White Privilege

[Dissonance]

You have no argument so you resort to name calling, and foul language. Do you have ANYTHING useful to contribute? Anything?

Do you even read what I post?

I have said multiple times that I agree with your conclusion but that you are doing absolutely nothing other than saying "it doesn't need proof" or "it's evident" or "go look it up on google" to actually prove your point.

It DOES need proof.

It is NOT obvious or evident.

And since YOU are the one trying to make a point, the burden to go find articles on Google is YOURS, not anybody else's.

Do you understand?

 

[rmxp_dev]

White privilege does not need to be proven.

This link does not require proof.

I say that Link is self-evident

Okay, but then we have to agree its useless circular logic.  It may convince your friends in high school, but those of us who wear the white collar and actually are in the trenches facing this issue are unimpressed.  What laws by the way are ensuring this white dominion?

My arguments are not circular logic. Circular logic is, you're wrong because I said so. That is circular logic.

I've stated certain facts that support my arguments.

#1. The reality of White Rule in a Democratic country with a White majority population. This is a fact that establishes the Existence of White Privilege. We can define White privilege as the benefits of the Majority Party in a Democratic nation.

#2. The reality that in a Democratic country, the MAJORITY establishes Laws, and policies. This is also a fact. This establishes the method in which the Majority can and do create Competitive advantages for the Majority, and competitive disadvantage for Minorities. Through Laws, and policies. example: Poorer education for Blacks is a direct consequence of how Govn't chooses to fund school districts. Richer districts receive more money than poorer districts rather than EQUAL funding regardless of district.

#3. Over the history of the USA, Minorities were oppressed via these established Laws and Policies. This is a fact.

#4. Therefore, there is no link needed to prove that today, Statistical Disparities that measure QOL between Whites and Minorities are a DIRECT consequence of White Majority Rule.


What would impress me if you could provide statistical evidence that proves a White Majority does not create any statistical disparities between Whites and Minorities.

What would impress me if you could provide evidence that the REASON Blacks earn less than Whites is due to any other reason besides disparities in Education both Whites and Blacks received.



This disparity is not just in the USA. In countries all over the world, minorities whether racial, religious, or nationality are at a distinct disadvantage compared to the Majority because they do not have sufficient Political representation. The reason Eastern European countries are poor is because there was no democracy. Power was held only in the hands of a certain few. This is the same exact parallel in America. White Majority wield most of the power to construct laws that give advantages to teh Majority group, in this case Whites. Minorities who do not have the same political power, suffer as a result.

This is demonstrated repeatedly over and over again. Those that have political power, have all the Advantages. Those that do not have political power, do not.

 

[___]

On top of that I don't get access to any of the special groups dedicated to narrowing the gap for minorities;

White people aren't the minority so why would you get a special group when it's not necessary?

there's no Fund For the Development of Poor White Boys that gives out college grants to people like me just because of my race

There's no fund that gives grants to poor minorities either.  There are funds for underprivileged youths and scholarship programs originally designed for minorities, but anyone can apply.  Do you know why you never hear of white people getting these grants?  Because they don't apply.  Simple.

I beg to differ.  There are tons of grants to which the requirements are specifically a racial heritage.  Going back to my 1/8th Cherokee friend, he qualifies for a full ride to college for no other reason than a spurious attachment to the Cherokee people.  I would not receive that same privilege nor is there a similar privilege available to me that I am aware of (if there was I'd jump all over that shit).

Also, WHITE isn't a race.  "Black" is a generic term for people from Africa which is why we're commonly called "African-Americans."  But white people seem to have this fucking stigma about who they are and where they come from and refuse to realise that they originally came from a country called EUROPE.  THERE ARE European funding programs... and white people come from various parts of Europe so why do they still complain?  The only group of people who claim that WHITE is a race are Aryans and they're the same people who think every non Aryan should be exterminated.

The point about white being a race couldn't be more true.  Unfortunately as rmxp_dev and others have proven, the fact of having white skin can be used against a person as a political weapon just as easily (and a hell of a lot more safely, from a political standpoint) as any other "race".  The whole concept of race in general is bullshit, IMO, but you and me saying it's bullshit and screaming it to the world doesn't change perception, I wish it did.

