White privilege

jmotivator said:

I don't give a rats ass about the SJW literature, I am going by first hand experience.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Which is very very uninformed at best.

Particularly when trying to understand a society as large as ours.

ibelsd said:

Again, scanning through your posts, I found that you cited one study. If there posts I missed, please direct me to them and I'll read them.

.

Click to expand...

I actually cited several as did multiple other posters. It seems you simply choose to ignore them.

You have not quantified the benefit white people receive from this perceived privilege.

Click to expand...

In the studies they do. In the name study.. they quantified the benefit and statistically showed it was significant (in other words not due to chance).

But, I am glad you bring up significance. You have not shown, quantitatively, that any peceived privilege from being white is quantifiable, let alone significant.

Click to expand...

all the studies cited did exactly that.

I don't recall anything in the research which indicated that such a bias was done deliberately.

Click to expand...

because the studies don't look at that.

But its common sense that there are SOME individuals out there that are consciously racists and so its very conceivable that at least SOME bias is "conscious" . I guess if you don't think that there are such groups as white supremacists etc.. well that's your own prerogative.

jaeger19 said:

Exactly. Which is very very uninformed at best.

Particularly when trying to understand a society as large as ours.

Click to expand...

Those reading the SJW literature are horribly informed as are those who live their lives believing an omnipotent force is making them fail. That belief runs across all races and creeds and countries of origin. The best indicator of a person's likelihood to get a job and get off of welfare in my decade of work and thousands of clients is their ability to internalize short comings and personalize failure. Those who externalize failure were unlikely to get off welfare willingly.

jmotivator said:

Those reading the SJW literature are horribly informed as are those who live their lives believing an omnipotent force is making them fail. That belief runs across all races and creeds and countries of origin. The best indicator of a person's likelihood to get a job and get off of welfare in my decade of work and thousands of clients is their ability to internalize short comings and personalize failure. Those who externalize failure were unlikely to get off welfare willingly.

Click to expand...

I always enjoy watching culture warriors play psychologist and place the blame for "welfare" recipients for their assumed inability to get work on personal mental issues....when they are looking at those "clients" who aren't even the subject they are speaking about....and wrapping it all up in personal anecdotes. I lost count on how many rhetorical devices this includes.

Both you and Dr Jaeger should have good time at yer tea party.

Gimmesometruth said:

I always enjoy watching culture warriors play psychologist and place the blame for "welfare" recipients for their assumed inability to get work on personal mental issues....when they are looking at those "clients" who aren't even the subject they are speaking about....and wrapping it all up in personal anecdotes. I lost count on how many rhetorical devices this includes.

Both you and Dr Jaeger should have good time at yer tea party.

Click to expand...

I love when SJWs dismiss personal experience in favor of what they have been told to believe.

jmotivator said:

I love when SJWs dismiss personal experience in favor of what they have been told to believe.

Click to expand...

There is little to believe in your anecdotes, especially the ones about being a "social worker" who rejects academic literature.

Gimmesometruth said:

There is little to believe in your anecdotes, especially the ones about being a "social worker" who rejects academic literature.

Click to expand...

I reject "academic" literature that fails to describe what I see with my own eyes.

jmotivator said:

I reject "academic" literature that fails to describe what I see with my own eyes.

Click to expand...

That is the whole point of academic literature, it is not based on personal anecdotes.....especially that biased by right wing ideology.

Gimmesometruth said:

That is the whole point of academic literature, it is not based on personal anecdotes.....especially that biased by right wing ideology.

Click to expand...

That is the intent of "academic literature" but the stuff you are talking about is from SJWs that fail to describe what is actually happening and never seem able to produce actionable suggestions that actually works.

The policies built off of such bull crap are more effective at destruction than creation.

Why do kids drop out of a free education? What are their prospects after that choice?

There I have started you down the road of enlightenment!

jmotivator said:

That is the intent of "academic literature" but the stuff you are talking about

Click to expand...

Specifically, tell me what "stuff" I am talking about, cite the document I am talking about.

calamity said:

You're ignoring affirmitive action, which clearly gives advantage to the poor black person over the poor white one, all other things being equal.

Click to expand...

Seeing affirmative action as oppressive is only possible if one ignores systemic privilege. In a perfect society, there would be no need to empower minorities, as everyone would in reality have a fair shot. But we don't live in a perfect world. Racism exists and impacts the lives of every minority in America. Sure, minorities can succeed, it's not a horrible sci-fi distopia but it's not utopia either.

Given that minorities do not get a fair shot regarding housing, employment and the justice system (no matter how wealthy), corrective measures are taken. AA is a corrective measure.

This is why denying the scientific consensus regarding majority privilege is so important to racists. If one accepts that society is not fair:

1. AA is a corrective action, not "racism".

(AA also helps bring the best and brightest to our universities. A student earning a 3.0 in luxury does not compare to a 2.5 in deplorable conditions. The 2.5 is the smarter person, given resource allocation. AA also adds value via diversity.)

2. The poverty crime rate of blacks is not entirely their blame. Recognizing that they don't get a fair shot is recognition that crime stats, used derogatorily, are meaningless.


So, accept the scientific consensus, dispose of idealistic fantasy, and understand that majority privilege remains, and probably will always remain, a problem to some extent. Marginalizing relatively innocent people harms society; it's unjust and we must take corrective action in the name of justice and the good of everyone.

We might also note that the existence of majority privilege is the reason minority empowerment groups are not "racist" but majority empowerment groups are racist (or sexist, or orientationist).

Those clamoring "but why not an Association of White People?!" fail to grasp the concept and existence of majority privilege. In order to maintain the righteous indignation and victimhood, ignoring the concept must continue at the cost of any data, logic or reasoning.


Another thing. Majority privilege is racism, not merely racial bigotry. A minority supremacist is of no threat to the majority as a group. A minority group does not have the power to oppress my group, white male hetero. Triple majority privilege, woohoo.

Everyone experiences bigotry, but I know my groups get a fair shot in employment, housing and the justice system. To the rest o' ya, best of luck.

ecofarm said:

Seeing affirmative action as oppressive is only possible if one ignores systemic privilege. In a perfect society, there would be no need to empower minorities, as everyone would in reality have a fair shot. But we don't live in a perfect world. Racism exists and impacts the lives of every minority in America. Sure, minorities can succeed, it's not a horrible sci-fi distopia but it's not utopia either.

Given that minorities do not get a fair shot regarding housing, employment and the justice system (no matter how wealthy), corrective measures are taken. AA is a corrective measure.

This is why denying the scientific consensus regarding majority privilege is so important to racists. If one accepts that society is not fair:

1. AA is a corrective action, not "racism".

(AA also helps bring the best and brightest to our universities. A student earning a 3.0 in luxury does not compare to a 2.5 in deplorable conditions. The 2.5 is the smarter person, given resource allocation. AA also adds value via diversity.)

2. The poverty crime rate of blacks is not entirely their blame. Recognizing that they don't get a fair shot is recognition that crime stats, used derogatorily, are meaningless.


So, accept the scientific consensus, dispose of idealistic fantasy, and understand that majority privilege remains, and probably will always remain, a problem to some extent. Marginalizing relatively innocent people harms society; it's unjust and we must take corrective action in the name of justice and the good of everyone.

Click to expand...

I didn't say I oppose AA. I was only pointing out that AA does put the white guy at a disadvantage. Hence the idea of white privilege does not necessarily apply to all whites since it is sometimes an actual disadvantage to be white.

jaeger19 said:

I actually cited several as did multiple other posters. It seems you simply choose to ignore them.



In the studies they do. In the name study.. they quantified the benefit and statistically showed it was significant (in other words not due to chance).



all the studies cited did exactly that.



because the studies don't look at that.

But its common sense that there are SOME individuals out there that are consciously racists and so its very conceivable that at least SOME bias is "conscious" . I guess if you don't think that there are such groups as white supremacists etc.. well that's your own prerogative.

Click to expand...

This thread is 90+ pages. I'm happy to accept you are being truthful, but if you can't point me to a few specific posts or links, then we cannot continure despite my good faith effort to scan through your old posts. Your call.

Gimmesometruth said:

Specifically, tell me what "stuff" I am talking about, cite the document I am talking about.

Click to expand...

How about you tell me what you are talking about since you are the one who has made claims of what is in "academic literature" without providing academic literature.

ibelsd said:

We? You mean I should be compelled or do you mean it would be a nice thing to do?

Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean by "compelled." I feel pretty compelled to do what is morally right.

ibelsd said:

The issue with using the term "white privilege" and wielding it as a blunt instrument is that it does nothing to correct an actual unfair event. It does everything to assume that everything is unfair.

Click to expand...

Uh, what? I have no idea what that means.

ibelsd said:

The term is used as a synonym with racism

Click to expand...

Not that I'm aware of.

ibelsd said:

and, like racism, is generally used to shut down debate or conversation when someone participates with a contrary view.

Click to expand...

Again, not that I'm aware of.

ibelsd said:

It is used as an exclusionary measure to deny white people (and white men in particular) their right to voice an opinion.

Click to expand...

Once again, not that I'm aware of. Do you have any evidence that this happens with enough frequency to warrant attention?

ibelsd said:

This is not making things more or less fair. It is all about controlling the conversation. That should raise a red flag for anyone who cares about free speech and honest debate.

Click to expand...

I agree that attempts to control a conversation are a concern, but disagree that's what white privilege does.

ibelsd said:

I offered many factors in my example, effort and motivation being two of them.

Click to expand...

So what? You're still confused.

ibelsd said:

I am noting that humans and our relations with others are complex. You cannot simply quantify ability in all cases.

Click to expand...

Again, so what? This is all a red herring, and is an attempt to confuse people. Ability or skill, and internal characteristics over which we do have some control (like drive or moral rectitude) are separate and distinct from race, over which a person has no control. Similarly, skill and internal characteristics may well impact whether a person should get a job or receive some other benefit or avoid some bad consequence, but their race should not.

ibelsd said:

There are professional athletes who are less natural athlete and more about pure desire. If you were to measure strictly on their skill set, you wouldn't neccesarily get the best football players. How do you measure things like heart or motivation? If I apply for a job or am interviewing an applicant, their ability to do the job is important, but there are other factors as well. I'll consider someone's hygiene. Their communication skills. Just whether I think they will fit in well with the team. Their personality. To some degree, simply, do I like the person. These cannot all be measured. That is my point.

Click to expand...

Great point. Seems to be entirely irrelevant.

ibelsd said:

Because you said so????

Click to expand...

No, and I had already explained why. What's with the four question marks?

ibelsd said:

First, explain why you think this is false.

Click to expand...

Perhaps the main reason would be because I believe there is such a thing as white privilege, but I do not believe that people of any race all have similar experiences. There may be identifiable patterns in common between the lives of most people of a given race. But that's not remotely the same claim.

ibelsd said:

Perhaps true, but irrelevant.
Again, irrelevant because you said so???

Click to expand...

First, tell you what: let's agree that either of us can post whatever the hell we like, and the other has to show the irrelevance, rather than the person making the claim being responsible to show the relevance. If you think that's a bad idea, then maybe you should review your replies.

Second, it's irrelevant for the same reason anything is irrelevant. What you say can be true, and all the claims made by proponents of white privilege can also be true. None of the predicates in your claims (other than existence or possession) are predicates in claims I've made.

ibelsd said:

This is in reference to the name study provided by another poster.

Click to expand...

You'll have to do better than that.

ibelsd said:

It isn't about should. It is about is. As humans, we make small decisions and judgements based on partial information all the time. It is a survival instinct. You want to fight human nature, be my guest. Seems like an uphill battle.

Click to expand...

Uphill battles are for heroes, and people balking at uphill battles are cowards. Fighting human nature is what built civilization. Hobbes didn't get much right, but he was right about that.

ibelsd said:

I am not clear on what you mean in your last sentence here.

Click to expand...

There are studies that demonstrate an effect of white privilege in situations where names are not usually known.

ibelsd said:

It isn't punishment, first of all.

Click to expand...

Absolutely it is. If it requires half again as much effort for a person with a black-sounding name to get a job as it does for a person with a white-sounding name, that's a de facto punishment for having a black-sounding name.

ibelsd said:

I've asked for this plenty of data, but it seems lacking.

Click to expand...

I posted a fair few links earlier in this thread, in post 467. None were behind a paywall. Interestingly, no one who seems not to believe in white privilege had anything to say about those.

ibelsd said:

Actually, you are misrepresenting the appeal to popularity fallacy: It is not based on whether someone is an expert or not. That is another fallacy entirely, an appeal to authority.

Click to expand...

