Is the term “White privilege” discriminatory?

Now THAT is funny!! A whole new dimension for the term "Grasping at Straws". So now, let's examine the case of the two headed blonde with 19 fingers of Black/Irish/Hispanic extraction that breaks her leg slipping on a sidewalk and is disfigured, whose child is refused admittance to a playground because of her mom's two heads.... LOLOL

 

Using a spiteful term like "white privilege" is just another snotty way of slamming Caucasian people, who can't help the fact that they were "born that way".

It has been pointed out factually many times that there are more Whites on welfare and living in poverty in this country than Blacks, and it's true! My question is if there's such a thing as "white privilege" then why aren't there fewer Whites on welfare and living at the "bottom of the barrel" than Blacks?

Look. This isn't 1923, it's 2023! You earn what you are worth in the job market, period. And that's true no matter what race or ethnic background you come from.

 

You missed the part where the atheist artist is himself a member of a protected class (there's a Supreme Court decision about atheism enjoying the same legal status as faith/religion). You also missed the fact that faith/religion is a federally protected class.

I think that every case of suspected discrimination should be judged on its own, without prejudice. From your post is clear that you consider discrimination against the religious a lesser evil than discrimination against black people, which is fine as an opinion, but legally (and morally, in my opinion) speaking both are exactly the same.

I think an artist, or a manufacturer, should have the right to refuse service to anyone, regardless of whether they routinely create what is required of them or not. I also think that a salesman shouldn't have the right to refuse service to anyone, in normal circumstances, as long as he's not required to make special changes to products.

 

Two headed blonde? Sure.


No, it's not Photoshop.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22181528
https://www.distractify.com/p/conjoined-twins-abby-and-brittany-today

And yes, according to the second link, she/they might be discriminated against for having two heads....

Grasping at what?

 

One academic claims that the term "white privilege" changed its meaning over the decades, shifting to mean perpetuation of racism by "white citizen’s subconscious". This is one of the most racist statements I've ever had the horror of encountering. Sadly, it's mainstream now. Its supporters are, in fact, telling white Americans that no matter how many laws against racism, how many equality and equity norms, how many educational material will be out there, white Americans are doomed to be racist because they are white.

However, I don't consider the term "white privilege" part of a crusade against Caucasians, or white Europeans, or even white Americans. It's far more insidious than a simple attack on skin color. I see it as an attack on western civilization as a whole, especially on the American society due to its leading role as a western superpower.

 

"White privilege" is by definition a racist term. In practice, it is worse than meaningless. What it describes is neither "white" nor "privilege", but instead something that happens in every age in every society. A majority always has a favorable position in its culture and tends to cultivate that advantage. It is a real factor, but is not exclusive to any race or nation.

 

You're right, and we can see the truth of what you say if we look back at pre-colonial, sub-Saharan Africa, or, China before the Manchu dynasty. Wouldn't revisionist historians opine that in Africa of that time there was "Negro Privilege", and, in China, that there was "Oriental Privilege"?

 

I dont think its discriminatory, since its true.

 

So then it should just be accepted as a natural part of life? Especially by those who are the disadvantaged as "natural" ?

 

It isn't clear what "it" you refer to. As to the statement in the post, there is nothing in it that proposes any action. Acceptance, renunciation, modification or whatever are not discussed.

 

*sigh* Here we go again. First, let's define privilege.

From Merriam-Webster: (noun) a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor.

So from that definition, we can infer that "white" privilege is a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor, given to white people.

So does white privilege exist? Let's take a look at some data.

27.4% of blacks and 19.2% of Hispanics were denied mortgages, compared with 11% of whites. (Pew Research Center)
For every dollar a white person earns, the average black person earns only 74 cents. (US Labor)
Whites only make up 30% of the prison population, despite making up 64% of the US population. (Pew Research Center)
40.33% of blacks die in the hospital vs 24.07% of whites (NIH)
21.3% of Native Americans, 19.5% of blacks, and 17.1% of Hispanics live in poverty, compared to only 8.2% of whites. (statista.com)
Black men are 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white men (pnas.org)

This is just a small sample, there is a lot more.

So as a white, I am more likely to get a mortgage loan, make a higher salary, less likely to end up in jail or die in a hospital, less likely to live in poverty or to be killed by the police. This is not to say that EVERY white person is going to get a mortgage loan, make a higher salary, avoid prison, etc, it just means whites have a advantage in those areas thus, have a privilege. This is doesn't automatically make you a racist or even a bad person, it is how our society was set up. Our white forefathers gave their white descendents advantages that other races do not have. Some of these were on purpose, some were more subtle.

So no, white privilege is not some made up thing by the evil, baby eating, liberals, it's baked into our society and our institutions.

 

Gish gallop.

No honest statistician could draw a definitive conclusion about whether white privilege exists or not just by looking at the data in your post.

I'll give you an example. Let's take group A of four individuals, and group B of 500 individuals. Suppose 2 individuals from group A had been attacked in the last month by racists. That's 50% of the group. Suppose 50 individuals from group B had been attacked by racists in the last month. That's 10% of the group. Can you say that more individuals from group A had been attacked by racists, based solely on the 50% vs 10% data? Can you say that individuals from group A are more likely to be attacked than individuals in group B, based solely on the 50% vs 10% data?

Interpreting statistical data requires solid knowledge about the methods used to obtain the data. Furthermore, black Americans are a smaller group than white Americans, so naturally the same absolute values will translate into different percents. By the way, using the same logic, statistics about black crime aggressively pushed by some of our conservative friends are irrelevant without all the data behind the mere percents.

A perfect example for the above can be found in an article about pay policies. Most of the article pushes the narrative of discrimination, however there's also this glimpse into how statistical data should be put in the proper context:

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandto...al-wage-gaps-persistence-poses-challenge.aspx

There's also the matter of Asians earning more than whites. Can we talk about Asian privilege then?

There's no doubt that some white people are racist. There's no doubt that some non-white people are racist. In fact, I think most people are racist, some more than others. The most racist of all certainly think that their own group should be privileged. But is there a widespread, systematic push for white privilege in the American society? I don't think so.

 

How many "blacks" or "hispanics" get statistically equal treatment with the general population in Japan?

 

Not only is it discriminatory, as your post illustrates I don't even know what it is. There are unsavory comparisons I can make, but to keep things generalized in the past groups have always been marginalized as the 'fault' of another. Oddly, Liberals as a group seem to believe that either it's okay to marginalize a majority group, or perhaps more accurately stated they somehow believe it's not possible to marginalize or persecute a majority.

I would like to introduce the Serbian massacre .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre The Bosnic people were deleted from life en mass by the Serbs, even though the Bosnic people were the majority.

 

I will say that it's not prejudice cuz there's one thing that I believe people that are white have over definitely blacks and Asians but I'm not sure who else.

Is a white guy I'm not a representative of my grace and therefore if I do something that isn't accepted by people within my race I don't get called racial slurs like Uncle Tom or Coon or are you sure there's those terms for Asian people.

I also don't have to be vigilant about who I talk to about what.

Is a white guy will never get chest eyes for the equivalent of acting White but for white people. And if I do it doesn't matter because the person doing that he's probably a Karen.

But I can see the reason to talk about white privilege.

 

So poverty stricken white people who are 3rd generation food stamp recipients have that privilege and have to be if it's white privilege because there's a white people too.

You're a mistaken that is the privilege of wealth.

 

complete annihilation of the entire species that's the only way you make everyone equal

Yes inequality exists you can't fix it some people are tall others will never be no matter what. Some people are beautiful no matter what the average looking person does they never will be.

You want to hear about inequality? Tiger woods hit some stupid little ball with some stupid little bat and not get into it moronic little hole and be worth a couple hundred million dollars I have to work my ass off for a couple thousand in the same amount of time.

Life is unequal you just have to deal with it.

 

I'd say that parts of the left believe that it's legitimate, and even necessary, to marginalize or persecute a majority group, in order to achieve equality and equity. I wouldn't say that all the left (what you call Liberals) believe so. I'm socially center-left myself, even though I'm slightly on the right on other issues.

One major issue, that compels us to look at other groups as monolithic, is the reluctance of members of that group to openly show dissent from the mainstream group ideology. Showing dissent leads to frowns, sermons, marginalization, even expulsion from the group, and in some cases violent acts against the dissenter. Not something most of us would like to go through (one of the reasons we try to follow forum rules is the desire to stay in the group). Groups might look monolithic from the outside, though individual members might have differing point of views. This, by the way, is one major flaw of the "white privilege" theory - it postulates that all white Americans are a monolithic group.

Majority is in fact a conglomerate of minorities with one or more common properties, when one looks closer.

 

I like this, can I put it in my signature?

 

Yes.

 

Even if most of what you summarize from the data indicates that there was such a thing as "white privilege" at one time, the fact is that since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 became law 59 years ago, any discrimination against American Negroes is completely against the law, and the numerous civil rights groups, the ACLU, and other "advocacy" orgs will sue violators into the poor house or prison, or both. A very successful intimidation process was started against Whites by the early 1970's, and, it has gotten "Whitey on the run" for all these years since.

But it wasn't until just a couple of weeks ago that we finally made reverse-discrimination FOR American Negroes ruled as unconstitutional in this country ("Affirmative Action)! Would you say that for all these many years there has been a "black privilege" practiced in numerous parts of our society, including colleges and universities? Next, we still see well-entrenched mandates in corporations, the broadcast industry, and government personnel offices that stipulate hiring quotas FOR minorities. Whose "privilege" is that?

 

There are fewer people that can do what he does on a professional level than whatever it is you do.

White NHL players are worth more than you do too hitting a silly puck in a silly net. Do ********* about them too?

 

yeah that's inequality

Oh you think I selected tiger woods because he isn't white oh no I didn't. But yeah people getting paid a lot of money to play hockey is inequality. Equality would be everybody gets paid the same no matter what they do we don't live in that world then I don't want to.

No idea where you're trying to turn this into a race thing.

 

But the NBA wins the award for being the "highest-paid sport in the world"! And what exactly is a sport like that? It has always looked like a bunch of guns running around in their underwear, throwing this ball around on a tiny wooden court, acting like they're trying to play "hide the breadfruit".

https://observer-reporter.com/news/...html#:~:text=NBA,player salary of $48 million.

Sure, the three-point shots are majestic and require genuine athletic ability, along with superb hand-and-eye coordination, but the rest of it? Just ritualized gangland antics.

 

Uh, no it's really not. Why should I expect to make the same as a professional athlete when there are more people that do what I do? Same with movie stars and people in the music industry.