Correct. And treating people as all the same because they share a race is also racist, by definition.
There is a reason for that. It is because they are the least obvious and the least noted. We have plenty of people here who point out the obvious.
Many of them seem to be hypothetical also (as in the one I think you are referring to just now, Toni).
It wasn't my hypothetical. It was the hypothetical I was responding to. The point is that compensation for a wrong is still indeed a benefit and is a privilege if others don't get it despite having the same wrong done to them (punching them in the face in this case), and is a racial privilege if others don't get it based on race. This is not complicated, yet people get upset for pointing it out.
The emphasis, when it suits, on 'its the individual, not the group thing which we should be looking at' is also unconvincing, not least because it's inconsistently applied. It is, of course, when aired, in keeping with the attempted focus on 'lesser' discriminations.
Where is it inconsistently applied? I seek to apply it consistently. It tends to be focussed on "lesser issues" because those go overlooked. We also have a very strong bias on this board, which ironically I share, but which leaves holes I feel need to be filled.
He also has a tendency, even when trying to look at both sides, not to sufficiently distinguish between greater and lesser issues. Iow, his language and the proportion of time he spends on this or that side of the coin implies, I think, equating or seeking a quasi-equivalence between discriminations of all types.
Again, that's due to the board's bias. On conservative boards I am a "libtard". Here I am equated to a Nazi. That tells me I'm right in the middle and that's fine with me.
Meanwhile, if we are judging one another, I'll judge you as judgy. You write more about people what you believe their motivations are, and I've even seen you dismiss points people make because of who made them and what you think of them. That's a fallacy in my book.
- - - Updated - - -
Please refer to previous discussion of this idea of "black privilege" some are saying in the forum. My problem with the examples has been that if you slap someone in the face and then give them a dollar, that's not a privilege, it's an undefined net thing.
1. No, it need not be looked at only in sum. We all have both privileges and disprivileges. You can look at each benefit or detriment in isolation. You can then blend them all together and speak of overall privilege, but doing so doesn't erase the individual privileges.
2. Privilege is comparative. It means you benefit in a way somebody else does not. It is unjust when granted for something you didn't earn or suffer (both racism and inheritance are fundamentally unjust). Often it is granted by racial or other proxy (identity politics in action).
A person who is slapped in the face and offered a dollar for it is not privileged by that over somebody who was not slapped in the face. But they most definitely are privileged over somebody who was slapped in the face and not offered a dollar for it.
If the reason they are offered the dollar is because they are black and the other person who was slapped in the face is not, so they get no dollar, then yes, that can properly be called a "black privilege". If other black people who were not slapped in the face then also get dollars by proxy, then that is an even more blatant form of it.
That dollar is both a privilege in isolation and a privilege maker in sum as compared to those who are otherwise the same but not granted it.
Isn't this taking a metaphor way beyond its usefulness?
It is an attempt to show that yes something can be a privilege even when there is an overall detriment, depending on who is being compared to. If you are forced to eat disgusting food, that's actually a privilege as compared to somebody who starves and dies, etc.
