"White Awake": University of Maryland under fire for creating 'safe space for White students'

[NightHawkeye]

I still find it odd that people are ignoring contextual differences pertaining to the history of the races.

I can't tell if people are being intentionally obtuse here, or if they really don't understand why a group that faces unique challenges might want to have a special group to talk about issues that specifically impact their group.

The issue is that one group then has special rights. That group has opportunities and privileges not available to others.

Your argument sounds like rationalization to justify giving that group special rights, opportunities and privileges.

 

[theQuincunx5]

The issue is that one group then has special rights. That group has opportunities and privileges not available to others.

Your argument sounds like rationalization to justify giving that group special rights, opportunities and privileges.

Isn't it funny that when a group starts to lose its grip on total control and all the attention that suddenly anyone else's desire to gain some advantage is considered to be acting exclusionary?

So for about 400 years white men have run this country and ensured that women and minorities were kept on the fringes of power or completely blocked out. In most cases legislated to be that way!

Suddenly women and minorities start trying to create infrastructure that benefits only them and it is a threat to white men so that white men start whining about not having access to this or that.

 

[Non sequitur]

Isn't it funny that when a group starts to lose its grip on total control and all the attention that suddenly anyone else's desire to gain some advantage is considered to be acting exclusionary?

So for about 400 years white men have run this country and ensured that women and minorities were kept on the fringes of power or completely blocked out. In most cases legislated to be that way!

Suddenly women and minorities start trying to create infrastructure that benefits only them and it is a threat to white men so that white men start whining about not having access to this or that.

And then those white men in power ensured that women and minorities have equal rights.

Is this the beginnings of #CelebrateWhiteMen?

 

[theQuincunx5]

And then those white men in power ensured that women and minorities have equal rights.

Is this the beginnings of #CelebrateWhiteMen?

LOL! This is hilarious! White men "ensured" women and minorities had equal rights? You mean after at least a century of effort on the part of women just to get the right to VOTE and after about 4 centuries by people of color (and they are still treated like second class citizens)

Gimme a break. CeleberateWhiteMen??? LOL.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Isn't it funny that when a group starts to lose its grip on total control and all the attention that suddenly anyone else's desire to gain some advantage is considered to be acting exclusionary?

So for about 400 years white men have run this country and ensured that women and minorities were kept on the fringes of power or completely blocked out. In most cases legislated to be that way!

Suddenly women and minorities start trying to create infrastructure that benefits only them and it is a threat to white men so that white men start whining about not having access to this or that.

Perhaps you've heard of the concept of merit?

Merit allows those who can best do a specific task, who enjoy doing it to rise to the top of their professions. Let's talk about farming for example. The totalitarian regimes of China and Russia ignored the skills and merits of existing farmers in the name of equality and handed the land over to those who had exhibited no merit in regard to farming. The entirely predictable result was that about 100 million people starved. Many millions more would have starved as well had the western world not shared their own food reserves with the communist world.

Merit and competition have a lot going for them, much more so than quotas and diversity allotments. As just one example, merit is the reason the NFL is as good as it is. The need for merit is obvious in athletics, but the need for a merit based approach is just as real in nearly every aspect of life. Consider the presidency for example. Do you want the two parties to choose the president, or would you prefer to help choose the president based upon an individual's lifetime accomplishments?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The issue is that one group then has special rights. That group has opportunities and privileges not available to others.

Your argument sounds like rationalization to justify giving that group special rights, opportunities and privileges.

It's not special rights...if there were a subset of white people that were dealing with special challenges that others don't have to face, then I doubt anyone would have issues with it.

It seems to really be a "sour grapes" mentality by those who were once in a position of superiority, who feel threatened by encroaching equality.

Anytime someone suggests these "straight pride", "white pride", "men's rights", etc... groups, it's never been anything other than just some tacky, disingenuous attempt to show disdain for a group that they take particular issue with. Then, naturally, when people raise some eyebrows at it, they perk up like prairie dogs to say "oh!, you see! double standard! liberals are hypocrites, you see!"

The reality is, when you're already part of a group that's in the superior position (when I say superior, I'm not saying that anyone is better than anyone else, simply referring to societal conditions here), the need for such things doesn't really exist. And pretending it does for the sake of either spiting another group, or trying to setup a trap to accuse them of hypocrisy just sounds tacky.

