"students" at georgia southern burn books they don't like.

[ivwshane]

In my opinion that is largely a matter of numbers. If white people are the vast majority, then calling it 'white privilege' is a bit odd, because it's not much of a priviledge to have an advantage over a small percentage of the population. It makes more sense to consider it an oppression or disadvantage experienced by the minority.

But when you start to get a situation where white people are a minority, yet retain their advantage, it does, it seems to me, become more justifiable to call it 'privilege'.

That’s not privilege. An example of privilege would be a wire person walking into a store and freely browsing around while a person of color might get the attention of store personnel and followed until they feel comfortable. Another example would be a wire person receiving smaller fines/sentences than a person of color who did the same thing. Another example would be a job applicant whose name sounded white being more likely to get a job interview than someone with an “ethnic” sounding name. People are also familiar with people of color getting pulled over more often or being accused of being suspicious.

All the above can and do happen even if the perpetrator (the person with the bias), is a person of color themselves.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I believe you support deep moral values that are not just of value to you but universally valuable. What I do not agree with is your reaction to what you perceive as threats to them, and those very perceptions themselves. You can't burn ideas. They live in the minds and hearts of people. The burning of books is an acting out that releases pent up emotions, rage and anger toward perceived threat. I see in your words a plea to liberals that they see they are a threat, that they are capable of doing everything they say they stand against when they meet the mirror image of your 'other'. You believe the threat to your moral values is real.

What I think you fail to see is that every sensible person believes in the same things as you do, that truth justice, morality, respect, duty, spiritual purity, family, decency etc etc etc are of real value. What I think you miss is two things, that to the lover of life, the ones who truly embody all these values, there is no such thing as the other. We are all the same and there is only love.

Very good points, however i have stated that I don't and never have agreed with burning/destroying any book, memo, email, pamphlet, guide or document. Even if they cause anger and rage they should be sacrosanct.

 

[TheVrolok]

I'm sure you understand median and mean? So half of all white people fall roughly at or below black mean. They've been accumulating so much privilege...not.

The point is that, statistically, those whites would be doing worse... if they were black.

 

[pmv]

That’s not privilege. An example of privilege would be a wire person walking into a store and freely browsing around while a person of color might get the attention of store personnel and followed until they feel comfortable. Another example would be a wire person receiving smaller fines/sentences than a person of color who did the same thing. Another example would be a job applicant whose name sounded white being more likely to get a job interview than someone with an “ethnic” sounding name. People are also familiar with people of color getting pulled over more often or being accused of being suspicious.

All the above can and do happen even if the perpetrator (the person with the bias), is a person of color themselves.

I _really_ don't understand your point, or rather I don't understand how your point relates to what I said. What are you saying "is not privilege"?

What you describe does indeed happen. Whether one sees it as 'privilege' for white people or 'disadvantage' for POC poeple, depends, it seems to me, on the relative numbers of those groups.

What I said was, if this occurs in a society where 99% of people are white, then its probably more appropriate to see it as oppression or disadvantage for the 1%. If it's a society where a minority are white, then it's a privilege for the white minority. It's purely a matter of which terminology seems more natural for which situation. It's not a particularly major issue, it seems to me, unless I'm missing an important nuance.


The language of 'white privilege' is new to me. When I grew up (with a POC father, as it happens) white people were the overwhelming majority, and people talked of racism, discrimination and disadvantage. To describe it with the idea of 'white privilege' would, while not false, have seemed counter-intuitive to me, simply because of the relative numbers.

 

[Moonbeam]

Very good points, however i have stated that I don't and never have agreed with burning/destroying any book, memo, email, pamphlet, guide or document. Even if they cause anger and rage they should be sacrosanct.

Yes, should, but the question is how to achieve that. Just to make the argument I would make simple, you can beat people to teach them respect or you can help them to grow up with a love of what books can teach.

 

[Maxima1]

The point is that, statistically, those whites would be doing worse... if they were black.

But is that about discrimination? Why do Jews crush other whites in wealth and income? Why is there a lot of variance between Asian subgroups?

 

[TheVrolok]

But is that about discrimination? Why do Jews crush other whites in wealth and income? Why is there a lot of variance between Asian subgroups?

Sure, it may be. That's the point.

 

[bshole]

Some students burning their own books should not be that concerning.

Amazon, the worlds bookseller has gotten into the book banning business in the past couple years. They have banned Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, Joe Dallas, Alan Medinger and Anne Paulk. These authors are Christian ex-gays (gay conversion proponents). These books are apparently too dangerous to allow people to read but Amazon is still perfectly happy to sell you Mein Kempf.

Amazon Bans Books About Same-Sex Attraction, Not Nazi Propaganda

Amazon is the anti-government, white supremacist’s reliable, go-to bookseller. But they ban books that gay activists dislike, for some reason.

thefederalist.com

Regarding white privilege. Here is the origin story of it as told by an academic that views it as an existential threat to the West. It comes from critical race theory and you are not permitted to argue against it academically.... not even kidding. This guy got like seven fake papers accepted by the academic journals dedicated to critical theory. Anyways he knows a metric ton about the topic and names all the names and their motivations (from a skeptical perspective).

