Florida173
SOF Support
What fixes it and what does "society" owe?
White Privilege?
- Thread starter Beagle
- Start date
What fixes it and what does "society" owe?
I disagree with your interpretation. White privilege as I understand it means that there is some set of advantages granted to the white population that is not given to the minority population. I do not disagree with you that black people are discriminated against in some ways, maybe even many ways. I do not disagree that it needs to be fixed where it exists. I do disagree with trying to deal with it on a class basis. Doing so drives a wedge between people of different ethnicities. If we'd just treat people the same across the board, we'd do a whole lot better, even understanding that there will always be a subset of the population that holds racist views. If the individuals that are using WP as an excuse for their crappy lives would spend the same effort trying to make their lives better, they'd be a whole lot better off. The people using the WP argument for why...insert something bad... happened would be 100% better off if they threw the victim card in the trash and just took responsibility for their own life.
Well, I think it's probably way out of my depth to come up with that answer, honestly. In an extremely basic sense, what fixes it is justice. When we can't find a single example of racism- in financial lending, inclusion in higher learning, social programs, the judicial system- I would consider that "fixed".
As far as society- I don't think society just owes minorities, I think society owes society. Our culture owes it to itself in order to actually continue to survive. We need to get to a place where as an entire society we say, "This isn't just. We have a valid claim where a group/people/section of society have been treated unjustly, and I personally will not stand for it." When that response is "ok" to have and we have legislation and representation that supports that response (to actually enable change), then I think we raise the floor on what our country can be.
Disagree away, I welcome it.
I think the heart of our disagreement is in the above. I don't want fairness. I don't want to pretend like we don't have different races with different stories, because we do. Most importantly, saying "We are all equal, stop making excuses for your crappy life" is the prototypical WP argument. It's the difference between justice and fairness.
Fairness is saying, "Everyone is equal, no matter what happened before now." Justice is saying, "In order to get an equal starting position, some groups need accessions".
Think of it like MMA. Fairness is, "That bell is going to ring, and you're going to fight. These are fair rules", but no weight classes. Heavyweights, you get to fight flyweights. The rules are fair, fight.
Justice is weight classes. The rules are still fair, but we respect that there are inherent disparities between the combatants and we adjust the system for those differences to prevent anyone from starting with an unfair advantage. In each case, I would argue that the system is fair, but in the second case that system is just.
To continue the MMA example, WP would be the heavyweight champ saying, "Why are these flyweights complaining? Yeah they have to fight me, a 275 lb heavyweight, what's the big deal? I have to fight too! The rules are the rules. Stop complaining about your shitty record."
It bears saying that this is obviously just my opinion.
ETA- typing errors cause I am not smart
Last edited:
Yes, but using your MMA example, how much is too much? At what point do accessions become abdication? If the heavyweights have to have their hands and feet tied to the ring posts for the first 10 minutes of the fight, is that fair? I would submit that many people would think so, based on the current laws and regulations.
My point is that there WILL always be different classes, but from a regulatory point of view I don't think there should be ANY laws that are tied to race. Do those groups really benefit from concessions or are they actually being hurt by them? I would highly recommend the book "Freakonomics" which looks into the second and third order effects of many policies of this type. Almost universally the population that is the subject of a well-meaning regulation or law ends up being inadvertantly harmed by it to a much greater degree. Society will self-correct unless government sticks its fingers in and screws everything up.
Freakonomics was a great book (the second one wasn't bad either, but not as good). The examination of the Roe vs. Wade decision and it's impact on the crime rate is a great example.
I don't want laws that are tied to race. I want the laws we have to be applied equally across the board regardless of race. I would like a culture- from the legislative and judicial branches on down- that is intolerant of injustice for any reason.
It's interesting, the part of your quote I left. I say 'it's interesting' because every time I have had this discussion, a quote almost exactly like yours pops up. I'll say, "We agree that not everyone is equal and I want justice, which means everyone is given an equal starting position but that doesn't mean equal outcome. We are just going to remove any unfair advantage." And the response I get is remarkably like yours- "So you mean that we are going to 'tie the heavyweight's hands and feet now? Is that fair'?"
No, that's not fair, and I never suggested so. I know you were using imagery to illustrate your point, but it also illustrates how different people see this issue differently. I am more concerned with providing disadvantaged players the accessions they need to compete fairly, and you seem to be concerned with the possibility of advantages you enjoy being taken away.
Even in your choice for wording- "when do accessions become abdication". Abdication is the "the renouncement of power, position, authority or responsibility" (unless you meant it in the royal sense as in to abdicate the throne, which I am sure you didn't).
I am not assuming any position or authority or power simply because that's the social position I have occupied. I am not worried about abdication, because I personally don't think I have anything to abdicate. I am concerned with affording others with social and judicial accessions to make the system just.
Up to this point, I think we are in agreement (including the review of the second one).
This is where I think you are reading me wrong. I don't want advantages taken away. I also don't want the starting line for other people (of any race including white) to be placed at what is the half-way mark for me. The starting line should be in the same place for everyone. I also think that the evaluation of where we are should be based on today, not some historical precedent that most of us on either side of the aisle never lived through. The problem with the whole public discussion is that it is based on equal outcome, not equal opportunity. When affirmative action means "hire anyone but the white male", equal opportunity is gone and now it's something entirely different.
I do believe there is equal opportunity in the US... or there was until the Government started messing with the economy. Once the Government stuck their fingers in the pie, a lot of the stepping stones went away. These were the jobs that were stepping stones to real careers. Enter the Government on immigration. When's the last time you went through one of the lower wage, starter job, companies? In theory the employment should be 13% African American and 60+% white. That's what it was when I was a teenager working at McDonald's. Now it is almost entirely hispanic. How about trades? Electrician, plumber, etc. Same thing. It used to be that those jobs were taken in proportion with the country's demographics. Now it's exceedingly rare to see a non-immigrant in any of those jobs. Why? Because the government stopped controlling immigration and opened the floodgates to everyone else. Before pointing the finger at WP as the reason that there aren't enough jobs, perhaps a look at who is actually filling the ones that used to be available is worth a moment. Information technology... try to get a job as a white male. You can't. Why? Because of the H1-B visa (which Obama and Clinton both want to expand). You see, it's simple economics. Let a bunch of people into the country to do the same job for less than a person from the US can do it. Guess how many US citizens end up not getting those jobs...or having to help train their own replacements.
It's funny how these systems work. Have higher crime statistics and then complain when the group is profiled by the police. Can't find a job, it must be the fault of the system preferring white men (never mind that there are simply more of them in the work force). Statistics can be juggled to show nearly anything. I know quite a few successful African-Americans. Know what they all have in common? They didn't ask for anything, they all just busted their asses to get where they are. The problem with giving someone that leg up is that they almost inevitably want more. There's a reason for the adage "give him an inch and he'll take a mile". I don't mind an equal starting line. What I mind is when the starting line is moved all the way up to the finish line for some people and the runner is allowed to drive the race while everyone else runs it.
I meant the abdication of rights, not power.
All people should be equal under the law. For example, hate crime laws. I submit this as an example:
Why can't white people be victims of hate crimes? Everyone equal under the law, that's what I'm advocating.
I disagree with a lot of what you're saying out of principle, but I understand the point you're making. I understood what you said about abdication and your intent, I thought it was worth mentioning maybe not to you, but to someone else reading.
I'll just restate my points (I think you did a good job of laying yours out):
- The starting line would be even for all involved in my "perfect world" scenario. Things like affirmative action level the field- not move the minority's line ahead of yours. Affirmative action forces a system to hire a quota of minorities where they hadn't done it before. That's not an unfair advantage for minorities, it's admitting a systemic problem and mandating a fix. Yes, your characterization of affirmative action being "Hire anyone but the white man" is pretty dead on. Know why? Because before then, those were the only people we were hiring even when the better candidate was a minority. Government had to step in on behalf of it's citizens to mandate a change because we couldn't figure that out on our own.
- Of course there are individual examples of black Americans succeeding. Those examples are few and far between enough that they deserve mention- but they are not the rule, they are the exception. I'd be interested to hear about their stories- mainly, if they feel that they would have been more successful if they didn't have to overcome the issues associated with being black in America. They "worked hard and no one ever gave them anything." Well, I can point to hundreds (maybe thousands?) of young white kids that didn't work for shit and were given everything. And got away with everything.
- I am not going to touch the illegal immigrant argument (it's a digression at best and a hijack at worst).
- This conversation isn't about the laziness or perceived lack of motivation about an entire race as it applies to their willingness to get jobs. You can't "work really hard" to get away from racism. If anyone wants to make the argument that illegals are taking jobs from whites, and blacks don't do enough to get a job and instead they blame the system? That's ok, it's their right to do so. When they voice that opinion in public I get to tell them they're a fucking moron, as is my right (or is it a privilege?
). In short, I disagree, but in some cases sure, that has to be true. I accept that. To say that is true for 37 million (ish) Americans? Or a large portion of that number? I feel that is irresponsible.
Bottom line- there are examples of inequality with whites as the oppressed group. I won't deny that. Those isolated facts, though, do not discount the overwhelming number and severity of incidences involving minorities in this country.
I feel like that's what the WP discussion is about- white people going tit for tat with their minority counterparts and making the argument about something it's not.
I don't want to end up restating things as it's counterproductive. I do want to add some clarification where I feel like my perspective may be misunderstood from your points.
if it actually worked like that in the real world, I would agree with it. The reality though is that it means that companies are forced to hire to meet those quotas whether the candidate is actually the best, or in some cases even qualified. In the event that the hire is a bad hire, which happens regularly, the company is forced to KEEP the bad employee. It is practically impossible to release someone that falls under affirmative action without risking a very expensive lawsuit. I have literally watched someone sleep all day at their desk every day. The VP of HR was walking with his direct manager and the manager pointed it out. She walked over and poked him and said "wake up". 10 minutes later they were walking back to the manager's office and the employee was asleep again. A year later he was released as part of a large layoff. The reason it took a year? They would have fallen below the quota. This was not a manual laborer, this was an IT professional with a 6 figure salary. It cost the company more than $100k because they had to keep him.
I think we are talking about two entirely different discussions that have several points of intersection. I've been focused very narrowly on the perception that there are inherent advantages to being a member of the caucasian majority. Advantages that definitely existed for quite a while, but which have been steadily diminishing over the last 20 years. You seem to be more generally focused on the overall issue of racism, and are making points with which I mostly agree in that context, although there are some where we are ideological opposites. Where we differ is almost down the line between liberal and conservative points of view. We agree on the problem, but we disagree on the solutions and ways to make progress. I don't think we will ever come together on it because our ideas are diametrically opposed.
if it actually worked like that in the real world, I would agree with it. The reality though is that it means that companies are forced to hire to meet those quotas whether the candidate is actually the best, or in some cases even qualified. In the event that the hire is a bad hire, which happens regularly, the company is forced to KEEP the bad employee. It is practically impossible to release someone that falls under affirmative action without risking a very expensive lawsuit. I have literally watched someone sleep all day at their desk every day. The VP of HR was walking with his direct manager and the manager pointed it out. She walked over and poked him and said "wake up". 10 minutes later they were walking back to the manager's office and the employee was asleep again. A year later he was released as part of a large layoff. The reason it took a year? They would have fallen below the quota. This was not a manual laborer, this was an IT professional with a 6 figure salary. It cost the company more than $100k because they had to keep him.
It's neither of those when a part of the WP claim is that minorities are discriminated against in the job market and the jobs that they traditionally fell into are filled by immigrants.
At no point did I say anything about laziness or lack of motivation. I agree completely that the conversation has nothing to do with that.
I think we are talking about two entirely different discussions that have several points of intersection. I've been focused very narrowly on the perception that there are inherent advantages to being a member of the caucasian majority. Advantages that definitely existed for quite a while, but which have been steadily diminishing over the last 20 years. You seem to be more generally focused on the overall issue of racism, and are making points with which I mostly agree in that context, although there are some where we are ideological opposites. Where we differ is almost down the line between liberal and conservative points of view. We agree on the problem, but we disagree on the solutions and ways to make progress. I don't think we will ever come together on it because our ideas are diametrically opposed.
