Learning about white privilege is anti-white, studies prove

[Gormwood]

How fucking hilarious that the first people to respond to this drivel consists of a dude who literally identifies as a white nationalist in his signature and another guy with a crossed-off LGBTQ flag as his profile picture.

How disgusting.

Interesting that you think calling a study "drivel" constitutes an acceptable response. On top of that you seem to be implying that noting some people in a group are unsavory therefore means you can dismiss the whole group.

Like feminists?

[Ostroeuropa]

Interesting that you think calling a study "drivel" constitutes an acceptable response. On top of that you seem to be implying that noting some people in a group are unsavory therefore means you can dismiss the whole group.

Like feminists?

Judging a political movement by its outcomes and the societies they produce is fine. You can just racism and racists. You can judge sexism and sexists. You can judge feminism and feminists.

However, judging people who accept the scientific method in this case as all being all racists because some are? That's kind of ridiculous. I wouldn't claim that people who accept the results of a study on say, the prevalence of sexual assault, were all inherently misandrists because some feminists turned up and also supported it.

Do you think gravity exists? Hitler!

The absurdity of this posters response is best understood by looking at some of the posters sympathetic to the progressive left and how they react to the study, concluding that emphasizing class needs to happen more. This is what we call; "Reasonable disagreement".

[LiberNovusAmericae]

And that makes it right in your leftist morality?

Did I say that?

You're careful to only imply it.

[Rojava Free State]

As a Hispanic person, I think white privilege is crap. I knew plenty of poor whites growing up and I find it offensive for some rich snob like Michelle Obama to be claiming these struggling people are somehow more privileged than they are. White privilege is a way for wealthy minority politicians to hide their ACTUAL privilege and distract their voters with an imagined great white boogeyman

[Kowani]

As a Hispanic person, I think white privilege is crap. I knew plenty of poor whites growing up and I find it offensive for some rich snob like Michelle Obama to be claiming these struggling people are somehow more privileged than they are. White privilege is a way for wealthy minority politicians to hide their ACTUAL privilege and distract their voters with an imagined great white boogeyman

The day someone who is opposed to white privilege actually understands what it is will be long after I die.

[Galloism]

As a Hispanic person, I think white privilege is crap. I knew plenty of poor whites growing up and I find it offensive for some rich snob like Michelle Obama to be claiming these struggling people are somehow more privileged than they are. White privilege is a way for wealthy minority politicians to hide their ACTUAL privilege and distract their voters with an imagined great white boogeyman

The day someone who is opposed to white privilege actually understands what it is will be long after I die.

Well, from the results of the study, it would appear that white privilege is mainly a way to cause the rise of white identity politics. Which is probably not a good thing.

Last time we had white identity politics become a major thing, Europe took a major hit.

[Kowani]

The day someone who is opposed to white privilege actually understands what it is will be long after I die.

Well, from the results of the study, it would appear that white privilege is mainly a way to cause the rise of white identity politics. Which is probably not a good thing.

Last time we had white identity politics become a major thing, Europe took a major hit.

Yes, this is partially the cause of bad communication on the part of the progressives, alt-lite/alt-right pundits deliberately misrepresenting the entire point of the argument, and just bad nomenclature. I would prefer to call it minority disadvantage, if only to avoid the backlash and connotations associated with the word privilege, but I also don’t believe that semantics are of utmost importance in comparison to the actual issue.

[Cossack Khanate]

Very interesting study, my political associates and I have been screaming this for some time now.

And you can't call me a white bigot, because guess what? I'm an Indian Hindu nationalist boi

But I'm still a social conservative, and this is what I've been saying to them liberals...

[Ostroeuropa]

Well, from the results of the study, it would appear that white privilege is mainly a way to cause the rise of white identity politics. Which is probably not a good thing.

Last time we had white identity politics become a major thing, Europe took a major hit.

Yes, this is partially the cause of bad communication on the part of the progressives, alt-lite/alt-right pundits deliberately misrepresenting the entire point of the argument, and just bad nomenclature. I would prefer to call it minority disadvantage, if only to avoid the backlash and connotations associated with the word privilege, but I also don’t believe that semantics are of utmost importance in comparison to the actual issue.

Minority disadvantage doesn't actually convey the same idea nor is it only semantics, but to call something minority disadvantage is also as incorrect and divisive as white privilege. It's more specific than that in many cases.

Much of "White privilege" is "Privilege" shared by other groups too, because it is more accurately understood as, for instance, "Black disadvantage.". It's like if I kept pretending all bankers were Jews, that would be pretty sus. Mainstream progressives act like these "Privileges" are the sole domain of white people, even when often, other minorities share them on a case by case basis (Such as police shootings.). This also impacts their proposed solutions which often take on anti-white aspects.

But the "Black disadvantage" framing also allows critique of inter-minority racism to be taken into account, which a white privilege model does not, and also allows white disadvantage to be discussed in areas where that is appropriate, because it recognizes things on an issue by issue basis rather than as some fucked up Manichean power struggle with the good guys and the bad guys.

[Kowani]

Yes, this is partially the cause of bad communication on the part of the progressives, alt-lite/alt-right pundits deliberately misrepresenting the entire point of the argument, and just bad nomenclature. I would prefer to call it minority disadvantage, if only to avoid the backlash and connotations associated with the word privilege, but I also don’t believe that semantics are of utmost importance in comparison to the actual issue.

Minority disadvantage doesn't actually convey the same idea nor is it only semantics, but to call something minority disadvantage is also as incorrect and divisive as white privilege. It's more specific than that in many cases.

Much of "White privilege" is "Privilege" shared by other groups too, because it is more accurately understood as, for instance, "Black disadvantage.". It's like if I kept pretending all bankers were Jews, that would be pretty sus. Mainstream progressives act like these "Privileges" are the sole domain of white people, even when often, other minorities share them on a case by case basis. This also impacts their proposed solutions.

But the "Black disadvantage" framing also allows critique of inter-minority racism to be taken into account, which a white privilege model does not, and also allows white disadvantage to be discussed in areas where that is appropriate.

Okay, that’s true, but is inter-minority racism statistically significant? And just as important, do cases of it have a major impact on society’s physical well-being? Because that which is often called white privilege, which I call minority disadvantage, although not uniform among groups (that of Asians is not the same as that of African Americans, after all), the general ideas, which are the truly important part, is conveyed quite well, and serves to lessen the societal divisions perpetuated by the talk about identity in politics, although said divisions have a net benefit, that is only to a point.

[Communist Zombie Horde]

Very interesting study, my political associates and I have been screaming this for some time now.

And you can't call me a white bigot, because guess what? I'm an Indian Hindu nationalist boi

But I'm still a social conservative, and this is what I've been saying to them liberals...

You are a Hindu Indian? Surprising.

[New haven america]

As a Hispanic person, I think white privilege is crap. I knew plenty of poor whites growing up and I find it offensive for some rich snob like Michelle Obama to be claiming these struggling people are somehow more privileged than they are. White privilege is a way for wealthy minority politicians to hide their ACTUAL privilege and distract their voters with an imagined great white boogeyman

The day someone who is opposed to white privilege actually understands what it is will be long after I die.

Then do you mind sharing what it is with the thread? Or just keeping it to yourself?

[Kowani]

The day someone who is opposed to white privilege actually understands what it is will be long after I die.

Then do you mind sharing what it is with the thread? Or just keeping it to yourself?

Yes, it is. It means that because of my race, I am inherently advantaged. Accounting for other factors, I am decidedly disadvantaged relative to the majority of other Americans, black, white, or Asian. So, it's a bit old to hear about my so called privilege.

Technically, It is that the disadvantages you face are not because of the color of your skin. Now in certain cases this does not hold true. A white person in a majority black neighborhood is at a somewhat large risk of being discriminated against by their neighbors. But in most cases, that does not hold.

[New haven america]

Then do you mind sharing what it is with the thread? Or just keeping it to yourself?

Technically, It is that the disadvantages you face are not because of the color of your skin. Now in certain cases this does not hold true. A white person in a majority black neighborhood is at a somewhat large risk of being discriminated against by their neighbors. But in most cases, that does not hold.

That's nice. That's not what it is, but that's nice.

In actuality, White Privilege is the belief that white people hold an advantage over others of different races, in and regardless of: Population size compared to non-whites, economic status, social status, political status, or economic circumstances. For example, a poor white person is considered to have it better than a poor black person despite being the same when it comes to socioeconomic status.

[Ostroeuropa]

Minority disadvantage doesn't actually convey the same idea nor is it only semantics, but to call something minority disadvantage is also as incorrect and divisive as white privilege. It's more specific than that in many cases.

Much of "White privilege" is "Privilege" shared by other groups too, because it is more accurately understood as, for instance, "Black disadvantage.". It's like if I kept pretending all bankers were Jews, that would be pretty sus. Mainstream progressives act like these "Privileges" are the sole domain of white people, even when often, other minorities share them on a case by case basis. This also impacts their proposed solutions.

But the "Black disadvantage" framing also allows critique of inter-minority racism to be taken into account, which a white privilege model does not, and also allows white disadvantage to be discussed in areas where that is appropriate.

Okay, that’s true, but is inter-minority racism statistically significant? And just as important, do cases of it have a major impact on society’s physical well-being? Because that which is often called white privilege, which I call minority disadvantage, although not uniform among groups (that of Asians is not the same as that of African Americans, after all), the general ideas, which are the truly important part, is conveyed quite well, and serves to lessen the societal divisions perpetuated by the talk about identity in politics, although said divisions have a net benefit, that is only to a point.

I disagree that the general ideas are portrayed well. The study likewise suggests otherwise.

Inter-minority racism is hugely impactful in a number of ways, especially for urban crime contexts and gang crime, as well as riots. During urban riots by black folk for instance, often asian and hispanic places of businesses are deliberately targeted, with obvious impacts on the social mobility and safety of those groups. I also disagree they are lessening divisions and helping society. Where have you been lately?? The far-right is rising in part because of the culture war this view on race relations has fostered and the out-grouping of white people.

[New haven america]

Minority disadvantage doesn't actually convey the same idea nor is it only semantics, but to call something minority disadvantage is also as incorrect and divisive as white privilege. It's more specific than that in many cases.

Much of "White privilege" is "Privilege" shared by other groups too, because it is more accurately understood as, for instance, "Black disadvantage.". It's like if I kept pretending all bankers were Jews, that would be pretty sus. Mainstream progressives act like these "Privileges" are the sole domain of white people, even when often, other minorities share them on a case by case basis. This also impacts their proposed solutions.

But the "Black disadvantage" framing also allows critique of inter-minority racism to be taken into account, which a white privilege model does not, and also allows white disadvantage to be discussed in areas where that is appropriate.

Okay, that’s true, but is inter-minority racism statistically significant? And just as important, do cases of it have a major impact on society’s physical well-being? Because that which is often called white privilege, which I call minority disadvantage, although not uniform among groups (that of Asians is not the same as that of African Americans, after all), the general ideas, which are the truly important part, is conveyed quite well, and serves to lessen the societal divisions perpetuated by the talk about identity in politics, although said divisions have a net benefit, that is only to a point.

It's called colorism and yes, it is.

Black people in America for example, are actually very discriminatory against each other. Darker skinned people are believed to be dumber, uglier, and more likely to steal than lighter skinned black people. On the other hand, lighter skinned black people are believed to be more smug, more likely to cheat on their partners and friends, and more likely to "Betray" their race and marry a white or Asian partner.

Now, none of this is founded upon actual logic or facts, but a lot still believe it regardless of its validity.

[Xeng He]

See, the reason why people went "gosh, why is that white person so poor" is probably because they were only exposed to one form of privilege that can exist.

You know. Like the study says it does.

Also, the logical extremes would suggest that talking about privilege of any kind, some of which you would hopefully agree really does fucking exist (e.g... the privilege of having more money to start with in your life versus having little at all) would be bad because it would encourage anti-rich people sentiments, even though not everyone who is rich is a bad person.

The fault in your interpretation of this is assuming that all this exists as a simple on-off switch; talk about one form of privilege is bad because anti-people "with that privilege", supposedly because, y'know, poverty. Talking about them all means everyone suddenly becomes anti-white/rich/Christian/male, etc. Instead of recognising that having less empathy for someone based on the things they're supposedly privileged for is kind of fucking nonsensical because hey, maybe they've got some other bullshit in their life, like... being poor. Or being LGBT. Or having mental issues, etc.

It's a whole fucking system. Just as the professor. Fucking. Mentioned.

Do you have any evidence that adding a class axis would impact the results noticably?

Because here's the thing. We now know this is basically a racist framing device.

Do you honestly think rambling constantly about "Wealthy Jews though, not working class ones." would prove a suitable impediment to anti-semitism growing?

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

Wouldn't it make more sense to start with class and then go into race though, considering that saying "Poor people have it shit, and black people have it shittier on top of that" doesn't create clashing ideas about most people whereas "Black people have it shittier than white people, but some white people also have it shitty for other reasons" sort of blunts the impact of some of it?

[Kowani]

That's nice. That's not what it is, but that's nice.

In actuality, White Privilege is the belief that white people hold an advantage over others of different races, in and regardless of: Population size compared to non-whites, economic status, social status, political status, or economic circumstances. For example, a poor white person is considered to have it better than a poor black person despite being the same when it comes to socioeconomic status.

Assuming that both of them were equally poor, and all other factors being equal (and in some cases, not even then), the poor white would have it easier, but that doesn’t mean that they have it easy.

Okay, that’s true, but is inter-minority racism statistically significant? And just as important, do cases of it have a major impact on society’s physical well-being? Because that which is often called white privilege, which I call minority disadvantage, although not uniform among groups (that of Asians is not the same as that of African Americans, after all), the general ideas, which are the truly important part, is conveyed quite well, and serves to lessen the societal divisions perpetuated by the talk about identity in politics, although said divisions have a net benefit, that is only to a point.

I disagree that the general ideas are portrayed well. The study likewise suggests otherwise.

Yes, because the study is talking about White privilege, not Minority Disadvantage. One of those things has a massive connotation, both linguistically and culturally.

Inter-minority racism is hugely impactful in a number of ways, especially for urban crime contexts and gang crime,

That’s less an inter-minority racism thing as it is a poverty thing.

as well as riots. During urban riots by black folk for instance, often asian and hispanic places of businesses are deliberately targeted, [mwith obvious impacts on the social mobility and safety of those groups.

Citation needed.

I also disagree they are lessening divisions and helping society.

Not entirely what I meant. Where have you been lately?? The far-right is rising in part because of the culture war this view on race relations has fostered and the out-grouping of white people.[/quote]
Firstly, that the division is worth it, because one has to talk about racism in society. It is a skeleton that has remained in the closet for too long. In the same way that the American Civil War divided society for a time, only for it to emerge better at the end. Secondly, it has also brought about new trains of thought and ideas on all sides that would not have existed otherwise.

[New haven america]

That's nice. That's not what it is, but that's nice.

In actuality, White Privilege is the belief that white people hold an advantage over others of different races, in and regardless of: Population size compared to non-whites, economic status, social status, political status, or economic circumstances. For example, a poor white person is considered to have it better than a poor black person despite being the same when it comes to socioeconomic status.

