|
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 November 08 2016 08:31 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 08:19 WhiteDog wrote:On November 08 2016 08:15 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2016 08:04 WhiteDog wrote:On November 08 2016 08:02 KwarK wrote:On November 08 2016 07:58 WhiteDog wrote:
I'm educated enough to know that saying all "men" or all "white" have "priviledge" in today's world is stupid as hell - do you even know half the people considered poor in the US are white ? WhiteDog, if you insist upon telling us all that you're so educated that you know all about privilege you could at least learn to spell the word. Normally I'm fine with people spelling words how they please but normally they don't get it wrong while midrant about how educated they are and how well they understand the word in question. You've gotten quite low to actually care about the way I spell words. I always have trouble with words that exist in french with different spelling, sorry. Now you can try to argue something rather than doing the teacher. Whitedog: I didn't say you couldn't talk about them. I said don't expect anyone to give a fuck. Seriously, your expert opinion on the experience of black people or women in modern life is about as valuable as mine opinion on economic theory. Novice at best, completely uninformed at worst. It's just a stupid assertion. What basis do you have for that ? Just saying, we were talking about "whitesplaining" not "blacksplaining". We are not talking about the discrimination that black sufffer, which exist, but about the possible unity of the category "white" which I disagree with. If you are asking this question, you failed to understand the basic point I was attempting to make about different life experiences and how they inform my discussions about racism. I'm not going to re-explain it to you for the 3 or 5th time, so just go back and re-read what I wrote before. You're always responding to me with "subjectivity" : so "privilege" is a "life experience" and a way to "inform discussion on racism". Meanwhile, I'm asking you to do a real sociological work : show me the objective existence of the group "white" from a socio-economical perspective in the US today, and not from a "subjective" standpoint. That's scientific work, objectifying things. Are you suggesting that the only worthwhile social work is that which attempts to be scientific? I can sympathize with being antagonistic towards non-analytical approaches to the social sciences, but you seem to be running too far in that direction. Drop the word games surrounding the word "privilege"; the meaning and utility of the underlying concept, namely that society loosely confers a tacit level of inherent acceptance upon certain demographics given particular circumstances (yes, that's a loose and vague definition), cannot be shooed away simply because it does not lend itself to scientific analysis. And while you're right to point out that "whiteness" as an isolated indicator of privilege leaves much to be desired, it'd be a mistake to isolate and ignore race when discussing class issues here in the US. A lot of the juiciest stuff in the social sciences is that which most directly challenges the propriety of "science" as a categorical descriptor anyhow 
Of course many actual good works in social science comes from qualitative work, and social sciences are not sciences like physics or even biology. The problem is when you impose the existence of a category (here "white", a racial category) with such things as "privilege" or specific types of behavior (mansplaining) : you're not talking about lose things that benefit from qualitative work, but actual practice that can be evaluated statistically.
And, even if social science are not "falsifiable" science, they are still science : it's still a work, with "methods" (undefined, with no better methods than others of course). Which is why I used the term "objectify" : it's not just description.
What I heavily dislike in the US, from where I stand, is the fact that everybody accepted the idea that race (skin color actually) define one's existence, which is both true to some degree (negatively for black people and even mexican, altho less), but very detrimental in the long run.
The idea that all white belong to the same statistical category, have the same behavior and the same experience infuriates me considering the number of poor white people that exist in the US (way less in % of course ! but huge in absolute) : it's the best trick history found that actually prevent any kind of solidarity between poor people despite their skin color. And it's actually a huge ignorance of social science, that enlighted real recurrence in the practice of specific social class (Bourdieu's work), that enlighted the actual discrimination black suffers, or even the existence of status (and white is a status to some degree, sure, but not one that give definite privilege or practice to the entire group of "white" whatever its socioeconomic background).
It's the same for "men" : a poor men does not have much privilege over a rich woman. So I question the pertinence of "mansplaining", considering that even a rich woman can use the term to disqualify what a poor man has to say.
Just to be clear : I'm well aware of the discrimination against black in the US. I'm not talking about that at all.
