Doctor Who reference in Pokemon B2W2? Headcanon accepted.
The Wind Fish said:Claus was right, you really dont have any reading skills.
And as I stated before, ad hominem is a time-trusted indication that you have nothing left in a debate. And, you found three reports on race figures, racism and the like. You can put those strawmen back the the field where you found them because I'm not denying that racism or poor socioeconomic conditions for minorities exist. For someone accusing me of poor reading comprehension, you seem to keep forgetting that I'm attacking the concept of privilege as it is defined by the very people who came up with it.
And as I stated before, ad hominem is a time-trusted indication that you have nothing left in a debate. A
Oh but I have plenty of debate left to do.
You found three reports on race figures, racism and the like. You can put those strawmen back the the field where you found them because I'm not denying that racism or poor socioeconomic conditions for minorities exist.
I'm waiting for you to refute them.
For someone accusing me of poor reading comprehension, you seem to keep forgetting that I'm attacking the concept of privilege as it is defined by the very people who came up with it.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
*ulg* Sorry, Whale, you really gave me no choice here.See you in a week.
Here's a hint. If I put someone on probation for violating rule #1 and then you go and say the same exact thing, you pretty much just earned yourself the same punishment.
I think I'll just repost what I said in the main thread and add some other remarks:
I personally recognize what you could most likely call privilege: I am a heterosexual male in a guy's body who is white-skinned (albeit of Filipino heritage), and lives fairly comfortably (like, my family is probably above middle-class), and I understand that there are others who are much less fortunate than me, and live in the same city as I do.
I personally think that what we need these days is education, forgiveness and a fostering of understanding in all.
Beyond that, though, I honestly think that Social Justice blogging is a somewhat bastardized form of philosophy. I mean, I wasn't expecting any ivory-tower stuff, but I think a more moderate, balanced analysis is better than resorting to more bitter dialogue (and, to rebut the "tone-policing" argument, I submit that it is very much possible to be very critical without sounding demeaning).
Well, this didn't really crash and burn because people accidentally came across as demeaning, they were actually being demeaning/insulting deliberately, which is a whole 'nother, uglier, can 'o worms.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
" personally think that what we need these days is education, forgiveness and a fostering of understanding in all."
This.
I'm honestly having similar problems with this "Privilege" stuff. Privileges are what they're calling the white benefits from racism and poverty that may not have had a chance to correct overtime since a certain group of people have been kept at a lower social-economic status for a long time.
The problem here isn't that white people need to recognize they just have it better, the problem is that there are deference in things like education access, economic resources, job opportunities, etc... and people should identify the problem and deal with those. This is more talking about the symptom.
And that's not even TREATING the symptom, I would call something like "Affirmative action" treating the symptom. Declaring "White privilege!" is just pointing out the symptom and expecting people to feel bad bad it.
Now, about those studies. I think much of them has some validity to them, and they definitely can be insightful. For instance, I'm not sure the one about names can really be argued as not racist.
The profiling one also probably has a lot to do with what races commit crimes. Sadly, people of these races are often born into social-economic situations that can lead to crime. One might have to balance how often people of this race commit crimes against how often other races commit crimes to really figure out if this is unnecessary racism or police acting off statistics...Granted, it seems pretty impossible to me that non-whites are 26 TIMES more likely to commit crimes...so yeah... probably so racism elements here.
One thing that I wasn't sure that was addressed in the study regarding people of roughly equal qualifications and experience is if the ability to speak English is considered in this study (sadly, the link to the study data doesn't work).
Take away race, say you have two people with the same experience, and qualifications for a job, and one is easier for you to understand. Who do you hire?
Hell, if I went to the U.K. or Australia, or some other English speaking place and competed against other people. I would expect people's ability to understand me over other people coming up an interview.
I think I'll just repost what I said in the main thread and add some other remarks:
I personally recognize what you could most likely call privilege: I am a heterosexual male in a guy's body who is white-skinned (albeit of Filipino heritage), and lives fairly comfortably (like, my family is probably above middle-class), and I understand that there are others who are much less fortunate than me, and live in the same city as I do.
I personally think that what we need these days is education, forgiveness and a fostering of understanding in all.
Beyond that, though, I honestly think that Social Justice blogging is a somewhat bastardized form of philosophy. I mean, I wasn't expecting any ivory-tower stuff, but I think a more moderate, balanced analysis is better than resorting to more bitter dialogue (and, to rebut the "tone-policing" argument, I submit that it is very much possible to be very critical without sounding demeaning).
I don't have anything to add other than I agree with you and you've eloquently put what I've tried to tell other people before.
I do understand the "existence" of white privilege.
But overall, it's more of a social thing than others.
As for choosing who gets the job. If they're overall the same, the best I would go with is who has the most flexible hours, and who can work hardest and needs less breaks/etc.
If those are the same, try to hire both. If that doesn't work, it's a matter of the best application being presented.
All in all, find any factor that shows best presentation till you got no choice but to flip a coin.(etc)
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Yeah, there's A LOT to applying for a job after qualifications and work experience are considered. Obviously, "being white" shouldn't be a factor, and potentially is, and that's tragic. Though, wish I could figure out if the study did consider things like understand-ability of the applicant, and such.
This can also manifest in other, strange ways. Like, for instance, Friday's Grandmother only buys jewels from the Jewish...
"It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens
Exactly, Justice. Now, age may be a factor depending the circumstances. And by that, if I need someone who can work heavy machinery or not. Gender/Sex? Don't give a crap at all. Race? Don't care. Handedness? Mostly likely not an issue.(unless the hand we need used specifically is a hand they have that's really bad or something, but that's about basic qualifications anyway) However, stuff like jail records do get taken into account depending upon the job. No examples needed, so go to your own conclusions there.
There's a lot of good reasons, but sexist/racist/homophobia(or other ones)... yeah, that's just a stupid reason. I wouldn't even give the credit of "I was born that way". It's still a stupid reason under all conditions.
Although the whole Homosexual thing would matter for a Brethel to choose where they would do their job, like sections etc. But that's a reasonable use and not homophobic, of course. :)
@ Corporal Forsythe: I'm not going to be able to put this any clearer than Jumpingzombie did on the previous page, but I believe you are misunderstanding the term "privilege". If I say "I have white privilege" (which I do), I am not saying "I am secretly bigoted against other races (which I am not), but I don't know it, and nothing I can do will change this", which would be a nonsensical thing to say.
At no point in the following -
What you need to realize is that we all have privilege to some degree: white privilege, male privilege, heterosexual privilege, etc. The hardest thing is to do is to get over your instinct to fight and say, “But I’m not like that!”
-is any statement made to the effect of "everyone is a fucking asshole no matter what culture you come from, how you were raised, etc."
At no point in the following-
Except they have done experiments which can show that there is such a thing as a racial or sex privilege. But ofc, since you're probably a white man, you're used to have privilege as the default setting and anything that deviates from this is unfair to you.
-is it asserted that being white would invalidate your use of logical argument.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
I'm really not liking this concept of "privilege".
It really seems like "There are social injustices and things that we're still dealing with from the past, but you happen to not be negatively affected by those things, so you should feel bad" is the message it tries to convey, and I'm not sure how that helps anyone.
Isn't the main problem here forms of racism that unfairly hold other races back? Followed by situations like many races still recovering from a period where it was not only OK, but enforced to be racist? "White Privilege" seems like it's sort of overlooking those aspects and focusing on a group of people where many if not most really aren't doing anything to maintain that imbalance.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
I think the concept of privilege is a valid one, from a sociological point of view, but in the context of social justice blogging it's often misinterpreted or misused by people on both sides of the debate. People seem to take it to mean that you don't deserve what you have, regardless of whether or not you worked for it, which seems like approaching it from the wrong angle--rather, it's something everyone deserves, but not everyone has it.
To use an example: One could say that being able to show affection publicly without attracting negative attention is an example of straight privilege. But it's not that straight people should feel bad about being able to do so, because everyone should be able to. The actual problem is that other groups don't have the ability to do so.
