|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 13 2015 19:10 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 13:31 Wegandi wrote:On May 13 2015 13:26 Yoav wrote:On May 13 2015 13:16 Wegandi wrote:
Check your privilege is incredibly racist towards all those poor white people that have none of this 'privilege' you speak of. Properly described, it encompasses all forms of privilege. Your idea that it is intrinsically racist is a disservice to the notion. Do tell what are these privileges poor Appalachian whites have that are exclusive to white folk? You know who needs some real help in this country? Native Americans. Now, there is some goddamn racism. Here you go. "White privilege" isn't an absolute but a relative notion. The point is that all other things being equal, being white is overall an advantage in our societies.
For people who decry racism that article screams racist to me. Privilege in her description describes folks ascribing positive emotions and/or some satisfaction that their 'race' is 'well-represented'. Who the hell cares about that except for racist people? Some poor guy or gal who has trouble putting food on the table doesn't give a hoot about any of that stuff she listed, nor any non-racist person. I don't care if you're black, white, green, alabaster, or crimson - best person fit for the bill should be the one chosen. Talking about color of skin as being proud of folks 'who built this civilization' is pretty hilarious considering our past history of slavery - but ok, whatever.
It doesn't even phase me that most of this crap is being taught on College Campus' to the self-loathers. I don't even understand what the point of the article is when she even comes out and saying that it's about awareness and not action. That makes little sense to me to believe in something and not even try to do anything about it, or perhaps it's because the things she makes out to be privilege are characteristics of demographics which mean diddly-squat, especially during a time where affirmative action exists.
It seems to me that all of those 'privileges' add up to only positives for racist people, lmao. What tangible privileges did she list? None.
•"I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time."
What a racist hoot.
|
On May 13 2015 19:24 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 19:10 kwizach wrote:On May 13 2015 13:31 Wegandi wrote:On May 13 2015 13:26 Yoav wrote:On May 13 2015 13:16 Wegandi wrote:
Check your privilege is incredibly racist towards all those poor white people that have none of this 'privilege' you speak of. Properly described, it encompasses all forms of privilege. Your idea that it is intrinsically racist is a disservice to the notion. Do tell what are these privileges poor Appalachian whites have that are exclusive to white folk? You know who needs some real help in this country? Native Americans. Now, there is some goddamn racism. Here you go. "White privilege" isn't an absolute but a relative notion. The point is that all other things being equal, being white is overall an advantage in our societies. For people who decry racism that article screams racist to me. Privilege in her description describes folks ascribing positive emotions and/or some satisfaction that their 'race' is 'well-represented'. Who the hell cares about that except for racist people? Some poor guy or gal who has trouble putting food on the table doesn't give a hoot about any of that stuff she listed, nor any non-racist person. I don't care if you're black, white, green, alabaster, or crimson - best person fit for the bill should be the one chosen. Talking about color of skin as being proud of folks 'who built this civilization' is pretty hilarious considering our past history of slavery - but ok, whatever. It doesn't even phase me that most of this crap is being taught on College Campus' to the self-loathers. I don't even understand what the point of the article is when she even comes out and saying that it's about awareness and not action. That makes little sense to me to believe in something and not even try to do anything about it, or perhaps it's because the things she makes out to be privilege are characteristics of demographics which mean diddly-squat, especially during a time where affirmative action exists. It seems to me that all of those 'privileges' add up to only positives for racist people, lmao. What tangible privileges did she list? None. Show nested quote +•"I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time." What a racist hoot.
As you can see, Kwizach, it is hopeless.
|
On May 13 2015 19:27 YoureFired wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 19:24 Wegandi wrote:On May 13 2015 19:10 kwizach wrote:On May 13 2015 13:31 Wegandi wrote:On May 13 2015 13:26 Yoav wrote:On May 13 2015 13:16 Wegandi wrote:
Check your privilege is incredibly racist towards all those poor white people that have none of this 'privilege' you speak of. Properly described, it encompasses all forms of privilege. Your idea that it is intrinsically racist is a disservice to the notion. Do tell what are these privileges poor Appalachian whites have that are exclusive to white folk? You know who needs some real help in this country? Native Americans. Now, there is some goddamn racism. Here you go. "White privilege" isn't an absolute but a relative notion. The point is that all other things being equal, being white is overall an advantage in our societies. For people who decry racism that article screams racist to me. Privilege in her description describes folks ascribing positive emotions and/or some satisfaction that their 'race' is 'well-represented'. Who the hell cares about that except for racist people? Some poor guy or gal who has trouble putting food on the table doesn't give a hoot about any of that stuff she listed, nor any non-racist person. I don't care if you're black, white, green, alabaster, or crimson - best person fit for the bill should be the one chosen. Talking about color of skin as being proud of folks 'who built this civilization' is pretty hilarious considering our past history of slavery - but ok, whatever. It doesn't even phase me that most of this crap is being taught on College Campus' to the self-loathers. I don't even understand what the point of the article is when she even comes out and saying that it's about awareness and not action. That makes little sense to me to believe in something and not even try to do anything about it, or perhaps it's because the things she makes out to be privilege are characteristics of demographics which mean diddly-squat, especially during a time where affirmative action exists. It seems to me that all of those 'privileges' add up to only positives for racist people, lmao. What tangible privileges did she list? None. •"I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time." What a racist hoot. As you can see, Kwizach, it is hopeless.
