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

[Bomb#20]

tactical rhetorical advantage

What in the fictitious nineteen-toed fish of Erewhon is that?

Thanks for asking.

Anyhow, I'll address your incredibly privileged point. Take the variations from one white person to another, then add their color as something they'd have to consider (due to other people's reaction to it) and you'll be a step closer to understanding how your privilege is showing in every argument you make.

"Tactical rhetorical advantage" is what you were trying to obtain by accusing me of privilege as though a speaker's privilege had any bearing on whether what he said was right.

 

[Bomb#20]

Oh, I get it now. This is about the left and how they as a collective approach the subject of white privilege & not actually about white privilege. Amirite? No wonder I couldn't understand what you're on about.

A debate about God isn't actually about God since that isn't a thing; but in the vernacular we call debates about Christians' claims that there's a God "debates about God" anyway. What I'm talking about is Hawn's claim that "white privilege is a fact." Whether you count that as talking about white privilege is between you and your idiolect.

I did answer your question though. It's precisely how Rhea interpreted it. I meant any of the options besides D (the other options made D unnecessary to get my point across) because the police treating everyone equally wouldn't have been racist. Is that not an answer to your question?

Why does this have to be like pulling teeth? I didn't ask you what wouldn't have been racist. The fact that I immediately thought up three non-racist alternative things they could have done ought to have clued you in that I already knew how they could have been not racist, so why you felt that's the information I was asking for is a mite peculiar. No, you didn't answer my question. Suppose an exchange went like this:

Alice: There's an out-of-control trolley headed for five people who can't be gotten out of the way. Cindy is at a lever she can use to divert the trolley to another track, on which there's only one person the trolley will kill. There's no way for her to save everyone. What should Cindy do?
Bob: Cindy should not base her choice on what color the six people are because that would be racist.​

Did Bob answer Alice's question? No, he did not. Answering Alice's question would involve Bob saying "Cindy should pull the lever." or "Cindy should let the trolley continue on its current path.".

Now, if what you're getting at is that you are sincerely indifferent as to which of the three options, a, b, or c, the police should have taken, well, (1) that means you have really bizarre psychology, but I guess it takes all kinds; and (2) that's not a reasonable thing for you to be indifferent about so I'm going to argue the point and try to persuade you to change your mind. For example, the police should certainly not have chosen option c, "Made the five of you draw straws for the three available sleep-in-the-train-station slots". Police are tasked to enforce the law and protect public safety, not to get their jollies by going on arbitrary power trips at the expense of the citizenry just because they can. The legislature had certainly not enacted a law saying "Homeless people may spend the night in train stations provided it's no more than three per station.". And the notion that having five of you there was a threat to public safety but three was safe for everyone is too ridiculous to take seriously. The police did not have a reason to eject exactly two of you and police shouldn't do things to the public that they have no reason to do.

But I don't think sincere indifference is what you were getting at. I think you've been just persistently refusing to take my question at face value. Why? Is it because you don't know where I'm going with it so you deduced I must have meant something else? Is it because you don't know where I'm going with it so you're hedging your bets until you know which answer will make it easier for you to win the argument? Is it because you do know where I'm going with it and that's a conversation you don't want to have?

 

[Bomb#20]

Bomb, you seem to be making a pointless semantic argument. If that's not your intention, can you clarify?

My intention is to get my clients acquitted of the trumped-up politically motivated false accusation against them. If you think that's pointless and just semantics, well, I'm sure the prosecutor would love to have you as judge.

To address the semantics:
What's wrong with having words?
When hares typically win races against tortoises we call them "fast." When tortoises typically lose races against hares we call them "slow." Note that "fast" and "slow" aren't synonyms. We could call tortoises "not fast" but that doesn't actually change anything. What's the point?

Fast and slow are antonyms. We could call tortoises "not fast" but that doesn't actually change anything precisely because "slow" means the same thing as "not fast". Do you think "privileged" actually means the same thing as "not discriminated against" in normal English?

When society randomly inflicts relatively more negative effects upon people with moderately to highly pigmented skin we can call that "racial discrimination." When society randomly inflicts relatively fewer negative effects upon people with lightly pigmented skin who resemble humans with ancestors from Europe we can call that "white privilege."

Yes, you can; the issue is whether you're being truthful when you call it that. If "white privilege" really meant exactly the same thing in normal English as "not racially discriminated against" then calling it that wouldn't be deceptive, but calling it that also wouldn't help people who use the phrase persuade anyone to support any policy positions that calling it "not racially discriminated against" wouldn't persuade them of. So when the prosecution gets a huge amount of pushback on their "white privilege" claims from a lot of the public, why do they constantly double down on it and insist on using it and pepper their insistence with ad hominems against those who push back, instead of just abandoning the evidently inflammatory term and saying white people are "not racially discriminated against"?

My theory is the prosecution won't abandon the term precisely because it really means something different in normal English, and if they abandon the term they abandon a fallacious argument that's useful to them for persuading people of policy positions that "white privilege" implies but that "not racially discriminated against" doesn't imply. If that's why the prosecution won't abandon it, then calling society randomly inflicting relatively fewer negative effects upon people with lightly pigmented skin who resemble humans with ancestors from Europe "white privilege" is deceptive. The prosecution is trying to trick the jury into accepting a fallacious argument.

What's your theory for why the prosecution won't abandon the term?

 

[Bomb#20]

You are assigning a characteristic to "the left," i.e. their "collective refusal" based your personal allegation that "so many leftists" do such-and-such. This is a fascinating violation of your own alleged principles and that violation is one you assign to your out-group.

I lost you. Which of my own alleged principles am I violating?

What negates the notion of "white privilege" is that the phrase is not synonymous with "racial discrimination", ...

Okay, let's suppose this is true.

...but the left tries to make a case for "white privilege" ...

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."

privilege: "a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group."

--Google search on "definition of privilege"

Meaning is determined by use, not by Google.

 

[Gospel]

Oh, I get it now. This is about the left and how they as a collective approach the subject of white privilege & not actually about white privilege. Amirite? No wonder I couldn't understand what you're on about.

A debate about God isn't actually about God since that isn't a thing; but in the vernacular we call debates about Christians' claims that there's a God "debates about God" anyway. What I'm talking about is Hawn's claim that "white privilege is a fact." Whether you count that as talking about white privilege is between you and your idiolect.

I did answer your question though. It's precisely how Rhea interpreted it. I meant any of the options besides D (the other options made D unnecessary to get my point across) because the police treating everyone equally wouldn't have been racist. Is that not an answer to your question?

Why does this have to be like pulling teeth? I didn't ask you what wouldn't have been racist. The fact that I immediately thought up three non-racist alternative things they could have done ought to have clued you in that I already knew how they could have been not racist, so why you felt that's the information I was asking for is a mite peculiar. No, you didn't answer my question. Suppose an exchange went like this:

Alice: There's an out-of-control trolley headed for five people who can't be gotten out of the way. Cindy is at a lever she can use to divert the trolley to another track, on which there's only one person the trolley will kill. There's no way for her to save everyone. What should Cindy do?​

Bob: Cindy should not base her choice on what color the six people are because that would be racist.​

Did Bob answer Alice's question? No, he did not. Answering Alice's question would involve Bob saying "Cindy should pull the lever." or "Cindy should let the trolley continue on its current path.".

Now, if what you're getting at is that you are sincerely indifferent as to which of the three options, a, b, or c, the police should have taken, well, (1) that means you have really bizarre psychology, but I guess it takes all kinds; and (2) that's not a reasonable thing for you to be indifferent about so I'm going to argue the point and try to persuade you to change your mind. For example, the police should certainly not have chosen option c, "Made the five of you draw straws for the three available sleep-in-the-train-station slots". Police are tasked to enforce the law and protect public safety, not to get their jollies by going on arbitrary power trips at the expense of the citizenry just because they can. The legislature had certainly not enacted a law saying "Homeless people may spend the night in train stations provided it's no more than three per station.". And the notion that having five of you there was a threat to public safety but three was safe for everyone is too ridiculous to take seriously. The police did not have a reason to eject exactly two of you and police shouldn't do things to the public that they have no reason to do.

But I don't think sincere indifference is what you were getting at. I think you've been just persistently refusing to take my question at face value. Why? Is it because you don't know where I'm going with it so you deduced I must have meant something else? Is it because you don't know where I'm going with it so you're hedging your bets until you know which answer will make it easier for you to win the argument? Is it because you do know where I'm going with it and that's a conversation you don't want to have?

ELI5

 

[Gospel]

I'm not on this forum to "win".

 

[Shadowy Man]

Can anyone remember the last time a non-White person, or part-White person, pretended to be White or emphasized their White half for social or economic gain? As if it were a privilege to be White? Plenty of cases of White people pretending to be otherwise. It’s like there’s a flight from White.

A couple of examples that come quickly to mind are two actors who chose/were advised to not use their "ethnic" last names in order to get roles:

Chloe Wang (aka Chloe Bennet) of 'Agents of Shield'
James Rodriguez (aka James Roday) of 'Psych'

This has been quite common in the entertainment industry for a long time. Think Ramon Estevez (aka Martin Sheen) as one example of many.

 

[Gospel]

Can anyone remember the last time a non-White person, or part-White person, pretended to be White or emphasized their White half for social or economic gain? As if it were a privilege to be White? Plenty of cases of White people pretending to be otherwise. It’s like there’s a flight from White.

When both buying a home and refinancing I was asked what my race was and I refused to disclose it. Does that count?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You are assigning a characteristic to "the left," i.e. their "collective refusal" based your personal allegation that "so many leftists" do such-and-such. This is a fascinating violation of your own alleged principles and that violation is one you assign to your out-group.

I lost you. Which of my own alleged principles am I violating?

Kind of don't care at this point.

What negates the notion of "white privilege" is that the phrase is not synonymous with "racial discrimination", ...

Okay, let's suppose this is true.

...but the left tries to make a case for "white privilege" ...

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. That's quite a bit more narrow than conceptualizing regular, everyday white people benefiting from a collective _advantage_ that is present due to collective institutional and other extrinsic differences such as societal perceptions and opportunity potential. As a white person, it is valuable for me to consider relative benefit to myself that is not merely the absence of rare bad events perpetrated by persons guilty of discrimination.

privilege: "a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group."

--Google search on "definition of privilege"

Meaning is determined by use, not by Google.

Google is referencing a dictionary definition, but you are contradicting yourself: first you complained that you disagreed with how "leftists" are USING the term and now you are saying, how people use the word is what defines it.

 

[Gospel]

Google is referencing a dictionary definition, but you are contradicting yourself: first you complained that you disagreed with how "leftists" are USING the term and now you are saying, how people use the word is what defines it.

while I do find Bomb's arguments wordy, I don't see a contradiction here. He (or it's a free Country) can accept that how people use words defines them and disagree with how it's being used without it being a contradiction.

 

[Gun Nut]

Bomb, you seem to be making a pointless semantic argument. If that's not your intention, can you clarify?

.....

When society randomly inflicts relatively more negative effects upon people with moderately to highly pigmented skin we can call that "racial discrimination." When society randomly inflicts relatively fewer negative effects upon people with lightly pigmented skin who resemble humans with ancestors from Europe we can call that "white privilege."

WAAAAAAA! That's called Racial UnDiscrimination! DUH!

 

[Gun Nut]

I see white privilege as one possible effect of racial discrimination.
The group with the most members (the 'majority") has an advantage.
When a person's majority group is "white skinned" and a specific advantage is taken over the "dark skinned" minority group, then that person has experienced "white privilege". If that person has not taken the advantage offered, then white privilege was not experienced.
I acknowledge my advantage, but reject the idea that I have knowingly taken a privilege unfairly against anyone else.
If a racist store owner tells me I'm next when a dark skinned person was there before me, I do not take advantage of the privilege offered.
If a get a mortgage from a bank and completely unbeknownst to me they just want to give me a better rate because they like my skin color (a bank that is soon to go out of business for making non-risk based decisions), then I still have not taken advantage of the privilege because I am completely unaware of it.

 

[Politesse]

I see white privilege as one possible effect of racial discrimination.
The group with the most members (the 'majority") has an advantage.
When a person's majority group is "white skinned" and a specific advantage is taken over the "dark skinned" minority group, then that person has experienced "white privilege". If that person has not taken the advantage offered, then white privilege was not experienced.
I acknowledge my advantage, but reject the idea that I have knowingly taken a privilege unfairly against anyone else.

That is indeed how "taking advantage" is defined. That is not how privilege is defined; if you have the ability to gain unfair advantage over your neighbor and choose not to use it, that speaks well to your character but does nothing to change the fact that you had the privilege to choose whether or not to cheat them, and they could not have exercised that same privilege over you. Your relationship is inherently unequal, which is a problem on a larger scale since fairness can only be maintained if members of the privileged class are both aware of (as you yourself note above) and constantly choose to subvert their own privilege. Self-interest being the powerful core motivator that it is, it is unrealistic to assume that those in a position of power in an unfair system will always choose to set their privilege aside, or even realize/acknowledge that they have it. I have observed many times in my life how quickly concerns about racial equity vanish when whites, even friendly, well meaning self-described liberal type whites like myself, are actually put to the test in a critical issue of social privilege. Are you certain you wouldn't take advantage of the fact that you are privileged in situations like securing a house loan, securing a job, securing a place for your at a university? How would you prevent yourself from doing so? I mean, these social goods are simply being offered to you, right? You didn't personally make the system unfair. You know the statistics, you know your skin tone, family name, accent, etc is probably helping you a little bit, but... there's no moral fault in accepting a gift, right? Anyone would do the same.... And pretty soon you've reasoned yourself into the perpetuation of a system you know full well to be unfair.

Which is why issues of racial justice cannot be tackled on an individual basis alone, and why we're having a national conversation about social privilege. If you cannot understand that conversation as anything other than a personal attack on your character, then you don't really understand the conversation at all. It's not about you, or any other particular person, but about the reasons for and solutions to racial inequities that exist on a massive scale.

 

[Trausti]

Can anyone remember the last time a non-White person, or part-White person, pretended to be White or emphasized their White half for social or economic gain? As if it were a privilege to be White? Plenty of cases of White people pretending to be otherwise. It’s like there’s a flight from White.

When both buying a home and refinancing I was asked what my race was and I refused to disclose it. Does that count?

So you didn’t think pretending to be White or part-White would give you an advantage?

 

[Trausti]

Are you certain you wouldn't take advantage of the fact that you are privileged in situations like securing a house loan, securing a job, securing a place for your at a university?

Can you name a college or university, just one, that discriminates in favor of Whites and Asians? Plenty openly admit discriminating against these groups. What sort of privilege is that?

 

[Gospel]

Are you proposing that I lie to my lender? If It was legal for me to provide false information in the process of obtaining credit I'd tell them I was white, not part white. That is to assure I get the full benefits of being white, not partial benefits.

 

[Emily Lake]

That is indeed how "taking advantage" is defined. That is not how privilege is defined; if you have the ability to gain unfair advantage over your neighbor and choose not to use it, that speaks well to your character but does nothing to change the fact that you had the privilege to choose whether or not to cheat them

It's language and rhetorical framing like that which destroys conversation. Instead of objectively discussing a social dynamic, your language makes this a finger-pointing blame game where you're casting people as "cheats" simply because of their skin color.

 

[Emily Lake]

Are you proposing that I lie to my lender? If It was legal for me to provide false information in the process of obtaining credit I'd tell them I was white, not part white. That is to assure I get the full benefits of being white, not partial benefits.

These days most loans are done online, aren't they? Why should you be obligated to disclose any information not directly pertinent to your fiscal responsibility? Screw those people, they don't need to know your skin color, no more than they need to know your hair color or your sex.

 

[Trausti]

Are you proposing that I lie to my lender? If It was legal for me to provide false information in the process of obtaining credit I'd tell them I was white, not part white. That is to assure I get the full benefits of being white, not partial benefits.

Well, that’s the point. Why do White people like Elizabeth Warren lie about their racial ancestry? Because the current societal advantage favors non-White identity. If White Privilege bestowed advantage, why do so many want to be seen as not White?

 

[Toni]

Can anyone remember the last time a non-White person, or part-White person, pretended to be White or emphasized their White half for social or economic gain? As if it were a privilege to be White? Plenty of cases of White people pretending to be otherwise. It’s like there’s a flight from White.

A lot of light skinned black people have passed/do pass/are currently passing for white. Here's a recent story: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/blac...TRrx-yZ-B0j0vM32FuLE-V0OGl0nHXM3OBGYoHfG7OqJ8

To be entirely accurate, Ms. Zinter doesn't intentionally pass as white but because of her coloring, she's often assumed to be white.

Just try googling. You'll find a lot of stories of black people passing as white, historically and now.