...Hopefully that makes sense. I'm not sure how well I articulated that...
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
Anyway, I think that's why people sometimes react so negatively to accusations of privilege. They see it as a statement of "other people aren't able to [whatever] so you don't deserve to either", which is the exact opposite of the message that should be conveyed.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
I think part of the problem (which is probably just a fancy way of saying " I agree") is sort of the idea that it's an accusation, or rather, people can treat it like an accusation (not just the people on the receiving end, but it seems some do it on the giving end, as well, as other posters have mentioned).
At the same time, I'm don't really think it's as far reaching as some people think it is. I mean, look at some poor as hell, poorly dressed, white guy walking around. What "white privileges" is he realistically going to enjoy?
I thought the whole thing with privilege was a perspective thing: i.e. Because you have privilege and others don't, that means your perspective on certain issues is skewed.
And then that gets misused like: "You disagree with me and have privilege, so you are wrong and you can never understand this because your perspective is wrong"
Really, the problem with the privilege argument is that it gets thrown about with such force that feelings are hurt and grudges are started.
Very true.
This is a major problem, when people either act like they deserve it for being some kind of color, or when other people think they should deserve it because of color. Both are bad and equally a problem.
People seem to take it to mean that you don't deserve what you have, regardless of whether or not you worked for it, which seems like approaching it from the wrong angle--rather, it's something everyone deserves, but not everyone has it.
To use an example: One could say that being able to show affection publicly without attracting negative attention is an example of straight privilege. But it's not that straight people should feel bad about being able to do so, because everyone should be able to. The actual problem is that other groups don't have the ability to do so.
I agree. Especially since I experienced that head on in a Women's Studies class. The teacher was very abrasive and often talked about privilege it made it seem like if you had privilege you were wrong and didn't deserve it. (This really tarnished some of my feeling the field of study, but that's totally different). In reality, this made no sense to me because I felt like other people should be allowed to do the same things and have the same opportunities as well.
However, there could be argued someone who is white could get off easier on a crime than someone of color. But, I would need stats for that.
Doctor Who reference in Pokemon B2W2? Headcanon accepted.
@ Corporal Forsythe: I'm not going to be able to put this any clearer than Jumpingzombie did on the previous page,
Well, let's go ahead and drag that onto this page because it's in the middle of that mess between me, Wind Fish, and Claus.
Well, I thought privilege was defined by something you receive from society because of some quality you posses. Examples I've seen are heterosexual privilege - holding hands/kissing in public without worry about being scorned by others, white privilege - a better chance of getting hired than someone of color (a reason why there is apparently a trend of people of color giving their children more "white names." Apparently, many people hiring will look at them names and if they seem "ethnic" will ignore the applicant), etc. I think the idea of privilege has been misused (example I have seen is an acquaintance on facebook who posts post of political/social status updates. And I've seen a particular posters tell a white person that their argument/perspective is invalid because they posses white privilege.) But, I do think that privilege exists to some extent. I mean, a rich person will have the opportunity to choose from many cars, including expensive ones, while the only car I might be able to afford will be used.
And you're right, this is a nice clear definition. That's not to say I'll go with it -- as stated before, I was at a point where the only thing I owned was the clothes on my body and I'm where I'm at today because I employed a venue that's open to everyone regardless of their race or origin. Anecdotal, but that's where I'm coming from regarding this debate. But anyway, if this is how you perceive the this concept, I don't agree with you but you're not going to get an argument from me.
The problem with this whole "privilege" thing isn't the definition, of which there are many. In fact, I don't think anyone gives a damn about what the definition of white/male/Christian/thin/etc privilege is -- beyond the formality of introduction -- because its primary use is as a instant-win silencer, which Jumping Zombie also makes mentions here. And every time I've seen privilege mentioned in this manner, this what it was being used for.
Remember "Elevatorgate", where the fellow invited the woman to his room for coffee and the entire skeptic community had a major meltdown over? The reason I bring this is up is not to derail about what this skeptic convention drama was all about, but to provide an example for what I'm talking about regarding using "privilege" as a silencer. (emphasis mine.)