America was once the land of the Indians.  White people stole the land, murdered 90% of the population, and now keeps them in reservations which are so poor and decrepit they're practically prisons.  500 dollars a month is a pittant sum for having your fucking home destroyed and your people raped and all you have to show for it is a race that makes up less than 2% of the population and has the highest alchoholism and suicide rate in the country.

My ancestors had nothing to do with that, we didn't come over till the mid-19th century.  Maybe I should be suing the British for the rape and pillage of MY home country that created the political and economic situation that dethroned and disinherited my ancestors and eventually lead to someone a few generations up the family line moving to America to find a better life.  Hell maybe I should sue everyone of Roman descent for a portion of their lands in reparation for their original invasion of the British isles; they're the start of the whole damn problem.
Furthermore my friend didn't live on a reservation or suffer any hardship, his Cherokee blood was so minor nothing short of a genealogy investigation could prove it.  He didn't even know about it till someone else in his family found out first.  Nonetheless he enjoyed a special privilege for being technically a part of a minority.  And that's fine, good for him!  I'm just saying, these things are examples of special privileges, and they are enjoyed by minority groups; the privilege of the white person, independent of economic status, is simply to have neither special privileges nor special discrimination.

It's called minimum wage laws.  Regardless, if you have a job that doesn't pay competitive wages then you have the power to quit or ask for a raise.  Simple as that.

So does a minority or a woman, and if they fail they have associations to fall back on that are happy to spend their money in court to prove the point.  White males do not have an organization devoted solely to their attention that I know of.  Once again, not a problem for me, but it pisses me off to hear someone tell me that I had to work less hard for a raise or any shit like that; that's ridiculous.

It's called a job interview.  It makes me laugh when people say that companies higher underqualified personel just because they're minorities but people like that fail to realize that a job interview is the most important factor in deciding if you're going to work for someone.  If a nice black guy with a high school degree and a jackass white guy with a bachelors apply for a customer service position, I guarantee you the job will go to the nice black guy.  I've seen recorded video tapes of job interviews and HOLY SHIT do people either come off as arrogant jerks or they have a paper thin personality.  I wouldn't hire you even if you were a rocket scientist... or I'd atleast put you in a dark corner where no one would interact with you.

Actually I'm with you on this one, I believe that in 99% of cases there's a good reason person A got the job over person B that has nothing to do with race; that's why when someone says it's easier for me to get a job because I'm white I feel either subtle amusement or subtle irritation at least.

 

[So fist]

My arguments are not circular logic. Circular logic is, you're wrong because I said so. That is circular logic.

Got it, you're either a troll or you slept through logic class.  Read the wiki link if you sincerely don't know.

What would impress me if you could provide evidence that the REASON Blacks earn less than Whites is due to any other reason besides disparities in Education both Whites and Blacks received.

I already voiced my opinion on the matter.  Did you read it?  I see education as the equalizer in upward mobility.  Everything else is window dressing.  Teach a man to fish and all that.  Do you have a guess for what I do for a living?

 

[Dissonance]

This is EXACTLY what I mean.

#1. The reality of White Rule in a Democratic country with a White majority population. This is a fact that establishes the Existence of White Privilege. We can define White privilege as the benefits of the Majority Party in a Democratic nation.

The Majority PARTY?  You mean, Republican and Democrat?  I don't suppose you've shifted from talking about race to political affiliation privilege, have you?

#2. The reality that in a Democratic country, the MAJORITY establishes Laws, and policies. This is also a fact.

It is also a fact that the definition of Democracy is the Majority rule while at the same time respecting the rights of the minority - If it truly was majority = absolute rule as you claim, blacks would most likely still be slaves and every native would be dead.

example: Poorer education for Blacks is a direct consequence of how Govn't chooses to fund school districts. Richer districts receive more money than poorer districts rather than EQUAL funding regardless of district.

And we get to it.  You're just TALKING.  Show us a study, a poll, an article, governmental records, whatever, that shows this to be actual truth and not just you typing.  You saying that THIS IS TRUE dues not make it so.  Evidence!

#3. Over the history of the USA, Minorities were oppressed via these established Laws and Policies. This is a fact.

Yes, and you do realize that the white community has in fact paid them back and continues to do so?  Protip: White Privilege exists, but following this particular path won't get you to it.

