A White teacher taught White students about White privilege. It cost him his job.

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

White privilege can include the starting point that you have, based on prior acts of more racial discrimination against non-white people. White privilege can include the ability to be blind to the descrimination, current or past, and therefore unconcerned about it. White privilege can include the behaviors people display toward you (or don’t.)

I agree with you.

This has some overlap and similarity to what I also wrote previously:

Privilege is in this sense a relative advantage. The opposite of relative advantage is relative disadvantage, not discrimination. Discrimination leads to and has overlap with relative disadvantage but they are not exactly the same set of things as discussed in prior posts. An example is how historical racism in conjunction with color-blind policy can lead to continuation of outcome differences among races and so a relative advantage can still be present without it technically being discrimination. Another thing besides is that the word discrimination is a pretty narrow thing: all opportunity differences across race with external persons, perception differences across race by external persons, treatment differences across race by external persons do not necessarily qualify as discrimination.

I expect a worthy, rational discussion around these points.

If privilege is just a morally-neutral term describing relative advantage/disadvantage between two groups of people, then who is the second group of people referred to by "White Privilege"? Black people? Asians? Literally any subset of non-white persons?

Wouldn't the answer be non-white persons?

If Asian people have relative advantages over a subset of non-Asian people, do they have "Asian Privilege"?

I think I've heard some things similar to that are present in some Asian countries, maybe Japan?

If Jewish people have relative advantages over a subset of non-Jewish people, do they have "Jewish Privilege"? Is it even possible to use the term "Jewish Privilege" without sounding like an edgelord or alt-righter?

There may be a thing in Israel of some relative advantage but there's enough risk of being Jewish and discrimination worldwide and by other groups in close quarters that it might not be a good idea because there'd be a matching relative disadvantage?

 

[Gospel]

White privilege can include the starting point that you have, based on prior acts of more racial discrimination against non-white people. White privilege can include the ability to be blind to the descrimination, current or past, and therefore unconcerned about it. White privilege can include the behaviors people display toward you (or don’t.)

I agree with you.

This has some overlap and similarity to what I also wrote previously:

Privilege is in this sense a relative advantage. The opposite of relative advantage is relative disadvantage, not discrimination. Discrimination leads to and has overlap with relative disadvantage but they are not exactly the same set of things as discussed in prior posts. An example is how historical racism in conjunction with color-blind policy can lead to continuation of outcome differences among races and so a relative advantage can still be present without it technically being discrimination. Another thing besides is that the word discrimination is a pretty narrow thing: all opportunity differences across race with external persons, perception differences across race by external persons, treatment differences across race by external persons do not necessarily qualify as discrimination.

I expect a worthy, rational discussion around these points.

If privilege is just a morally-neutral term describing relative advantage/disadvantage between two groups of people, then who is the second group of people referred to by "White Privilege"? Black people? Asians? Literally any subset of non-white persons?

If Asian people have relative advantages over a subset of non-Asian people, do they have "Asian Privilege"?

If Jewish people have relative advantages over a subset of non-Jewish people, do they have "Jewish Privilege"? Is it even possible to use the term "Jewish Privilege" without sounding like an edgelord or alt-righter?

I'm fine with everyone recognizing their privileges. The goal is for said recognition to lead to action resulting in the abolishment of those privileges.

Yes, I used a contentious word on purpose.

 

[Gospel]

On the one hand, you take these very pointed questions posed as yes-or-no options, and you know the person asking them does not believe white privilege exists, and moreover has made numerous posts that he doesn’t think systemic racism exists either, for that matter, and you have observed in the past that the person doesn’t typically discuss with an open and expressed expectation of changing his stance on the above white privilege and systemic racism, and you ask yourself, “am I in a good faith discussion, or am I in a tunnel of picayune specifics that will be used to say ‘AHA! I have proved racism doesn’t exist and you have agreed with me!’ When in fact you have not agreed at all, but the existence of 100 questions each with an assumption that might contradict one of the subsequent assumptions causes your actual thoughts to be mis-assigned, which was the intent of the 100-question format in the first place, since it becomes a Gish Gallop strategy of overwhelming with bullshit instead of actual discussion of the topic?”

A good faith discussion?
It's interesting that you made the same mistaken in the thread about gender (that time about me). Yes, of course Bomb#20 is debating in good faith. As he always does. And what he encounters most of the time are repeated misrepresentations of what he said, dodging of his questions, and suggestions that he is not discussing honestly!

Even if B20 is certain that he will not be persuaded by any of the arguments presented here that there is such thing as "White privilege" (which might or might not be the case, for all I know he is not sure someone isn't using the expression "White privilege" in a non-standard manner to name for example more negative discrimination against non-Whites than against Whites, or some other thing), that is not remotely a suggestion that he is not debating in good faith.