No. Find me any textbook of informal logic written by a professor of philosophy (the profession that studies, among other things, fallacies) and published by a major academic press (e.g. Blackwell, U of Cambridge press, U of Harvard Press, U of Princeton Press, etc.) that defines either in the way you do. Hint: since I own most of those textbooks, and happen to have written one myself, I'm pretty sure you won't find such a text that says that. The reason is because both fallacies are what I said they are. But feel free to take a trip to your best nearby university library to try to prove me wrong (and please, no links from people on the internet who have no idea what they're talking about...if you can find something from the SEP, great. Something from a blog by the likes of Alvin Plantinga or J.D. Trout, great. Otherwise, no).

ibelsd said:

The ad populum fallacy (i.e. appeal to popularity) is just as it implies, that some idea is correct because it is supported by a majority. In this thread, the argument was that X is true because most people in group Y believed it to be true. However, just because most people in group Y believes something true, does not make it so. The argument relied on an appeal to popularity.

Click to expand...

Where was this argument?

ibelsd said:

Tautology is, indeed, a logical fallacy. A tautology is an argument which utilizes circular reasoning.

Click to expand...

Again, find me a textbook meeting the conditions named above that says that. A tautology is a proposition that is true on every line of its truth table. A circular argument is one that has the same proposition in both the premises and the conclusions. An argument requires at least two propositions, so a tautology (being always exactly one proposition) is not an argument.

Some circular arguments would be tautologies if you made a big proposition of the conjunction of all their premises and conclusions. But not all would be. Example:

My hair is black.
My hair is not black.
Therefore, my hair is black.

That's a circular argument. But the proposition "My hair is black and my hair is not black and therefore my hair is black" is not a tautology, because it is not true on all lines of its truth table.

ibelsd said:

If you use unsound reasoning to support your argument: i.e. If birds can fly then I am great. Birds can fly, therefore, I am great. This is a tuatology and a logical fallacy

Click to expand...

That is neither a tautology nor a fallacy. It is of the form modus ponens, which is valid (a few controversial counterexamples notwithstanding). It is not a sound argument, however, for the simple reason that one of the premises is untrue.

Bodhisattva said:

The point is that the Authority is not correct simply because they are an authority in their field... Authorities can be wrong. Cops. Judges. Scientists. That is the whole point to an Appeal to an Authority Fallacy.

Click to expand...

Hmmmm...didn't I say something to the effect that authorities can be wrong in their field? Why yes, I did indeed say that. But that has nothing to do with argumentum ad populam.

What both appeal to authority and appeal to popularity have in common is reference to epistemic position. Some people are in a better epistemic position than others with respect to some claim. The President of the U.S. is probably in worse epistemic position than a geologist to know the age of the earth, for example. Argumentum ad Populam calls upon a further problem--that of mob psychology.

People who are experts work hard to become so, through study and practice. They become experts in part by learning to resist whatever is popular in society, indeed by giving up popular opinions. This does not guarantee they're right, but it does mean they're usually in a better epistemic position than are non-experts, and so, ceteris paribus, they are more likely to be right than non-experts. From this, we can infer that they're more likely to give us the best possible answer to a question at any point in time. The point is (again) not that experts cannot be wrong, but that it is foolish not to believe an expert without a good reason not to believe them.

ashurbanipal said:

No. Find me any textbook of informal logic written by a professor of philosophy (the profession that studies, among other things, fallacies) and published by a major academic press (e.g. Blackwell, U of Cambridge press, U of Harvard Press, U of Princeton Press, etc.) that defines either in the way you do. Hint: since I own most of those textbooks, and happen to have written one myself, I'm pretty sure you won't find such a text that says that. The reason is because both fallacies are what I said they are. But feel free to take a trip to your best nearby university library to try to prove me wrong (and please, no links from people on the internet who have no idea what they're talking about...if you can find something from the SEP, great. Something from a blog by the likes of Alvin Plantinga or J.D. Trout, great. Otherwise, no).



Where was this argument?



Again, find me a textbook meeting the conditions named above that says that. A tautology is a proposition that is true on every line of its truth table. A circular argument is one that has the same proposition in both the premises and the conclusions. An argument requires at least two propositions, so a tautology (being always exactly one proposition) is not an argument.

Some circular arguments would be tautologies if you made a big proposition of the conjunction of all their premises and conclusions. But not all would be. Example:

My hair is black.
My hair is not black.
Therefore, my hair is black.

That's a circular argument. But the proposition "My hair is black and my hair is not black and therefore my hair is black" is not a tautology, because it is not true on all lines of its truth table.



That is neither a tautology nor a fallacy. It is of the form modus ponens, which is valid (a few controversial counterexamples notwithstanding). It is not a sound argument, however, for the simple reason that one of the premises is untrue.

Click to expand...

In this case being white is equated to having privilege, and that is not true on all levels of the truth table. It is being used as a tautology and it is an error thereof or at least a sweeping generalization OR a definition with an agenda. Pick any of them and you are still left with a logical fallacy. This is the exact reason that "black criminality" or "black-on-black crime" is outright rejected by progressives, and exposes their hypocrisy, as if it wasn't self evident.

jwzg said:

In this case being white is equated to having privilege, and that is not true on all levels of the truth table.

Click to expand...

Uh, what? Do you know what a truth table is?

Here's an example of a truth table for a tautology:

(A v ~A)

A (A v ~ A)
T T T F T
F F T T F

Note that the values for both lines of the main operator (v) are 'T'.

jwzg said:

It is being used as a tautology and it is an error thereof or at least a sweeping generalization OR a definition with an agenda. Pick any of them and you are still left with a logical fallacy.

Click to expand...

Not a tautology. It may be a sweeping generalization, but not all generalizations are bad. Example: All renates are cordates. Example2: All hydrogen atoms have one proton. Example3: All Byzantine icons were made with a religious purpose.

Definitions with agendas are not necessarily fallacious either. Example: I may wish to impress upon someone that definitions are possible, so I make a definition: prime numbers are numbers evenly divisible only by themselves and one. Hardly fallacious.

jmotivator said:

Those reading the SJW literature are horribly informed as are those who live their lives believing an omnipotent force is making them fail. That belief runs across all races and creeds and countries of origin. The best indicator of a person's likelihood to get a job and get off of welfare in my decade of work and thousands of clients is their ability to internalize short comings and personalize failure. Those who externalize failure were unlikely to get off welfare willingly.

Click to expand...

Please explain why you think reading scientific studies that are published and peer reviewed make you "horribly informed" . VS one persons personal experience...

We are not by the way simply talking about "getting a job and getting off welfare"..

We are talking about how your race/parental socioeconomic status/ parental education etc.. how those effect your likelihood of succeeding and the degree of your succeeding. Sorry.. but the single biggest indicators of your future success is the success of your parents.

Parental education is also a big indicator.

Race is also a big indictor.

The idea that Donald Trump did not benefit from being given millions of dollars from his father and that had little effect on his future success is ludicrous.

Quite frankly.. you have bought into a myth that we tell children.

Oh and childhood myths have power. You can tell you children the Santa Claus myth and they will be good in anticipation of getting presents and not coal in their stocking.

You can tell children the myth that they "can grow up to be president one day if you only work hard enough".. and that has power because if you are poor or middle class you are likely NOT going to succeed at all if you don't work hard.

BUT you are still telling children a myth... because statistically.. if you are born into a rich family you have a much much greater chance of being successful than you do if you are born poor. A few examples not withstanding.. but even those examples...? How much more could those folks accomplish if not only having the brains, the drive BUT also having the financial and social resources of say a Donald Trump had?

by the way.. recognizing real barriers to success is not " believing an omnipotent force is making them fail"....

that's a strawman of your own creation.

jmotivator said:

I reject "academic" literature that fails to describe what I see with my own eyes.

Click to expand...

In other words..you reject science when it doesn't correlate with your previously held beliefs.

ibelsd said:

This thread is 90+ pages. I'm happy to accept you are being truthful, but if you can't point me to a few specific posts or links, then we cannot continure despite my good faith effort to scan through your old posts. Your call.

Click to expand...

Based on your responses.. I really think its pointless to continue.. Obviously you choose to believe what you want regardless of any scientific evidence to the contrary.

ashurbanipal said:

Hmmmm...didn't I say something to the effect that authorities can be wrong in their field? Why yes, I did indeed say that. But that has nothing to do with argumentum ad populam.

What both appeal to authority and appeal to popularity have in common is reference to epistemic position. Some people are in a better epistemic position than others with respect to some claim. The President of the U.S. is probably in worse epistemic position than a geologist to know the age of the earth, for example. Argumentum ad Populam calls upon a further problem--that of mob psychology.

People who are experts work hard to become so, through study and practice. They become experts in part by learning to resist whatever is popular in society, indeed by giving up popular opinions. This does not guarantee they're right, but it does mean they're usually in a better epistemic position than are non-experts, and so, ceteris paribus, they are more likely to be right than non-experts. From this, we can infer that they're more likely to give us the best possible answer to a question at any point in time. The point is (again) not that experts cannot be wrong, but that it is foolish not to believe an expert without a good reason not to believe them.

Click to expand...

And the argument was an Appeal to Authority...