Learning about white privilege is anti-white, studies prove

[Gormwood]

Which depending on your point of view can be seen as backlash for how black Africans were treated under the old governments.

Apparently Vassenor believes blacks can get a free pass for oppressing whites simply because whites did it first.

Classy.

Pointing out the rationale for something is now justifying it. Cool.

[Vassenor]

Which depending on your point of view can be seen as backlash for how black Africans were treated under the old governments.

Apparently Vassenor believes blacks can get a free pass for oppressing whites simply because whites did it first.

Classy.

I didn't know I was the subject of the thread.

[Gormwood]

Apparently Vassenor believes blacks can get a free pass for oppressing whites simply because whites did it first.

Classy.

I didn't know I was the subject of the thread.

Welcome to the club. Want to be President?

[Nova Cyberia]

Apparently Vassenor believes blacks can get a free pass for oppressing whites simply because whites did it first.

Classy.

Pointing out the rationale for something is now justifying it. Cool.

When using it as an excuse after being provided with examples of whites being oppressed?

Yes.

If you're going to explain it away by quoting the rationale of the oppressors then that is what you're doing.

[Nova Cyberia]

Apparently Vassenor believes blacks can get a free pass for oppressing whites simply because whites did it first.

Classy.

I didn't know I was the subject of the thread.

"Stop pointing out my shitty opinions."

Oh, woes you.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Apparently Vassenor believes blacks can get a free pass for oppressing whites simply because whites did it first.

Classy.

I didn't know I was the subject of the thread.

You're free to admit you were wrong and that whites indeed are oppressed and that you think that's a bad thing.

A lack of doing so is rather telling however.

[Vassenor]

I didn't know I was the subject of the thread.

You're free to admit you were wrong and that whites indeed are oppressed and that you think that's a bad thing.

A lack of doing so is rather telling however.

And you're free to admit that I didn't say the things you're convinced I did.

A lack of doing so is rather telling however.

[Ors Might]

You're free to admit you were wrong and that whites indeed are oppressed and that you think that's a bad thing.

A lack of doing so is rather telling however.

And you're free to admit that I didn't say the things you're convinced I did.

A lack of doing so is rather telling however.

Which depending on your point of view can be seen as backlash for how black Africans were treated under the old governments

I really doubt that you’d assume the best of intentions if someone were to respond with the justification people used for slavery if you pointed out how poorly blacks were treated during that time period.

[Cappuccina]

And you're free to admit that I didn't say the things you're convinced I did.

A lack of doing so is rather telling however.

Which depending on your point of view can be seen as backlash for how black Africans were treated under the old governments

I really doubt that you’d assume the best of intentions if someone were to respond with the justification people used for slavery if you pointed out how poorly blacks were treated during that time period.

Of course they won't, but not for the right reasons. You have to remember, minorities can never be wrong, and can never be oppressors in the intersectional rodeo.... unless they come from Europe.

[Tahar Joblis]

It's hard to know with studies like these if there's an actual lasting effect, or if it's more of a demand effect, where respondents are changing their responses based on how they feel about the experimenter and their desire to either confirm or deny the experimenter's apparent hypothesis.

The conclusion seems fairly obviously true and makes perfect sense, but this is exactly the sort of result that's hard to measure, and that can be hard to replicate. It's suggestive but not conclusive.

I'd highlight three things. First, for two of the four conditions [(liberal / conservative) x (control / lesson)] there's more sympathy for the poor black person than poor white person. For two, the sympathy level is equal (liberal x no lesson, conservative x lesson). This is probably the most striking result, because a lot of studies (and conventional wisdom) show bias that tilts towards whites over blacks.

Second, the effect is basically opposite for conservatives and liberals. Liberals decreased sympathy for whites (creating a gap), while conservatives increased sympathy for whites (closing a gap) in an apparent backfire effect.

Third, I don't see anything in the summaries readily available online pointing at the race cross-tabs. A little under 70% of subjects were white, which means that the result could be mostly about the responses by race, with the political leaning factor not actually all that significant. I may have to take a second look at this study after getting through the paywall.

[Vassenor]

And you're free to admit that I didn't say the things you're convinced I did.

A lack of doing so is rather telling however.

Which depending on your point of view can be seen as backlash for how black Africans were treated under the old governments

I really doubt that you’d assume the best of intentions if someone were to respond with the justification people used for slavery if you pointed out how poorly blacks were treated during that time period.

So what part of that is me saying that it's OK?

[The Emerald Legion]

I really doubt that you’d assume the best of intentions if someone were to respond with the justification people used for slavery if you pointed out how poorly blacks were treated during that time period.

So what part of that is me saying that it's OK?

The part where you parrot their justification for it being ok.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I really doubt that you’d assume the best of intentions if someone were to respond with the justification people used for slavery if you pointed out how poorly blacks were treated during that time period.

So what part of that is me saying that it's OK?

Repeating it and offering no condemnation implies at least tacit approval. When I play devils advocate I make it well known I'm doing so and don't actually agree with the points being made.

[Cappuccina]

So what part of that is me saying that it's OK?

The part where you parrot their justification for it being ok.

Basically. No effort to distance themselves from the opinion that it's a good thing. That's like me parroting NOI propaganda that white people are demons and not saying that I find that repulsive.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I really doubt that you’d assume the best of intentions if someone were to respond with the justification people used for slavery if you pointed out how poorly blacks were treated during that time period.

So what part of that is me saying that it's OK?

Don't act like a child. You could avoid all of this if you actually said what your opinion IS rather than just sniping at other people, repeatedly dodging all questions about your own beliefs, and then bemoaning that people are trying to make you the topic of the thread when they inevitably press; because, like, knowing the other person's position is pretty fucking required to debate them. This is entirely the result of your own deliberate obscurity.

[Ors Might]

I really doubt that you’d assume the best of intentions if someone were to respond with the justification people used for slavery if you pointed out how poorly blacks were treated during that time period.

So what part of that is me saying that it's OK?

What part of saying that “well, depending on your point of view, jim crow can be seen as backlash for how the federal government treated the states” is saying that Jim Crow is okay?

[Vassenor]

So what part of that is me saying that it's OK?

The part where you parrot their justification for it being ok.

Did you pull something reaching that hard?

[Vassenor]

The part where you parrot their justification for it being ok.

Basically. No effort to distance themselves from the opinion that it's a good thing. That's like me parroting NOI propaganda that white people are demons and not saying that I find that repulsive.

"Failure to explicitly condemn is tacit support"

Everybody drink.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Oh for fucks sake Vassenor just say what you believe about the topic. Do you support discrimination against whites in southern Africa or not? Yes or no?

[Cappuccina]

Basically. No effort to distance themselves from the opinion that it's a good thing. That's like me parroting NOI propaganda that white people are demons and not saying that I find that repulsive.

"Failure to explicitly condemn is tacit support"

Everybody drink.

Do you believe black people are justified in being racist towards white people, or not. Is one racism more acceptable than another? Is being anti-white racism? What do you believe?

[Gormwood]

Nothing like gangpiling on a poster to bring out a sense of community.

[Vassenor]

"Failure to explicitly condemn is tacit support"

Everybody drink.

Do you believe black people are justified in being racist towards white people, or not. Is one racism more acceptable than another? Is being anti-white racism? What do you believe?

What I believe is not the topic of the thread.

[Proctopeo]

Nothing like gangpiling on a poster to bring out a sense of community.

Nothing like only contributing meaningless snark to raise the post count huh old chap?

[Gormwood]

Nothing like gangpiling on a poster to bring out a sense of community.

Nothing like only contributing meaningless snark to raise the post count huh old chap?

Oh I forgot gangpiling is actually contributing to a discussion. :^]

[Proctopeo]

Nothing like only contributing meaningless snark to raise the post count huh old chap?

Oh I forgot gangpiling is actually contributing to a discussion. :^]

Well, "gangpiling" (read: pressing someone to elaborate on something stupid they said) is more productive than what you're doing now.