Assuming that both of them were equally poor, and all other factors being equal (and in some cases, not even then), the poor white would have it easier, but that doesn’t mean that they have it easy.

No, the general belief is that the poor white person would have it easy, the poor black person however, would not. Hell, some would even say that the poor white person has an easier life than a rich black person.

It's basically saying that there's a direct correlation between skin color and treatment in society. A white person will always be better off than a black person, regardless of comparative population size, economic status, social status, political status, etc... A rich non-white person who was born into wealth will always have a harder time in life that a poor white person who was born and raised poor.

Can you see why people might get annoyed with this idea now?

[Kowani]

Assuming that both of them were equally poor, and all other factors being equal (and in some cases, not even then), the poor white would have it easier, but that doesn’t mean that they have it easy.

No, the general belief is that the poor white person would have it easy, the poor black person however, would not. Hell, some would even say that the poor white person has an easier life than a rich black person.

It's basically saying that there's a direct correlation between skin color and treatment in society. A white person will always be better off than a black person, regardless of comparative population size, economic status, social status, political status, etc... A rich non-white person who was born into wealth will always have a harder time in life that a poor white person who born and raised poor.

Can you see why people might get annoyed with this idea now?

There are certain areas wherein the rich black person will almost always have it worse than a poor white one, but these are few and mitigated by money. However, the definition is erroneous, if the idea is not.

[Ostroeuropa]

*Snip*

Quotes broken, replying to all your points above. (Including your response to new haven.).

1. disagree, some studies show black homeless folk receive more donations specifically because of the phenomanae outlined in the OP, people assume poor white folk somehow deserve it more.

2. Minority disadvantage is not properly discussed in the modern era, so it's not portrayed well imo.

3. You can claim this about racism in general if you feel like dismissing examples. Why are the gangs so often race based? Poverty? Ridiculous.

4. One famous example; https://oxfordre.com/americanhistory/vi ... 29175-e-15
(White cops shot a black guy, black community gets angry and... goes out to burn down asian businesses.).

This is also often ignored in the progressive narrative due to the "White privilege" framing, they dismiss black riots as responses to police violence rather than a symptom of a problem in the black community. That dismissive response collapses when you realize what these riots often entail.

5. We discussed racism before without the unnecessary demonizing of white people and erasure of their issues, nor without playing gaslighting mindgames with them over it being impossible to be racist toward them. None of these developments are positive. The discussion has toxified and i'd be hard pressed to consider a single positive outcome they have delivered.

[New haven america]

No, the general belief is that the poor white person would have it easy, the poor black person however, would not. Hell, some would even say that the poor white person has an easier life than a rich black person.

It's basically saying that there's a direct correlation between skin color and treatment in society. A white person will always be better off than a black person, regardless of comparative population size, economic status, social status, political status, etc... A rich non-white person who was born into wealth will always have a harder time in life that a poor white person who born and raised poor.

Can you see why people might get annoyed with this idea now?

There are certain areas wherein the rich black person will almost always have it worse than a poor white one, but these are few and mitigated by money. However, the definition is erroneous, if the idea is not.

I bolded the important part there.

Race is nowhere near as strong as socioeconomic status is. People have been fooled into believing that race is the most important factor in modern-discrimination, but it's not, if you have enough money then you can get away with anything, regardless of skin color or ethnic origin.

[Kowani]

*Snip*

Quotes broken, replying to all your points above. (Including your response to new haven.).

1. disagree, some studies show black homeless folk receive more donations specifically because of the phenomanae outlined in the OP, people assume poor white folk somehow deserve it more.

Citation needed.
However, I would like to point out that private charity is no substitute for government policy, as it doesn’t fix the underlying cause.

2. Minority disadvantage is not properly discussed in the modern era, so it's not portrayed well imo.

True.

3. You can claim this about racism in general if you feel like dismissing examples. Why are the gangs so often race based? Poverty? Ridiculous.

People form into gangs because of poverty, and gangs are homogeneous by race, yes. The poverty tends to be racial in nature, although that topic requires a bit more nuance than I can get into here. However, the reason for interracial gang violence is the same as intraracial gang violence-poverty and secondary ingrouping.

4. One famous example; https://oxfordre.com/americanhistory/vi ... 29175-e-15
(White cops shot a black guy, black community gets angry and... goes out to burn down asian businesses.).

Paywall. I’m 17, sorry.

5. We discussed racism before without the unnecessary demonizing of white people and erasure of their issues,

Yes, MLK was well known for focusing on white people’s issues. Malcom X, on the other hand…

nor without playing gaslighting mindgames with them over it being impossible to be racist toward them.

Oh, that’s what this is about. I refer to you the concept of linguistic drift.

[Ors Might]

Then do you mind sharing what it is with the thread? Or just keeping it to yourself?

Technically, It is that the disadvantages you face are not because of the color of your skin. Now in certain cases this does not hold true. A white person in a majority black neighborhood is at a somewhat large risk of being discriminated against by their neighbors. But in most cases, that does not hold.

I’m gonna argue in good faith and assume for the sake of discussion that that’s gernally what is meant by those arguing that white privilege is a meaningful concept.

By fucking god is the term “white privilege” a really bad way of framing that concept. It seems particularly geared to make discussion of itself as needlessly difficult and unhelpful as possible.

[Ostroeuropa]

Quotes broken, replying to all your points above. (Including your response to new haven.).

1. disagree, some studies show black homeless folk receive more donations specifically because of the phenomanae outlined in the OP, people assume poor white folk somehow deserve it more.

Citation needed.
However, I would like to point out that private charity is no substitute for government policy, as it doesn’t fix the underlying cause.

2. Minority disadvantage is not properly discussed in the modern era, so it's not portrayed well imo.

True.

3. You can claim this about racism in general if you feel like dismissing examples. Why are the gangs so often race based? Poverty? Ridiculous.

People form into gangs because of poverty, and gangs are homogeneous by race, yes. The poverty tends to be racial in nature, although that topic requires a bit more nuance than I can get into here. However, the reason for interracial gang violence is the same as intraracial gang violence-poverty and secondary ingrouping.

4. One famous example; https://oxfordre.com/americanhistory/vi ... 29175-e-15
(White cops shot a black guy, black community gets angry and... goes out to burn down asian businesses.).

Paywall. I’m 17, sorry.

5. We discussed racism before without the unnecessary demonizing of white people and erasure of their issues,

Yes, MLK was well known for focusing on white people’s issues. Malcom X, on the other hand…

nor without playing gaslighting mindgames with them over it being impossible to be racist toward them.

Oh, that’s what this is about. I refer to you the concept of linguistic drift.

1. Racism is also a social structure. Seeking the study.

2. K

3. So... racism.

4. Basically the white cops shot a black guy, and the black community rioted in response, after a short period of time the focus of the riots shifted suddenly and there was deliberate targetting of asian businesses, property, and homes. This is not the only example. It was just the first major example of the phenomana, and one that fueled a media frenzy on the criminality of black people, plenty of heroic pictures of white cops coming to the defense of asians and so on, "justifying" the whole "You're basically violent subhumans" thing the media pushed about black people. It caused a marked shift in perceptions of black people among the asian population that has only recently started to recover. Progressives like to pretend all racism is caused by white power structures, but this is one good example of how that is bollocks. Asians didn't particularly buy into it until this kind of thing. It was first hand experience that made Asians view black people negatively, not whitey telling them about black people. This is now a common feature of black riots, but the media doesn't like to talk about it much anymore.

5. Malcolm X didn't really become mainstream though, did he.

6. I don't see how it's relevant.