For instance, if there were a support group for men who survived (or are currently fighting) testicular cancer...and I had gone on record as being at political odds on several other unrelated issues with many members of that group. How would it look if I started my own club right across the hall for "Men who are proud to not have testicular cancer!" And when people approached me to say "c'mon dude, just because you have a beef on some political issues with those guys, this isn't cool, you probably shouldn't do that", I tried to be intentionally naive about why they were kind of ticked about it and said "Gee, so you don't want us to be equal then??? you guys are the bad ones!"


That's basically the equivalent of what's happening with many of these calls for straight/white/men's rights.

I'm a straight white male...what exactly do I need a support group for? To talk about how I don't get followed by security at the mall? To discuss the challenges of not having people mock my sexual orientation? To talk about how hard it is to be given preferential treatment with respect to promotions at work?

I have an idea though...I think they should be able to have these groups...but I think they should have be sincere about their real purpose when it comes time to name the group. They should be called The "We're mad because society no longer reflects our preferences and biases like it used to" club. ... because that's all those kinds of clubs are really about. Complaining about the fact that they're not longer being given the same elevated position in society that they once had.

If there were a sincere need for such things, then the timing is a bit coincidental, don't you think? They always seem to pop up right after a group (that was once placed in inferior societal status) started getting equality measures passed in their favor.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Do you think they are facing any unique challenges?

If a group was formed, to address these unique challenges, do you think it would receive the same praise?

If there were equitable unique challenges, then sure.

...but there aren't.

Right now the challenge that some are facing is that demographic groups (that just so happen to have a high level of overlap with a political party they're not terribly fond of) are pushing for the correction of some systemic issues.

Or, in plain English: It's the Democrats who are currently spearheading the causes eliminating systemic racial issues, womens' rights, and gay rights, so some republicans feel compelled to oppose them.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Perhaps you've heard of the concept of merit?

Merit allows those who can best do a specific task, who enjoy doing it to rise to the top of their professions.

The merit system is wonderful, and the ideal solution for environments where other problems aren't prevalent.

An interesting study was done (and I know I've posted it before, and I'll see if I can dig up the link after lunch) where researchers mailed in resumes for several open positions across a spectrum requirements and skill levels.

They found "black sounding names" were less likely to get callbacks (to the tune of 40% less likely) than others, even when the credentials & work experience on the "black" resumes far exceeded the ones on the other resumes.

When you have certain biases in place, the merit system can't always correct for that.

 

[NightHawkeye]

It's not special rights...if there were a subset of white people that were dealing with special challenges that others don't have to face, then I doubt anyone would have issues with it.

Let's talk about handicapped access. That's an area with decidedly special privileges and explicitly special access.

It's an area where people have generally agreed that preferential treatment is warranted.

It seems to really be a "sour grapes" mentality by those who were once in a position of superiority, who feel threatened by encroaching equality.

Aren't you simply belittling the argument you don't want to hear?

Anytime someone suggests these "straight pride", "white pride", "men's rights", etc... groups, it's never been anything other than just some tacky, disingenuous attempt to show disdain for a group that they take particular issue with. Then, naturally, when people raise some eyebrows at it, they perk up like prairie dogs to say "oh!, you see! double standard! liberals are hypocrites, you see!"

When you allow for no valid counter-argument ... you might be overtly prejudiced.

That's basically the equivalent of what's happening with many of these calls for straight/white/men's rights.

None of that changes the fact that some minority groups (I'm not saying all) appear to be overtly racist.

Calling them out on that is not racist. Being called out on the overt racism here seems to be the real issue with the "White Awake" group. It's existence exposes other groups for the overt racism they exhibit. You've already made the argument about how "whites" are in a position of power. Implicit in that is that you apparently believe the white people who occupy those positions of power don't merit being there. Perhaps you're right, perhaps you're wrong.

Why not talk about requiring people to exhibit merit to advance to positions of power? That would be a far more honest discussion.

I'm a straight white male...what exactly do I need a support group for? To talk about how I don't get followed by security at the mall? To discuss the challenges of not having people mock my sexual orientation? To talk about how hard it is to be given preferential treatment with respect to promotions at work?

To be honest, the only preferential treatment being handed out currently is to minorities. You know it. I know it. Everyone here knows it. It's obvious in college admissions. It's obvious in recruitment of minorities. For years, job advertisements have even very explicitly stated when minorities are being actively recruited ... so as to make it obvious for those minorities to apply.

I have an idea though...I think they should be able to have these groups...but I think they should have be sincere about their real purpose when it comes time to name the group. They should be called The "We're mad because society no longer reflects our preferences and biases like it used to" club. ... because that's all those kinds of clubs are really about. Complaining about the fact that they're not longer being given the same elevated position in society that they once had.

Meh. They should be able to call it anything they want. Most groups do better by stating their real purpose. I think the modern Democrat party should rename itself the Socialist party. That seems more honest to me. But, hey, maybe they just like to obscure their intent.

If there were a sincere need for such things, then the timing is a bit coincidental, don't you think? They always seem to pop up right after a group (that was once placed in inferior societal status) started getting equality measures passed in their favor.

You mean like when some of Obama's executive orders got over-written ... and Democrats started complaining constantly about Trump?

 

[NightHawkeye]

The merit system is wonderful ...

Yep. It allows the most capable to advance to the limit of their abilities.

... and the ideal solution for environments where other problems aren't prevalent.

Sigh ...

The solution is not to over-rule the merit system ... but to fix the offending issues. Otherwise, as with widespread starvation in communist nations, problems just get progressively worse.

An interesting study was done (and I know I've posted it before, and I'll see if I can dig up the link after lunch) where researchers mailed in resumes for several open positions across a spectrum requirements and skill levels.

They found "black sounding names" were less likely to get callbacks (to the tune of 40% less likely) than others, even when the credentials & work experience on the "black" resumes far exceeded the ones on the other resumes.

Yes. Please provide the study. Maybe it was good study. Maybe it wasn't.

When you have certain biases in place, the merit system can't always correct for that.

You do remember, don't you, that despite all your claims about overt bias, this nation elected a black president ... twice ... despite that man having actually exhibited few of the merits the nation had always demanded of preceding presidents.

 

[theQuincunx5]

Perhaps you've heard of the concept of merit?

Merit sure does become important when unmerited privilege is threatened?

 

[NightHawkeye]

Merit sure does become important when unmerited privilege is threatened?

Thank you for the honesty.

Now, care to talk about why you think the "privileges" you refer to are "unmerited".

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Aren't you simply belittling the argument you don't want to hear?

Not at all...I've yet to actually hear an argument for "White Pride"/"Straight Pride"/"Men's Rights advocacy"

Thus far, the only justification I've heard for their existence is "well, they have groups...so we should have one", or, like I said, it's used as a baiting tactic to accuse liberals of hypocrisy.

The moment anyone produces any sort of issue of merit suggesting that these groups are facing unique challenges that puts them in an less than ideal place in society, I'd be happy to concede and say that they need a support group.

When you allow for no valid counter-argument ... you might be overtly prejudiced.

...I've been waiting for a valid counter argument.

I've yet to hear of a single "White Pride" group that wasn't rooted in the following two mindsets

A) White Hate (IE: groups like White Nationalists and Stormfront)
B) Suggested simply to get a reaction out of the other side so that they can label them as hypocrites when they object

To be honest, the only preferential treatment being handed out currently is to minorities. You know it. I know it. Everyone here knows it. It's obvious in college admissions. It's obvious in recruitment of minorities. For years, job advertisements have even very explicitly stated when minorities are being actively recruited ... so as to make it obvious for those minorities to apply.

I understand why that type of preferential treatment is objectionable to some...I don't find it ideal either. But until there's a better way to offset some of the negatives those groups face on a regular basis (my previous post about how more qualified candidates for jobs are less likely to get callbacks on their resumes if they have "black sounding names"), I don't see a perfect solution at this point.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Sigh ...

The solution is not to over-rule the merit system ... but to fix the offending issues. Otherwise, as with widespread starvation in communist nations, problems just get progressively worse.

Yes. Please provide the study. Maybe it was good study. Maybe it wasn't.

http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html
https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/minorities-who-whiten-job-resumes-get-more-interviews
https://www.politifact.com/punditfa...name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/
https://cos.gatech.edu/facultyres/Diversity_Studies/Bertrand_LakishaJamal.pdf

You do remember, don't you, that despite all your claims about overt bias, this nation elected a black president ... twice ... despite that man having actually exhibited few of the merits the nation had always demanded of preceding presidents.

You're not honestly suggesting that cancels everything out are you?

He's also the same president that had people creating a "Lynch Effigy of Obama" day, and 40% of the opposing party (in a poll according to Fox news, so no liberal bias on that poll) entertaining theories about him being a Muslim born in Kenya in a weak attempt to cancel out his validity as president.

...so there is overt biases that Black Americans face that White Americans do not.

 

[Aldebaran]

It's not so much about people not being allowed to have a sense of pride in their identity, it's the fact that "White Pride" is typically associated with a reactionary response to other groups' expressions of empowerment. (and typically comes from a place of negativity)

If a white person expresses "white pride", it may or may not come from negativity as you suggest. Black pride could be said to come from that, as it is in response to history of slavery, so they say it as being "black pride (power) over white people". Naturally, that's going to elicit a negative reaction. But if what they claim is "racial equality", which is what used to be the claim, it is more of a neutral stance between races rather than claiming that one is better than another.

 

[Aldebaran]

Isn't it funny that when a group starts to lose its grip on total control and all the attention that suddenly anyone else's desire to gain some advantage is considered to be acting exclusionary?

So for about 400 years white men have run this country and ensured that women and minorities were kept on the fringes of power or completely blocked out. In most cases legislated to be that way!

Suddenly women and minorities start trying to create infrastructure that benefits only them and it is a threat to white men so that white men start whining about not having access to this or that.

It actually is a threat to white men if others are being given preferential treatment over them. Even if you want to bring up the 400 years of white men running the country, what does that have to do with the white men/women or the black men/women who are alive right now? Have any of them been slaves/slave owners? Giving preferential treatment to black people over white people today because of what white people did to black people centuries ago doesn't accomplish anything but create problems for today.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's not purely about the skin color...

For instance, we all know that if someone wore a shirt saying "White Pride", it would draw some negative responses.

However, if someone was to wear a shirt that said "Irish Pride" or "Proud Italian" (they're both white), there likely wouldn't be an issue. Jewish folks also have their own support groups and organizations.

It's not so much about people not being allowed to have a sense of pride in their identity, it's the fact that "White Pride" is typically associated with a reactionary response to other groups' expressions of empowerment. (and typically comes from a place of negativity)


If you want to see the differences...
https://www.google.com/search?ei=s_.....0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz.w2CMJfhOS7w

vs.

https://www.google.com/search?ei=2P...10j0i13j0i13i10j0i13i30j0i13i5i30.5abCc34hOkI



Two phrases aren't simply semantic equivalents of each other in terms of their usage in popular language.

Like I touched on before, the original "Black Power" movement was about societal & economic empowerment for a group that had been marginalized, and a fight to gain acceptance and equality in public and cultural institutions.

"White Power" was a reaction to that by people who were mad that "Blacks don't seem to 'know their place' anymore"

Context is everything...

You're not listening...I'm not talking about the phrase "white power"...or "white pride". I'm talking about the narrative that you and the left push. You tell people that being white is something to be ashamed of...something to be atoned for.

You spend time trying to convince everyone that white people live a life of ease, that they're all privileged, and everyone else has to struggle harder. You talk about it like its a fact and not an opinion. You push a narrative that says this nation was built upon "white supremacy"....which is a ridiculous notion. The left in general acts like "whiteness" is an idea that needs to be destroyed but any other race should be celebrated. It's disgusting.

I understand that you may genuinely believe these things....it's the narrative the left has latched onto. You have to realize that it's not going to happen...you can't shame an entire race into believing that their skin color is something to be hated. There's always going to be a lot of people who push back against that idea...and rightly so.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being white. It doesn't automatically make anyone's life easier or better. It doesn't make one a racist or bigot. Surely, you can agree with those 3 simple facts, right?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Suddenly women and minorities start trying to create infrastructure that benefits only them and it is a threat to white men so that white men start whining about not having access to this or that.

The very ideas behind those laws which allow women and minorities into positions of power after so long were the ideas that we're all equals....that things like gender and race really don't matter and that anyone is capable of achievement.

So it's perfectly understandable that many people, not just whites, are pushing against the idea that women and minorities are creating infrastructure that benefits only them. It's against the entire idea of equality. Its racist and sexist.

 

[durangodawood]

....There's absolutely nothing wrong with being white. It doesn't automatically make anyone's life easier or better.

I love being white!

One reason is because it does make my life easier in this country. Not in every single situation, of course. But on average.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I love being white!

One reason is because it does make my life easier in this country. Not in every single situation, of course. But on average.

You're entitled to your opinion.