My arguments are not circular logic. Circular logic is, you're wrong because I said so. That is circular logic.

That's actually a horrendous bastardization of what circular logic is.  What you're describing is an argument from authority.

 

[rmxp_dev]

My arguments are not circular logic. Circular logic is, you're wrong because I said so. That is circular logic.

Got it, you're either a troll or you slept through logic class.  Read the wiki link if you sincerely don't know.

What would impress me if you could provide evidence that the REASON Blacks earn less than Whites is due to any other reason besides disparities in Education both Whites and Blacks received.

I already voiced my opinion on the matter.  Did you read it?  I see education as the equalizer in upward mobility.  Everything else is window dressing.  Teach a man to fish and all that.  Do you have a guess for what I do for a living?

Well I'm sorry but your accusations that I've used circular Logic is not true.  You may not agree with them, but do not call it circular logic. You are using circular logic on me.

The circular logic you are using is: Because you do not have evidence linking Statistical dispairty, and Majority Rule, therefore, it is false. THAT is circular logic.

1. You need evidence to prove something.
2. Because you do not have evidence, you have not proved anything.

This is the circular reasong YOU have used.

I have not used Circular reasons. I've given you facts, and logical reasoning. And historical examples. Sure, if I wanted to, I could prove beyond a shadow of doubt the relationship between Political Representation and Prosperity, but I think that's self evident.

 

[___]

If you want to talk about statistics and quality of life, let's go back to the (warning: incoming bullshit statistic, bear with me) 5% of the population control 95% of the wealth in this country problem.  If we really had a functioning democracy here that represented the needs of the people and created a special sector of privilege only enjoyed by white people, that statistic would not be possible.  There is no way that 95% of people in this country are satisfied with 5% of its resources, happy to create the system of legal privilege that allows this situation to continue.  The fact is controlling that much money and power gives you a very special privilege not enjoyed by almost anyone: the privilege to use your wealth to dominate the perceptions of the public.

Take for instance the big movement to get rid of estate taxes by the bush administration a few years back.  The only people who are affected at all by estate taxes are the extravagantly wealthy, perhaps 15% of the population that represent more like 98% of the wealth in the country (cough bullshit statistic, sorry).  The vast majority of us will not have a penny subtracted from our piddling inheritance by the government when our beloved relatives pass.  Nevertheless through the power of incredible wealth and media dominance they were able to get a huge amount of people to support this movement to preserve just a little more wealth for already extremely wealthy people at the expense of government services to the impoverished.

If there is a "they", they almost certainly would like "the rest of us" to keep thinking privilege in this country is divided largely along racial lines, so that we can all keep fighting with eachother while "they" keep sucking down the wealth.  As long as poor white guy A and poor black guy B and poor latino guy C and poor asian guy D can never put aside paranoia as to who is getting the most out of the latest deal to provide public benefits we will never get anything.

The difference in quality of life between a lower to middle class white person and that of a lower to middle class person of any other race is miniscule, pathetically small, incredibly insignificant between the difference in quality of life on average between the majority of the population and a tiny minority that exists completely outside racial bounds.  And also between the upper echelon first world countries as a whole and the rest of the world for that matter, if you want to take it outside national boundaries.

In regard to circular logic:

Circular logic is not really a formal logical fallacy.  What you're probably going for is base assertion fallacy.

Base assertion fallacy is like: I don't have to prove x because x is already proven, therefore the rest of my argument based on x is also correct, because x supports it.

So you're probably closest to base assertion fallacy, without me referencing anything.

I will interfere with the rest of this argument if it takes the thread too far off track, we don't need to discuss what is and isn't logical here too deeply.

 

[rmxp_dev]

The Majority PARTY?  You mean, Republican and Democrat?  I don't suppose you've shifted from talking about race to political affiliation privilege, have you?

No, I am talking racially. Whether Democratic or Republican is not the issue. When the country is 65% White, Whites obviously are the MAJORITY racial group. Compare that to 5% Asian. Which group do you think will control this country?

This is what I mean. Political Representation. Whites have it. Minorities don't.

It is also a fact that the definition of Democracy is the Majority rule while at the same time respecting the rights of the minority - If it truly was majority = absolute rule as you claim, blacks would most likely still be slaves and every native would be dead.

Um. no. The only reason Blacks are still not in shackles is because WHITES freed them. WHITES gave them civil rights as a result of national guilt. WHITES freed Blacks. Who has the power? Without power, can minorities truly have equality?

And you are naive if you think Democracy works that way where the rights of all minorities are respected, and upheld.

And we get to it.  You're just TALKING.  Show us a study, a poll, an article, governmental records, whatever, that shows this to be actual truth and not just you typing.  You saying that THIS IS TRUE dues not make it so.  Evidence!

And I get it too. You keep using YOUR circular logic. #1. You have no "evidence". #2. Therefore you must be wrong.

Yes, and you do realize that the white community has in fact paid them back and continues to do so?  Protip: White Privilege exists, but following this particular path won't get you to it.

Paid them back?? Who are you talking about? Were the Native Indians paid? No they were moved off on some desolate tiny pieces of land. Blacks were paid? When?

That's actually a horrendous bastardization of what circular logic is.  What you're describing is an argument from authority.

What YOU are doing is using Circular Logic. Show us evidence. Waaah. You have no evidence and therefore wrong. Waaah.



What you guys must prove is that there is no correlation between POLITICAL representation, and Inequality in a Democratic Society.

Is there a relationship between Inequality and the amount of Political representation?

History says YES.

Blacks were not allowed to vote.
Women were not allowed to vote.

Who enjoyed the highest advantages during this era of American History? Those who wielded political power. WHITE MEN.

Today, Whites form 65% of the country. Therefore, they hold 65% of the Political Power. Who therefore wields Competitive advantages? Whites.

Until you can de-link these two, you have no evidence.

 

[___]

Seriously.  End the circular logic debate.

Also, if you demand citations, be expected to provide them yourself as well and really overcomplicate an argument. 

I think we can all agree that there exist statistics which show that people of minority groups, if isolated, have less privilege than people in a majority group.  This is a statistical correlation, not a causal link.  If the top 5% of the population in a country that is 80% white controls 95% of the wealth, it is easy to show that white people control 89.5% of all the wealth (made up numbers for easy math to show a point, not real statistics and sorry if my math is shitty, I did that in my head by guessing).  This however does not prove anything whatsoever about white people or any other people or the causes of these problems; it is a bullshit statistic having little to do with real life taken to prove a spurious point on the basis that most people don't understand the difference between correlation and causality.

 

[rmxp_dev]

Seriously.  End the circular logic debate.

Also, if you demand citations, be expected to provide them yourself as well and really overcomplicate an argument. 

I think we can all agree that there exist statistics which show that people of minority groups, if isolated, have less privilege than people in a majority group.  This is a statistical correlation, not a causal link.  If the top 5% of the population in a country that is 80% white controls 95% of the wealth, it is easy to show that white people control 89.5% of all the wealth (made up numbers for easy math to show a point, not real statistics and sorry if my math is shitty, I did that in my head by guessing).  This however does not prove anything whatsoever about white people or any other people or the causes of these problems; it is a bullshit statistic having little to do with real life taken to prove a spurious point on the basis that most people don't understand the difference between correlation and causality.

How can you say it's not a causal link?

Of course the amount of Political representation you have in a democratic country directly determines your Quality of Life.

Not only is it a statistical correlation, White Majority rule is a DIRECT CAUSE of Social and Economic inequalities among races. DIRECT CAUSE.



Why are Communist countries poor? Because the General population in these countries have no political representation. Only the leaders enjoy the highest benefits due to having all the Political power!!

Was there ever a RULING Majority that was not also the richest? You cannot find one single nation in the history of the world.

Therefore, let me sum this up. WHITE PRIVILEGE EXISTS and is REAL, and is a direct cause of Statistical disparities between Whites and Minorities.

 

[Dissonance]

And we get to it.  You're just TALKING.  Show us a study, a poll, an article, governmental records, whatever, that shows this to be actual truth and not just you typing.  You saying that THIS IS TRUE dues not make it so.  Evidence!

And I get it too. You keep using YOUR circular logic. #1. You have no "evidence". #2. Therefore you must be wrong.

THAT IS NOT CIRCULAR LOGIC. God damn it, it is blatantly obvious you don't have a single clue concerning what circular logic actually is.

Circular logic is THIS: I believe the bible because it's the word of god.  Why do I believe it's the word of god?  Because it's in the bible.  Why do I believe the bible is true when It's telling me that?  Because it's the word of god.  etc.

Asking for you to PROVIDE EVIDENCE is not circular logic, mainly because it doesn't go in that loop.  You can't break the circular loop in my example because there is no way to prove either of them outside the loop.

But guess what?

It's quite possible for you to get evidence.

Yes, and you do realize that the white community has in fact paid them back and continues to do so?  Protip: White Privilege exists, but following this particular path won't get you to it.

Paid them back?? Who are you talking about? Were the Native Indians paid? No they were moved off on some desolate tiny pieces of land. Blacks were paid? When?

...You know nothing about anything if you truly believe this.

What YOU are doing is using Circular Logic. Show us evidence. Waaah. You have no evidence and therefore wrong. Waaah.

And what YOU are doing is stuffing words in my mouth.  Did I once say you wrong?  Go on, search the entire thread, I DEFY you to find a single post of mine that said your conclusion - that white privilege exists and is a problem - was WRONG.  You will never, ever find that post because I NEVER SAID IT.

And aside from that do you know how absurd you sound?  YES, if you can't show evidence, you have a problem.  Let's see you write say, a university thesis on the subject of white privilege, and NOT provide any kind of secondary sourcing whatsoever, simply rambling on with your own opinions while not citing ANYTHING.  You'll be laughed out of the goddamn program.  Or let's see you try to convict a criminal with no evidence - no crime scene, no murder weapon, no prints, NOTHING.

Asking for PROOF is not 'circular logic' - Not providing proof just makes it damn obvious you're talking out of your ass.

 

[gamingfan1989]

rmxp_dev, you're getting pwned.  Just give up.

 

[___]

Today, Whites form 65% of the country. Therefore, they hold 65% of the Political Power. Who therefore wields Competitive advantages? Whites.

Until you can de-link these two, you have no evidence.

The largest factor that affects who gets elected at the national level in this country is campaign funding.  Campaign funding is largely contributed by a small sector of extremely wealthy people and organizations, often through a huge variety of shell organizations in order to get past campaign contribution laws.  Once a representative is elected, his agenda is dictated largely by his political party, not the will of individual groups who actually elected him; the political party is controlled in turn by various powerful interests such as large companies, powerful religious groups and financial lobbies.  Their agenda has little to do with what is best for me and you; it has a lot to do with what is best for their group, which by definition is a minority, however financially and politically powerful.  Race has nothing whatever to do with the interests of most of these groups, except where their motivation is specifically to benefit a race, which will always be a minority.  Financial institutions and multinational corporations don't give a shit if their money comes from black or white people, as long as the law is skewed in favor of the way they like to do business.  The massive Evangelical Christian Movement is made up of a large variety of churches representing many different racial and cultural groups who have one thing in common: subscription to the evangelical doctrine; same with the Catholic Church, whos membership is not only largely non-american but largely non-white.  Racial politics has no bearing on their agenda.  Multinationals are racist only to the extent that the countries they economically exploit are occupied largely by non-white people; if they were occupied instead by white people (and some of them are) they would not hesitate to exploit them as long as our legal structure allowed.

There is very little link between the number of white people in the country or their supposed common interests and the people holding the majority of the political cards.

 

[Dissonance]

There is very little link between the number of white people in the country or their supposed common interests and the people holding the majority of the political cards.

The key here is SUPPOSED common interests.

If it were cleanly cut across racial lines then rmxp_dev might actually be right, but he's forgetting that this white 'majority' is actually also split up in other ways.

Gay/straights within the white majority have different wants and opinions.
Same with christians/nonchristians.
The able bodied and the disabled.
Children and adults.
Even those who don't want to reproduce and those who do.

When you start hacking apart this UNITED MAJORITY AGAINST BLACKS, ASIANS, AND LATINOS... you find they're not so united at all.  There is no common white interest that is digging into the backs of racial communities.

 

[mawk]

All the disparities that are shown by many statistics between Whites and minorites are a consequence to White Rule ie White Privilege.

Fucking prove it. Underlining your text does not make it true.

This link does not require proof.

Then prove that.

 

[rmxp_dev]

THAT IS NOT CIRCULAR LOGIC. God damn it, it is blatantly obvious you don't have a single clue concerning what circular logic actually is.

