GROAN, no one is claiming that.
Who would have an easier time with all other things equal with cleaning up and getting off the street:
1.White homeless guy
2.Black homeless guy
Ok, anyway you made a fairly stupid and somewhat racist statement.
Now leaving aside the fact that comparing the Black Panthers to Jessy(sic) Jackson is as moronic as comparing the KKK to Bill Clinton please answer my fairly simple questions.
When has “Jessy(sic) Jackson” ever claimed that white people are evil?
Second when has “Jessy(sic) Jackson” said “weesas” or anything similar"?
Third, when doing a parody of Jewish politicians do you have them speak with exagerated Yiddish accents the way you had “Jessy(sic) Jackson” speak with a parody of an Ebonics accent?
Thanks
A major reason that who uses the term? To what end, exactly?
Again, this is a bullshit strawman.
Who has ever gone up to “some white homeless guy rooting through garbage” and told him he’s “privileged” and not to complain.
Please name them or stop posting bullshit comments.
Besides, in my experience the white people who squeal about affirmative action, “political correctness” or the use of the phrase “white skin privilege” like infants who’ve just messed their diapers aren’t whites from poor backgrounds, but whites from middle class or wealthy backgrounds.
No racism there. :rolleyes: Damn them whiteys! THE MAN oppressin!
What a shock.
racist!! Get with the 21st century!
racist.
Starting now? LMAO
You must be incredibly young and not much of a history buff, so FYI - we started (ie “really” started as in significant and relatively swift) progress in the 60s. Incredible strides were made such that, FYI, equality (generally speaking) IS HERE. Has been for some time. But shhhhhhhh! Don’t tell, the minorities and bleeding hearts who imagine themselves so “enlightened” hate hearing that or even the idea that it could ever happen - because it if does, then what will they whine and imagine themselves so noble about? No more oppressed cause to pretend they’re still in the 60s about? OMG the horror, bite your tongue you raicst bastage.
Anyway, might want to take note that we have a black president. And good luck going into damn near ANY company nowdays and not finding at LEAST as many if not more minorities than can be explained by demographics. Hell in the company I work for - one of the nation’s largest and best known - non-whites probably out-number whites, despite whites still being the majority in the area. But that’s not racist. Right.
But I forgot: nobody’s interested in facts, and discrimination is OK if it favors minorities. Two wrongs make a right after all. God bless 21st century logic.
Breasts don’t make someone a woman either. At any rate, having experienced sexism and the disadvantages associated with not being a man, a woman is almost certain to have more insight into it precisely because of the fact that these disadvantages are unfair. It’s very difficult to see the advantages you have when they constitute the treatment everyone deserves. It’s not as though all the days in which I don’t worry in the slightest about the possibility of sexual assault are salient to me. Whereas the times a woman does worry about that are salient to her. So of course I don’t have the same perspective on it. No one notices all the ways in which they are treated fairly while other people are not.
I don’t think in those sorts of absolutes. But I will say that as a gay person, when I talk with straight people about gay issues, even with gay-friendly straight people, if they offer their straight perspective, nine times out of ten (at least) I internally roll my eyes. Why? Because I already have heard the straight perspective. Many times. I’m gay. Like most gay people, my family is mostly straight. My co-workers are mostly straight. Some gay people may choose to exclusively socialize with other gay people, but I bet it’s not many, so most of my friends have always been straight. Most of what I read is by straight people because most of what there is to read is by straight people – when I read the newspaper, I’m mostly hearing the perspective of straight people. When I read political commentary – even commentary on gay issues – chances are that what I’m reading was written by a straight person if it’s in the mainstream media. I only read about those issues from a perspective similar to mine I read a specifically gay or LGBT-oriented magazine or blog. Most of the time when straight people share their straight perspective on a topic, they’re probably going to say something my mom said to me fifteen years ago.
How likely is it that a straight person, no matter how gay-friendly they are is going to have something to say that’s new to me? Of course there are plenty of straight people who care deeply about gay rights, but caring a lot doesn’t magically grant perspective. There are few straight people in the world who are immersed in gay perspectives in the way that almost all gay people are immersed in the perspectives of straight people. So, in trying to understand any gay rights related issue, a straight person is starting with a major deficit in their ability to understand it. I don’t see how to have a productive conversation without acknowledging that.
