Don't bother. They're convinced that they had it as hard as anyone and that they succeeded by will alone. Thinking otherwise would make them question things they have no interest in questioning.
Privileged questions?
- Thread starter littleitch1
- Start date
Your right. People do believe they had it as hard as anyone and they succeeded by will alone. And some hard work.
Last edited:
Do you not understand the word?
If not, which part do you believe was sarcastic?
The race classification is going to go away:
1. Among Af, Americans there is a rigorous debate about breaking it into two categories. 1. Progeny of American Slaves 2. Every other black that migrated later mostly from Africa and Caribbean.
2. Interracial Marriage a generation ago was 4%. Now currently 20% and rising.
3. Asian category is under pressure to split in various ethnicities.
4. Hispanic category already has a split with many just checking white.
5. White category has never been culturally accurate. Irish/Scottish/German/Italian/Polish/Russian/Ukraine.....etc. are very diverse cultures as well as some different general looks.
This is the achilles heal of trying to operationalize race. Its not a fixed category and with these trends operating, it will be a meaningless term.
When this happens we can start to talk about social class again.......
And, it should go away. #4 is offensive to many whose heritage is Spanish. Ask any Cuban, they will be the first to complain about the term, followed by many Central and South Americans.
And I forgot one more:
Each generation demonstrates less racial animosity than the one before it. Perhaps it is because more and more bi-racial individuals are their friends/peers??
I'm old, but being a military BRAT, we grew up with many bi-racial kids. There was no classification back then, so I was really surprised when my friends began identifying themselves as "brown". I never saw nor thought that before in my life.
I think that when you grow up with kids and they're your friends, you identify them as your friend. You don't see them differently.
I’m afraid that the whole world sees nothing but color of skin!
It has been this way for thousands of years
I wish I was wrong but it’s the way it is
Politicians use race to seperate us, turn us against each other
Hopefully people of all races are smart enough to not be caught up into the race baiting lies they spew
The words of Dr King are just that, words
It appears
Jmho, here so don’t ask for references
This board is good, it gives us an open venue to hash things out
This discussion has certainly made me think!
I could share that I believe in one God, the Creator who has created us all in his image, and I believe we are all descendants of Adam and Eve thus technically we are all brothers and sisters
And I could state how the evil one uses race to divide and seperate us, causing decades old hatred amongst men
But I know this will upset some so I will not
Judge not less you be judged!
It has been this way for thousands of years
I wish I was wrong but it’s the way it is
Politicians use race to seperate us, turn us against each other
Hopefully people of all races are smart enough to not be caught up into the race baiting lies they spew
The words of Dr King are just that, words
It appears
Jmho, here so don’t ask for references
This board is good, it gives us an open venue to hash things out
This discussion has certainly made me think!
I could share that I believe in one God, the Creator who has created us all in his image, and I believe we are all descendants of Adam and Eve thus technically we are all brothers and sisters
And I could state how the evil one uses race to divide and seperate us, causing decades old hatred amongst men
But I know this will upset some so I will not
Judge not less you be judged!
Being in a mixed marriage I see this a lot and how differently people respond to this question. Some will check white and others wont depending on the choices but the choices don't really define who you are. If its Hispanic what kind? Mexican, Puerto Rican, Spanish, Caribbean, Latin America, Central America and South America which is a tricky one with all the European influence.
Its the same with checking white. There is only Hispanic or non Hispanic which doesn't begin to cover everything. My kids who are from the same mother and father answer this differently.
The basis of many modern legal systems is in the bible and those ten commandments. As society has "progressed" it has gotten away from those basic tenants. As society removes religion from everyday life these will go away too. Years ago you could go to jail for stealing now its almost legal in some places. Some think the fix is to get rid of police and prisons. I guess with those gone criminals will go find real jobs since it wont be illegal anymore. JMHO though.
The problem is taking epidemiological data and applying it to an individual. That’s the issue with “privilege” as a concept in the hands of people that don’t understand stats. No, there’s no reason, in my opinion, for a random white person to acknowledge they have “white privilege.” It just amplifies the problem. Race is only one factor that may or may not account for relevant variance in outcome for an individual. There’s also evidence that teaching the concept of white privilege to white people doesn’t have a positive effect.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-22926-001
https://www.businessinsider.com/david-webb-fox-news-cnn-analyst-2019-1?amp
“Privilege” is most commonly used, relative to race, as simply a political term. It, along with “white supremacy” is a concept used to argue for unequal treatment under the law to achieve equity of outcomes, ie. gov intervention to call winners and losers based on race, sex, sexuality, etc.