His [the fellow who made the invite to the woman. -CF] side of the story is irrelevant. In fact, it doesn't even matter if he exists and this is entirely fictional. This sort of thing does happen, it's creepy and it's a problem that affects how likely women are to attend and participate in atheist/skeptic groups and events – and therefore it needs to be brought to people's attention.And this is just a mild example of some of the things that discourage women from participating.Your myopic, privileged oversimplifications demonstrate that you don't get it…my question is, do you even care to TRY to understand, or are you just going to keep up the mansplaining. If it's the latter, there's no need to post.
I'd like to reiterate that this is from a community that prides itself on scientific truth and logic. That's how pervasive this nonsense has become. Basically, Fouria, this is what I'm railing against.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
I agree. Especially since I experience head on in a Women's Studies class. The teacher was very abrasive and often talked about privilege it made it seem like if you had privilege you were wrong and didn't deserve it. (This really tarnished some of my feeling the field of study, but that's totally different). In reality, this made no sense to me because I felt like other people should be allowed to do the same things and have the same opportunities as well.
See, that's one thing I rather liked about the Sociology course I took last quarter. Instead of presenting it as an issue of "privilege", we looked at it as an issue of inequality--and instead of feeling bad that we were better off, we were implored to do our part to redress those inequalities where we can.
See, that's one thing I rather liked about the Sociology course I took last quarter. Instead of presenting it as an issue of "privilege", we looked at it as an issue of inequality--and instead of feeling bad that we were better off, we were implored to do our part to redress those inequalities where we can.
And this is exactly how I think the entire problem should be handled, as well.
See, that's one thing I rather liked about the Sociology course I took last quarter. Instead of presenting it as an issue of "privilege", we looked at it as an issue of inequality--and instead of feeling bad that we were better off, we were implored to do our part to redress those inequalities where we can.
I feel like my teacher was trying to do both. More of guilting us into feeling so bad we did something. Which is a terrible method, I think. It's countered intuitive because I feel you're badgering the other person and forcing them to do something for the wrong reasons.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
"See, that's one thing I rather liked about the Sociology course I took last quarter. Instead of presenting it as an issue of "privilege", we looked at it as an issue of inequality--and instead of feeling bad that we were better off, we were implored to do our part to redress those inequalities where we can."
I was under the impression that this was suppose to be the de facto method of looking at the situation. The fact that many people here are providing examples of how it's not is very saddening.
Doctor Who reference in Pokemon B2W2? Headcanon accepted.
Also, Fouria, you mentioned in the main thread that I was strawmanning Wind Fish's points. If you would, please explain to me where I did so? I'm not challenging you on this point. If I really did, I want to know. The last thing I want to be is a hypocrite.
I'll reiterate that I'm not active on tumblr, and it's evident that some people here have had worse experiences with arguments regarding "privilege" than I have, but I do consider the definition of "privilege" to be extremely important. It has been used the way I understand it for a very long time in activist circles, and I regard its treatment as a general-purpose insult or way of telling people to shut up as a misuse that most certainly doesn't invalidate the concept.
Corporal Forsythe, you quoted TWF's post and claimed she had said that your whiteness invalidates any point you could make. She never said this. She wasn't particularly clear, it's true, but she called attention to a mechanism by which privilege perpetuates and which means that it can be difficult to notice, which as far as I could tell was a valid response when you had been claiming that the very concept of privilege was neither real nor measurable, and that it hinged upon the metric of "you're a bigot", all of which are plainly false.
Basically, if you acknowledge that belonging to a particular race makes you more likely to be subject to racist discrimination within a given society than a person belonging to another race, then you are already acknowledging that the concept that I and (I believe) TWF understand by the term "privilege" exists, whether or not you term it such. Claiming that it is not "real" or "measurable" certainly appears to me to be untenable in this society, so I don't think TWF was at fault in pointing out a reason why privilege is commonly overlooked.
Doctor Who reference in Pokemon B2W2? Headcanon accepted.
Corporal Forsythe, you quoted TWF's post and claimed she had said that your whiteness invalidates any point you could make. She never said this. She wasn't particularly clear, it's true, but she called attention to a mechanism by which privilege perpetuates and which means that it can be difficult to notice, which as far as I could tell was a valid response when you had been claiming that the very concept of privilege was neither real nor measurable, and that it hinged upon the metric of "you're a bigot", all of which are plainly false.
"Not clear" is an understatement. Here's what TWF said: Except they have done experiments which can show that there is such a thing as a racial or sex privilege. But ofc, since you're probably a white man, you're used to have privilege as the default setting and anything that deviates from this is unfair to you.
And my reply was that this is the same roundabout pseudologic that's employed to justify this concept, a point that I made earlier. "But ofc, since you're probably a white man, you're used to have privilege as the default settingand anything that deviates from this is unfair to you" comes across pretty clearly to me (and I'd think just about anyone else) as stating whatever points I made in this discussion are invalidated because they were motivated by my world view being disrupted. It seems that you missed the point where I asked TWF for clarification for this statement.
I'm sorry. Was I supposed to interpret this some other way? "As you are probably a white man, your privilege blinds you to the fact that you have privilege and you don't like to be told this." Is this not what you meant?
....which I did not receive. Instead, I was insulted. Twice. Which I don't mind, really.
She may have been suggesting that being white makes it difficult to notice your own privilege (although as Claus suggested, she may also have been speaking hypothetically), but she could not possibly have been suggesting that being white made you incapable of making a valid point, because that would be essentially the liar paradox.
Obviously having your worldview "disrupted" wouldn't make everything you had to say logically invalid, either. I don't know whether TWF thinks that or not, but I don't think it's something many people would think. Rather, I think the point being made (possibly by TWF, and almost certainly in the skeptics community example you gave) is that the arguments such as "well I didn't benefit from privilege, so the concept is bullshit" or "what if he didn't mean to be creepy/he wasn't real" are not compelling when you are yourself privileged in some respects. I mean, that's a sample size of exactly one. Statistically, white people do tend to succeed more than people of other races in Western society, i.e. they are privileged.
"It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens
Yes, they are, but that's the exception; most races do not fare as well as whites in America at present, in terms of earnings. For example, African American business owners are relatively uncommon.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
That's something of a point depending on the country.
Muslim Americans have a slightly higher chance of having a higher income in America compared to the average American:
Contrary to popular perceptions, the condition of Muslims in the U.S. is very good. Among South Asians in this country, the large Pakistani American community stands out as particularly well educated and prosperous, with education and income levels exceeding those of U.S.-born whites. Many are professionals, especially doctors, scientists, engineers, and financial analysts, and there are also a large number of entrepreneurs. There are more than 15,000 doctors practicing medicine in the USA who are of Pakistani origin alone[73] and the number of Pakistani American millionaires was reported to be in the thousands.[74]The seven urban areas with the largest South Asian populations include the New York, Los Angeles, Dallas/Ft.Worth, Houston, San Franciso Bay Area, Washington/Baltimore and Chicago areas. The 10 states with the largest Muslim populations are California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Indiana, Michigan, Virginia, Texas, Ohio, and Maryland. Dearborn, Michigan is home to the largest concentration of Muslims in the United States. 45 percent of immigrant Muslims report annual household income levels of $50,000 or higher. This compares to the national average of 44 percent. Immigrant Muslims are well represented among higher-income earners, with 19 percent claiming annual household incomes of $100,000 or higher (compared to 16 percent for the Muslim population as a whole and 17 percent for the U.S. average). This is likely due to the strong concentration of Muslims in professional, managerial, and technical fields, especially in information technology, education, medicine, law, and the corporate world.[75]
I stand corrected, then. I'm surprised, though; there is a great deal of anti-Islam sentiment here in Europe. Here in England, they are the demographic with the highest unemployment rate.
Although I'm given to understand that Muslims are frequently subject to racist discrimination in America as well. The section of that article headed "American populace's views on Islam" is not encouraging in that regard, for instance.
Here in the Twin Cities we have the highest Somali population in the country, and the only racism I've seen against them has been from my father, but he's from Wisconsin so he doesn't count. :P
Though that's prolly different elsewhere in less accepting areas of the country.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
One of the big issue here is I think the positions Muslim in this country routinely go in.
"Many are professionals, especially doctors, scientists, engineers, and financial analysts, and there are also a large number of entrepreneurs. There are more than 15,000 doctors practicing medicine in the USA who are of Pakistani origin alone[73]"
Many of these job positions do not have the liberty of giving a fuck over what race these people are. These positions are so desperately needed that the only criteria besides fitting the job requirements and proving you're not a raging douche-bag during the interview.
Though, many of these positions don't even require an interview, they just require education.
This isn't to say there isn't some form of other disparity between raced, but I think it might show that improving someones chances to get a good education is a really good first step and improving the chances they will do well over here.
While Asian Americans have higher household and personal income levels than any other racial demographic, the Asian poverty rate is higher than that of European Americans.[39] In 2005, the median personal income for Asian Americans was estimated at $36,152, compared to $33,030 for Whites, $27,101 for African Americans, and $23,613 for those identifying as Hispanic or Latino. Asian American household income was estimated at $61,094, compared to $48,554 for European Americans. Additionally 28 percent of Asian American households had incomes exceeding $100,000, compared to 18 percent of the overall population. The higher household income rate for Asian Americans is somewhat offset, however, by a larger average household size; in many Asian cultures, children tend to live with their parents well into their late 20s and early 30s. Thus, the median income per household member is slightly lower for Asian American than for European American households.[40] Asian American demographics present an example of correlation between increased educational attainment and increased income.
"It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens
Hanuman's monkey privilege was so great, he could fly from India to Sri Lanka.
Doctor Who reference in Pokemon B2W2? Headcanon accepted.
Rather, I think the point being made (possibly by TWF, and almost certainly in the skeptics community example you gave) is that the arguments such as "well I didn't benefit from privilege, so the concept is bullshit" or "what if he didn't mean to be creepy/he wasn't real" are not compelling when you are yourself privileged in some respects.
And this is why we're not going to agree on this matter. You say that I am "privileged in some respects", and I think the entire concept of "privilege" is a load of horsedump. I realize that there's inequality and disparity along the ethnic lines in the western world, but I can't think of a more counterproductive way to fix this issue than by playing the blame game bolstered by a logic so broken and faulty that a five-year-old can poke holes through it.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
I don't think the concept itself is non-existent, but I think it's sort of a poor way to look at something.
As discussed, it's much better and productive to look at this as an issue of inequality that should be corrected, I think the "privileged" point of view is really all that helpful.
Also, it seems the idea is somewhat flawed, depending on the country. America apparently has two rather large groups that are doing BETTER than whites (assuming the ~7% of white Muslims in aren't hogging most of that small margin of better financial success Muslims enjoy, though that still leaves Asians beating out whites).
Obviously, there's still a gap between Whites, Blacks, and Latinos, but there's also a gap between Asians and Whites where Asians are enjoying the benefit there. I'm not sure how one accounts for "white privilege" there. Is it now "White and Asian" privilege? Is privilege just defined as whichever racial groups are currently doing better than other racial groups? Or is it something that Whites just get automatically?
And if it's the later, what is it going to take for Whites to not be saddled with this "privilege"? What events or shift has to occur before whites are no longer "more privileged"?
On that note, what happens in other countries where the people enjoying the best life styles typically aren't white? Are they now the privileged and have to feel aware of how underprivileged foreigners and first or second generation people of non-their-native-country decent are?
I'm really starting to think this idea isn't as "baked" as some people are giving it credit. Where's "inequality" works fine and is very well sussed out, it just becomes a matter of figuring out why there's inequality and what can be done about it.
There was a good article I found that was explained privilege in a coherent manner, but it's been taken down. I have a rebuttal to that article, but it doesn't make nearly as much sense without reading the first article.
