• 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

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.

"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.
Click to expand...
\

Well.. for one there were multiple studies presented not just with names from differences in treatment in education, by the justice system.. but yes. there was one study that showed simply having a "black sounding name" put you at a disadvantage.

It is no different than the hard wired instinct to bias towards beautiful people.
Click to expand...

Well yes.. it is different.. since the bias is toward white people in general.

Yep.. there is bias toward beautiful people.. that fact in no way.. invalidates that there is also white privilege.

If you think that beautiful people bias represents a larger factor in society than say a bias for white people in general.. I urge you to provide the evidence of such. And then we can both agree that both white privilege and beautiful people privilege exists and are equal factors in society.

Somehow though.. I don't think you are going to find that the difference overall in the effect of beautiful people bias is that significant a social factor.

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.
Click to expand...

Yeah dead wrong.. I claimed that it can be BOTH a subconscious bias and a learned or planned bias.

And the researchers did not present that it was either a subconscious or planned bias.. simply that such a bias existed.
 
jmotivator said:
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.
Click to expand...

except your premise is not supported by the literature.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Then your argument about White Privilege is stupid. Privilege is everywhere. Singling out that White People are privileged is to ignore that it exists for everybody and is an attempt to make a racist argument that White People have it easier/better than Black People for no other reason than the White guy is White and the poor minorities are being disadvantaged because of Whitey. It is stupid. It is P.C. bull****... it is detrimental to the advancement of minorities...

Also, talking about White Privilege instead of "Privilege" is racist just as talking about Black Privilege is racist. The issue is Privilege.
Click to expand...

No its not "stupid".

Privilege is everywhere.. the question is whether it has a significant impact on society. Sure.. in the 1940's, there were "whites only" restaurants that would not serve a white guy who wasn't wearing shoes. That's discrimination/bias/privilege.. DOES NOT MEET THE IMPACT OF NOT SERVING ANY BLACK PEOPLE.

And when the PRIVILEGE is about a significant advantage for WHITE people... its not "racist".. its simply fact.
 
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...

One.. not other things are equal.

But... Calamity.. I would like you to give me current examples of affirmative action.

Here is a couple of things you might want to know about affirmative action:

Federal regulations identify "placement goals," which are based on a calculation of availability data and the current workforce. Availability data comes from a few sources, including the U.S. Census and terminal degree awards databases. These goals provide clarity and focus on outreach efforts to ensure the applicant pool is as diverse and qualified as possible. Many organizations have full-time "diversity recruiters" to assist them in this requirement. The regulations explicitly state "Quotas are expressly forbidden...n all employment decisions, the contractor must make selections in a nondiscriminatory manner. Placement goals do not provide the contractor with a justification to extend a preference to any individual, select an individual, or adversely affect an individual's employment status, on the basis of that person's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."
Click to expand...

This is unlawful. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, you cannot base a hiring decision, in whole or in part, on a person's race or gender. In addition, under Executive Order 11246, a college or university must take affirmative steps to ensure its hiring practices are fair, equitable, and free from discrimination.
Click to expand...

https://www.higheredjobs.com/Articles/articleDisplay.cfm?ID=246
 
jaeger19 said:
One.. not other things are equal.

But... Calamity.. I would like you to give me current examples of affirmative action.

Here is a couple of things you might want to know about affirmative action:




https://www.higheredjobs.com/Articles/articleDisplay.cfm?ID=246
Click to expand...

In practice is means a minority student with lower GPA and LSAT scores gets into a law school before the White student with the same GPA and LSAT score.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger
 
Bodhisattva said:
It is actually an Appeal to Authority which is obviously a valid and logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

It's amazing to me how little people understand about fallacies. Look:

Appeal to popularity: occurs when someone asserts that because a claim is popular among non-experts, it is correct. Example: the majority of Americans think businesses are evil. Therefore, businesses are evil.

Appeal to authority: occurs when someone asserts that because some authority figure (King, Duke, President, Bishop, Dali Lama) claims something outside their area of expertise. The Pope making a claim about what constitutes grounds for excommunication from the Roman Church would not be appeal to authority. The President of the United States claiming that some government agency is corrupt is not appeal to authority. But if, say, someone claimed that we should believe the earth is 5000 years old because the President (or the Pope, a Bishop, a Duke, a King, etc) has said it is, that would be appeal to authority.

Neither appeal to popularity or appeal to authority has anything to say about expert opinion. It is not a fallacy to quote or depend on expert opinion. That does not mean that experts are always right--just because an argument is not fallacious does not mean it is automatically sound. But without compelling reason, it's a good bet to agree with expert opinion when that opinion is part of an expert consensus.

jwzg said:
It is indeed a logical fallacy of tautology
Click to expand...

Tautology is not a logical fallacy. Some people might say that tautologies are not informative since a tautology is true on every line of a truth table. But tautologies are definitely not fallacies. They can't be. Tautologies are propositions, fallacies are arguments.
 
ibelsd said:
First, white privilege is really, at its core, is nothing more than loudly proclaiming that life's not fair.
Click to expand...

1. Probably false, depending on what you mean. "Nothing more than?"

2. You're missing the point anyway. Sure, we will always have to live with some unfairness. We should still do something about unfairness when we discover it. That's a certain moral truth.

ibelsd said:
I agree. It isn't. I once dreamed of playing professional sports. Turns out I am not fast enough nor gifted enough and I just did not have the motivation to overcome my own physical limitations. I could have chosen to work harder. Instead, I chose a life path that probably took a little less work in order to find professional success. That is our choice in life.
Click to expand...

You're confusing ability, which is a legitimate criterion for whether or not someone should get a job, with illegitimate criteria such as race. To get some job, a person should have to overcome whatever internal obstacles may be present to obtaining the necessary skills.

ibelsd said:
However, the concept of white privilege attempts to force fairness into things where hard work and motivation would suffice. Imagine that if I forced myself into professional sports, not because I was physically ready nor because I had dedicated myself, but because I was given a shortcut based on some misguided view of privilege (or lack thereof). Imagine a sports team feeling compelled to hire me because it had to even out its ledgers with members who were neither talented enough nor motivated enough.
Click to expand...

Not a valid analogy. The two situations are not alike in relevant respects.

ibelsd said:
There is another glaring problem with white privilege as a concept. First, it assumes members of a specific race all share similar life experiences.
Click to expand...

Seems false to me, but feel free to explain why this is the case.

ibelsd said:
Second, it denies commonalities which may have little or nothing to do with race. Poor whites and blacks most likely share much more in common than either would with wealthy whites and blacks.
Click to expand...

Perhaps true, but irrelevant.

ibelsd said:
White privilege is attempting to address cultural stereotypes and cultural divides which could easily be bridged by blacks choosing to assimilate rather than differentiate.
Click to expand...

Sounds like an empirical claim. Evidence?

ibelsd said:
One poster mentioned a study where employers where less likely to call in for interviews people with black sounding names. Ok. Fair enough. Let's put aside whether this is truly racist or not or whether it implies some sort of privilege. The fact is that black families chose black cultural names over assimilation.
Click to expand...

First, let's not set aside the potential racism. Second, why should a person's choices like names for their children matter to whether or not they should be hired for a position? Third, plenty of studies show white privilege in situations where names are probably irrelevant.

ibelsd said:
My parents also had a similar choice to make when naming their children. They chose American sounding names. I understand both points of view, but when you make a choice, you also accept the consequences of that choice.
Click to expand...

Again, irrelevant. The point is that some choices should not carry negative consequences. Why should someone be punished because of their name?

ibelsd said:
To make one more point about stereotypes. The black community, in some part, does have an image problem. Blaming this on white privilege glosses over the real issues.
Click to expand...

There may be other real issues, but there's plenty of data to show that white privilege is real, and an issue, which makes it a real issue.
 
ashurbanipal said:
It's amazing to me how little people understand about fallacies. Look:

Appeal to popularity: occurs when someone asserts that because a claim is popular among non-experts, it is correct. Example: the majority of Americans think businesses are evil. Therefore, businesses are evil.

Appeal to authority: occurs when someone asserts that because some authority figure (King, Duke, President, Bishop, Dali Lama) claims something outside their area of expertise. The Pope making a claim about what constitutes grounds for excommunication from the Roman Church would not be appeal to authority. The President of the United States claiming that some government agency is corrupt is not appeal to authority. But if, say, someone claimed that we should believe the earth is 5000 years old because the President (or the Pope, a Bishop, a Duke, a King, etc) has said it is, that would be appeal to authority.

Neither appeal to popularity or appeal to authority has anything to say about expert opinion. It is not a fallacy to quote or depend on expert opinion. That does not mean that experts are always right--just because an argument is not fallacious does not mean it is automatically sound. But without compelling reason, it's a good bet to agree with expert opinion when that opinion is part of an expert consensus.



Tautology is not a logical fallacy. Some people might say that tautologies are not informative since a tautology is true on every line of a truth table. But tautologies are definitely not fallacies. They can't be. Tautologies are propositions, fallacies are arguments.
Click to expand...

Appeal to Authority is when any "authority" is referenced as an authority...
 
jaeger19 said:
except your premise is not supported by the literature.
Click to expand...

I don't give a rats ass about the SJW literature, I am going by first hand experience.
 
jaeger19 said:
....
Click to expand...


Let me ask you, If two candidates for a job, one a black person, as you called her "taneeessshaaa" and a white person "bill" go for a job, with everything being the same, cept taneesha is slightly less qualified but has a more aggreeable personality, what kind of "privilege" is that?


Now reverse it. What kind of "privilege" is that. Explain the difference.
 
jmotivator said:
I don't give a rats ass about the SJW literature, I am going by first hand experience.
Click to expand...

I have to agree that few things are more damaging to self esteem than brainwashing someone into believing they are a victim or that the card deck of society is stacked against them. Hell, why bother trying? "The Man is just going to knock me down anyway."
 
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...

AA and other "minority" preference programs also give a rich black (or other "minority" like a woman) an advantage over poor (or rich) white man. Callings many AA things "outreach programs" simply means that no official quota exists (on paper) but that some positions will remain open until a (more?) qualified "minority" candidate can be found.

Obviously, if one believes that white (male?) privilege is rampant then an effort being made to counter it by "minority" preference is morally justified as is lying about using that form of "reverse" discrimination.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
AA and other "minority" preference programs also give a rich black (or other "minority" like a woman) an advantage over poor (or rich) white man. Callings many AA things "outreach programs" simply means that no official quota exists (on paper) but that some positions will remain open until a (more?) qualified "minority" candidate can be found.

Obviously, if one believes that white (male?) privilege is rampant then an effort being made to counter it by "minority" preference is morally justified as is lying about using that form of "reverse" discrimination.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I work for a "woman owned business." This certainly provides advantages over a male owned business.
 
calamity said:
I have to agree that few things are more damaging to self esteem than brainwashing someone into believing they are a victim or that the card deck of society is stacked against them. Hell, why bother trying? "The Man is just going to knock me down anyway."
Click to expand...

And that isn't even a paraphrase. If I had a nickle for every time I heard that excuse...
 
Bodhisattva said:
Appeal to Authority is when any "authority" is referenced as an authority...
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. If someone is expert on some subject, they can be referenced as an authority on that subject, and no fallacy has been committed.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Not necessarily. If someone is expert on some subject, they can be referenced as an authority on that subject, and no fallacy has been committed.
Click to expand...

In this case he is just referencing an authority that shares his opinon and says "I win... they agree with me".
 
Bodhisattva said:
In this case he is just referencing an authority that shares his opinon and says "I win... they agree with me".
Click to expand...

That doesn't strike me as a fair assessment. The "authority" is the profession of sociology, who study such phenomena as racial discrimination. We should expect sociologists to know more than others on the subject, and if the consensus opinion of sociologists is X, it should be on the shoulders of those who want to deny X to find a way to do so.
 
jaeger19 said:
\

Well.. for one there were multiple studies presented not just with names from differences in treatment in education, by the justice system.. but yes. there was one study that showed simply having a "black sounding name" put you at a disadvantage.
Click to expand...
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.


jaeger19 said:
Well yes.. it is different.. since the bias is toward white people in general.

Yep.. there is bias toward beautiful people.. that fact in no way.. invalidates that there is also white privilege.

If you think that beautiful people bias represents a larger factor in society than say a bias for white people in general.. I urge you to provide the evidence of such. And then we can both agree that both white privilege and beautiful people privilege exists and are equal factors in society.

Somehow though.. I don't think you are going to find that the difference overall in the effect of beautiful people bias is that significant a social factor.
Click to expand...
You have not quantified the benefit white people receive from this perceived privilege. So, how could I possible compare the amount of so-called privilege between two different biases? 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. Let's be real honest here. You have not even defined what being "white" means. Is it merely light colored skin. Does a light skinned black man enjoy privilege? Over who? In what circumstances?

jaeger19 said:
Yeah dead wrong.. I claimed that it can be BOTH a subconscious bias and a learned or planned bias.

And the researchers did not present that it was either a subconscious or planned bias.. simply that such a bias existed.
Click to expand...
I don't recall anything in the research which indicated that such a bias was done deliberately.
 
White privilege is what allows an old white man to walk through a black ghetto at midnite and be unmolested.

It is possible that this could be a myth........I have not tested it myself.

You?

(Also......a suggestion.......carry a sign that says, "I have white privilege.")

:usflag2:
 
ashurbanipal said:
1. Probably false, depending on what you mean. "Nothing more than?"

2. You're missing the point anyway. Sure, we will always have to live with some unfairness. We should still do something about unfairness when we discover it. That's a certain moral truth.
Click to expand...
We? You mean I should be compelled or do you mean it would be a nice thing to do? 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. The term is used as a synonym with racism and, like racism, is generally used to shut down debate or conversation when someone participates with a contrary view. It is used as an exclusionary measure to deny white people (and white men in particular) their right to voice an opinion. 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.

ashurbanipal said:
You're confusing ability, which is a legitimate criterion for whether or not someone should get a job, with illegitimate criteria such as race. To get some job, a person should have to overcome whatever internal obstacles may be present to obtaining the necessary skills.
Click to expand...
I offered many factors in my example, effort and motivation being two of them. I confused nothing. I am noting that humans and our relations with others are complex. You cannot simply quantify ability in all cases. 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.



ashurbanipal said:
Not a valid analogy. The two situations are not alike in relevant respects.
Click to expand...
Because you said so????


ashurbanipal said:
Seems false to me, but feel free to explain why this is the case.
Click to expand...
First, explain why you think this is false.



ashurbanipal said:
Perhaps true, but irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Again, irrelevant because you said so???



ashurbanipal said:
Sounds like an empirical claim. Evidence?
Click to expand...
This is in reference to the name study provided by another poster.


ashurbanipal said:
First, let's not set aside the potential racism. Second, why should a person's choices like names for their children matter to whether or not they should be hired for a position? Third, plenty of studies show white privilege in situations where names are probably irrelevant.
Click to expand...
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. I am not clear on what you mean in your last sentence here.


ashurbanipal said:
Again, irrelevant. The point is that some choices should not carry negative consequences. Why should someone be punished because of their name?
Click to expand...
It isn't punishment, first of all. Would you name your child Silly-****-****? If you just really adored the name, should it stop you? How about something more real, like Adolph Hitler? Would you give your child that name? How about, your grandfather was named Adolph Hitler (but he was not THE Adolph Hitler), and your family tradition is name your first child after his grandfather. Would you choose tradition or would you decide that such a name would probably limit that child in many ways due to the unpopularity of the name? So, yeah, as a parent, I am free to name my child Donald Trump or Hillary Rodham, but I recognize that doing so could be a limitation for my child based on human nature and the way people may pre-judge my child based on his name. This is no different than naming a child Laqueifa or Daronte'. Should this be true? Again, it is human nature. Fight it at your own leisure.


ashurbanipal said:
There may be other real issues, but there's plenty of data to show that white privilege is real, and an issue, which makes it a real issue.
Click to expand...
I've asked for this plenty of data, but it seems lacking.
 
ashurbanipal said:
It's amazing to me how little people understand about fallacies. Look:

Appeal to popularity: occurs when someone asserts that because a claim is popular among non-experts, it is correct. Example: the majority of Americans think businesses are evil. Therefore, businesses are evil.

Appeal to authority: occurs when someone asserts that because some authority figure (King, Duke, President, Bishop, Dali Lama) claims something outside their area of expertise. The Pope making a claim about what constitutes grounds for excommunication from the Roman Church would not be appeal to authority. The President of the United States claiming that some government agency is corrupt is not appeal to authority. But if, say, someone claimed that we should believe the earth is 5000 years old because the President (or the Pope, a Bishop, a Duke, a King, etc) has said it is, that would be appeal to authority.

Neither appeal to popularity or appeal to authority has anything to say about expert opinion. It is not a fallacy to quote or depend on expert opinion. That does not mean that experts are always right--just because an argument is not fallacious does not mean it is automatically sound. But without compelling reason, it's a good bet to agree with expert opinion when that opinion is part of an expert consensus.



Tautology is not a logical fallacy. Some people might say that tautologies are not informative since a tautology is true on every line of a truth table. But tautologies are definitely not fallacies. They can't be. Tautologies are propositions, fallacies are arguments.
Click to expand...

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. 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.

Tautology is, indeed, a logical fallacy. A tautology is an argument which utilizes circular reasoning. 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 (although it demonstrates another facet of logical fallacies - Just because the argument is poor, does not mean the conclusion is false :).

I do agree with you on one point though; It IS amazing how little people understand about fallacies.
 
ashurbanipal said:
That doesn't strike me as a fair assessment. The "authority" is the profession of sociology, who study such phenomena as racial discrimination. We should expect sociologists to know more than others on the subject, and if the consensus opinion of sociologists is X, it should be on the shoulders of those who want to deny X to find a way to do so.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom