What do you expect the average person to do about it anyway? They can say “ok, you convinced me. I totally got white privilege.” and they are then just going to go about their lives. How are you dealing with the issue?
Do you mean do I believe that it exists? That should be obvious by now, throughout my posting history here.
I’m not fine with it. I actually bought into those documents that founded our country. And I try to treat everyone equally, even though I, too, have prejudicial tendencies at times. Thing is, I recognize them and actively deny them traction. I’m also not afraid of competing on a level playing ground.
But I’m not the problem, though people want to portray it that way. Oooh, my words are too blunt? So sorry.
Lol, yes your bluntness was so scary.
So the way you deal with the actual issue is by trying not to be racist. You’ll be shocked to know that even though I think the term is bad marketing, I too try to treat everyone equally. I dare say, pretty successfully.
Really? Those are the only possibilities? You can’t even conceive that there might be a utilitarian group that actually thinks they can do more good for progressive causes by being more careful about the messaging? A Democrat can easily softpedal some of the messaging to get elected and still appoint good judges and tough attorneys in the Civil Rights enforcement division at Justice. Low information voters won’t pay attention to those details.
Think about it for a second: isn’t the mirror image of this exactly what we fear most on the other side? Rovian doublespeak where the “Clear Skies Initiative” is actually a giveaway to big polluters, and tax cuts “to benefit every American” give the lion’s share of benefits to the 1%? Why can’t we be a little bit cunning about targeting swing voters instead of trying to make them eat their steamed vegetables and attend re-education seminars?
After many years of discussions about race I have concluded that racism is a form of ignorance.
Personally, in this message board, I have seen people that I have discussed with before that did go from being mild mannered scientific racists, to nativists and then to become full blown holocaust deniers. *
Before that, I do think that many like them do fall for bubbles of information that first start by ignoring the injustice that people outside their group are enduring. Ever since Lincoln talked about “the better angels of our nature” he was referring to the choice that many conservatives are making.
For me it is not just about what shoulder angel they should look for advice. A good part of doing good depends on their choice of their sources of information. Instead of looking for positive and constructive ideas that Lincoln advised to look at, they look at sources that feed them fear and hatred.
Leading then to more ignorance. Like the one that makes them vote for leaders that enforce those fears and hatreds.
- One step was that of also being once a climate change denier, I guess that was because many right wing bubbles of information just can’t eat just one [del]chip[/del] conspiracy theory.
The first step to solving a problem is acknowledging the problem exists. Then you can work on solutions.
But if you start by saying there’s no problem then you end the discussion at that same point. Why bother discussing solutions to the problem of racism if there is no problem of racism?
Sometimes in order to communicate with people, you have to begin by telling them they’re wrong about the topic.
I think I agree with you. We should pick a less charged phrase. Something that doesn’t talk about privilege or white people. A simple phrase that just lets everyone know that black people are just people, and their lives matter. If we pick a nice neutral phrase, then conservatives will stop focusing on the language and start focusing on the issues.
Let’s see…how about: Black Lives Matter. Let’s see the conservatives make an issue of *that *language!
I guess I haven’t been on long enough to see those kinds of arcs, although it’s also possible that they held those other beliefs previously but were quiet about it.
One thing I have seen, from nearly every right-leaning poster on this board at one time or another, was “I’m fine with it, to hell with those who are disadvantaged by it,” in just about as many words, in response to some issue.
Uh, no, I said trying not to be prejudicial. I’ve never judged people by the color of their skin, but I have been known to make assumptions based on cultural heritage.
The problem with BLM is twofold and easily exploited by the right:
(1) The way BLM activists act;
(2) The inconvenient truth (which even factually stating is taboo) that unlike in the Jim Crow era, a randomly selected black person is much more likely to kill a white person at some point in their life than a randomly selected white person is to kill a black person at some point in their life. Once you know that, the whole premise begins to look slanderous, and the very real and troubling racial inequities in the criminal justice system get lost in the noise (and are less likely to be believed).
The platform’s one thing, but what the local/state politicians do and say is entirely another thing.
There’s a huge push for social justice, lessening inequality, and alleviating poverty. And pretty much if the politician in question is not white, then almost all their rhetoric revolves around those types of topics with respect to THEIR race, not in reference to the nation as a whole.
Maybe it’s because I’m from an urban area in Texas, but it seems like the state and local Democrat politicians are VERY concerned about racial issues and a bunch of things that really don’t have much to do with what young white men typically care about.
That’s the problem here; the Democratic party at an overall level espouses some pretty great stuff, but the local and state level politicians warp it and twist it somewhat to appeal to their constituents; do you really think the rhetoric coming out of a congressman who represents say… South Dallas or New Orleans is going to have much of any appeal to a white man?
It’s not just what the candidates who are running do, but also what the actual elected Democrats do.
As for the notion of white privilege… the phenomenon is definitely a real one, although I think the choice of words is unfortunate. A lot of people tend to think of privilege as being something above and beyond the norm, not just a relative advantage versus someone else. So they bristle when they are described as privileged because they’re white. In their eyes the way they’re treated by society is, or at least should be the default, the norm, the yardstick by which such things are measured- by definition neither privileged or underprivileged. And yet here there are people denigrating them and saying snide things to them because they grew up, in their eyes, utterly average or in many cases, below average.
That doesn’t mean that white privilege isn’t a thing; but it does explain a lot of why it gets such hostile reactions when it’s brought up.
I dont want to discount your experiences, but outside of the pit I’ve never heard right wingers say that. It usually falls into one of two categories:
- That there is no problem, or that the problem has been greatly exaggerated
b) That it’s not the govt’s job to solve every problem, or it’s best if the govt stays out of this problem
The even more inconvenient truth is that correlation is not causation. People think that a black person being more likely to kill a white person is a racial thing and allow that to effect their prejudices. the real truth is that a poor person is more likely to kill a person of any class, and we have more poor people who are black. So, all black people get lumped in with black criminals, because it’s easier to see a person’s skin than their bank acct.
mc
Besides what mikecurtis noted the more accurate numbers show that there is not much of a difference ( about 7 points) and the whole truth is that the right (In this case with Trump never taking this exaggeration back) has exaggerated the numbers.
It took me less than 3 minutes to actually go check the data, do a little math, and conclude that this was utterly wrong.
I guess my question for you is why you didn’t take 3 minutes to check if this was true before posting it.
For those who care, here’s the data:
Whites killed by blacks, 2016: 533
Blacks killed by whites, 2016: 243
White population of United States, 2010: 196,817,552
Black population of United States, 2010: 37,685,848
So, percentage of white people who were killed by a black person in 2016: 0.0003%
percentage of black people who were killed by a white person in 2016: 0.0006%
So, the chance of a black person being killed by a white person is nearly twice as high as the opposite. That’s an enormous error for **SlackerInc **to make.
And again, let me remind everyone, this post took longer to write than it took to do the math. Why the fuck didn’t **SlackerInc **do it?
[quote=“E-DUB, post:401, topic:813566”]
Bill Maher weighs in:
[/QUOTE]Excellent! One claim: “64% of Republicans think reverse racism is a greater problem than racism.”
Another claim: “Two years after Obama lowered taxes on 95% of Americans, 90% of TEA Partiers (Taxed Enough Already) believed he’d raised them.” … Kudos to any progressives who manage NOT to sneer at such ignoramuses.
Even if your facts are correct, I don’t see shooting randomly selected black people as a viable solution. Most people, black or white, aren’t ever going to commit a murder. So using potential murders as justification for police shootings (which appears to be your argument) doesn’t work.
I’d like to circle back to the OP of this clusterf*** of a thread, before the lengthy diversion about white privilege. The initial claim was that sneering liberals in pop media were driving millenial men away from liberalism. And this was roundly mocked. And some of that mockery is, I think, deserved. Correlation is not causation, and there’s far from sufficient polling data to determine if the claimed shift is even happening.
That said, a lot of the responses struck me as being of the form “Wait, someone is going to vote based on random comments on podcasts? How stupid! What an idiotic response!”. And yes, it clearly would be idiotic. Basing one’s votes in a national election on perceived slights in pop culture media would be pretty ridiculous and stupid. But that doesn’t mean people aren’t doing it.
In particular, we all know that there is some percentage of the population who is “undecided”, who is “in the middle”. Sure, you may have enough courage of your convictions and political astuteness that you would never make an important decision like that for a stupid reason like that, because you have much better and more important reasons. But that doesn’t mean it’s true for everyone. As long as there are people out there who are anywhere close to undecided, then there’s always a chance that any random thing, however minor it seems to you, could push them over the edge. And their votes count just as much as ours do.
There may or may not be non-trivial sections of the populace making electoral decisions partly based on perceived sneering from the left. I’m far from convinced that there are. But pointing out over and over again what a truly inanely ridiculously stupid way to make a decision that would be doesn’t suddenly mean it’s not happening.
(It doesn’t mean it IS happening, of course.)
I also have an example to bring up. Here is the AV Club’s review of an episode from the second season of the brilliant comedy Master of None.
A few choice quotes:
“And then the white characters who usually get their stories told on screen—the businessman cheating on his wife, the woman sleeping with the married businessman, the young and wealthy women who hop into cabs without any acknowledgement that the person driving them exists—fall into the background. These people suck, and Master Of None knows it.”
“In Eddie’s, we see how the ugliness of the rich, white people living in his building who assume he exists simply to make their lives easier.”
I think that’s a good example of the kind of critical writing which is very, very easy to read as anti-white. Is it only white people who get into cabs without acknowledging that people driving them exist? Is it only white rich people who take “the help” for granted? I don’t think so, and I don’t think that’s what either the show or the review are trying to say. But that’s definitely the kind of prose that can jump out at someone who is already primed to be aggrieved.
Do we care? Should we coddle thin-skinned white twenty-somethings so they don’t get their widdle feelings hurt? Well, I dunno. But I do know that votes in the 2018 and 2020 elections are absolutely vitally crucial. If I really did think that there was any chance that a few house or senate seats might be swayed by more or less of this sort of language, well, I have no idea what I would do with this information. But votes are votes, and we on the left certainly can’t afford to offend potential voters, even ones who make their voting decisions in kind of ridiculous ways.
Pretty impressive! Shit, I was thinking “It’s toasted!” or “People’s Revolutionary something something”, but nothing so crisply fashioned as those!
So, whaddaya say, guys? Put CarnalK in charge of snappy lines?
Agreed. All Republicans have to do, generally speaking, is adopt the “live and let live” mantra on race aside from obvious, egregious examples of racism.
In an effort to self-importantly differentiate themselves, progressives and Democrats broach the topic in sometimes quixotic ways, alienating moderates on these issues, shooting themselves in the foot.
And I’m not one who thinks the radical activists should be marginalized and not listened to; they ought to, within reason, feel heard in their party as should the more middle of the road voices.
If numerous “moderates” on racial issues of the left were to start recommending Charles Murray material, okay, then there’s some alienating and purging to do.
So how would you characterize it (since you’re the one who implied cowardice)? Do you believe it’s possible to be open and truthful and disagree with you?