Poll Is white privilege real? (577 votes)
Yes 56%
No 43%
Is white privilege real in certain countries?
Is white privilege real?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I do find the contrast between the white privilege results and the ghetto culture results interesting. What's the main demographic of this site again?
I guess it does in few places.
There are people in this thread who claim "black privelage" is a thing. I just cannot. I am not at all surprised by some of the responses in this thread, considering who the largest demographic of this website is though.
@kazuma_bushi said:
There are people in this thread who claim "black privelage" is a thing. I just cannot. I am not at all surprised by some of the responses in this thread, considering who the largest demographic of this website is though.
Middle Easterners?
In asia. not the west.
@kazuma_bushi said:
There are people in this thread who claim "black privelage" is a thing. I just cannot. I am not at all surprised by some of the responses in this thread, considering who the largest demographic of this website is though.
Black privilege most certainly exists. A privilege is something that is given or extended to one and not another. And by extension, those not in the privileged class are denied this privilege. In the US there are affirmative action laws which grant non-Caucasians priority in obtaining school grants, hiring and in getting federal contracts. That's an example of legalized privilege. An argument can be made that these laws are needed to correct past injustices, but that just proves that the privilege exists. You can't argue for the continuation of a privilege extended to one group but denied another if it doesn't exist.
I am not saying that since black privilege exists then white privilege is justified or that they are equal. I think white privilege is more prevalent in society. But lets be honest, there are certain privileges that are extended to black persons that are not extended to white people. For instance, we allow black people to be proud of their race and to celebrate it through black pride, black beauty pageants, black entertainment television, black clubs and organizations. It would not be considered acceptable for there to be a white pride rally, a National Association for White People, White Entertainment Television, or set aside jobs for whites only. You can justify the privilege by saying that whites don't need these things, but it does not change the fact that a "privilege" is extended to one class of people based on their race, but not extended to another.
Loading Video...
@batwatch said:
@poeticwarrior said:
@heroup2112 said:
@tobi-wan: What I basically said, to begin with, was that yes white privilege exists. However, I agreed with the other person, because he pointed out that other kinds of privileges exist too.
Good example. I applied for a job as a fire fighter (I'm not going to say where, I don't want any negative reactions toward me from them or toward them from anyone).
I got the top grade on the entrance exam, the physical agility test, and basic applied mechanical theory test. Do you know why I wasn't hired? Because if you were a minority you got an extra 5 hiring points, if you were a woman you got an extra 5 hiring points. So, a black woman beat me out by two points. Was I upset about it, no. This was back in the early 1990's when hiring practices were just starting to turn around for minorities, and I understood the situation.
However, don't try to sit there and tell me black, or female privilege doesn't exist.
You're talking about justice vs fairness. Justice is more about making up for past mistakes, so that everyone can be on equal grounds in the future while fairness is about treating everyone fairness regardless of their background and how they get their. What if the Black woman who was hired come from a bad neighborhood? What if she has to do more to get where she is while someone who is at the same position may have an easier time growing up based on their background. If we don't correct the past injustice, it would just basically perpetuate the social ladder in society where the rich where a lot of whites have an edge will get richer while the poor which often affected many minority due to the background they were born in will keep staying at that level.
Your view of justice is wrong. You are saying we should perpetuate a new type of injustice to make up for past injustices. If we lived this way, every single person would be taking a pound of flesh from every other person, and we could make up endless excuses for how every group of people should be getting special benefits over every other group of people.
Justice can only be found when individuals are judged for their own actions. You suggest we condemn one person for the actions of another, and that's the exact opposite of justice.
Loading Video...
Loading Video...
@just_sayin said:
@kazuma_bushi said:
There are people in this thread who claim "black privelage" is a thing. I just cannot. I am not at all surprised by some of the responses in this thread, considering who the largest demographic of this website is though.
Black privilege most certainly exists. A privilege is something that is given or extended to one and not another. And by extension, those not in the privileged class are denied this privilege. In the US there are affirmative action laws which grant non-Caucasians priority in obtaining school grants, hiring and in getting federal contracts. That's an example of legalized privilege. An argument can be made that these laws are needed to correct past injustices, but that just proves that the privilege exists. You can't argue for the continuation of a privilege extended to one group but denied another if it doesn't exist.
I am not saying that since black privilege exists then white privilege is justified or that they are equal. I think white privilege is more prevalent in society. But lets be honest, there are certain privileges that are extended to black persons that are not extended to white people. For instance, we allow black people to be proud of their race and to celebrate it through black pride, black beauty pageants, black entertainment television, black clubs and organizations. It would not be considered acceptable for there to be a white pride rally, a National Association for White People, White Entertainment Television, or set aside jobs for whites only. You can justify the privilege by saying that whites don't need these things, but it does not change the fact that a "privilege" is extended to one class of people based on their race, but not extended to another.
There is no such thing as Black privelage period. Affirmative Action has actually benefited caucasian women the most out of anyone, so that argument is completely laughable.
http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/17/affirmative-action-has-helped-white-women-more-than-anyone/
Black people have had to create things such as Black beauty pageants, clubs and organization because of the discrimanatory, racist, and prejudice practices of white people. Ridducling black feautures, making them the butt of jokes, and demonizing our physical attributes. Their beauty pageants were all white, they didn't allow us to join their clubs or organizations. We had to create our own. BET is black in name only, the true owners of it are white. And besides how many chanels exist where there is nothing but white faces shown? Black people take a crumb and you still complain.
The difference between Black pride and white pride is white pride has historically been racist. White pride groups have historically been racist and demonized other ethnicites. White pride has zero positive conotations to anyone Black.
I am baffled by the complete audacity of your words. Black people have received literal crumbs in comparison to their white counterparts and you still want to complain and moan about it. This is a classic example of why I don't mess with most comic readers outside of anything pertaining to comics.
@power_titan: Not at all. I'm saying that at that time, people who had previously had unfair disadvantages were given a chance to level the playing field that was ...until recently...unbalanced. I no longer believe that playing field to be unbalanced. Oh, and looking closer at your statement, you may not have even been talking to me :)
@kazuma_bushi: You claim that black people created black beauty pageants, clubs and organizations because of racist white people. You justify a privilege that is extended to one race but not to white people and then you deny these privileges exist????!!!!! How can you argue for the continuation of black privilege and deny it exists at the same time? When you say it is OK for one race to take pride in itself and deny another race to do the same thing, that's privilege. It may be justified in your mind, but it is privilege. Well meaning discrimination is still discrimination.
