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

[Bomb#20]

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.

Yeah, like that unpleasantness back in 1861-1865 when the White people fought an actual war against the Black people -- thank goodness the White people lost.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

Yeah, like that unpleasantness back in 1861-1865 when the White people fought an actual war against the Black people -- thank goodness the White people lost.

Your post makes no sense.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

Which word, "privileges", or "abolishment"? If everyone's going to get to avoid taxes and get free cake on Thursday, the goal is expansion, not abolishment.

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?

Right. Getting to the root is what we're here for.

 

[Bomb#20]

So the new point of contention is: do you think there ought to be a law against homeless people sleeping in train stations?

I don't see what a law against or the lack of a law against homeless people sleeping at the trains station has to do with white privilege. I'm willing to answer the question if you'd advise how it's relevant to the discussion. Otherwise, the moderators would be correct in considering my reply a derail.

Edit: Or prooves the nonexistence of white privilege (meant to add that and missed it).

And we were so close. I don't want to preach at you; I think if I tell you something it will have far less impact than if you figure it out for yourself. (Plus, lefties preach at me non-stop and it just annoys me without ever persuading me since they invariably fail to argue for their faith's unconscious assumptions, which their conclusions invariably rest on.) Oh well, preaching it is...

What a law against homeless people sleeping at the train station has to do with white privilege was explained weeks ago, by Toni, way back in post #39:

"The teacher just hated him and blamed any thing she could on him. I never understood why and incurred her wrath for pointing out the inaccuracy of some of her accusations. To no avail. The principal backed the teacher up. In classrooms, I had 'privilege' although I never thought it was privilege at the time and still don't. I thought then and still do that it is just the way that all kids should be treated: as if they were smart, as if they were trying their best, and if they made a mistake, it was an honest one and not deserving of undue ridicule or punishment."​

The middle class and upper class legislators who pass laws against homeless people sleeping at train stations without funding a shelter for them, along with all the various other laws that de facto criminalize poverty, are Toni's teacher. They're hurting people in their power for no good reason. That's wrong. They are wronging the unfortunates under their thumb, just like Toni's teacher did. Toni was treated better than that other kid, but like her, I don't think that was a "privilege" -- Toni was just treated the way all kids should be treated. Likewise, when those racist cops who threw you out of the train station let the three white people stay, that wasn't a "privilege" either -- in that respect the legislators' agents merely treated them the way all homeless people should be treated: as if they were just trying to find a safe place to sleep in an area without a lot of good options, analogous to the way teachers treated Toni and the other children they didn't hate. The legislators wronged you. If their agents had thrown the white people out of the train station, they'd have been wronging them too.

English has a word for what you're deprived of when people who deprive you of it are wronging you. The word isn't "privilege". The word is "right". You and the other homeless people with you had a right to sleep somewhere; so if the train station was your least bad option and the cops weren't pointing out a better alternative, then the train station is where you had a right to sleep. Having your rights not be violated is not a privilege. It's a right.

A privilege is a benefit you aren't entitled to; it's a favor, one the grantor has discretion to confer or withhold at his own option. So exactly what favor did the cops use their discretion to confer upon your white friends? Well, you said you were the one buying the food because you were the one with a job. So as far as I can see, the only favor the cops did for your friends was they cut off your friends' food supply because your friends were getting their food from a person of the wrong race. So those cops were racially discriminating against your friends: discriminating against them on the basis of your race, the same way Virginia was racially discriminating against the white man Richard Loving on the basis of his wife Mildred's race. You were the cops' target; your friends were collateral damage.

The cops wronged your friends. Not as badly as they wronged you, but they wronged them. Getting to be the collateral damage in some jerk's racist attack on a third party is not a privilege.

 

[Bomb#20]

I do not respect Christianity for its reliance on fuzzily applying its constructs...

My disrespect for Christianity doesn't come from fuzzy concepts or fuzzily applying concepts because that is human and dealing with real life problems in real life often involves coming to reasonable things though thresholds may be argued by some to be arbitrary who are being literal and/or disingenuous. Life goes on. My disrespect for some of Christianity comes from deliberate power hungry persons fooling other people for power and from the immoral things some Christian groups support, especially when it contradicts their stated positions such as supporting historical genocides but having a commandment not to murder.

...
I do not respect Christianity because it is a 2000 year old concept that passed it's best-by date some 1900 years ago. I dump it not for it's fuzziness but because of it's fallaciousness.

