(10-11-2019 11:58 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  It is interesting when you look at the economics of the situation, vice the race, that a clearer picture emerges. I am not going to engage further in this discussion, as frankly, I do not buy into the OP's argument. But when you account for the economics of differing groups that have different financial situations (based upon abortion rates, out-of-wedlock births, single parent homes, etc), the picture becomes very clear.

You want equality in outcomes, then you bear some responsibility for the inputs, and I'll happily suggest that a simple comparison of out-of-wedlock births/abortions and single-parent homes would provide some much-needed perspective to the claims of institutionalized discrimination. And instead of looking back to the Civil War era, you might be better served evaluating the single worst President in the modern era, Lyndon B Johnson, for his Great Society, and the destruction that this wreaked upon the nuclear family, particularly lower-income black families.

Economic status rather than skin color is what provides "privilege." The whole notion of "white privilege" is racism and a way for liberals to clear a path for okaying overt racism against whites. You're judging people solely based upon their skin color and not accounting for any differences in life experience. That's textbook racism. They're doing the same thing with "toxic masculinity" and trying to institutionalize sexism against men. Could you imagine the reactions if we proposed notions of "black privilege" or "toxic feminity"? Whenever I hear someone use the term "white privilege" it lets me know that they are an ignorant racist bigot.

(10-12-2019 10:19 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(10-11-2019 11:58 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  It is interesting when you look at the economics of the situation, vice the race, that a clearer picture emerges. I am not going to engage further in this discussion, as frankly, I do not buy into the OP's argument. But when you account for the economics of differing groups that have different financial situations (based upon abortion rates, out-of-wedlock births, single parent homes, etc), the picture becomes very clear.

You want equality in outcomes, then you bear some responsibility for the inputs, and I'll happily suggest that a simple comparison of out-of-wedlock births/abortions and single-parent homes would provide some much-needed perspective to the claims of institutionalized discrimination. And instead of looking back to the Civil War era, you might be better served evaluating the single worst President in the modern era, Lyndon B Johnson, for his Great Society, and the destruction that this wreaked upon the nuclear family, particularly lower-income black families.

Economic status rather than skin color is what provides "privilege." The whole notion of "white privilege" is racism and a way for liberals to clear a path for okaying overt racism against whites. You're judging people solely based upon their skin color and not accounting for any differences in life experience. That's textbook racism. They're doing the same thing with "toxic masculinity" and trying to institutionalize sexism against men. Could you imagine the reactions if we proposed notions of "black privilege" or "toxic feminity"? Whenever I hear someone use the term "white privilege" it lets me know that they are an ignorant racist bigot.

"Ignorant" is the key term. They don't understand how real people live outside their own privileged bubble.

Black people have a higher % of poverty, but most poor people are white. They don't have "privilege."

This whole topic reminded me of Louis CK's stand up from few years back.
"if you're white and you don't admit that it's great, you're an *******!"
Louis CK somehow mastered the art of saying things that are 100% true but also funny at the same without offending the crowd.

I'm proud of the students of my alma mater for standing up to this speaker, just not proud of the way that they went about it. There are obvious negative connotations with book burning and they obviously didn't do themselves any favor by doing that.

That said, there are lots of variables that affect how privileged someone is. For example, I've got a cousin (a white male) with Asbergers syndrome. He's really smart at coding and finding ways to make certain routines and algorithms run using fewer CPU cycles and less memory that a lot of programmers wouldn't catch. His disability makes building professional and personal relationships challenging and makes networking and interviewing and finding employment particularly difficult, yet no diversity officer is going to be eager to hire him because diversity is about diversity of appearance and not diversity of actual people. Anyone who would say he needs to get knocked down a peg to make racial injustices right can go **** themselves with a hot metal rod. I can guaran-damn-tee you that the challenges he has in life absolutely dwarf the challenges that this professor has as a Cuban American female.

And obviously that also goes for people who are white and poor, too. You're offended someone asked if you know any Mariacci bands because your Latina or asked what country you're from? Don't try to tell me that even compares to what a lot of low-income people in the rural south go through. Race is a completely negligible factor determining a person's level of privilege in this country yet it's what is thrown in people's faces nearly more than anything else. That's why people are fed up with it.

White privilege is real. So is Arab privilege, Han Chinese privilege, Hispanic privilege, etc, etc. It's such a nauseatingly lazy focus of "research" and - to be frank - dubious path of thought meant to provide busy work for those who have degrees in the "soft disciplines" of study. Of course white people in America have built in advantages that minority groups do not if you're looking at the U.S. in its entirety. HOWEVER, Han Chinese have privileges and "rights" that other minority groups in communist China do not have. If make the same assumption that Arab's in Saudi Arabia have certain advantages over other minority groups...DING DING DING DING DING - you win a prize for some awesomely "DEEP THOUGHT"...

See what I mean? Lazy, obvious, overly simplistic, inane and highly unnecessary. It's pretty obvious to most - or should be obvious IMHO - that the students reacted "poorly" not because they are racist but because they are tired of being preached at for something outside of their control. How much white privilege do you think I would have if I was in the middle of Compton? Or East St. Louis? Bronx? Watts? Fvcking zero. In fact, in these locations I would most like suffer white burden.

Economics play a greater role in privilege than anything else in today's world. In the distant past, privilege was held by those who had "noble" blood lines - especially royal blood. A little further back in time privilege was held by those who could fight the best and/or by those who had the strongest tribe. There will always be privilege so long as there are people in this world who have different ethnicities and religious beliefs.

White privilege (or any other privilege) doesn’t mean that you skirt thru life free and easy. 99% of everyone has various adversities setbacks/misfortunes/etc just as they will have their good fortune from time to time. It’s just saying that there are some things that you may not even think of considering as a factor when decisions are made for you/by you that other races may. It’s a simple concept that is often twisted/contorted/ and blown way out of its actual footprint.

(10-13-2019 09:14 AM)EagleNationRising Wrote:  White privilege (or any other privilege) doesn’t mean that you skirt thru life free and easy. 99% of everyone has various adversities setbacks/misfortunes/etc just as they will have their good fortune from time to time. It’s just saying that there are some things that you may not even think of considering as a factor when decisions are made for you/by you that other races may. It’s a simple concept that is often twisted/contorted/ and blown way out of its actual footprint.

Try explaining it to a laid off factory worker in a county in Iowa that's 0.1% Black.

Its a concept conceived in inner cities where the whites are wealthy or high upper middle class in very expensive neighborhoods surrounded by poor Black neighborhoods with only a few Blacks in their "white" expensive neighborhoods. And these well to do liberals feel guilty about their wealth, especially in view of the history of slavery and Jim Crow.

These people in their ivory towers don't understand how most white (and Black) people in America live. Its about a paradigm most Americans don't live in. These educated, well to do white liberals are ignorant about America.

(10-12-2019 08:58 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  I'm proud of the students of my alma mater for standing up to this speaker, just not proud of the way that they went about it. There are obvious negative connotations with book burning and they obviously didn't do themselves any favor by doing that.

That said, there are lots of variables that affect how privileged someone is. For example, I've got a cousin (a white male) with Asbergers syndrome. He's really smart at coding and finding ways to make certain routines and algorithms run using fewer CPU cycles and less memory that a lot of programmers wouldn't catch. His disability makes building professional and personal relationships challenging and makes networking and interviewing and finding employment particularly difficult, yet no diversity officer is going to be eager to hire him because diversity is about diversity of appearance and not diversity of actual people. Anyone who would say he needs to get knocked down a peg to make racial injustices right can go **** themselves with a hot metal rod. I can guaran-damn-tee you that the challenges he has in life absolutely dwarf the challenges that this professor has as a Cuban American female.

And obviously that also goes for people who are white and poor, too. You're offended someone asked if you know any Mariacci bands because your Latina or asked what country you're from? Don't try to tell me that even compares to what a lot of low-income people in the rural south go through. Race is a completely negligible factor determining a person's level of privilege in this country yet it's what is thrown in people's faces nearly more than anything else. That's why people are fed up with it.

I agree with you on the disabilities argument above. I think however you are comparing oranges to peaches. As you said there are many different ways that privilege is manifested, but you then compared someone with a disorder with someone without. Those people are fighting two different fights in the same arena.

In regards to the bolded section above, race absolutely is a factor in determining privilege. Just like gender, socioeconomic status, etc. Should it be? No...I don’t think it should be. I’ll throw out an easy example...mortgage/loan discrimination is a real thing. For decades, minorities (with comparable credit scores and financial success) couldn’t get fair rates when getting loans that other races could. It’s easy to say “well then you just take the loan or work to find another way”, yes that’s true, but either of these paths create what should be an unnecessary burden on that particular family costs more both financially, which takes money directly out of their pockets, but most importantly in time consumption...a resource that none of us get back. That would be like two people running on the same track, both peoples lanes have hurdles of various sizes and shapes to jump and other people getting in the way as they run their race, but one persons lane is made periodically out of mud and rocks, while the other persons lane is mostly track. Both people will finish the race in about 80 or so years, but the person with the mud will spend a portion of it traversing his/her lane, or petitioning for a lane change, while the other person will close off and say things like “the track type is a completely negligible factor determining how a person runs their race”.

(10-13-2019 10:00 AM)EagleNationRising Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 08:58 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  I'm proud of the students of my alma mater for standing up to this speaker, just not proud of the way that they went about it. There are obvious negative connotations with book burning and they obviously didn't do themselves any favor by doing that.

That said, there are lots of variables that affect how privileged someone is. For example, I've got a cousin (a white male) with Asbergers syndrome. He's really smart at coding and finding ways to make certain routines and algorithms run using fewer CPU cycles and less memory that a lot of programmers wouldn't catch. His disability makes building professional and personal relationships challenging and makes networking and interviewing and finding employment particularly difficult, yet no diversity officer is going to be eager to hire him because diversity is about diversity of appearance and not diversity of actual people. Anyone who would say he needs to get knocked down a peg to make racial injustices right can go **** themselves with a hot metal rod. I can guaran-damn-tee you that the challenges he has in life absolutely dwarf the challenges that this professor has as a Cuban American female.

And obviously that also goes for people who are white and poor, too. You're offended someone asked if you know any Mariacci bands because your Latina or asked what country you're from? Don't try to tell me that even compares to what a lot of low-income people in the rural south go through. Race is a completely negligible factor determining a person's level of privilege in this country yet it's what is thrown in people's faces nearly more than anything else. That's why people are fed up with it.

I agree with you on the disabilities argument above. I think however you are comparing oranges to peaches. As you said there are many different ways that privilege is manifested, but you then compared someone with a disorder with someone without. Those people are fighting two different fights in the same arena.

In regards to the bolded section above, race absolutely is a factor in determining privilege. Just like gender, socioeconomic status, etc. Should it be? No...I don’t think it should be. I’ll throw out an easy example...mortgage/loan discrimination is a real thing. For decades, minorities (with comparable credit scores and financial success) couldn’t get fair rates when getting loans that other races could. It’s easy to say “well then you just take the loan or work to find another way”, yes that’s true, but either of these paths create what should be an unnecessary burden on that particular family costs more both financially, which takes money directly out of their pockets, but most importantly in time consumption...a resource that none of us get back. That would be like two people running on the same track, both peoples lanes have hurdles of various sizes and shapes to jump and other people getting in the way as they run their race, but one persons lane is made periodically out of mud and rocks, while the other persons lane is mostly track. Both people will finish the race in about 80 or so years, but the person with the mud will spend a portion of it traversing his/her lane, or petitioning for a lane change, while the other person will close off and say things like “the track type is a completely negligible factor determining how a person runs their race”.

A lot of studies don't take enough factors into account. Black families often want to buy in Black neighborhoods. Those neighborhoods tend to have higher rates of default and lower price appreciation. Our 2008 recession was triggered in good part because of thinking like this. The federal government basically forced banks to loan in bad neighborhoods in order to keep their charter. So they figured out ways to do it and package it and get it off their books. With the first downturn, those were the people without resources when they faced financial difficulties. So those neighborhoods were devastated and the banks faced massive foreclosures.

(10-11-2019 02:32 PM)HighlandsApp Wrote:  I'll play this fun little game.

it doesn't make any difference whatever kind of study data and or proof any one were to come up with period You're not going to believe any of it because they don't support your long held biases.

Here you go here's a nice study that was done at Stanford, but you won't believe any of it either.

https://openpolicing.stanford.edu/findings/

and FYI in the United States, African Americans represent just over twelve percent of the general population. So therefore they should be pulled over approximately twelve percent of all traffic stops. Now when you factor in the percentages of who owns cars your numbers really get far worse.

You present a false ratio. You assume that crime commission rates amongst the races follows in proportion with the racial composition.

That little issue, when considered, will most definitely skew that number.

Second, aside from that --- most crimes are committed in racial minority areas. Most police forces deploy more units to areas with higher rates of crime. What do you think might happen when, as an extreme example, 80% of a police force patrols a city area that is predominantly non-white? Do you think the stoppage rates for whites and non-whites will follow the racial profile of the city.

Cmon man, put a little bit of critical thinking into your stream of thought before tossing out incendiary stats that might not have a bearing on the situation at all.

This is little ridiculous. I may not be black, but I can admit that white privilege is not some fictional myth and it has a deep profound impact on our everyday lives.

Professors at universities literally everywhere: "White privilege is real and has far reaching intergenerational socioeconomic consequences."
few message board posters here: "LIES"

This is why liberal arts education has intrinsic values. Is the intro to sociology class not a prereq for some schools? Seriously, I'm honestly not trying to be a jerk, but I can scan and paste my old sociology textbook here free of charge. You know...written by professors with actual PhD with thousands of hours of research specifically on the topic of white privilege and race inequalities, so you know it's explained better than anything I can say.

A TA showed this video before the very first lecture in my Inequalities in Race, Gender, and Wealth class. Gave me some perspectives of black people that I shamefully never ever thought about before in my entire life. It definitely sparked some interesting conversations in my class. White privilege affects everything and everywhere even under the very same socioeconomic conditions. In the western societies, especially in the United States, Whiteness can be described as an invisible, unearned asset that distinguishes certain bias and prejudices. It certainly affects even one's basic freedoms to move, work, speak, etc. and can be certainly seen in personal, professional, and educational contexts, which is what I assume that the Cuban American professor meant to describe in front of the Georgia Southern students.

(10-13-2019 11:40 AM)GSUALUM17 Wrote:  This is little ridiculous. I may not be black, but I can admit that white privilege is not some fictional myth and it has a deep profound impact on our everyday lives.

Professors at universities literally everywhere: "White privilege is real and has far reaching intergenerational socioeconomic consequences."
few message board posters here: "LIES"

This is why liberal arts education has intrinsic values. Is the intro to sociology class not a prereq for some schools? Seriously, I'm honestly not trying to be a jerk, but I can scan and paste my old sociology textbook here free of charge. You know...written by professors with actual PhD with thousands of hours of research specifically on the topic of white privilege and race inequalities, so you know it's explained better than anything I can say.

So, if 'white privilege' is so absolutely "tangible", tell me what % of my 'success' (or my bank account, or my billing hours, or my receivables) is attributable to such 'white privilege'.

You have stated that it has "real and has far reaching intergenerational socioeconomic consequences". Let us assume *that* (absolutely far reaching) statement to be true. Tell us the objective numbers on this, since it is so obvious and has such 'far reaching consequences'. Since they are such absolutely *profound* 'far reaching consequences', they *must* have an enormity of objective support. So tell me how much of 'me' is the result of this absolutely profound thing?

The posters here arent saying "LIES" -- what they are saying is 'instead of spouting pithy one liners about the profound impacts as though it is gospel truth', give us some hard objective, numbers.

Being a skeptic and requiring objective facts isnt wrong or ignorant.

And I hate to tell you, much of the touted 'liberal arts education' that has such intrinsic value that you tout kind of runs into a real problem when faced with the requirements of scientific inquiry and objective proof that that requires.

A liberal arts education *does* allow one to formulate and synthesize non-objective philosophical points much better than a STEM background, no doubt. But in the issues you note the idea of 'proof by repetition' kind of falls well short of the mark, and highlights a pretty large corresponding hole in the ideal of liberal arts education.

(10-13-2019 12:18 PM)GSUALUM17 Wrote:  In the western societies, especially in the United States, Whiteness can be described as an invisible, unearned asset that distinguishes certain bias and prejudices.

"Invisible asset." Quite the concept. Quite the standard of proof. Lolz.

Quote:It certainly affects even one's basic freedoms to move, work, speak, etc.

So blacks cant speak. Got it. Double lolz. Please do tell how 'white privilege' affects one's 'freedom to .... speak.' You are really heading into the far edges of assertions here and to the far edges of blanket statements.

Quote:and can be certainly seen in personal, professional, and educational contexts, which is what I assume that the Cuban American professor meant to describe in front of the Georgia Southern students.

It only really belongs in the same school of thought that 'racism is deep and rampant, even within those who arent racist' school of thought. I suggest you look at some of the videos in this series of videos focusing on Evergreen to see that culture run rampant.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL...Unhw-buS5K

(10-13-2019 12:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-13-2019 12:18 PM)GSUALUM17 Wrote:  A TA showed this video before the very first lecture in my Inequalities in Race, Gender, and Wealth class. Gave me some perspectives of black people that I shamefully never ever thought about before in my entire life. It definitely sparked some interesting conversations in my class. White privilege affects everything and everywhere even under the very same socioeconomic conditions. In the western societies, especially in the United States, Whiteness can be described as an invisible, unearned asset that distinguishes certain bias and prejudices. It certainly affects even one's basic freedoms to move, work, speak, etc. and can be certainly seen in personal, professional, and educational contexts, which is what I assume that the Cuban American professor meant to describe in front of the Georgia Southern students.

"Invisible asset." Quite the concept. Quite the standard of proof. Lolz.

By the same reasoning, I guess you don't believe the concept "Invisible Hands" by Adam Smith either. That bit was covered in Econ 101.

(10-13-2019 12:30 PM)GSUALUM17 Wrote:  

(10-13-2019 12:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-13-2019 12:18 PM)GSUALUM17 Wrote:  A TA showed this video before the very first lecture in my Inequalities in Race, Gender, and Wealth class. Gave me some perspectives of black people that I shamefully never ever thought about before in my entire life. It definitely sparked some interesting conversations in my class. White privilege affects everything and everywhere even under the very same socioeconomic conditions. In the western societies, especially in the United States, Whiteness can be described as an invisible, unearned asset that distinguishes certain bias and prejudices. It certainly affects even one's basic freedoms to move, work, speak, etc. and can be certainly seen in personal, professional, and educational contexts, which is what I assume that the Cuban American professor meant to describe in front of the Georgia Southern students.

"Invisible asset." Quite the concept. Quite the standard of proof. Lolz.

By the same reasoning, I guess you don't believe the concept "Invisible Hands" by Adam Smith either. That bit was covered in Econ 101.

Actually Econ has been able to do replicable and predictive activities within its culture. So nice strawman, and strike 1.

Your term of 'invisible asset' specifically refers to something 'that exists but cannot be measured'. For very specific reasons.

Adam Smiths world involved not 'invisible' assets, but more aptly named 'inchoate' assets. But you knew that. Nice try at both a strawman argument *and* deflection.

(10-13-2019 11:40 AM)GSUALUM17 Wrote:  This is little ridiculous. I may not be black, but I can admit that white privilege is not some fictional myth and it has a deep profound impact on our everyday lives.

Professors at universities literally everywhere: "White privilege is real and has far reaching intergenerational socioeconomic consequences."
few message board posters here: "LIES"

This is why liberal arts education has intrinsic values. Is the intro to sociology class not a prereq for some schools? Seriously, I'm honestly not trying to be a jerk, but I can scan and paste my old sociology textbook here free of charge. You know...written by professors with actual PhD with thousands of hours of research specifically on the topic of white privilege and race inequalities, so you know it's explained better than anything I can say.

You shouldn't believe everything that professors teach. They have a vested interest in pushing these concepts. They are often wrong and interject their own opinions as fact. From your handle I assume you graduated in 2017? If so, as you age and work you'll think less and less of academics. They say "those that can't do teach.". I imagine you'll find this is true as time goes on. I used to think a lot of my law school professors when I was young. Now, not so much.

(10-13-2019 10:00 AM)EagleNationRising Wrote:  I agree with you on the disabilities argument above. I think however you are comparing oranges to peaches. As you said there are many different ways that privilege is manifested, but you then compared someone with a disorder with someone without. Those people are fighting two different fights in the same arena.

In regards to the bolded section above, race absolutely is a factor in determining privilege. Just like gender, socioeconomic status, etc. Should it be? No...I don’t think it should be. I’ll throw out an easy example...mortgage/loan discrimination is a real thing. For decades, minorities (with comparable credit scores and financial success) couldn’t get fair rates when getting loans that other races could. It’s easy to say “well then you just take the loan or work to find another way”, yes that’s true, but either of these paths create what should be an unnecessary burden on that particular family costs more both financially, which takes money directly out of their pockets, but most importantly in time consumption...a resource that none of us get back. That would be like two people running on the same track, both peoples lanes have hurdles of various sizes and shapes to jump and other people getting in the way as they run their race, but one persons lane is made periodically out of mud and rocks, while the other persons lane is mostly track. Both people will finish the race in about 80 or so years, but the person with the mud will spend a portion of it traversing his/her lane, or petitioning for a lane change, while the other person will close off and say things like “the track type is a completely negligible factor determining how a person runs their race”.

The problem comes in the faulty logic that because there are disparities that there must be systemic bias at the foot of them. Typically when data is scrutinized beyond just looking for disparity,

An example is what I said in the thread about police killings. It's not enough to say that young black men are killed by policemen out of proportion to their share of the US population, therefore there is bias. Studies that go deeper like the ones I cited make it disappear.

It's the same thing with the nonexistent "wage gap" between men and women. When people say there is a wage gap what they mean is that on average men make more money than women. Of course that ignores choice of career, number of hours worked, preference for work-life balance, and being able to use out-of-town job offers as leverage for pay.

And the claims that the higher incarceration of black men is due to racism when both FBI crimes stats and DOJ surveys of crime victims show that they do have higher rates of crime.

As for credit scores, there's the matter that minorities in general don't have credit scores as good as whites. Change how the credit score is calculated if you want, but you can't put that on "white privilege".

(10-13-2019 11:40 AM)GSUALUM17 Wrote:  This is little ridiculous. I may not be black, but I can admit that white privilege is not some fictional myth and it has a deep profound impact on our everyday lives.

Professors at universities literally everywhere: "White privilege is real and has far reaching intergenerational socioeconomic consequences."
few message board posters here: "LIES"

This is why liberal arts education has intrinsic values. Is the intro to sociology class not a prereq for some schools? Seriously, I'm honestly not trying to be a jerk, but I can scan and paste my old sociology textbook here free of charge. You know...written by professors with actual PhD with thousands of hours of research specifically on the topic of white privilege and race inequalities, so you know it's explained better than anything I can say.

Oh my. What a good little indoctrinated drone you have become.

Good luck.

What in tarnation? Can we make a rule where if a Sun Belt thread goes off the rails and NPCs are regurgitating the same, tired, basic, mindless college student talking points, it goes to the Wild West board and not the main politics board?