Since you’re simply dismissing the idea that you acted like a dick and continue to do so, I’ll add another to the chorus of “You Acted Like a Dick”. I have great confidence that you’ll dismiss this too, since you’re acting like a dick.
But I can’t really tell if you’re really oblivious that you’re acting like a dick, or that you just don’t care but you won’t admit your dickishness.
Yeah, I will dismiss it. I mean heaven forbid i might imply your judgement of me is faulty but there it is. Maybe in the future though you can call me a dick in the Pit. If that’s all right with you. No offense. All due respect. Etc.
You’re right, my comment was entirely inappropriate in this forum. My apologies. I wasn’t thinking about which forum I was in.
I have reported myself. I do not have a whip for self-flagellation. 
As you already know, this was the wrong forum for names. Don’t do it again, etc.
It happens with women too right?
I was watching the Daily Show; In the first clip it showed Hillary tearing up over something. The following sound bites that followed were: “Oh she’s emotional, NOT leadership material”
Then they show a male politician crying (I can’t remember who) and the following sound bites that followed (by the same damn politicians from before) were: “It takes bravery, it takes courage to cry like that!”
Yes, very much so. Same process, different subject, same result.
But what I’m talking about in this thread is how responses to discrimination are treated depending on the gender/race of the respondent.
For example, you as a white male can point out the Hillary Clinton thing without opening yourself up to attacks about playing the gender card or being whiny, shrill, paranoid, or oversensitive. In addition, your voice is given more weight because you are seen as more objective than the eleventy billion women who have tirelessly been pointing out the same disparity since antiquity. So essentially what this means is that white male privilege rears its head in our discourse on discrimination–even when, ironically, a white male is speaking out against white male privilege.
This is a fascinating catch 22. A socially-conscious white guy has more power than those outside of his demographic group, and because he’s socially-conscious, he’s aware of this power differential. But how should he use this power in such a way that he does justice to truth without exploiting biases that contribute to the very same problem he’s trying to fight? It is an interesting question that I don’t have the answer to.
I (try to) exploit the hell out of it where possible. The goal is to get people to stop being biased, right? If the status quo as a result of the bias is that I’m the only sort of person who is “allowed” to say the bias is bullshit… well, I can understand why you don’t particularly enjoy that arrangement. Neither do I; the internet’s become very good at accusing people of “white knighting” and that’s become a pretty loaded term that there’s almost no defense to by now, in part because it’s a real thing that happens. But it can’t be the case that it would be better not to take advantage of the fact that somebody can say something about it, can it?
A sort of tangential point: when the hypothetical was flipped, you (indirectly) suggested that you would take suggestions of bias more seriously from anybody who wasn’t white, which points out something that hadn’t occurred to me and hasn’t been made explicit: we must be assuming a white audience. You probably weren’t asking black posters whether they trust white people more on issues of race. Part of this could be a manifestation of the idea that all other things being equal, white people trust white people, black people trust black people, men trust men, etc. Which is a different phenomenon from white people in general just being granted more credibility.
You’re quibbling over the specific details of that specific example. I don’t agree that you’re right, but not worth arguing about. Try the same question but in a toned down version.
Say everyone agrees that white males have it the easiest overall, but the question is whether in certain specific areas they have it worse. Or the question is over the degree to which they have it better. Etc.
The White Man’s burden for the enlightened internet age?
That’s basically what I was getting at with posts 26 and 30.
Jimmy, I’ll respond to your first paragraph a little later, but let me address your second one now.
Can you be more specific? I’m not aware of me suggesting this. When Fotheringay-Phipps asked me whether I would given more credence to a black woman who denied the existence of white male privilege, I told him I would not give her more credence. If anything, I would give her less credence because my initial impulse would be to assume she was joking (or mentally damaged).
Let’s assume you’re right (and FWIW, I don’t disagree that in-group, out-group dynamics are irrelevant here). Since white people make up the numerical majority and they enjoy disproportionate shares of power and coincidentally, enjoy the reputation of being the more credible demographic as a result historical racism, its hard for me to see how this phenomenon is really distinct from “white people in general just being granted more credibility” on a practical level.
Absolutely … but the better analogy is whether someone who approved of Tea Party Republicans in the first place would grant a woman supporting that position more legitimacy.
A racist seeing a White anti-racist arguing against racism may well think “what an idiot”.
If I understand it correctly, the concern in the OP is not about what admitted racists think, but whether there exists (perhaps unexamined or unconcious) bias even on the part of admitted anti-racists or the uncommitted that has them granting greater legitimacy to White people making the same anti-racist points as Black people.
Come up with a toned down version, and I’ll bite. My point is that it’s very difficult to come up with one because flipping the hypothetical is intrinsically flawed when it comes to this subject.
But I’ll be nice and come up with a scenario for you. Let’s say two pundits are on the radio talking about how often black folks exaggerate reports of racism to gain sympathy points or deflect responsibility. One is a white pundit, the other is black. I honestly can say I wouldn’t be more apt to listen to the black person. It wouldn’t occur to me to assign more weight to their position because they are arguing against their “self-interest”. And if I’m going to be 100% honest, I’m more likely to question the motives and underlying psychology of the black guy, not the white one. Maybe this confession marks me as the biased one, but at least I’m self aware enough to admit it.
I assume everyone is a tubby white guy until proven otherwise. Fifty fifty on whether he has a beard.
In any event, the “flipped analogy” isn’t really a good argument against your point - it isn’t really comparable, as the “flipped anaolgy” point is one you fundamentally disagree with anyway - a denial of while or male privilege.
A better analogy would have to be whether there are any circumstances in which you would grant more credence to a White person for a point you would already agree with, or be indifferent on, as an argument against inteterest on their part. I can’t think of any good examples of this.
That didn’t seem to be true then, and it doesn’t seem to be true now. I agree with what I said. I haven’t agreed with anything you’ve said. And I don’t think you’ve ever read The White Man’s Burden.
Well, you said that “Racism is a lived experienced for most black people; it’s existence isn’t debatable in the same way it is for the average white person.” I would imagine, based on that statement, that you would consider a black person to be coming from more of a position of authority when she said racism was present. You would give her less credence if she said it didn’t exist, in other words, but I read the follow-up to suggest that you’d give her more credence (than the white guy) when she said it did.
(In practical terms, also for what it’s worth, I agree with you that there isn’t much of a difference between “most people give credence to whites because they themselves are also white” and “whites are generally granted greater authority.” But then I still think the authority problem is nearly entirely explained by actual racism; I’m trying to help suss out other reasons!)
(misread)
Well, crap. I had a whole explaination planned. 
Racism can be a lived experience for whites too. After all, I should hope that the most vocal white antiracists ain’t just pulling stuff from their buttocks when they talk about it; I have to assume they are drawing from direct and indirect observations much like black people do. It’s just that the white person often seems to be deferred to as the arbiter of truth, while the black person’s opinion is regarded with suspicion.
To be completely transparent,I don’t think I’m immune from this phenomenon despite being a black woman. Scary, huh? I believe the Tim Wise’s of the world are working something that’s part of everyone’s social programming. White male privilege is in effect here, not because “whites trust other whites” and not because of the “arguing against self-interest” issue either. It is deeper than that, IMO.
Sure I did. It was the answer on Final Jeopardy last night so I rushed to wikipedia! But what did you think I meant by post 26 then?