- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 123,633
- Reaction score
- 27,986
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You mean like those denying a basic sociology concept?
You were an organic farmer that worked on a community garden, right?
You mean like those denying a basic sociology concept?
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
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.
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.
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.
Right, so after avoiding answering you are now becoming indignant about answering. we are done here. I accept your concession.
You were an organic farmer that worked on a community garden, right?
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.
I got to "entire educated world" and stopped reading...
... wow. Over bloated self worth. Makes my Appeal......
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
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.
I never said any such thing... if you don't even understand my argument, at this point, why bother continuing?
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.
I post for the audience.
This is an appeal ad populum. Just because a concept is popular, does not mean it is right. .
I have repeatedly explained this concept to him but he pretends it does not exist and then repeats his mistake...
I am sure that they are very grateful for your opinion...
This is an appeal ad populum. Just because a concept is popular, does not mean it is right.
White privilege disappears when you are poor, regardless how white.
You're ignoring affirmitive action, which clearly gives advantage to the poor black person over the poor white one, all other things being equal.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.
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.
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.
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.
then you would not have bothered making an argument which had already been countered.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.
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