Better go hit the town with your fellow race-buddies. Might as well use that privilege! Quality of character? Psssh, who needs that - you're privileged and can hang out with fellow whities no matter how irritating they are. Ya! At least it affirms my all ready strong notion that the most racist folks and most intolerable folks are the ones who scream racist and intolerance the most. Should come out here to Hawai'i to check your privileges. You might find it hard to have to make non-white friends.
|
On May 13 2015 19:24 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 19:10 kwizach wrote:On May 13 2015 13:31 Wegandi wrote:On May 13 2015 13:26 Yoav wrote:On May 13 2015 13:16 Wegandi wrote:
Check your privilege is incredibly racist towards all those poor white people that have none of this 'privilege' you speak of. Properly described, it encompasses all forms of privilege. Your idea that it is intrinsically racist is a disservice to the notion. Do tell what are these privileges poor Appalachian whites have that are exclusive to white folk? You know who needs some real help in this country? Native Americans. Now, there is some goddamn racism. Here you go. "White privilege" isn't an absolute but a relative notion. The point is that all other things being equal, being white is overall an advantage in our societies. It seems to me that all of those 'privileges' add up to only positives for racist people, lmao. What tangible privileges did she list? None.
I thought it would be pretty easy to extrapolate from the few examples given once you understood the concept, but apparently not. Check out this other list for additionnal bullet points, then. Basically, white privilege means that as a white person you will not suffer from the kind of institutionalized/structural discriminations and obstacles that non-whites face.
|
On May 13 2015 19:36 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 19:27 YoureFired wrote:On May 13 2015 19:24 Wegandi wrote:On May 13 2015 19:10 kwizach wrote:On May 13 2015 13:31 Wegandi wrote:On May 13 2015 13:26 Yoav wrote:On May 13 2015 13:16 Wegandi wrote:
Check your privilege is incredibly racist towards all those poor white people that have none of this 'privilege' you speak of. Properly described, it encompasses all forms of privilege. Your idea that it is intrinsically racist is a disservice to the notion. Do tell what are these privileges poor Appalachian whites have that are exclusive to white folk? You know who needs some real help in this country? Native Americans. Now, there is some goddamn racism. Here you go. "White privilege" isn't an absolute but a relative notion. The point is that all other things being equal, being white is overall an advantage in our societies. For people who decry racism that article screams racist to me. Privilege in her description describes folks ascribing positive emotions and/or some satisfaction that their 'race' is 'well-represented'. Who the hell cares about that except for racist people? Some poor guy or gal who has trouble putting food on the table doesn't give a hoot about any of that stuff she listed, nor any non-racist person. I don't care if you're black, white, green, alabaster, or crimson - best person fit for the bill should be the one chosen. Talking about color of skin as being proud of folks 'who built this civilization' is pretty hilarious considering our past history of slavery - but ok, whatever. It doesn't even phase me that most of this crap is being taught on College Campus' to the self-loathers. I don't even understand what the point of the article is when she even comes out and saying that it's about awareness and not action. That makes little sense to me to believe in something and not even try to do anything about it, or perhaps it's because the things she makes out to be privilege are characteristics of demographics which mean diddly-squat, especially during a time where affirmative action exists. It seems to me that all of those 'privileges' add up to only positives for racist people, lmao. What tangible privileges did she list? None. •"I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time." What a racist hoot. As you can see, Kwizach, it is hopeless. Better go hit the town with your fellow race-buddies. Might as well use that privilege! Quality of character? Psssh, who needs that - you're privileged and can hang out with fellow whities no matter how irritating they are. Ya! At least it affirms my all ready strong notion that the most racist folks and most intolerable folks are the ones who scream racist and intolerance the most. Should come out here to Hawai'i to check your privileges. You might find it hard to have to make non-white friends.
lol... You're totally oblivious to how foolish you sound.
|
If the best you can find is an Article that just states, that People are being born and brought up in certain circumstances, with certain attributes will have it easier or harder in live, you might also just post a picture of captain obvious. So many words for such a small and easy to understand message. That article was just horrible.
It made me think more about how fucked up the US is at the „bottom“ of society than anything else (and that your Women seem to be in constant fear of being raped in parking lots).
Btw: This article from the same pages makes a similar point WAY better http://occupywallstreet.net/story/white-privilege-shapes-us
|
I'm not sure what article you're referring to. The two I posted were the first two google results, yours was the third one. They all introduce the concept in relatively simple terms, since Wegandi was apparently having a hard time understanding what you're describing as "obvious". If he's interested in reading more on the subject, he won't have much trouble finding sources.
|
He rejects the possibility at all that there could be social phenomena outside of personal responsibility. Ofc he rejects everything employing this concept.
|
How far we've slid back from acknowledging socioeconomic class as the primary driver of bias rather than race. It seems to me that education and culture are much more important to societal acceptance than the color of one's skin.
Bringing it back to the original issue, white cops killing black kids is not an example of institutional racism because they aren't ordered as a matter of policy to arrest and attack blacks. At worst, and it remains to be seen in the outcome of this latest case, it's just plain old racism.
|
On May 13 2015 22:41 coverpunch wrote:
How far we've slid back from acknowledging socioeconomic class as the primary driver of bias rather than race. It seems to me that education and culture are much more important to societal acceptance than the color of one's skin.
Bringing it back to the original issue, white cops killing black kids is not an example of institutional racism because they aren't ordered as a matter of policy to arrest and attack blacks. At worst, and it remains to be seen in the outcome of this latest case, it's just plain old racism.
it is institutional precisely because there are coverups, delayed and bungled investigations and every police officer can rest assured that he can act as racist as he wants without repercussion.
|
Yet all scientific evidence points towards race as being a non-factor for determining whether a police encounter will end violently. Guess what were the two most important ones? Socioeconomic status and geographical area (poor neighborhoods). That the investigations are happening as they are isn't because of racism. The same issues arise when it is a poor white person being shot. It is because of a rotten culture of the police.
|
On May 13 2015 23:08 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 22:41 coverpunch wrote:
How far we've slid back from acknowledging socioeconomic class as the primary driver of bias rather than race. It seems to me that education and culture are much more important to societal acceptance than the color of one's skin.
Bringing it back to the original issue, white cops killing black kids is not an example of institutional racism because they aren't ordered as a matter of policy to arrest and attack blacks. At worst, and it remains to be seen in the outcome of this latest case, it's just plain old racism. it is institutional precisely because there are coverups, delayed and bungled investigations and every police officer can rest assured that he can act as racist as he wants without repercussion.
I see this more as incompetence than I do as a wink and elbow endorsing their actions. We'll see what happens in Baltimore, but I wouldn't be surprised if Mosby turns out to be a moron too. She's clearly not trying to let the cops off.
|
On May 13 2015 23:21 Ghostcom wrote:
Yet all scientific evidence points towards race as being a non-factor for determining whether a police encounter will end violently. Guess what were the two most important ones? Socioeconomic status and geographical area (poor neighborhoods). That the investigations are happening as they are isn't because of racism. The same issues arise when it is a poor white person being shot. It is because of a rotten culture of the police.
Any source for this? I have to actually disagree here, I attend a college that happens to have a lot of cops and I've noticed that there seems to be some prejudice against blacks who act "thugish" primarily. Although this could just be my own personal experiences, but I have to say I've met quite a lot of cops here.
|
On May 13 2015 23:08 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 22:41 coverpunch wrote:
How far we've slid back from acknowledging socioeconomic class as the primary driver of bias rather than race. It seems to me that education and culture are much more important to societal acceptance than the color of one's skin.
Bringing it back to the original issue, white cops killing black kids is not an example of institutional racism because they aren't ordered as a matter of policy to arrest and attack blacks. At worst, and it remains to be seen in the outcome of this latest case, it's just plain old racism. it is institutional precisely because there are coverups, delayed and bungled investigations and every police officer can rest assured that he can act as racist as he wants without repercussion.