You seriously don't think affirmative action laws don't negatively impact white people? It may seem fair to you if a rich black kid with lower grades gets a college grant while a poor white kid in Appalachia with better grades is denied for no other reason than he is white, but it is discriminatory. The white child is negatively impacted by the law. Do you think it is fair to discriminate against a poor white kid from Appalachia just because he is white? You may rationalize the need for the law to correct past injustices, but that does not change the fact the poor white kid from the mountains of West Virginia has been discriminated against.
You feel black people have received crumbs in comparison to their white counterparts, I agree with you, but you miss the obvious - you are justifying the continuation of a current privilege. You feel these reasons justify the continuations of policies which discriminate against someone who is white - but that's what privilege does - it gives one group benefits, while denying those benefits to others. That's why white privilege is bad. It is inconsistent to argue that white privilege is bad but black privilege is good.
You claim that if someone points out that there is black privilege they are "moaning" about it. But if it doesn't exist, what is there to "moan" about? I would ask you why you are arguing to continue privileges extended to black people but not white if you won't admit the privilege exists to start with.
@just_sayin said:
@kazuma_bushi: You claim that black people created black beauty pageants, clubs and organizations because of racist white people. You justify a privilege that is extended to one race but not to white people and then you deny these privileges exist????!!!!! How can you argue for the continuation of black privilege and deny it exists at the same time? When you say it is OK for one race to take pride in itself and deny another race to do the same thing, that's privilege. It may be justified in your mind, but it is privilege. Well meaning discrimination is still discrimination.
You seriously don't think affirmative action laws don't negatively impact white people? It may seem fair to you if a rich black kid with lower grades gets a college grant while a poor white kid in Appalachia with better grades is denied for no other reason than he is white, but it is discriminatory. The white child is negatively impacted by the law. Do you think it is fair to discriminate against a poor white kid from Appalachia just because he is white? You may rationalize the need for the law to correct past injustices, but that does not change the fact the poor white kid from the mountains of West Virginia has been discriminated against.
You feel black people have received crumbs in comparison to their white counterparts, I agree with you, but you miss the obvious - you are justifying the continuation of a current privilege. You feel these reasons justify the continuations of policies which discriminate against someone who is white - but that's what privilege does - it gives one group benefits, while denying those benefits to others. That's why white privilege is bad. It is inconsistent to argue that white privilege is bad but black privilege is good.
You claim that if someone points out that there is black privilege they are "moaning" about it. But if it doesn't exist, what is there to "moan" about? I would ask you why you are arguing to continue privileges extended to black people but not white if you won't admit the privilege exists to start with.
Fam this convo is over. I'm not gonna raise my blood pressure going in a circular argument with someone whose view point is obviously never going to change. White people want to be oppressed so badly. I'm out. Don't reply back because I'm not.
@kazuma_bushi said:
There are people in this thread who claim "black privelage" is a thing. I just cannot. I am not at all surprised by some of the responses in this thread, considering who the largest demographic of this website is though.
It's definitely a thing, just not in most areas; most of South Africa is extremely dangerous for whites and other lighter skin races. Race 'privilege' exists to some degree in every nation in the world.
@power_titan said:
Loading Video...
My main issue in that video is that every cop is different. There's no way to get the same result every time, with different people and situations.
@just_sayin said:
@kazuma_bushi said:
There are people in this thread who claim "black privelage" is a thing. I just cannot. I am not at all surprised by some of the responses in this thread, considering who the largest demographic of this website is though.
Black privilege most certainly exists. A privilege is something that is given or extended to one and not another. And by extension, those not in the privileged class are denied this privilege. In the US there are affirmative action laws which grant non-Caucasians priority in obtaining school grants, hiring and in getting federal contracts. That's an example of legalized privilege. An argument can be made that these laws are needed to correct past injustices, but that just proves that the privilege exists. You can't argue for the continuation of a privilege extended to one group but denied another if it doesn't exist.
I am not saying that since black privilege exists then white privilege is justified or that they are equal. I think white privilege is more prevalent in society. But lets be honest, there are certain privileges that are extended to black persons that are not extended to white people. For instance, we allow black people to be proud of their race and to celebrate it through black pride, black beauty pageants, black entertainment television, black clubs and organizations. It would not be considered acceptable for there to be a white pride rally, a National Association for White People, White Entertainment Television, or set aside jobs for whites only. You can justify the privilege by saying that whites don't need these things, but it does not change the fact that a "privilege" is extended to one class of people based on their race, but not extended to another.
White Entertainment Television is called CBS (Caucasian Broadcast Station). On a more serious note, all of those stuffs are basically the norm. Every month is White history month, you go to school, you learn White history, White beauty is the one being celebrated and considered the most beautiful. You don't call attention to something that is already a norm. Black beauty and Black pride are mostly to show that they, too, can be beautiful outside the norms of the conventional beauty which value Whites more than anything. Black privilege is nothing compared to the White privilege which is something that is considered the norm and acceptable as regular conduct.
It has more to do with money and name, than race.
Of course,but there is also arab privilege in arab countries,Jew privilege in Israel,japanese privilege in Japan,Indian privilege in India etc...
Not that this justify white privilege in the west in any way, this is something that must be solved, but "dominant race privilege" is a problem present in pretty much every single country.
@bluehope said:
Of course,but there is also arab privilege in arab countries,Jew privilege in Israel,japanese privilege in Japan,Indian privilege in India etc...
Not that this justify white privilege in the west in any way, this is something that must be solved, but "dominant race privilege" is a problem present in pretty much every single country.
Are you sure about Japan? White people are actually being placed by a pedestal in a lot of the Asian countries. Being half white is considered a blessing and valuable. Many of the commercials like to use White actors, and a lot of their games set in the West and featured White protagonists. You would be surprised who's the dominant power in a lot of the countries in Africa.
@poeticwarrior: lol, I guess you don't know anything beyond the surface of japanese culture. Japanese people absolutely despise foreigners, and that includes white people too. It's so bad that ocasionally you see an entire mob of people telling foreigners to go back to their countries.
Baka gaijin should go home.
@removekebab said:
@poeticwarrior: lol, I guess you don't know anything beyond the surface of japanese culture. Japanese people absolutely despise foreigners, and that includes white people too. It's so bad that ocasionally you see an entire mob of people telling foreigners to go back to their countries.
Baka gaijin should go home.
I've heard similar things from several people who've traveled there after having expressed interest in their culture and going to Japan.
@removekebab said:
@poeticwarrior: lol, I guess you don't know anything beyond the surface of japanese culture. Japanese people absolutely despise foreigners, and that includes white people too. It's so bad that ocasionally you see an entire mob of people telling foreigners to go back to their countries.
Baka gaijin should go home.
Yes, I even know the period when the Japanese secluded from foreigners and a lot about its history. I live in Japan for several years. How much do you know about Japanese history in the past and how much do you know about its future? Japanese is generally xenophobic, but it's also depending on the race and the nationality a lot of the time. A group of people don't represent the whole Japanese. It's like saying Westboro Church represents all of America being homophobic.
@beaconofstrength: Say what? As a black South African, I'm going to fully deny that. South Africa is dangerous for all who live in it, especially if you're a black person. The huge amount of violent crimes committed are towards black people. There's no anti white agenda here. Sure you had that jerk in the UK that made a white waitress cry but ever since the beginning of this year some white people have been on a roll with racism especially on social media. And it was unwarranted, which makes it even worse. Just yesterday some douche gave a lame ass apology about why he was racist on Facebook two days before. Obviously the entire country had a go at him. Look him up, Matt Theunissen. The product of self entitlement and white privilege which is a major problem here that's being exposed slowly but surely. There's no denying it.
@poeticwarrior said:
@bluehope said:
Of course,but there is also arab privilege in arab countries,Jew privilege in Israel,japanese privilege in Japan,Indian privilege in India etc...
Not that this justify white privilege in the west in any way, this is something that must be solved, but "dominant race privilege" is a problem present in pretty much every single country.
Are you sure about Japan? White people are actually being placed by a pedestal in a lot of the Asian countries. Being half white is considered a blessing and valuable. Many of the commercials like to use White actors, and a lot of their games set in the West and featured White protagonists. You would be surprised who's the dominant power in a lot of the countries in Africa.
Asians see westerners as exotic and "cool" just like whites se asians in US and Europe,however japanese people reach positions of power and prestige far easier than non japanese,people always want to see "one of them" in the control,this is prestige.
@bluehope said:
@poeticwarrior said:
@bluehope said:
Of course,but there is also arab privilege in arab countries,Jew privilege in Israel,japanese privilege in Japan,Indian privilege in India etc...
Not that this justify white privilege in the west in any way, this is something that must be solved, but "dominant race privilege" is a problem present in pretty much every single country.
Are you sure about Japan? White people are actually being placed by a pedestal in a lot of the Asian countries. Being half white is considered a blessing and valuable. Many of the commercials like to use White actors, and a lot of their games set in the West and featured White protagonists. You would be surprised who's the dominant power in a lot of the countries in Africa.
Asians see westerners as exotic and "cool" just like whites se asians in US and Europe,however japanese people reach positions of power and prestige far easier than non japanese,people always want to see "one of them" in the control,this is prestige.
Whites see Asian males as nerdy virgin foreigners while Asian females as sexual objects. It's not the same. Just look at the media and Hollywood and you can already see. Other than that, it's a nationality thing, not a race thing. Japanese wants Japanese to success, not other Asians like Chinese, so I don't it as being a race privilege.
@heroup2112 said:
@power_titan: Not at all. I'm saying that at that time, people who had previously had unfair disadvantages were given a chance to level the playing field that was ...until recently...unbalanced. I no longer believe that playing field to be unbalanced. Oh, and looking closer at your statement, you may not have even been talking to me :)
10+ million acres (x $4500 average price for an acre)=$45, 000, 000, 000 or $45 BILLION stolen and never returned. Not to mention the destroyed businesses and the future revenue lost there.
The playing field is still woefully unbalanced:
http://sacobserver.com/2015/05/blacks-least-likely-to-get-business-loan-from-banks/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/01/blacks-far-more-likely-th_n_817105.html
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/black_prisoners_tend_to_serve_longer_sentences_than_whites
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/31/the-counted-police-killings-2015-young-black-men
@beaconofstrength said:
@power_titan said:
My main issue in that video is that every cop is different. There's no way to get the same result every time, with different people and situations.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/01/blacks-far-more-likely-th_n_817105.html
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/black_prisoners_tend_to_serve_longer_sentences_than_whites
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/31/the-counted-police-killings-2015-young-black-men
@poeticwarrior said:
@bluehope said:
@poeticwarrior said:
@bluehope said:
Whites see Asian males as nerdy virgin foreigners while Asian females as sexual objects. It's not the same. Just look at the media and Hollywood and you can already see. Other than that, it's a nationality thing, not a race thing. Japanese wants Japanese to success, not other Asians like Chinese, so I don't it as being a race privilege.
Japanese and Chinese are different groups,they are not the same people in different countries just because they are asians,just like semites and europeans are both caucasian yet they have racism against each other.Also my friend Iago who is half japanese half latino suffered racism and dificulltty to get better job in Japan even after he got japanese nationality. Race privilege is a very common problem that I believe most countries have.
@bluehope said:
@poeticwarrior said:
@bluehope said:
@poeticwarrior said:
@bluehope said:
Whites see Asian males as nerdy virgin foreigners while Asian females as sexual objects. It's not the same. Just look at the media and Hollywood and you can already see. Other than that, it's a nationality thing, not a race thing. Japanese wants Japanese to success, not other Asians like Chinese, so I don't it as being a race privilege.
Japanese and Chinese are different groups,they are not the same people in different countries just because they are asians,just like semites and europeans are both caucasian yet they have racism against each other.Also my friend Iago who is half japanese half latino suffered racism and dificulltty to get better job in Japan even after he got japanese nationality. Race privilege is a very common problem that I believe most countries have.
We're talking about Asian privilege vs White privilege, privilege based on the color of your skin, how you're being treated differently based on your appearance, not where you were born. Nationality is a whole different issue. You said half Asian half LATINO. Latino is not usually White. Not all races are being treated the same in Japan. Blacks and Whites are actually being treated differently there. Hell, not even Japanese, many Chinese call them black ghosts.
@poeticwarrior: Latino CAN be white, it's not a race remember?
@modernww2fare said:
@poeticwarrior: Latino CAN be white, it's not a race remember?
Yes, but I'm assuming he's referring to the non-white Latino, otherwise, he would have said White instead of specify Latino, at least, in the context of this argument.
@poeticwarrior said:
@just_sayin said:
@kazuma_bushi said:
There are people in this thread who claim "black privelage" is a thing. I just cannot. I am not at all surprised by some of the responses in this thread, considering who the largest demographic of this website is though.
Black privilege most certainly exists. A privilege is something that is given or extended to one and not another. And by extension, those not in the privileged class are denied this privilege. In the US there are affirmative action laws which grant non-Caucasians priority in obtaining school grants, hiring and in getting federal contracts. That's an example of legalized privilege. An argument can be made that these laws are needed to correct past injustices, but that just proves that the privilege exists. You can't argue for the continuation of a privilege extended to one group but denied another if it doesn't exist.
I am not saying that since black privilege exists then white privilege is justified or that they are equal. I think white privilege is more prevalent in society. But lets be honest, there are certain privileges that are extended to black persons that are not extended to white people. For instance, we allow black people to be proud of their race and to celebrate it through black pride, black beauty pageants, black entertainment television, black clubs and organizations. It would not be considered acceptable for there to be a white pride rally, a National Association for White People, White Entertainment Television, or set aside jobs for whites only. You can justify the privilege by saying that whites don't need these things, but it does not change the fact that a "privilege" is extended to one class of people based on their race, but not extended to another.
White Entertainment Television is called CBS (Caucasian Broadcast Station). On a more serious note, all of those stuffs are basically the norm. Every month is White history month, you go to school, you learn White history, White beauty is the one being celebrated and considered the most beautiful. You don't call attention to something that is already a norm. Black beauty and Black pride are mostly to show that they, too, can be beautiful outside the norms of the conventional beauty which value Whites more than anything. Black privilege is nothing compared to the White privilege which is something that is considered the norm and acceptable as regular conduct.
I would agree with you that historically television, beauty pageants, history classes and American culture in general have not adequately included black culture. And I would also agree that white privilege has had a much bigger impact than black privilege, but I would not say that black privilege is nothing. Discrimination is still discrimination even if it seems well intentioned. You can't claim the moral high ground and say that white privilege is wrong and must be done away with and then turn around and say that black privilege is insignificant or good and should be ignored. Privilege, whether white or black or some other kind, means that someone gets benefits or courtesies just because of their skin color that other races do not. We should have the view that we should not discriminate based on race... period, no disclaimers, no fine print. Anything less is ultimately immoral.
@just_sayin said:
@poeticwarrior said:
@just_sayin said:
@kazuma_bushi said:
There are people in this thread who claim "black privelage" is a thing. I just cannot. I am not at all surprised by some of the responses in this thread, considering who the largest demographic of this website is though.
Black privilege most certainly exists. A privilege is something that is given or extended to one and not another. And by extension, those not in the privileged class are denied this privilege. In the US there are affirmative action laws which grant non-Caucasians priority in obtaining school grants, hiring and in getting federal contracts. That's an example of legalized privilege. An argument can be made that these laws are needed to correct past injustices, but that just proves that the privilege exists. You can't argue for the continuation of a privilege extended to one group but denied another if it doesn't exist.
I am not saying that since black privilege exists then white privilege is justified or that they are equal. I think white privilege is more prevalent in society. But lets be honest, there are certain privileges that are extended to black persons that are not extended to white people. For instance, we allow black people to be proud of their race and to celebrate it through black pride, black beauty pageants, black entertainment television, black clubs and organizations. It would not be considered acceptable for there to be a white pride rally, a National Association for White People, White Entertainment Television, or set aside jobs for whites only. You can justify the privilege by saying that whites don't need these things, but it does not change the fact that a "privilege" is extended to one class of people based on their race, but not extended to another.
White Entertainment Television is called CBS (Caucasian Broadcast Station). On a more serious note, all of those stuffs are basically the norm. Every month is White history month, you go to school, you learn White history, White beauty is the one being celebrated and considered the most beautiful. You don't call attention to something that is already a norm. Black beauty and Black pride are mostly to show that they, too, can be beautiful outside the norms of the conventional beauty which value Whites more than anything. Black privilege is nothing compared to the White privilege which is something that is considered the norm and acceptable as regular conduct.
I would agree with you that historically television, beauty pageants, history classes and American culture in general have not adequately included black culture. And I would also agree that white privilege has had a much bigger impact than black privilege, but I would not say that black privilege is nothing. Discrimination is still discrimination even if it seems well intentioned. You can't claim the moral high ground and say that white privilege is wrong and must be done away with and then turn around and say that black privilege is insignificant or good and should be ignored. Privilege, whether white or black or some other kind, means that someone gets benefits or courtesies just because of their skin color that other races do not. We should have the view that we should not discriminate based on race... period, no disclaimers, no fine print. Anything less is ultimately immoral.
Where did I say that? Depending on certain things, some of what you consider Black Privileges may not be actual privileges but as a way to bring back attention to outside what what's considered beautiful and discrimination. TV shows like BET exists because they can't find any of their race elsewhere on television, as I said, most roles, especially protagonist will have Caucasian as a requirement. Whites are more likely to get hired, they did a study with the same resume of two different races. There are Black privileges, but not all of them are privileges.We should not discriminate based on race, but the reality is, we do, and ignoring it and say we should treat everyone equally basically ignoring the institutional racism that already exists.
@poeticwarrior: If the sole intent of things such as black TV channels, black beauty pageants, black clubs and organizations was to give expression to a voice that is not adequately represented elsewhere I'd agree with you that these are not examples of black privilege. The existence of these things is not of itself evidence of black privilege, it is the stigma or refusal to allow another race to have them that indicates that privilege is occurring. To say that it is acceptable to have black pride and black only organizations, but white pride and white only organizations are intrinsically racist is an example of race based privilege.
Affirmative action policies which give an advantage to someone because of their race and penalize someone else because of the color of their skin are indeed examples of codified raced based privilege. The intention is no doubt well meaning. The underlying need for greater equality in hiring is real, but the means being used to achieve it is still discriminatory.
Yes. I'm a complete douchebag yet all the Indians and East Asians at my work love me, they always compliment me on my Aryan features. Yes, it is kind of awkward.
@just_sayin said:
@poeticwarrior: If the sole intent of things such as black TV channels, black beauty pageants, black clubs and organizations was to give expression to a voice that is not adequately represented elsewhere I'd agree with you that these are not examples of black privilege. The existence of these things is not of itself evidence of black privilege, it is the stigma or refusal to allow another race to have them that indicates that privilege is occurring. To say that it is acceptable to have black pride and black only organizations, but white pride and white only organizations are intrinsically racist is an example of race based privilege.
Affirmative action policies which give an advantage to someone because of their race and penalize someone else because of the color of their skin are indeed examples of codified raced based privilege. The intention is no doubt well meaning. The underlying need for greater equality in hiring is real, but the means being used to achieve it is still discriminatory.
Where is the refusal to let other races have them? People can apply and get in Black predominant schools, Black organizations have quite a few White members in it. As I said, there is no need for White pride and White organization because almost everything else is already White specific from textbooks to movies.
Affirmative Action is fixing the already imbalance existing due to the historical context because most Whites have an inherent advantages based on the background they were born in, there were poor Whites as well, but that doesn't really help fix the balance between races where mostly only White people can get to school due to more of them have an advantages since birth. If mostly White people are in power based on their education, they'd continue to be the ones making the decision and rules. This is more about leveling the playing field up until a certain point. Why would the hiring is the way it is? Who's the ones hiring? The ones at the top are still predominantly Whites, and it will keep perpetuate where more White people will get hire, more of their kids will have a better upbringing, they grow up and take the jobs at the top, and the circle continues. It doesn't gap the difference between Whites and other races.
@poeticwarrior said:
@just_sayin said:
@poeticwarrior: If the sole intent of things such as black TV channels, black beauty pageants, black clubs and organizations was to give expression to a voice that is not adequately represented elsewhere I'd agree with you that these are not examples of black privilege. The existence of these things is not of itself evidence of black privilege, it is the stigma or refusal to allow another race to have them that indicates that privilege is occurring. To say that it is acceptable to have black pride and black only organizations, but white pride and white only organizations are intrinsically racist is an example of race based privilege.
Affirmative action policies which give an advantage to someone because of their race and penalize someone else because of the color of their skin are indeed examples of codified raced based privilege. The intention is no doubt well meaning. The underlying need for greater equality in hiring is real, but the means being used to achieve it is still discriminatory.
Where is the refusal to let other races have them? People can apply and get in Black predominant schools, Black organizations have quite a few White members in it. As I said, there is no need for White pride and White organization because almost everything else is already White specific from textbooks to movies.
Affirmative Action is fixing the already imbalance existing due to the historical context because most Whites have an inherent advantages based on the background they were born in, there were poor Whites as well, but that doesn't really help fix the balance between races where mostly only White people can get to school due to more of them have an advantages since birth. If mostly White people are in power based on their education, they'd continue to be the ones making the decision and rules. This is more about leveling the playing field up until a certain point. Why would the hiring is the way it is? Who's the ones hiring? The ones at the top are still predominantly Whites, and it will keep perpetuate where more White people will get hire, more of their kids will have a better upbringing, they grow up and take the jobs at the top, and the circle continues. It doesn't gap the difference between Whites and other races.
If you are suggesting that if Caucasians set up a National Association for the Advancement of White People organization that mirrored the goals of the NAACP but for whites it would be considered socially acceptable and not immediately decried as racist, I'd say you aren't being honest with yourself. I get you feel there is "no need" for white people to have the same privileges as black people when it comes to having pride and concern for their race, but shouldn't they be able to pursue that option if they want to without social condemnation like other races can.
Affirmative Action does not punish those evil rich white people who are responsible for all the ills that others face. Rich people can always find a way to manage. Reverse discrimination laws affect poor white people. It may seem like "justice" to you to punish the kid from Appalachia who is dirt poor living in a single wide trailer with higher grades and scores than the rich black kid from Manhattan who got the grant, but I don't think it is. I find it hard to believe that Appalachian kid who lives 45 minutes from the nearest grocery store and may not even see someone who is a minority during an average day is responsible for all the evil that has happened to black people over the last several hundred years. But he's the one who in your mind should be punished. To me that is unjust.
It is unjust to punish the children for the sins of the father. And to be fair I doubt the Appalachian kid's dad who probably grew up in poverty himself is to blame either. To lift someone up you don't have to tear down someone else, but that's exactly what Affirmative Action laws do. You know that about 20 percent of the US states now have laws prohibiting Affirmative Action in college admissions because they have deemed them immoral.
@just_sayin said:
@poeticwarrior said:
@just_sayin said:
@poeticwarrior: If the sole intent of things such as black TV channels, black beauty pageants, black clubs and organizations was to give expression to a voice that is not adequately represented elsewhere I'd agree with you that these are not examples of black privilege. The existence of these things is not of itself evidence of black privilege, it is the stigma or refusal to allow another race to have them that indicates that privilege is occurring. To say that it is acceptable to have black pride and black only organizations, but white pride and white only organizations are intrinsically racist is an example of race based privilege.
Affirmative action policies which give an advantage to someone because of their race and penalize someone else because of the color of their skin are indeed examples of codified raced based privilege. The intention is no doubt well meaning. The underlying need for greater equality in hiring is real, but the means being used to achieve it is still discriminatory.
Where is the refusal to let other races have them? People can apply and get in Black predominant schools, Black organizations have quite a few White members in it. As I said, there is no need for White pride and White organization because almost everything else is already White specific from textbooks to movies.
Affirmative Action is fixing the already imbalance existing due to the historical context because most Whites have an inherent advantages based on the background they were born in, there were poor Whites as well, but that doesn't really help fix the balance between races where mostly only White people can get to school due to more of them have an advantages since birth. If mostly White people are in power based on their education, they'd continue to be the ones making the decision and rules. This is more about leveling the playing field up until a certain point. Why would the hiring is the way it is? Who's the ones hiring? The ones at the top are still predominantly Whites, and it will keep perpetuate where more White people will get hire, more of their kids will have a better upbringing, they grow up and take the jobs at the top, and the circle continues. It doesn't gap the difference between Whites and other races.
If you are suggesting that if Caucasians set up a National Association for the Advancement of White People organization that mirrored the goals of the NAACP but for whites it would be considered socially acceptable and not immediately decried as racist, I'd say you aren't being honest with yourself. I get you feel there is "no need" for white people to have the same privileges as black people when it comes to having pride and concern for their race, but shouldn't they be able to pursue that option if they want to without social condemnation like other races can.
Affirmative Action does not punish those evil rich white people who are responsible for all the ills that others face. Rich people can always find a way to manage. Reverse discrimination laws affect poor white people. It may seem like "justice" to you to punish the kid from Appalachia who is dirt poor living in a single wide trailer with higher grades and scores than the rich black kid from Manhattan who got the grant, but I don't think it is. I find it hard to believe that Appalachian kid who lives 45 minutes from the nearest grocery store and may not even see someone who is a minority during an average day is responsible for all the evil that has happened to black people over the last several hundred years. But he's the one who in your mind should be punished. To me that is unjust.
It is unjust to punish the children for the sins of the father. And to be fair I doubt the Appalachian kid's dad who probably grew up in poverty himself is to blame either. To lift someone up you don't have to tear down someone else, but that's exactly what Affirmative Action laws do. You know that about 20 percent of the US states now have laws prohibiting Affirmative Action in college admissions because they have deemed them immoral.
NAACP for White people is called society. We just don't have a name for it because it's a norm. There is no need for pride things because everyday, we celebrate white beauty, learning about White history, etc.
You're focusing on the individuals while the issue at hand is the society at large and by ignoring the gap that exists, you will keep creating a big gap between race, those "evil" rich white people as you put it would more likely to hire more White people in general. Most of the rich are Whites after all. Even the poor White people wouldn't usually live in the condition most poor Black people live in, the ghetto area was what it was due to historical context where government sterilized the Black people, selling cracks to the Black people, their schools are inferior. We're not punishing anyone, the government is making up for the craps they put the minorities through. Keep using that Appalachian kid example, compared to the poor kids living in the ghetto, robbing and killing happening everyday. It's not a surprised that Black on Black are so high, they all live in high concentrated crime in the ghetto area. It's just keep perpetuating if we're not improve and allow them the opportunity to get out of that craphole.
@poeticwarrior said:
@bluehope said:
@poeticwarrior said:
@bluehope said:
@poeticwarrior said:
@bluehope said:
Whites see Asian males as nerdy virgin foreigners while Asian females as sexual objects. It's not the same. Just look at the media and Hollywood and you can already see. Other than that, it's a nationality thing, not a race thing. Japanese wants Japanese to success, not other Asians like Chinese, so I don't it as being a race privilege.
Japanese and Chinese are different groups,they are not the same people in different countries just because they are asians,just like semites and europeans are both caucasian yet they have racism against each other.Also my friend Iago who is half japanese half latino suffered racism and dificulltty to get better job in Japan even after he got japanese nationality. Race privilege is a very common problem that I believe most countries have.
We're talking about Asian privilege vs White privilege, privilege based on the color of your skin, how you're being treated differently based on your appearance, not where you were born. Nationality is a whole different issue. You said half Asian half LATINO. Latino is not usually White. Not all races are being treated the same in Japan. Blacks and Whites are actually being treated differently there. Hell, not even Japanese, many Chinese call them black ghosts.
We are talking about race privilege,there is privilege of many races other than whites,probably the most famous and the only widely recognized besides white privilege is jewish privilege in Israel(no,I'm not anti-Israel but there is privilege in there) but there is other races privileges.
Chinese people in japan will find it harder to get important jobs than Japanese in Japan,even the Ainu the indigenous people of japan suffer discrimination in the hands of the Yamato(the dominant race in Japan),whites hold very few positions of power in Japan even to their population size.
@bluehope said:
@poeticwarrior said:
@bluehope said:
@poeticwarrior said:
@bluehope said:
@poeticwarrior said:
@bluehope said:
Whites see Asian males as nerdy virgin foreigners while Asian females as sexual objects. It's not the same. Just look at the media and Hollywood and you can already see. Other than that, it's a nationality thing, not a race thing. Japanese wants Japanese to success, not other Asians like Chinese, so I don't it as being a race privilege.
Japanese and Chinese are different groups,they are not the same people in different countries just because they are asians,just like semites and europeans are both caucasian yet they have racism against each other.Also my friend Iago who is half japanese half latino suffered racism and dificulltty to get better job in Japan even after he got japanese nationality. Race privilege is a very common problem that I believe most countries have.
We're talking about Asian privilege vs White privilege, privilege based on the color of your skin, how you're being treated differently based on your appearance, not where you were born. Nationality is a whole different issue. You said half Asian half LATINO. Latino is not usually White. Not all races are being treated the same in Japan. Blacks and Whites are actually being treated differently there. Hell, not even Japanese, many Chinese call them black ghosts.
We are talking about race privilege,there is privilege of many races other than whites,probably the most famous and the only widely recognized besides white privilege is jewish privilege in Israel(no,I'm not anti-Israel but there is privilege in there) but there is other races privileges.
Chinese people in japan will find it harder to get important jobs than Japanese in Japan,even the Ainu the indigenous people of japan suffer discrimination in the hands of the Yamato(the dominant race in Japan),whites hold very few positions of power in Japan even to their population size.
We're talking about race, not nationalist, privilege based on the color of your skin.There are barely any White people in Japan, but the ones that are there often being put on a pedestal, half White is considered a good thing. I have already talked about this, read back and response to it instead of repeating yourself.
imma just leave this riiiiiiight here. lighten the mood up a little bit ya'll.
Loading Video...
