• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

What is white privilege?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Gawd. That's an extremely lame misrepresentation of what you actually said-
werepossum said:
I disagree. Black culture after emancipation was not notably more violent, or less moral, or otherwise worse than the mainstream white majority culture. I think we're seeing two trends colliding. Our society as a whole is getting more tolerant of - even appreciative of - violence. And blacks were disproportionately affected by the ills of our welfare system which empowers women to have children out of wedlock, due to having started at a lower economic base. Remove the single parent bias and you've largely eliminated the violence and criminality gaps between races. Also remove the economic status gap (which largely goes away with the removal of the single parent bias) and the gaps pretty much vanish, depending on who does the math.
You just explained the first sentence. After that, the rest is just you skipping across the touchstones of right wing mythology, exhibiting remarkable leaps of faith. Now explain the rest in light of what you said in the final paragraph-

The only way to reconcile that is to attempt to ignore it, to Deny that you contradicted yourself at all.

You just explained the first sentence. After that, the rest is just you skipping across the touchstones of right wing mythology, exhibiting remarkable leaps of faith. Now explain the rest in light of what you said in the final paragraph-
The only way to reconcile that is to attempt to ignore it, to Deny that you contradicted yourself at all.

Don't worry about defending your position, given that it's already toast. Worry about how your head works and what you might be able to do to straighten it out.
I think this many words together may be enraging you, so let's break down my statement line for line. Perhaps then we can determine your particular psychosis.

My original statements are presented in quotes. (" <- These thingies are quotes.)

"I disagree."
Self explanatory; therefore I was not attempting to explain it at all.

"Black culture after emancipation was not notably more violent, or less moral, or otherwise worse than the mainstream white majority culture."
I argue here that free blacks historically had rates of violence, immorality, and thus criminality (a function of the other two) comparable to that of whites or other races. This means that a $20,000/year black welder's family would not on average produce significantly more violent and/or criminal children than would a $20,000/year white welder's family. Are you arguing that blacks were inherently violent and dangerous creatures once freed? If so, what is the basis of this belief?

"I think we're seeing two trends colliding."
Two arguments coming up - watch for them!

"Our society as a whole is getting more tolerant of - even appreciative of - violence."
Are you disagreeing with this statement? Crime levels are decreasing so you'd have a point to argue, but they are decreasing for blacks as well. I am arguing specifically that Americans today are more likely to react violently and less likely to reject someone who commits violence than in years past. Other factors would be the amount of graphic violence considered acceptable on television or in movies and the willingness to patronize and even accept as role models those people who have committed violence.

"And blacks were disproportionately affected by the ills of our welfare system which empowers women to have children out of wedlock, due to having started at a lower economic base."
Granted, there are several concepts to understand here. First is that if you pay women who have and/or raise a children out of wedlock, there will be more children born and/or raised out of wedlock. I don't believe that concept (that if we subsidize a behavior we tend to get more of that behavior) qualifies as "right wing mythology". Do you disagree?

The next point here is a logical inference, that blacks have a greater rate of having and/or raising a child out of wedlock than do other races. Do you disagree?

A logical corollary to this is my assumption that a child raised in a single parent welfare home will generally speaking be raised in poverty. Do you disagree?

The latter part of this original statement (that means the end part - in this case, "due to having started at a lower economic base") attributes this to blacks being generally poorer. I think most people agree that one's starting economic status strongly correlates with the attraction to welfare. As an example, if one is raised in a sub-poverty level home, the attraction of having children and going on welfare (therefore gaining a home and an income) is much greater than if one raised as the child of a wealthy Senator or businessman. I also think that most people agree that blacks are on balance poorer than average. (It may help you here to think of this as being 'economically disadvantaged' or other progressive buzz words/phrases.)

Just to sum up this original sentence, you may disagree by saying that:
1. The rate at which all women have or raise children out of wedlock has nothing to do with a welfare system that pays unwed or otherwise mothers who have or raise children out of wedlock.
2. Blacks do have children out of wedlock in greater numbers than do other races, but this has nothing to do with a welfare system that pays unwed or otherwise mothers who have or raise children out of wedlock.
3. Welfare is just as attractive to young women raised in wealthy homes as to those raised in poor homes. (Aletrnately, you may argue this only for blacks.)
4. Blacks are not on average any poorer than the rest of the country.
5. Blacks do not have children out of wedlock in greater numbers than do other races.

Assuming you are ready to move on:
"Remove the single parent bias and you've largely eliminated the violence and criminality gaps between races."
Are you specifically denying that children raised by single mothers have higher rates of violence and criminality, or are you arguing that blacks remain significantly more violent and more criminal than average even when raised in two-parent households?

"Also remove the economic status gap (which largely goes away with the removal of the single parent bias) and the gaps pretty much vanish, depending on who does the math."
Are you specifically denying that being a single parent household is the strongest predictor of poverty, or are you arguing that poverty is not a significant factor in rates of violence and criminality, or are you still arguing that blacks remain significantly more violent and more criminal regardless of economic status?

This is rather humorous. You, the foamiest of proggies, are arguing that blacks (as represented by black culture) are inherently violent and excusing it as resulting from slavery - which ended a century and a half ago. I am arguing that if one corrects for certain factors which increase rates of violence for everyone (notably single parent homes and poverty), blacks are not more violent. Then you go for proggie gold and assert that arguing blacks are not inherently more violent is "right wing mythology". Certainly an amusing turn of events.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
I'm going to create a vanilla ice cream with chunks of white chocolate in it and call it "White Privilege". Wonder if it will sell. Maybe I should market it in Mississippi only.
If you sold it on the campuses of elitist liberal universities you might actually have a salable product :D
 

moonbogg

Lifer
Jan 8, 2011
10,020
1,811
126
Hang on a minute. Is there anyone here who actually thinks that race plays a part in how well a person can do, with the actual cause being the race itself? If one race does poorly in a certain area or region, then those causes are likely regional or otherwise local to that area for other reasons.
I'm just saying, because I saw a great science show that said that the brain in modern man has been the same for a couple hundred thousand years at least. I didn't see the part where they said, "except for white brains, those are special".
 

Munky

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2005
9,379
0
76
"White privilege" is what people who fail at life and happen to be not white use as an excuse for their failure.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,408
2
81
Hang on a minute. Is there anyone here who actually thinks that race plays a part in how well a person can do, with the actual cause being the race itself? If one race does poorly in a certain area or region, then those causes are likely regional or otherwise local to that area for other reasons.
I'm just saying, because I saw a great science show that said that the brain in modern man has been the same for a couple hundred thousand years at least. I didn't see the part where they said, "except for white brains, those are special".

No they argue since some white people are rich they help out white people so they have an inherent advantage from cradle well into professional life. It's largely BS. Sure if you're dad is george bush or some rancher who got tens of thousands of acres from his daddy it's true but thats statically insignificant compared to vast majority of Americans who start middle to bottom and work for everything they got. It's so statistically insignificant just more excuse making by losers to stay losers more race/sex based handouts and lower standards IMO.

Hell now even white people are hopping on board of victim train it's getting ridiculous. Classic one is when i was a biochem major undergrad whites whine if they were black they would have got into med school. No dude if you got better grades and volunteered more you would have got into medical school. That why I like immigrants so much. Not corrupted yet by our victim hood culture.

Plus we are gonna need fresh blood to support all these lazy broke spendthrift black and white boomers and later .
 
Last edited:

moonbogg

Lifer
Jan 8, 2011
10,020
1,811
126
No they argue since some white people are rich they help out white people so they have an inherent advantage from cradle well into professional life. It's largely BS. Sure if you're dad is george bush or some rancher who got tens of thousands of acres from his daddy it's true but thats statically insignificant compared to vast majority of Americans who start middle to bottom and work for everything they got. It's so statistically insignificant just more excuse making by losers to stay losers more race/sex based handouts and lower standards IMO.

Hell now even white people are hopping on board of victim train it's getting ridiculous. That why I like immigrants so much. Not corrupted yet by our victim hood culture.
Most of the rich people I personally know immigrated from somewhere else or are non white. They came from a place with no opportunity and saw a chance to benefit from working hard, and they did, and they made it better than most Americans.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,408
2
81
Most of the rich people I personally know immigrated from somewhere else or are non white. They came from a place with no opportunity and saw a chance to benefit from working hard, and they did, and they made it better than most Americans.


Dude i grew up in Orange county which is like 1/4 Asian many FOB. I used to say you could drop any one of them in any american city penniless and they'd be millionaires in 5 years. Time were a little different then, 15 years now.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,284
0
0
Its a term lazy minorities use to skirt responsibility for their lazyness.

I know plenty of minorities who are beyond wealthy and they worked their asses off to get there.
I also know plenty of white people who are beyond wealthy and they also worked their asses off to get there.

Then again these minority groups can continue to have the victim mentality and get nowhere in life but the reality is that the victim mentality isn't limited to minorities.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,414
0
0
It's easily one of the worst social ills. So many whites, particularly males, just coast on white privilege throughout their lives and careers. Dismantling it may require restructuring all of society and government. And America would be so much stronger internally if those who used to rely on white privilege now have to rely on their own hard work.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,408
2
81
Like me you from Socal people there dont make excuses there by in large. We have advantage of seeing all race all backgrounds from Iranians to Africans to koreans to russians do well or fail on their own merit. When I moved to midwest its ridiculous the racial hangups people get on about. I like a lot of things about it but they still stuck in civil war/jim crow days mindset.
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
It's easily one of the worst social ills. So many whites, particularly males, just coast on white privilege throughout their lives and careers. Dismantling it may require restructuring all of society and government. And America would be so much stronger internally if those who used to rely on white privilege now have to rely on their own hard work.
Could you be more descriptive?
 

mistercrabby

Senior member
Mar 9, 2013
963
53
91
With all of the news about Trayvon, Paula Deen, etc I have read "White Privilege" being thrown around a hell of a lot. In one in particular post it was very forcefully voiced that even if you are poor, are uneducated, white and homeless that you still had a higher status in life over an educated black man in America all due to white privilege.

Can someone explain this to me? I don't even want to go into cultural use of words and how it's not racist, I don't care about Ron Paul jokes, and I don't care we have a black president.

I want to understand why you can be a poor white man and still have White Privilege over a wealthy black man in the eyes of some of these folks posting across the internet.

If this becomes ridiculous I'll post in DC.
It's a stupid, bullsh&t outdated notion.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,755
13,874
136
I think this many words together may be enraging you, so let's break down my statement line for line. Perhaps then we can determine your particular psychosis.

My original statements are presented in quotes. (" <- These thingies are quotes.)

"I disagree."
Self explanatory; therefore I was not attempting to explain it at all.

"Black culture after emancipation was not notably more violent, or less moral, or otherwise worse than the mainstream white majority culture."
I argue here that free blacks historically had rates of violence, immorality, and thus criminality (a function of the other two) comparable to that of whites or other races. This means that a $20,000/year black welder's family would not on average produce significantly more violent and/or criminal children than would a $20,000/year white welder's family. Are you arguing that blacks were inherently violent and dangerous creatures once freed? If so, what is the basis of this belief?

"I think we're seeing two trends colliding."
Two arguments coming up - watch for them!

"Our society as a whole is getting more tolerant of - even appreciative of - violence."
Are you disagreeing with this statement? Crime levels are decreasing so you'd have a point to argue, but they are decreasing for blacks as well. I am arguing specifically that Americans today are more likely to react violently and less likely to reject someone who commits violence than in years past. Other factors would be the amount of graphic violence considered acceptable on television or in movies and the willingness to patronize and even accept as role models those people who have committed violence.

"And blacks were disproportionately affected by the ills of our welfare system which empowers women to have children out of wedlock, due to having started at a lower economic base."
Granted, there are several concepts to understand here. First is that if you pay women who have and/or raise a children out of wedlock, there will be more children born and/or raised out of wedlock. I don't believe that concept (that if we subsidize a behavior we tend to get more of that behavior) qualifies as "right wing mythology". Do you disagree?

The next point here is a logical inference, that blacks have a greater rate of having and/or raising a child out of wedlock than do other races. Do you disagree?

A logical corollary to this is my assumption that a child raised in a single parent welfare home will generally speaking be raised in poverty. Do you disagree?

The latter part of this original statement (that means the end part - in this case, "due to having started at a lower economic base") attributes this to blacks being generally poorer. I think most people agree that one's starting economic status strongly correlates with the attraction to welfare. As an example, if one is raised in a sub-poverty level home, the attraction of having children and going on welfare (therefore gaining a home and an income) is much greater than if one raised as the child of a wealthy Senator or businessman. I also think that most people agree that blacks are on balance poorer than average. (It may help you here to think of this as being 'economically disadvantaged' or other progressive buzz words/phrases.)

Just to sum up this original sentence, you may disagree by saying that:
1. The rate at which all women have or raise children out of wedlock has nothing to do with a welfare system that pays unwed or otherwise mothers who have or raise children out of wedlock.
2. Blacks do have children out of wedlock in greater numbers than do other races, but this has nothing to do with a welfare system that pays unwed or otherwise mothers who have or raise children out of wedlock.
3. Welfare is just as attractive to young women raised in wealthy homes as to those raised in poor homes. (Aletrnately, you may argue this only for blacks.)
4. Blacks are not on average any poorer than the rest of the country.
5. Blacks do not have children out of wedlock in greater numbers than do other races.

Assuming you are ready to move on:
"Remove the single parent bias and you've largely eliminated the violence and criminality gaps between races."
Are you specifically denying that children raised by single mothers have higher rates of violence and criminality, or are you arguing that blacks remain significantly more violent and more criminal than average even when raised in two-parent households?

"Also remove the economic status gap (which largely goes away with the removal of the single parent bias) and the gaps pretty much vanish, depending on who does the math."
Are you specifically denying that being a single parent household is the strongest predictor of poverty, or are you arguing that poverty is not a significant factor in rates of violence and criminality, or are you still arguing that blacks remain significantly more violent and more criminal regardless of economic status?