And why exactly are we still presuming that this is an issue of institutional racism as opposed to institutional brutality?
|
On May 13 2015 23:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 23:08 puerk wrote:On May 13 2015 22:41 coverpunch wrote:
How far we've slid back from acknowledging socioeconomic class as the primary driver of bias rather than race. It seems to me that education and culture are much more important to societal acceptance than the color of one's skin.
Bringing it back to the original issue, white cops killing black kids is not an example of institutional racism because they aren't ordered as a matter of policy to arrest and attack blacks. At worst, and it remains to be seen in the outcome of this latest case, it's just plain old racism. it is institutional precisely because there are coverups, delayed and bungled investigations and every police officer can rest assured that he can act as racist as he wants without repercussion. And why exactly are we still presuming that this is an issue of institutional racism as opposed to institutional brutality?
Because blacks get disproportionally singled out for stop and frisk and general controls. police just poke them more often which creates conflict, which because of very poor police training and 0 anti escalation policies in place, escalates much to often (and much to fast).
Just because there is a breakdown at 3 different stages of police work doesn't mean the racist reason for the first step of the chain is to be ignored.
|
On May 14 2015 00:04 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 23:55 xDaunt wrote:On May 13 2015 23:08 puerk wrote:On May 13 2015 22:41 coverpunch wrote:
How far we've slid back from acknowledging socioeconomic class as the primary driver of bias rather than race. It seems to me that education and culture are much more important to societal acceptance than the color of one's skin.
Bringing it back to the original issue, white cops killing black kids is not an example of institutional racism because they aren't ordered as a matter of policy to arrest and attack blacks. At worst, and it remains to be seen in the outcome of this latest case, it's just plain old racism. it is institutional precisely because there are coverups, delayed and bungled investigations and every police officer can rest assured that he can act as racist as he wants without repercussion. And why exactly are we still presuming that this is an issue of institutional racism as opposed to institutional brutality? Because blacks get disproportionally singled out for stop and frisk and general controls. police just poke them more often which creates conflict, which because of very poor police training and 0 anti escalation policies in place, escalates much to often (and much to fast). Just because there is a breakdown at 3 different stages of police work doesn't mean the racist reason for the first step of the chain is to be ignored.
And the fact that Baltimore and its police department are predominantly administered by black people doesn't matter in your analysis?
|
On May 13 2015 19:10 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 13:31 Wegandi wrote:On May 13 2015 13:26 Yoav wrote:On May 13 2015 13:16 Wegandi wrote:
Check your privilege is incredibly racist towards all those poor white people that have none of this 'privilege' you speak of. Properly described, it encompasses all forms of privilege. Your idea that it is intrinsically racist is a disservice to the notion. Do tell what are these privileges poor Appalachian whites have that are exclusive to white folk? You know who needs some real help in this country? Native Americans. Now, there is some goddamn racism. Here you go. "White privilege" isn't an absolute but a relative notion. The point is that all other things being equal, being white is overall an advantage in our societies compared to not being white.
I'm saying that the idea of "check your privilege" is supposed to be an exercise, not a theory. I'm an American-citizen, non-handicapped, who's relatively intelligent and attractive (if my gf is to be believed), as well as a white cis straight male who went to an elite college and got into Starcraft young enough to give a shit about RTS. I'm privileged in many ways, and I try to be aware of that. Checking my privilege is not assuming that other people have my advantages. It's not supposed to be about my feeling grievances at society for various things.
And yes, some privilege is contextual. I'm a mainline Protestant. That would be great running for president. It gets you all sorts of shit at college. My being white could be a disadvantage in some cases. It's an advantage in most situations I run into.
So the deal with the poor Appalachian whites is this: yes, in many ways they have little privilege. "Would a black person in the same position have more or less" is a question we could reasonably ask (hint: it's less), but it's ultimately irrelevant to the exercise unless you are a poor Appalachian white (or black). You're not, so for you what matter is what it means to be white in Hawaii, or the US generally. And it's overwhelmingly an advantage. From implicit bias tests to economic data, the answer is clear. I mean, I haven't looked at the data for Hawaii, but I'd bet good money that people who "look white" do better on most standard indicators.
|
On May 14 2015 00:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 00:04 puerk wrote:On May 13 2015 23:55 xDaunt wrote:On May 13 2015 23:08 puerk wrote:On May 13 2015 22:41 coverpunch wrote:
How far we've slid back from acknowledging socioeconomic class as the primary driver of bias rather than race. It seems to me that education and culture are much more important to societal acceptance than the color of one's skin.