Where we need to be is a post racial society. We need to foster a color blind approach under the law and to treat people as individuals. Don’t judge a book by its cover. People need this message, in my opinion.
Look at the trans shooter situation. The right is now, in my opinion, disgustingly, generalizing to trans ideology as the driver of this violence. It’s the same thing the left does with white male violence. An opportunity to score political points on the back of mental illness and tragedy.
Last edited:
True
Even if you took religion out of the picture these ten rules would not be followed
Christians, Muslims and Jews, all who profess one Creator fail to adhere to these basic rules
Imagine if all mankind, especially those of us “ religious “ folks would adhere to these basic principles!
We all fall short!
In my opinion, the reason we made so much progress on sexuality and race and sex since the 50s or so is in part humanizing people, encouraging that people are seen as individuals, and to not judge people by things they can’t change, like skin color. Modern dei efforts have changed that approach in favor of a grievance model. And, we see a degradation in racial harmony, in my opinion, directly due to that shift. Priv is political speech.
I see your point.
Basically, there are many levels of prejudice. When one is in a homogeneous setting, all white, for example, the smaller prejudices erupt, and it becomes socio-economic, and also education centric. So, I, for example, in an all white environment, was looked down upon for not going to an Ivy when I was living in CT.
Even at social events, it was said by one of my friends, "I went to Harvard, my wife went to Auburn". Then a kid that I was tutoring once said to me that his dad told his mother (and she was an architect), "it's OK that you went to whatever school, (I forgot), you've done well because you've worked hard". The kid was totally being groomed for Ivy and Ivy only, as according to his father, any other education was worthless.
So whereas race may be the most obvious factor, there are many other, more subtle factors.
Lot of people conflating types of privilege that are not truly comparable to white privilege since they aren’t immediately obvious.
Yes there are exceptions to every rule, and not every person of color is immediately and easily distinguishable from the “typical” image of a white American. But it remains an irrefutable privilege (or good fortune or advantage or whatever word you prefer) in America to be able to easily/quickly present as part of the white majority than as a minority.
Things like religion, educational status/alma mater, political party, economic status, less visible disabilities, etc. can also be sources of unequal treatment, but by not being so readily identifiable, are not truly comparable and shouldn’t be used IMHO to minimize or dismiss the significance of white privilege.
Again, it’s not about blame or grievance or what people choose to do with this acknowledgment/empathy, it’s merely recognizing the experience of people who don’t look like us as white majority members.
And no, this show of empathy has nothing to do with politics unless/until someone chooses to make it political.
Religion and guns don’t have to be political either. And when used carefully and properly, religion and guns aren’t inherently bad. Risky/dangerous, sure, but bad, not necessarily. I doubt that everybody objecting to the mere notion of white privilege because they don’t like where the discussion can lead or how it can be misused/misapplied if people aren’t super careful apply that same “let’s throw the baby out with the bathwater” litmus test to religion, guns, etc. In other words. if the concept of white privilege is bad because some people misuse it, are religion and guns also bad because they’re so frequently misused?
(And since nuance doesn’t tend to translate well on these message boards, I’ll clarify that I’m referring here to the acknowledgment of white privilege. That’s not inherently a bad thing. Whether or not the privilege itself is a “bad” thing is way beyond what’s proven discussable here without derailing.)
Yes there are exceptions to every rule, and not every person of color is immediately and easily distinguishable from the “typical” image of a white American. But it remains an irrefutable privilege (or good fortune or advantage or whatever word you prefer) in America to be able to easily/quickly present as part of the white majority than as a minority.
Things like religion, educational status/alma mater, political party, economic status, less visible disabilities, etc. can also be sources of unequal treatment, but by not being so readily identifiable, are not truly comparable and shouldn’t be used IMHO to minimize or dismiss the significance of white privilege.
Again, it’s not about blame or grievance or what people choose to do with this acknowledgment/empathy, it’s merely recognizing the experience of people who don’t look like us as white majority members.
And no, this show of empathy has nothing to do with politics unless/until someone chooses to make it political.
