Learning about white privilege is anti-white, studies prove

[Italios]

i don't understand how the results can be taken to be reliable in any way if a major factor in the participants (race) was different, with 68% being white, 16% being black, and the rest being "other". that sounds like something that shouldve been a control in this study.

[Otira]

i don't understand how the results can be taken to be reliable in any way if a major factor in the participants (race) was different, with 68% being white, 16% being black, and the rest being "other". that sounds like something that shouldve been a control in this study.

It roughly correlates with the black/white/other population ratios of the United States, so maybe that was the point? Speculating here.

[Italios]

i don't understand how the results can be taken to be reliable in any way if a major factor in the participants (race) was different, with 68% being white, 16% being black, and the rest being "other". that sounds like something that shouldve been a control in this study.

It roughly correlates with the black/white/other population ratios of the United States, so maybe that was the point? Speculating here.

yeah but that's not really how you conduct a scientific experiment because one's race is a variable that's going to affect the data and therefore should remain constant. this study is honestly pretty dubious sounding anyway, what's the meaning behind the y-axis labelling? "50 sympathy" means what? what kind of white-privilege info were they exposed to?

[Italios]

even if we accept the results as reliable, all it proves - to me at least - is that liberals have a terrible understanding of class in that they allow their view of it to be divided by race and will never direct whatever anger/frustration they have towards the political status quo in a meaningful way

[Otira]

even if we accept the results as reliable, all it proves - to me at least - is that liberals have a terrible understanding of class in that they allow their view of it to be divided by race and will never direct whatever anger/frustration they have towards the political status quo in a meaningful way

Everybody seems to be a little more overtly racist than they used to be.

[Knask]

I feel you have no answer to my question, which is looking at the whole picture instead of just one half of it.

It's anti white because the liberals became less sympathetic towards poor white people.

But social conservatives become more sympathetic. Why does only the liberal half count?

In the first figure, the net sympathy is about 120 (60+60). In the second figure, the net sympathy is also about 120 (50+70). The total net sympathy remains the same. How is that anti-white?

[Knask]

I feel you have no answer to my question, which is looking at the whole picture instead of just one half of it.

I'd have an answer if you actually had a question worth answering.
Also, lmao, "I'm looking at the whole picture!!!" doesn't fly when you're clearly not.

You are right, the best way to look at the whole picture is to only look at the one half called "liberals" while disregarding the other half.

[Costa Fierro]

Again, social conservatives sympathy for poor white people increased. So how is it anti-white?

You need to understand that the white privilege lessons didn't actually result in a net increase in sympathy for poor black people, which is what was intended, but decreased the support for poor white people, which as the professor pointed out in the article; "these widespread assumptions that black = poor and white = wealthy, also mean that poor white people are violating stereotypes of their race (i.e., that white people are wealthy) which may present its own complexities to how white people feel subjectively and how they are treated when they are poor."

What this means is that if one group of people is universally seen as being needy, but one group isn't, then the group of people who aren't perceived as being needy have less sympathy, and are therefore less likely to have their plight advocated for, to receive assistance, or to ask for assistance as they might fear negative repercussions. Translate this to the study and we find that both groups generally have increased sympathy for poor black Americans, without white privilege lessons. With white privilege lessons, only one group has increased sympathy for them while the other has not. As the professor said, there are widespread assumptions about wealth and race in America that are not true and do not hold up to scrutiny largely because of the massively diverse population and the spreading of racial groups across all economic classes. The assumption that all white people are wealthy is a negative one in the same way the assumption that all back people are poor, because neither are entirely true, and with the former, the decrease in sympathy among liberals who were given white privilege lessons is representative of this already negative assumption and connotations about the socio-economic status of white people, and therefore the decrease in sympathy for white people when compared to an increase in sympathy of black people among the same group of political associates represents blatant anti-white prejudices, which are reinforced by white privilege lessons.

The increase of support for whites among conservatives is nothing new there, because as per the studies in the article linked by the OP, conservatives do not view racism or racial inequalities as a serious problem, compared with liberals, and therefore the increase in sympathy cannot negate the decrease in sympathy found in the liberals as we can assume through other data that conservatives were already openly sympathetic towards poor whites and therefore the increase is well within expectations of that particular control group. Furthermore, if conservatives display an anti-black bias which prevents substantive wealth redistribution, then liberals display an anti-white bias with regards to the same problem. Which can be difficult to address social and economic inequality if the group dominating the dichotomy surrounding inequality deliberately excludes one group of people from the discussion purely because of their race and that particular group's own biases.

[Knask]

Again, social conservatives sympathy for poor white people increased. So how is it anti-white?

You need to understand that the white privilege lessons didn't actually result in a net increase in sympathy for poor black people, which is what was intended, but decreased the support for poor white people

And by “decreased support” you mean “unchanged net support”.

The increase of support for whites among conservatives is nothing new there

But it is. The article claims causation between white privilege education and increased sympathy among conservatives. So apparently, all social conservatives should go through education about white privilege to the benefit of poorer white people.

And increasing sympathy for poor white people among social conservatives is anti-white.

[Anagonia]

The purpose of hating white people is like hating on that one guy for buying that bike. You hate him for having more than you, so you go out of your way to defame him and make him feel sorry for you. Eventually, you realize, you can make other people feel sorry for your plight of not having this bike. Instead of working hard for that bike, you instead set out to further defame this man - because he doesn't bend to your will - by shaming him in the community. He has a bike, you don't, he has bike privilege and him having that bike is an offense to your great ancestors who walked to work everyday. You are offended, and you eventually convince the community that this man with the bike is too privileged for his wealth, and community pressure ensues.

The man still doesn't bend. He knows he earned his bike. You know he did too, but you're blinded by too much jealousy to admit it. So you go further, you go to the authorities. You somehow manage to convince the authorities, one by one, that by this man having this bike, he has oppressed you. They tell him to hand you over the bike. Eventually he does, forced to by so much pressure, shamed beyond belief, losing his job and wife in the process. All because he had a bike and you didn't.

And now your neighbor, who doesn't have a bike, begins to complain that you have one.

The cycle continues.

Sad world we live in.

[Kowani]

The purpose of hating white people is like hating on that one guy for buying that bike. You hate him for having more than you, so you go out of your way to defame him and make him feel sorry for you. Eventually, you realize, you can make other people feel sorry for your plight of not having this bike. Instead of working hard for that bike, you instead set out to further defame this man - because he doesn't bend to your will - by shaming him in the community. He has a bike, you don't, he has bike privilege and him having that bike is an offense to your great ancestors who walked to work everyday. You are offended, and you eventually convince the community that this man with the bike is too privileged for his wealth, and community pressure ensues.

The man still doesn't bend. He knows he earned his bike. You know he did too, but you're blinded by too much jealousy to admit it. So you go further, you go to the authorities. You somehow manage to convince the authorities, one by one, that by this man having this bike, he has oppressed you. They tell him to hand you over the bike. Eventually he does, forced to by so much pressure, shamed beyond belief, losing his job and wife in the process. All because he had a bike and you didn't.

And now your neighbor, who doesn't have a bike, begins to complain that you have one.

The cycle continues.

Sad world we live in.

You’re aware that nobody works like that.

[Diarcesia]

The purpose of hating white people is like hating on that one guy for buying that bike. You hate him for having more than you, so you go out of your way to defame him and make him feel sorry for you. Eventually, you realize, you can make other people feel sorry for your plight of not having this bike. Instead of working hard for that bike, you instead set out to further defame this man - because he doesn't bend to your will - by shaming him in the community. He has a bike, you don't, he has bike privilege and him having that bike is an offense to your great ancestors who walked to work everyday. You are offended, and you eventually convince the community that this man with the bike is too privileged for his wealth, and community pressure ensues.

The man still doesn't bend. He knows he earned his bike. You know he did too, but you're blinded by too much jealousy to admit it. So you go further, you go to the authorities. You somehow manage to convince the authorities, one by one, that by this man having this bike, he has oppressed you. They tell him to hand you over the bike. Eventually he does, forced to by so much pressure, shamed beyond belief, losing his job and wife in the process. All because he had a bike and you didn't.

And now your neighbor, who doesn't have a bike, begins to complain that you have one.

The cycle continues.

Sad world we live in.

It's something like this, and note that its magnitude is much much worse than the bike analogy. The less unfortunate equate this material head start with being complicit in laws like Jim Crow and segregation. Not without reason as non-whites were denied access by their skin color. Then again, modern whites can't control what their ancestors did it it's acknowledged that the racist past is very terrible. How can we use this knowledge without being anti-white? I've seen stuff about it and I can't help but feel at times that its rhetoric was filled with vitriol.

The purpose of hating white people is like hating on that one guy for buying that bike. You hate him for having more than you, so you go out of your way to defame him and make him feel sorry for you. Eventually, you realize, you can make other people feel sorry for your plight of not having this bike. Instead of working hard for that bike, you instead set out to further defame this man - because he doesn't bend to your will - by shaming him in the community. He has a bike, you don't, he has bike privilege and him having that bike is an offense to your great ancestors who walked to work everyday. You are offended, and you eventually convince the community that this man with the bike is too privileged for his wealth, and community pressure ensues.

The man still doesn't bend. He knows he earned his bike. You know he did too, but you're blinded by too much jealousy to admit it. So you go further, you go to the authorities. You somehow manage to convince the authorities, one by one, that by this man having this bike, he has oppressed you. They tell him to hand you over the bike. Eventually he does, forced to by so much pressure, shamed beyond belief, losing his job and wife in the process. All because he had a bike and you didn't.

And now your neighbor, who doesn't have a bike, begins to complain that you have one.

The cycle continues.

Sad world we live in.

You’re aware that nobody works like that.

Got second-hand accounts of such behavior, and that's without any whites involved.

[Liriena]

White culture? Do you think Rousseau, Kant and Hobbes all shared a singular "white culture" just because of their skin tone?


Your caveat at the end illustrates the pointlessness of trying to define a culture as belonging to a specific skin tone, at least on a global scale.


Then why do the majority white nations of South America often get excluded from being "western"?

1. Identity isn't something objective. You're behaving like a transphobe frankly, but as regards white identity. "WELL WHAT DOES BEING A WOMAN MEAN?" "HOW DO U KNOW UR TRANS" and so on. Just get over it and accept these people feel a cultural affinity for a particular group rather than pulling this kind of denialism in order to justify suppressing their pride and identity and telling them they have to take on some fucked up view YOU have of them. Think about that philosophytube video with the gender critical debate. That Is how you are behaving.

I note it's usually ass backwards too. You flip flop between "No shared white identity" when convenient, but seem happy to waffle about slavery and white privilege despite the fact most of Europe didn't hold slaves. This is because the framework you are using is an anti-white and racist one.
Did it occur to you the reason white identity is growing is because of that kind of anti-white narrative? YOU'RE the people forcing us to view eachother as a single tribe.
They are all part of white culture yes. Same as both Cardiff and Edinburgh are part of British culture.

2. "Black history"

3. Depends on who is talking about them. NATO membership is a pretty good reason though. Australia and Japan get honoraries on account of being outside the NATO area, South America has no excuse. Plus a history of communism and so on.

1. There's a difference, though: I'm not trying to further delegitimize a vulnerable minority in order to maintain the long-established hold on power of a dominant class. My criticism of contemporary attempts to define a singular white culture by way of retroactively assimilating key figures or ideas of Europe's past as being born from some sort of shared racial essence comes from the fact that modern white identity was created to serve the exclusionary and supremacist motivations of a dominant. The sort of white identity that you or others are trying to reinforce as a strategy against contemporary alienation and social-cultural isolation among white people was created by people who were trying to justify their hold on power on the basis of having an inborn, god-given or naturally-given virtue and/or mandate embodied by their skin tone and other physical attributes.

To put it in terms you might relate to: it's akin to supposedly non-feminist women trying to contemporarily define feminine identity and its relationship with masculine identity by using the exact same standards and elements that the original feminists used. Would you be comfortable living in a society where femininity and masculinity were defined in those terms, knowing what you know about its historical precedent?

2. What about it?

3. "Plus a history of communism"??? Cuba is in the Caribbean and South America's history has been mostly dominated by conservatism, liberalism and nationalist military dictatorships.

[Liriena]

My take? GDP per capita

This feels like an uncomfortable truth.

My take? A remnant of the "Italians aren't really white" sentiment.

[Kowani]

The purpose of hating white people is like hating on that one guy for buying that bike. You hate him for having more than you, so you go out of your way to defame him and make him feel sorry for you. Eventually, you realize, you can make other people feel sorry for your plight of not having this bike. Instead of working hard for that bike, you instead set out to further defame this man - because he doesn't bend to your will - by shaming him in the community. He has a bike, you don't, he has bike privilege and him having that bike is an offense to your great ancestors who walked to work everyday. You are offended, and you eventually convince the community that this man with the bike is too privileged for his wealth, and community pressure ensues.

The man still doesn't bend. He knows he earned his bike. You know he did too, but you're blinded by too much jealousy to admit it. So you go further, you go to the authorities. You somehow manage to convince the authorities, one by one, that by this man having this bike, he has oppressed you. They tell him to hand you over the bike. Eventually he does, forced to by so much pressure, shamed beyond belief, losing his job and wife in the process. All because he had a bike and you didn't.

And now your neighbor, who doesn't have a bike, begins to complain that you have one.

The cycle continues.

Sad world we live in.

It's something like this, and note that its magnitude is much much worse than the bike analogy. The less unfortunate equate this material head start with being complicit in laws like Jim Crow and segregation. Not without reason as non-whites were denied access by their skin color. Then again, modern whites can't control what their ancestors did it it's acknowledged that the racist past is very terrible. How can we use this knowledge without being anti-white? I've seen stuff about it and I can't help but feel at times that its rhetoric was filled with vitriol.

You’re aware that nobody works like that.

Got second-hand accounts of such behavior, and that's without any whites involved.

When people say white privilege, what they mean is that the difficulties faced by white people are not because of the color of their skin. This rambling about a bike has nothing to do with that.

[Liriena]

The purpose of hating white people is like hating on that one guy for buying that bike. You hate him for having more than you, so you go out of your way to defame him and make him feel sorry for you. Eventually, you realize, you can make other people feel sorry for your plight of not having this bike. Instead of working hard for that bike, you instead set out to further defame this man - because he doesn't bend to your will - by shaming him in the community. He has a bike, you don't, he has bike privilege and him having that bike is an offense to your great ancestors who walked to work everyday. You are offended, and you eventually convince the community that this man with the bike is too privileged for his wealth, and community pressure ensues.

The man still doesn't bend. He knows he earned his bike. You know he did too, but you're blinded by too much jealousy to admit it. So you go further, you go to the authorities. You somehow manage to convince the authorities, one by one, that by this man having this bike, he has oppressed you. They tell him to hand you over the bike. Eventually he does, forced to by so much pressure, shamed beyond belief, losing his job and wife in the process. All because he had a bike and you didn't.

And now your neighbor, who doesn't have a bike, begins to complain that you have one.

The cycle continues.

Sad world we live in.

You wasted a lot of time on this one analogy... and it's not even remotely on point.

[Hanafuridake]

Still a product of white culture. I guess something for whites to look up to and get inspired. Not just whites, but all the others who want to improve on the Enlightenment ideals.

There's no such thing as white culture. European people and their cultures vary wildly and these cultures have often been influenced by non-white peoples (see the Mongolian, Umayyad, and Ottoman rule over parts of Europe). The concept of whiteness is an artificial abstraction, so are black and Asian, as soon as we get rid of these, we can better appreciate the diversity of various cultures and localities.

[Major-Tom]

Oh god, this is "anti racist = anti white" with a new coat of paint, isn't it?

Criticizing SJW bullshit is not the same as peddling neo-Nazism, so no.

It's so easy to label any uncomfortable conversation as "SJW Bullshit," isn't it? Someone watches a few clickbaity Youtube Videos showcasing some obnoxious, bizarre left-wingers, and suddenly any conversation about the nature of privilege (as it relates to class and race), becomes taboo.

That's the bullshit, really. That we can't discuss how many facets of my country are still systemically disadvantaging the working class and minorities, especially since both identities are becoming more and more interrelated.

We could talk about how minorities receive comparably longer prison sentences for the same crimes, the crumbling schools in place in poor African-American neighborhoods, the hateful rhetoric towards minorities that is becoming more and more prevalent, etc. But that isn't very fun, so let's just call it SJW nonsense.

[Galloism]

We could talk about how minorities receive comparably longer prison sentences for the same crimes, the crumbling schools in place in poor African-American neighborhoods, the hateful rhetoric towards minorities that is becoming more and more prevalent, etc. But that isn't very fun, so let's just call it SJW nonsense.

2/3 sounds familiar.

[Costa Fierro]

And by “decreased support” you mean “unchanged net support”.

Decreased support is an appropriate term.

But it is. The article claims causation between white privilege education and increased sympathy among conservatives. So apparently, all social conservatives should go through education about white privilege to the benefit of poorer white people.

And increasing sympathy for poor white people among social conservatives is anti-white.

Did you not read my post?

[Galloism]

You need to understand that the white privilege lessons didn't actually result in a net increase in sympathy for poor black people, which is what was intended, but decreased the support for poor white people

And by “decreased support” you mean “unchanged net support”.

The increase of support for whites among conservatives is nothing new there

But it is. The article claims causation between white privilege education and increased sympathy among conservatives. So apparently, all social conservatives should go through education about white privilege to the benefit of poorer white people.

And increasing sympathy for poor white people among social conservatives is anti-white.

You actually have a legitimate point here, but I don't think it's the one you'd like.

See, you're both sort of right - it decreases support among liberals, but raises it among conservatives. The repeated harping on white privilege would appear to be directly causative of the rise of White Identity as a politically relevant mechanism. I would argue this is not a good thing, as it leads to things like Charlottesville and such. However, since it is a thing, we can recognize its existence, whether or not we're a fan of it. The "White Privilege" language apparently causes conservatives to find common ground with poor white folk, which they didn't before, because they had no shared "white identity". When White Identity is attacked, we can see the disparate impact, and it's important to think of this in statistical terms rather than absolute ones:

Liberals identify with the white poor less, as they are "the bad guys", and therefore show less sympathy towards them.
Conservatives identify with the white poor more, as they are "being attacked based on their race the same as I am", and therefore show more sympathy for them.

In short, this type of attacking language is probably very much the cause of the rise of White Identity Politics on the right.

And uh... I would say this is not a good thing, but then again, I think all identity politics is a cancer on society.

[Costa Fierro]

And by “decreased support” you mean “unchanged net support”.


But it is. The article claims causation between white privilege education and increased sympathy among conservatives. So apparently, all social conservatives should go through education about white privilege to the benefit of poorer white people.

And increasing sympathy for poor white people among social conservatives is anti-white.

You actually have a legitimate point here, but I don't think it's the one you'd like.

See, you're both sort of right - it decreases support among liberals, but raises it among conservatives. The repeated harping on white privilege would appear to be directly causative of the rise of White Identity as a politically relevant mechanism. I would argue this is not a good thing, as it leads to things like Charlottesville and such. However, since it is a thing, we can recognize its existence, whether or not we're a fan of it. The "White Privilege" language apparently causes conservatives to find common ground with poor white folk, which they didn't before, because they had no shared "white identity". When White Identity is attacked, we can see the disparate impact, and it's important to think of this in statistical terms rather than absolute ones:

Liberals identify with the white poor less, as they are "the bad guys", and therefore show less sympathy towards them.
Conservatives identify with the white poor more, as they are "being attacked based on their race the same as I am", and therefore show more sympathy for them.

In short, this type of attacking language is probably very much the cause of the rise of White Identity Politics on the right.

And uh... I would say this is not a good thing, but then again, I think all identity politics is a cancer on society.

That's the thing the professor was sort of hinting at; the numbness towards those who are perceived to be privileged but are not, and the resentment it creates among those kinds of people. If you're poor and barely making enough to keep a roof over your head, and some rich or middle class university graduate blames your own bad decision making while advocating for greater support of poor people of another broad racial group, you're not going to be happy about that.

That is what others were getting at when they refer to this as being anti-white, because it produces anti-white sentiment in a traditionally liberal environment.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I love it when leftist policies and intersectionality is exposed as the trash they are.

[Cappuccina]

I simply find it hilarious that the harder ppl try to not be racist, the more racist they actually become. You're either racist or not, trying not to be is just hypercorrection, imo.

These people who toe the whole "white privilege" line, just end up coming off as patronizing baffoons to minorities.I don't need you to tip toe about not trying to offend me, or not "propriating" my culture.

[Liriena]

I love it when leftist policies and intersectionality is exposed as the trash they are.

Except that there's a legitimate argument to be made that intersectionality would prevent the problem presented by the study cited by Ostro, insofar as intersectionality would avoid reductionism and encourage people to think of phenomena like poverty in a multiplicity of ways, rather than exclusively white privilege or something else entirely.

Also, "white privilege" is not a policy. It's an academic term. And the study was about issues of empathy, not policy.

So... you're basically gloating about not understanding the topic.