Bringing it back to the original issue, white cops killing black kids is not an example of institutional racism because they aren't ordered as a matter of policy to arrest and attack blacks. At worst, and it remains to be seen in the outcome of this latest case, it's just plain old racism. it is institutional precisely because there are coverups, delayed and bungled investigations and every police officer can rest assured that he can act as racist as he wants without repercussion. And why exactly are we still presuming that this is an issue of institutional racism as opposed to institutional brutality? Because blacks get disproportionally singled out for stop and frisk and general controls. police just poke them more often which creates conflict, which because of very poor police training and 0 anti escalation policies in place, escalates much to often (and much to fast). Just because there is a breakdown at 3 different stages of police work doesn't mean the racist reason for the first step of the chain is to be ignored. And the fact that Baltimore and its police department are predominantly administered by black people doesn't matter in your analysis?
Well and Turkey had a female Prime Minister once, that doesn't mean that the country is more progressive than the US when it comes to women's rights. That some cities are administered by black people doesn't mean that those black people actually care about the problems of their black communities. It wouldn't be the first time in history that politicians don't really care about the poorest people in their communities, no matter what skin colour.
|
On May 13 2015 23:21 Ghostcom wrote:
Yet all scientific evidence points towards race as being a non-factor for determining whether a police encounter will end violently. Guess what were the two most important ones? Socioeconomic status and geographical area (poor neighborhoods). That the investigations are happening as they are isn't because of racism. The same issues arise when it is a poor white person being shot. It is because of a rotten culture of the police.
Sadly, police reforms take second seat to the racism political machine. It could be police brutality, negligence, a wide coalition for reform. It shifts to police brutality against blacks, negligence against blacks, and the common voices (e.g. Al Sharpton) lose the momentum with their inane comments. If you think there's widespread abuse of power, that worst thing you can do is tell 'ol whitie his opinion and voice aren't needed ... that his white privilege and own subtle racism is entirely a part of the problem.
|
On May 14 2015 00:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 00:04 puerk wrote:On May 13 2015 23:55 xDaunt wrote:On May 13 2015 23:08 puerk wrote:On May 13 2015 22:41 coverpunch wrote:
How far we've slid back from acknowledging socioeconomic class as the primary driver of bias rather than race. It seems to me that education and culture are much more important to societal acceptance than the color of one's skin.
Bringing it back to the original issue, white cops killing black kids is not an example of institutional racism because they aren't ordered as a matter of policy to arrest and attack blacks. At worst, and it remains to be seen in the outcome of this latest case, it's just plain old racism. it is institutional precisely because there are coverups, delayed and bungled investigations and every police officer can rest assured that he can act as racist as he wants without repercussion. And why exactly are we still presuming that this is an issue of institutional racism as opposed to institutional brutality? Because blacks get disproportionally singled out for stop and frisk and general controls. police just poke them more often which creates conflict, which because of very poor police training and 0 anti escalation policies in place, escalates much to often (and much to fast). Just because there is a breakdown at 3 different stages of police work doesn't mean the racist reason for the first step of the chain is to be ignored. And the fact that Baltimore and its police department are predominantly administered by black people doesn't matter in your analysis?
This is the single stupidest question I keep hearing about Baltimore. I can't understand how someone could be so mind-numbingly ignorant about racism. (After having been told several times how stupid of a question that is)
On May 14 2015 01:44 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 23:21 Ghostcom wrote:
Yet all scientific evidence points towards race as being a non-factor for determining whether a police encounter will end violently. Guess what were the two most important ones? Socioeconomic status and geographical area (poor neighborhoods). That the investigations are happening as they are isn't because of racism. The same issues arise when it is a poor white person being shot. It is because of a rotten culture of the police. Sadly, police reforms take second seat to the racism political machine. It could be police brutality, negligence, a wide coalition for reform. It shifts to police brutality against blacks, negligence against blacks, and the common voices (e.g. Al Sharpton) lose the momentum with their inane comments. If you think there's widespread abuse of power, that worst thing you can do is tell 'ol whitie his opinion and voice aren't needed ... that his white privilege and own subtle racism is entirely a part of the problem.
Quit crying and sack up. So some people care more about the disproportionate policing against black people, some people care more about generic police brutality, some no-knock warrants, some on 4th amendment violations, etc...
Who gives a shit? It's way fucked up, pick what you care about and just ignore the racial aspect if you really want. But don't act like a 5 year old and take your ball and go home because someone says something you don't like.
I've heard the "well they don't talk about their abuse how I want them to, so it's their fault I'm oblivious" mentality repeated more than once here. It's pathetic. If you can't work towards change because people say things you disagree with just gtfo of the way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