I was not indicating that the fuzziness of the way Christianity applies its constructs was the only thing about Christianity that I don't respect. There are many aspects to that religion I don't respect; I brought up one of the aspects I don't respect it for because that one was pertinent to the thread.

 

[Bomb#20]

(And of course white people are sometimes discriminated against because some people (of any color) imagine we are inferior: morally inferior, due to our supposed original sin of inherited racial guilt.)

Recognizing that my misreading of a statement (see above) lead to this reply from you, I agree with all of what you unnecessarily (my fault) stated here. I personally know a few brothas in the hood that still think white people are the devil.

Edit: Pardon the edits. That discrimination (and this is my opinion) really has no effect on a white person's life unless the black person is in a position to prevent a white person from exercising all their rights. Which I have never seen in all my years being around said racist against whites black people.

As I said, of any color. I've heard anecdotally of black people like the ones you describe; but the people I've encountered who act like whites are morally inferior are generally white folks themselves. Some white people seem to enjoy saying stuff like "It's White People vs literally everyone else". There's one seriously angry member here who periodically posts outraged rants telling us how white folks (or maybe just everyone lower than our betters on the progressive stack) should just shut up and let somebody else talk for a change. I don't really think this phenomenon is analogous to the stereotype of the Self-Hating Jew, though. It looks more like a form of othering. By stipulating white inferiority the speaker acquires in his own mind the absolution of having shown he personally didn't inherit as much of the racial taint as is typical of his race. So ironically, what presents as self-criticism is actually thinly veiled virtue signaling. It's the modern incarnation of "The idiot who praises with enthusiastic tone, All centuries but this and every country but his own."

You're right that those black individuals who think white people are morally inferior aren't often in a position to hurt white people on account of it; but a fair number the white people who agree with them are.

 

[Metaphor]

You're right that those black individuals who think white people are morally inferior aren't often in a position to hurt white people on account of it;

Aren't they, though? Or rather, couldn't they be?

If a black magistrate thought white people inferior, would they not be in a position to hurt white people on account of it?

 

[Jarhyn]

I do not respect Christianity for its reliance on fuzzily applying its constructs...

My disrespect for Christianity doesn't come from fuzzy concepts or fuzzily applying concepts because that is human and dealing with real life problems in real life often involves coming to reasonable things though thresholds may be argued by some to be arbitrary who are being literal and/or disingenuous. Life goes on. My disrespect for some of Christianity comes from deliberate power hungry persons fooling other people for power and from the immoral things some Christian groups support, especially when it contradicts their stated positions such as supporting historical genocides but having a commandment not to murder.

...
I do not respect Christianity because it is a 2000 year old concept that passed it's best-by date some 1900 years ago. I dump it not for it's fuzziness but because of it's fallaciousness.

I was not indicating that the fuzziness of the way Christianity applies its constructs was the only thing about Christianity that I don't respect. There are many aspects to that religion I don't respect; I brought up one of the aspects I don't respect it for because that one was pertinent to the thread.

I'm saying that just because something is fuzzy and complicated around the edges does not make it useless or wrong.

A thing being wrong, is what makes it wrong.

There's a whole pursuit of logic around fuzzy principles, and it is a functional model for a great many systems that need to be capable of flexing around an idea.

In a great many ways, you seeing it as "fuzzy" rather than a seething mass of similar ideas each real and crisp, which renders 'fuzzy' the same way a fog cloud does when you cannot see the thing for it's individual vapor droplets is the whole reason we are having this conflict.

We point at this cloud and say "look at that cloud" and you say "but nowhere does it start nor end, it is fuzzy!"

We say "look at the droplets of it! It is made of water and it is making us all very wet!" And you say "but I see no droplets hitting me, it is merely air we stand in!"

And we say, "it is a cloud! It is composed of tiny drops of water, tiny things that come together!" And you say "there is no way such a tiny thing as a droplet I cannot see will make me wet! I am not wet!"

And yet you are soaked to your core in this privilege.

 

[Bomb#20]

... you say "but nowhere does it start nor end, it is fuzzy!"
... And you say "but I see no droplets hitting me, it is merely air we stand in!"
... And you say "there is no way such a tiny thing as a droplet I cannot see will make me wet! I am not wet!"

And yet you are soaked to your core in this privilege.

How very allegorical.

Christians talk a lot in allegory. If they tried to make their points in literal terms, elementary logic would suffice to refute them; but allegory is unfalsifiable. That's probably why they choose it.

Why do you choose it?

 

[Bomb#20]

You're right that those black individuals who think white people are morally inferior aren't often in a position to hurt white people on account of it;

Aren't they, though? Or rather, couldn't they be?