I agree with this. I guess I would say that those advantages are more pronounced and less diminished today. Probably because...
But you know what? That's ok. The two halves of this conversation make the whole.
Wait, isn't this where I am supposed to call you Hitler, challenge you to a fight, and stomp off?
Probably, but then it means that I am supposed to respond that you're an Alinsky-ite or compare you to Stalin, accept the fight and stomp off in the other direction.
lol. Let's not do that then.Probably, but then it means that I am supposed to respond that you're an Alinsky-ite or compare you to Stalin, accept the fight and stomp off in the other direction.
Hey, we agree on something!
I want everyone to stop what they're doing and read this interview. Right now. Ignore the headline because it's going to color your view regardless of which side of the argument you're on.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/trump-us-politics-poor-whites/
J.D. Vance, a Yale Law graduate and self-proclaimed "hillbilly" recently wrote a memoir about his time growing up in the Appalachia region, and the subsequent experiences he had both as a Marine and graduate of an elite Law school. In this interview, which I found fascinating, he sheds some light on the meme of impoverished whites in America.
Probably the most interesting part is the advice on race relations that he doles out, both to liberals as well as conservatives. It's a fresh, nuanced look at the issue that actually caused me to stand up and say "Holy shit." He also does a shoutout to a favorite author of mine, Ta-Nehisi Coates. Mr. Coates is another author that I think everyone should read.
@Ranger Psych you'll probably want to read this twice.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/trump-us-politics-poor-whites/
J.D. Vance, a Yale Law graduate and self-proclaimed "hillbilly" recently wrote a memoir about his time growing up in the Appalachia region, and the subsequent experiences he had both as a Marine and graduate of an elite Law school. In this interview, which I found fascinating, he sheds some light on the meme of impoverished whites in America.
Probably the most interesting part is the advice on race relations that he doles out, both to liberals as well as conservatives. It's a fresh, nuanced look at the issue that actually caused me to stand up and say "Holy shit." He also does a shoutout to a favorite author of mine, Ta-Nehisi Coates. Mr. Coates is another author that I think everyone should read.
@Ranger Psych you'll probably want to read this twice.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 12,737
it's OK. Cloudflare is a service that allows small sites with limited equipment to survive a sudden influx of traffic. No concerns there, a lot of sites you go to use them, but pay extra not to have that page actually shown.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 12,737
@Deathy McDeath - a good read. There is much I agree with, some I don't. And while I am on record stating I could be for "whomever" before I support Hillary Clinton, deep down in the darkest corners of my soul, there is a hidden part of me that hopes Hillary beats Trump. This paragraph from the article you posted would best describe my relationship with Mr. Trump:
"Well, I think the speech itself was a perfect microcosm of why I love and am terrified of Donald Trump. On the one hand, he criticized the elites and actually acknowledge the hurt of so many working class voters. After so many years of Republican politicians refusing to even talk about factory closures, Trump’s message is an oasis in the desert. But of course he spent way too much time appealing to people’s fears, and he offered zero substance for how to improve their lives. It was Trump at his best and worst."
"Well, I think the speech itself was a perfect microcosm of why I love and am terrified of Donald Trump. On the one hand, he criticized the elites and actually acknowledge the hurt of so many working class voters. After so many years of Republican politicians refusing to even talk about factory closures, Trump’s message is an oasis in the desert. But of course he spent way too much time appealing to people’s fears, and he offered zero substance for how to improve their lives. It was Trump at his best and worst."
Completely agree. Both parties have pretty much abandoned the plight of poor white Americans, but after reading this article I think that it's a more shameful act by Democrats since we bill ourselves as the party looking out for the poor and downtrodden. Hell, West Virginia used to be a solidly-blue state up until 2000 or so, but somewhere along the line the Democrats seemingly forgot about them. I can understand why: the specter of Jim Crow and the fight for civil rights is ever-present on the minds of a lot of liberals, so it would only be natural that they focus primarily on poor minority communities. And with respect to West Virginia specifically, coal mining is on the decline (for good reason, in my opinion). With no industry to replace it, you're really messing with the livelihoods of a lot of miners. Still, it's a shame that poor whites got dumped along the way.