Circular logic is THIS: I believe the bible because it's the word of god.  Why do I believe it's the word of god?  Because it's in the bible.  Why do I believe the bible is true when It's telling me that?  Because it's the word of god.  etc.

Asking for you to PROVIDE EVIDENCE is not circular logic, mainly because it doesn't go in that loop.  You can't break the circular loop in my example because there is no way to prove either of them outside the loop.

But guess what?

It's quite possible for you to get evidence.

You are using circular logic.

#1. Without a link as an evidence, you cannot be right.
#2. Because you have not shown evidence ie links, therefore you are not right.
#3. You cannot be right because you do not have evidence ie links.

I have shown you evidence, and facts. Historical examples. Present day analogies. I think my evidence is self-evident that there is definitely a causal relationship between Political representation, and QOL statistics.

Without Political power, you can't have QOL.
With political power, you will have QOL.

Ok I'm done here. I realize most of you are Caucasian, and really are arguing ferociously agaisnt this. But you're flat WRONG. You know it. I know it. You just can't admit to it.

 

[Despain]

Locked for the time being. Everyone cool down.

Rmxp_dev, go read some wikipedia articles on logic and fallacies. I'll unlock this in a few hours.

 

[___]

How can you say it's not a causal link?

Because it's not a causal link, it's a statistical correlation.  Here's a hopefully not bad example:

A: People who live in Florida are more likely to have their houses flooded.  Statistical correlation.
B: Coastal regions experience more flooding than desert regions.  Causal link.

What's the difference here?  In A, not all people living in Florida will have their houses flooded, or will be more likely to have their houses flooded, because not all people in Florida live in costal regions where flooding is common.  It is simply more likely that a Floridan will live near the coast than a resident of Utah.  In B, there is a clear link between floods and water: without water you cannot have floods.  The fact that people in Florida more often live close to water is a coincidence; being from Florida does not cause your home to get flooded, being near the coast does.

Similarly, there are more white people in the country than black people, and white people have had more time to get wealthy and to establish family lines than black people for obvious and regrettable reasons.  Therefore it is more likely, given a sampling of wealthy people, that they will be white than black.  That does not mean being white makes you more wealthy, or that being black makes you poor.

Why are Communist countries poor? Because the General population in these countries have no political representation. Only the leaders enjoy the highest benefits due to having all the Political power!!

Was there ever a RULING Majority that was not also the richest? You cannot find one single nation in the history of the world.

Therefore, let me sum this up. WHITE PRIVILEGE EXISTS and is REAL, and is a direct cause of Statistical disparities between Whites and Minorities.

People in communist dictatorships have no political representation.  Individuals in democracies have the exact same political representation as the next individual, and their race does not define their interests in more than a casual way.


edit: @Despain:  Thanks for the topic lock, sorry to post over you, I was close to it as well.  The circular logic thing needs to end, we can resume this tomorrow when everyone has had a chance to cool their heels.

Update:  This topic will be reopened on Saturday, 3/29/08, sometime in the morning when I wake up.  Things were getting out of hand, everyone needs time to cool down about it.  If it keeps up like this I'll lock it again, permanently.  My only interest here is a valid discussion, even if it is a sensitive subject it's not a reason to degrade to arguing and name-calling.

 

[Despain]

eyyy Nphyx guess who woke up first.

Unlocked for now guys. Don't get out of control again.

 

[Kaoii]

I'm glad that people decided to discuss affirmative action in this thread. "White Privilege" is a very polarizing thing when you have a program like AA that exists.

In theory, affirmative action would work. In theory, so would communism. However, I personally believe that affirmative action programs only create more resentment and therefore should be illegal. They can easily be viewed as racist programs that could only lead to sparking more racism, and at least five states in November will be voting to ban them.

I am not a racist and I view all people as equals. I have black friends and I have friends from the Middle East. However, let's say we have a hypothetical law school. A white guy gets in with very high test scores, but is told to leave because they need someone who didn't score as well and is black to meet the status quo. How would that not spark resentment? Also, how would that same guy feel in the future when he needed a lawyer or a doctor and the only ones available were black? Would he question whether they got their jobs because of their low scores and the status quo? These may not be fair questions, but they are reality.