@modernww2fare said:
@fallschirmjager said:
Someone link the Louis CK bit. I'm on my phone
Here ya go
this one is better
they eat so called 'white' Albinos in Africa, they are basically native African black people with some illness/ skin condition that makes them look 'white' and they kill them and eat their organs for some superstition ritual
that is their privilege as native 'white' Africans
Loading Video...
cannibalism in Africa
eating their own kind because the skin is 'whiter'
@fabty said:
@modernww2fare said:
@fallschirmjager said:
Someone link the Louis CK bit. I'm on my phone
Here ya go
this one is better
they eat so called 'white' Albinos in Africa, they are basically native African black people with some illness/ skin condition that makes them look 'white' and they kill them and eat their organs for some superstition ritual
that is their privilege as native 'white' Africans
Loading Video...
cannibalism in Africa
eating their own kind because the skin is 'whiter'
@jezer said:
@dshipp17 said:
@jezer said:
“1) The most obvious reaction to your proposed amendment is that Employers would contract around it. As in, they would write an agreement saying that in choosing to sit down and interview with you, you are relinquishing your right to sue on the basis of "having met job requirements promulgated in the job announcement" and not meeting "subjective, hidden qualifications." So, anyone who would try to interview with a company would be forced to sign it first, lest they get passed up for someone who is willing to.”
Title VII and these new amendments apply to contract work as well. An employer cannot write a contract to deprive an employee of Title VII protects in the current environment; this would only be improved upon with the new amendments. This definitely would be a no-no for a job with the federal government.
..................
“ Really? You can ascertain someone's confidence in person based on how they are over the phone? Confidence and eye contact demonstrate characteristics of a leader, someone who can speak on behalf of a company or their underlings in situations that require that or properly motivate others to get the job done. If an applicant is simply nervous during the interview, than he might not have the personality type or experience(because he doesn't have enough experience to be comfortable interviewing) needed in one that would eventually move up---it reflects and correlates other possible flaws in the applicant.”
2) But, is your goal to hire all leaders or are you just trying to fill a role? In this context, we were talking about a lowly position, not a managerial position. The leaders would naturally move up the ranks after some time of on the job evaluation; you can’t fairly determine this from an in-person interview, merely because one person seemed confident at that time and another person didn’t. Confidence is something that can be gained over time, if necessary; perhaps something on the job could eventually shape the applicant’s confidence over time, or, the change in financial circumstances could lead to developments to affect this person’s confidence level. Frontal confidence isn’t even something or a primary bases for being a good leader; the primary consideration is good judgment.
“Oh really, this law would also outline factors necessary for a promotion? So people can start suing when the person who knows the boss gets the promotion over the person who doesn't have that connection, but works harder? I'm sorry....but you have to admit that just isn't feasible. Not only do companies---who would want to maintain the status quo---have a lot of political power to prevent this from ever coming to pass, courts are hesitant when interferring with a companies to run their business as efficiently as possible without taking into account breaking laws related to fraud/monopolies/etc. They definitely wouldn't do that when it comes to a class without any extensive history of discrimination, like ugly people. Freedom to contract(because that's how companies would get around it) versus micromanaging business practices in order to keep companies from discriminating against ugly people? Freedom to contract would win.”
.............................
3) Are you missing something? Ugly people have a very extensive history of very overt discrimination that is allowed with impunity and without recourse; that needs to be snuffed out as soon as yesterday, although it’s existed since civilization has existed; it’s definitely more overt than race and sex discrimination by far.
1) Interesting. Please quote language from Title VII that micromanages businesses/companies in a way analogous to your proposed idea of what boils down to---"if you agree to interview someone, you must post what qualifications you are looking for, and if you don't hire them after meeting those qualifications, we infer discrimination based on looks. Thus, forcing a company to defend themself in litigation"
2) Let me repost what I originally said:
Your honor, in many companies, people have the opportunity to move up the ranks through hard work. So, while eye contact and confidence don't seem necessary for a cook---when I look at the long run, its necessary for any employee who is eventually going to have the opportunity to move up the ranks. So why wouldn't I be allowed to interview all my applicants in person?
I'm not going to bother arguing with you why---to be a good leader, you must be someone people are willing to follow(Being Ender Wiggin versus being Ender's shadow). From the perspective of me being the company, I can say whatever factors I want and believe are necessary to being a good leader---and thats a necessary qualification for any person I hire, so an in-person interview is required. Wait...let me guess your response......"These new amendments will define every possible hiring qualification that an employer can ever seek. And so, when they argue that this person didn't demonstrate leadership qualities, they must use the law's definition of what a leader is!" Unfortunately, this means that the employer will simply browse the promulgated definitions of qualifications until he finds one that matches only qualities that can be ascertained in person.
3) Oh really? Provide specific findings of past acts of discrimination against people on looks. O'Connor said that was required in Grutter; Powell said that was required in Bakke. What counts as discrimination in your eyes?
Are you relatively young? The idea that the vast majority of job interviews/decisiosn to hire should be done through phone/not in person sounds like the exaggerated nightmare of someone very old who remembers the days when people were social and interactions were done in person. The fact that you're proposing this is either an indicator of young age or privileged upbringing, since there are places in the world where information and communication is not as easily accessible through phone or technology. And, it seems like only someone who grew up in the internet age(someone anti-social)--where their major interactions were over message boards or facebook, instead of going out in person--would argue that the fairest way to hire would be a way that takes looks out of the equation(along with several other important attributes that can only propelry be ascertained in person).
And, for the record, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the idea that "you shouldn't be able to get a job unless you're qualified! If you're a friendly personality or just a good interviewer, but I'm more qualified than you, I deserve the job. You don't deserve a chance!" Still trying to wrap my head around that mentality and how you rationalize that as "fair".
“Interesting. Please quote language from Title VII that micromanages businesses/companies in a way analogous to your proposed idea of what boils down to---"if you agree to interview someone, you must post what qualifications you are looking for, and if you don't hire them after meeting those qualifications, we infer discrimination based on looks. Thus, forcing a company to defend themself in litigation"”
See the Merit Systems Protection Board case, Beam v. OPM, 77 MSPR 49 (1997) for a discussion of why hidden qualification standards are unacceptable; the new amendments to Title VII would greatly expand upon this concept. In the new amendments, the company would be required to provide detailed and precise reasons for why a particular applicant was passed on and why the selected candidate was more qualified, possibly avoiding litigation; the new amendments are to bring some scrutiny to the selection process while providing job applicants with some type of recourse and protections; currently, such is not the case and, as a result, we have a false perception of a crisis of skill in the United States, seemingly why people who have been out of the workforce cannot find a job is some type of mysterious crisis, and major abuse of the H-1B VISA program by companies as a way of legalized employment discrimination that African American leaders seem incapable of perceiving; so, they see illusions in the criminal justice systems and policing as a cause, which would be a gross mistake. No African Americans striving to get into college would be involved in the criminal justice system to a meaningful level, as, one component at avoidance would be learned respect for authority figures and proper manners.
“I'm not going to bother arguing with you why---to be a good leader, you must be someone people are willing to follow(Being Ender Wiggin versus being Ender's shadow). From the perspective of me being the company, I can say whatever factors I want and believe are necessary to being a good leader---and thats a necessary qualification for any person I hire, so an in-person interview is required. Wait...let me guess your response......"These new amendments will define every possible hiring qualification that an employer can ever seek. And so, when they argue that this person didn't demonstrate leadership qualities, they must use the law's definition of what a leader is!" Unfortunately, this means that the employer will simply browse the promulgated definitions of qualifications until he finds one that matches only qualities that can be ascertained in person.”
For this statement to make a bit of sense, every job would have to be a promotion or management position; since such is not the case, these standards do not make sense and is subject to too much subjectivity on the part of the selecting officials; objectivity extends fairness to the job applicant; how the heck is someone going to be able to judge whether you’re someone people are willing to follow and why would that be important with say, having the skill to guarantee that a patient would wake up from brain surgery, or, translating into producing quality parts for a Boeing 777? And, what about the many skilled people who are naturally introverted but, shows real skill or promise in science? Skill and promise for the most part gets you a STEM job, not the factors that you mention, and are the focus of institutions of higher learning. And, there are many reasons why an applicant wouldn’t appear to posses the qualities that you say would be important, but, missing from the job posting, such as the victims of prolonged bullying (e.g. the school jock picking on the skinny nerd), which, of course, usually involves looks; thus, being that you’re looking for a skilled person based on sex appeal, you’re discriminating based on looks (effectively, you’re inviting someone into the office to make an instantaneous judgment based on appearance and having it completely override the person’s skill that got him in front of you from his job application); this would be a real problem for everyone, if, say, this person was otherwise a very qualified neurosurgeon; this would also be a problem with the perception that not enough computer scientists/engineers are available, contributing to the abuse of the H-1B VISA program. And, no, measures will also be put in place for those cases where a job vacancy remains, despite many applicants; part of the solution, however, is the new amendments will require the employer to provide particularized reasons for a rejected application, part of the fix is limiting the posted required skills, and part of the solution is requiring the employer to provide on the job training (e.g. if the employer maxes out the five skill requirement, scrutinize whether on the job training could correct a case where the applicant was lacking 2 of the 5 skills; of course, at a minimum, the applicant should have the requisite education and experience, if the posting required at least two years of prior experience); the new amendments will also mandate entry level positions in some way or, in those cases where a job is hard to fill (e.g. say, requiring a chemistry degree, plus two years of experience; this would be a classic case where a short period of OJT could easily remedy the situation, but, a case where it’s likely not many people with a chemistry degree could gain; but, the selection process would be scrutinized, especially in cases where positions at a particular company have prolonged periods of remaining unfilled).
“The fact that you're proposing this is either an indicator of young age or privileged upbringing, since there are places in the world where information and communication is not as easily accessible through phone or technology.”
Oh, heck, no, not at all; this is an indication that I’m likely the repeated victim of discrimination based on looks for a very prolonged period of time, truth be told; and, the career that I landed occurred after an over the phone job interview in 2001; and, actually, I had a case where I was just flat out given a GS-05 position based solely on my application and challenged with an over the phone interview at another location within the agency for a GS-07 position; I chose the GS-07 position, but, as fate may have it, I wouldn’t have lost the last 10m years of unemployment, had I chosen the GS-05 position, as, I inadvertently passed upon working a ver diverse location for a discriminatory location; but, there was no way anyone could have been expected to make the correct choice under those circumstances; since than, provided I did have to appear for an interview or, where I carried an application with me, I’ve always been passed on; it’s partly race, but, likely looks based discrimination; and, the fact that I have a speech impediment can’t be helping; under the new amendments, I’d be protected and have employment within 14 days or less, as no one could give detailed, particularized reasons for not hiring me, as I’m very skilled at knowing how to apply for jobs that I posses the qualifications to fill; if the reasons were given, the company would be quickly crushed by me in court; even now, when I took it to legal action, the employer was demolished; as with my prolonged litigation, the employer is relying on the administrative and judicial systems to stall and screw; but, the new amendments would fix situations such as this as well, as it will be made easier for litigants to get an unbiased review against biased judging under much more reasonable standards by an independent agency (e.g. but, the screw would have to either be somewhat obvious in the case or, the judge would have to have developed a pattern of siding with the employer, something that is currently very clear, but for the high standards favoring a judge).
“And, it seems like only someone who grew up in the internet age(someone anti-social)--where their major interactions were over message boards or facebook, instead of going out in person--would argue that the fairest way to hire would be a way that takes looks out of the equation(along with several other important attributes that can only propelry be ascertained in person)”
Sure, wouldn’t that be fair to me? Why should I be penalized for something that I couldn’t control, but, not rewarded for some that I could control (e.g. getting a degree in a STEM subject with good grades through hard work)? I don’t want to be hit with an intangible factor that pales in comparison to the otherwise long hours, dedication, and hard work, learning manners, respect for authority, respect for people, etc.
“And, for the record, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the idea that "you shouldn't be able to get a job unless you're qualified! If you're a friendly personality or just a good interviewer, but I'm more qualified than you, I deserve the job. You don't deserve a chance!" Still trying to wrap my head around that mentality and how you rationalize that as "fair".”
I don’t understand; when did I say that? Going back to the comment just above, I’ve been implying that these attributes should trump looking good and becoming inexperience with interpersonal skills due to be mocked for looks; if you look good, more often than not, you wouldn’t have the interpersonal problems.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment