• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White privilege

ecofarm said:
You mean like those denying a basic sociology concept?
Click to expand...

You were an organic farmer that worked on a community garden, right?
 
jaeger19 said:
already have.. multiple times.. so have multiple others throughout this thread.. Like I said.. go to some reading then get back to the group

2. Significant as in statistically significant.. in other words statistically its not due to simple chance.

3. Well we are not talking about "meeting people on the street".. to determine if they are a recipient of white privilege. We are talking about well conducted studies that show that there is a significant advantage of being in a certain race.. in this case white.

4. The concept does not focus on an abstract idea that other people are inherently or subconsciously biased.

the concept has occurred because studies have shown that in the case of white privilege.. being white confers a statistically advantage in certain interactions vs minorities. Such as in hiring practices, education, and treatment by the judicial system.

As to your strawman arguments? Beautiful people get privileges? Great.. show me to what extent they do and how this effects things like earning power vs "non beautiful people".. Then we can discuss what.. if anything needs to be done about it.

The same with with tall people. And British people..

Now when it comes to white privilege... the first things is to recognize that it actually occurs. So for the employer... have then go back again through their resumes and make sure that they aren't using bias stereotypes because they are in a hurry.

Maybe HR should occasionally do audits of hiring practices to make sure that the company is not missing out on great employees because if unconscious bias.

for those in security and justice system.. to step back an analyze if their actions they are about to undertake are actually appropriate to the actual situation.. or are they unconsciously being biased.


there is nothing absurd here about what I have said.

The only one that's being absurd here is you..."demand mall security pay better attention to them"... please
Click to expand...

Scanning through your posts, I have found one study which supplied and applies to names. People tend to have a bias against unfamiliar sounding names. Is that your example of white privilege?

Brain Biases: The Beautiful People Bias
It is no different than the hard wired instinct to bias towards beautiful people. It is just as real as any other sort of bias inherent in human nature. We tend to trust people that look like us. Did you know, since the television age, every President elected has been 6' or taller.

"A 1988 article in the Los Angeles Times fashion section about a haberdasher devoted to clothing shorter men included a variation of the tale: "Stern says he just learned that Dukakis is 5 feet, 8 inches. 'Did you know,' he adds, noticeably disappointed, 'that since 1900 the taller of the two candidates always wins?'"[35]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States

Maybe black folks when picking the names of children should not select the most outlandish names possible, realizing that it will probably work against them when seeking employment. Sort of like I chose not to get that really sleeve tattoo because I knew it could present bias when I was job hunting. Sort of like when my wife and I selected a name for our son, we decided against cool sounding names which we thought could result in bias later in life. In other words, this is not a black issue. It is an issue of choice. Of course this point just addresses the lone study you've produced to support your argument.

Finally, you have claimed the idea of privilege is not some subconscious bias, but is active. However, in the example you gave (the name study), it was exactly a sub-conscious bias that the researches presented.
 
ibelsd said:
Scanning through your posts, I have found one study which supplied and applies to names. People tend to have a bias against unfamiliar sounding names. Is that your example of white privilege?

Brain Biases: The Beautiful People Bias
It is no different than the hard wired instinct to bias towards beautiful people. It is just as real as any other sort of bias inherent in human nature. We tend to trust people that look like us. Did you know, since the television age, every President elected has been 6' or taller.
Click to expand...

Good point. I bet if they did the same survey with names from Eastern Europe - Boyanov , Yanev, Blaž, Dvořáková, etc or how about Changpu, Déwei, Shàoqiáng, or Geldenhuis, Agosthino, ASSUNÇÃO?

I bet that a Jones, Smith or Wilson gets a call back too...
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
You still can't answer the question....


Why are you still talking about christians? EVERY single islamic country, present day, oppresses people.


Name one Christian country that does the same, in the same manner, with the same barbarity.
Click to expand...


The OP is about white privilege and the focus is on the USA which is a Christian country in the Judaic-Christian tradition.

You got bent out of shape when I criticized the good upstanding Christians who are the god-fearing worshipers that brought slavery to North America from Africa...almost exclusively. Your only attempt at a defense is the failing about face leap to point to another guy's religion instead of addressing the Jekyll and Hyde nature of Christianity in the USA.

I did not discuss Islam at all. I'm talking about Christianity. Pointing at flaws of Islam does not absolve Christianity of horrendous crimes to include during WW II. White privilege is what it is -- red white and blue. Looking at the record back into the 17th century, at least one of those stripes in the flag is white privilege.
 
Tangmo said:
The OP is about white privilege and the focus is on the USA which is a Christian country in the Judaic-Christian tradition.

You got bent out of shape when I criticized the good upstanding Christians who are the god-fearing worshipers that brought slavery to North America from Africa...almost exclusively. Your only attempt at a defense is the failing about face leap to point to another guy's religion instead of addressing the Jekyll and Hyde nature of Christianity in the USA.

I did not discuss Islam at all. I'm talking about Christianity. Pointing at flaws of Islam does not absolve Christianity of horrendous crimes to include during WW II. White privilege is what it is -- red white and blue. Looking at the record back into the 17th century, at least one of those stripes in the flag is white privilege.
Click to expand...





Right, so after avoiding answering you are now becoming indignant about answering. we are done here. I accept your concession.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Right, so after avoiding answering you are now becoming indignant about answering. we are done here. I accept your concession.
Click to expand...


One of those stripes on the flag is white privilege.

Doesn't matter which white stripe it is.


I'll take the third one down
USA-cell-thumb_07.jpg
 
White privilege is what allows an old white man to walk unmolested through a black neighborhood at 11 p.m.

It could be a myth.
 
After being a social worker for nearly a decade, and seeing the poor from all races and creeds, I can't say I agree with the idea of "white privilege", while I think I have a good idea where the disparity comes from.

The truly "privileged" people in American society are those who grow up not accepting excuses for their failures. I think this can appear to be white privilege, and especially white male privilege, because that group above all others is blessed by being born without our culture granting them a predefined excuse.

Success of all people of all races and creeds in this country is predicated first on accepting responsibility and correcting your own short comings. Those who offload their failure on external causes are lost.
 
Bodhisattva said:
You were an organic farmer that worked on a community garden, right?
Click to expand...

A private garden, for good pay. Still am an organic gardener, just a bed. Before the bed all I had was vermiculture, was still an organic gardener. Is that supposed to be an ad hom?

Have you ever considered that maybe the entire educated world is not wrong, that just maybe it's you. I find that when pretty much every informed person disagrees, it's usually because I'm missing some facts, stats or other information. Maybe you haven't looked at all of the statistics, analysis and conclusions drawn in generations of social science. Maybe you think social science is a ruse. Or maybe, just maybe, tens of thousands of educated people (arguably experts) with a different perspectives could be accurate.

For you to throw away the entire concept as hooey kinda displays an ulterior motive. That level of anti-intellectualism, denial, is usually not a matter of mere stubbornness. There's something else one wants to believe and the concept is a problem for that belief.

Most likely, you want to believe we live in a utopian society where everyone gets a fair shot. That's innocent enough. But we don't live on the mountain top. The mountain top is figurative, an unattainable goal, a dream. Still, every generation we become a more just society, we strive for the unattainable that you think already exists.
 
ecofarm said:
A private garden, for good pay. Still am an organic gardener, just a bed. Before the bed all I had was vermiculture, was still an organic gardener. Is that supposed to be an ad hom?

Have you ever considered that maybe the entire educated world is not wrong, that just maybe it's you. I find that when pretty much every informed person disagrees, it's usually because I'm missing some facts, stats or other information. Maybe you haven't looked at all of the statistics, analysis and conclusions drawn in generations of social science. Maybe you think social science is a ruse. Or maybe, just maybe, tens of thousands of educated people (arguably experts) with a different perspectives could be accurate.

For you to throw away the entire concept as hooey kinda displays an ulterior motive. That level of anti-intellectualism, denial, is usually not a matter of mere stubbornness. There's something else one wants to believe and the concept is a problem for that belief.

Most likely, you want to believe we live in a utopian society where everyone gets a fair shot. That's innocent enough. But we don't live on the mountain top. The mountain top is figurative, an unattainable goal, a dream. Still, every generation we become a more just society, we strive for the unattainable that you think already exists.
Click to expand...

I got to "entire educated world" and stopped reading...

... wow. Over bloated self worth. Makes my Appeal......
 
Bodhisattva said:
I got to "entire educated world" and stopped reading...

... wow. Over bloated self worth. Makes my Appeal......
Click to expand...

Show me a sociology department that does not recognize and accept the concept as legitimate. You just decided, all by yourself without study education or training, that we live in a utopian society wherein everyone gets a fair shot. Your fantasy land trumps all science. I guess that fantasy is very important.
 
Tangmo said:
One of those stripes on the flag is white privilege.

Doesn't matter which white stripe it is.


I'll take the third one down
USA-cell-thumb_07.jpg
Click to expand...

White privilege disappears when you are poor, regardless how white. That's why there is so much backlash to the term. Now, it totally applies to whites who were born into money, stability, family connections, etc. But, if you are the son of a pair of white meth heads or unemployed drunks living in the hills of Kentucky, not so much.

If you're going to be poor in the US, you may be better off Black. At least then you have a shot at Harvard and Yale.
 
ecofarm said:
Show me a sociology department that does not recognize and accept the concept as legitimate. You just decided, all by yourself without study education or training, that we live in a utopian society wherein everyone gets a fair shot. Your fantasy land trumps all science. I guess that fantasy is very important.
Click to expand...

I never said any such thing... if you don't even understand my argument, at this point, why bother continuing?
 
Bodhisattva said:
I never said any such thing... if you don't even understand my argument, at this point, why bother continuing?
Click to expand...

Your argument amounts to ignorance. I post for the audience.
 
ecofarm said:
Show me a sociology department that does not recognize and accept the concept as legitimate. You just decided, all by yourself without study education or training, that we live in a utopian society wherein everyone gets a fair shot. Your fantasy land trumps all science. I guess that fantasy is very important.
Click to expand...

This is an appeal ad populum. Just because a concept is popular, does not mean it is right. Furthermore, shifting the burden of proof to the opposition does not relieve you from having to support your claim. If your claim is that every (or almost every) sociology department recognizes AND accepts this concept as legitimate, then it is your responsibility to support the claim. Good luck with that. Furthermore, the reason we cannot merely accept sociology departments as a legitimate "authorities" on the matter is due to the inherent ideological bias implicit in the U.S. university system. Now, this bias probably has a limited impact on the math and physics departments. However, it is likely be felt mightily in the sociology department.

Note the impacts stated here:
It?s finally out–The big review paper on the lack of political diversity in social psychology | HeterodoxAcademy.org

Amid support that the lack of diversity does exist.
"Repeated studies have found that about 10 percent of professors in the social sciences or the humanities are Republicans."
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/10/opinion/sunday/the-dangers-of-echo-chambers-on-campus.html?_r=0

Let's not confuse for ideology as fact or opinion as science even when such ideology and opinion is couched within the field of academia. White privilege is little more than a liberal/progressive trope. It creates some sort of fantastic image of white men wielding immense power and generates a conflict that only exists in the minds of social justice warriors. It should only be treated as serious inasmuch as it is used to sow seeds of doubt in the minds of individuals who perceive themselves to be under-privileged because they are neither white nor male and thus generating a type of envy which usually results in the types of mass uprisings we have seen around the world when students seek to create their own utopias by destroying everything society had built before them. We should take white privilege seriously only inasmuch as we seek to avoid the types of genocides and purges which tend to be instigated by such divisive ideas within ideologies that promote class or racial warfare.
 
ibelsd said:
This is an appeal ad populum. Just because a concept is popular, does not mean it is right. .
Click to expand...

I have repeatedly explained this concept to him but he pretends it does not exist and then repeats his mistake...
 
Bodhisattva said:
I have repeatedly explained this concept to him but he pretends it does not exist and then repeats his mistake...
Click to expand...

I can appreciate that. When truth is allowed to be separated from reason than it stands to reason that there can be no truth.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I am sure that they are very grateful for your opinion...
Click to expand...

They better be.


ibelsd said:
This is an appeal ad populum. Just because a concept is popular, does not mean it is right.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It is appeal to legitimate experts. That the legitimate expert opinion is popular is not surprising. Nor should we be surprised that lunatic perspectives are rare and only among the uneducated.
 
calamity said:
White privilege disappears when you are poor, regardless how white.
Click to expand...

False. You do not understand the concept. A poor white man will never know inescapable disadvantage as a result of his race. A rich black man will always know inescapable disadvantage as a result of his race.

Being poor does not remove white privilege. One still gets a fair deal in housing, jobs and the justice system - at least as good as any other poor person. A black poor person does not get a fair shot compared to a poor white. Being rich does not escape white privilege either, as even a rich black man will be at a disadvantage in housing, employment and the justice system compared to rich whites.

Is being rich an advantage? Of course, in all three aforementioned areas. But it does not make a white man black nor a black man white.
 
ecofarm said:
False. You do not understand the concept. A poor white man will never know inescapable disadvantage as a result of his race. A rich black man will always know inescapable disadvantage as a result of his race.

Being poor does not remove white privilege. One still gets a fair deal in housing, jobs and the justice system - at least as good as any other poor person. A black poor person does not get a fair shot compared to a poor white. Being rich does not escape white privilege either, as even a rich black man will be at a disadvantage in housing, employment and the justice system compared to rich whites.

Is being rich an advantage? Of course, in all three aforementioned areas. But it does not make a white man black nor a black man white.
Click to expand...
You're ignoring affirmitive action, which clearly gives advantage to the poor black person over the poor white one, all other things being equal.
 
ecofarm said:
They better be.




Wrong. It is appeal to legitimate experts. That the legitimate expert opinion is popular is not surprising. Nor should we be surprised that lunatic perspectives are rare and only among the uneducated.
Click to expand...

It is actually an Appeal to Authority which is obviously a valid and logical fallacy.
 
ecofarm said:
False. You do not understand the concept. A poor white man will never know inescapable disadvantage as a result of his race. A rich black man will always know inescapable disadvantage as a result of his race.

Being poor does not remove white privilege. One still gets a fair deal in housing, jobs and the justice system - at least as good as any other poor person. A black poor person does not get a fair shot compared to a poor white. Being rich does not escape white privilege either, as even a rich black man will be at a disadvantage in housing, employment and the justice system compared to rich whites.

Is being rich an advantage? Of course, in all three aforementioned areas. But it does not make a white man black nor a black man white.
Click to expand...

There is no privilege if the privilege is not granted.

Privileges exist in all catagories... Asian. White. Female. Male. Black. Jew. Christian. Young. Etc.
 
ecofarm said:
Wrong. It is appeal to legitimate experts. That the legitimate expert opinion is popular is not surprising. Nor should we be surprised that lunatic perspectives are rare and only among the uneducated.
Click to expand...

You are refuting a claim I made, but ignoring my supporting points. I already addressed your rebuttal. You should read posts beyond the first sentence. In fact if your read my post from the point of the following
Furthermore, the reason we cannot merely accept sociology departments as a legitimate "authorities" on the matter is due to the inherent ideological bias implicit in the U.S. university system. Now, this bias probably has a limited impact on the math and physics departments. However, it is likely be felt mightily in the sociology department.
Click to expand...
then you would not have bothered making an argument which had already been countered.

I should also note that even if you stubbornly hold to your claim that you are using an authority on the matter to support your claim, it would still be your burden to support your claim. Another point you completely ignored.

So, you have a couple of choices if you wish to continue along this line of debate.

1) Concede my argument outright.
2) Support your initial claim and provide a proper counter to my rebuttal which addresses the actual points I made.

Failure to do either #1 or #2 will be ignored and considered an implicit concession. I can accept disagreement, but it is rude to pretend to debate someone on the merits of an argument while clearly refusing to read or acknowledge anything your opponent says.
 
Bodhisattva said:
It is not that there ARE weaknesses... it is the nature of the weaknesses...


We have already highlighted the strengths of
this experiment relative to previous audit stud-
ies.
We now discuss its weaknesses. First, our
outcome measure is crude, even relative to the
previous audit studies. Ultimately, one cares
about whether an applicant gets the job and
about the wage offered conditional on getting
the job. Our procedure, however, simply mea-
sures callbacks for interviews. To the extent that
the search process has even moderate frictions,
one would expect that reduced interview rates
would translate into reduced job offers. How-
ever, we are not able to translate our results into
gaps in hiring rates or gaps in earnings.
Another weakness is that the resumes do not
directly report race but instead suggest race
through personal names. [/B]]This leads to various
sources of concern. First, while the names are
chosen to make race salient, some employers
may simply not notice the names or not recog-
nize their racial content. On a related note,
because we are not assigning race but only
race-specific names, our results are not repre-
sentative of the average African-American
(who may not have such a racially distinct
^ We return to this issue in Section IV,
subse

http://www.uh.edu/~adkugler/Bertrand&Mullainathan.pdf
Click to expand...


And what problem do you have with these weaknesses?.

What you bolded is due to the nature of the study.

1. They looked at only racial names. Which has power because it REMOVES individual characteristics irrespective of race. IF they had used interviews, and actual job offers.. this would mean that personal characteristics like presence..tattoos, demeanor.. etc.. would have been confounding variables because employers would have seen the applicants first hand.

2. The fact that the names were chosen to make race salient BUT employers may not have noticed names or recognized their racial content means that statistically.. its possible that racial bias was UNDER reported. In other words.. IF a person had connected the name with say a black face.. they would be more likely to be biases. With just a name.. they may be less likely to be racial biased.

3. their results were not representative of the average American means that they used only race specific names.. they did not say use resumes including the average African males level of experience, or education, or place of educations etc. They kept the resumes the same between white sounding names and African American sounding names.

If they had used a resumes that resembled the average African American male.. and resumes that resembled the average white male.. likely their would have been a difference.. and thus differences in results would possibly be a result of resume differences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom