But of all the white people in prison, what percentage of them do you think came from poverty? I’m betting it’s a pretty high percentage.
All I’m saying is that it’s a mighty big assumption that poor whites aren’t getting similar boogers (what a disgusting analogy).
My favorite ever job interview question was, “If you had to eat a scab sandwich or swim in a pool full of boogers, which would you choose?”
I didn’t get the job, but to this day I’m convinced that if I’d said, “I can only choose one?” I would have.
Anyway.
The entire point is that poverty imposes one set of obnoxious social conditions on you, and being the wrong race imposes a different, related set of obnoxious social conditions on you. If you’re black and wealthy, you’re probably better off than poor and white. But you get more grief for being poor than for being rich, AND you get more grief for being black than for being white. Although those griefs are related, it’s possible to talk about them separately and evaluate them separately.
If you’re going to criticize my post I recommend you choose a more appropriate word than “snotty” since it wasn’t.
Anyway, I’m not sure what you’re upset with me about since in the post I was responding to, you stated you hadn’t been following the thread and then proceeded to prove it by putting up a post which seemed to imply that “white privilege” referred to economics when it didn’t.
If you don’t like people criticizing you for not bothering to read a thread or pay attention to the arguments people are making, I recommend you not admit you haven’t bothered reading them, or better yet, read them and then respond.
It’s funny how I’ve got respectful dialogues going on with two other posters, yet you can’t seem to figure out what the problem is.
It’s not my fault that you react badly to people criticizing you when, by your own admission you decide to post in a thread without, by your own admission, bothering to read it.
So? What do you care if I didn’t read the whole thread? Did I overlook some brilliant point you made on page 4 and hurt your feelings?
To be fair, although his post really was snotty, you’re reiterating some of the exact same arguments made by various other posters throughout the thread; I’m responding to you because I’ve been thinking a lot about this thread over the last week. It’s kind of sad when literally days of reflection and the best I can come up with is metaphors about poop-and-booger sandwiches.
I don’t believe I’ve made any brilliant points on this topic and you didn’t hurt my feelings, you merely annoyed me because I think it’s stupid to post on a topic without bothering to read the topic and even stupider to brag, as you have done, about not reading the thread.
Now, I don’t know why you’re all worked up about some fairly mild criticisms particularly since I don’t recall us ever arguing before nor have you ever made much of an impression on me.
No insult is intended by the last comment.
Okay, speak out against racism. Check. Join a group. Check.
And I’m saying that PSAs like this one and the abuse of the term “white privilege” risks making that perception worse, not better.
Hence me pointing out that you CANNOT just point to a white and say “advantaged” and a black and say “disadvantaged!” That’s incredibly simplistic.
It doesn’t matter. Racism is wrong, we should stop it. Racism againts white people, if you find it, is just as wrong. The societal advantages associated with race dont’ change that.
Most people want fairness. This is about what fairness means, and what actions are appropriate to bring it about. The range of options is big, so it’s important to discuss it further.
One thing I have encountered elsewhere is people claiming that if you dare question your privilege, or any policies based on that idea, it means you are just trying to keep it - and therefore you shouldn’t oppose anything they say. That’s bullying, and I didn’t like it.
How can I take it seriously when I haven’t seen it yet and don’t know what it’s about?
You know exactly what it’s about. I told you.
I’ve made my point.
You told me it might be about…
Some of these are legitimate social concerns, and some are not.
Which are? And how do you decide?
Caucasians are not privileged. They have it just as hard as anyone else. Africans actually commit more crimes on average than Caucasians. There is a reason they are racially profiled sometimes. I don’t agree with it though. If anything Caucasians have it worse than other minority’s. Due to this hail immigrants mindset whites are becoming a minority in their own country. Pablo is having eight kids, while Walter is only having two kids. Minority’s have a easier time finding a job due to laws that require company’s to hire x amount of colored people. They have an easier time getting better interest on a loan, and also get special treatment for being, “suppressed”.
This goes along with all of that feminist nonsense that exists now days. Caucasian females actually have more power than Caucasian males, and not a equal amount. If anything White Caucasians are the most suppressed. People need to be proud of their race, especially people of the Caucasian race that will soon be extinct.
I’m not all that surprised that this thread has gotten as heated as it has on occasion–we certainly know how to brawl on this forum.
On the other hand, the actual video was a fairly innocuous observation of a truism with a very mild message: when we see examples of white privilege, speak up against it.
That is hardly a call to arms or a demand for an end to all social problems or a condemnation of any person or group. It is simply a message that when we observe a particular type of behavior, we call attention to it so that the person engaging in that behavior will think twice before repeating it. I am pretty sure that the promoters of this video would be equally in favor of speaking up at signs of sexism, age discrimination, religious discrimination, probably sexual orientation discrimination, and other things.
The video makes no claim that all white people are villainous racists or that no non-white person can get a fair shake in society. it simply notes that, as the majority, whites occasionally get better treatment (or avoid worse treatment) based on being part of a recognizable majority and such phenomena could be ameliorated by noting them when they happen.
:rolleyes:
I can’t tell if this is a racist rant or merely a well-crafted parody.
A fine example of Poe’s law in action.
Even that mild-sounding proposition is vague though.
Then why did the focus on whiteness? Why not make a PSA saying “speak against unfair privilege in general?”
I’ll speak out against unfair treatment when I see it - all kinds, not just racial.
Has anyone ever lost a job because of their hairstyle, do you think?
Out of the 535 members of the 111th Congress, there are 103 nonwhites - assuming you count all the Jewish and Hispanic members as nonwhite. How many have to be white before you’re not oppressed, exactly?