Heebie Jeebie
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2013
- Messages
- 5,016
- Reaction score
- 1,290
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I don't know what you mean by "grasping onto exceptions." I don't consider anything that I referenced to be an "exception." I consider those things to be "the rule." I consider what you wrote to be exceptions. That was, in part, my point.I was speaking of areas in a larger sense, similar on scale to the United States rather than going to a micro level of neighborhoods. That said, I would say some aspects of "privledges" does exist in those things, specifically in terms of the notion of "default status". It's funny, your attempts at grasping onto exceptions in those instances mirror those who attempt to do so on the other side on a national level.
Nope, not a debate tactic at all. It's easier for people to say that there don't need to be extreme efforts to solve problems that don't adversely affect them. Because you are a white heterosexual male, it's easier for you to dismiss "strong endeavors" to fix inequality that doesn't have a significant impact on you. Whether you want to admit or not, who and what we are (race, gender, nationality, class, sexuality, etc.) forms much of our experience and, in turn, much of our worldview. I was hoping that you might take an honest look at how your race (and gender and sexuality) may be affecting your perception of this, but instead you just dismiss the potential that who and what you are might be limiting your perspective.I think that's a pretty ingenious debate tactic there...immedietely belittle the opinion of a pocket of people who disagree with you based on their race. I don't believe it's any easier for a white heterosexual male to say than it is for a non-white, non-heterosexual, or non-male to say the opposite. Unlike you, I don't belittle their opinion due to that.
You should read my post again. I specifically said that culture has changed, that discrimination is lower and that we've made progress. I did not take issue with your claim that culture has changed. I took issue with the extent to which you argued it has changed.Culture has changed. That's not speaking from bias, but from casual observation. The successively younger generation tends to have a more neutral outlook in terms of race and exhibit less, and less severe, acts of active or even passive institutionalized prejudice. Is it all gone? Absolutely not. Notice I even stated such in my post. But our society is well beyond the levels of the 40's or 50's, and even the 80's and 90's, especially when you look at the generational pockets which came into adulthood during the later decades. Is it progressed to where it ultimatley needs to go? But then again, my actual POST never suggested that.
I read your post quite well, actually, but I appreciate your concern. Within the context of your post, it looked to me like you were talking about the present. Since you weren't, it was basic miscommunication (which I attribute to your lack of clarity where you attribute it to my lack of reading). In any case, it happens. /shrugGood thing I stated "There comes a time" suggesting that said time has no arrived yet. Perhaps you should read peoples posts rather than seeing a general stance and immedietely making assumptions and stereotypes of what they think in such a prejudice manner.
Like I said, there are few people who don't acknowledge "the amount and level of progress that has been made." I don't why you replied to me by saying, "I never said that" because you just said it again. Are you really criticizing my comment because I didn't include the adjective "realistically" in my response. If so, then "realistically" was implied in my criticism of your argument. I figured that was obvious given. /shrugWhich I never said. There's a difference between acknowledging it and acknowleding it in a realistic manner. I agree, few acknolwedge that progress has been made. I believe that a far larger number however don't acknowledge the amount and level of progress has been made because doing so does not suit the political agenda.
"Bigoted"? Huh. Like I said before, our worldviews are determined, in part, by who and what we are which includes our race, gender, sex, sexuality, nationality and other factors. You, as a white heterosexual male, are more able to be unaware of the realities that primarily affect non-white, etc. people simply because you don't often have direct experience with many of the things they face because their race, gender, etc.. For me to say that isn't "bigotry" or anything of the sort. It's a simple fact, period. Now, this doesn't mean that you can't be informed - there are plenty of white heterosexual males that are informed. However, your posts lead me to believe that you aren't.Like many movements...from the Civil Rights to the Tea Party...they are political in nature and are leveraged for that reason, typically starting with good intentions but also realizing that losing any amount of zeal, emotion, or severity lessens the power of said movement. And thus, the fires must be stoked as if every past success is both momentous AND irrelevant in terms of the problem being faced. This is an unrealistic acknowledgement of the situation in my mind. You don't believe my criticisms are relevant; that's fair, that's your right. However, with the whole sale stereotyping and blatant prejudice you've displayed in your post by routinely stereotyping me out of a bigoted connotation that seemingly all those who believe a particular view point must hold certain beliefs and views, forgive me if I don't believe much of what you post or state is relevant to me either.
Still a conglomerate of ingredients and flavors though.
So white culture is...professionalism?
Stability?
That really speaks to other cultures if that specifically describes whites.
Then I'm oblivious.
That pretty much hits upon what I suggested earlier - that "white culture" is essentially a huge blend.
If rap isn't considered specifically part of black culture anymore, it must be because white people have adopted it, at least in part.
Kinda hoping that was a joke.
As he should be, as it's not a reflection of "sounding black", but "sounding uneducated".
It's the same thing in reverse - black people are considered to be "talking white" if they use proper inflection, grammar, subtext...and use 3 syllables in "ignorant".
Blacks themselves use "black" as a negative and "white" as a positive, purely from an academic or intellectual standpoint.
Do whites really need to bend over backwards to tell them that they can achieve the American dream too?
I know that Affirmative Action had positive intentions, but these days it has negative applications - not in and of itself, but because legislation keeps getting heaped upon it that unevens the playing field on the side of employers. This is why words like "token" exist - because we have to hire not based on merit, but because of some sort of governmental "boogeyman" that says we need X and Y, even if it's a detriment.
Tucker said:No, white culture defines what it is that you consider to be "professionalism". "Professionalism" is not an objective term.
Again, white culture has defined what you consider to be "stability".
Why do you get to define what "sounding uneducated" means? Why is it that using a black dialect makes someone sound "uneducated" to you?
First of all, white Americans of all education levels use improper inflection, grammar, and subtext all the time. Ask a brit. You define it as "proper" because it is what the dominant culture (i.e. white culture) has decided is "proper", not because it is objectively proper.
Who's saying white people should do anything for blacks? I know I'm not. I'm talking about being aware of reality and recognizing the existance of white privilige, nothign more. no need to pretend that being aware counts as bending over backwards.
Until people are willing to actually address ALL factors including WHO is committing those crimes, they will never end and those communities will continue to suffer. You have no problem exploring the impact of race...as long as you can use it your ever emerging 'sensitive' liberal guy persona. Race matters...when it is white people. Race isnt a factor...when it is 70,000 people terrorizing their own communities. Cuz...poor dears...its not their fault. Its 'white privilege' that is oppressing them.So? Surely you aren't trying to say that being a minority causes one to commit or become the victim of a crime?
What "reality" am I avoiding? The facts are as follows: The crimes occurred in the poorest neighborhoods in Chicago. The poorest neighborhoods in Chicago are almost entirely populated by minorities. The causal factor for the crime, though, is socio-economic, not racial.
How, exactly, do you think that those facts help your argument against the existence of white privilege?
Gender, Age, Race/Ethnicity
Among all sheltered individuals over the course of a year (October 2009-September 2010)
iii
:
• 62% were male
• 38% were female
• 21.8% are under age 18
• 23.5% are 18-30
• 37% are 31 to 50
• 14.9% are 51 to 61
• 2.8% are 62 or older
• 41.6% are White, Non-Hispanic
• 9.7% are White, Hispanic
• 37% are Black/African-American
• 4.5% are other single races;
• 7.2% are multiple races
http://homeless.samhsa.gov/ResourceFiles/hrc_factsheet.pdf
Homelessness Resource Center
These numbers show that White males are the predominant population that is homeless in the US. But there are plenty of racists in any race. No race is innocent.
Are you trying to make a point?Gender, Age, Race/Ethnicity
Among all sheltered individuals over the course of a year (October 2009-September 2010)
iii
:
• 62% were male
• 38% were female
• 21.8% are under age 18
• 23.5% are 18-30
• 37% are 31 to 50
• 14.9% are 51 to 61
• 2.8% are 62 or older
• 41.6% are White, Non-Hispanic
• 9.7% are White, Hispanic
• 37% are Black/African-American
• 4.5% are other single races;
• 7.2% are multiple races
http://homeless.samhsa.gov/ResourceFiles/hrc_factsheet.pdf
Homelessness Resource Center
These numbers show that White males are the predominant population that is homeless in the US. But there are plenty of racists in any race. No race is innocent.
Professionalism might be subjective, but perception of it isn't.
Do you think if you went into a court where a black man was presiding, you'd be okay if you had on a "do rag", or a Mexican judge would allow a bandanna?
Also, do you think one parent and multiple kids is stable?
That's not even remotely subjective.
Oh God, you're not one of those people who thinks ebonics is a real language, are you?
It's not a dialect
I'm talking about the fact that a lack of knowledge in a subject is "ignit".
I'm talking about "you are" being replaced with "you is".
I'm talking about a number of other things that is intentionally done to deviate from proper English, because that would make you some sort of Uncle Tom. Dialect? Who are you trying to kid?
I'm sure that there are plenty of grammatical errors that even educated people can succumb to, but many are obscure.
A damned first grader knows how to use the proper helping verb.
Very well, I guess you're right. I suppose that the next time I have an interview with an employer who graduated from Grambling State, I'll pull my pants down to show off my asscrack, fist-bump him and greet him with "Sup".
I'll stick with what you call "white privilege".
I sound like an extreme conservative instead of a libertarian for wanting to abolish useless legislature that creates a more meritocratic society.
Funny - you sound like a liberal when you say that.
I am a liberal and proud of it!
Until people are willing to actually address ALL factors including WHO is committing those crimes
they will never end and those communities will continue to suffer.
You have no problem exploring the impact of race...as long as you can use it your ever emerging 'sensitive' liberal guy persona.
Race matters...when it is white people.
Race isnt a factor...when it is 70,000 people terrorizing their own communities.
Cuz...poor dears...its not their fault.
Its 'white privilege' that is oppressing them.
No wonder those communities have been remain and forever will be ****ed...what with all the 'help' they get.
Tucker Case said:Did I mention that impotent rage is also a part of white culture, these days? They've cornered the market on that and feigned victimhood.
My question is why do you present this utterly retarded strawman, though? Why would you change your behaviors in any way simply because someone else might be a part of a different culture? That would be retarded.
You are smarter than that.
"White privilege" connotes advantages and special treatment based on one's skin being white. I don't think it's that simple. A person of color with the same education, general appearance, command of language, work ethic, etc., as another person who is white? I think they actually have an advantage in our society.
Why would I need to do that? We're talking about the existence of a thing. I don't have to show it's lack of existence elsewhere in order for it to exist here.
For example, if I make the claim that the United States has land, I am in no way required to show that Argentina or Zimbabwe do not have land in order for my claim to be accurate.
Why do you think that this acts as a rebuttal to what I am saying?
But the real question is why do you think that those answers are relevant to the point being made?
How are you determining "success"?
It's only controversial when people take it personally instead of treating it like a factual social phenomenon.I'm not sure why "white male privilage" is so controversial. I think it's pretty established that human beings are tribal. Even in the weakest from people typically associate with individuals that look like them, like the things they do, have similar background etc. If the majority of decision makers, managers, higher income individuals basically any individual that can provide a benefit by getting to know or develop a bond is a white male than there is a white male privilage.
Take it a step further but generally any successful individual in business generally will give credit to a mentor figure that they've established a bond with that is higher on the organizational chart. They typically talk about how the person may of used influence to help them out or taught them valuable things.
It's also not a knock against white males as if only white males display behavior that would lead to having an advantage by sharing common traits. If the majority of positions of power were held by another demographic group that demographic group with have "XXX privilage". It's human nature.
I know. You sound like it.
Yes that so called "white privilege" means nothing to poor caucasians. Most Americans that just happen to be caucasians were not born with a silver spoon in their mouth. The ghettos are the same in every neighborhood race plays no part in that reality. Poor is poor and your race will not keep you from becoming poor.Are you trying to make a point?
The existence of class inequality does not negate the reality of white privilege.Yes that so called "white privilege" means nothing to poor caucasians. Most Americans that just happen to be caucasians were not born with a silver spoon in their mouth. The ghettos are the same in every neighborhood race plays no part in that reality. Poor is poor and your race will not keep you from becoming poor.
Discrimination against white people is exceptionally rare since power structures are dominated by white people. This is just a simple fact. In the United States, discrimination overwhelmingly affects non-whites so no, it doesn't "just depend on where you live."I realize that you are neck deep in a Left vs Right conversation but that doesnt concern me nor is it actually relevant. It dont matter the race somewhere someone is being discriminated against for the color of their skin. It just depends where you live and what the predominant race is of the locals. If affirmative action is a viable tool to end discrimination then it should be based on where you live not national averages.
I don't think you understand what "white privilege" means. It does not mean that every white person is rich, never discriminated against and never in a predominantly non-white neighborhood. Now that you know what "white privilege" is not, maybe you can come back with an argument that actually makes sense?If you are applying for a job where the local population is mostly African American and you are not then affirmative action will discriminate against you. Or in my case I live in area that is mostly Hispanic and I am not, tell me again how my race is going to help me any? I mean most of the police, politicians, business owners are Hispanic.
Says who, you? What do you really know on the subject about how poor whites are treated?The existence of class inequality does not negate the reality of white privilege.
Yea OK buddy if you say so. How many white people can safely walk around predominately minority neighborhoods?Discrimination against white people is exceptionally rare since power structures are dominated by white people. This is just a simple fact. In the United States, discrimination overwhelmingly affects non-whites so no, it doesn't "just depend on where you live."
I don't think you understand what "white privilege" means. It does not mean that every white person is rich, never discriminated against and never in a predominantly non-white neighborhood. Now that you know what "white privilege" is not, maybe you can come back with an argument that actually makes sense?