Can we finally just admit that "white privilege" is just a meaningless buzzword liberals throw out

Blueneck

Former Staff
Jun 2007
53,050
39,173
Ohio
Falsely accusing people of things they never said is pushing a lie. It's exactly the same type of New York bullshit Trump does. Congrats, you and he closer in actions and ideology than I'll ever be.
Then dry your tears and explain what you said, because it didn't make any sense. I interpreted it to be along the lines of "I know you are, but what am I?" If I have it wrong, enlighten me. I'm listening.
 

Blueneck

Former Staff
Jun 2007
53,050
39,173
Ohio
Okay, Bob, let's try this again.

First, racism didn't start with nor does it only exist among American white males despite all the dancing and false accusations by the Left.
Nobody said that racism was invented in America. But I'd put money on American white males being the vast majority of those who perpetuate it. Just like they're ahead of all other demographics in mass shootings.

Second, there should be no doubt racists live among us. On this forum, in our neighborhoods and on our television. No "race" (I use that because there really aren't any according to geneticists. It's cultural differences) has a monopoly on racism.
Would you agree that in America, most racist are white?

Lastly, those screaming the loudest about the injustices of racism are usually among the most divisively racist in our nation.
How does that not mean that people decrying racism are divisively racist because they are making a big deal about it?
 

Blueneck

Former Staff
Jun 2007
53,050
39,173
Ohio
IMO, the only people who feel "white guilt" are racists who believe in "white privilege". They're overcompensating due to guilt much like an adulterous husband gives a bunch of flowers to his wife "for no reason".
Here's another one that doesn't make sense. You can do better "I am rubber, you are glue" can't you?
 

Blueneck

Former Staff
Jun 2007
53,050
39,173
Ohio
Its a very obvious fact that white people tend to be a lot wealthier than minorities so their children have a huge advantage. Also, all races are essentially genetically the same, and yet minorities turn out a lot worse which indicates the environment rather than genetics. That bad start and bad environment for many minorities is what contributes to white privilege.
That would be the logical explanation, but here we are arguing with people who claim white privilege is non-existent. The "why" of it can't be dealt with in this case.

Welcome to PH, where pig-headedness seems to prevail much of the time.
 
Likes: Babba
Feb 2011
16,411
5,715
Boise, ID
That would be the logical explanation, but here we are arguing with people who claim white privilege is non-existent.
No you're not. You're arguing with people who object to the insistence on using that politically-charged term to describe society.

If you want an analogy, imagine right wingers insisting on evaluating all left-wing policies, ideas, and rhetoric as some sort of function of Marxist ideology, and referencing Marxism all the time as a way of attempting to marginalize and delegitimize what a left-wing person is saying.

You can say you're not a Marxist, and we will look down at you condescendingly and pat you on the head when you attempt your quaint denial of Marxism, but even if you don't intend to be Marxist, Marxism has become so embedded into society that it's systemic and institutional now, and so you and every other left-winger can't really help being some degree of Marxist.

And because Marxism is a failed idea, and because we virtually all agree that we have to combat Marxism, the only way that can be done is to first get all the left-wingers to acknowledge and admit their Marxism and that Marxism exists. You can't really change until you admit you're a Marxist, because only then will you be open to accepting our policy ideas and electing the politicians we like.

Admittedly, I have accused certain rhetoric of being Marxist or neo-Marxist, usually when it's over-the-top, and almost every time I get a huge adverse reaction. That's basically the kind of term "white privilege" is. Except I see it as worse because it starts with race-based generalizations.
 

Blueneck

Former Staff
Jun 2007
53,050
39,173
Ohio
No you're not. You're arguing with people who object to the insistence on using that politically-charged term to describe society.

If you want an analogy, imagine right wingers insisting on evaluating all left-wing policies, ideas, and rhetoric as some sort of function of Marxist ideology, and referencing Marxism all the time as a way of attempting to marginalize and delegitimize what a left-wing person is saying.
I'm not doing that, and people mischaracterizing someone else's argument by saying YOU are a bad person (for whatever reason therefore your arguments are invalid are just being assholes. If you object to the term based on it becoming a cliche and be abused, is another term you'd like to use? Home field advantage maybe?

You can say you're not a Marxist, and we will look down at you condescendingly and pat you on the head when you attempt your quaint denial of Marxism, but even if you don't intend to be Marxist, Marxism has become so embedded into society that it's systemic and institutional now, and so you and every other left-winger can't really help being some degree of Marxist.
You say this like it's hypothetical. It's not. It happens daily and for as long as I can remember here on PH. How about we both agree not to broadbrush each other?

