Indoctrination Cult University

[Ana the Ist]

I'm not sure that's the message that progressives are really trying to convey, and not just your spin on it. The fact you see it that way could just be because you seem to resist the notion that human beings are social by nature and are more than individuals, and guilt and shame are potential consequences of that. That doesn't mean the intent of progressives is to guilt and shame people per se: they want oppression to stop, not for people to wallow in guilt.

If this were true, then the conversation would be about actual instances of oppression...but since there's very very little of that, the conversation has turned into "being white is oppression".

 

[Gadarene]

I've never seen it taught without a racist component.

And later....

Actually, I've never heard of any of those except thin privilege and female privilege.

Would you mind awfully if we didn’t use “things I haven’t heard of” as a criterion for anything?

Happens often enough to be a problem? It's the entire conversation. All other kinds of privilege are excluded from the conversation...and it's painted as whites have some universal advantage.

Quick experiment to highlight the point...

Two people...

1. Is an unattractive, white shorter, man from a poor family and of average intelligence.

2. Is An attractive black woman, slightly tall, from a middle class family and of slightly below average intelligence.

Who has more privilege? Take your time.

You know I specifically said we should compare like with like, right? I don’t think you can glom privileges together and get some neat answer - except when there are barely any issues associated with one group compared to another. Gender doesn’t fit that paradigm, but race does.

Class is the neglected child in all of this anyway and has a disproportionate effect compared to most of the axes SJWs get het up about, so for my money middle class will trump the working class, and most of the rest is secondary.

There's actual studies that show those exist...there's no "male privilege".

There are studies showing that an unspecified number of advantages exist for tall people?

Ok, then by that metric, male privilege definitely exists. I don’t think you’re applying your approach very consistently here. I’m not about to claim female privilege exists while male privilege doesn’t - largely for the same reasons I have to tell feminists that if male privilege exists, female privilege exists.

At what point does it become a problem? Should be wait until whites are being dragged from their homes and shot in the street? We used to call this stuff out for what it was...if it was written about blacks, Salon would rightfully be out of business.

Yeah, but that’s all it is at this moment in keep. Writing. Keep writing back. What else are you proposing, otherwise?

White privilege doesn't discern individual circumstances. A son of a poor white coal miner who's mom died of a heroin overdose is considered, through some magical thinking, the oppressor of a wealth black girl who's father is a senator and got into Harvard by nepotism.

It's inherently racist....not to mention ridiculous.

Half the time I think the issue is trust rather than accuracy. These generalities can be discussed and practically in (some) academic settings. With activists, not so much. But then activists aren’t academics, and activists are by definition going to moralise.

How awful people treat those dubbed privilege is entirely the point. It's a chance for whites to virtue signal and a chance for blacks to be racist. No one actually expects businesses to hire people who are the most qualified because of race. No one expects whites to give up money (more than they already do), land, or anything else because of race. It's simply a way to point a finger and blame your problems on someone else.

Right, which is why those applications of the idea that white people are statistically advantaged should be dealt with. That doesn’t mean we stop talking about white advantage forever.

Wow...how compromisingly neutral of you.

Lol ok there Zapp Brannigan

Hate for the middle ground view is nothing new to me, I assure you

I, for one, can't think of a single moment where I got any special treatment because I was white...not once. I'm not claiming it hasn't happened...I'm just saying I can't know. Given that, let's assume most white people are the same (I've never heard any ever say "guess what I got for being white today!)....

How do we know how much inequality is actually due to white privilege? It could be anywhere from a ton of inequality....to almost no inequality. So why does it get treated like the answer to everything?

That's the point, isn't it? Without knowing...who's to say whether or not it's a problem at all?

This is why the concept at least works on the statistical level. The problem is activist types using a statistical/systemic idea to badger individuals.

Fair enough...what's another "oppression card" you can think of? I can't think of any but I'll wait....

Pick any oppressed group. Woman card is the most obvious alternative.

As a group, 0.01% carry more power influence and wealth than the other 99.99% of us. Yet somehow, as a group, there's more poor whites than poor blacks. That's the problem with generalizations about skin color.

As I said, SJWs tend to ignore class and wealth disparity, which would have a far greater impact on inequality and social mobility.

Poor whites than poor blacks in absolute terms or proportionately?

What happened with the "as a group" argument you were just using?

It’s still there! That is still a group based argument

Again, we aren't talking about individuals...but groups. If white privilege applies to some dirt poor white kid out in the country...well then this aspect of black privilege applies to blacks regardless of their economic background.

I’ll get back to this when you’ve answered the question about whether there are more poor whites in the US in absolute number terms or proportionately. I suspect it’s the latter, but I’ll wait for your response on that.

 

[Gadarene]

I will ask you this before moving on because I'm genuinely curious: which country would that be?

Their own one, usually.

For others, it seriously turns them off to leftist ideas, and you get the alt-right. I'm talking about the actual alt-right, not the countless people who have been branded with it as an epithet. They reckoned if their whiteness was so hated and feared, it must be an asset of significant importance.

So really, they’re still defining themselves by what SJWs tell them, but in terms of rejecting it.

They also concluded that there is no reason to spare the feelings of people who hate them so much. On the contrary, they can actually accomplish something politically productive by being as offensive as they possibly can, to get under their enemy's skin. Of course, there are alternatives. Some become libertarians. A number of those, however, come on the realization that only certain people are interested in buying what they are selling.

Maybe some people stay that way because they realise that going alt-right or ctrl-left are dumb moves.

That is who the hundreds of young white people who gathered in Charlottesville last August were. They were tired of apologizing for being what they were, and there to show that they would no longer kowtow to the sensibilities of a political class that hates them. As we can see, it certainly did kick a SJW hornet's nest.

And again we are given the option of poo and poop - support the antifa apologists, or support the alt-right “who were just tired of apologising” to the point where they somehow felt a good idea was to act like neo-Nazis in response.

I’ve spent plenty of time on this board criticising both sides of this mess, and yet curiously I don’t feel the need to carry shields with swastikas on them. It’s almost as if there may be alternatives ways of addressing problems than going full-tilt stupid to either end of the political wing and demanding everyone accompany you.

I’m sympathetic to the people who hate the tone of the equality debate and how hypocritical it is. It isn’t helping matters, and I work to see it gone. Equally, if your way of dealing with that is to start reviving fascism and fascist iconography, then you might just be the sort of toxic moron the hard left thinks all white people are.

