You sound like someone who, like, opposes racism.
That’s a problem, but it’s not a disadvantage. Minority children don’t grow up poor or get followed by the cops because they didn’t learn about the contributions of their ancestors to American history.
No. When you make silly claims that are not born out by facts, you free me to ignore your little rants.
So, as I noted, inferences, not implications.
Now you are just being silly. Are you sitting in a room watching a white person being treated with more consideration than a black person? Then you would be supporting white privilege if you did not speak up. On the other hand, you previously claimed that you do fight injustice.
So, unless you were bullshitting us, earlier, there is no reason to assume that you are causing anything bad at this point.
I am not playing this game.
No. But you will get awfully boring playing semantic games that you will lose in seriuous discussions.
So, you are just playing semantics and are not actually interested in this discussion. This discussion is in regard to the purpose and usefulness of a specific PSA. If you wish to argue a separate point that the phenomenon which the PSA describes should have a different name, then you should open a separate thread to discuss it.
Let me make this clear:
If your big objection is that “white privilege” should have a different phrase to identify it, feel free to open a new thread to discuss that point.
Do not attempt to hijack this thread to promote your various semantic idiosyncracies.
[ /Moderating ]
I see what you are saying here - I guess I was speaking more to how the history of one’s family offers advantages like wealth and education and how those things are tied to a lot more than just “perceived race.” I don’t deny that racism exists or that people engage in it without full knowledge of genetics, etc. But that wasn’t what I was thinking of when I read the word “priveleged,” I usually idenify that word with wealth, education, connections, opportunities, etc.
Although it might have some baring on minority self esteem issues formed during childhood, for example, when you notice your family is regularly stopped by border patrol and asked to prove they are Americans, even though they have been on the north side of the border for generations.
Then you go to school and learn your ancestors were losers in a battle over land that they once had, but are now unwelcome in. You hear racist remarks like “go back to Mexico, or Africa,” and then you get followed in stores like you are going to steal something.
How can some combination of the above not affect the self esteem or the expectations children might form for themselves growing up, or how they might see their place in the world?
And moreover, drop out rates are proven to contribute to poverty, yet culturally relevant education and language programs are often seen as the least important studies to implement or fund.
Yet it might be these types of educational programs which may better contribute to the self esteem and success of minority children, and to help them to stay in school.
Sure, but that’s not what we were discussing.
Okay.
Again, okay, but not what we were discussing.
We were discussing education only. You’re throwing in new things. Of course those have an effect. Never said they didn’t. Racism is wrong, and it should stop. What else is there to say?
I don’t think it’s hijacking or “semantic idiosyncracies”. It goes to the very heart of the matter. We can’t have a discussion about anything if we dont’ agree about the words we use to discuss it and their meaning.
See how it’s an issue to discuss the meaning of the terms we’re discussing? Or should Darth Panda stop too?
Meaning of terms is absolutely essential to debate. It’s always a legitimate discussion. Lots of threads here end up as discussions about the definitions of terms, and that’s fine.
You didn’t attack my facts though. You attacked me. Don’t.0
Of course. What if I’m just sitting in my room, with nobody else in it, enjoying the fruits of my white privilege that I didn’t ask for and couldn’t stop though? That’s my question.
Well, thanks for clarifying. You are not, however, the only opinion on this. I have run into people who think that white privilege is like original sin - that you are guilty just for having benefited from it, regardless of what you do about it. That’s where my skepticism comes from.
Good.
It is not a semantic game. It is the very heart of the matter. If you can’t handle discussions about definitions of terms, or you think they are all somehow dictated to you and you can’t question them, then we’re done.
No, the use of a specific term in the PSA is essential to discussing the purpose and usefulness of it. We debate the meaning of and proper use of terms all the time here. It’s perfectly legitimate. In fact, it’s essential to pretty much any debate.
The first of several posts in this very thread that took on the definition of the term. Nobody objected. It’s not only legitimate, it’s essential.
Discussing how one’s perception of the phrase is in error is in bounds for this discussion.
Complaining at length that someone should have used a different phrase 40 years ago or pretending that unfair.org meant something different, now, from the accepted definition of the term is a hijack.
Ah, okay. I think (I hope) I understand better now. Thanks.
No. I have challenged your opinions and pointed out where they were in error. I have not called you names or suggested that you were incompetent to debate.
Why would you ask such a silly question? Nothing in the PSA talks about any event that does not involve personal interactions. Sitting in a room by yourslf is not a personal interaction with anyone, so it is outside scope. And I am definitely getting the impression that you are playing games at this point.
Then you are free to correct them when they make that assertion. You are not free to try to dismiss the concept just because you have encountered someone who has a misunderstanding.
I am good with you refraining from being disruptive or off topic. 
The phrase has been in use with the exact same meaning for over forty years. If you want to make a big deal that you do not like the phrase, then that is a topic for a different thread.
No, you challenged my “credentials” based on nothing more than the fact that I had an opinion:
“Yeah, but you are the one who has chosen to “resent” a few seconds of PSA. That sort of challenges your credentials on the topic.”
I can resent whatever I want, and I have explained why. What is the point of this thread if not to discuss how we feel about this PSA? That was the question in the OP. And expressing an opinion does not automatically discredit one’s credentials to express an opinion.
Sigh.
That’s the whole point - we’re discussing what this PSA means. You seem to assume you already know, and that nobody else can have another interpretation.
Dismiss?
I do not think I’m either. I’m very much on topic.
No, it hasn’t, and that’s part of my point. No term is use exactly the same way by everyone for 40 years. Our understanding and use of words changes, rapidly sometimes. People often disagree on what they mean. People have already discussed it on this thread, in fact. Word meanings are not set in stone. And it’s important to discuss this because you can imagine what happens if two people have different ideas about the same term. You can see it on this thread.
Right and you can go off topic and splinter the meaning of privilege from the OP into cites on inappropriate hair colors and styles, but I was responding to your statement that:
“minority children don’t grow up poor or get followed by the cops because they didn’t learn about the contributions of their ancestors to American History.”
I gave my opinion on what we were discussing, and I also think that it is connected to the subject of “white privilege” in that it is mainly from the white perspective that we are taught as children in school, and it is a perspective that may contribute to a sense of privilege for whites, that could be considered, and perhaps remedied to be more inclusive of other groups.
I didn’t say those were privileges. I said there are many possible privileges, and these might or might not be some of them. Do you think there is only one kind?
That’s fine, but you also threw in things we weren’t discussing as evidence on what we were. I never disagreed with the other things you threw in. That’s why I didn’t mention those. So I still don’t think that, on its own, education about American History is a big source of privilege. Maybe a small one. The other things you mentioned are much bigger ones.
Ah, that education is PART of the privilege. Yes, that would make much more sense. A subtle but important difference.
I did a little reading on this and learned a few things. (Other people are out there discussing the meaning of terms and stuff, just like us!)
The leading academic idea of white privilege (or any privilege) is that the dominant group views what they have as the norm - in other words, what everyone deserves. Whereas the concept of privilege means they actually don’t deserve it because it comes at the expense of an oppressed group. In other words, it’s a zero-sum game.
That’s a very interesting tension. You can see how a white person would view the normative idea as justice - blacks deserve everything whites have. And how they’d react negatively to the implication that fairness for blacks requires whites to give up something, not just for blacks to get what they also are entitled to.
OK, so I’ve been able to actually watch the video (was at work before) and I have to agree that your interpretation, not mine, is correct in this context (and obviously so after watching the ad). And in this regard, those perceived as white are clearly at an advantage in the US and many other nations (but not all), and it is absolutely unfair, unjustified, nonsensical, etc. But I was honestly surprised that the reference to privilege was of this meaning and not related to wealth and the other things I commented on previously. I believe that, thankfully so, this privilege is now less prevalent/influential than the type of privilege that I was referring to.
But this also highlights the fact, regrettably, that I jumped to this view rather than the one being presented here. It’s illustrative of the idea that perhaps many people working in a professional environment, or living an affluent life, may underestimate the role that this still plays in (American) society. My instinct was to jump to the role that background plays (which is real regardless of other factors) and ignore the role that traditional intolerance plays. I think it may be because so many people have moved beyond that kind of simple and blatant racism, especially among the educated/professional etc. That is of course a good thing in itself, but to the degree that it may tend toward ignorance or forgetfulness of actual systemic racism in the broader community, it’s a little scary.
Moving the goalposts is not a good idea in any situation.
You are entitled to believe whatever you wish and to express that belief if you choose. However, when you make a claim that a particular PSA has made a specific implication, one that is not supported by any text in the PSA, then the fact that you have chosen to “resent” what you inferred opens you to the charge that you are not qualified to make an assessment. That is not an attack on your person, but on the poor argument you have put forth.
Nope. Several different opinions have been put forth regarding the intent of the PSA without drawing any comment from me. You, however, have gone further, challenging the meaning of the phrase “white privilege.” The meaning of that phrase is pretty well established in our language and objecting to that phrase is a separate topic than the intent or value of the PSA.
No. At this point, you are simply arguing for the sake of arguing and you are hijacking this thread.
Discussing the actual meaning of the phrase is on target for this thread. Insisting that the language of the term must be changed to suit you is not on topic.