Mark Lilla, author of The Once And Future Liberal, makes an excellent analogy, comparing electoral politics to fishing:
This is a cite of a current law or program that specifically discriminates against blacks?
Regards,
Shodan
That’s awesome.
It’s called sarcasm.
You’d think you might have picked up somewhere along the way that I have consistently, repeatedly, advocated not only for reparations for slavery but for significantly greater government spending on social programs that benefit black people. You were in the threads where I did so. Yet you intimated precisely the opposite, without a shred of evidence. You got a “tortured” psychological theory to explain that one for me? :dubious:
Slacker,
I don’t doubt you’re a progressive voter; I just think you got it wrong in your OP. The podcasts and other sources you’ve referenced don’t necessarily strike me as being reflective or indicative of something that’s in the public consciousness as a whole. There have always been commentators who’ve had something to say about white privilege and there always will be until there is more real socioeconomic equality.
Until then, I’m not sure what progressives are supposed to do – whisper to each other about how bad the right wing is behaving?
Even if you don’t give a flying fuck about the delicate sensibilities of white men, you should realize that you can’t protect the rights of women, LGBTQ, muslims, blacks, hispanics, native americans, et cetera if you don’t hold political power.
No need to whisper about that—shout! They could also advocate for policy changes. Just don’t belittle people for characteristics they were born with and cannot change. Even if I and Maher and Harris and Lilla* are all wrong about it being bad politics, it’s still morally wrong.
*I went a few minutes ago to put his book on my online wishlist. Then I discovered that it was already on there with a note that I had been very impressed with him on Sam Harris’s podcast! I don’t recall this, but I will take my word for it. 
I haven’t read every post of yours or even half the posts in this thread, but I went back to the first page where you wrote:
What makes you think that every post in which white privilege or its variant themes are discussed necessarily refers to all whites? If someone says something like “It is hard for white men to relate to or understand what X people go through,” I don’t necessarily see the need to defend myself. If someone talks about white privilege, I don’t see the need to defend myself. If someone wants to invalidate an opinion or comment on the sole basis of my being a white male, that’s one thing, but I’ve not seen anything like that posted here.
You also referenced the alt-right’s misrepresentation of Steven Pinker’s commentary. I agree he’s an unfortunate victim, but the most likely source of the character smear was the right, not the left.
I like a lot of Bill Maher’s smarmy comedy, too, but at the end of the day, he’s a dick and he knows it. He can call it truth telling or not being politically correct, but his business model is being a schmuck and he knows that and is probably laughing all the way to the bank. Maher has the right to be a comedic jerk if he wants to be. His problem and where he rubs people the wrong way is that he wants to be a dick and say dickish things without facing any consequences and to have everyone – right, left, or center – just roll with the “joke.”
“Oh look at me, I make fun of conservatives and religious white folk so watch me say the word n###er! Ha! Ha! Watch me talk to millions of females watching me that they’re taking this sexual assault outrage thing too far. But hey, I’m just joking. I’m edgy, you know?!”
Sorry, but that’s not living in the real world.
Going to completely agree with you on Maher. I don’t watch him or pay attention to him for precisely those reasons. He’s an egotistical jackass Troll.
Nope, how my parents raised me was not my choice. It was my parents choice. And if other parents don’t do the right thing that was their choice too.
You know what *was *my choice? Graduating high school. Going to college. Waiting til I got married before having kids. Waiting till I was was financially stable before having kids. Not committing crimes. All of which are strongly correlated with financial security. Those were MY choices, NOBODY made me do it. And if somebody didn’t do that, nobody made them do that either.
I have. I am fine with affirmative action. I am fine with bussing. I am fine with blacks making getting admitted to college with lower SATs that of whites and asians. I am fine with black-only scholarships.
Really. The entire criminal justice system. Well, I’d hate to have black guy kill 2 white people and get away with it to prove that’s B.S. I really hope that never happens.
Really why not? If “white privilege” is so great for white people, why didn’t it get the white opioid addict far? Is it maybe because he made shit choices, and his parents did too? I mean, if white privilege can’t overcome that, then why is it the one eveybody’s talking about? I mean, what’s the explanation for all these predominantly-white entitlement-sucking red states? I guess they didn’t have “blue privilege”. Oh well, sucks to be them.
Okay, I’ll go to Somalia and try to be a Christian, or a homosexual in Afganistan. Actually, screw that. I’d probably get the hell out of there in a week, and come back to the U.S., where it’s better to be pretty much any discriminated minority.
I’d like to hear your explanation why black single motherhood has gone from 22% in 1960 (as Jim Crow laws were winding down - the last being eliminated in 1964), to 91% now.
Well, I’d prefer it if people didn’t commit crimes in the first place, but I’d say the steady decriminalization, if not flat-out legalization of marijuana sweeping the country will go a long way for that.
Yes. Do you know how I know that? Because scarcely a week can go by without individual instances of this making national news, often leading people to get fired, whole companies reputation injured, boycotts called for, and formal apologies issued.
A good quote. From 1965. From a guy that also said “As long as you are black, and you’re gonna be black till the day you die, no one’s gonna call you by your goddamn name. So no matter what you are called, n*****, you just let it roll off your back like water, and you’ll make it. Just pretend you’re a goddamn piece of furniture.”
Yeah, what a great guy. Would you agree that black people will be just fine if they let it roll off their back and pretend they’re a piece of furniture?
To bring the quote up to date as of 2018 -
You do not take the children, or grandchildren, or great-grandchildren of a person who was in chains, bring them up to the starting line of a race, and expect them to compete fairly either. Because after you took their chains off, they shot themselves in the foot. And it’s your fault.
Regards,
Shodan
I’ve not seen you do that, no, nor do I see records of it in the extensive spreadsheets I keep on your posting habits.
What I have seen is a pattern of your taking things that focus on black people and making them all about white people. So yeah, I remain unconvinced by your protestations.
Correction: 72% black single motherhood as of 2011.
Of course not. It’s a rejection of the premise. Whether there are current laws that specifically disfavor blacks is besides the point given the history of structural racism in this country.
While I agree with many that the thing being described as white privilege exists and is real, I think usage of the term “white privilege” itself is mostly counter productive in the context it’s used. But to take the leap from that to the idea that we have eradicated racism or that the issues of racial injustice are a historical artifact rather than something that exists and has significant impacts in society today is not a serious position.
And if you say, as you do here, that because of the length of time that somehow the racial injustice that was perpetrated should have less influence, sure, I’d agree with that. Black people in the 1960s experienced far greater racial injustice than black people today. It’s also true that black people in the 1900s experienced far greater racial injustice than black people in the 1960s. And so on and so forth. But unless you are putting forth the proposition that racial injustice has been eliminated, it is no argument to say that things are better now, because until racial injustice has been eradicated, the response to this line of thought should be, it’s not enough.
You know who abolished slavery? Paternalistic racists.
What gave you the ability to make better choices than the people who didn’t?
So your only complaint is the use of phrase “white privilege?” In that case I’d recommend you just ignore it.
If you and/or your parents were mistreated by teachers, by law enforcement, by local businesses, etc., then you might have been less likely to graduate high school, go to college, wait to get married before having kids, etc. Many of us believe that the data clearly indicates that many or most institutions in our society are significantly more likely to mistreat black people than white people, all else being equal. Those are some of the things that go into the concept of “white privilege”, as we use it.
This still misses how the concept of privilege is being used in these discussions by those of us who believe in it. It doesn’t mean that being white overcomes anything or everything, just that, all else being equal, being white will generally make things significantly less difficult than being black. And there are all types of privilege, including some that many, most, or all black people benefit from some of the time – for a tiny example, I and my black neighbors have “non-Hispanic” and “non-Asian” privileges, which can include things like never being assumed to be an immigrant, or assumed to not be able to speak English. Not a huge deal, but when all these thousands and millions of little things add up, they can have a significant impact on one’s chance at getting ahead in life. If an American kid is constantly assumed by others to not be American, for example, then by the time they’re an adult they might have a different association and attachment to America, and see a different potential path to success. Just like if an American kids is constantly assumed to be stupid, or dangerous, or dishonest, etc., they’re going to have a different understanding of their best chance to succeed. Constant reinforcement of various characteristics, especially negative characteristics, by society will have effects on the development of kids, because they’re only human.
For a more concrete example, if a kid gets the message “study hard and get into a good school and you’ll have a good life”, but their older brother who gets into a good school is later killed by cops, or gets a long sentence for possession of marijuana (black people consistently get longer sentences than white people for the same crimes), or some other unjust tragedy, that kid may quite reasonably see that message as questionable at best, and outright laughable at worst. That’s a huge loss for society, not just for that kid.
I don’t agree at all about Maher, but de gustibus. Your other assertion, though is just factually wrong:
Excuse me, but you should ask “Do you think…?” before asking “What makes you think…?” because I am not referring to those kinds of things. At all. I’m talking about interrelated commentaries I hear all the time on pop culture podcasts and see on Twitter regarding movies and TV shows. They boil down to:
“I don’t care about [main character] and his white man problems.”
“Ugh, straight white dudes are the worst, amirite?” [high fiving]
“Why isn’t this show/movie about [insert protected class] instead?”
These can sometimes be used against white women, too, especially more Nordic-looking ones, as we saw with Amy Schumer. And these critics usually don’t care if the supporting cast is way more diverse than what was seen ten years ago. If the main character is straight and white, they aren’t having it, even though straight white people make up an outright majority of the U.S. population.
This dismisses the efforts of the many black abolitionists, such as Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubbman, who were integral to raising enough support for abolition to make it possible. Yes, many who supported abolition were “paternalistic racists”, but many were like Douglass and truly believed in equality. Abolition would have been less likely to occur when it did without all of their efforts.
Another data point about the importance of fighting for social and racial justice issues for the Democratic party:
Per the article, young black voters are not particularly attached to the Democratic party, but they are extremely attached to the goal of fighting racism and social injustice, and if they don’t believe the Democrats are fighting hard for these issues, then they might vote third party or not at all.