 

[Gadarene]

Whoa...pump the brakes there Gad. I didn't say there's no good usages of the term privilege. I think that the term is only used to shame whites and excuse blacks. I've never seen it as part of a larger conversation that includes all kinds of privileges from female privilege, height privilege, beauty privilege, and so on....

Instead, the whole conversation turns into a discussion of how while privilege is the explanation for every inequality there is....which is in itself, a racist premise.

It’s....not...though? Where are you getting this from?

What usually happens is people do combine privileges - the problem is they tend to focus on the old-straight-white-male combination and ignore some of the other privileges you’ve mentioned.

Intersectionality is a (limited) form of what you’re already asking for. They are already discussing privileges simultaneously. I personally don’t think it’s up to much, because it’s hard to compare like with like on one axes, nevermind combining several. It also doesn’t consider men as capable of being oppressed, racism is unidirectional, etc etc.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And later....



Would you mind awfully if we didn’t use “things I haven’t heard of” as a criterion for anything?

Tell you what, you show me an article by a leftist outlet or writer proclaiming that white privilege is simply one of many privileges and not the answer to everything and I'll not only let it go...I'll admit I was wrong.

You know I specifically said we should compare like with like, right? I don’t think you can glom privileges together and get some neat answer - except when there are barely any issues associated with one group compared to another. Gender doesn’t fit that paradigm, but race does.

Class is the neglected child in all of this anyway and has a disproportionate effect compared to most of the axes SJWs get het up about, so for my money middle class will trump the working class, and most of the rest is secondary.

I left out class because it's arguably an earned privilege.

The rest actually make white privilege look insignificant. Female privilege affects so many things all of the time it's hard to even fathom how big an advantage it is. Height privilege, fitness privilege are similar....but beauty privilege actually allows you to say completely stupid things and people will agree with you regardless. There's probably no stronger bias than beauty bias...and there's science to back it all up.

There are studies showing that an unspecified number of advantages exist for tall people?

Science says being tall could make you richer and more successful — here's why

Ok, then by that metric, male privilege definitely exists. I don’t think you’re applying your approach very consistently here. I’m not about to claim female privilege exists while male privilege doesn’t - largely for the same reasons I have to tell feminists that if male privilege exists, female privilege exists.

Height privilege applies to either sex...not just men. The women are wonderful effect applies to all women all the time. If there's a male bias, I've never heard of it...but feel free to show me a study or two.

Yeah, but that’s all it is at this moment in keep. Writing. Keep writing back. What else are you proposing, otherwise?

They should be widely excoriated for that garbage...until they're put out of business.

Half the time I think the issue is trust rather than accuracy. These generalities can be discussed and practically in (some) academic settings. With activists, not so much. But then activists aren’t academics, and activists are by definition going to moralise.

I think the problem lies in the emotional appeal of the argument. Who wouldn't want to hear that their problems aren't really their fault and instead are the fault of those they're racist against? It's the same garbage that brought the kkk together.

Right, which is why those applications of the idea that white people are statistically advantaged should be dealt with. That doesn’t mean we stop talking about white advantage forever.

How would you propose we deal with them?

This is why the concept at least works on the statistical level. The problem is activist types using a statistical/systemic idea to badger individuals.

Actually, it doesn't...because you're working backwards from the outcome to the problem. The reality is, even at a statistical level, you've got no idea whatsoever how much white privilege affects the outcomes of blacks...if it affects them at all.

All you've done is looked at different outcomes for two different groups....then subscribed to the easiest answer you could find without any evidence at all.

Pick any oppressed group. Woman card is the most obvious alternative.

Women aren't oppressed.

As I said, SJWs tend to ignore class and wealth disparity, which would have a far greater impact on inequality and social mobility.

Poor whites than poor blacks in absolute terms or proportionately?

Absolute terms...but let's imagine that ten years down the road, the opioid epidemic has made it a proportional reality as well. Would you accept black privilege as the reason? Or would you think that perhaps due to certain circumstances...whites as a group made some really bad decisions for a couple of decades?

It’s still there! That is still a group based argument

That's really the problem...a poor white kid from west virginia scraping to get by has more in common with a poor black kid in Gary, Indiana than he does the white son of some senator who's going to Harvard as a legacy.

There's far too much stratification to simplify a problem as white and black.

I’ll get back to this when you’ve answered the question about whether there are more poor whites in the US in absolute number terms or proportionately. I suspect it’s the latter, but I’ll wait for your response on that.

See above.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It’s....not...though? Where are you getting this from?

No...it's not...where am I getting this from? Are you kidding me? Literally every article I've ever read about white privilege.

What usually happens is people do combine privileges - the problem is they tend to focus on the old-straight-white-male combination and ignore some of the other privileges you’ve mentioned.

Ignore some of them? They ignore all of them. Here's an article about white privilege in the school setting...and how to avoid perpetuating it...

https://www.nais.org/magazine/indep...ssing-white-privilege-in-independent-schools/

An excerpt...

"Traditional evaluation tools reward the advantaged for having had more opportunity to begin with. Though a candidate of color may have slightly less experience or a somewhat lower test score than a white candidate, it may be that, relative to that person’s starting point, the person of color’s achievements are actually more impressive and indicate perseverance and potential that would translate to success in an independent school. A true commitment to diversity and equity takes this into account throughout the institutional process."

In case you're missing the message here, it's that since it's tougher to be black...we should lower the standards for them. Got two teachers applying for a job? The white one may have more experience...may have better credentials...but the black one had to have worked harder, after all, he's black!
So don't perpetuate white privilege by hiring the white teacher.

Intersectionality is a (limited) form of what you’re already asking for. They are already discussing privileges simultaneously. I personally don’t think it’s up to much, because it’s hard to compare like with like on one axes, nevermind combining several. It also doesn’t consider men as capable of being oppressed, racism is unidirectional, etc etc.

Intersectionality is just a buzzword for non blacks to get in on some of that sweet sweet victimhood morality. Nothing let's you freely dump on an entire race quite like claiming they're "oppressing" you.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Ahhh...so the solution here is for whites to not get jobs until everyone else is hired first.

<snip>

Which brings me back to the original point, what is the point of all this talk about white privilege?

You seem to love loaded questions and putting words into other's mouths.

I never suggested that there was a definitive solution to the problem.

The reason for it being discussed is to give a socioeconomic rebuttal to the GOP types (like Paul Ryan) who want to blame every issue in certain minority communities on "a culture problem" (IE: suggest that it's the black community's own fault for their situation).

Many seem to want to take the stance that "oh, well all of the racist laws were abolished...so any issues that community has at any point after that is 100% on them" and seems to be blind to the fact that there is easily decades of fallout after that level of systemic mistreatment.


The analogy I use is that of a boxing match...

Let's say Joe is boxing Mike.

In round one, the judges were stacking the deck against Mike, so they tied his hands together and made him wear a blindfold, and let Joe tee off on him for the full 3 minutes.

Then, between rounds 1 & 2, some new judges come in and definitely agree that what was happening to Mike wasn't fair, so they say "from round 2, moving forward, neither will have their hands tied or have to wear the blindfold and both have to compete with the same rules"

....and then a group of people (who still have some disrespectful feelings toward Mike, even though they won't admit it openly) come out and say, to an already injured and punch-drunk Mike: "Gee, Mike, the rules are level now, we changed it back at the beginning of round 2 so that you and Joe have the exact same rules now so everything is equal, if Joe is still doing better than you in this fight, that's your fault for not trying hard enough..."

 

[super animator]

You seem to love loaded questions and putting words into other's mouths.

I never suggested that there was a definitive solution to the problem.

The reason for it being discussed is to give a socioeconomic rebuttal to the GOP types (like Paul Ryan) who want to blame every issue in certain minority communities on "a culture problem" (IE: suggest that it's the black community's own fault for their situation).

Many seem to want to take the stance that "oh, well all of the racist laws were abolished...so any issues that community has at any point after that is 100% on them" and seems to be blind to the fact that there is easily decades of fallout after that level of systemic mistreatment.


The analogy I use is that of a boxing match...

Let's say Joe is boxing Mike.

In round one, the judges were stacking the deck against Mike, so they tied his hands together and made him wear a blindfold, and let Joe tee off on him for the full 3 minutes.

Then, between rounds 1 & 2, some new judges come in and definitely agree that what was happening to Mike wasn't fair, so they say "from round 2, moving forward, neither will have their hands tied or have to wear the blindfold and both have to compete with the same rules"

....and then a group of people (who still have some disrespectful feelings toward Mike, even though they won't admit it openly) come out and say, to an already injured and punch-drunk Mike: "Gee, Mike, the rules are level now, we changed it back at the beginning of round 2 so that you and Joe have the exact same rules now so everything is equal, if Joe is still doing better than you in this fight, that's your fault for not trying hard enough..."

Who knew that having large amounts of wealth would grand so much power and privilege /s.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You seem to love loaded questions and putting words into other's mouths.

I never suggested that there was a definitive solution to the problem.

The reason for it being discussed is to give a socioeconomic rebuttal to the GOP types (like Paul Ryan) who want to blame every issue in certain minority communities on "a culture problem" (IE: suggest that it's the black community's own fault for their situation).

Many seem to want to take the stance that "oh, well all of the racist laws were abolished...so any issues that community has at any point after that is 100% on them" and seems to be blind to the fact that there is easily decades of fallout after that level of systemic mistreatment.


The analogy I use is that of a boxing match...

Let's say Joe is boxing Mike.

In round one, the judges were stacking the deck against Mike, so they tied his hands together and made him wear a blindfold, and let Joe tee off on him for the full 3 minutes.

Then, between rounds 1 & 2, some new judges come in and definitely agree that what was happening to Mike wasn't fair, so they say "from round 2, moving forward, neither will have their hands tied or have to wear the blindfold and both have to compete with the same rules"

....and then a group of people (who still have some disrespectful feelings toward Mike, even though they won't admit it openly) come out and say, to an already injured and punch-drunk Mike: "Gee, Mike, the rules are level now, we changed it back at the beginning of round 2 so that you and Joe have the exact same rules now so everything is equal, if Joe is still doing better than you in this fight, that's your fault for not trying hard enough..."

Why do you have to describe this whole thing in really awful analogies. There's about a thousand articles on it online...there's got to be hundreds of real world examples.

Yet you just keep spewing awful analogies.

Why not just say what you mean?

I was trying to find a reasonable article on white privilege last night...and I came across something interesting. It said that white privilege isn't something we can reasonably take away from whites without doing them an injustice...because it's a set of privileges all races should aspire to. Whether it's not being discriminated against at a job, or not being shaken down for a car loan.

Then I read another article that claimed the real issue was a psychological familiarity bias...that is we "like" those we see as like ourselves. Since white males tend to be in positions of power...well, they promote other white males into positions of power.

Regardless, your analogy bites. There's blacks who spent the first half of their lives as slaves only to become wealthy entrepreneurs. The idea that it's a huge disadvantage for blacks today is a joke.

 

[SolomonVII]

A major tenant of leftist thought, very often held but rarely stated explicitly, is that "oppressed" people have every right to hate their "oppressors", but the "oppressors" have no moral right to return this hatred. In fact, "oppressors" have no legitimate interests at all, not even their own survival.

This is what passes for compassion and fairness from the post-modernists.
It is cultural Marxism and class warfare taking the form of Identity politics. History has proven this to be nothing more than a form of nihilism.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Why do you have to describe this whole thing in really awful analogies. There's about a thousand articles on it online...there's got to be hundreds of real world examples.

Yet you just keep spewing awful analogies.

Why not just say what you mean?

Many of us use analogies because when we do provide real-world examples, you guys tend to reject them and cherry pick outlier examples to somehow convince everyone that the exception negates the rule.

I have said what I mean...in fact, one of my first posts in this thread was paragraphs of me explaining exactly what I meant. You just came back semi-aggressive one-sentence refutations.

Regardless, your analogy bites. There's blacks who spent the first half of their lives as slaves only to become wealthy entrepreneurs. The idea that it's a huge disadvantage for blacks today is a joke.

...just like this. Real world examples and data don't seem to matter much to you guys because you can always cling to a few token outlier examples like the one you just provided.

Because there are "some blacks that were slaves, but became entrepreneurs", that somehow proves that the black community as a whole isn't fighting more of an uphill battle than other groups?...or that the generational effects of institutional racism aren't real?


