Purgatio wrote:-MAFDET- wrote:
That's a gross misunderstanding of the nature of white privilege. It does not mean that all white people are wealthy. It does not suggest that poor white people have never struggled.
White privilege is the birth child of racial bias and racism. Racial bias is a belief, conscious or otherwise, someone may how towards a particular race. When a white man is walking along the street and, upon facing a group of black men conversing with each other, chooses to cross the street rather than walk anywhere near them is an instance of bias. When a white person takes the time out of their day to call the police on a seemingly inactive black man that is actually behaving perfectly lawfully - that too is an instance of bias.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... iladelphia
When a police officer attempts to justify shooting an unarmed person of color because he "feared for his life" - that is racial bias.
Racism is when these prejudical beliefs become rule of law. Technically, the existence of racism and racial bias is owed to the concept of racialization, which is the societal classification of humans beings into different groups based upon perceived physical differences, particularly skin color. In other words, the creation of race as a social construct.
This arbitrary grouping of other people, concocted by white settlers in this case, laid the foundation for the ongoing mistreatment of people of color. Inevitably, this gave birth to white privilege.
White privilege is the simple fact that your skn pigment is not one of the things that making your life more difficult, while the reverse is true for people of color.
- White people are less likely to be followed or interrogated by law enforcement because they appear "suspicious"
-White people’s skin tone will not be a reason people hesitate to trust their credit or financial responsibility.
-If white people are accused of a crime, they are less likely to be presumed guilty, less likely to be sentenced to death and more likely to be portrayed in a fair, nuanced manner by media outlets
-The personal faults or missteps of white people will likely not be used to later deny opportunities or compassion to people who share their racial identity. My own father, who is a convicted felon, is currently working on a college degree, and has a job as a detox nurse. I am certain he would not have been able to reach this far had he not been white.
As I previously mentioned, non white people are generally more likely to be harassed by law enforcement. New York's now abandoned "Stop and Frisk" policy disproportionately targeted an extensive amount of black and latinex people. https://www.nyclu.org/en/stop-and-frisk-data
People of color are considerably more likely to be arrested for drug offenses despite using at a similar rate as white people. https://www.vox.com/2016/5/8/18089368/w ... eroin-meth
According to this data collected in 2017, unarmed and non-violent people of color are more likely to be shot by police than white people. https://policeviolencereport.org
These are the examples of white privilege that I have listed. I can think of more, but I'm too tired to do it. At any rate, I wrote an essay length post just for you.
1) African-Americans and Hispanics are not 'disproportionately' targeted by Stop and Frisk, because Stop and Frisk is intended to catch potential criminals, and members of those ethnic groups are disproportionately over-represented amongst violent criminals. In the same way as, when the FBI looks for serial killers, it disproportionatly focusses on white men because white men are overrepresented amongst the serial killer population.
2) The myth about black people being arrested for drug offences when they use drugs at the same rate as whites rests on a legal misunderstanding, in the 1960s when anti-drug legislation was passed it penalised more heavily the possession and sale of crack cocaine as opposed to powder cocaine, with the support of African-American community leaders and lawmakers (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/04/19/five_myths_of_the_racist_criminal_justice_system_113894.html), because at the time crack cocaine was more inexpensive and therefore more likely to be consumed in larger quantities by users, and hence warranted a harsher deterrent mandatory minimum. Because African-American drug users were disproportionately more likely to consume crack cocaine compared to powder cocaine than their white counterparts, this resulted in a sentencing disparity even though average drug consumption rates between the two races was similar.
3) Another myth, African-Americans are more likely to be shot by the police but are also more likely to commit crimes and therefore more likely than whites to have interactions with the police in the first place (https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/09/police-violence-against-black-men-rare-heres-what-data-actually-say/)
Citing National Review as a source is like me citing Jacobin or Liberation News to prove capitalism is an evil economic model. Not to mention it failed several fact checks and also quoted a false Daily Mail (Tabloid) report on climate change:
"RIGHT BIAS
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
Overall, we rate the National Review Right Biased based on story selection that always favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to misleading claims and occasional use of poor sources.
Detailed Report:
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
History:
The National Review was founded in 1955 by conservative editor, columnist, author and commentator William F. Buckley Jr. (1925-2008). According to their about page the print magazine and website are corporately known as National Review, Inc. and is a wholly owned subsidiary of the National Review Institute (NRI) based in New York City. In addition to the content published in its print version, the magazine’s web site covers articles, blogs, videos, podcasts, opinion pieces, conservative news, and commentary.
William F. Buckley Jr. appeared in a series of televised debates with Gore Vidal during the 1968 Republican National Convention and this resulted in him suing Vidal and Esquire Magazine due to Vidal calling Buckley “racist, anti-black, anti-semitic and a pro-crypto Nazi.” Buckley eventually settled with Esquire receiving a $115,000 payment and dropped his suit against Vidal.
The National Review promoted Barry Goldwater during the early 1960s and Reagan during the 80’s. E. Garrett Bewkes IV is the publisher of National Review. Richard Lowry is the Editor-in-Chief of National Review Magazine and the online Editor is Charles C. W. Cooke. The chairman is John Hillen and Lindsay Young Craig is the president. The full masthead can be viewed here.
Funded by / Ownership:
The National Review magazine and website are both owned by the National Review Institute. The National Review Institute was founded by William F. Buckley Jr. as a nonprofit and according to an article from The Nation the “National Review‘s biggest financial supporter, Roger Milliken was a Birch Society member. The Southern Poverty Law Center describes the John Birch Society as a conspiracist group, whereas the National Review describes Milliken as one of the “Right’s funding fathers”. According to Sourcewatch, The National Review Institute has received funding from the Charles G. Koch Foundation as well as grants from the right-wing Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports the Bradley Foundation helps fund groups opposing climate regulation.
Analysis / Bias:
The National Review Online, describes itself as “America’s most widely read and influential magazine and web site for conservative news, commentary, and opinion.”
In review, the National Review Online frequently uses loaded emotional wording in headlines that favor the right such as: Weapons of Mass Manipulation. This article was written by conservative pundit Michelle Malkin who has made false claims according to fact checkers. When reporting on President Trump the National Review offers a reasonable balance of pro-Trump and anti-Trump articles with slightly more favoring the President and his policies. National Review typically sources their information to known right leaning sources, but sometimes links to factually mixed sources such as PJ Media and the Daily Mail. Editorially, they endorse conservative policy and politicians, such as their endorsement of Ted Cruz during the 2016 Presidential Election. Finally, story selection always favors the right, while painting liberal policy negatively.
A factual search reveals that in this article the National Review sourced the Daily Mail who falsely reported that NOAA manipulated climate data. This was later debunked by the person they were quoting (Dr. Bates). Further, the National Review did not include the actual statements that Dr. Bates made, which refute the Daily Mail and National Review’s claims of unverified and corrected data. Bates said there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.” “It’s really a story of not disclosing what you did,” Bates said in the interview. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form.” FactCheck.org concluded that the National Review’s article was misleading.
Overall, we rate the National Review Right Biased based on story selection that always favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to misleading claims and occasional use of poor sources. (7/19/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 6/20/2018)"