This is rather humorous. You, the foamiest of proggies, are arguing that blacks (as represented by black culture) are inherently violent and excusing it as resulting from slavery - which ended a century and a half ago. I am arguing that if one corrects for certain factors which increase rates of violence for everyone (notably single parent homes and poverty), blacks are not more violent. Then you go for proggie gold and assert that arguing blacks are not inherently more violent is "right wing mythology". Certainly an amusing turn of events.
Heh. That's a whole forest of straw men & loaded questions backed up by white privilege suppositions & generous dollops of Truthiness.

Once, just once, you almost got something right, but then you had to go & disown it, to qualify it out of existence in your own mind, to avoid cognitive dissonance, to keep on believing in lies, even blustering a whole cliched litany of them, like chanting USA! USA! USA!

You're privileged to be allowed to do that, to maintain such fantasies in your head. Or to pretend that you do. Congratulations- you may well have fooled yourself, again.
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
Check out this clip from a segment on CNN a few days ago. 5:25-8:25. In particular listen closely to the testimony of the white male on the panel. This will give the OP a good example...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXfD-PN1xHU
Best post of the thread look at that, thanks.

My problem with this though is it all across the nation and are all whites to blame? If so how do we fix it? What does the black community want done?

I am not going to fall back on the thug culture here because the obvious rebuttal to that would be the 60's - late 80's the same issues were happening (all across the nation? or just in the South)
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
26,222
11,376
136
Best post of the thread look at that, thanks.

My problem with this though is it all across the nation and are all whites to blame? If so how do we fix it? What does the black community want done?

I am not going to fall back on the thug culture here because the obvious rebuttal to that would be the 60's - late 80's the same issues were happening (all across the nation? or just in the South)
We can't seem to have the discussion. That quorum would start with members who wouldn't resort to "all whites are racist" and "all blacks are thugs/criminals"

BTW - I recommend watching the entire show. It aired yesterday and had a followup today. I may start a DC thread.
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
I find this thread absolutely fascinating in just how many people here seem so threatened by the idea that being white in the US might carry certain advantages. It is really staggering that not only is it news to some people that in a country where just a few decades ago federal troops had to be deployed to even allow black children to enter the same schools as white children, where segregation was a thing, where even just a few years ago it was considered entirely reasonable to ask "is America ready for a black president?" that being white is advantageous, but that some people actively deny this is so. Just how fucking delusional do you have to be to not recognize that race still matters and white still holds the high ground in terms of social favor?

The links below are a news video, about 17 minutes in total, from 1991, which admittedly is a little bit dated at this point and a bit anecdotal, but still holds up well in showing just what is different between how whites and blacks are treated in important, live shaping activities like buying a home, a car, or getting a job, or even just the day to day like shopping for clothes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyL5EcAwB9c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOS3BBmUxvs

That is white privilege.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Heh. That's a whole forest of straw men & loaded questions backed up by white privilege suppositions & generous dollops of Truthiness.

Once, just once, you almost got something right, but then you had to go & disown it, to qualify it out of existence in your own mind, to avoid cognitive dissonance, to keep on believing in lies, even blustering a whole cliched litany of them, like chanting USA! USA! USA!

You're privileged to be allowed to do that, to maintain such fantasies in your head. Or to pretend that you do. Congratulations- you may well have fooled yourself, again.
Perhaps you could send my statement to Stephen Colbert and find out what specific problems you have with it. Perhaps one day you'll learn to actually read, comprehend, and form opinions rather than have a knee-jerk reaction of anything you haven't been told to believe. In the mean time I'll assume that squealing "straw men" and "cognitive dissonance" is the best you can do.

Others are welcome to either refute my statements or to put them into a form that Jhhnn can understand.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,973
7,476
136
No they argue since some white people are rich they help out white people so they have an inherent advantage from cradle well into professional life. It's largely BS. Sure if you're dad is george bush or some rancher who got tens of thousands of acres from his daddy it's true but thats statically insignificant compared to vast majority of Americans who start middle to bottom and work for everything they got. It's so statistically insignificant just more excuse making by losers to stay losers more race/sex based handouts and lower standards IMO.

Hell now even white people are hopping on board of victim train it's getting ridiculous. Classic one is when i was a biochem major undergrad whites whine if they were black they would have got into med school. No dude if you got better grades and volunteered more you would have got into medical school. That why I like immigrants so much. Not corrupted yet by our victim hood culture.

Plus we are gonna need fresh blood to support all these lazy broke spendthrift black and white boomers and later .
Most of the rich people I personally know immigrated from somewhere else or are non white. They came from a place with no opportunity and saw a chance to benefit from working hard, and they did, and they made it better than most Americans.
It's not just about money. It's about many people still viewing them as inferior and how that preconceived bias affects everyday interactions.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY