Bill O'Reilly Denies then Proves White Privilege

[Mavorpen]

And as I said earlier: the entire fucking thing. The ENTIRE fucking thing is about African influence on American culture. Read the whole thing. Seriously, reading is NOT a bad thing.

I will when I catch some time. As a academic citizen I have to make sure if this source is worth of reading so could say what exactly is worth of reading.

Please stop. I'm drinking lemonade right now, and I really don't feel like experiencing it coming out of my nose or choking on it.

[Beta Test]

White privilege does not exist and it has never existed. It's a bullshit concept, anyway.

That's lovely. Perhaps you'd care to take a crack at some of the posts in here showing how it does exist, has existed, and is a valid concept, then, instead of making broad statements like that.

Perhaps I should clarify. I'm not doubting that there have been many instances of white's oppressing minorities. I'm doubting the general concept that all whites are inherently better off than all minorities.

[Mavorpen]

That's lovely. Perhaps you'd care to take a crack at some of the posts in here showing how it does exist, has existed, and is a valid concept, then, instead of making broad statements like that.

Perhaps I should clarify. I'm not doubting that there have been many instances of white's oppressing minorities. I'm doubting the general concept that all whites are inherently better off than all minorities.

Then you're doubting an argument no one has made. And, well, we don't really mind if you attack imaginary arguments. Just don't wrongly attribute them to us.

[Beta Test]

Perhaps I should clarify. I'm not doubting that there have been many instances of white's oppressing minorities. I'm doubting the general concept that all whites are inherently better off than all minorities.

Then you're doubting an argument no one has made. And, well, we don't really mind if you attack imaginary arguments. Just don't wrongly attribute them to us.

Actually I have seen people make that argument many a time. Not on this website though. And I didn't attribute anything to you anyway so yeah.

[Hindenburgia]

Racial aid would be aid (e.g. money, etc.) given to a person because they are of a certain race.

...What the hell? Who argued for this?

...You asked what that would entail, so I answered your question. Again, I was covering my bases for the benefit of a hypothetical reader, hence why I was addressing positions which I freely admitted nobody on here was advocating.

How about your very own post?

What is that even supposed to demonstrate?

That you feel that white people have some sort of inherent, across-the-board advantage due to being white. This is a concept known to the both of us as "white privilege".

As you can see, I split your original post in two - one part regarding the disparity in house-value-per-dollar-income, and the other regarding white people avoiding multiracial neighborhoods (which was only confined to neighborhoods where the other race was black, as you recall). You then continued this split, which indicated pretty clearly that you understood it.

Uh, no, it doesn't. I thought you were asking me about MY original claim. You split my post into two parts, and only ONE of them was what I ACTUALLY claimed. The other, now that I read your post over again, is a straw man and wasn't actually my original claim. So no, my claim WAS, in fact, substantiated by my source.

...So you are saying that second of your two points - specifically, the second direct quote from your post that I had in the splitting post - isn't, actually, one of your points.

Because you were engaging with me over it perfectly fine a few posts ago. Did you change you mind? Or do you deny it ever being one of your points?

Now, I would like to emphasize a specific part of your post (italics mine):

If you compare wealthy black neighborhoods to wealthy white neighborhoods, the wealthy black neighborhoods have less home value per dollar of income. If you compare poor black neighborhoods to poor white neighborhoods, it's the same exact thing. This means that even when homeowners in a neighborhood have roughly the same income, black-owned homes are STILL worth less.

The last sentence was your first point. Yes, there were sentences before it, but your sentence structure very clearly indicated that those sentences were support for that last one. Under most circumstances, I am incredibly open to the possibility that I misunderstood someone - far, far more than most. But in this case, you were very clear with your writing, and you really can't interpret it any other way.

Yeah, no. You absolutely can interpret it any another way. And that only requires that you read that part SPECIFICALLY within the context of what I posted previously. What I posted is NOT the same as claiming that "the home-value-per-dollar-income of a house owned by a black person being lower, on average, than that for a white person." My claim was that when you compare homes in a black neighborhood, the average property value is going to be less than for homes in a white neighborhood. I don't see how you could have gotten ANYTHING else out of that when actually reading it in context.

Your first two sentences established that we are controlling for income level, which was, at that point, a novel constraint, and thus very much noteworthy. Additionally, they set up two scenarios, which are to be used in the third sentence, and relate them. Your third sentence takes this relation and generalizes the relation in order to state that given "a neighborhood of of roughly the same income, black-owned homes are STILL worth less."
I fail to see how I have taken your words out of context.

This isn't a case of, "I don't understand how standard deviation works, so their numbers are wrong!" This is a case of "In this situation, measure A (i.e. the mean home-value-per-dollar-income) would be the usual choice to communicate this data.

Why?

Because we are looking for the average home-value-per-dollar-income, also known as the mean!