If I debate a Christian with good knowledge of philosophy - for example - about whether Christianity is true, I am certain (well beyond a reasonable doubt) that they will never persuade me that Christianity is true. However, that does not mean I will not debate honestly (i.e., in good faith) if I ask questions intended to get a clear target to make my arguments. Or if I debate a Wokeist on matters of transgender claims and the like. I will accept evidence and arguments and I am willing to change my mind if given good reasons for that, and this is so despite the fact that I am certain that such reasons are not forthcoming because I am certain that my opponents are mistaken on the matters under discussion and further, that I can find their mistakes with no difficulty if they just provide straight answers with information about their position. There is no dishonesty in that, and no good reason to think that that is . And there is no dishonesty in B20's participation; this should be obvious.

I like this however I have one issue with it. I wouldn't call it having a discussion in good faith if/when you accuse your opponent of dishonesty when gaps are not filled to your liking. For example in my discussion with Bomb#20, it's my misunderstanding of what the actual question is/was & not my trying to avoid. I made more than one attempt to answer the question, and am willing to have another go at it if found unsatisfactory. But if Bomb#20 continues to claim I'm dodging and ducking I'm moving the fuck on.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yes, the left does try to make a case for the existence of white privilege or at least a lot of people in "the left" try to make that case and why wouldn't they, it's a thing that exists.

So show me a leftist who forthrightly grants that it takes more than racial discrimination to make a case for "white privilege", and who correctly identifies the additional criteria that need to be satisfied, and who presents evidence that those additional criteria are satisfied. Because over and over I hear leftists say what amounts to "Look, racial discrimination! See, white privilege is a thing that exists."

To think about discrimination, one conceptualizes a bad person committing provably illegal acts or civilly liable acts.

Yes, those; or just legal and non-actionable racially motivated bad acts like refusing to lend your neighbor a cup of sugar on account of her ethnicity. I take it you're offering yourself as such an exemplary leftist.

I've stated discrimination is more narrow than disadvantage, but before we get into that, you are going to need to explain that last sentence.

 

[Gospel]

Why do you make up libelous garbage about other posters? Why do you insinuate that the notion that picking victims randomly would have been "fine and dandy" is a notion I'm advocating rather than a notion I'm condemning? Why do you suggest that I indicated that there's nothing between "wrong" and "fine and dandy"? Why do you imply that what I did is vicious and incredibly stupid, when what I did was simply point out the absurdity of the inference rule Gospel was relying on when he reasoned "c) would have been fine because again the officers are treating everyone the same and not choosing skin color as the reason why some of us can stay at the train station."? If you feel there's a problem with jumping directly from "Not wrong because of X" to "fine", due to the many gradations intermediate between "wrong" and "fine and dandy", take it up with Gospel.

I have no idea where all this is coming from. I'm a simple person. It's not complicated at all. I thought I made it clear that I was disregarding "inference" to plainly say, that the officers should not have used skin color as the basis for their response. You admitted you understand this, yet you'd rather dig into this "inference" you think my argument (I never made) was relying on.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I like this however I have one issue with it. I wouldn't call it having a discussion in good faith if/when you accuse your opponent of dishonesty when gaps are not filled to your liking.

That depends on whether you accuse them of that dishonestly or honestly; there is a difference between discussing in bad faith and being mistaken about what your opponent is doing, even if for rationally improper reasons. Now, it would be a failure of rationality (which is not the same as bad faith) to accuse your opponent of dishonesty just because they do not fill gaps to your liking. But Bomb#20 is not making that mistake. I do not know what accusation you have in mind (do you have a post number?) and what sort of dishonesty, but in any case, I'm pretty sure he did not make that accusation because he did not like the answers filling some gaps.

For example in my discussion with Bomb#20, it's my misunderstanding of what the actual question is/was & not my trying to avoid. I made more than one attempt to answer the question, and am willing to have another go at it if found unsatisfactory. But if Bomb#20 continues to claim I'm dodging and ducking I'm moving the fuck on.

I'm not sure which claims you have in mind; I will address the specific case if you give me the post number. However, I can understand why he might have gotten that impression - though I accept you were trying to answer the questions as you understood them -; in this thread - and many others - the answers to his questions often look like pulling teeth - and that's at best, when at least some progress is made. (and I can relate because my questions receive similar answers very often).

 

[Gospel]

Thanks for that Angra, I suppose I'm doing to Bomb#20 what I'm complaining about. Anyhow, hopefully, my current attempt to answer the question can move things along. Honestly, I find Bomb#20 intriguing (yes I know bomb#20 can read this) in a likable supervillain sort of way.

 

[Enigma]

If privilege is just a morally-neutral term describing relative advantage/disadvantage between two groups of people, then who is the second group of people referred to by "White Privilege"? Black people? Asians? Literally any subset of non-white persons?

Wouldn't the answer be non-white persons?

I don't know. I do think it's telling that the unspoken inherent default framing is "White People vs literally everyone else".

Since we are talking about relative advantage between two groups of people (say, group A and B), how exactly is that specified?
On what advantages the average person in group A has over the average group B person? Average by mean or median?
The most well-off person in group A over the most well off group B person?
The least well-off person in group A over the least well-off group B person?

Some permutation and/or linear combination of all of them?

Is such privilege (A privilege over B, or vice-versa) inherently one value or is it sensible to talk about how group A and B potentially have relative advantages over each other, depending on context?

An example to clarify my last question:

If people in group A who have more than $1,000,000 in taxable income are given a "One Free Murder, Get Out of Jail Free" card as part of their yearly tax returns and people in group B automatically get $1,000 more in rebates than those in group A, which group has privilege?
Both?
Neither?
Calculatable to be A or B depending on the value of various statistics involving income, murder rates, and whatever other economic/societal statistics happen to be useful and relevant?
If it turns out there is A privilege by whatever answer is given above, do the A's who have less than $1,000,000 in taxable income have it?

 

[Enigma]

I'm fine with everyone recognizing their privileges. The goal is for said recognition to lead to action resulting in the abolishment of those privileges.

Yes, I used a contentious word on purpose.

Ah.

You are seeking a world where everybody, regardless of sex, race, or creed are all equally free to be brutally murdered by police, rounded up in internment camps, occasionally get their assets seized and their families pogromed, are type-cast in a narrow set of stereotypical roles, and are barred from saying the N-word?

As far as goals go, I've heard worse. At least it's equal, and at least there's a chance that some would survive.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If privilege is just a morally-neutral term describing relative advantage/disadvantage between two groups of people, then who is the second group of people referred to by "White Privilege"? Black people? Asians? Literally any subset of non-white persons?

Wouldn't the answer be non-white persons?

I don't know. I do think it's telling that the unspoken inherent default framing is "White People vs literally everyone else".

That's an actual thing, though, and has been for centuries.

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm fine with everyone recognizing their privileges. The goal is for said recognition to lead to action resulting in the abolishment of those privileges.

Yes, I used a contentious word on purpose.

Ah.

You are seeking a world where everybody, regardless of sex, race, or creed are all equally free to be brutally murdered by police, rounded up in internment camps, occasionally get their assets seized and their families pogromed, are type-cast in a narrow set of stereotypical roles, and are barred from saying the N-word?

As far as goals go, I've heard worse. At least it's equal, and at least there's a chance that some would survive.

HUH!?!

 

[Gospel]

I'm fine with everyone recognizing their privileges. The goal is for said recognition to lead to action resulting in the abolishment of those privileges.

Yes, I used a contentious word on purpose.

Ah.

You are seeking a world where everybody, regardless of sex, race, or creed are all equally free to be brutally murdered by police, rounded up in internment camps, occasionally get their assets seized and their families pogromed, are type-cast in a narrow set of stereotypical roles, and are barred from saying the N-word?

As far as goals go, I've heard worse. At least it's equal, and at least there's a chance that some would survive.

And how from my statement did you reach this conclusion?

 

[Enigma]

I'm fine with everyone recognizing their privileges. The goal is for said recognition to lead to action resulting in the abolishment of those privileges.

Yes, I used a contentious word on purpose.

Ah.

You are seeking a world where everybody, regardless of sex, race, or creed are all equally free to be brutally murdered by police, rounded up in internment camps, occasionally get their assets seized and their families pogromed, are type-cast in a narrow set of stereotypical roles, and are barred from saying the N-word?

As far as goals go, I've heard worse. At least it's equal, and at least there's a chance that some would survive.

And how from my statement did you reach this conclusion?

You said you wished to abolish everyone's privileges.

If Group A has the privilege of being able to freely avoid taxes and Group B has the privilege of getting free cake every Thursday, then abolishing everyone's privileges means that nobody gets to freely avoid taxes and nobody gets free cake on Thursday.

Likewise, if it is White Privilege to not be brutally murdered by police...

 

[Enigma]

I'm fine with everyone recognizing their privileges. The goal is for said recognition to lead to action resulting in the abolishment of those privileges.

Yes, I used a contentious word on purpose.

Ah.

