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

[RVonse]

Here's a fun series of questions (based on my personal experiences)

Have you ever been pulled over for a traffic violation that has nothing to do with a traffic violation?
Have you ever had the police knowingly break into your home without a search warrant?

I was a young and inexperienced landlord thinking I could fix up a bad neighborhood house on the cheap. During night on my way home, the police stopped me for nothing and searched myself and car for nothing and saw nothing. They both chastised me heavily for being there at night. "You mean I can't fix up my house at night?" "Yes, that's exactly what we mean. We don't even want to be here in this neighborhood at night and we have guns!" That was a bad neighborhood and a bad investment for myself.

Even worse than that, fast forward to when my ex-wife (40 years ago) decided to throw me out of the house after she found another boyfriend that looked better to her. I did not even know at the time we were having marriage problems. She cleverly set me up to be guilty of wife beating and carrying a gun which I don't even own. The police and legal system had me sitting a night in jail before I even figured out what she was doing. And to this day I am no friend of the police just because of those events so long ago. There was nothing so unfair and unjust as what took place. Should I blame the police or my ex-wife? The correct answer: the people who should be blamed are all the men out there who actually did beat their wives in the past. But you can bet Im having the "talk" to my son and anyone else who will listen, about the police and domestic abuse laws. So my personal bad experiences with the police haven't been much better than yours and I am white.

I still say the best solution is to fix the poverty problem which causes the crime which causes the police to react like they do. Otherwise you are no better than my ex-wife using an imperfect system to gain advantage of others. Beating up the deplorables because of the real crime that some blacks really do commit.

 

[Bomb#20]

Here's a fun series of questions (based on my personal experiences)

Have you ever been pulled over for a traffic violation that has nothing to do with a traffic violation?
Have you ever had the police knowingly break into your home without a search warrant?
When's the last time you fit the description of a suspect?
Have you had that talk with your kids yet?

No to all. But in my defense, I don't have any kids.

Okay, since I'm evidently not going to get an answer to the question I asked you upthread, I'll ask you two others:

(1) Do you think "white privilege" and "racial discrimination" are synonyms?​

That's a yes-or-no question. If the answer to (1) is "yes", then the second question is:

(2y) Since I and other critics of the "white privilege" narrative freely stipulate that you have encountered racial discrimination, why is it so important to you that the label for this agreed-upon phenomenon be "white privilege", when we could all just agree to call it "racial discrimination" and move on?​

Contrariwise, if the answer to (1) is "no", then the second question is:

(2n) Why do you always respond to criticism of the "white privilege" narrative with examples of the racial discrimination you have encountered?​

 

[zorq]

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

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? If a snail entered the race too we might want to call it "torpid" but are we bound to describing everything with respect to the speed of a hare and call it "really not fast"?

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."

 

[Rhea]

Here's a fun series of questions (based on my personal experiences)

Have you ever been pulled over for a traffic violation that has nothing to do with a traffic violation?
Have you ever had the police knowingly break into your home without a search warrant?
When's the last time you fit the description of a suspect?
Have you had that talk with your kids yet?

No to all. But in my defense, I don't have any kids.

Okay, since I'm evidently not going to get an answer to the question I asked you upthread, I'll ask you two others:

(1) Do you think "white privilege" and "racial discrimination" are synonyms?​

That's a yes-or-no question. If the answer to (1) is "yes", then the second question is:

(2y) Since I and other critics of the "white privilege" narrative freely stipulate that you have encountered racial discrimination, why is it so important to you that the label for this agreed-upon phenomenon be "white privilege", when we could all just agree to call it "racial discrimination" and move on?​

Contrariwise, if the answer to (1) is "no", then the second question is:

(2n) Why do you always respond to criticism of the "white privilege" narrative with examples of the racial discrimination you have encountered?​

I always thought “White Privilege” was the watered-down, gentle expression developed to carefully handle the fragile white people who threw a hissy fit when someone explained that they were participants in racial discrimination every time they accepted the lower frequency incidents for themselves and failed to speak up for the higher frequency incidents for people of color.

In other words - the reason why we don’t call it “racial discrimination” is because the white people had a really hard time understanding it and many tears flowed.

 

[Gospel]

(1) Do you think "white privilege" and "racial discrimination" are synonyms?

Do white people have a history of being racially discriminated against In America by the American Government under the color of law? If your answer is no then you have my answer to your question.

(2y) Since I and other critics of the "white privilege" narrative freely stipulate that you have encountered racial discrimination, why is it so important to you that the label for this agreed-upon phenomenon be "white privilege", when we could all just agree to call it "racial discrimination" and move on?

Because white people have not been racially discriminated against under the color of law by the US Government (owned and operated by WHITE PEOPLE). But if it makes you feel good to think white people have faced racial discrimination you go ahead.

(2n) Why do you always respond to criticism of the "white privilege" narrative with examples of the racial discrimination you have encountered?

Because that's the mutha fuckin world I live in.

 

[Rhea]

She cleverly set me up to be guilty of wife beating and carrying a gun which I don't even own. The police and legal system had me sitting a night in jail before I even figured out what she was doing. And to this day I am no friend of the police just because of those events so long ago. There was nothing so unfair and unjust as what took place.

“Nothing so unfair and unjust?”
Breonna Taylor would like a word.

Seriously, listen to yourself. Yes you had a tough go of it. But if you had been Black, it would almost certainly have been far worse than one night in jail.

Should I blame the police or my ex-wife? The correct answer: the people who should be blamed are all the men out there who actually did beat their wives in the past.

This is a bizarre answer. No, the correct answer is to blame the person who lied and scapegoated you.

But you can bet Im having the "talk" to my son and anyone else who will listen, about the police and domestic abuse laws. So my personal bad experiences with the police haven't been much better than yours and I am white.

The point is that one thing that makes your personal bad experiences “better” (meaning less bad) is the frequency of them and the lethality of them.

It’s not equivalent, but you’re so focused on yourself you can’t even accept their truth. Only yours. You’ve silenced them.

I still say the best solution is to fix the poverty problem which causes the crime which causes the police to react like they do.

Nah. Fix the police for reacting as they do. Which is targeting people of color more often and treating them more harshly for the same crimes that white folks commit. Given the SAME CRIME, the outcome is worse for Black people.

And fix the courts - same reason. When Black folks and white folks commit the SAME CRIME, it goes worse for Black folks.

Ditton prisons.

Ditto…. High schools. And middle schools. And elementary schools.


Many people will use the arrest and court statistics to convince themselves that Black people are committing more crime. But if they look at actual crime statistics, they will see that white criminals are just getting away with it much more often.

So fix the racist reaction by police. That’s step #2.
(Step #1 was fixing it in schools.)

Otherwise you are no better than my ex-wife using an imperfect system to gain advantage of others. Beating up the deplorables because of the real crime that some blacks really do commit.

There’s your flawed conclusion. And it is not at all supported by evidence.

 

[Gospel]

Not quite. I do not say they are on an even playing field but that no real progress can be made by fighting among other members of a different race over issues they have no control over. The fight has to be taken to the decision makers in a unified step among all those in the same economic class.

Good point. Now if only white people (specifically the ones that do) would stop fighting against the obvious. Because I'm not fighting, I'm just living in that world. I guess I'm supposed to just shut up and not talk about the world I live in because white people will interpret it as fighting words.

 

[Rhea]

Me to say all of the above except D? Because that's what I said with the reason why I said it.

Yes, that's what you said, and you said why you said it, and it wasn't a real answer. I asked you what you think the police should have done instead. "All of the above except D" means "The police should have told all five of you to leave and let all five of you stay and made the five of you draw straws for the three available sleep-in-the-train-station slots." I do not believe for a second that you actually think the police should have done all of the above except D. So what's the real answer? What do you think the police should have done instead?

It seems like it was pretty clear that his answer was *ANY* of the above except D, not *ALL* of the above at the same time, except D.

Because any of those things would have applied equally to all and therefore been not-racist. That would be better than being racist.

I agree with Gospel on that.

Now of those other choices, some would have been more humane than others, and that is a second level of discussion, but Gospel’s answer made good sense. Racism is a pernicious evil and it’s good to call it out and stop it.

 

[Gospel]

Most white people: Police keep our streets safe!
Me: I feel much safer when they are not around

Two different worlds.

 

[Gospel]

Me to say all of the above except D? Because that's what I said with the reason why I said it.

Yes, that's what you said, and you said why you said it, and it wasn't a real answer. I asked you what you think the police should have done instead. "All of the above except D" means "The police should have told all five of you to leave and let all five of you stay and made the five of you draw straws for the three available sleep-in-the-train-station slots." I do not believe for a second that you actually think the police should have done all of the above except D. So what's the real answer? What do you think the police should have done instead?

It seems like it was pretty clear that his answer was *ANY* of the above except D, not *ALL* of the above at the same time, except D.

Because any of those things would have applied equally to all and therefore been not-racist. That would be better than being racist.

I agree with Gospel on that.

Now of those other choices, some would have been more humane than others, and that is a second level of discussion, but Gospel’s answer made good sense. Racism is a pernicious evil and it’s good to call it out and stop it.

Nailed it.

 

[Rhea]

I think one thing that some people try to discount or silence from the conversation is the additional burden of the racism that crushes by being constant and inescapable.

We see it here with RVonse, saying, I’ve had run-ins, too! So racism isn’t really bad.
We see it here with Bomb#20 saying, yeah, you saying only the Black dudes were kicked out, but what were the cops supposed to do? So racism isn’t the real issue here.
We see it with people who say, “but look at all that crime!” Without ever responding to the facts that have been shown that the arrest system itself is causing those statistics, not the behavior of the populations.

And not just the disparity of those committing crimes being treated differently, but also those NOT committing crimes getting treated differently.

All of these ignore the added overpowering weight that (I believe) a Black person feels when they know there is not a fucking thing they can do about it.. They can’t get a better job and escape it. They can’t move to a different neighborhood and escape it. They can’t dress differently, talk differently and escape the unequal application of justice.

I am not Black, and I have not grown up in a Black or mixed community. But I can see it happen right in front of me, and as a white person who can be in a room with no Black people and hear what goes on when the white folks are talking, I can observe quite clearly and repeatedly, that it is NOT because Black people are doing bad things more often. It is white people treating them worse; over and over and over and over and over again, while they themselves commit the same crimes and laugh because they never pay a price, thinking this somehow makes them less of a criminal. And I can likewise see it when I see someone who has done nothing wrong getting treated like a criminal, and they roll their eyes with superhuman patience because that is their reality.

And I haven’t felt it, but I can see them feeling it - it is relentless. And then they see you making excuses for it, and claiming you’ve had it just as bad. (And they see other white people hearing you say this and not speaking up against it). And it is clearly Just. So. Exhausting. And frightening, and dangerous.

Some people try so hard to argue so relentlessly that racism is not a big deal.
And they work really hard to not hear the truth about what is happening.

 

[Bomb#20]

(1) Do you think "white privilege" and "racial discrimination" are synonyms?

Do white people have a history of being racially discriminated against In America by the American Government under the color of law? If your answer is no then you have my answer to your question.

Yes, some white people have been racially discriminated against In America by the American Government under the color of law, though obviously far less than black people have; but I'm not clear on how if those incidents hadn't happened it would have allowed me to infer whether you think two terms are synonymous. But perhaps I asked the question imprecisely. Let's try this again.

(1') Do you think "white privilege" and "more racial discrimination against non-white people than against white people" are synonyms?

(2y) Since I and other critics of the "white privilege" narrative freely stipulate that you have encountered racial discrimination, why is it so important to you that the label for this agreed-upon phenomenon be "white privilege", when we could all just agree to call it "racial discrimination" and move on?

Because white people have not been racially discriminated against under the color of law by the US Government (owned and operated by WHITE PEOPLE).

Not sure if you're answering (2y) because your answer to (1) was "yes" or just because you're feeling talkative; but assuming your answer to (1) was "yes", your answer to (2y) doesn't say how wicked government behavior makes one synonymous term better than another synonymous term.

But if it makes you feel good to think white people have faced racial discrimination you go ahead.

Plenty of white people of Jewish and Middle-Eastern ancestry have been racially discriminated against by the US Government at one time or another over the last two hundred years, and no, that doesn't make me feel good; but it's not really germane to the point I'm making about the left's collective refusal to apply elementary logic to the concept of "white privilege" because so many leftists prefer to weaponize their own reasoning errors for tactical rhetorical advantage. So if you'd prefer we assume for the sake of discussion that Jews and Arabs never faced racial discrimination, fine, we can do that.

(2n) Why do you always respond to criticism of the "white privilege" narrative with examples of the racial discrimination you have encountered?

Because that's the ... world I live in.

But if the terms aren't synonymous, then the world you live in supplying you with copious examples of racial discrimination doesn't help make a case for "white privilege", since those are two different things. To assume it helps make that case is an ordinary equivocation fallacy. To make a case for "white privilege", you'd need to identify the difference between the meanings of the terms, figure out what criterion this difference implies one term has that the other term lacks, and then check the world you live in for that specific criterion. Checking for racial discrimination only does the job if the two terms are synonyms.

 

[laughing dog]

(1) Do you think "white privilege" and "racial discrimination" are synonyms?

Do white people have a history of being racially discriminated against In America by the American Government under the color of law? If your answer is no then you have my answer to your question.

Yes, some white people have been racially discriminated against In America by the American Government under the color of law, though obviously far less than black people have; but I'm not clear on how if those incidents hadn't happened it would have allowed me to infer whether you think two terms are synonymous. But perhaps I asked the question imprecisely. Let's try this again.

(1') Do you think "white privilege" and "more racial discrimination against non-white people than against white people" are synonyms?

(2y) Since I and other critics of the "white privilege" narrative freely stipulate that you have encountered racial discrimination, why is it so important to you that the label for this agreed-upon phenomenon be "white privilege", when we could all just agree to call it "racial discrimination" and move on?

Because white people have not been racially discriminated against under the color of law by the US Government (owned and operated by WHITE PEOPLE).

Not sure if you're answering (2y) because your answer to (1) was "yes" or just because you're feeling talkative; but assuming your answer to (1) was "yes", your answer to (2y) doesn't say how wicked government behavior makes one synonymous term better than another synonymous term.

But if it makes you feel good to think white people have faced racial discrimination you go ahead.

Plenty of white people of Jewish and Middle-Eastern ancestry have been racially discriminated against by the US Government at one time or another over the last two hundred years, and no, that doesn't make me feel good; but it's not really germane to the point I'm making about the left's collective refusal to apply elementary logic to the concept of "white privilege" because so many leftists prefer to weaponize their own reasoning errors for tactical rhetorical advantage. So if you'd prefer we assume for the sake of discussion that Jews and Arabs never faced racial discrimination, fine, we can do that.

(2n) Why do you always respond to criticism of the "white privilege" narrative with examples of the racial discrimination you have encountered?

Because that's the ... world I live in.

But if the terms aren't synonymous, then the world you live in supplying you with copious examples of racial discrimination doesn't help make a case for "white privilege", since those are two different things. To assume it helps make that case is an ordinary equivocation fallacy. To make a case for "white privilege", you'd need to identify the difference between the meanings of the terms, figure out what criterion this difference implies one term has that the other term lacks, and then check the world you live in for that specific criterion. Checking for racial discrimination only does the job if the two terms are synonyms.

First, , in the past, many bigots did not view people of Jewish or Middle Eastern ancestry as "white" - hence the discrimination.

Second, the existence of discrimination against certain segments of "white people" does not logically negate the notion of "white privilege".


Apparently this is not rocket science to some people.

 

[Bomb#20]

First, , in the past, many bigots did not view people of Jewish or Middle Eastern ancestry as "white" - hence the discrimination.

Second, the existence of discrimination against certain segments of "white people" does not logically negate the notion of "white privilege".

Apparently this is not rocket science to some people.

Exactly which part of "but it's not really germane to the point I'm making about the left's collective refusal to apply elementary logic to the concept of "white privilege" because so many leftists prefer to weaponize their own reasoning errors for tactical rhetorical advantage. So if you'd prefer we assume for the sake of discussion that Jews and Arabs never faced racial discrimination, fine, we can do that." did you not understand? I only mentioned Jews and Arabs because Gospel raised the issue. It's a digression.

What negates the notion of "white privilege" is that the phrase is not synonymous with "racial discrimination", but the left tries to make a case for "white privilege" by pretending it's the same concept as "racial discrimination", but the left shows by its stubborn refusal to part with the expression that it's fluent in English and knows perfectly well that "white privilege" implies more than "racial discrimination" implies -- and the left wants to get all those extra implications for free without paying for them in the coin of logical argument.

 

[laughing dog]

First, , in the past, many bigots did not view people of Jewish or Middle Eastern ancestry as "white" - hence the discrimination.

Second, the existence of discrimination against certain segments of "white people" does not logically negate the notion of "white privilege".

Apparently this is not rocket science to some people.

Exactly which part of "but it's not really germane to the point I'm making about the left's collective refusal to apply elementary logic to the concept of "white privilege" because so many leftists prefer to weaponize their own reasoning errors for tactical rhetorical advantage. So if you'd prefer we assume for the sake of discussion that Jews and Arabs never faced racial discrimination, fine, we can do that." did you not understand? I only mentioned Jews and Arabs because Gospel raised the issue. It's a digression.

Your digression was based on faulty reasoning.

What negates the notion of "white privilege" is that the phrase is not synonymous with "racial discrimination", but the left tries to make a case for "white privilege" by pretending it's the same concept as "racial discrimination", but the left shows by its stubborn refusal to part with the expression that it's fluent in English and knows perfectly well that "white privilege" implies more than "racial discrimination" implies -- and the left wants to get all those extra implications for free without paying for them in the coin of logical argument.

Actually, it is the conservative snowflakes who conflate white privilege with racial discrimination. White privilege is tied to racial discrimination although the two are not identical.

I will not get into your perceptions or misperceptions of what "the left" wants or does not want.

 

[Gospel]

tactical rhetorical advantage

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

 

[Bomb#20]

No to all. But in my defense, I don't have any kids.

Okay, since I'm evidently not going to get an answer to the question I asked you upthread, I'll ask you two others:

(1) Do you think "white privilege" and "racial discrimination" are synonyms?​

That's a yes-or-no question. If the answer to (1) is "yes", then the second question is:

(2y) Since I and other critics of the "white privilege" narrative freely stipulate that you have encountered racial discrimination, why is it so important to you that the label for this agreed-upon phenomenon be "white privilege", when we could all just agree to call it "racial discrimination" and move on?​

Contrariwise, if the answer to (1) is "no", then the second question is:

(2n) Why do you always respond to criticism of the "white privilege" narrative with examples of the racial discrimination you have encountered?​

I always thought “White Privilege” was the watered-down, gentle expression developed to carefully handle the fragile white people who threw a hissy fit when someone explained that they were participants in racial discrimination every time they accepted the lower frequency incidents for themselves and failed to speak up for the higher frequency incidents for people of color.

In other words - the reason why we don’t call it “racial discrimination” is because the white people had a really hard time understanding it and many tears flowed.

Not sure why you're quoting my post since you evidently have no intention of answering the questions I asked; but if your theory about why the left calls it “White Privilege” is correct, that just goes to show how collectively stupid and insane the left is when it's trying to shove its vicious religion down everyone else's throat. You guys seriously think gently watering down your racist blood libel gives the rest of us a reason to be all "Well that's okay then."?

Let me draw the left's self-deluding attention to the fact that "racial discrimination" and "they were participants in racial discrimination" are not synonyms. When the left insinuates that the fragile white people who threw a hissy fit threw it because they have a really hard time understanding “racial discrimination”, all the left is doing is trumping up an ad hominem against its outgroup because it can't pay for the extra implications of the "they were participants in" part, in the coin of logical argument, and it knows it can't.

Rhea, none of this is personal. I understand that the reason you're treating your political opponents so unfairly is because leftist ideology is a religion -- which is to say, a contagious disease of the moral sense -- and religions train their adherents to treat outsiders as less worthy of moral consideration than fully human people. That's why it's a bad idea to let government employees like Hawn put themselves in the business of promoting their own religions while on the state clock.

Now we come to the personal part.

I think one thing that some people try to discount or silence from the conversation is the additional burden of the racism that crushes by being constant and inescapable. ...

We see it here with Bomb#20 saying, yeah, you saying only the Black dudes were kicked out, but what were the cops supposed to do? So racism isn’t the real issue here.

That is not what I said. You put your own words in my mouth. You tried to pass it off as a fair paraphrase when it is in fact an appalling misrepresentation of what I said. You painted me as defending the cops even though you had zero rational basis for thinking that's what I was doing. What you wrote is false; it's damaging; and you wrote it with reckless disregard for the truth. If we used real names here it would be actionable. Why don't you try reading for content instead of force-fitting whatever you read into the mental boxes you stereotype unbelievers into?

 

[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. 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?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Exactly which part of "but it's not really germane to the point I'm making about the left's collective refusal to apply elementary logic to the concept of "white privilege" because so many leftists ...

*FULL STOP*

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.

...prefer to weaponize their own reasoning errors for tactical rhetorical advantage. So if you'd prefer we assume for the sake of discussion that Jews and Arabs never faced racial discrimination, fine, we can do that." did you not understand?

Jews and Arabs have faced ethnic discrimination, sure, but it is actually racists who have classified them as non-White and they are correct in the sense that race is a social construct. The categories and membership in the categories changes with time, location, and culture.

I only mentioned Jews and Arabs because Gospel raised the issue. It's a digression.

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.

...by pretending it's the same concept as "racial discrimination"...

Well, not quite.

As a white person I know that I have good probabilities for many opportunities, treatment, and perceptions by others. Not all of that is discrimination unless you use the word extremely broadly and loosely... I guess? I mean, I am not sure if all of it could even be called discrimination even if it was very, very loosely used as a term.

..., but the left shows by its stubborn refusal to part with the expression that it's fluent in English and knows perfectly well that "white privilege" implies more than "racial discrimination" implies -- and the left wants to get all those extra implications for free without paying for them in the coin of logical argument.

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

--Google search on "definition of privilege"

 

[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.