If a black magistrate thought white people inferior, would they not be in a position to hurt white people on account of it?

Certainly; I didn't mean to imply it's impossible. But I don't know of any particular black magistrates who think white people are inferior, and I don't think it happens often.

 

[Metaphor]

You're right that those black individuals who think white people are morally inferior aren't often in a position to hurt white people on account of it;

Aren't they, though? Or rather, couldn't they be?

If a black magistrate thought white people inferior, would they not be in a position to hurt white people on account of it?

Certainly; I didn't mean to imply it's impossible. But I don't know of any particular black magistrates who think white people are inferior, and I don't think it happens often.

You're right. I missed the word 'often' in your original response.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You're right that those black individuals who think white people are morally inferior aren't often in a position to hurt white people on account of it;

Aren't they, though? Or rather, couldn't they be?

If a black magistrate thought white people inferior, would they not be in a position to hurt white people on account of it?

Certainly; I didn't mean to imply it's impossible. But I don't know of any particular black magistrates who think white people are inferior, and I don't think it happens often.

I suspect such cases are considerably more likely in a street-violence context than a legal one.

 

[Gospel]

You're right that those black individuals who think white people are morally inferior aren't often in a position to hurt white people on account of it;

Aren't they, though? Or rather, couldn't they be?

If a black magistrate thought white people inferior, would they not be in a position to hurt white people on account of it?

I wish I had the privilege to put as many question marks as you at the end of sentences with the subject matter being oppression against blacks & discrimination against blacks (In America- since I recall you ain't from around here). Regrettably, it's a fact for me.

 

[Gospel]

(And of course white people are sometimes discriminated against because some people (of any color) imagine we are inferior: morally inferior, due to our supposed original sin of inherited racial guilt.)

Recognizing that my misreading of a statement (see above) lead to this reply from you, I agree with all of what you unnecessarily (my fault) stated here. I personally know a few brothas in the hood that still think white people are the devil.

Edit: Pardon the edits. That discrimination (and this is my opinion) really has no effect on a white person's life unless the black person is in a position to prevent a white person from exercising all their rights. Which I have never seen in all my years being around said racist against whites black people.

As I said, of any color. I've heard anecdotally of black people like the ones you describe; but the people I've encountered who act like whites are morally inferior are generally white folks themselves. Some white people seem to enjoy saying stuff like "It's White People vs literally everyone else". There's one seriously angry member here who periodically posts outraged rants telling us how white folks (or maybe just everyone lower than our betters on the progressive stack) should just shut up and let somebody else talk for a change. I don't really think this phenomenon is analogous to the stereotype of the Self-Hating Jew, though. It looks more like a form of othering. By stipulating white inferiority the speaker acquires in his own mind the absolution of having shown he personally didn't inherit as much of the racial taint as is typical of his race. So ironically, what presents as self-criticism is actually thinly veiled virtue signaling. It's the modern incarnation of "The idiot who praises with enthusiastic tone, All centuries but this and every country but his own."

You're right that those black individuals who think white people are morally inferior aren't often in a position to hurt white people on account of it; but a fair number the white people who agree with them are.

I agree with this. I feel at times some white people go a little too far with the whole all white people are responsible for what some white people did in the past thing (if that's what you were getting at). I don't hold anyone to task for something they personally didn't do. I'm more on the side of expecting recognition of what's happening today which requires acknowledgment of the goings-on in the past. What you do today is what I hold people to & if you choose to do nothing I'm fine with that until doing nothing emerges as an issue depending on what's happening immediately around you.

We should not be making policies that take away a person's freedom to do nothing, nor should we be making policies that force people to do something but the constitution has its demands, so it is what it is.


Overall I consider white people a great ally in my everyday struggle up the ladder. They have been so in the past and will always be despite going overboard sometimes. After all, they played a major role in where we are as black people in America today (both the good and the bad).

 

[Jarhyn]

... you say "but nowhere does it start nor end, it is fuzzy!"
... And you say "but I see no droplets hitting me, it is merely air we stand in!"
... And you say "there is no way such a tiny thing as a droplet I cannot see will make me wet! I am not wet!"

And yet you are soaked to your core in this privilege.

How very allegorical.

Christians talk a lot in allegory. If they tried to make their points in literal terms, elementary logic would suffice to refute them; but allegory is unfalsifiable. That's probably why they choose it.

Why do you choose it?

Because allegory is a useful rhetorical device for exposing bad logic.

There is a lot of allegory in Christianity that is highly useful.

Allegory is not unfalsifiable, either. All one has to do is attack the analogical links created by it.

That you don't like the picture this allegory paints of you trying to deny a real thing just because you as an individual cannot make out and describe the sea of tiny factors that come together to make it does not make it any less real nor impactful.

Your goal is to claim it's fuzziness is a problem, which is silliness. The fuzziness is only in the facile version of the model, the wrong model first sold to children so they are aware this cloud thing needs closer examination.

 

[Metaphor]

You're right that those black individuals who think white people are morally inferior aren't often in a position to hurt white people on account of it;

Aren't they, though? Or rather, couldn't they be?

If a black magistrate thought white people inferior, would they not be in a position to hurt white people on account of it?

I wish I had the privilege to put as many question marks as you at the end of sentences with the subject matter being oppression against blacks & discrimination against blacks (In America- since I recall you ain't from around here). Regrettably, it's a fact for me.

It doesn't answer my question though.

 

[Gospel]

You're right that those black individuals who think white people are morally inferior aren't often in a position to hurt white people on account of it;

Aren't they, though? Or rather, couldn't they be?

If a black magistrate thought white people inferior, would they not be in a position to hurt white people on account of it?

I wish I had the privilege to put as many question marks as you at the end of sentences with the subject matter being oppression against blacks & discrimination against blacks (In America- since I recall you ain't from around here). Regrettably, it's a fact for me.

It doesn't answer my question though.

Oh my bad. Yes, a black Judge is in a position to hurt a white person on account of their race. I tried hard to find a case like that in America. Can you help me?

Thanks,

 

[TomC]

You're right that those black individuals who think white people are morally inferior aren't often in a position to hurt white people on account of it;

Aren't they, though? Or rather, couldn't they be?

If a black magistrate thought white people inferior, would they not be in a position to hurt white people on account of it?

I wish I had the privilege to put as many question marks as you at the end of sentences with the subject matter being oppression against blacks & discrimination against blacks (In America- since I recall you ain't from around here). Regrettably, it's a fact for me.

It doesn't answer my question though.

Oh my bad. Yes, a black Judge is in a position to hurt a white person on account of their race. I tried hard to find a case like that in America. Can you help me?

Thanks,

Really? You "tried hard" to find an anecdote about that and failed? You just aren't trying hard enough on the correct websites. Maybe Stormfront is still a thing. I dunno.

Tom

 

[Metaphor]

You're right that those black individuals who think white people are morally inferior aren't often in a position to hurt white people on account of it;

Aren't they, though? Or rather, couldn't they be?

If a black magistrate thought white people inferior, would they not be in a position to hurt white people on account of it?

I wish I had the privilege to put as many question marks as you at the end of sentences with the subject matter being oppression against blacks & discrimination against blacks (In America- since I recall you ain't from around here). Regrettably, it's a fact for me.

It doesn't answer my question though.

Oh my bad. Yes, a black Judge is in a position to hurt a white person on account of their race. I tried hard to find a case like that in America. Can you help me?

Thanks,

No, I can't help you. I think if a black judge had unconscious bias, it would not be obvious from looking at single cases, and if they had a conscious bias, they would not be open about it.

I am merely asking about the existence of the possibility. Years ago, I asked the same question of another person on this board, and she denied the possibility that any black person could have power over any real power over a white person. In the judge example, she said unless the judges on the appeals court, and every institution further on up and around was majority black, a black person had no real power over a white person.

 

[Gospel]

You're right that those black individuals who think white people are morally inferior aren't often in a position to hurt white people on account of it;

Aren't they, though? Or rather, couldn't they be?

If a black magistrate thought white people inferior, would they not be in a position to hurt white people on account of it?

I wish I had the privilege to put as many question marks as you at the end of sentences with the subject matter being oppression against blacks & discrimination against blacks (In America- since I recall you ain't from around here). Regrettably, it's a fact for me.

It doesn't answer my question though.

Oh my bad. Yes, a black Judge is in a position to hurt a white person on account of their race. I tried hard to find a case like that in America. Can you help me?

Thanks,

No, I can't help you. I think if a black judge had unconscious bias, it would not be obvious from looking at single cases, and if they had a conscious bias, they would not be open about it.

I am merely asking about the existence of the possibility. Years ago, I asked the same question of another person on this board, and she denied the possibility that any black person could have power over any real power over a white person. In the judge example, she said unless the judges on the appeals court, and every institution further on up and around was majority black, a black person had no real power over a white person.

I thought we were discussing something that exists and not your wet dreams. My mistake.