You are seeking a world where everybody, regardless of sex, race, or creed are all equally free to be brutally murdered by police, rounded up in internment camps, occasionally get their assets seized and their families pogromed, are type-cast in a narrow set of stereotypical roles, and are barred from saying the N-word?

As far as goals go, I've heard worse. At least it's equal, and at least there's a chance that some would survive.

HUH!?!

I know. If you really want to properly nail down equality and make sure it sticks, Omnicide really is the way to go.

This Message Brought to you by Omnicide(TM).
Omnicide: All of the mass killing you want with none of the racism you don't!

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm fine with everyone recognizing their privileges. The goal is for said recognition to lead to action resulting in the abolishment of those privileges.

Yes, I used a contentious word on purpose.

Ah.

You are seeking a world where everybody, regardless of sex, race, or creed are all equally free to be brutally murdered by police, rounded up in internment camps, occasionally get their assets seized and their families pogromed, are type-cast in a narrow set of stereotypical roles, and are barred from saying the N-word?

As far as goals go, I've heard worse. At least it's equal, and at least there's a chance that some would survive.

HUH!?!

I know. If you really want to properly nail down equality and make sure it sticks, Omnicide really is the way to go.

This Message Brought to you by Omnicide(TM).
Omnicide: All of the mass killing you want with none of the racism you don't!

I can't say it any better than you.

Nature kinda sucks. Crafting disturbingly hilarious mental images can be both fun and educational.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Why do people take others out of context, say something absurd, and then claim they have disproved something via reductio ad absurdum?There's a whole context here of what privilege means and while that may be largely implicit, abstract, and perhaps fuzzily applied to a social construct of race, at least some of the framing of privilege has also been explicitly discussed to include what is "undue." You could try to claim that not being omnicided is an undue privilege, but you are going to have to provide a logical proof of that proposition.

 

[Gospel]

If Group A has the privilege of being able to freely avoid taxes and Group B has the privilege of getting free cake every Thursday, then abolishing everyone's privileges means that nobody gets to freely avoid taxes and nobody gets free cake on Thursday.

Or everyone gets to avoid taxes and everyone gets free cake on Thursday. But yeah I used that word on purpose because it gets people talking.

It would be nice (but not expected) if we all acknowledged our privileges and tried to push policy to REASONABLY even the playing field. But not all of us are willing to take a hit here and there for the greater good. Take the black community for instance, despite all the hogwash people throw into the debate about the black experience in America because of their dislike for the BLM movement, the good folks of the black community understand the necessity of the police and have been taking the hit on the wrong people getting caught up in law enforcement efforts while still working with local police to fight crime (for a long ass time). These people are overshadowed by social & television media thanks to armchair specialists and for-profit bobbleheads. screaming abolishment is bad

Also taking the hit are white people over affirmative action that are being denied access to the schools of their choice to allow black people a chance to catch up (after centuries of oppression). Not every white person feels this way but they are heard less than the Tucker Carlsons of the world are.

The world is a wonderful and horrific place. My arguments are usually in search of what's reasonable and not extreme. But on this forum, I tend to always have to waste time explaining away some extreme view I never preposed. I'm cool with it though, gotta get to the root of what folks mean right?

 

[Gospel]

Seriously, all the posting and whining about American politics and social issues... and you are playing the "Not American Card"?

It is a comment about the term 'white privilege' and Gospel's example. I would not expect Asians to be prominent in American history because even now, Asian-heritage Americans are about 5% of Americans, and I suspect it would be far less in previous decades.

It is reasonable that they not be prominent, it is unreasonable that they not be mentioned.

 

[TomC]

Also taking the hit are white people over affirmative action that are being denied access to the schools of their choice

If USA society decided, as a whole, to end systemic racism once and for all the first thing to go would be Affirmative Action.

You know what the purpose of a bundle of sticks is, don't you? It's to get a fire going.


Tom

 

[Gospel]

You're preaching to the choir bruh. I've personally been singing the song of Affirmative action needs to end for a long time now (my family has issues with it but they understand my reasons). America should have gone with the precise and heavy hand on established anti-discrimination laws. If there is proof racism was at play folks lose freedom. No, your company doesn't just get fined, or you as an individual pay a fine but you go to jail, period full stop. With enforcement like that I doubt Affirmative action would need to be a thing as eventually, black people (that are fully capable of earning their way to the top) would eventually get to where affirmative action would get us and beyond.

But noooo... instead of throwing mutha fuckas in jail because we love leaving racist white people alone let's just force private entities as a whole to take in black people making it seem like we couldn't get there otherwise instead of the racism being the focus.

Edit: Maybe then there would have been more white people in Jail than black people per capita. <--I'm being silly