NationStates

This does not surprise me at all, since most legislatures in Europe and her settler colonies are dominated by white men anyway.

Duvniask wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Ive never been beaten up by the cops but I have been stopped for no good reason and threatened by several power hungry cops. So much for “muh privilege”

Literally incapable of understanding what's meant by a social privilege, the people in this thread.

What use is it to argue with people who don't want to learn anything and will keep asserting their viewpoints against strawmen? I mean, this is the same level of obtuseness as "it snowed yesterday, so clearly the globe isn't warming". No, man, it has to do with societal trends which are not particularly well-assessed by your anecdotal experience.

I believe that the idea of “privilege and intersectionality” to be stupid ideologies fed to people who want to seem smart by the ruling class.

Is there racism and abuse of rights against minorities? Most definitely but that doesn’t mean that poor whites are somehow privileged because they aren’t abused by the cops.

Being not abused by the police is a right all citizens should have and the absence of such rights isn’t a lack of privilege but a lack of rights and a miscarriage of justice

Duvniask wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
Trends don't equal individual experiences tho. Minorities are more likely to experience inequality but when controlled for socioeconomic standing, that inequality all but melts away.

Stop and look at my post just before that one, because this is bullshit.

Maybe me and RFS know what we are talking about because we’ve experienced what it’s like to be poor and always looking towards the next paycheck.

Class is a stronger uniter than race is.

Luziyca wrote:This does not surprise me at all, since most legislatures in Europe and her settler colonies are dominated by white men anyway.

Well it makes sense why white people would dominate in Europe since white people come from there

Duvniask wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
Trends don't equal individual experiences tho. Minorities are more likely to experience inequality but when controlled for socioeconomic standing, that inequality all but melts away.

Stop and look at my post just before that one, because this is bullshit.

Any "privilege" afforded to white people specifically for being white is trivial at best. You'll do far better as a rich person of any race, because wealth has 100 times the privilege points being white has.

Thermodolia wrote:

Luziyca wrote:This does not surprise me at all, since most legislatures in Europe and her settler colonies are dominated by white men anyway.

Well it makes sense why white people would dominate in Europe since white people come from there

Someone would have to be really weird to see a European parliament that's almost all white and think there's something weird or wrong about that.

Rojava Free State wrote:

Duvniask wrote:Stop and look at my post just before that one, because this is bullshit.

Any "privilege" afforded to white people specifically for being white is trivial at best. You'll do far better as a rich person of any race, because wealth has 100 times the privilege points being white has.

But but white man bad

Thermodolia wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
Any "privilege" afforded to white people specifically for being white is trivial at best. You'll do far better as a rich person of any race, because wealth has 100 times the privilege points being white has.

But but white man bad

Even during the times of segregation, I wouldnt say there was white privilege. The boot pressed down on the necks of poor whites less hard than it pressed on that of blacks but start a labor strike or go to the wrong neighborhood and your whiteness wouldn't save you.

It's like a man shoots my friend in the throat and me in the chest. Am I privileged somehow or just slightly less misfortunate?

San Lumen wrote:

Diarcesia wrote:If.

I don’t understand your point

If my memory serves right, almost all of the measures that formally prevent women and minorities from elected office are already gone. Most of what remains is a matter of enforcement or personal biases. In the case of the latter, it's something laws can't legislate effectively.

Diarcesia wrote:

San Lumen wrote:I don’t understand your point

If my memory serves right, almost all of the measures that formally prevent women and minorities from elected office are already gone. Most of what remains is a matter of enforcement or personal biases. In the case of the latter, it's something laws can't legislate effectively.

Agreed. We can’t force anyone to run and if multiple people file it’s up to the electorate to decide who they want

The problem with framing white privilege as, well, white privilege is that yes, while it may be true that the cops are both less likely to beat a poor white guy to death and less likely to get away with it if they do than if it were a poor black guy, that’s not exactly a high bar to pass, now is it?

Ors Might wrote:The problem with framing white privilege as, well, white privilege is that yes, while it may be true that the cops are both less likely to beat a poor white guy to death and less likely to get away with it if they do than if it were a poor black guy, that’s not exactly a high bar to pass, now is it?

And this is related to the topic how?

La xinga wrote:

South Odreria 2 wrote:The parties tilt the playing field towards white candidates because they are seen as more electable, even though they aren’t.

Then why is Biden trying to pick a Black VP?

To enhance White Privilege, duh!

Thermodolia wrote:

Shofercia wrote:

Were you ever beaten up by cops? If not - WHITE PRIVILEGE!
Have you been discriminated against by the Government? If not - WHITE PRIVILEGE!

Wait, why's everyone laughing, several SJW's don't understand.

Ive never been beaten up by the cops but I have been stopped for no good reason and threatened by several power hungry cops. So much for “muh privilege”

But you weren't beaten up, were you? WHITE PRIVILEGE!

San Lumen wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Yes it is. The current system makes it nearly impossible for anyone who’s not super rich and has the backing of the two largest parties to get elected.

Other nations have shown that if you want more minority representation then you need to have PR or something like it to obtain that equal representation

How did Nevada manage to elect a female majority legislature then?

So tempting to make a Vegas joke, so very tempting...

Rojava Free State wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Of course they do. Intersectionality is pushed by the upper class and the mega corporations to divide the poor and working class. Because what better way to keep the poor and workers from thinking about how you are fucking them than to say that one half is your enemy instead of your allies

Basically "I'm rich and black and I'm a politician and a former fortune 500 company owner but look at how I'm oppressed. Some rando on 8chan called me the n word."

Oh noes not some rando on 8chan! How will I ever survive in yacht after that?

San Lumen wrote:

Ors Might wrote:The problem with framing white privilege as, well, white privilege is that yes, while it may be true that the cops are both less likely to beat a poor white guy to death and less likely to get away with it if they do than if it were a poor black guy, that’s not exactly a high bar to pass, now is it?

And this is related to the topic how?

Do you not think the concept of white privilege is in any way, shape, or form connected to white folk on average being more likely to be in power?

San Lumen wrote:

Ors Might wrote:The problem with framing white privilege as, well, white privilege is that yes, while it may be true that the cops are both less likely to beat a poor white guy to death and less likely to get away with it if they do than if it were a poor black guy, that’s not exactly a high bar to pass, now is it?

And this is related to the topic how?

Is your questions seriously this: how is framing the topic related to the topic? Rather directly.

Duvniask wrote:This does not explain why the disparity in stops disappears when it turns dark and the police can't make out the race of the person they're stopping.

I'm still trying to understand how not being harassed by cops equates to being privileged.

San Lumen wrote:

Diarcesia wrote:The easiest answer is that as an aggregate, darker-skinned people are poorer in the US. i.e. The cops make a snap decision and rely on their stereotypes, and poorer people = easier to shake down.

Shock absorber: It does

This has nothing to do with the topic

And yet you had no issues with it when your side was winning the debate on that part. But once your side's losing on that part, suddenly it's off topic.

Duvniask wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Ive never been beaten up by the cops but I have been stopped for no good reason and threatened by several power hungry cops. So much for “muh privilege”

Literally incapable of understanding what's meant by a social privilege, the people in this thread.

What use is it to argue with people who don't want to learn anything and will keep asserting their viewpoints against strawmen? I mean, this is the same level of obtuseness as "it snowed yesterday, so clearly the globe isn't warming". No, man, it has to do with societal trends which are not particularly well-assessed by your anecdotal experience.

Because you don't get to redefine terms. Privilege means privilege. Not being beaten up by cops, not being discriminated against, is NOT a privilege, because it IS a RIGHT! You'd have a much easier time making an argument stating that people of color aren't getting their Rights, than you do of accusing poor whites of being privileged. Whoever marketed that phrase deliberately meant to keep Americans divided, because you SUPPORT RIGHTS and TAKE AWAY PRIVILEGES.

By framing the oppression of people of color as "White Privilege" rather than "Oppression of Human Rights of Human Beings" you're alienating the very people who might otherwise help you. Even if you believe that there's some reason that blacks are treated inferior to whites, you should still find allies in the class battle, because the majority of blacks are poor, and you'll have a much easier time lifting blacks out of poverty on a class basis, rather than a race/ethnicity basis.

Thermodolia wrote:

Duvniask wrote:Literally incapable of understanding what's meant by a social privilege, the people in this thread.

What use is it to argue with people who don't want to learn anything and will keep asserting their viewpoints against strawmen? I mean, this is the same level of obtuseness as "it snowed yesterday, so clearly the globe isn't warming". No, man, it has to do with societal trends which are not particularly well-assessed by your anecdotal experience.

I believe that the idea of “privilege and intersectionality” to be stupid ideologies fed to people who want to seem smart by the ruling class.

Is there racism and abuse of rights against minorities? Most definitely but that doesn’t mean that poor whites are somehow privileged because they aren’t abused by the cops.

That's exactly what it means. To have a social privilege is to have an posses an advantage, an edge, over others.

For example, you would probably also say it is an example of rich privilege to not have to suffer many of the pitfalls of grueling poverty; disease, having to eat cheap fast food, cramped living space. The rich family in Parasite is most certainly privileged compared to the poor one. In the same case, it is the ability to escape (not entirely, as rich people still get sick, etc.) that makes one privileged.

Being not abused by the police is a right all citizens should have and the absence of such rights isn’t a lack of privilege but a lack of rights and a miscarriage of justice

This is just meaningless tautology. One group of citizens sees a greater enjoyment of this "right" than another. That is a privilege. At this point you're playing semantics to skirt around having to acknowledge that Whites really are, on average, better of, not just because of socioeconomic/historical factors, but because of a consistent racial bias.

Thermodolia wrote:

Duvniask wrote:Stop and look at my post just before that one, because this is bullshit.

Maybe me and RFS know what we are talking about because we’ve experienced what it’s like to be poor and always looking towards the next paycheck.

Class is a stronger uniter than race is.

I mean, this is just straight up pathetic. You're being shown real, genuine evidence that racial bias affects people, that it actually makes a substantive difference in people's lives, with clear statistical significance and control for third variable bias (such as socioeconomic status), and your response is to stick your head in the sand and continue the same line about class mattering more. That is the response of someone who is unwilling to engage with reality; anything but having to acknowledge that the efforts of those who would bring about a better world don't end with the leveling of class priviliges!

Ors Might wrote:

San Lumen wrote:And this is related to the topic how?

Do you not think the concept of white privilege is in any way, shape, or form connected to white folk on average being more likely to be in power?

Yes but police officers are not the topic

Shofercia wrote:

Duvniask wrote:Literally incapable of understanding what's meant by a social privilege, the people in this thread.

What use is it to argue with people who don't want to learn anything and will keep asserting their viewpoints against strawmen? I mean, this is the same level of obtuseness as "it snowed yesterday, so clearly the globe isn't warming". No, man, it has to do with societal trends which are not particularly well-assessed by your anecdotal experience.

Because you don't get to redefine terms. Privilege means privilege. Not being beaten up by cops, not being discriminated against, is NOT a privilege, because it IS a RIGHT! You'd have a much easier time making an argument stating that people of color aren't getting their Rights, than you do of accusing poor whites of being privileged. Whoever marketed that phrase deliberately meant to keep Americans divided, because you SUPPORT RIGHTS and TAKE AWAY PRIVILEGES.

By framing the oppression of people of color as "White Privilege" rather than "Oppression of Human Rights of Human Beings" you're alienating the very people who might otherwise help you. Even if you believe that there's some reason that blacks are treated inferior to whites, you should still find allies in the class battle, because the majority of blacks are poor, and you'll have a much easier time lifting blacks out of poverty on a class basis, rather than a race/ethnicity basis.

More semantic nonsense masquerading as a point. I'm not redefining anything. People in this thread are ignoramuses who know nothing about what is meant by the term and then screech that they too get into confrontations with cops, as if that proves anything, and then continue their screeching when corrected on their erroneous use of the term. If that's how it is I'm not going to waste my time.

A social privilege is a social advantage (or entitlement) from which one can benefit. Not being brutalized by police as often as others is an advantage (duh), and having a wider range of educational options than your peers is also a privilege. Having vast sums of money is a privilege. All of these are advantages that different groups systematically posesses to different extents. It doesn't matter what we've decided to assign the status of "right", because whether someone is privileged or not is a different question to whether or not they're in full possession of their legally-afforded rights (they needn't overlap in all cases). In the situation of police brutality, for instance, the actual white privilege occurring is that while there surely are many police officers who target and harass Black and White people alike, it's also more likely that there are police officers who are especially biased against Black people, and therefore target them considerably more often.

In short, groups are privileged if they on average experience less hurdles in life - or inversely, have more opportunities, which really is the opposite side of the same coin of advantages.

Duvniask wrote:

Shofercia wrote:
Because you don't get to redefine terms. Privilege means privilege. Not being beaten up by cops, not being discriminated against, is NOT a privilege, because it IS a RIGHT! You'd have a much easier time making an argument stating that people of color aren't getting their Rights, than you do of accusing poor whites of being privileged. Whoever marketed that phrase deliberately meant to keep Americans divided, because you SUPPORT RIGHTS and TAKE AWAY PRIVILEGES.

By framing the oppression of people of color as "White Privilege" rather than "Oppression of Human Rights of Human Beings" you're alienating the very people who might otherwise help you. Even if you believe that there's some reason that blacks are treated inferior to whites, you should still find allies in the class battle, because the majority of blacks are poor, and you'll have a much easier time lifting blacks out of poverty on a class basis, rather than a race/ethnicity basis.

More semantic nonsense masquerading as a point. I'm not redefining anything. People in this thread are ignoramuses who know nothing about what is meant by the term and then screech that they too get into confrontations with cops, as if that proves anything, and then continue their screeching when corrected on their erroneous use of the term. If that's how it is I'm not going to waste my time.

A social privilege is a social advantage (or entitlement) from which one can benefit. Not being brutalized by police as often as others is an advantage (duh), and having a wider range of educational options than your peers is also a privilege. Having vast sums of money is a privilege. All of these are advantages that different groups systematically posesses to different extents. It doesn't matter what we've decided to assign the status of "right", because whether someone is privileged or not is a different question to whether or not they're in full possession of their legally-afforded rights (they needn't overlap in all cases). In the situation of police brutality, for instance, the actual white privilege occurring is that while there surely are many police officers who target and harass Black and White people alike, it's also more likely that there are police officers who are especially biased against Black people, and therefore target them considerably more often.

In short, groups are privileged if they on average experience less hurdles in life - or inversely, have more opportunities, which really is the opposite side of the same coin of advantages.

The above is referring to practical privilege. Shofercia's talking about theoretical privilege. In a way, both are valid from what I see. On what you're saying, wouldn't that mean that it's an enforcement issue? Or let's get to the point, a personal issue? Perhaps the elephant in the room is that they're not taught at a young age to be excellent to everyone?

La xinga wrote:

South Odreria 2 wrote:The parties tilt the playing field towards white candidates because they are seen as more electable, even though they aren’t.

Then why is Biden trying to pick a Black VP?

This is a really dumb question even by NSG standards

Duvniask wrote:

Shofercia wrote:
Because you don't get to redefine terms. Privilege means privilege. Not being beaten up by cops, not being discriminated against, is NOT a privilege, because it IS a RIGHT! You'd have a much easier time making an argument stating that people of color aren't getting their Rights, than you do of accusing poor whites of being privileged. Whoever marketed that phrase deliberately meant to keep Americans divided, because you SUPPORT RIGHTS and TAKE AWAY PRIVILEGES.

By framing the oppression of people of color as "White Privilege" rather than "Oppression of Human Rights of Human Beings" you're alienating the very people who might otherwise help you. Even if you believe that there's some reason that blacks are treated inferior to whites, you should still find allies in the class battle, because the majority of blacks are poor, and you'll have a much easier time lifting blacks out of poverty on a class basis, rather than a race/ethnicity basis.

More semantic nonsense masquerading as a point. I'm not redefining anything. People in this thread are ignoramuses who know nothing about what is meant by the term and then screech that they too get into confrontations with cops, as if that proves anything, and then continue their screeching when corrected on their erroneous use of the term. If that's how it is I'm not going to waste my time.

A social privilege is a social advantage (or entitlement) from which one can benefit. Not being brutalized by police as often as others is an advantage (duh), and having a wider range of educational options than your peers is also a privilege. Having vast sums of money is a privilege. All of these are advantages that different groups systematically posesses to different extents. It doesn't matter what we've decided to assign the status of "right", because whether someone is privileged or not is a different question to whether or not they're in full possession of their legally-afforded rights (they needn't overlap in all cases). In the situation of police brutality, for instance, the actual white privilege occurring is that while there surely are many police officers who target and harass Black and White people alike, it's also more likely that there are police officers who are especially biased against Black people, and therefore target them considerably more often.

In short, groups are privileged if they on average experience less hurdles in life - or inversely, have more opportunities, which really is the opposite side of the same coin of advantages.

Ignoramuses, eh? *** Warned for flaming ***

Dresderstan wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Legislatures ought to look like the electorate and the provinces they represent .

No that's not how it works.

So if a state, province or city had large minority population and not a single non white person or woman sat in the legislature or city council you'd see no problem with that whatsoever?

San Lumen wrote:

Dresderstan wrote:No that's not how it works.

So if a state, province or city had large minority population and not a single non white person or woman sat in the legislature or city council you'd see no problem with that whatsoever?

Well, supposedly the large minority voted in those people, right?

oh the horror, white men