Summations Only

So basically, what I'm understanding here is that, with the exception of rich, white, heterosexual, American, males, everyone is a victim. Edited by roxrkool, : Added: "American"

Well, yeah. Doesn't that comport with observation?I mean, what white person ever got mad about being called a "cracker"? Who ever acted like that was something to get upset about, or fault someone for saying? What black person ever got punished or accused of being a racist for saying it?How do you explain that black people can call each other the "n-word", and that's not racist? How do you explain that even the word's detractors among black people - those who maintain that it really shouldn't be used by anyone, a viewpoint I can respect - don't say so because they believe that black people are being racist with each other, but because they believe it encourages racist use among whites?I mean, you've got a big problem trying to say that calling a white person a "cracker" is every bit as racist as the reverse situation when there's just nobody who acts like it is, not even you, who self-censored the "n-word" but left in the "c-word." How do you explain that? Debate ceases to be meaningful when one side - yours - simply won't recognize reality. Do you really think we live in a world where "cracker" is racist? How do you explain the fact that nobody, including you, ever acts like it is? That's either an enormous construction of false consciousness or a necessary and easily-explained consequence of the fact that it's just not racist. Being of a race that is widely treated as superior to another is privilege. Perhaps even the definition of it. You just can't construe racism without recourse to privilege. It's all about privilege. I just don't see why that's not clear to you.

Right. If someone calls me a "fucking cracker" at work, I can't sue for harassment and racial discrimination.Just like men cannot possibly be the victims of sexual harassment, because they are the "privileged gender."Oh, wait.

And you were wrong. I thought I made that clear. The proof is how what you call "racism" just doesn't line up with actual observed racism. Well, I would, obviously, since I'm the white guy. Ergo, it'll be racist and they'll be justifiably upset. Because black men are inherently violent? I don't get it. Wow, amazing. "N*gger", "slanty eyes", but you think I'm the racist. Amazing. I think maybe you don't understand what I mean by "privilege." Hint: it's not a good thing. Having the most of it is of practical benefit, but it's morally wrong. Right, like your conclusion that a group of young, black men is particularly likely to become violent. You enjoy the privilege that nobody assumes that about you, which extends from your race.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Men can certainly be the victim of sexual harassment, and have. But, again, it's trivially observed that it comes down to privilege. A man can be sexually harassed by his superior.Again, I don't see how this isn't stupendously obvious. Privilege is central to sexism, and sexual harassment, in precisely the same way that it is central to racial discrimination.

Where are you getting that? Quote the post.

Of course! There are no stereotypes of white people....Oh, wait. Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

Oh, that white kid? Yea, his dad is black. He just looks more white than black. Is it still not racist?

A man can also be sexually harassed by a coworker of equal or lower rank. A subordinate woman can sexually harass her boss, or someone with the same job title.I think you need to go watch the sexual harassment workplace videos again.

I'm struggling to understand why everyone's having a problem with it, since it seems so obvious and completely comports with the reality of how people respond to things. Not racist, because it's not possible for there to be discrimination against the white customers in this scenario. The white people will get served, and the black guy will get fired, because the white people are the ones with the privilege and the black employee, doubly, is not - he's black (racial dis-privilege) and an employee (class dis-privileged.) Right. So the white people will be served. How do you not see the privilege? I'm honestly asking, how do you observe a situation where a black person is serving white people in a restaurant and not see about a dozen different interacting axes of privilege? It's like you're telling me that you can't tell one note from another. I can believe that there are people who can't, and people who can't hear the notes at all. But all of you? That beggars belief. You can't all be this flat-out ignorant. It's just not possible.

Of course there are. The problem for you is why nobody acts white stereotypes are racist. The authors of "Stuff White People Like" are on a coast-to-coast book tour. How is that possible that "Stuff White People Like" is actually so incredibly racist, but nobody seems to have noticed?

You're right. Everyone else around you is wrong, but you're still right.

Well, look, it hasn't escaped my notice that every one of you, with the exception of Chicken, are known liars. Every single one of you has made this a personal vendetta against me. Why should I be surprised to see you feigning ignorance in order to contradict me?I just don't know what it is, but there's just something about the way I post that makes some people completely lose their shit and have to contradict me no matter what. It's weird, I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. It's embarrassing sometimes, but it's what adults do - we take our lumps, admit we were wrong, and get over ourselves. Why can't you?

Nice.

Crash, you are a textbook case of selective vision.You ignore repeated postings of the dictionary definitions of words whose meanings are under contention when the dictionary disagrees with you.In your response to this post: You ignore the racism bit and instead focus on sexual harassment.And you were wrong in your response, too.It's interesting that your only defense now is to utilize ad hominem attacks on your opponents. Rather than being able to admit you are wrong, or even simply continue to disagree, you accuse others of being liars, and say that we have a vendetta against you, as opposed to the alternate hypothesis that we might simply be convinced of our positions, and that in this case those positions run counter to yours.