On November 08 2016 08:42 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 08:28 WhiteDog wrote:On November 08 2016 08:26 Nevuk wrote:On November 08 2016 08:24 WhiteDog wrote:
Then give me data : where are the data on privilege ? What's a white privilege ? Show me something that all white people have that non white people have not ? Should be obvious since everybody here seems to consider it to be obvious.
I can show you tons of data on the actual discrimination that all black people face, whatever their socio economic background. Without any diifficulties. Criminal incarceration rates You're saying poor white kids have less chance to go to prison than asian kids ? Or mexican kids ? Or are you comparing with the obvious black kids, and thus actually observing the discrimination against back kids and not the "privilege" white kids supposedly have ? Right, that is what I'm saying. The issue is actually worse in supposedly more diverse areas iirc. I couldn't find the stats for Asian incarceration in a 2 minute google search, but from the 2010 census these are the incarceration numbers for the other major groups (note the per 100,000 numbers) : ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vRT2I5G.png) http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/rates.html
Thank you because you give me the opportunity to show what it is to be mislead :
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bzNru06.png)
https://www.amacad.org/content/publications/pubContent.aspx?d=808
As you see, the incarceration rate of white college dropout is not inferior to latino college drop outs : education is more pertinent to explain incarceration rate of young people than race here (not for black obviously).
On November 08 2016 08:44 TheDwf wrote:
You can give up, French left-wingers with a marxist background are culturally programmed to reject that kind of concept (Xsplaining, privileges). Their motto: “All I see is class!”
Stupid. How about you try to argue rather than put me in a category ?
|
On November 08 2016 08:44 TheDwf wrote:
You can give up, French left-wingers with a marxist background are culturally programmed to reject that kind of concept (Xsplaining, privileges). Their motto: “All I see is class!”
White is more of a class than a race in america though. That's why this is kind of an absurd argument. (The way certain minorities, most visibly the Irish, have gotten reclassified as white makes it really hard to argue that it's just referring to race).
btw : I can totally see some hispanics getting reclassified as white (the FBI crime statistics actually already do this a lot of the time) in like 60-70 years.
|
On November 08 2016 08:28 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 08:26 Nevuk wrote:On November 08 2016 08:24 WhiteDog wrote:
Then give me data : where are the data on privilege ? What's a white privilege ? Show me something that all white people have that non white people have not ? Should be obvious since everybody here seems to consider it to be obvious.
I can show you tons of data on the actual discrimination that all black people face, whatever their socio economic background. Without any diifficulties. Criminal incarceration rates You're saying poor white kids have less chance to go to prison than asian kids ? Or mexican kids ? Or are you comparing with the obvious black kids, and thus actually observing the discrimination against back kids and not the "privilege" white kids supposedly have ? Show nested quote +Number of CEO, senators, and any other position of power. Hollywood as a whole. The tech industry. Television comedy. Comics. Cable news broadcasters. social class, social class, social class, social class, etc. Most (if not all) of the white you see on TV comes from favored socio economic background : it's not their "whiteness" that is at the core of their "privilege". Pretty obvious for senator, there's no son of unemployed as senator, trust me.
Hey, I'm actually reading a book about this very topic right now. It's called Uprooting Racism: How White People Can Work for Racial Justice. Here's a relevant excerpt:
Page 31
Privileges are the economic extras that those of us who are middle-class and wealthy gain at the expense of poor and working-class people of all races. Benefits, on the other hand, are the advantages that all white people gain at the expense of people of color regardless of economic position. Talk about racial benefits can ring false to many of us who don't have the economic privileges that we see others in this society enjoying. But through we don't have substantial economic privileges, we do enjoy many of the benefits of being white.
We can generally count on police protection rather than harassment. Depending on our financial situation, we can choose where we want to live and choose safer neighborhoods with better schools. We are given more attention, respect, and status in conversations than people of color. Nothing that we do is qualified, limited, discredited or acclaimed simply because of our racial background. We don't have to represent our race, and nothing we do is judged as a credit to our race or as confirmation of its shortcomings or inferiority.
These benefits start early. Others will have higher expectations for us as children, both at home and at school. We will have more money spent on our education, we will be called on more in school and given more opportunity and resources to learn. We will see people like us in textbooks. If we get into trouble, adults will expect us to be able to change and improve and therefore will discipline or penalize us less harshly than children of color.
I think the topic is often argued with a disconnection in terminology. The book goes on to talk about more specific examples of how benefits begin to translate into privileges. I highly recommend it.
|
I highly recommend visiting a white trash family in a trailer park and talking to them before trusting a textbook telling you that they supposedly can count on police protection rather than harassment. But then again, that's just my lived experience and I recognize that it is nothing more than an anecdote and anecdotal evidence is shit-tier.
|
To me, what you quoted feels like rhetoric. Most of the "privilege" and "benefits" white people supposedly have collectively is the fact that they do not suffer the discrimination that black suffer. It's not a privilege to me.
|
United States41995 Posts
On November 08 2016 09:02 Ghostcom wrote:
I highly recommend visiting a white trash family in a trailer park and talking to them before trusting a textbook telling you that they supposedly can count on police protection rather than harassment. But then again, that's just my lived experience and I recognize that it is nothing more than an anecdote and anecdotal evidence is shit-tier.
Hi,
The concept of privilege is not disproved by individual exceptions as it refers to broad sociological trends and not to the specific outcomes of individuals.
Thanks.
|
On November 08 2016 09:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 09:02 Ghostcom wrote:
I highly recommend visiting a white trash family in a trailer park and talking to them before trusting a textbook telling you that they supposedly can count on police protection rather than harassment. But then again, that's just my lived experience and I recognize that it is nothing more than an anecdote and anecdotal evidence is shit-tier. Hi, The concept of privilege is not disproved by individual exceptions as it refers to broad sociological trends and not to the specific outcomes of individuals. Thanks.
Hi, broad sociological trends are objectified through statistics : social sciences are always probabilists, individual cases never disproved anything (it's not a falsifiable science).
|
EDIT: Nope, this is dumb. Not going to participate.
|
On November 08 2016 08:49 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 08:31 farvacola wrote:On November 08 2016 08:19 WhiteDog wrote:On November 08 2016 08:15 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2016 08:04 WhiteDog wrote:On November 08 2016 08:02 KwarK wrote:On November 08 2016 07:58 WhiteDog wrote:
I'm educated enough to know that saying all "men" or all "white" have "priviledge" in today's world is stupid as hell - do you even know half the people considered poor in the US are white ? WhiteDog, if you insist upon telling us all that you're so educated that you know all about privilege you could at least learn to spell the word. Normally I'm fine with people spelling words how they please but normally they don't get it wrong while midrant about how educated they are and how well they understand the word in question. You've gotten quite low to actually care about the way I spell words. I always have trouble with words that exist in french with different spelling, sorry. Now you can try to argue something rather than doing the teacher. Whitedog: I didn't say you couldn't talk about them. I said don't expect anyone to give a fuck. Seriously, your expert opinion on the experience of black people or women in modern life is about as valuable as mine opinion on economic theory. Novice at best, completely uninformed at worst. It's just a stupid assertion. What basis do you have for that ? Just saying, we were talking about "whitesplaining" not "blacksplaining". We are not talking about the discrimination that black sufffer, which exist, but about the possible unity of the category "white" which I disagree with. If you are asking this question, you failed to understand the basic point I was attempting to make about different life experiences and how they inform my discussions about racism. I'm not going to re-explain it to you for the 3 or 5th time, so just go back and re-read what I wrote before. You're always responding to me with "subjectivity" : so "privilege" is a "life experience" and a way to "inform discussion on racism". Meanwhile, I'm asking you to do a real sociological work : show me the objective existence of the group "white" from a socio-economical perspective in the US today, and not from a "subjective" standpoint. That's scientific work, objectifying things. Are you suggesting that the only worthwhile social work is that which attempts to be scientific? I can sympathize with being antagonistic towards non-analytical approaches to the social sciences, but you seem to be running too far in that direction. Drop the word games surrounding the word "privilege"; the meaning and utility of the underlying concept, namely that society loosely confers a tacit level of inherent acceptance upon certain demographics given particular circumstances (yes, that's a loose and vague definition), cannot be shooed away simply because it does not lend itself to scientific analysis. And while you're right to point out that "whiteness" as an isolated indicator of privilege leaves much to be desired, it'd be a mistake to isolate and ignore race when discussing class issues here in the US. A lot of the juiciest stuff in the social sciences is that which most directly challenges the propriety of "science" as a categorical descriptor anyhow Of course many actual good works in social science comes from qualitative work, and social sciences are not sciences like physics or even biology. The problem is when you impose the existence of a category (here "white", a racial category) with such things as "privilege" or specific types of behavior (mansplaining) : you're not talking about lose things that benefit from qualitative work, but actual practice that can be evaluated statistically. And, even if social science are not "falsifiable" science, they are still science : it's still a work, with "methods" (undefined, with no better methods than others of course). Which is why I used the term "objectify" : it's not just description. What I heavily dislike in the US, from where I stand, is the fact that everybody accepted the idea that race (skin color actually) define one's existence, which is both true to some degree (negatively for black people and even mexican, altho less), but very detrimental in the long run. The idea that all white belong to the same statistical category, have the same behavior and the same experience* infuriates me considering the number of poor white people that exist in the US (way less in % of course ! but huge in absolute) : it's the best trick history found that actually prevent any kind of solidarity between poor people despite their skin color. And it's actually a huge ignorance of social science, that enlighted real recurrence in the practice of specific social class (Bourdieu's work), that enlighted the actual discrimination black suffers, or even the existence of status (and white is a status to some degree, sure, but not one that give definite privilege or practice to the entire group of "white" whatever its socioeconomic background). It's the same for "men" : a poor men does not have much privilege over a rich woman. So I question the pertinence of "mansplaining", considering that even a rich woman can use the term to disqualify what a poor man has to say. Just to be clear : I'm well aware of the discrimination against black in the US. I'm not talking about that at all.
*Said no one, ever. How can you fail to understand that given that it functions exactly like social classes? Is a billionnaire capitalist the same as the small owner of a familial business? No, but technically they still belong to the same class (if you divide the society in only two classes). They're not identical, of course, but they have a common condition. That's exactly the same thing for being white. Of course you can always (re)introduce other differences after that: class, religion, gender, sexuality, age, area... But when you want to focus about race, it makes sense to (temporarily) leave out other parameters; though most of the approaches I came across are actually intersectional (e. g. studying the cross effects of class, gender and race).
Oh, and the “best trick history found to prevent any kind of solidarity between poor people despite their skin color” is certainly not the (possibly flawed) conceptualization of a phenomenon... It's racism.
|
United States41995 Posts
On November 08 2016 09:06 Ghostcom wrote:
EDIT: Nope, this is dumb. Not going to participate.
All I did was explain that the concept of privilege does not attempt to predict the outcomes for individuals because you seemed to be confused on that point. I'm not trying to mess with you, I'm trying to explain something that you clearly don't understand.
|
White privilege is definitely a thing for sure. That being said the people that bring it up either come across as really whiny or smug self hating types that usually bring eye rolls out of people instead of sympathy. There must be a better way.
|
On November 08 2016 08:09 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 08:03 Gorsameth wrote:On November 08 2016 07:10 LegalLord wrote:
The Trump Republicans aren't going anywhere. People may want to dump Trump but he turned out to be widely popular with a large enough part of the base to win the nomination. This is the bit I will remember the most after the election I think. Trump is not the scary part, yes he is imo a terrible human being but he is only 1 person. The fact that some 40% of the US population is ok with his statements is what scares me. Trump has shown that you can publicly say the most disturbing and insane things and a large part of the population is perfectly fine with it and I think its going to drag down the level of political discourse in the US for many elections to come. Trump has shown America you can be a racist/misogynist/bigot and compulsive liar and be proud of it. Idk if you saw that american come back vid, but Trump really isn't a horrible human being. Lot of his workers have similar stories, and someone who is so wealthy taking time to treat lowly workers with respect shows character. He's brash, not well spoken and is very impulsive, but there's far worse people out there.
if he was found guilty of rape in a court of law, would that be sufficient to consider him a horrible human being?
note the "IF"
most people, regardless good or bad on the whole, have done a number of individual deeds that are good, and some that are bad.
|
On November 08 2016 09:02 Ghostcom wrote:
I highly recommend visiting a white trash family in a trailer park and talking to them before trusting a textbook telling you that they supposedly can count on police protection rather than harassment. But then again, that's just my lived experience and I recognize that it is nothing more than an anecdote and anecdotal evidence is shit-tier.
I fully expect that they would be in a better position vis-a-vis police protection than a black family would be in a similar position.
I don't think that any of the concepts being discussed here necessarily entail that all white people are treated better than all people of colour.
|
On November 08 2016 09:02 Ghostcom wrote:
I highly recommend visiting a white trash family in a trailer park and talking to them before trusting a textbook telling you that they supposedly can count on police protection rather than harassment. But then again, that's just my lived experience and I recognize that it is nothing more than an anecdote and anecdotal evidence is shit-tier.
The sentence does say, “We can generally count on police protection rather than harassment.” It's a macro perspective.
|
On November 08 2016 09:07 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 08:49 WhiteDog wrote:On November 08 2016 08:31 farvacola wrote:On November 08 2016 08:19 WhiteDog wrote:On November 08 2016 08:15 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2016 08:04 WhiteDog wrote:On November 08 2016 08:02 KwarK wrote:On November 08 2016 07:58 WhiteDog wrote:
I'm educated enough to know that saying all "men" or all "white" have "priviledge" in today's world is stupid as hell - do you even know half the people considered poor in the US are white ? WhiteDog, if you insist upon telling us all that you're so educated that you know all about privilege you could at least learn to spell the word. Normally I'm fine with people spelling words how they please but normally they don't get it wrong while midrant about how educated they are and how well they understand the word in question. You've gotten quite low to actually care about the way I spell words. I always have trouble with words that exist in french with different spelling, sorry. Now you can try to argue something rather than doing the teacher. Whitedog: I didn't say you couldn't talk about them. I said don't expect anyone to give a fuck. Seriously, your expert opinion on the experience of black people or women in modern life is about as valuable as mine opinion on economic theory. Novice at best, completely uninformed at worst. It's just a stupid assertion. What basis do you have for that ? Just saying, we were talking about "whitesplaining" not "blacksplaining". We are not talking about the discrimination that black sufffer, which exist, but about the possible unity of the category "white" which I disagree with. If you are asking this question, you failed to understand the basic point I was attempting to make about different life experiences and how they inform my discussions about racism. I'm not going to re-explain it to you for the 3 or 5th time, so just go back and re-read what I wrote before. You're always responding to me with "subjectivity" : so "privilege" is a "life experience" and a way to "inform discussion on racism". Meanwhile, I'm asking you to do a real sociological work : show me the objective existence of the group "white" from a socio-economical perspective in the US today, and not from a "subjective" standpoint. That's scientific work, objectifying things. Are you suggesting that the only worthwhile social work is that which attempts to be scientific? I can sympathize with being antagonistic towards non-analytical approaches to the social sciences, but you seem to be running too far in that direction. Drop the word games surrounding the word "privilege"; the meaning and utility of the underlying concept, namely that society loosely confers a tacit level of inherent acceptance upon certain demographics given particular circumstances (yes, that's a loose and vague definition), cannot be shooed away simply because it does not lend itself to scientific analysis. And while you're right to point out that "whiteness" as an isolated indicator of privilege leaves much to be desired, it'd be a mistake to isolate and ignore race when discussing class issues here in the US. A lot of the juiciest stuff in the social sciences is that which most directly challenges the propriety of "science" as a categorical descriptor anyhow Of course many actual good works in social science comes from qualitative work, and social sciences are not sciences like physics or even biology. The problem is when you impose the existence of a category (here "white", a racial category) with such things as "privilege" or specific types of behavior (mansplaining) : you're not talking about lose things that benefit from qualitative work, but actual practice that can be evaluated statistically. And, even if social science are not "falsifiable" science, they are still science : it's still a work, with "methods" (undefined, with no better methods than others of course). Which is why I used the term "objectify" : it's not just description. What I heavily dislike in the US, from where I stand, is the fact that everybody accepted the idea that race (skin color actually) define one's existence, which is both true to some degree (negatively for black people and even mexican, altho less), but very detrimental in the long run. The idea that all white belong to the same statistical category, have the same behavior and the same experience* infuriates me considering the number of poor white people that exist in