Clearly you're dug in and are unwilling to accept any potential narrative other than "It's the blacks own faults they're in this situation...they should just work harder so they can do well like us. The fact that they're parents are poor, because their parents were poor, because there parents were poor, because their parents were intentionally put in a scenario where they were classified as 2nd class citizens doesn't matter, they should just get over it"


...I mean c'mon, you honestly don't understand reality that the effects of these things just don't go away overnight just because some new laws were put on the books?

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Their own one, usually.

That's quite a few countries...

So really, they’re still defining themselves by what SJWs tell them, but in terms of rejecting it.

SJW's didn't devise with the concept of white identity - they devised the notion of it as an evil and oppressive thing.

And again we are given the option of poo and poop - support the antifa apologists, or support the alt-right “who were just tired of apologising” to the point where they somehow felt a good idea was to act like neo-Nazis in response.

I’ve spent plenty of time on this board criticising both sides of this mess, and yet curiously I don’t feel the need to carry shields with swastikas on them. It’s almost as if there may be alternatives ways of addressing problems than going full-tilt stupid to either end of the political wing and demanding everyone accompany you.

I’m sympathetic to the people who hate the tone of the equality debate and how hypocritical it is. It isn’t helping matters, and I work to see it gone. Equally, if your way of dealing with that is to start reviving fascism and fascist iconography, then you might just be the sort of toxic moron the hard left thinks all white people are.

I’m sympathetic to the people who hate the tone of the equality debate and how hypocritical it is. It isn’t helping matters, and I work to see it gone. Equally, if your way of dealing with that is to start reviving fascism and fascist iconography, then you might just be the sort of toxic moron the hard left thinks all white people are.

As I just got finished explaining, that is decidedly not what the alt-right is about.

 

[Gadarene]

That's quite a few countries...

Sure. It's not a nuclear problem, and it doesn't involve the entire planet. It doesn't involve the undermining of the postwar liberal order either.

As I just got finished explaining, that is decidedly not what the alt-right is about.

You explained quite clearly that the meanie lefties saying hurtful things to young people encouraged them to drift to the alt-right and you specifically cited Charlottesville as an example of their frustrations manifesting. And we all know how exactly some of the frustrations manifested, don't we?

You explained quite clearly that that is exactly what the alt-right is about. If you were intending otherwise, perhaps you should retract that example?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Many of us use analogies because when we do provide real-world examples, you guys tend to reject them and cherry pick outlier examples to somehow convince everyone that the exception negates the rule.

I have said what I mean...in fact, one of my first posts in this thread was paragraphs of me explaining exactly what I meant. You just came back semi-aggressive one-sentence refutations.

What post are you talking about? I reread your first three posts. You vaguely talked about what white privilege isn't for two...then on the third you gave one of your bad analogies about "what if your family held down this other family for four generations".

The thing is, like most white people, my family didn't hold any other families down for even 1 generation....let alone four.

...just like this. Real world examples and data don't seem to matter much to you guys because you can always cling to a few token outlier examples like the one you just provided.

Because there are "some blacks that were slaves, but became entrepreneurs", that somehow proves that the black community as a whole isn't fighting more of an uphill battle than other groups?...or that the generational effects of institutional racism aren't real?

So...you don't want to use real world examples, because I use real world examples? I'm not asking for specific cases Rob...I'm just asking you to explain an idea without any vague analogies that don't translate well in reality.

Clearly you're dug in and are unwilling to accept any potential narrative other than "It's the blacks own faults they're in this situation...they should just work harder so they can do well like us. The fact that they're parents are poor, because their parents were poor, because there parents were poor, because their parents were intentionally put in a scenario where they were classified as 2nd class citizens doesn't matter, they should just get over it"


...I mean c'mon, you honestly don't understand reality that the effects of these things just don't go away overnight just because some new laws were put on the books?

Oh now...you're being unfair here. I totally accept that there's probably some realistic aspects to "white privilege"...I even accept that it probably accounts for some measure of the discrepancy between the average wealth of whites and blacks.

My problem is that when it's discussed....it's treated as the only reason for that discrepancy. It's not even measurable...yet people like yourself are willing to treat it like it's the only thing standing between economic equality (as if that's attainable in the first place). White privilege doesn't make a black kid drop out of high school. It doesn't make a black girl get pregnant before she's even 18. It doesn't make black parents divorce, and it force any black person from a career path. You may not have read the stats, but a lot of these issues....all of which dramatically effect how much wealth a person acquires in their lifetime....have gotten worse since "the rules" were made even for everyone. It's not me who's unwilling to even consider the effect of personal choices and culture in the matter....it's you.

So who's really "dug into" their preferred narrative so much they're unwilling to consider any other? I went as far as creating a thread on issues in black culture...and I don't remember you posting on it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What post are you talking about? I reread your first three posts. You vaguely talked about what white privilege isn't for two...then on the third you gave one of your bad analogies about "what if your family held down this other family for four generations".

The thing is, like most white people, my family didn't hold any other families down for even 1 generation....let alone four.

Indoctrination Cult University

Simply put,

It's the idea that one group can have significant advantages over another group based on the situations that previous generations were in, and how certain economic and societal scenarios can perpetuate for several generations before things are evened out.

So...you don't want to use real world examples, because I use real world examples? I'm not asking for specific cases Rob...I'm just asking you to explain an idea without any vague analogies that don't translate well in reality.

You're misunderstanding...

I said we use analogies because when we do provide real-world data and example, your side quickly dismisses it as a "culture problem".

We know (through data) that things like poverty are perpetual in nature (if parents are poor, they're less likely to be able to provide for their children in ways that will ensure the children's success...IE: can't send them to the best schools, can't move out of the low-end neighborhoods that have some bad elements, can't afford to send them to college, etc...)...so when those kids, statistically speaking, are likely to grow up poor, the cycle continues as they're in the same situation their parents are in, can't put their kids in good schools, can't pay for college, etc...

My problem is that when it's discussed....it's treated as the only reason for that discrepancy. It's not even measurable...yet people like yourself are willing to treat it like it's the only thing standing between economic equality (as if that's attainable in the first place).

Okay, so another part of my post (linked above) that you didn't read. Quoting myself here...

Like I stated before, I do think the concept is used to try to explain/justify far too much in certain aspects and some folks try to use it as an all-encompassing explanation for all cultural and societal problems.

I actually agreed that people try to use it to explain far too much and that certain cultural things do need to be addressed. However, people in the other camp tend to want to blame it all on culture problems and think it's perfectly acceptable to dismiss any and all systemic responsibility for the situation they're in.

White privilege doesn't make a black kid drop out of high school. It doesn't make a black girl get pregnant before she's even 18. It doesn't make black parents divorce, and it force any black person from a career path.

Actually, the lingering effects do impact some of those that...

For instance, if you're a kid who grew up with poor parents in a dangerous neighborhood, that's no fault of your own, you have no control over your parents' actions. So when you're getting robbed and beat up a school, you're less likely to see it as a safe place to be and are more likely to drop out.

Since most meaningful careers require some form of post-secondary education (which costs $$$), since many black families were put in perpetual poverty from systemic effects, and the fallout afterwards, to say that it hasn't impacted career choices would be false.


These are simple concepts.

If you're put in a situation where you're going to be poor, then your kids will, statistically speaking (yes, I realize there are outliers), will end up being poor, which means their kids will likely be, the cycle repeats...so since it is a repeating cycle, a certain measure of blame has to be put on the entity/system that spawned off the cycle in the first place.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Indoctrination Cult University

Simply put,

It's the idea that one group can have significant advantages over another group based on the situations that previous generations were in, and how certain economic and societal scenarios can perpetuate for several generations before things are evened out.

I apologize for not taking this as a serious answer earlier...I honestly thought you were being intentionally vague to avoid giving specific information for whatever reason. Since you're doubling down on this explanation of white privilege...I can only assume that you're completely serious about it. Frankly, I find that a little bit concerning...

I'm going to try to explain why without being condescending...but it's going to be difficult...because you're relating a concept here that's so fundamentally flawed.

The thing is there's no possible future...nor has there ever been any past...where "things are evened out". It never happened...and I can't even imagine a way that it could. There's so many reasons for why that is true that it would be impossible for me alone to describe them all...but I'll focus on two that I think are rather important. "Talent"....because it relates to why things are never going to be evened out, and "capitalism" because it relates more specifically to the United States and why things will never be evened out here.

When I say talent, I'm using the term to describe literally any non-monetary advantage. Beauty, intelligence, social skills, personal connections, height, physical ability, memory,...you get the idea, right? It's literally an endless list of qualities which fit along the standard bell curve. It doesn't even matter if the talent is learned or innate....there's going to be a few who have very little, a few with a whole lot, and most of us are on the hump of the bell curve somewhere in between.

On some level, you must understand this...right? If you didn't (and I hate to pull out a real world example knowing your disdain for them) you'd have to look at the racial makeup of the NBA and think "Wow....black NBA players are 75% of the total amount, yet only 6% of the population! There must be some kind of black privilege holding down generations of super talented non-black players! This is an injustice!" My guess though, is that you think no such thing...and instead if you tried to think of an explanation for this discrepancy, you'd come up with some other reasons than some nebulous concept of "black privilege". You don't strike me as particularly racist...so you probably wouldn't try to explain it through genetic differences. After all, the genetics of those few successful white NBA players aren't really all that different from the genetics of the black ones, right? Hmmmm...could cultural differences be at play here? Could it be that more young black men aspire to be in the NBA than young white men? Could this mean that competition between young blacks, despite any economic disadvantages, is a lot tougher than it is between young whites? Could this lead to greater levels of talent in the black community...and eventually to more of them actually making it into the NBA?

When you consider just those factors, and probably the dozens of other factors at play, it's not hard to realize that skin color isn't somehow holding down non-black players and leaving them disadvantaged. It's also not hard to realize that we won't even see this discrepancy "evened out" no matter how many generations go by...not as long as cultural differences/values are different between these two communities.

And the real kicker here? Whites had a massive "head start" in this industry, didn't they? There was a time when blacks were shut out of the sport....along with most of the other sports they're vastly over represented in. Now, I understand that if you're a young white man who feels like he isn't getting a fair chance to play basketball at the higher levels of the game...whether it's collegiate or professional...blaming it all on "black privilege" would be an easier answer than looking at all the other relevant factors and understanding that the coaches' bias towards black players (after years of seeing blacks excel in this competition) probably isn't a very big factor in why that young white man didn't "succeed". It would be tempting though, right? Especially in this age of claiming victimhood, and being able to spew hatred at your "oppressors"....something that is being normalized and encouraged.

Maybe that example is too general though....maybe you still think that if everything were fair, that we'd actually see a population of NBA players that reflected the population of the U.S. in general. So let's just move right along to the next example which I suspect you think is a lot more relevant...

Capitalism. It's a big scary concept that I'm not going to delve very deep into because I don't need to do that in order to make a point. We are, largely, a capitalist society with the trappings of some socialism that try to prevent class stratification from going too far (though admittedly, over time, those with more wealth have been increasingly successful at manipulating the system to their advantage....see? I'm not unreasonable...). On a very basic individual level, capitalism works by the same simple rules for everyone....make smart choices with your money, and you'll be more successful than whatever point you started participating in the system. If you make dumb choices with your money...you'll end up less successful than when you started. I know that's a simplified version of the whole process...but it's still true. Even someone astoundingly wealthy who made excellent choices and amassed a fortune for his heirs cannot guarantee that 4 generations later, if his progeny all make repeatedly or astoundingly bad choices, his fortune will be squandered. Certainly you understand that....again, here's a real world example, but how many Paris Hiltons do you think the Hilton hotel empire can suffer before it's less than a Motel 6? How well is John DuPont doing these days?

That's also why I brought up the example of a black woman who spent her early life as a slave and ended up a wealthy entrepreneur. Money doesn't care about skin color...and while, yes, inheriting wealth from successful family is a huge advantage (probably the biggest regarding the accumulation of more wealth) it's never going to be a bigger factor than personal choice. Personal choices can eliminate a 10 generation family dynasty...or build one. That's what happens in a capitalist society. Now, most of us are still in the middle of that bell curve when it comes to these smart and dumb choices...so most of us will only do slightly better or worse than our parents, and again, there's more factors involved than I could possibly count...but skin color/race isn't a very big one.

Sorry if that went on a bit long....please believe that I tried to keep it short. It's just that I can't imagine that you're somehow unaware of these things and that you'd expect it all to "even out" after any amount of time. It never has and I can't imagine any argument that it ever will. It doesn't matter which way we divide the groups...men/women, whites/blacks, latinos/asians, old/young, skinny/fat, ...I would never expect to see these groups or any others "evened out" in terms of wealth. I wouldn't expect them to be "evened out" under any terms at all...whether you're talking about incarceration rates, suicide rates, drug usage, marriage, longevity....anything really.

So now that I'm done with my little tirade...I have to ask....

Where did you get this idea that "things would even out" and why do you believe in it?

You're misunderstanding...

I said we use analogies because when we do provide real-world data and example, your side quickly dismisses it as a "culture problem".

Well that's not very nice of you to generalize my response to real world examples without actually giving me any and seeing what my responses are.

Let me ask you something...and please, if you don't answer anything else, answer this....

Do you have any real world examples that are something more significant than "here's a discrepancy between these two groups....white privilege is to blame?"

We know (through data) that things like poverty are perpetual in nature (if parents are poor, they're less likely to be able to provide for their children in ways that will ensure the children's success...IE: can't send them to the best schools, can't move out of the low-end neighborhoods that have some bad elements, can't afford to send them to college, etc...)...so when those kids, statistically speaking, are likely to grow up poor, the cycle continues as they're in the same situation their parents are in, can't put their kids in good schools, can't pay for college, etc...

I don't see how this can be tied specifically to some white privilege phenomena. You can see the exact same things in other societies with almost completely homogeneous societies. Go to China where the overwhelming majority of the nation is racially Chinese and you'll see the same. Go to India where the overwhelming majority of the nation is Indian and you'll see the same.

Okay, so another part of my post (linked above) that you didn't read. Quoting myself here...

Like I stated before, I do think the concept is used to try to explain/justify far too much in certain aspects and some folks try to use it as an all-encompassing explanation for all cultural and societal problems.

I actually agreed that people try to use it to explain far too much and that certain cultural things do need to be addressed. However, people in the other camp tend to want to blame it all on culture problems and think it's perfectly acceptable to dismiss any and all systemic responsibility for the situation they're in.

While it's encouraging that you don't see it as a catch-all answer for racial discrepancies...my guess is that you see it as accounting for a much larger portion of them than I do. If I had to guess....I'd say that it accounts for maybe 1-5% of the discrepancies between races...and I'm probably being generous. I'd guess you think it's much much higher than that.

The ironic part (I should probably say hypocritical) is that when we're talking about "white privilege" we're talking about a cultural phenomenon, are we not? Isn't it supposed to be some effect of white intra-cultural values or something? I'm asking because again, the description of white privilege given is so vague. So the hypocrisy there is that those on the left who are so willing to believe that there's some nationwide white cultural effect on society that it literally oppresses the lives of non-whites....yet the mere suggestion that any other race's culture has any effect on their outcomes is ridiculed and dismissed outright.

Actually, the lingering effects do impact some of those that...

For instance, if you're a kid who grew up with poor parents in a dangerous neighborhood, that's no fault of your own, you have no control over your parents' actions. So when you're getting robbed and beat up a school, you're less likely to see it as a safe place to be and are more likely to drop out.

That's still a choice though...we actually have these things called laws put into place to protect people from being assaulted and robbed, and an entire institution created to enforce those laws.

I understand why that kid is probably more likely to choose to drop out instead of turning to authorities for help....and I also understand those reasons are largely cultural.

Since most meaningful careers require some form of post-secondary education (which costs $$$), since many black families were put in perpetual poverty from systemic effects, and the fallout afterwards, to say that it hasn't impacted career choices would be false.

Wow...perpetual poverty from systemic effects. Are we talking about systemic effects like the 80s crack epidemic? That will definitely perpetuate poverty and make life difficult for generations.

These are simple concepts.

If you're put in a situation where you're going to be poor, then your kids will, statistically speaking (yes, I realize there are outliers), will end up being poor, which means their kids will likely be, the cycle repeats...so since it is a repeating cycle, a certain measure of blame has to be put on the entity/system that spawned off the cycle in the first place.

Life? What entity/system are we talking about here?

To believe something like that it almost seems like you'd have to believe that society only advanced through the ages by magic or something. Are you under the impression that sometime in the distant past, people had more upward mobility and opportunities than they do now?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Do you have any real world examples that are something more significant than "here's a discrepancy between these two groups....white privilege is to blame?"

Poverty rate data
Criminal justice system data (with respect to sentencing for blacks vs. whites)
Education stats (particularly, how school in inner city black America compare to suburban white America)

Those are all data points that highlight the disparities between the two groups.

While it's encouraging that you don't see it as a catch-all answer for racial discrepancies...my guess is that you see it as accounting for a much larger portion of them than I do. If I had to guess....I'd say that it accounts for maybe 1-5% of the discrepancies between races...and I'm probably being generous. I'd guess you think it's much much higher than that.

Then we're worlds apart on the percentages...I'd put it closer to a 50/50.

If you're in a situation where you're a kid growing up in a bad neighborhood, with lousy schools, no post-secondary educational prospects, and you're parents have no money, you're in a bad situation with a lot of elements that are completely out of control.

Now, I know the stereotypical response to this is 'they could just work really hard and get a scholarship', but that reasoning, in and of itself, is indicative of one group having a much steeper uphill battle. When a black kid either needs to be a sports superstar, or in the top 1% of academia in order to get into college, yet 60% of white kids get to go simply because of family financial situations, that's a pretty big disparity.

In a nutshell, a mediocre 2.7 GPA white kid who doesn't particularly work hard, has a better chance of getting into college than his black counterpart who may have a 3.5 GPA and does try hard.

That's still a choice though...we actually have these things called laws put into place to protect people from being assaulted and robbed, and an entire institution created to enforce those laws.

Well, good choices are a luxury in some regards.

When you live in a safe neighborhood, with good schools and a welcoming environment, making the right choice (to go to school everyday and apply yourself) is a lot easier than making that same choice when the school you're in isn't particularly good in the first place, and you have a 20% chance of getting roughed up or having your stuff stolen.

I understand why that kid is probably more likely to choose to drop out instead of turning to authorities for help....and I also understand those reasons are largely cultural.

There is a cultural element, but it was systemic effects that spawned of that perpetual cultural cycle years ago. "Gang culture" was born out of limited job opportunities and mistreatment by police.

Wow...perpetual poverty from systemic effects. Are we talking about systemic effects like the 80s crack epidemic? That will definitely perpetuate poverty and make life difficult for generations.

...again, another thing that can be attributed to a cycle started by systemic effects.

Life? What entity/system are we talking about here?

To believe something like that it almost seems like you'd have to believe that society only advanced through the ages by magic or something. Are you under the impression that sometime in the distant past, people had more upward mobility and opportunities than they do now?

Poverty (and economic class in general) is something that's largely perpetual...88% of kids (regardless of race) end up in the same economic class as their parents...very few break the cycle. So if have a situation where systemic effects from years past intentionally put one group in poverty, and economic status is perpetual, you have a scenario where that group is going to be looking a several generations of poverty before enough people tip the scales enough to break the cycle.



Like I said, these concepts should be fairly simple to grasp...

If society treats your family like dirt for 100+ years, there are going to be problems in your community that take a long time to fix.

The change in laws isn't a flip of the switch where "everything is fair now...what's the matter, you're all not middle class yet???...c'mon guys pull yourself up by your bootstraps and work harder, it's been 20 years, what are you waiting for????"


Where the "white privilege" aspect comes into play is that I as a white guy..statistically speaking...have better job prospects, less likely to be incarcerated over petty crimes (even when arrested for one), less likely to be harassed by law enforcement, more likely to be born into a family with money, etc...

It almost seems like your expectation is for a group just to be able to turn it around on their own just because the rules were leveled out on paper.

If one group is already starting 5 points up, and the other is starting 5 points in the hole at the time the rules were evened out, that latter group is still going to be at a huge disadvantage for quite some time.


Like I said, there are some cultural issues at play...but it's fair to point out that the systemic issues from the past helped to create some of these perpetual cultural issues we see today.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Poverty rate data
Criminal justice system data (with respect to sentencing for blacks vs. whites)
Education stats (particularly, how school in inner city black America compare to suburban white America)

Those are all data points that highlight the disparities between the two groups.

And? I literally didn't want you to just point to a disparity and say "white privilege" without connecting the two in any way...and that's what you did.

I'll make it simple...how do you account for poverty rates and overall average wealth of asians....if you think white privilege is this massive effect that puts whites at an advantage? Why do whites, on average, have a higher poverty rate and lower average wealth than asians in the U.S.?

I'm sure I don't need to tell you that many asians who've been in the U.S. for multiple generations also faced serious discrimination and a huge number of them didn't come here with millions in their pockets....they started at the bottom of the ladder.

Then we're worlds apart on the percentages...I'd put it closer to a 50/50.

If you're in a situation where you're a kid growing up in a bad neighborhood, with lousy schools, no post-secondary educational prospects, and you're parents have no money, you're in a bad situation with a lot of elements that are completely out of control.

The problem for me is that you're starting off the assumption that the kid is in the situation because "white people"...and that's it? No examination of where his family is from, his parents' choices, etc.

It's as if you believe that for 5-6 generations that kid's family did nothing but try hard and make good choices....and white people just held them down. It's amazingly simplistic.

Now, I know the stereotypical response to this is 'they could just work really hard and get a scholarship', but that reasoning, in and of itself, is indicative of one group having a much steeper uphill battle. When a black kid either needs to be a sports superstar, or in the top 1% of academia in order to get into college, yet 60% of white kids get to go simply because of family financial situations, that's a pretty big disparity.

In a nutshell, a mediocre 2.7 GPA white kid who doesn't particularly work hard, has a better chance of getting into college than his black counterpart who may have a 3.5 GPA and does try hard.

Let's not forget that he gets an automatic 200 points added to his SATs for being black. How many of those stats did you completely fabricate?

Well, good choices are a luxury in some regards.

When you live in a safe neighborhood, with good schools and a welcoming environment, making the right choice (to go to school everyday and apply yourself) is a lot easier than making that same choice when the school you're in isn't particularly good in the first place, and you have a 20% chance of getting roughed up or having your stuff stolen.

No...good choices are still available, they just aren't the easy choices.

There is a cultural element, but it was systemic effects that spawned of that perpetual cultural cycle years ago. "Gang culture" was born out of limited job opportunities and mistreatment by police.



...again, another thing that can be attributed to a cycle started by systemic effects.

I wasn't thinking about gang culture so much as honor cultures in general....gang culture is really just a subset of a larger issue.

Poverty (and economic class in general) is something that's largely perpetual...88% of kids (regardless of race) end up in the same economic class as their parents...very few break the cycle. So if have a situation where systemic effects from years past intentionally put one group in poverty, and economic status is perpetual, you have a scenario where that group is going to be looking a several generations of poverty before enough people tip the scales enough to break the cycle.

I don't think money alone will fix the issue.

Like I said, these concepts should be fairly simple to grasp...

If society treats your family like dirt for 100+ years, there are going to be problems in your community that take a long time to fix.

The change in laws isn't a flip of the switch where "everything is fair now...what's the matter, you're all not middle class yet???...c'mon guys pull yourself up by your bootstraps and work harder, it's been 20 years, what are you waiting for????"


Where the "white privilege" aspect comes into play is that I as a white guy..statistically speaking...have better job prospects, less likely to be incarcerated over petty crimes (even when arrested for one), less likely to be harassed by law enforcement, more likely to be born into a family with money, etc...

and if you're one of the tens of millions of whites that none of this applies to...it's easy to see why such simple explanations are worthless.

It almost seems like your expectation is for a group just to be able to turn it around on their own just because the rules were leveled out on paper.

Not at all...I simply don't deny black people their agency and pretend their all victims of circumstance.

Like I said, there are some cultural issues at play...but it's fair to point out that the systemic issues from the past helped to create some of these perpetual cultural issues we see today.

So...white privilege is "history"?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'll make it simple...how do you account for poverty rates and overall average wealth of asians....if you think white privilege is this massive effect that puts whites at an advantage? Why do whites, on average, have a higher poverty rate and lower average wealth than asians in the U.S.?

Asians didn't face the same kinds of discrimination (in terms of length, severity, societal stigmas, etc...) that Black America did. ...and political leaders in the US found certain conveniences in working to drop the stigmas against Asians for purposes of building allies during the cold-war era.

The real reasons the U.S. became less racist toward Asian Americans

No...good choices are still available, they just aren't the easy choices.

...but that still proves my point...

If making the right choice is incredibly easy for me with no risk of any sort of negative consequence, but making the right choice for you could come with negative consequences attached, I'm still a leg up on you at that point and it would be a lie to claim that you and I had the same opportunity.

The problem for me is that you're starting off the assumption that the kid is in the situation because "white people"...and that's it? No examination of where his family is from, his parents' choices, etc.

It's as if you believe that for 5-6 generations that kid's family did nothing but try hard and make good choices....and white people just held them down. It's amazingly simplistic.

You seem to be thinking that it's all just about "bashing white people", I would say that view is incredibly simplistic.

Being that poverty is perpetual, and that cycle of poverty was started off by an environment where blacks were mistreated, stigmatized, and purposefully kept as second class citizens...meanwhile many whites exploited that situation for their own gains, both financially, and in terms of societal status, then in that sense, yes, some whites of the past were responsible for that situation, and some whites are still benefiting today due to those past situations.

Like I noted before, making the right choices is often a luxury that's somewhat dependent on your environment. We all know the right choice is to not steal bread...

That right choice is very easy for a person with $100 in their pocket...if they want the bread, they can just buy it.

However, if there's no jobs in your neighborhood, nobody will help you out, and you're hungry, that "right choice" isn't quite as easy to make as it was for the former described person.



Let's look at it from a different angle. In your opinion, after 100+ years of mistreatment, and another couple decades of society looking down upon you, how long are you willing to give a community to get back on their feet? Is your expectation 10 years?, 20 years?

And what's your standard for when the advantages of being a descendant of the group that was doing the oppressing diminished?

Obviously, everyone would agree that if I were the grandson of a former plantation owner and as a result, inherited $10 million dollars upon his death, there'd be no doubt that I was experiencing a benefit that came at the expense of the mistreatment of others, even if I, myself, wasn't racist.

...so obviously you see the line somewhere between that, and where we are today. Where do you put that line?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Asians didn't face the same kinds of discrimination (in terms of length, severity, societal stigmas, etc...) that Black America did. ...and political leaders in the US found certain conveniences in working to drop the stigmas against Asians for purposes of building allies during the cold-war era.

The real reasons the U.S. became less racist toward Asian Americans

So...in your mind, white privilege is indistinguishable from racism? It's just how racist whites are against a group in general that determines how well they do?

Again, it's hard to believe that you really believe this...the article you quoted mentions media campaigns that asians themselves engaged in, where they simply tried to portray themselves as good hard working americans. That's all it took lol? That's all it took to undo generations of racism and xenophobia about a completely foreign culture? During the cold war no less?

Here's a quote that I found interesting...

"I think the Japanese American experience also highlights some of this contrast. At the same time in the 1950s, you hear these stories about how the Japanese Americans dramatically recovered from the internment camps, how they accepted their fate. “After internment, many families were scattered across the country, but they took it as an opportunity to assimilate,” that sort of thing.

Japanese Americans aren’t perceived to be doing any kind of direct action, they weren’t perceived to be protesting. A bad thing happened to them, and they moved on, and they were doing okay"

So, the parts I bolded there, are the interesting ones. I get the author is talking about a narrative that was pushed by media...but is the narrative true? Does it relatively accurately depict the japanese reaction to an extremely difficult, oppressive, time in their history?

If it does...what lessons can we learn from that?

...but that still proves my point...

If making the right choice is incredibly easy for me with no risk of any sort of negative consequence, but making the right choice for you could come with negative consequences attached, I'm still a leg up on you at that point and it would be a lie to claim that you and I had the same opportunity.

It would be a lie to claim any two people have the same opportunities lol. I know you didn't want to respond to about half of my post from yesterday....but ignoring a fact of life won't make it go away.

You can take two white kids from the same neighborhood, same relative wealth, same religion, same two parent families....and guess what? Different opportunities...different struggles. Different chances to do both right and wrong. Sometimes their choices arise from other choices they've made...and sometimes they arise from situations that are no fault of their own.

There's no way to compare "what someone had to go through" to get to where they are today. That's all the white privilege argument does...it lumps a wide and diverse group of people together, denies all their struggles and difficulties, and then blames them for another group's struggles and difficulties.

Why? Because there's a discrepancy and it's an easy answer. In a lot of ways, you're kinda like that kid who says "It's easier to drop out of school and sell crack than it is to work hard and make something of myself". You've latched onto an "easy answer"...but that doesn't make it the right one.

You seem to be thinking that it's all just about "bashing white people", I would say that view is incredibly simplistic.

Well I've never seen an article about white privilege that didn't both blame white people for the "problem"....but also suggest that they have to come up with the "solution"...because, let's face it, none are ever offered.

Predictably though, this hasn't exactly been a great idea for reducing racism. Teaching little white kids in school that their accomplishments are less meaningful because they're white isn't a strategy I'd employ for reducing racism.

Being that poverty is perpetual, and that cycle of poverty was started off by an environment where blacks were mistreated, stigmatized, and purposefully kept as second class citizens...meanwhile many whites exploited that situation for their own gains, both financially, and in terms of societal status, *snip*

Well here we go....finally...this is what I've been trying to get at. How did your average white person "exploit" this situation for so much gain? That's what white privilege is...right?

Like I noted before, making the right choices is often a luxury that's somewhat dependent on your environment. We all know the right choice is to not steal bread...

That right choice is very easy for a person with $100 in their pocket...if they want the bread, they can just buy it.

However, if there's no jobs in your neighborhood, nobody will help you out, and you're hungry, that "right choice" isn't quite as easy to make as it was for the former described person.



Let's look at it from a different angle. In your opinion, after 100+ years of mistreatment, and another couple decades of society looking down upon you, how long are you willing to give a community to get back on their feet? Is your expectation 10 years?, 20 years?

And what's your standard for when the advantages of being a descendant of the group that was doing the oppressing diminished?

Obviously, everyone would agree that if I were the grandson of a former plantation owner and as a result, inherited $10 million dollars upon his death, there'd be no doubt that I was experiencing a benefit that came at the expense of the mistreatment of others, even if I, myself, wasn't racist.

...so obviously you see the line somewhere between that, and where we are today. Where do you put that line?

I'll come back to this after you reply to the above. It seems like after 5 pages or so...you're almost at telling me what white privilege is.