Comments
Also;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/17/stop-and-search-race-figures
Explain that.
http://www.jrf.org.uk/media-centre/poverty-twice-likely-minority-ethnic-groups-education-fails-close-gap
Explain that.
http://news.efinancialcareers.com/69374/canadians-with-ethnic-names-less-likely-to-get-resume-callbacks-study-finds/
Explain that.
And as I stated before, ad hominem is a time-trusted indication that you have nothing left in a debate. And, you found three reports on race figures, racism and the like. You can put those strawmen back the the field where you found them because I'm not denying that racism or poor socioeconomic conditions for minorities exist. For someone accusing me of poor reading comprehension, you seem to keep forgetting that I'm attacking the concept of privilege as it is defined by the very people who came up with it.
...What?
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
I personally recognize what you could most likely call privilege: I am a
heterosexual male in a guy's body who is white-skinned (albeit of
Filipino heritage), and lives fairly comfortably (like, my family is
probably above middle-class), and I understand that there are others who
are much less fortunate than me, and live in the same city as I do.
I personally think that what we need these days is education, forgiveness and a fostering of understanding in all.
Beyond that, though, I honestly think that Social Justice blogging is a somewhat bastardized form of philosophy. I mean, I wasn't expecting any ivory-tower stuff, but I think a more moderate, balanced analysis is better than resorting to more bitter dialogue (and, to rebut the "tone-policing" argument, I submit that it is very much possible to be very critical without sounding demeaning).
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
At no point in the following - -is any statement made to the effect of "everyone is a fucking asshole no matter what culture you come from, how you were raised, etc."
At no point in the following- -is it asserted that being white would invalidate your use of logical argument.
And being unaware of privilege ≠ being a bigot.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
And then that gets misused like: "You disagree with me and have privilege, so you are wrong and you can never understand this because your perspective is wrong"
Or at least that's how I understand it.
However, there could be argued someone who is white could get off easier on a crime than someone of color. But, I would need stats for that.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Corporal Forsythe, you quoted TWF's post and claimed she had said that your whiteness invalidates any point you could make. She never said this. She wasn't particularly clear, it's true, but she called attention to a mechanism by which privilege perpetuates and which means that it can be difficult to notice, which as far as I could tell was a valid response when you had been claiming that the very concept of privilege was neither real nor measurable, and that it hinged upon the metric of "you're a bigot", all of which are plainly false.
Basically, if you acknowledge that belonging to a particular race makes you more likely to be subject to racist discrimination within a given society than a person belonging to another race, then you are already acknowledging that the concept that I and (I believe) TWF understand by the term "privilege" exists, whether or not you term it such. Claiming that it is not "real" or "measurable" certainly appears to me to be untenable in this society, so I don't think TWF was at fault in pointing out a reason why privilege is commonly overlooked.
Except they have done experiments which can show that there is such a thing as a racial or sex privilege. But ofc, since you're probably a white man, you're used to have privilege as the default setting and anything that deviates from this is unfair to you.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Well no but you are acting like it is news to you." meant.
Obviously having your worldview "disrupted" wouldn't make everything you had to say logically invalid, either. I don't know whether TWF thinks that or not, but I don't think it's something many people would think. Rather, I think the point being made (possibly by TWF, and almost certainly in the skeptics community example you gave) is that the arguments such as "well I didn't benefit from privilege, so the concept is bullshit" or "what if he didn't mean to be creepy/he wasn't real" are not compelling when you are yourself privileged in some respects. I mean, that's a sample size of exactly one. Statistically, white people do tend to succeed more than people of other races in Western society, i.e. they are privileged.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Although I'm given to understand that Muslims are frequently subject to racist discrimination in America as well. The section of that article headed "American populace's views on Islam" is not encouraging in that regard, for instance.
Here in the Twin Cities we have the highest Somali population in the country, and the only racism I've seen against them has been from my father, but he's from Wisconsin so he doesn't count. :P
Though that's prolly different elsewhere in less accepting areas of the country.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Tell that to this guy.
look at that asshole.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
The rebuttal:
http://childwild.com/2011/08/03/privilege-is-awesome-keep-talking-about-it/