the US (way less in % of course ! but huge in absolute) : it's the best trick history found that actually prevent any kind of solidarity between poor people despite their skin color. And it's actually a huge ignorance of social science, that enlighted real recurrence in the practice of specific social class (Bourdieu's work), that enlighted the actual discrimination black suffers, or even the existence of status (and white is a status to some degree, sure, but not one that give definite privilege or practice to the entire group of "white" whatever its socioeconomic background). It's the same for "men" : a poor men does not have much privilege over a rich woman. So I question the pertinence of "mansplaining", considering that even a rich woman can use the term to disqualify what a poor man has to say. Just to be clear : I'm well aware of the discrimination against black in the US. I'm not talking about that at all. *Said no one, ever. How can you fail to understand that given that it functions exactly like social classes? Is a billionnaire capitalist the same as the small owner of a familial business? No, but technically they still belong to the same class (if you divide the society in only two classes). They're not identical, of course, but they have a common condition. That's exactly the same things for being white. Of course you can always (re)introduce other differences after that: class, religion, gender, sexuality, age, area... But when you want to focus about race, it makes sense to (temporarily) leave out other parameters; though most of the approaches I came across are actually intersectional (e. g. studying the cross effects of class, gender and race). Oh, and the “best trick history found to prevent any kind of solidarity between poor people despite their skin color” is certainly not the (possibly flawed) conceptualization of a phenomenon... It's racism.
First year sociology students giving me all the bullshit I don't care about. Black people have common behaviors, a common condition and common experience. Durkheim and even Weber showed specific religions have common practice and tastes : only marxists believe only social class are valid social groups with common practice and behavior.
I'm specifically questionning the pertinence of the category white, not the idea that non class groups can have common practice / taste / experience.
Blur intersectionality. You've read a book on gender ?
I'll give you a definition of racism : the assignation of someone to its skin color. So yeah, that's exactly what I am talking about. Sorry I didn't write the term, it would have helped maybe.
On November 08 2016 09:11 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 09:02 Ghostcom wrote:
I highly recommend visiting a white trash family in a trailer park and talking to them before trusting a textbook telling you that they supposedly can count on police protection rather than harassment. But then again, that's just my lived experience and I recognize that it is nothing more than an anecdote and anecdotal evidence is shit-tier. The sentence does say, “We can generally count on police protection rather than harassment.” It's a macro perspective.
A macro perspective without actual data.
I think I can see the point you're trying to make... but I am pretty sure that a randomly selected person is more likely to be from a higher social class if they are white than if they are a person of colour.
I totally agree with this Aquarius. Funnily enough, if you randomly select a poor person, you will have a high chance to pick a white too. The nominal category "white" is more favored than the nominal category "black", doesn't mean that a poor white necessarily have common behavior / experience / condition with a rich white. It's two different things.
|
On November 08 2016 09:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 09:06 Ghostcom wrote:
EDIT: Nope, this is dumb. Not going to participate. All I did was explain that the concept of privilege does not attempt to predict the outcomes for individuals because you seemed to be confused on that point. I'm not trying to mess with you, I'm trying to explain something that you clearly don't understand.
All you did was to dissuade me from engaging in the discussion because of your usual piss-poor attitude - and your recent posting has been directly undermining what TOFU tried to do with the otherwise promising recent line of moderation. You were so eager to make your shitty post that you didn't even understood what my objection was against (hint: it wasn't the description of privilege). But I will thank you for once again reminding me of a crucial rule of browsing the internet and thus I will step away from this thread.
|
On November 08 2016 09:11 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 09:02 Ghostcom wrote:
I highly recommend visiting a white trash family in a trailer park and talking to them before trusting a textbook telling you that they supposedly can count on police protection rather than harassment. But then again, that's just my lived experience and I recognize that it is nothing more than an anecdote and anecdotal evidence is shit-tier. The sentence does say, “We can generally count on police protection rather than harassment.” It's a macro perspective.
In my experience people often ignore words like "generally" and "usually" and just jump to the conclusion that ALL was actually stated. Then come at you with a random anecdote or outlier as if you didn't specifically qualify your statement. It's a huge pet peeve honestly.
|
On November 08 2016 08:09 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 08:03 Gorsameth wrote:On November 08 2016 07:10 LegalLord wrote:
The Trump Republicans aren't going anywhere. People may want to dump Trump but he turned out to be widely popular with a large enough part of the base to win the nomination. This is the bit I will remember the most after the election I think. Trump is not the scary part, yes he is imo a terrible human being but he is only 1 person. The fact that some 40% of the US population is ok with his statements is what scares me. Trump has shown that you can publicly say the most disturbing and insane things and a large part of the population is perfectly fine with it and I think its going to drag down the level of political discourse in the US for many elections to come. Trump has shown America you can be a racist/misogynist/bigot and compulsive liar and be proud of it. Idk if you saw that american come back vid, but Trump really isn't a horrible human being. Lot of his workers have similar stories, and someone who is so wealthy taking time to treat lowly workers with respect shows character. He's brash, not well spoken and is very impulsive, but there's far worse people out there.
Respect such as not paying them for their work?
|
On November 08 2016 09:14 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 09:07 TheDwf wrote:On November 08 2016 08:49 WhiteDog wrote:On November 08 2016 08:31 farvacola wrote:On November 08 2016 08:19 WhiteDog wrote:On November 08 2016 08:15 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2016 08:04 WhiteDog wrote:On November 08 2016 08:02 KwarK wrote:On November 08 2016 07:58 WhiteDog wrote:
I'm educated enough to know that saying all "men" or all "white" have "priviledge" in today's world is stupid as hell - do you even know half the people considered poor in the US are white ? WhiteDog, if you insist upon telling us all that you're so educated that you know all about privilege you could at least learn to spell the word. Normally I'm fine with people spelling words how they please but normally they don't get it wrong while midrant about how educated they are and how well they understand the word in question. You've gotten quite low to actually care about the way I spell words. I always have trouble with words that exist in french with different spelling, sorry. Now you can try to argue something rather than doing the teacher. Whitedog: I didn't say you couldn't talk about them. I said don't expect anyone to give a fuck. Seriously, your expert opinion on the experience of black people or women in modern life is about as valuable as mine opinion on economic theory. Novice at best, completely uninformed at worst. It's just a stupid assertion. What basis do you have for that ? Just saying, we were talking about "whitesplaining" not "blacksplaining". We are not talking about the discrimination that black sufffer, which exist, but about the possible unity of the category "white" which I disagree with. If you are asking this question, you failed to understand the basic point I was attempting to make about different life experiences and how they inform my discussions about racism. I'm not going to re-explain it to you for the 3 or 5th time, so just go back and re-read what I wrote before. You're always responding to me with "subjectivity" : so "privilege" is a "life experience" and a way to "inform discussion on racism". Meanwhile, I'm asking you to do a real sociological work : show me the objective existence of the group "white" from a socio-economical perspective in the US today, and not from a "subjective" standpoint. That's scientific work, objectifying things. Are you suggesting that the only worthwhile social work is that which attempts to be scientific? I can sympathize with being antagonistic towards non-analytical approaches to the social sciences, but you seem to be running too far in that direction. Drop the word games surrounding the word "privilege"; the meaning and utility of the underlying concept, namely that society loosely confers a tacit level of inherent acceptance upon certain demographics given particular circumstances (yes, that's a loose and vague definition), cannot be shooed away simply because it does not lend itself to scientific analysis. And while you're right to point out that "whiteness" as an isolated indicator of privilege leaves much to be desired, it'd be a mistake to isolate and ignore race when discussing class issues here in the US. A lot of the juiciest stuff in the social sciences is that which most directly challenges the propriety of "science" as a categorical descriptor anyhow Of course many actual good works in social science comes from qualitative work, and social sciences are not sciences like physics or even biology. The problem is when you impose the existence of a category (here "white", a racial category) with such things as "privilege" or specific types of behavior (mansplaining) : you're not talking about lose things that benefit from qualitative work, but actual practice that can be evaluated statistically. And, even if social science are not "falsifiable" science, they are still science : it's still a work, with "methods" (undefined, with no better methods than others of course). Which is why I used the term "objectify" : it's not just description. What I heavily dislike in the US, from where I stand, is the fact that everybody accepted the idea that race (skin color actually) define one's existence, which is both true to some degree (negatively for black people and even mexican, altho less), but very detrimental in the long run. The idea that all white belong to the same statistical category, have the same behavior and the same experience* infuriates me considering the number of poor white people that exist in the US (way less in % of course ! but huge in absolute) : it's the best trick history found that actually prevent any kind of solidarity between poor people despite their skin color. And it's actually a huge ignorance of social science, that enlighted real recurrence in the practice of specific social class (Bourdieu's work), that enlighted the actual discrimination black suffers, or even the existence of status (and white is a status to some degree, sure, but not one that give definite privilege or practice to the entire group of "white" whatever its socioeconomic background). It's the same for "men" : a poor men does not have much privilege over a rich woman. So I question the pertinence of "mansplaining", considering that even a rich woman can use the term to disqualify what a poor man has to say. Just to be clear : I'm well aware of the discrimination against black in the US. I'm not talking about that at all. *Said no one, ever. How can you fail to understand that given that it functions exactly like social classes? Is a billionnaire capitalist the same as the small owner of a familial business? No, but technically they still belong to the same class (if you divide the society in only two classes). They're not identical, of course, but they have a common condition. That's exactly the same things for being white. Of course you can always (re)introduce other differences after that: class, religion, gender, sexuality, age, area... But when you want to focus about race, it makes sense to (temporarily) leave out other parameters; though most of the approaches I came across are actually intersectional (e. g. studying the cross effects of class, gender and race). Oh, and the “best trick history found to prevent any kind of solidarity between poor people despite their skin color” is certainly not the (possibly flawed) conceptualization of a phenomenon... It's racism. First year sociology students giving me all the bullshit I don't care about. Black people have common behaviors and common experience. Durkheim and even Weber showed specific religions have common practice and tastes : only marxist believe only social class have common practice and behavior. I'm specifically questionning the pertinence of the category white, not the idea that non class group can have common practice / taste / experience. Blur intersectionality. You've read a book on gender ? I'll give you a definition of racism : the assignation of someone to its skin color. So yeah, that's exactly what I am talking about. Sorry I didn't write the term, it would have helped maybe.
I have no idea what you're answering to, but that's not my post.
Anyway, what I meant is that your “but there are poor whites!” answer is absolutely not a counter-argument, since no one said that “all whites are always above all Blacks”. You're refusing an abstraction because you want the focus to be on somewhere else (class instead of race), otherwise you would recognize that the same “it's too abstract” weak answer could be directed at social classes as well.
May I know why you're only criticizing the category “white,” and not the “Black” one? Why would the latter be more appropriate than the former?
A macro perspective without actual data.
Considering that we were speaking specifically of police brutality in that example... you're surely joking, right?
|
The category black is ABSOLUTLY APPROPRIATE because you have ton of ACTUAL DATA to show that it is not just a nominal category : there are experience that all black people, whatever their socio economic background, will live (in regards to incarceration, employment, living condition, etc.). The category white is entirely nominal.
Do you even know that actual sociologue (like William Julius Wilson in his book The Declining Signifiance of Race) actually believe that race is less of a factor today for black men than it was before ? Is he a marxist too ? Or maybe is it you that don't even know what you are talking about. His work is heavily criticize tho (I personally do not entirely agree).
I don't know why I care talking with people who caricature reality ("marxist" crap).
Considering that we were speaking specifically of police brutality in that example... you're surely joking, right?
No I'm not : I'm openly questionning the idea that all white, whatever their age or socioeconomic background, have easy relations with the police. I showed already that uneducated white have no privilege over uneducated latinos in regards to incarceration : pretty sure it's the same.
What exist is actual discrimination against black tho. Maybe you don't get the difference.
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