That’s my own experience and not everyone will agree, and certainly the specifics of it are not the same for, say, women, or racial minorities (who, for the most part, will, for example, come from families who are mostly also minorities), or disabled people. But if I can’t help but notice how hard it is for the best-intentioned straight people to understand gay issues well, then I have to assume that I probably don’t “get” sexism in the same way that someone who has constantly been on the receiving end of it does. And that’s the point of why any conversation I have with a woman about sexism is going to be pointless if I’m not focusing a lot harder on listening than on talking.
Given that that’s an issue that feminists certainly don’t agree on, if the guy is being respectful, that’s probably not a helpful approach. However, again, it’s easy not to notice when you’re talking over someone else when you don’t have that lifelong education in biting your tongue when certain subjects come up. So, if the woman said that to the man, it certainly would behoove him to try hard to make sure he’s not “educating” the woman on sexism.
And the thing is that a lot of such conversations are way more clear-cut than this. Probably most of them. I’m thinking of all the many times in which a straight person patiently explained to me their perspective on gay rights (again, going back to gay issues, sorry, but that’s the experience I have to draw upon). And saying something like how much easier it would be for gay people to find acceptance if we weren’t so “in your face” about it (as though any of us haven’t heard that a thousand times before. Hell, as though most of us haven’t had our own parents encourage us to be more discreet.) Or about their brilliant ideas about the fight for marriage equality, and how the real secret to success is to “get the government out of marriage” (yeah, ending government recognition of straight marriages is definitely the way to win over same-sex marriage opponents!) I’m assuming, since you don’t seem profoundly uninformed, that you understand why those examples are so ridiculous, but there are a lot of less ridiculous and still profoundly unoriginal ideas that straight people will earnestly offer up as though they are new to anyone who has the experience of living it. And especially anyone activisty enough to say “check your privilege” or even be familiar with the phrase, since it means they’ve probably spent a fair amount of time thinking about their issue pretty seriously.
And since I don’t want to put my foot in my mouth in the same way when I’m talking to a member of a racial minority about a racial issue, or a woman about a sexism-related issue, I try to check my privilege and remember that I’m as clueless as every straight person who’s felt the need to share their perspective with me.
Well, I see it as acknowledging a basic asymmetry: one aspect of oppression is that our culture is permeated with the dominant viewpoint. Any member of an oppressed minority has been inundated with the majority opinion in school, at work, in the media, and in every aspect of their life. Whereas a member of a majority group is much less frequently exposed to the opinions of the corresponding minority group. Even if they seek them out, they’re still naturally spending most of their time ensconced in the dominant culture. If we impose an arbitrary standard of equality – like saying that gay people need to spend just as much time listening to straight people’s ideas about marriage equality as the converse or somehow the straight people are being treated unfairly – we’re ignoring the basic asymmetry in experience that’s at play here.
Ooh, “racism is over because we have a black president”! I have five in a row on my card!
BINGO!
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that talking about the way whites have abused minorities upset you so much.
Should we be satisfied with having larger penises and being more sexually desirable to white women?
Yes, that does have it’s advantages, but white skin still has it’s benefits.
What company do you work for that supposedly discriminates against white people?
OK, I’m white, I guess. (no stripes) I disagreed with the video. It really creeped me out. All that pale skin and blue eyes.
Olives said much earlier that this country was set up in favor of whites before we were even a country.
I disagree.
It was set up for wealthy white men. Now, with a few centuries of progress it is only set up for wealthy people. Now most of the wealthy people are white but there are some non-white wealthy people. And the richer you are the more advantages you have. It doesn’t have anything to do with race. I know a lot will want to disagree with the idea that it doesn’t have anything to do with race, but that is my opinion.
So why do you think members of racial minorities hold such disproportionately small shares of this wealth?
And what’s your argument that the country was initially set up only for wealthy people? I don’t think anyone would disagree that then as now wealthy people were at an advantage, and certainly most of the Europeans who came here during the 17th and 18th century were not poor in the way that many people who arrived in the 19th and 20th centuries were, but it’s equally not the case that most of them were particularly wealthy.
I am a not-victim in an infinite number of ways. It would be stupid to waste my time dwelling on them.
The reason I have no respect for your views is because you focus on disadvantage “vis-à-vis white people” instead of on disadvantage itself. It’s like obsessing over keeping up with the Joneses instead of trying to have a good life.
I didn’t recommend dwelling on it. I recommended being aware of it. And obviously there aren’t an infinite number of ways that one can not be subjected to group-based oppression, because there are only a finite number of possible groups that could be identified in the human population. And raising the specter of all these imagined issues is a distraction when we’re talking about something concrete and demonstrable, like the impact racism has on the success of members of minority groups. Of course the impact of racism doesn’t negate the impact of any other *ism, but in turn neither does any one one negate the impact of racism.
I don’t understand how you could meaningfully discuss a disadvantage without some standard to compare it to. The reason I have no respect for your views is that you are making excuses for not looking squarely and straightforwardly at the disadvantage and acknowledging that it also has the impact of, comparatively, making things easier for white people. If the “game” (to use the video game analogy cited earlier in the thread) is harder for members of racial minorities, it’s equivalent to say it’s easier for white people. I have no respect for the views of anyone who makes excuses to avoid acknowledging that simple fact, or conflates it with an attack on them personally. If things are harder for members of racial minorities than they are for white people, and they are, that’s manifestly unjust, and refusing to make the comparison is just simple intellectual cowardice.
I fully recognize that racial disparities exist. But I really hate the phrase “white privilege”, and I do not agree with the ad because I think the examples they used are asinine.
“White privilege” just sounds awfully dismissive. There’s the implication that if you’re white, your personal struggles are somehow less valid. Or that if you’re white and poor, that means you’re a really major fuck-up because you have all this privilege and you still didn’t do better in life. And there seems to be a hint of Only White People Are Racist when you get into some of the examples.
Basically I just don’t appreciate all this othering. Don’t call me white.
Privledge doesn’t imply those things at all, it is merely an observation.
<Basically I just don’t appreciate all this othering. Don’t call me white> HAH! 
And no one notices how often they are treated ‘unfairly’ than those who are looking for it.
My wife has a cane at this point. We live in Hong Kong. It is crowded on the streets. She thinks people are looking at her because of the cane (probably true) and they deliberately knock her cane causing her to stumble (probably not true). I point out that I get knocked into myself, but the difference being that I am not worried about getting knocked over whereas she is.
My point being that you may think you are being treated unfairly, but in fact, you are being treated like anyone else. No, I do believe that people are members of the KKK and just hate people.
But, most people are just indifferent and that is different than racism although the person who it is happening to may perceive it otherwise.
Right and Rosa Parks was just looking for a reason to think she was being treated unfairly,
and unfair treatment is usually just in someone’s head and easy to dismiss.:dubious:
No, I’m saying that when I get on the bus, if I have to sit in the back I don’t think about it or apply other motives to why I’m back there. In her case, at the time she was riding buses, it was where Black people rode. Both Black and White people expected it. That was unfair and racist. And obvious.
If I’m having a conversation with someone and you walk into the room and are ignored, it isn’t because of the color of your skin. You may think you it is because of your skin, but that is in your head, not mine. Just because you think it is so, doesn’t make it so. I could have any number of reasons not to talk to you. Or to not hire you, or to do any number of things that you might take to be racist, but to others, with the same outcomes, it wouldn’t be.
Do you understand these two things:
1.People are not psychic
2.A lifetime of experience tends to reveal certain patterns, this can of course fail in specific instances.
Or are you really denying racism exists? You can’t seriously believe that.
Do you understand that you’ve agreed with me other than in the logical conclusion?
If you are programmed to see certain patterns then it is likely that you will see them everywhere even when they don’t exist.
Yes, that’s right. I’m really denying racism.:rolleyes: