Diversion

This forum is the place to have more serious discussions about politics and religion, and your opinions thereof. Be courteous!

Moderator: Forum Administrators

Forum rules
When a registered user insults another person (user or not), nation, political group or religious group, s/he will be deprived of her/his permission to post in the forum. That user has the right to re-register one week after s/he has lost the permission. Further violations will result in longer prohibitions.

By default, you are automatically registered to post in this forum. However, users cannot post in the politics forum during the first week after registration. Users can also not make their very first post in the politics forum.
User avatar
johnklepac
Posts: 2809
Joined: 2012-12-06, 2:18
Real Name: Your Onions
Gender: male
Location: Chicago/Southwest Ohio
Country: US United States (United States)

Diversion

Postby johnklepac » 2013-02-05, 23:44

I don't feel the need to debate further, but here's a big block of text I sent to another member on the forum that basically serves as a clarification and expansion of my take on "white privilege." I don't want the original thread to get too diverted. Think I'm just wrong? Fine, but let's keep any of that here.

johnklepac wrote:It's not that I deny that, as a white male (though I don't fit into some of the other "privileged" categories), I am generally better off in life than most people. It's just that I don't consider this status to constitute "privilege." I realize that it seems like a trivial distinction, and I myself have said that any issues over the term are mainly ones of semantics, but here's what I'm really getting at.

Whether white people, for example, have it good, or black people, for another example, just have it bad seems inconsequential; if you set the default at white people, black people have it bad and white people have it neutral. But it's not really neutral to set the default at white people, and I suspect that's where a lot of the talk of how privileged I must be came from. I wasn't, though. I just also reject the idea that the default should be set at black people, or even anywhere in between. I think it should be set at a racially neutral position. When someone recognizes your identity but assigns no race to it, I don't think you're really any worse off than white people. Thus, it's really that black people have it bad, not that white people have it good.

This, I realize, can be difficult to observe in practice, but let me give you an example: college applications. Per privacy and affirmative-action laws, you can list a race on them but you don't have to. I suspect that the generally white body of adcoms doesn't think of people who list no race as markedly different from whites. They're the default, it would seem. But when people mark that they're Asian, black, etc., there are procedures to deal with them. Sure enough, people who list no race, from the data I've seen, seem to have acceptance rates similar to those of whites.

When you're talking about a random person, a "someone," and given no information on that person's race, you have no reason to assume that he or she has any specific ethnic persuasion, harmful or otherwise, right? He or she may as well be white unless he or she isn't. Similarly, my family was talking with the brother of a family friend; he is black and frequents a black barbershop. We talked for a bit about the routine during the holidays of when someone comes into the shop. That's normal; that person is assumed to be black. Then the situation came up of when a white person comes in. That's different. Before we began talking about white people, he assumed that everyone we were talking about was black.

I know it seems nitpicky in the way that the classic American history class essay topic is ("did the North win the Civil War, or did the South lose?"). In some ways, it is. Generally, for better or for worse, people notice race. I just don't think the word "privilege" is particularly appropriate for its application. In some contexts, it's wildly not so. For example, I hear "white privilege" used to describe the fact that minorities are more likely to have their cars searched after being pulled over. Yes, that sucks for them, but it doesn't benefit white people. The same goes for sentencing and a lot of other parts of the justice system. Not everything's a competition like job interviews can be. And I'm sorry, but that's kind of a big deal. I'm not going to feel guilty for issues that don't benefit me and that I have little power in stopping just because of what color my skin is.

Also, as a minor bug, "white privilege" is sometimes used as a convenient proxy - sometimes more of a scapegoat, really - for class conflict.

But my objections aren't just semantic; they're practical: mention "white privilege" and you're going to get white people riled up or at least unwilling to discuss it. That's just how it happens. There are statistics on this. We're not going to get rid of racism without white people, and antagonizing them isn't going to help, especially by throwing out a term with so little care or appreciation of what it can really tell us and what it can't.

As for affirmative action, I don't care much for its current application. But not in a backwards, conservative way like I was really lucky to avoid being portrayed in (well, I was, but not for that). For job interviews, where many employers have internalized racial preferences that do much to keep the playing field from being fair among equally qualified candidates? Sure, go nuts. But for college admissions and such, I just don't see why white people are so much better off in terms of education than black people who are from the same kinds of backgrounds and have the same levels of income. Socioeconomic preferences do the job fine.

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 23396
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Diversion

Postby linguoboy » 2013-02-06, 3:49

johnklepac wrote:But my objections aren't just semantic; they're practical: mention "white privilege" and you're going to get white people riled up or at least unwilling to discuss it. That's just how it happens.

Some white people. Some of us, on the other hand, are willing to accept that we have privilege and assist in dismantling it.

Of course, once white people are in the minority at last, this will become moot anyway.
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

User avatar
johnklepac
Posts: 2809
Joined: 2012-12-06, 2:18
Real Name: Your Onions
Gender: male
Location: Chicago/Southwest Ohio
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Diversion

Postby johnklepac » 2013-02-06, 4:09

linguoboy wrote:
johnklepac wrote:But my objections aren't just semantic; they're practical: mention "white privilege" and you're going to get white people riled up or at least unwilling to discuss it. That's just how it happens.

Some white people. Some of us, on the other hand, are willing to accept that we have privilege and assist in dismantling it.

Of course, once white people are in the minority at last, this will become moot anyway.

Well, we need as many as we can get.

Just "accept that we have privilege"? That's it? How much of this did you actually read? Even if you don't agree with my analysis of the word, surely you can defend it?

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 23396
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Diversion

Postby linguoboy » 2013-02-06, 4:34

johnklepac wrote:Just "accept that we have privilege"? That's it? How much of this did you actually read? Even if you don't agree with my analysis of the word, surely you can defend it?

I thought you said you didn't "feel the need to debate further".
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

User avatar
BlackZ
Posts: 1115
Joined: 2010-07-16, 20:53
Real Name: JSR
Gender: male
Country: BR Brazil (Brasil)
Contact:

Re: Diversion

Postby BlackZ » 2013-02-06, 9:36

johnklepac wrote:if you set the default at white people, black people have it bad and white people have it neutral.

But if you set the default at the black people, then we could consider white people as privileged, couldn't we?

Different viewpoints generate different standards.
Native: [flag=]pt-br[/flag]
Learning: [flag=]en-us[/flag] [flag=]fr[/flag] [flag=]ja[/flag] [flag=]es[/flag] [flag=]ca[/flag] [flag=]de[/flag]

User avatar
johnklepac
Posts: 2809
Joined: 2012-12-06, 2:18
Real Name: Your Onions
Gender: male
Location: Chicago/Southwest Ohio
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Diversion

Postby johnklepac » 2013-02-06, 13:14

linguoboy wrote:
johnklepac wrote:Just "accept that we have privilege"? That's it? How much of this did you actually read? Even if you don't agree with my analysis of the word, surely you can defend it?

I thought you said you didn't "feel the need to debate further".

I don't feel the need to. If you want to, sure.

BlackZ wrote:
johnklepac wrote:if you set the default at white people, black people have it bad and white people have it neutral.

But if you set the default at the black people, then we could consider white people as privileged, couldn't we?

Different viewpoints generate different standards.

They do, but the ideal standard is one from a racially neutral viewpoint.

User avatar
md0
Posts: 7592
Joined: 2010-08-08, 19:56
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Diversion

Postby md0 » 2013-02-06, 14:01

A viewpoint that it's never actually used though.
I really don't understand why are you so resistant to the notion of privilege.
Do you not believe that in a society were people with characteristic X run all the things, the X population has unearned benefits?
Last edited by md0 on 2013-02-06, 14:03, edited 1 time in total.
"If you like your clause structure, you can keep your clause structure"
Stable: Cypriot Greek (el-cy)Standard Modern Greek (el)English (en) Current: Standard German (de)Elementary Finnish (fi)
For fun: Legacy: France French (fr)Japanese (ja)Standard Turkish (tr)

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 23396
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Diversion

Postby linguoboy » 2013-02-06, 14:02

johnklepac wrote:They do, but the ideal standard is one from a racially neutral viewpoint.

Which isn't really possible in an inherently racist society. It's like saying there can be a gender-neutral viewpoint in a society where medication for erectile dysfunction is an entitlement and contraception is a murderous violation of religious beliefs.

Also, privilege is intersectional. All white people have privilege, but white males have more. Educated able-bodied white heterosexual cis-gendered males have the most of all. They represent a small minority within the society, yet wield a vastly disproportionate influence. Their position is clearly the exceptional one, the one furthest from any theoretical "neutral" baseline.
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

User avatar
johnklepac
Posts: 2809
Joined: 2012-12-06, 2:18
Real Name: Your Onions
Gender: male
Location: Chicago/Southwest Ohio
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Diversion

Postby johnklepac » 2013-02-06, 16:57

meidei wrote:A viewpoint that it's never actually used though.

Not never. I acknowledged it seemed nitpicky but gave examples anyway. It's still the most neutral.

meidei wrote:I really don't understand why are you so resistant to the notion of privilege.

You may be confusing this with my resistance to the word "privilege."

When a black driver gets pulled over and has his car searched and a white driver a few miles down the highway gets pulled over but doesn't, few deny that race is a likely motivator. But the black driver being pulled over doesn't benefit the white driver. Hell, it doesn't really benefit the cop either. It's just plain ugly for society.

Even when white people do see a general, real advantage, such as in job interviews, this advantage is only general. White people don't have anything close to an advantage getting hired into black-owned companies, for example, where the majority of employees are black. I'm sure that even that white customer in the black barbershop got some unwelcome stares, though this of course wouldn't constitute any kind of black privilege, just like the black driver getting pulled over wouldn't constitute white privilege.

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 23396
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Diversion

Postby linguoboy » 2013-02-06, 17:22

johnklepac wrote:When a black driver gets pulled over and has his car searched and a white driver a few miles down the highway gets pulled over but doesn't, few deny that race is a likely motivator. But the black driver being pulled over doesn't benefit the white driver. Hell, it doesn't really benefit the cop either. It's just plain ugly for society.

Yes it does, it absolutely does. This is like saying that Saudi men don't benefit from laws that ban Saudi women from driving. When you limit someone's freedom of movement, you limit their opportunities.

Let me ask you this: How many times would you have to be pulled over by police (or stopped on the street and frisked) in a particular area before you would start to avoid going there? Now imagine a world where this is common practice in most places. What effect would this ultimately have on your freedom of movement and, thus, your opportunities? And what benefits would accrue as a result to others who are not subject to the same restrictions?

johnklepac wrote:Even when white people do see a general, real advantage, such as in job interviews, this advantage is only general. White people don't have anything close to an advantage getting hired into black-owned companies, for example, where the majority of employees are black.

What is the proportion of black-owned companies to white-owned companies in the United States?

johnklepac wrote:I'm sure that even that white customer in the black barbershop got some unwelcome stares, though this of course wouldn't constitute any kind of black privilege, just like the black driver getting pulled over wouldn't constitute white privilege.

Yeah, getting stared at in a barbershop is just like being 22 times more likely to be sentenced to death for killing a white person instead of a person of your own race.
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

User avatar
md0
Posts: 7592
Joined: 2010-08-08, 19:56
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Diversion

Postby md0 » 2013-02-06, 17:22

Maybe you are familiar with some other definition of the term, because in all your examples you simply describe privilege over and over again.
To me, it seems that you think that privilege implies a zero-sum situation, which is of course not true (otherwise racism would be justified :shock: ).

Edit: what linguoboy said.
"If you like your clause structure, you can keep your clause structure"
Stable: Cypriot Greek (el-cy)Standard Modern Greek (el)English (en) Current: Standard German (de)Elementary Finnish (fi)
For fun: Legacy: France French (fr)Japanese (ja)Standard Turkish (tr)

User avatar
Yasna
Posts: 2231
Joined: 2011-09-12, 1:17
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Diversion

Postby Yasna » 2013-02-06, 18:27

I wonder how much of the "racism" in America is more an aversion towards things like AAVE, sagging pants and gangster rap. I'll throw myself out there as an example. I recognize that generally speaking, these three things carry lots of negative connotations in my mind. When I encounter someone wearing sagging pants, speaking AAVE and listening to gangster rap, I have zero inclination to get to know them better. However when I encounter a black person who is perfectly integrated into white American culture, I have no negative feelings whatsoever towards them. If this person is also well-educated, good-looking and well-mannered, then I will probably have lots of good will towards them. I should also mention that I feel the same aversion towards people of other races who sag their pants and listen to gangster rap. So, am I on to something or am I just a typical white American trying to justify my racism?
Ein Buch muß die Axt sein für das gefrorene Meer in uns. - Kafka

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 23396
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Diversion

Postby linguoboy » 2013-02-06, 19:14

Yasna wrote:I wonder how much of the "racism" in America is more an aversion towards things like AAVE, sagging pants and gangster rap. I'll throw myself out there as an example. I recognize that generally speaking, these three things carry lots of negative connotations in my mind. When I encounter someone wearing sagging pants, speaking AAVE and listening to gangster rap, I have zero inclination to get to know them better. However when I encounter a black person who is perfectly integrated into white American culture, I have no negative feelings whatsoever towards them. If this person is also well-educated, good-looking and well-mannered, then I will probably have lots of good will towards them. I should also mention that I feel the same aversion towards people of other races who sag their pants and listen to gangster rap. So, am I on to something or am I just a typical white American trying to justify my racism?

Yes, I think this is something of a circular argument. Ask yourself why do you have an aversion to sagging pants, AAVE, and gangster rap in the first place? What conditioned you not to like these things if not an association with poor urban Blacks? (Yes, there's classism in the mix as well, but when your underclass is completely disproportionately Black, these things are inextricably intertwined.)

This is the same "We accept people who are different insofar as they behave exactly like us" fallacy that I mocked in the Minority Languages thread when it was applied to Roma.

Also I think it rather begs to question to contrast these traits with "white American culture" as if the latter were something monolithic. As you yourself admit, white Americans also wear sagging jeans and listen to gangster rap (Tupac would never have outsold Nirvana on the strength of sales to Blacks alone); some even speak AAVE or a Southern American English dialect close to it. You're not actually describing something universal when you use this term; you're describing a particular subset of white American culture which happens to be similar if not identical to the culture you yourself were raised in. In other words, you're back to John's error of regarding what is really a minority culture as the mainstream norm.

I also react better when I meet someone who shares my tastes in music. But I wouldn't describe them as not being "perfectly integrated into white American culture" if they didn't.
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

User avatar
Tenebrarum
Posts: 6617
Joined: 2006-06-22, 17:02
Real Name: Duy
Gender: male

Re: Diversion

Postby Tenebrarum » 2013-02-06, 19:22

johnklepac wrote:
BlackZ wrote:
johnklepac wrote:if you set the default at white people, black people have it bad and white people have it neutral.

But if you set the default at the black people, then we could consider white people as privileged, couldn't we?

Different viewpoints generate different standards.

They do, but the ideal standard is one from a racially neutral viewpoint.

Your "racially neutral" standard is white.
!Chalice! Communion wafer of the tabernacle

User avatar
johnklepac
Posts: 2809
Joined: 2012-12-06, 2:18
Real Name: Your Onions
Gender: male
Location: Chicago/Southwest Ohio
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Diversion

Postby johnklepac » 2013-02-07, 1:05

linguoboy wrote:Yes it does, it absolutely does. This is like saying that Saudi men don't benefit from laws that ban Saudi women from driving. When you limit someone's freedom of movement, you limit their opportunities.

Totally not the same. You're not going to get openly convicted of driving and being of a certain race, and you're definitely not going to get beheaded. Even if you get pulled over, it's only because you've been driving recklessly, and the rates of actually being pulled over are similar among races, though they differ by a bit among genders (women are less likely).

linguoboy wrote:Let me ask you this: How many times would you have to be pulled over by police (or stopped on the street and frisked) in a particular area before you would start to avoid going there? Now imagine a world where this is common practice in most places. What effect would this ultimately have on your freedom of movement and, thus, your opportunities? And what benefits would accrue as a result to others who are not subject to the same restrictions?

How likely is it that you'll get pulled over or frisked for no reason, period, or that you'll happen to be in the same place multiple times? I can see where you're going with this, but it's a real stretch.

And how is it "common practice in most places"? If anything, it's worse in the U.S. than almost anywhere else.

linguoboy wrote:What is the proportion of black-owned companies to white-owned companies in the United States?

Small. But I'm not arguing that it isn't. I'm arguing that it isn't 0. I refuse to believe that that is so difficult to work with.


I never said they were of identical consequence; I'm just countering the assumption that white people being better off is universal. Besides, this is typically a case of death vs. life; both are unspeakably severe penalties. Also, it's very rare to be, y'know, convicted of murder at all.

Here's another example. It kinda sucks to be told that you or your people are pretty much responsible for the ills of the world or even of the U.S. I'm white, so I know that this prejudice exists (God, it feels good to play that card). From what I've heard and observed, most of what black people are told based on race is that they don't work hard enough so they can't be successful, though of course I'm not black so I don't know.

meidei wrote:Maybe you are familiar with some other definition of the term, because in all your examples you simply describe privilege over and over again.
To me, it seems that you think that privilege implies a zero-sum situation, which is of course not true (otherwise racism would be justified :shock: ).

It wouldn't mean that at all. A zero-sum game still sucks if the players are too far apart at the beginning for no good reason.

Ever heard your parents contrast privileges with rights? A privilege is something that you don't need to have and, frankly, probably shouldn't have, and a right is something that you deserve. If you call white people being searched less often an example of "white privilege," what you mean is that white people deserve to get searched more often. No. No one should get searched if there's no good reason.

Tenebrarum wrote:Your "racially neutral" standard is white.

I spent paragraphs stating why this was not the case. A racially neutral standard wouldn't be white, black, Asian, or anything else.

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 23396
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Diversion

Postby linguoboy » 2013-02-07, 2:00

johnklepac wrote:
linguoboy wrote:Yes it does, it absolutely does. This is like saying that Saudi men don't benefit from laws that ban Saudi women from driving. When you limit someone's freedom of movement, you limit their opportunities.

Totally not the same. You're not going to get openly convicted of driving and being of a certain race, and you're definitely not going to get beheaded.

You're not going to get beheaded for driving in Saudi Arabia either, Mr Cultural Sensitivity.

johnklepac wrote:Even if you get pulled over, it's only because you've been driving recklessly

Nonsense; you can pulled over for a host of reasons, from having out-of-state plates to having a noisy blower. In fact, there are so many possible moving violations that any cop who can't find an excuse just isn't trying. At the very least, there's always, "We're looking for a car that matches this description."

johnklepac wrote:and the rates of actually being pulled over are similar among races, though they differ by a bit among genders (women are less likely).

But Blacks and Hispanics are three times more likely to be searched after a stop. When's the last time the police searched your car?

johnklepac wrote:
linguoboy wrote:Let me ask you this: How many times would you have to be pulled over by police (or stopped on the street and frisked) in a particular area before you would start to avoid going there? Now imagine a world where this is common practice in most places. What effect would this ultimately have on your freedom of movement and, thus, your opportunities? And what benefits would accrue as a result to others who are not subject to the same restrictions?

How likely is it that you'll get pulled over or frisked for no reason, period

Very likely, if you live in certain neighbourhoods and fit a certain profile. I can tell you're not big on reading, so perhaps you can spare a few minutes for this video? (See, I even picked a funny one to make the bitter pill go down better.)

johnklepac wrote:or that you'll happen to be in the same place multiple times? I can see where you're going with this, but it's a real stretch.

It's only a "stretch" for the people with privilege to avoid it. Come to my neighbourhood, talk to the minority kids here. Ask them how many times they've been stopped by police outside of their own homes or the homes of their friends.

johnklepac wrote:And how is it "common practice in most places"? If anything, it's worse in the U.S. than almost anywhere else.

So you're saying that it (a) doesn't happen but (b) that it happens much more in the USA than anywhere else?

johnklepac wrote:
linguoboy wrote:What is the proportion of black-owned companies to white-owned companies in the United States?

Small. But I'm not arguing that it isn't. I'm arguing that it isn't 0. I refuse to believe that that is so difficult to work with.

So when it comes to the number of people being executed unfairly, the fact that it's greater than one isn't really relevant. But it when talking about how likely whites are to apply for jobs at Black-owned businesses, then the fact that it is greater than one is suddenly of huge relevance?

johnklepac wrote:

I never said they were of identical consequence; I'm just countering the assumption that white people being better off is universal. Besides, this is typically a case of death vs. life; both are unspeakably severe penalties. Also, it's very rare to be, y'know, convicted of murder at all.

That's not the whole story, that's just the leader. Again, if you can find the time, read the actual report I linked to. The bias is presence in all aspects of the justice system: stops, searches, arrests, prosecutions, and sentencing. One of the cumulative effects of this is that Blacks and other minorities are much more likely to be victims of crime because they have much less trust in the police to serve their interests.

johnklepac wrote:Here's another example. It kinda sucks to be told that you or your people are pretty much responsible for the ills of the world or even of the U.S. I'm white, so I know that this prejudice exists (God, it feels good to play that card).

Sorry, you don't actually have a card to play. Hari Kondabolu explains why. (See, another funny one!)

johnklepac wrote:From what I've heard and observed, most of what black people are told based on race is that they don't work hard enough so they can't be successful, though of course I'm not black so I don't know.

What exactly have you "heard and observed" first hand?

johnklepac wrote:Ever heard your parents contrast privileges with rights? A privilege is something that you don't need to have and, frankly, probably shouldn't have, and a right is something that you deserve. If you call white people being searched less often an example of "white privilege," what you mean is that white people deserve to get searched more often. No. No one should get searched if there's no good reason.

If white people are people are okay with the system we have now, where racial minorities are searched, charged, prosecuted, sentenced, and imprisoned more often and for longer than they are, then we absolutely deserve that same treatment. Our privilege is what allows us to demand tougher penalties while largely escaping being subject to them.

People do get searched for no good reason. Every day. Your privilege not only allows you to avoid being searched yourself but live your life without having to know or care that this even happens.
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

User avatar
johnklepac
Posts: 2809
Joined: 2012-12-06, 2:18
Real Name: Your Onions
Gender: male
Location: Chicago/Southwest Ohio
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Diversion

Postby johnklepac » 2013-02-07, 3:32

linguoboy wrote:But Blacks and Hispanics are three times more likely to be searched after a stop. When's the last time the police searched your car?

Never. They've also never pulled it over, and I drive a lot. I fail to see how being pulled over is as oppressively common an occurrence for minorities as you portray it.

linguoboy wrote:Very likely, if you live in certain neighbourhoods and fit a certain profile. I can tell you're not big on reading, so perhaps you can spare a few minutes for this video? (See, I even picked a funny one to make the bitter pill go down better.)

Why don't you think I'm big on reading? What bitter pill?

linguoboy wrote:It's only a "stretch" for the people with privilege to avoid it. Come to my neighbourhood, talk to the minority kids here. Ask them how many times they've been stopped by police outside of their own homes or the homes of their friends.

I thought you acknowledged that the rates were pretty much equal? Ah, it doesn't matter, as long as I can make it seem like minorities have it worse here and he can't prove me wrong because he doesn't live here, I can make my own logic.

linguoboy wrote:So you're saying that it (a) doesn't happen but (b) that it happens much more in the USA than anywhere else?

I'm referencing the idea of minorities being scared away from precise locations after being stopped and searched there numerous times when I say that it doesn't happen (well, it must've happened sometime, but it seems really rare, hence the "stretch"), but the racial profiling aspect of who gets searched when I say that it happens more in the USA.

linguoboy wrote:So when it comes to the number of people being executed unfairly, the fact that it's greater than one isn't really relevant. But it when talking about how likely whites are to apply for jobs at Black-owned businesses, then the fact that it is greater than one is suddenly of huge relevance?

It isn't relevant because it doesn't have anything to do with what you're comparing it to, not because it isn't a big deal.

linguoboy wrote:That's not the whole story, that's just the leader. Again, if you can find the time, read the actual report I linked to. The bias is presence in all aspects of the justice system: stops, searches, arrests, prosecutions, and sentencing. One of the cumulative effects of this is that Blacks and other minorities are much more likely to be victims of crime because they have much less trust in the police to serve their interests.

I read part of it when you linked it. I don't think any story either of us has referenced or posted has been the "whole story."

linguoboy wrote:Sorry, you don't actually have a card to play.

You played a version of the same one not long ago.

linguoboy wrote:What exactly have you "heard and observed" first hand?

Exactly what I just said.

linguoboy wrote:If white people are people are okay with the system we have now, where racial minorities are searched, charged, prosecuted, sentenced, and imprisoned more often and for longer than they are, then we absolutely deserve that same treatment. Our privilege is what allows us to demand tougher penalties while largely escaping being subject to them.

See, that's where I lose faith in the idea that you actually don't like stereotyping. Not all white people support that. In fact, I haven't met a single one who openly did.

linguoboy wrote:People do get searched for no good reason. Every day. Your privilege not only allows you to avoid being searched yourself but live your life without having to know or care that this even happens.

I do know. I do care. In fact, I was the one who brought it up.

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 23396
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Diversion

Postby linguoboy » 2013-02-07, 4:05

johnklepac wrote:
linguoboy wrote:But Blacks and Hispanics are three times more likely to be searched after a stop. When's the last time the police searched your car?

Never. They've also never pulled it over, and I drive a lot. I fail to see how being pulled over is as oppressively common an occurrence for minorities as you portray it.

So if I understand what you're saying: As a non-minority, you've never been pulled over by the cops. As a result, you fail to see why being pulled over by the cops is a big deal for minorities.

That seems reasonable.

johnklepac wrote:
linguoboy wrote:Very likely, if you live in certain neighbourhoods and fit a certain profile. I can tell you're not big on reading, so perhaps you can spare a few minutes for this video? (See, I even picked a funny one to make the bitter pill go down better.)

Why don't you think I'm big on reading?

Because when I've posted links before, you've shown little evidence of having read the corresponding articles. Case in point:

johnklepac wrote:
linguoboy wrote:It's only a "stretch" for the people with privilege to avoid it. Come to my neighbourhood, talk to the minority kids here. Ask them how many times they've been stopped by police outside of their own homes or the homes of their friends.

I thought you acknowledged that the rates were pretty much equal?

For TRAFFIC STOPS. (Link again, in case you'd like to actually read what it says this time.) I live in the city; most people here are not in cars, they're on foot.

Did you also not get that the stop-and-frisk link I posted was talking about pedestrian stops and not traffic stops? Because that would explain a lot.

johnklepac wrote:
linguoboy wrote:So you're saying that it (a) doesn't happen but (b) that it happens much more in the USA than anywhere else?

I'm referencing the idea of minorities being scared away from precise locations after being stopped and searched there numerous times when I say that it doesn't happen (well, it must've happened sometime, but it seems really rare, hence the "stretch"), but the racial profiling aspect of who gets searched when I say that it happens more in the USA.

Why should I believe your claims here when (a) you've presented no evidence to support them and (b) I've had scores of POC tell me the opposite, that they absolutely do avoid certain areas--shopping centres, street corners, certain residential areas, etc.--because if they go there they know they'll be made to feel unwelcome? (Not always by the police. Private security guards, store clerks, ordinary people--they all get in on the act as well.)

johnklepac wrote:
linguoboy wrote:That's not the whole story, that's just the leader. Again, if you can find the time, read the actual report I linked to. The bias is presence in all aspects of the justice system: stops, searches, arrests, prosecutions, and sentencing. One of the cumulative effects of this is that Blacks and other minorities are much more likely to be victims of crime because they have much less trust in the police to serve their interests.

I read part of it when you linked it.

And? Reactions? Doesn't the injustice of it anger you?

johnklepac wrote:
linguoboy wrote:Sorry, you don't actually have a card to play.

You played a version of the same one not long ago.

Where?

johnklepac wrote:
linguoboy wrote:What exactly have you "heard and observed" first hand?

Exactly what I just said.

You were very short on details. You didn't explain who you heard this from or under what conditions. You could be paraphrasing Rush Limbaugh for all I know.

johnklepac wrote:
linguoboy wrote:If white people are people are okay with the system we have now, where racial minorities are searched, charged, prosecuted, sentenced, and imprisoned more often and for longer than they are, then we absolutely deserve that same treatment. Our privilege is what allows us to demand tougher penalties while largely escaping being subject to them.

See, that's where I lose faith in the idea that you actually don't like stereotyping. Not all white people support that. In fact, I haven't met a single one who openly did.

You've had a lot of discussion with people about the racial biases of our criminal justice system? Do elaborate.

johnklepac wrote:
linguoboy wrote:People do get searched for no good reason. Every day. Your privilege not only allows you to avoid being searched yourself but live your life without having to know or care that this even happens.

I do know. I do care. In fact, I was the one who brought it up.

Oh, yes, I remember:
For example, I hear "white privilege" used to describe the fact that minorities are more likely to have their cars searched after being pulled over. Yes, that sucks for them, but it doesn't benefit white people. The same goes for sentencing and a lot of other parts of the justice system.
So that's what caring looks like? "Sucks to be you, brown people!"
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

User avatar
Varislintu
Posts: 15330
Joined: 2004-02-09, 13:32
Real Name: M.
Gender: female
Location: Helsinki
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Diversion

Postby Varislintu » 2013-02-07, 16:07

I'm not an expert on explaining the concept of privilege, but I think the Wikipedia article offers a definition of it that is pretty accurate. I think it could be helpful for clearing up something I think is a misunderstanding in your interpretation of the term, johnklepac.

White privilege (or white skin privilege) refers to what some individuals perceive as advantages that white people enjoy in certain societies beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc).[1] The controversial term connotes both obvious and less obvious unspoken advantages that white individuals may not recognize they have.[2] These include cultural affirmations of one's own worth; greater presumed social status; and freedom to move, buy, work, play, and speak freely.[3] The concept of white privilege also implies the right to assume the universality of one's own experiences, marking others as different or exceptional while perceiving oneself as normal.


In other words the advantages go beyond what others have. Therefore, the privilege is measured against the others' disadvantages. If others are disadvantaged, you are advantaged, whether or not your situation in some case is for example an example of an ideal case of neutral treatment that everybody should ideally have a right to. (For example that whites are treated according to the law, while blacks are not -- it's still a privilege, even if it could from a legal perspective be considered a "neutral" treatment.)
Det finns ingen
tröst. Därför
behöver du den inte
(Gösta Ågren)


Return to “Politics and Religion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest