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

[Vic]

Uhhh... dude... That IS how it is interpreted. They legitimately say "white privilege" is something that every white person inherently has. Thus they are saying all whites privileged.

Uhh.. dude.. your bias and straw men, your emotional need to demean and silence any speech you disagree with, are tiring. That is how YOU choose to interpret it. What is actually meant is that, all else being equal, whites are more likely to receive certain societal, cultural, and institutional privileges that minorities are less likely to receive.
For example, a black man driving a nice car through a nice neighborhood is more likely to be pulled by the police that a white man doing the same thing. This is simply fact.
Another would be that an unarmed black man shot by police is more likely to be a criminal thug who deserved it, even in the absence of any prior criminal record.
Unfortunately, poor whites also get picked on by law enforcement too, and face some of the obstacles in the workforce due to poor schooling, etc.

 

[Vic]

Short plain and simple: burning books is always an idiotic idea.
for the obligatory both sides do it.
Climate change book at San Jose State University[edit]
In May 2013, two San Jose State University professors, department chair Alison Bridger, PhD and associate professor Craig Clements, PhD, were photographed holding a match to a book they disagreed with, The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism, by Steve Goreham. The university initially posted it on their website, but then took it down


from the far larger

List of book-burning incidents - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And as usual, here you are as if on queue to argue that 2 wrongs make a right.

 

[Vic]

uh, it extends to poor whites, that's why it's white privilege instead of privileged privilege.


because we are. poor black people and poor white people are treated differently by civil society.

I would argue that poor rural whites aka rednecks are in many cases treated just as poorly by society as poor blacks. Except with regards to the fact that poor rural whites greatly outnumber poor blacks, giving them a greater say in govt, see exhibit A: Trump.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

And as usual, here you are as if on queue to argue that 2 wrongs make a right.

No, here i am to say that book burning is an idiotic display of foolishness, ignorance and hatred and that there's no place for it in a free and open society and it isn't one side of the political spectrum that engages in it.

 

[Vic]

No, here i am to say that book burning is an idiotic display of foolishness, ignorance and hatred and that there's no place for it in a free and open society and it isn't one side of the political spectrum that engages in it.

"Sides" are fictions created by political leaders in order to generate fear, whereby they gain and increase their power over people through division.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

"Sides" are fictions created by political leaders in order to generate fear, whereby they gain and increase their power over people.

I disagree, political factions or "sides" are alive and well and living throughout the world.

 

[nakedfrog]

Short plain and simple: burning books is always an idiotic idea.
for the obligatory both sides do it.
Climate change book at San Jose State University[edit]
In May 2013, two San Jose State University professors, department chair Alison Bridger, PhD and associate professor Craig Clements, PhD, were photographed holding a match to a book they disagreed with, The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism, by Steve Goreham. The university initially posted it on their website, but then took it down


from the far larger

List of book-burning incidents - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Heh, here's the photo of that "book burning"

Igniting debate: School scrubs photo of professors burning book

A photograph of two San Jose State University professors readying to burn an anti-global warming book has been removed from the school’s website and was blasted as an “ill-conceived” attempt at satire.

www.foxnews.com

 

[mistercrabby]

Throwing around pejorative generalizations like white privilege, 1%, money grubbing, lazy, dishonest, small penis, large penis, urban, gentrified, undocumented, rice powered, spaghetti eater, rural, cracker, redneck, blah blah blah are prejudice nonsense words that divide us and hurt our feelings.

Let’s stop using them.

My going in attitude is to respect and appreciate everyone regardless of their IQ, who their mommy or daddy are, what they look like, who they pray to or not, etc.

Be the change you wish to see in the world.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Throwing around pejorative generalizations like white privilege, 1%, money grubbing, lazy, dishonest, small penis, large penis, urban, gentrified, undocumented, rice powered, spaghetti eater, rural, cracker, redneck, blah blah blah are prejudice nonsense words that divide us and hurt our feelings.

Let’s stop using them.

My going in attitude is to respect and appreciate everyone regardless of their IQ, who their mommy or daddy are, what they look like, who they pray to or not, etc.

Be the change you wish to see in the world.

You're just saying that because you're privileged!!11one!!

 

[Vic]

I disagree, political factions or "sides" are alive and well and living throughout the world.