White privilege is just the first pill you have to swallow, there are more coming.... white fragility, white ignorance, etc....

 

[interchange]

Hahaha...……….. Nice. It's not do unto others as you would have done to you, but if THEY get the chance, THEY will do to me what I would really like to do to THEM. I think that is what we are afraid to see, that to live in fear is to hate. "Good people aren't supposed to be like that." "If I were some worthless racist, I'd hate myself." "Can we talk about something else now?" "I never owned any slaves."

We're all worthless racists.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Some students burning their own books should not be that concerning.

Amazon, the worlds bookseller has gotten into the book banning business in the past couple years. They have banned Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, Joe Dallas, Alan Medinger and Anne Paulk. These authors are Christian ex-gays (gay conversion proponents). These books are apparently too dangerous to allow people to read but Amazon is still perfectly happy to sell you Mein Kempf.

Amazon Bans Books About Same-Sex Attraction, Not Nazi Propaganda

Amazon is the anti-government, white supremacist’s reliable, go-to bookseller. But they ban books that gay activists dislike, for some reason.

thefederalist.com

Regarding white privilege. Here is the origin story of it as told by an academic that views it as an existential threat to the West. It comes from critical race theory and you are not permitted to argue against it academically.... not even kidding. This guy got like seven fake papers accepted by the academic journals dedicated to critical theory. Anyways he knows a metric ton about the topic and names all the names and their motivations (from a skeptical perspective).

White privilege is just the first pill you have to swallow, there are more coming.... white fragility, white ignorance, etc....

"Somewhere, over the rainbow"

The Federalist and Sovereign Nations eh? Your seeming move to the right apparently continues.

"There's a land that I've heard of once in a lullaby"

 

[Moonbeam]

We're all worthless racists.

I think we all feel like we're guilty of something and a something, if we saw it in others, would spark contempt. The only safety, if one doesn't like self confrontation, is to deny everything and counter attack. The only fly in the ointment is that no amount of external denial can really change how we feel. There is always the possibility of some beloved patriot in the armor that lets the light flood in. One has to live in constant fear that could happen.

 

[ivwshane]

I _really_ don't understand your point, or rather I don't understand how your point relates to what I said. What are you saying "is not privilege"?

What you describe does indeed happen. Whether one sees it as 'privilege' for white people or 'disadvantage' for POC poeple, depends, it seems to me, on the relative numbers of those groups.

What I said was, if this occurs in a society where 99% of people are white, then its probably more appropriate to see it as oppression or disadvantage for the 1%. If it's a society where a minority are white, then it's a privilege for the white minority. It's purely a matter of which terminology seems more natural for which situation. It's not a particularly major issue, it seems to me, unless I'm missing an important nuance.


The language of 'white privilege' is new to me. When I grew up (with a POC father, as it happens) white people were the overwhelming majority, and people talked of racism, discrimination and disadvantage. To describe it with the idea of 'white privilege' would, while not false, have seemed counter-intuitive to me, simply because of the relative numbers.

What I was saying was white privilege isn’t about who is or isn’t in the majority. And it’s not oppression because it’s not done on purpose or out of malice. If you view white privilege as oppression then of course when someone says you are a benefactor of such a thing you’ll be offended. But that’s not what it is and once you understand that you no longer have to be offended and can instead be enlightened.

 

[Vic]

I thought discussion of this subject was forbidden around here, and generally in poor taste?

As I have pointed out to Maxima in the past, it is silly to discuss genetic differences between blacks and whites, not just because of the obvious broadbrushing, but because "blacks," or persons of African ancestry, are more genetically diverse than all other racial groups combined.

 

[sandorski]

IQ isn't solely genetic, so applying it to Races(a misnomer in itself)is terribly flawed.

 

[Vic]

i think the societal response to the opioid epidemic vs. other drugs belies that point.

As I pointed out, poor whites outnumber poor blacks, which does give them a measure of political power that poor blacks don't have. If you want to call that white priviledge, go for it, but I don't that as helpful, as it just enables those poor whites to continue seeing themselves as victims of some kind of reverse racism, and thus justifies to them their own racism.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

IQ isn't solely genetic, so applying it to Races(a misnomer in itself)is terribly flawed.

Regardless of what you guys are interpreting into your flawed thoughts - not a single person here is insinuating as such.....

Statistics is based on large collections of data. It isn't based on your cherry-picked exceptions. It's based on probability.

Now back to your regularly scheduled brainwashing.

Personal attacks will no longer be allowed in P&N.
admin allisolm

 

[Vic]

"Somewhere, over the rainbow"

The Federalist and Sovereign Nations eh? Your seeming move to the right apparently continues.

"There's a land that I've heard of once in a lullaby"

If only he understood how bad he makes himself look by ranting that some term makes him feel oppressed while at the same time complaining that a private business won't take part in his agenda to oppress others.

Personal attacks will no longer be allowed in P&N. Third person ones included. Circumventing the rules that way will also not be allowed.
admin allisolm

 

[Vic]

Regardless of what you guys are interpreting into your flawed thoughts - not a single person here is insinuating as such.....

Statistics is based on large collections of data. It isn't based on your cherry-picked exceptions. It's based on probability.

Now back to your regularly scheduled brainwashing.

"Brainwashing" is pretending that your statistics aren't measuring an arbitrary construct using an inadequate dataset.

 

[pmv]

What I was saying was white privilege isn’t about who is or isn’t in the majority. And it’s not oppression because it’s not done on purpose or out of malice. If you view white privilege as oppression then of course when someone says you are a benefactor of such a thing you’ll be offended. But that’s not what it is and once you understand that you no longer have to be offended and can instead be enlightened.

Well, I entirely disagree. In fact, I don't think I'm getting my point through to you at all, we seem to be talking at cross-purposes as you don't grasp what I'm saying (I'm not 'offended', by the term privilege, I just am not convinced it's quite the right terminology in every case).

I actually disagree with most of what you say here (oppression certainly doesn't have to be a result of malice, without concious malice it's still oppression, indeed stressing 'malice' is misleading because it implies making it all about morality and the ideas in people's heads, rather than structures and systems...class oppression, for example, is rarely out of 'malice', it's just built into the nature of the economic system that people exist within).

I feel as if you are over-explaining things in a very slightly patronising way, while missing the point of disagreement.

Oh well. It's just a matter of terminology.

 

[ivwshane]

Well, I entirely disagree. In fact, I don't think I'm getting my point through to you at all, we seem to be talking at cross-purposes as you don't grasp what I'm saying (I'm not 'offended', by the term privilege, I just am not convinced it's quite the right terminology in every case).

I actually disagree with most of what you say here (oppression certainly doesn't have to be a result of malice, without concious malice it's still oppression, indeed stressing 'malice' is misleading because it implies making it all about morality and the ideas in people's heads, rather than structures and systems...class oppression, for example, is rarely out of 'malice', it's just built into the nature of the economic system that people exist within).

I feel as if you are over-explaining things in a very slightly patronising way, while missing the point of disagreement.

Oh well. It's just a matter of terminology.

Yeah, I feel like you are being a dick too.

Personal attacks will no longer be allowed in P&N.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[sandorski]

Regardless of what you guys are interpreting into your flawed thoughts - not a single person here is insinuating as such.....

Statistics is based on large collections of data. It isn't based on your cherry-picked exceptions. It's based on probability.

Now back to your regularly scheduled brainwashing.

We know how to fix such inequities. No fucking pointing to a data point at this point in time is a Value judgment of a Social Group.

The Left wants to fix this disparity and knows how to, no Murder or Impoverishment required.

The Right wants to Moralize and Condemn.

Which Path seems more Just to you?

 

[Vic]

Did anyone else notice that Someone went from claiming that white priviledge didn't exist to supporting a claim that whites are genetically superior?

Good times.

edit: oops, sorry ElFenix

 

[Victorian Gray]

Did anyone else notice that Someone went from claiming that white priviledge didn't exist to supporting a claim that whites are genetically superior?

Good times.

Hope it doesn't surprise you.

 

[Maxima1]

As I have pointed out to Maxima in the past, it is silly to discuss genetic differences between blacks and whites, not just because of the obvious broadbrushing, but because "blacks," or persons of African ancestry, are more genetically diverse than all other racial groups combined.

That's a flawed argument. Regardless -- go ahead -- don't believe any of it is genetic. Turkheimer is vehemently against a partial genetic interpretation of IQ differences, yet even he agrees that there is at least roughly ~10 point IQ difference between blacks and whites. Now tell me what percentage of that you think is explained by discrimination. Here is one hint for you. Approval of interracial marriage has gone drastically up yet academic test scores of blacks have remained relatively flat....

IQ isn't solely genetic, so applying it to Races(a misnomer in itself)is terribly flawed.

You missed the point. It could be a number of environmental factors of which have nothing to do with discrimination e.g. parenting. That's why I brought up Jews vs. other whites or the significant difference between Asian subgroups.

 

[sandorski]

That's a flawed argument. Regardless -- go ahead -- don't believe any of it is genetic. Turkheimer is vehemently against a partial genetic interpretation of IQ differences, yet even he agrees that there is at least roughly ~10 point IQ difference between blacks and whites. Now tell me what percentage of that you think is explained by discrimination. Here is one hint for you. Approval of interracial marriage has gone drastically up yet academic test scores of blacks have remained relatively flat....

You missed the point. It could be a number of environmental factors of which have nothing to do with discrimination e.g. parenting. That's why I brought up Jews vs. other whites or the significant difference between Asian subgroups.

Then present the Data to show it. Don't get mad at those pursuing solutions based upon the Knowledge we have. Your "What if"s are equivalent to Faeries and Pixie Dust, until you show the Data that supports it through Sound Reason and Sober Interpretation.