However, they claim that measure B (i.e. the mean of the means of home-value-per-dollar-income) is somehow 'better'. Okay, fair enough, now they need to explain why it is 'better'." And they didn't.

Yes, they did. Again, this is ENTIRELY a case of you not understanding what's being said. The source's job is not to hold your hand. The source expects you to understand basic statistical methodologies, one of which includes grand mean.

Look, I am not one to walk away from a conversation easily, but you are asking me to explain 8th grade (at the most!) math to you, repeatedly. If you at least know the term "grand mean" (as you've demonstrated you do, despite me assuming you didn't) you should be perfectly able to understand me, or search for it if you don't.

It's also a case of "Over here, they specified that they identified a set of outliers that were inflating a particular set of data. Okay, but over here there is another set of potential outliers that, if the others were skewing the data, would also be skewing the data. However, at no point do they account for this or otherwise mention it, especially since it would, if anything, act counter to the outliers mentioned earlier."

The fuck are you even talking about? If you're complaining that the source isn't applying the "typical value" methodology, then I don't even know if you're reading the same source as me, because the majority of the data uses that measurement.

I am trying to explain it as simply as I can. They found some outliers. They were skewing the data, so they dealt with them so that they were no longer skewing their data. But there were some more outliers, which they even outright mention. If the first outliers were skewing the data, these outliers would also skew the data, just in the other direction. This second set of outliers, however, were never dealt with, so the data is still skewed. I literally do no know how I can explain this any more simply.

And the guy's background's a joke, reliability-wise. Even a fraction of it would be enough to disqualify this from scholarly publication (which I'm guessing is probably at least part of the reason it appears nowhere in any such publication). Instead, it appears on the website of a political think-tank which seems to mostly be described as being somewhere on the center-left end of the scale, according to the various sources on the (probably overly-sourced) "Political Stance" section of the Wikipedia page.

And once again, I really, really don't care about your opinion on the source. You've given me utterly nothing of an empirical basis to work with that substantiates your claims.

That isn't how reliability works. The "empirical basis" - if you could call it that - is the report itself! Click on the links I gave you and look up who the author of the report is. He founded a political advocacy group on this very issue he is claiming to study!

And even if the report wasn't so blatantly unreliable, you gave me, what, two sources? And I accepted one and gave you the benefit of the doubt on the other? If on closer inspection I find concerns regarding the reliability of one of the sources, I don't think it's asking too much to bring that up. Sure, if I'm rejecting your sources out of hand? Go right ahead and call me on it. But this is nowhere near that point.

Look, it's two in the morning over here, so if I really am just completely missing your point, I really do apologize. But looking back over the last number of posts, I've become increasingly certain that I haven't. I always try to assume good faith in these kind of scenarios, so I shall simply bid you good night/day/whatever it is over there and take my leave.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

That's lovely. Perhaps you'd care to take a crack at some of the posts in here showing how it does exist, has existed, and is a valid concept, then, instead of making broad statements like that.

Perhaps I should clarify. I'm not doubting that there have been many instances of white's oppressing minorities. I'm doubting the general concept that all whites are inherently better off than all minorities.

It's good that you doubt that, since it's not true, and I don't think that anyone here believes it.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Then you're doubting an argument no one has made. And, well, we don't really mind if you attack imaginary arguments. Just don't wrongly attribute them to us.

Actually I have seen people make that argument many a time. Not on this website though. And I didn't attribute anything to you anyway so yeah.

Where have you seen this argument made?

[Beta Test]

Perhaps I should clarify. I'm not doubting that there have been many instances of white's oppressing minorities. I'm doubting the general concept that all whites are inherently better off than all minorities.

It's good that you doubt that, since it's not true, and I don't think that anyone here believes it.

Well then I think we've come to an agreement. I guess my definition of white privilege was wrong.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

It's good that you doubt that, since it's not true, and I don't think that anyone here believes it.

Well then I think we've come to an agreement. I guess my definition of white privilege was wrong.

For the purposes of this discussion, certainly.

Essentially, a simplified version of white privilege would be that there are power structures in American society that tend to favor white people. This doesn't mean that all white people have it better than all black people by a long shot. Bill Cosby, for instance, has significantly more money and influence than I do, as well as a nice post-graduate degree, so he's better educated by society's terms. However, generally speaking, when an equally qualified black man and white man apply for the same job, the job will usually go to the white man (See the resume studies posted earlier in this thread). Black people tend to be pulled over more often, to be searched more often, to be falsely arrested more often, to be shot while unarmed more often, to be convicted more often, and to be given harsher sentences than white people. When economic downturns happen, they tend to be the first laid off, and generally have a harder time finding work afterwards for the aforementioned reasons. The children are more likely to encounter negative stereotypes of them on television, to go to schools without advanced math and science courses (or without any college prep courses), and to drop out without major intervention on the part of their schools.

There's more, but you get the idea.

[Mavorpen]

...You asked what that would entail, so I answered your question. Again, I was covering my bases for the benefit of a hypothetical reader, hence why I was addressing positions which I freely admitted nobody on here was advocating.

I know. It's just really weird why you'd go out of your way to mention you're against something like that when I've never heard of such a thing happening or being argued for.

...So you are saying that second of your two points - specifically, the second direct quote from your post that I had in the splitting post - isn't, actually, one of your points.

What? No. There weren't two points in that quote. It was ONE point phrased in two different ways. I said "this means that" for a reason. I wouldn't say that only to make an entirely SEPARATE point.

Because you were engaging with me over it perfectly fine a few posts ago. Did you change you mind? Or do you deny it ever being one of your points?

I never "engaged with [you] over it perfectly fine." Every single post of mine was working under the claim I actually made and not the claim you pretended that I made. I only noticed that you were pretending I claimed something I didn't claim AFTER you tried to argue that my source didn't support my claim.

Your first two sentences established that we are controlling for income level, which was, at that point, a novel constraint, and thus very much noteworthy. Additionally, they set up two scenarios, which are to be used in the third sentence, and relate them. Your third sentence takes this relation and generalizes the relation in order to state that given "a neighborhood of of roughly the same income, black-owned homes are STILL worth less."
I fail to see how I have taken your words out of context.

Well then, that's not my problem any longer. I've explained it to you.

Because we are looking for the average home-value-per-dollar-income, also known as the mean!

Uh, no we aren't. YOU are. Based on a misrepresentation of my claim and argument.

Look, I am not one to walk away from a conversation easily, but you are asking me to explain 8th grade (at the most!) math to you, repeatedly. If you at least know the term "grand mean" (as you've demonstrated you do, despite me assuming you didn't) you should be perfectly able to understand me, or search for it if you don't.

I'm not asking you to explain anything, actually. At this point I'm wondering if you're even reading my posts at all.

I am trying to explain it as simply as I can. They found some outliers. They were skewing the data, so they dealt with them so that they were no longer skewing their data. But there were some more outliers, which they even outright mention. If the first outliers were skewing the data, these outliers would also skew the data, just in the other direction. This second set of outliers, however, were never dealt with, so the data is still skewed. I literally do no know how I can explain this any more simply.

So basically, you just repeated what I said.

I still don't see what the problem is, here. The data sets had two entirely different purposes. The first one was to find what percent of white home value per dollar of income. The first wasn't measuring and comparing neighborhoods or areas that were majority white with ones that weren't. It was a collective gathering of data in the 100 Largest Metropolitan Areas, with no distinction between majority white or not. That wasn't the purpose. The purpose was to ultimately find out the percentage of white home value per dollar income the other racial groups had. And they needed to adjust for income. The second data set's goal DID involve looking at specifically majority white tracts and seeing how tracts with more minorities compared to them. There was no need to adjust for income because the purpose of the data wasn't meant to compare racial groups individually to one another with no reference to majority white or not areas.

In other words, the two data sets were measuring entirely different things for entirely different purposes, and there's utterly no reason why you should be surprised that the grand mean was taken in one case and not another.

That isn't how reliability works. The "empirical basis" - if you could call it that - is the report itself!

Yeah, no. As much as I would like this to be a valid empirical basis for arguments, it isn't.

Click on the links I gave you and look up who the author of the report is. He founded a political advocacy group on this very issue he is claiming to study!

Yes, and like I said, I don't give a rat's ass about your opinion on the guy. I care more that you've repeatedly dodged any burden of proof you have in substantiating your claim, choosing instead to latch on to imaginary flaws in the source I gave and essentially grasping at straws.

And even if the report wasn't so blatantly unreliable, you gave me, what, two sources? And I accepted one and gave you the benefit of the doubt on the other? If on closer inspection I find concerns regarding the reliability of one of the sources, I don't think it's asking too much to bring that up. Sure, if I'm rejecting your sources out of hand? Go right ahead and call me on it. But this is nowhere near that point.

I'd certainly take this all a lot more seriously if you'd put forth effort into providing your OWN sources to combat my own. Really, if the methodology and data is so flawed, SURELY you can find some data that refutes it.

[Britannic Realms]

'White privilege'!? What a load of crap. That kind of thing may be around in America, but not here.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

'White privilege'!? What a load of crap. That kind of thing may be around in America, but not here.

Yes, because Europe is a heaven free from backwardness, prejudice and the concept of race, culturally isolated altogether from the rest of the world, where people were freed from the multiple intersections of oppression.

The only place where white privilege might not exist is Zimbabwe. Please.

[Independent State AF]

Cant read anything anymore without a ton of smartass comments and immensely rude tones it seems. What fun.

On topic, No I dont feel guilty, because no, I have nothing to feel guilty about.

These are not the droids your looking for, move along.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Cant read anything anymore without a ton of smartass comments and immensely rude tones it seems. What fun.

On topic, No I dont feel guilty, because no, I have nothing to feel guilty about.

These are not the droids your looking for, move along.

As has been stated several times already, guilt is unnecessary, and indeed counterproductive. Being aware of the issue and working to ensure that you're not reinforcing it is the only thing that anyone's asking for.

[Olivaero]

'White privilege'!? What a load of crap. That kind of thing may be around in America, but not here.

It's pretty easy to say white privilege doesn't exist if your white. I would of thought it was some what dented over here after years and years of multiculturalism but at the end of the day neither you nor I (assuming your white of course feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) can really know if being of a different ethnicity means you get more shit than if your white.

Personally I thin k in the UK it's more related to foreign descent than simple racial lines with White eastern Europeans getting an awful lot of shit as well but I do remember seeing some figures about the Met(ropolitan police) racial profiling when they use their stop and search powers. So I think some acknowledgement is required that we aren't truly egalitarian yet when it comes to racial and ethnic identities but I think just phrasing the debate as being about white privileged is unhelpful in the UK as white ethnicities suffer a lot of discrimination as well.

[Calimera II]

'White privilege'!? What a load of crap. That kind of thing may be around in America, but not here.

Yes, because Europe is a heaven free from backwardness, prejudice and the concept of race, culturally isolated altogether from the rest of the world, where people were freed from the multiple intersections of oppression.

The only place where white privilege might not exist is Zimbabwe. Please.

Racism by certain groups =/= White Priviege

[Imperializt Russia]

Saw this on TYT.

Yes, white privilege certainly exists in one form or another, but that doesn't mean we should feel some sort of "white guilt" for it. We should just acknowledge that it exists so that we can understand some of the struggles people of other races can go through.

The Young Turks is the worst independent news source in the history of the Universe.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Racism by certain groups =/= White Priviege

I think you do not understand the concept of structural oppression.

Racism is not an isolated ideology. It's the historical result of centuries of exploitation still very vivid in our culture. Interests of people who aren't white were disregarded systemically many times in the last 10 years alone. Imagery representing a supposed dark people danger menacing our characteristics as a civilization have been thriving. It's everywhere.

You need a lot of denial to not see it.

[Forsher]

Everyone has privilege... it's just that some are considerably more privileged than others and some privileges are more significant than others (typically by a large degree).

For instance, I would argue that a wealthy black person is more privileged than a poor white person (even in places like the States). That is not the same as saying that the white person is non-privileged. As an example, I shall turn to an episode of the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air where Will and Carlton spend a few hours in some random lock-up having been pulled over and taken in by the police in a situation where a white individual probably wouldn't have been (i.e. driving along in a posh car). Humour has always been a powerful tool for exploring such social dynamics.

That's a very specific example but it's one that I think addresses the OP's questions. Firstly, yes white privilege exists. Secondly, it's a consequence of interdependent events. In practical terms I think, like any privilege, it's something that is very difficult to reduce because it is an outcome of a big huge societal pattern. In some ways, I think it's possibly easier to focus on the smaller sub-events (such as, for instance, education even though that is, itself, a complex issue).

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Fresh Prince of Bel-Air

I absolutely forgot that sitcom existed. O.o

[Edward Richtofen]

As a Floridian with a gun I can confirm white privilege is a thing.

[JesusOfNazareth]

If white privilege were a fact, then the U.S. wouldn't have a black man for its President.

O'Reilly is dead right in that it's the values of a subculture that more accurately predict that groups success.

The most visible images of modern black culture are hatred of whites (followed by hispanics) and black on black crime.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

If white privilege were a fact, then the U.S. wouldn't have a black man for its President.

O'Reilly is dead right in that it's the values of a subculture that more accurately predict that groups success.

The most visible images of modern black culture are hatred of whites (followed by hispanics) and black on black crime.

>denies white privilege

>makes sweeping generalizations ignoring how it actually is demonstrated to work

>makes sweeping generalization that is in itself racist

[Othelos]

If white privilege were a fact, then the U.S. wouldn't have a black man for its President.

O'Reilly is dead right in that it's the values of a subculture that more accurately predict that groups success.

The most visible images of modern black culture are hatred of whites (followed by hispanics) and black on black crime.

>denies white privilege

>makes sweeping generalizations ignoring how it actually is demonstrated to work

>makes sweeping generalization that is in itself racist

Yeah that post is a mess lol

[Cyrisnia]

If white privilege were a fact, then the U.S. wouldn't have a black man mixed race (half white) for its President.

O'Reilly is dead right in that it's the values of a subculture that more accurately predict that groups success.

The most visible images of modern black culture are hatred of whites (followed by hispanics) and black on black crime.