I'm well aware that you believe that. You are constantly posting that something drastic needs to be done because of your fear of people you disagree with.
For example, you believe that the Democrats want socialism and open borders, etc, and therefore it is justifiable that your political side, which is currently in power, break the law or whatever else it takes in order to ensure that the Democrats don't come back into power and do those things that you're afraid they're going to do.

 

[mect]

Throwing around pejorative generalizations like white privilege, 1%, money grubbing, lazy, dishonest, small penis, large penis, urban, gentrified, undocumented, rice powered, spaghetti eater, rural, cracker, redneck, blah blah blah are prejudice nonsense words that divide us and hurt our feelings.

Let’s stop using them.

My going in attitude is to respect and appreciate everyone regardless of their IQ, who their mommy or daddy are, what they look like, who they pray to or not, etc.

Be the change you wish to see in the world.

Except you are arguing for no changes. We don't need to address white privilege, just treat everyone equal (while whites continue to enjoy their privilege). Don't worry about the 1%, lets just allow them continue to accumulate wealth and leave the poor behind. How can you argue for people to be the change they wish to see in the world while at the same time advocating for the status quo?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I'm well aware that you believe that. You are constantly posting that something drastic needs to be done because of your fear of people you disagree with.
For example, you believe that the Democrats want socialism and open borders, etc, and therefore it is justifiable that your political side, which is currently in power, break the law or whatever else it takes in order to ensure that the Democrats don't come back into power and do those things that you're afraid they're going to do.

Actually a number of Democratic candidates for President have supported open borders.

Pavlich: Open border Democrats

For years Democrats have claimed they are for strong border security and immigration enforcement while also providing empathy for those who come to the United States illegally.

thehill.com

I don't support breaking the law, i support obeying and working through the law, precedent and the Constitution. Even though book burning is perfectly legal i have never and will never support it.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

As I noted above, it's a poor use of words because it can be so easily misinterpreted to mean that all whites are privileged. And when misinterpreted like that, it does appear to be racist against less privileged whites.
It's like "cultural appropriation," which can be misinterpreted to mean that a white woman can't run a taco truck, when the actual negative meaning is that corporations like Disney shouldn't be allowed to own the copyright to an entire culture just because they made a movie.

It really is a stupid phrase. It implies something intrinsic to the individual, and implies something that should be taken away rather than lifting up those without privilege, or correcting systemic problems that are holding people back. Rhetoric that puts people on the defensive just isn't helpful.

Uhhh... dude... That IS how it is interpreted. They legitimately say "white privilege" is something that every white person inherently has. Thus they are saying all whites privileged.

Didn't even see this when I posted. Proves my point.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Shocker. He doesn't understand "white privilege"
Here from the wiki:

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is the societal privilege that benefits white people over non-white people, particularly if they are otherwise under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.

(emphasis mine)

The Hearth and the Salamander. Seems we have some of that here.

 

[nakedfrog]

It really is a stupid phrase. It implies something intrinsic to the individual, and implies something that should be taken away rather than lifting up those without privilege, or correcting systemic problems that are holding people back. Rhetoric that puts people on the defensive just isn't helpful.


Didn't even see this when I posted. Proves my point.

Yeah, it does seem like a rebranding could be helpful in the discussion.

 

[Jaskalas]

I guess you don't really grasp white privilege either. Do you just feel personally insulted when the phrase is used, and that's enough to rile you up?

Sure, technically, a majority with the same income as a minority has some added benefit living in their own majority driven society. That may be true. However, that is not what people feel or react to. Especially when they have had 40+ years of trickle down pressing a boot to their necks. Our society is sick, and most people are feeling that. Not whatever technical privilege you've conjured up to throw in their faces. Soon as you do that you lose the message. Instead of telling the majority to stop Republican trickle down from keeping them poor, your message reinforces the Republican propaganda that the boot is Democrats instead of Republicans.

It is a reaction to the primal fear of the "other". Adversarial messages against the majority are counter productive when our time and effort could be spent building a coalition for all people. To tell the majority we can ease their pain as well. We need to dig in and solve our problems together, for being divided only makes us weaker. And we are having enough trouble as it is, getting the boot of trickle down off our necks.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Students do have a valid point.

There is nothing more hilarious than pointing to a bunch of white people of varying backgrounds and saying "You all have a privilege". That is only something that comes from the mouth of a low IQ inept individual. The same types of individuals that look at a group of 25 random white people and saying "You aren't diverse"...

Never-mind things like different upbringings, different immigration, different bodies, different minds, different everything... But skin color... Therefore you're not diverse? Who is the stupid one here?

Article also doesn't state if they bought the books or not, since she was there speaking about the book she might have handed them out for free.

Obligatory

Burning books ALWAYS demonstrates education and thoughtful discourse.

 

[ElFenix]

I would argue that poor rural whites aka rednecks are in many cases treated just as poorly by society as poor blacks. Except with regards to the fact that poor rural whites greatly outnumber poor blacks, giving them a greater say in govt, see exhibit A: Trump.

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

 

[darkswordsman17]

Is anyone surprised that a certain poster with a long history of concern about free speech on campus is now supporting book burnings on campus because he disagrees with the speech in the books being burned?

But anyway, I strongly dislike term white privilege because, of course, not all whites are privileged and the term can be disingenuously interpreted to mean that they are. I'm not going to go burning books that use that term though.

These are words you posted.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Students do have a valid point.

There is nothing more hilarious than pointing to a bunch of white people of varying backgrounds and saying "You all have a privilege". That is only something that comes from the mouth of a low IQ inept individual. The same types of individuals that look at a group of 25 random white people and saying "You aren't diverse"...

Never-mind things like different upbringings, different immigration, different bodies, different minds, different everything... But skin color... Therefore you're not diverse? Who is the stupid one here?

Article also doesn't state if they bought the books or not, since she was there speaking about the book she might have handed them out for free.

Obligatory

One wonders how much they paid for their haircuts. Any idea?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Short plain and simple: burning books is always an idiotic idea.
for the obligatory both sides do it.
Climate change book at San Jose State University[edit]
In May 2013, two San Jose State University professors, department chair Alison Bridger, PhD and associate professor Craig Clements, PhD, were photographed holding a match to a book they disagreed with, The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism, by Steve Goreham. The university initially posted it on their website, but then took it down


from the far larger

List of book-burning incidents - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What a lovely squirrel that is over there. No, over *there*.

 

[pmv]

I need to write a book. If dumbasses want to buy and burn my book by the rail car load, I'm good. I put this up there with flag burning as an effective form of speech. As long as it's their own book or flag, have at it. Just don't expect anyone to think highly of the action or the person doing the burning.

The fascists of yore burnt other people's books (library copies). That's a crime and should be prosecuted.

If they're only going to burn it, and not actually read it, you could save yourself an awful lot of work by only writing the first couple of pages (just don't forget to put something about 'white male privilege' in there). The rest could just be 'Hodor Hodor Hodor...' repeated.

 

[sandorski]

I disagree, political factions or "sides" are alive and well and living throughout the world.

You are a Character in a Fiction.

 

[ivwshane]

Except you are arguing for no changes. We don't need to address white privilege, just treat everyone equal (while whites continue to enjoy their privilege). Don't worry about the 1%, lets just allow them continue to accumulate wealth and leave the poor behind. How can you argue for people to be the change they wish to see in the world while at the same time advocating for the status quo?

They’re virtue signaling, similar to how they also use “both sides”. It’s a way to avoid a discussion they find uncomfortable. After all, who wants to be told that just because of your skin color you’ve had benefits your whole life that others, not of the same color, did not have? What’s funny is the term “white privilege” shouldn’t be seen as a derogatory term but rather an informative one. It’s akin to telling someone to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes. Perspective and empathy would do a lot of people some good as well as interacting with others not like them. That’s why they say racism comes from ignorance, it’s not because people have a low IQ but because their experience with “others” is limited or non existent.

 

[interchange]

I think people here are misunderstanding or not completely understanding what white privilege means, at least in an academic context. It refers to a whole bunch of things, but central is not necessarily a greater socioeconomic capacity but a lens where the white experience is the normative one. Therefore, a white person can interact with nearly all parts of society and not actively think about their whiteness and how their whiteness influences their experience and the perceptions of those around them. This is markedly different than the experience of a black person. In fact, black people who grow up without being actively taught to see the world through a racialized lens fare worse in general because they aren't recognizing the covert forms of racial aggression which operate to their disadvantage.

From an academic standpoint, it is a very important concept to recognize and study. On an individual level, I think it's obvious that using the term white privilege without qualifying how you mean it can certainly come off as aggressive. I think the idea is right to study and right to educate people on and right to facilitate introspection about and right to expect that such introspection will lead people to discover things they don't like seeing about themselves. Because of all that, I wish we'd as a society focus on getting more to a place where it is safe to freely discuss race than focusing on the desired outcome of such discussions.