White privilege poll.

[Toni]

Why do you think that 'white privilege vanished by law?'

Law created and enforced 'black privilege' with mandatory racial quotas and 'hate crime laws' something like fifty years ago. This pretty much eliminated 'white privilege'. However 'tribalism' among all identifiable groups (whites, blacks, asians, etc.) still exists and likely will as long as there are identifiable groups.

What a weird alternative universe you must live in.

 

[Gospel]

Law created and enforced 'black privilege' with mandatory racial quotas and 'hate crime laws' something like fifty years ago. This pretty much eliminated 'white privilege'.

Some people might not realise this is satire.

It was intentionally a bit satirical but satire is generally a reductio ad absurdum intended to make a point.

Personal experience: In the late 1970s I applied for a job at a large company (AT&T). The hirer told me that he wold like to keep my application on file for some future opening because I was the most qualified applicant but he couldn't hire me for the position they were trying to fill because a minority was needed to meet the mandated quota. My 'white privilege' didn't help me.

A few weeks later, I got a call from them telling me that they had a new opening but I had already found another job.

Strange thing about this is, black people aren't at fault for that (not saying you are blaming them). It was necessary because there was a time companies like AT&T would not hire blacks. It took financial force from the law to make them do it. Whether or not it's still needed today is debatable (I side with it not). Yet today when affirmative actions comes up I see anecdotes like yours being perceived (not by you but by racist buffoons) as less qualified people getting the job based on race. That is not how it was intended. It was so qualified minorities aren't disregarded because of their color at a time when they actually were being discriminated against in favor of (in many cases un)-qualified whites. It doesn't mean that someone less qualified gets the job based on their color. Whether that is actually how companies are doing it is beyond my ability to confirm.

 

[ruby sparks]

To the extent that there is a lasting effect it's attitudes passed from parent to child.

OMG. Garbage. And an insult to boot.

Look, if you really, actually don't have a clue about this, maybe you shouldn't post?

On second thoughts, keep posting. More laughs in the politics thread are always welcome.

 

[skepticalbip]

It was intentionally a bit satirical but satire is generally a reductio ad absurdum intended to make a point.

Personal experience: In the late 1970s I applied for a job at a large company (AT&T). The hirer told me that he wold like to keep my application on file for some future opening because I was the most qualified applicant but he couldn't hire me for the position they were trying to fill because a minority was needed to meet the mandated quota. My 'white privilege' didn't help me.

A few weeks later, I got a call from them telling me that they had a new opening but I had already found another job.

Strange thing about this is, black people aren't at fault for that (not saying you are blaming them). It was necessary because there was a time companies like AT&T would not hire blacks. It took financial force from the law to make them do it. Whether or not it's still needed today is debatable (I side with it not). Yet today when affirmative actions comes up I see anecdotes like yours being perceived (not by you but by racist buffoons) as less qualified people getting the job based on race. That is not how it was intended. It was so qualified minorities aren't disregarded because of their color at a time when they actually were being discriminated against in favor of (in many cases un)-qualified whites. It doesn't mean that someone less qualified gets the job based on their color. Whether that is actually how companies are doing it is beyond my ability to confirm.

Exactly. Such racially mandated quotas were needed at the time to 'level the playing field'. They seem to me to have done a fair job of doing exactly that. The fact that a few people were 'inconvenienced' (for the greater good) by companies complying to the letter of the law is just an unfortunate side effect.

 

[ruby sparks]

It was intentionally a bit satirical but satire is generally a reductio ad absurdum intended to make a point.

Personal experience: In the late 1970s I applied for a job at a large company (AT&T). The hirer told me that he wold like to keep my application on file for some future opening because I was the most qualified applicant but he couldn't hire me for the position they were trying to fill because a minority was needed to meet the mandated quota. My 'white privilege' didn't help me.

A few weeks later, I got a call from them telling me that they had a new opening but I had already found another job.

Strange thing about this is, black people aren't at fault for that (not saying you are blaming them). It was necessary because there was a time companies like AT&T would not hire blacks. It took financial force from the law to make them do it. Whether or not it's still needed today is debatable (I side with it not). Yet today when affirmative actions comes up I see anecdotes like yours being perceived (not by you but by racist buffoons) as less qualified people getting the job based on race. That is not how it was intended. It was so qualified minorities aren't disregarded because of their color at a time when they actually were being discriminated against in favor of (in many cases un)-qualified whites. It doesn't mean that someone less qualified gets the job based on their color. Whether that is actually how companies are doing it is beyond my ability to confirm.

Exactly. Such racially mandated quotas were needed at the time to 'level the playing field'. They seem to me to have done a fair job of doing exactly that. The fact that a few people were 'inconvenienced' (for the greater good) by companies complying to the letter of the law is just an unfortunate side effect.

Well said indeed, both of you.

 

[Toni]

It was intentionally a bit satirical but satire is generally a reductio ad absurdum intended to make a point.

Personal experience: In the late 1970s I applied for a job at a large company (AT&T). The hirer told me that he wold like to keep my application on file for some future opening because I was the most qualified applicant but he couldn't hire me for the position they were trying to fill because a minority was needed to meet the mandated quota. My 'white privilege' didn't help me.

A few weeks later, I got a call from them telling me that they had a new opening but I had already found another job.

Strange thing about this is, black people aren't at fault for that (not saying you are blaming them). It was necessary because there was a time companies like AT&T would not hire blacks. It took financial force from the law to make them do it. Whether or not it's still needed today is debatable (I side with it not). Yet today when affirmative actions comes up I see anecdotes like yours being perceived (not by you but by racist buffoons) as less qualified people getting the job based on race. That is not how it was intended. It was so qualified minorities aren't disregarded because of their color at a time when they actually were being discriminated against in favor of (in many cases un)-qualified whites. It doesn't mean that someone less qualified gets the job based on their color. Whether that is actually how companies are doing it is beyond my ability to confirm.

Exactly. Such racially mandated quotas were needed at the time to 'level the playing field'. They seem to me to have done a fair job of doing exactly that. The fact that a few people were 'inconvenienced' (for the greater good) by companies complying to the letter of the law is just an unfortunate side effect.

Except that there are no quotas. That's just a hobby horse.

 

[Politesse]

Law created and enforced 'black privilege' with mandatory racial quotas and 'hate crime laws' something like fifty years ago. This pretty much eliminated 'white privilege'.

Some people might not realise this is satire.

It was intentionally a bit satirical but satire is generally a reductio ad absurdum intended to make a point.

Personal experience: In the late 1970s I applied for a job at a large company (AT&T). The hirer told me that he wold like to keep my application on file for some future opening because I was the most qualified applicant but he couldn't hire me for the position they were trying to fill because a minority was needed to meet the mandated quota. My 'white privilege' didn't help me.

A few weeks later, I got a call from them telling me that they had a new opening but I had already found another job at a different company.

AT & T voluntarily committed to building a strong and diverse workforce, which has been a fairly successful and lucrative project for them. They are not, however, the nation's only employer or capable of hiring everyone who needs a job or promoting everyone in need of a promotion. Nor is it in their power to eliminate structural inequalities such as disparate educational opportunities, lack of healthcare, and disproportionate experiences of crime, that affect people long before they start seeking a job. Even within AT & T, despite their good intentions, diversity thins as you start looking at upper management as opposed to entry level positions, though I do not think this is for lack of trying. Not everything is under their control.

On a more personal note. I think you've got one hell of a case of sour grapes, claiming workplace discrimination when they literally called you back to offer you another job, which you didn't need because you had one by then. You are incredibly blind to your own privilege, and obviously have no idea what it is like to look for work if you don't fit the unspoken profile of hireability. Hint: They don't call you back. And you don't have mutliple concurrent job opportunities to choose from like you're at a goddamned career buffet. You were in no way harmed by this experience, and could not have been harmed by this experience, yet you're nursing an inexplicable grudge. Privilege in a nutshell.

 

[Gospel]

It was intentionally a bit satirical but satire is generally a reductio ad absurdum intended to make a point.

Personal experience: In the late 1970s I applied for a job at a large company (AT&T). The hirer told me that he wold like to keep my application on file for some future opening because I was the most qualified applicant but he couldn't hire me for the position they were trying to fill because a minority was needed to meet the mandated quota. My 'white privilege' didn't help me.

A few weeks later, I got a call from them telling me that they had a new opening but I had already found another job at a different company.

AT & T voluntarily committed to building a strong and diverse workforce, which has been a fairly successful and lucrative project for them. They are not, however, the nation's only employer or capable of hiring everyone who needs a job or promoting everyone in need of a promotion. Nor is it in their power to eliminate structural inequalities such as disparate educational opportunities, lack of healthcare, and disproportionate experiences of crime, that affect people long before they start seeking a job. Even within AT & T, despite their good intentions, diversity thins as you start looking at upper management as opposed to entry level positions, though I do not think this is for lack of trying. Not everything is under their control.

On a more personal note. I think you've got one hell of a case of sour grapes, claiming workplace discrimination when they literally called you back to offer you another job, which you didn't need because you had one by then. You are incredibly blind to your own privilege, and obviously have no idea what it is like to look for work if you don't fit the unspoken profile of hireability. Hint: They don't call you back. And you don't have mutliple concurrent job opportunities to choose from like you're at a goddamned career buffet. You were in no way harmed by this experience, and could not have been harmed by this experience, yet you're nursing an inexplicable grudge. Privilege in a nutshell.

Wow. Did you really need to use Fireball Rank 11? Dude literally said moments later that he agreed Affirmative action had its purpose and that he was collateral damage in that instance. I think a level 20 Fireball would have been sufficient because I do agree with the already having another job by time they called back reasonably being perceived as a lack of true inconvenience.

Edit: Pardon me if I got the gender wrong.

 

[DBT]

Social Hierarchies;

''Social groups across species rapidly self-organize into hierarchies, where members vary in their level of power, influence, skill, or dominance. In this review we explore the nature of social hierarchies and the traits associated with status in both humans and nonhuman primates, and how status varies across development in humans. Our review finds that we can rapidly identify social status based on a wide range of cues.

Like monkeys, we tend to use certain cues, like physical strength, to make status judgments, although layered on top of these more primitive perceptual cues are socio-cultural status cues like job titles and educational attainment. One's relative status has profound effects on attention, memory, and social interactions, as well as health and wellness.

These effects can be particularly pernicious in children and adolescents. Developmental research on peer groups and social exclusion suggests teenagers may be particularly sensitive to social status information, but research focused specifically on status processing and associated brain areas is very limited. Recent evidence from neuroscience suggests there may be an underlying neural network, including regions involved in executive, emotional, and reward processing, that is sensitive to status information. We conclude with questions for future research as well as stressing the need to expand social neuroscience research on status processing to adolescents.''

 

[skepticalbip]

Exactly. Such racially mandated quotas were needed at the time to 'level the playing field'. They seem to me to have done a fair job of doing exactly that. The fact that a few people were 'inconvenienced' (for the greater good) by companies complying to the letter of the law is just an unfortunate side effect.

Except that there are no quotas. That's just a hobby horse.

There were in the 1970s. Today the EEOC will quickly investigate and respond to any complaint of employment discrimination if needed. It is a softer control than the original mandated quotas but no company wants the EEOC on their back so they make extreme efforts to insure they stay within the EEOC guidelines.

 

[ruby sparks]

Given that by far the majority of voters in the poll seem to agree that there is still at least some white privilege today, in the USA and the 'west' generally, I think a good question might be to ask 'and what should be being done about that by those who have the privileges'?

First off the bat, for me, as a white person, is to freely acknowledge my privileges (as with all my other privileges). That doesn't cost me much if anything at all, in fact from a purely selfish perspective I feel I will benefit personally from it, by being more self-aware and also more grateful (not to mention getting brownie points in discussions). As such, I would call it a very wise move and very much in my own interests. And I do not worry very much about it being the thin edge of the wedge or that I might then be asked to do more. I will always retain that choice anyway. I don't see refusing to do a little in case I get asked to do more as a very good reason not to do the little.

Everyone will have their own preferred limit. I reckon it will vary a lot. My view is that I should be willing to do a bit more than just talk the talk. But how much? Here I would introduce the beautiful term 'reasonable' again. But of course that will mean different things to different people in different circumstances. I would say that I should be willing to do things which do not cost me much, that may be only slight inconveniences. Some might say I should go much further than that. The limit of what I or anyone else should do, or indeed what society as a whole should do, is perhaps the most interesting aspect of all this, to me. It's the (moral in many ways) question 'how much is enough'?

And acknowledging is not the same as personally apologising. I am not personally to blame for being born with (in this case white) privileges. But, not doing something one should might be a reason to apologise. So the question of exercising privileges comes in.

For some, perhaps many people, the reasonable approach might be 'I will not knowingly take advantage unfairly'. This might take the form of, for example, agreeing not to be individually racist (as far as possible or intentionally) in dealings with others. That is not an insignificant thing. It's a big thing imo. Though many others would say it's not enough. The next small step might be 'I will try, in my interactions with others, to see things from their perspective and be sensitive to the sometimes unseen or unspoken issues they may face that I do not'. That wouldn't be asking much more at all.

Now, some might take the view that if the tables were turned, the other person might not extend the same consideration to them, and so they may simply say that they are putting their own interests first, and are entitled to do that, because in life everyone should be allowed to look after their own interests in the first instance and the other person can do likewise.

Thoughts, anyone?

 

[Bronzeage]

White privilege can proven to exist by purely empirical observation. How else could so many stupid white people be found in positions of power and influence? What are the alternative explanations?

 

[Trausti]

An empirical test for White Privilege would be the reaction to setting up scholarships for poor white students.

 

[Politesse]

An empirical test for White Privilege would be the reaction to setting up scholarships for poor white students.

Like the Pell Grants?

 

[Trausti]

An empirical test for White Privilege would be the reaction to setting up scholarships for poor white students.

Like the Pell Grants?

Those are for everyone, not a special scholarship for whites - such as exist for nearly every other group. I don’t favor racially based scholarships. But the hostility to the idea of white scholarships shows that White Privilege is demonstratively false.

 

[Politesse]

Why would there be a special scholarship for a group that has not been historically disadvantaged?

 

[Trausti]

Why would there be a special scholarship for a group that has not been historically disadvantaged?

They’re disadvantaged NOW. And to say that poor whites have not been historically disadvantaged; are you kidding?

 

[Trausti]

Not. Historically. Disadvantaged.

 

[Politesse]

Why would there be a special scholarship for a group that has not been historically disadvantaged?

They’re disadvantaged NOW. And to say that poor whites have not been historically disadvantaged; are you kidding?

No, I agree that seriously impoverished people are disadvantaged in higher education; there should absolutely be, and are, many programs designed to help low income students afford housing.

 

[skepticalbip]

White privilege can proven to exist by purely empirical observation. How else could so many stupid white people be found in positions of power and influence? What are the alternative explanations?

Unfortunately, there are really stupid people of all races in positions of power and influence.