Religion and guns don’t have to be political either. And when used carefully and properly, religion and guns aren’t inherently bad. Risky/dangerous, sure, but bad, not necessarily. I doubt that everybody objecting to the mere notion of white privilege because they don’t like where the discussion can lead or how it can be misused/misapplied if people aren’t super careful apply that same “let’s throw the baby out with the bathwater” litmus test to religion, guns, etc. In other words. if the concept of white privilege is bad because some people misuse it, are religion and guns also bad because they’re so frequently misused?
(And since nuance doesn’t tend to translate well on these message boards, I’ll clarify that I’m referring here to the acknowledgment of white privilege. That’s not inherently a bad thing. Whether or not the privilege itself is a “bad” thing is way beyond what’s proven discussable here without derailing.)
Last edited:
Race or ethnicity may be obvious factors, because you can see them. But, there are other obvious factors. Accent. Grammar. Comportment. Height. Facial symmetry/attractiveness. And, in an individual, race or ethnicity may or may not be an advantage or disadvantage depending on a host of other factors. I.e., at the individual level, aside from scoring political points (virtue signaling, or arguing for bigger government and different rules based on preferred categories) or shutting down speech (check your privilege), “privilege” is not useful and may be actively harmful to how people think about race, sex and ethnicity.
Last edited:
No comment on guns, but yes, religion is often problematic, not to mention illogical. And, the adoption of privilege and systemic racism as explanations of individual outcomes is similarly illogical.
It’s very easy for us white majority folk to say things like “I don’t see color” or to simplistically talk about how everybody should just be “color blind” and treat everyone equally and stop talking about race and that’ll make everything so much better.
Would be great to get more AA input here. Really do wish our AA board members hadn’t left or stopped participating to the degree they have… but one needs only to read any threads where race is touched upon to understand that it’s no coincidence they’ve largely left the premises.
I’m not advocating to say “I don’t see color.” That’s stupid. Of course people see color. I said the law should be colorblind. I’m not advocating for people to stop talking about race and culture. These are often interesting topics and people often strongly identify with their race/culture.
On an individual level, I’m simply advocating that individuals treat individuals as individuals and to avoid making assumptions based on uncontrollable features.
Last edited:
Do you think that its because both are based on a belief of something they hold as truth as opposed to indisputable facts?
Yes. It’s the use of unfalsifiable assumptions. I linked an example earlier of a Harvard trained lawyer working for cnn telling a radio show host after he spoke about his career and effort, that he benefited from white privilege. He happened to be black, which falsified the statement. Had he been white, it would have been unfalsifiable. That puts it in a metaphysically subjective space. It has much more in common with religion than science applied at an individual level.
Not sure what your CNN guest analyst example tells us about the reality of white privilege (other than nothing.) Plenty of people make embarrassing faceplants and misuse/misapply all kinds of hot-button topics, on and off TV, and that does not in and of itself invalidate the underlying concepts.
btw, speaking of "distortion engines" (whatever that is), which you say led you to participate less... Are your posts in this thread examples of what you actually believe and intended to say, or another of the not-really-what-I believe-but-just-meant-to-provoke-argument-and-then-I'll-edit-and/or-delete-it message board contributions you've proudly admitted is your standard procedure?
From the Dec 2022 "Has been a long time" thread discussing the WC/On3 vs. Osceola/Rivals sites, in which you heavily edited and/or deleted most of your provocative posts...
As has brainvision deleted his words from this thread.
And, I will likely delete my posts in this thread eventually as well. It’s normal to purge social media. What I previously intended to convey was that I sometimes devil’s advocate or infinite regress arguments to explore limits.
What the cnn Harvard lawyer interview shows is a few things.
1. That it is mainstream to apply privilege to individuals.
2. That it is mainstream to use privilege to invalidate the perspective of white people when they argue for merit and individual effort as David Webb did.
3. The only reason 2 didn’t work is webb happens to be black. Had he been white, the progressive left would have just agreed and it would have been a big burn of Webb from their perspective, his entire view of the importance of individual effort in success reduced to naive white priv.
My goal wasn’t to invalidate privilege as a concept initially. My goal was to argue that it’s not useful at an individual level. One might extrapolate from that that white privilege isn’t a useful concept. Why? Because, it explicitly was intended to be used at the individual level by Peggy McIntosh when she popularized it. Ie, the premise was flawed from the outset. Not surprising. It did come from a sociology dept basically. her dissertation was about Emily Dickinson. not exactly a stellar science background.
And, of course, my cnn example isn’t enough to invalidate/falsify the construct on its own.
Last edited:
This page is a good concept if certain people could have a discussion and understand that not everyone is going to agree. Sadly, that's not what happens especially with hot button topics. It will drive more and more posters away.
I'm not sure why this concept is so difficult for some. Its not the concept of privilege as that exists everywhere. Its the manner in which its applied universally in this case to all white people.
Ah, thanks for reminding me 61. It's mr bait and switch. My husband used to like to do that on FB.
And the who-cares normalization of it is super bizarre.
Most people edit now and then, but not after people have already responded, and/or deleting entire posts routinely so that anybody else joining the thread later can’t see the body of work that led to people’s responses, other than whatever snippets survived long enough to make it into someone’s quote-reply.
And why post stuff you don’t actually believe simply to provoke argument? Nobody needs that crap.
Actually, in defense of my husband, he only did that with his friends, and they all knew it. But, he never deleted posts and stuff like that.
I didn’t edit after you responded. And, again, deleting posts after conversations have run their course is normal. It’s why there’s a delete button.
But, you are reminding me why I stopped posting here. No one needs this crap
Yes, you've routinely edited after people responded, in this thread and in many past threads. Wish I could show you more instances where you did so in previous threads, but since you delete posts when they take heat or when you decide you've already provoked the blowback you wanted, there's no remaining record of that edit history.I didn’t edit after you responded. And, again, deleting posts after conversations have run their course is normal. It’s why there’s a delete button.
But, you are reminding me why I stopped posting here. No one needs this crap
Whatever. It's bizarre IMHO, not normal. I edit too, but only right after I post if I catch a typo or something that could be clearer. And I do not go back and delete any posts (unless I've hit Submit and immediately realize it's in the wrong thread or unnecessary or not worth the likely confusion or whatever.)
You do you though. Nobody is cancelling you or anything like that. Simply pointing out what you've already admitted you do. Post all you want. And if you don't want your past posts to remain for whatever bizarre reasons, again, you do you.
I just find the complaint about normal forum behavior using tools that are nearly universally available annoying. And, the arguing positions that I don’t necessarily hold sometimes is also a perfectly reasonable and legitimate way to understand someone’s thought process. But, whatever, good job on the thread derailment.
And yeah , “ I edit too, but only right after I post if I catch a typo or something that could be clearer. And I do not go back and delete any posts (unless I've hit Submit and immediately realize it's in the wrong thread or unnecessary or not worth the likely confusion or whatever.)”. Me too, that’s how I use edit. Sometimes am I a little late, sure, if I post and get distracted. But, I usually check to see if someone has already responded. Happened earlier in this thread. I added a word to my opening sentence, relative to brainvision’s deleting of his posts, to correct grammar. You can see geddy quoted the version with the uncorrected grammar.
Last edited:
Also
“Here’s a post of you saying you edit and delete posts for a variety of reasons on a forum in which there’s an edit and delete button to use for a variety of reasons. Gotcha!!”
Oh, and I might add, it’s pretty bizarre to take a pic of a post to save for later use this way. Doubly so, given that it describes normal forum behavior (eg, brainvision in this very thread).
“Here’s a post of you saying you edit and delete posts for a variety of reasons on a forum in which there’s an edit and delete button to use for a variety of reasons. Gotcha!!”
I think that goes on a lot on here. I've seen a lot of odd stuff on here over the years.
Squirm all you want but no, posting provocative stuff you don’t even believe just to test it out or see what reactions you get might be “normal” for you, but as others in that earlier thread rightly labeled it, it’s trolling. It contributes to ruining the message board experience.
There are all kinds of forum tools and other tools we use in our daily lives that are not intended to be used in the way you do, to throw out shit and then erase your tracks. You can own it, accidentally or not, as you already have (in more than just the one post I happened to save), or choose to be a better, more “normal” board citizen, or not.
I don’t make the rules. But there’s no rule against holding someone accountable on a message board. You do you.
Latest posts
-
-
Softball FSU honors seniors, sweeps UNC, picks up 14th straight win- Latest: Bob Ferrante
-
