then I would have been chinned off, it’s not a privilege thing, it’s a prejudism thing.

So do you have another example ?

 Formosa wrote:
So... change my mind.

Come on, Charlie Brown! She's not really going to pull it away at the last second this time!

 Formosa wrote:
That’s not white privilege though, that’s not showing how white people have an advantage based solely on being white, if I had a “black” name then I would have been chinned off, it’s not a privilege thing, it’s a prejudism thing.

So do you have another example ?

Are you honestly saying that people don't judge between white and black people, but people with white or black names?

And yes, if you had a black name you would be less likely to get a call back... because the employer would assume you were black.

The actual methodology involved controlling for names that were both common in either race, and strongly identified with that race.