And because Marxism is a failed idea, and because we virtually all agree that we have to combat Marxism, the only way that can be done is to first get all the left-wingers to acknowledge and admit their Marxism and that Marxism exists. You can't really change until you admit you're a Marxist, because only then will you be open to accepting our policy ideas and electing the politicians we like.

Admittedly, I have accused certain rhetoric of being Marxist or neo-Marxist, usually when it's over-the-top, and almost every time I get a huge adverse reaction. That's basically the kind of term "white privilege" is. Except I see it as worse because it starts with race-based generalizations.
And so is "racist". You don't want to be called racist, you don't want to be assumed to be advantaged because your white. I'm not doing either, I'm just saying there are really no situations I can think of where things would work out better for me if I were black.

Encounters with police or other authority figures being at the top of the list. You ever see red lights in your rear view mirror and think, "damn I would so love to be black right now"?
 
Feb 2011
16,411
5,715
Boise, ID
I'm not doing that, and people mischaracterizing someone else's argument by saying YOU are a bad person (for whatever reason therefore your arguments are invalid are just being assholes. If you object to the term based on it becoming a cliche and be abused, is another term you'd like to use? Home field advantage maybe?
What I’d suggest is not forcing the discussion of social problems to be through a strictly white/majority vs. black/minority lens in the first place.

You say this like it's hypothetical. It's not. It happens daily and for as long as I can remember here on PH. How about we both agree not to broadbrush each other?
I would say let’s expect pushback from one another if either insists on interpreting a problem or idea through a lens that involves highly politically charged labels.
 

Blueneck

Former Staff
Jun 2007
53,050
39,173
Ohio
What I’d suggest is not forcing the discussion of social problems to be through a strictly white/majority vs. black/minority lens in the first place.
Why do you object to comparing the two? As far as I can see, there's a big difference in how situations play out, and I wouldn't call it a "social problem" it's more of a credibility handicap. I think maybe you are more concerned with white privilege being treated as an official diagnoses of why our country can't seem to get past the racial divide than if it's a thing anyone has actually experienced.

I would say let’s expect pushback from one another if either insists on interpreting a problem or idea through a lens that involves highly politically charged labels.
There's no way you and I are likely to agree on much, but I don't find you impossible to discuss things with because you're smart and don't get hung up on gotcha games. For myself, I don't mind being called names all that much, but I'd prefer not be seen as having an agenda. Unless it's "she wants single payer", because I'll take that one all day long. :)

Other than that, I don't really subscribe to any "ism" and would never change my opinions in order to be more in line with anyone else's platform.
 
Feb 2011
16,411
5,715
Boise, ID
Why do you object to comparing the two? As far as I can see, there's a big difference in how situations play out, and I wouldn't call it a "social problem" it's more of a credibility handicap. I think maybe you are more concerned with white privilege being treated as an official diagnoses of why our country can't seem to get past the racial divide than if it's a thing anyone has actually experienced.
I think the racial divide is perpetuated by framing the discussion with a starting assumption that there is a racial divide and that we need to continuously measure all differences and outcomes and trends according to this racial divide in ad infinitum number of ways, and then publish them all and say, "See?! By golly, the racial divide is real! And significant!!" Well yeah, you set up your study so as to reveal nothing but how much of a racial divide there is. The existence of the differences-by-skin-color is then used to surmise all sorts of other skin-color-based things about society. This is basically what's called confirmation bias.

There is all sorts of academic research actively set up to compulsively look for nothing but differences based upon skin color. To set up a study this way is to announce that you want to see nothing but differences according to race and are actively looking for confirmation that the world is race-based. When your parameters are strictly skin-color-based, you see the world as a function of skin color (x) vs. skin color (y). It doesn't need to be that way.

There's no way you and I are likely to agree on much, but I don't find you impossible to discuss things with because you're smart and don't get hung up on gotcha games. For myself, I don't mind being called names all that much, but I'd prefer not be seen as having an agenda. Unless it's "she wants single payer", because I'll take that one all day long. :)
You might be surprised to know we probably have a considerable amount of theoretical agreement on several things, but I get very critical as soon as the context starts borrowing from talking points and memes and falling gullible to a partisan narrative.
 

Similar Discussions