White Privilege

Studies have shown that CVs with white male names on the top tend to get more interviews than identical CVs with 'ethnic' or female names on the top. So adding more blindness to the candidate selection process may be of use.However, you should acknowledge your privilege in being able to say 'we shouldn't actively try to discriminate' and have the natural biases in humans work in your favour until a better solution occurs. In the meantime, people of races who have historically been oppressed by white people and are generally socially disadvantaged have to continue living under the default state of having to lose out to jobs to less qualified white people. You might want to look at Europe's methods such as Positive actionOn the other hand, if you know your car naturally veers to the left, might it not be an idea to turn the wheel to the right on purpose even though you probably should be able to keep it pointed it straight?

If you don't think having white skin affords you privileges unavailable to people of darker skin, ask some non-white friends.And I made two suggestions in the post you are replying to. Adding blind selection processes into the hiring process (eg., a CV with no names on is the one the person making the decisions gets to see). If you don't feel bad that some people are losing job opportunities to less qualified people on the grounds (ultimately) that their ancestors lived closer to the equator - then there's something wrong with you. You don't need to be in a position to change things to feel that the situation is bad.There was nothing in my text that suggests you should feel responsible. But you are potentially jointly culpable, and really the best weapon to start fighting it is awareness.But think on this: The victim of racism (unconscious or otherwise) has less power to change things than you do. So if they can't fix it, it's up to us white folk to recognize that the problem is there and find ways to deal with it. I expect to some degree, yes. Historically one could look to Japan or Ancient Egypt for examples of the 'home race' having overt privileges, and today Han in China could be said to have privileges other races lack.The main difference is that these are quite overtly racist societies. Today the problem may be less significant but it is less obvious. Instead of it being difficult to avoid someone proclaiming their race as superior, you have people denying that the races are different while showing a statistical preference to white people which over time and given large population sizes, adds up to a problem that it is difficult to persuade some people even exists!

Sounds like fairly strong evidence for its existence. I'm afraid I can't solve the problem of workplace privilege in two policies Seriously though, this is better than not getting an interview. You might consider separating the interviewer from the final decision maker in some cases, for instance. One of the advantages to an interview is how well documented they are. It's easier to see an employer who is being biased during interviews than when they are just ignoring CVs.If we can't build a fair system, then we'll have to an unfair one.Who should we be unfair to?
A race which has been the victims of centuries of outrages for the profit of another race.
Or the race who enriched themselves on the enforced labour, rape and murders of the former race? That's awful.
Unless you don't feel bad if the situation was reversed and a white person was denied a job for a less qualified black person. Then it's probably wrong headed, but less awful at least. No. This is what spoiled brats say. You are supposed to feel bad that other people are getting shit on. It's called empathy. And when you said that the last time, I made it explicit that this was not the case. I am not saying you are culpable. If you think you are, feel free to tell me how.I simply said that you were potentially jointly culpable. I can't know your role, but given your history with the evangelical church, I'm sure your past voting may earn you culpability, but my point wasn't that you ARE culpable. It's that you should be aware you may be culpable and bare this in mind when making decisions in your day. It isn't sufficient, but if we all do it it can hopefully improve the situation. It's patronizing and demeaning to point out that white people have more power to effect white culture than black people?How? Black people have been fully immersed in white society longer than America has existed. Yes, this is why it's called racism No, the point is that on the whole the door swings wider open for white people than the other ways. No no no. That's just racism.Racial Privilege is gaining advantage from a general racism in your culture. Members of the Nazi Party had clear privilege over Jewish communists in Germany in the 30s and 40s.In the USA
White people tend to get jobs over equally qualified minorities.
White people tend to avoid criminal conviction and/or harsh sentencing compared with equally guilty minorities.
White people tend have much more relaxed and controlled police encounters.
White people can walk through more neighbourhoods without causing panic in the law abiding locals.Just to reel off some that are on top of my memory. These are privileges other races don't have, corner cases aside. Analyzing what privileges other races may have looks mean spirited and racist at this point. Why? Because we're white and throwing stones in our glass house filled with crystalware lined with nitro-glycerine.Let's get our own house in order. If African-Americans need to settle matters of privileges with Vietnamese-Americans I say they can handle that without European-American interference.

Do you have a preferred word? I mean, the word has been used in this fashion since the turn of the 20th Century... would you prefer another term used at the time, 'the wages of whiteness'?Here is a more modern take from the 1980s:

quote:

---

I have come to see white privilege as an invisible package of unearned assets
that I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was "meant" to remain
oblivious. White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions,
assurances, tools, maps, guides, codebooks, passports, visas, clothes, compass, emergency gear, and blank checks.

​

...

​

I have chosen those conditions that I think in my case attach somewhat more to skin-color privilege than to class, religion, ethnic status, or geographical location, though these other privileging factors are intricately intertwined. As far as I can see, my Afro-American co-workers, friends, and acquaintances with whom I come into
daily or frequent contact in this particular time, place, and line of work cannot count on
most of these conditions.

​

1. I can, if I wish, arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.
2. I can avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to mistrust and who have learned to mistrust my kind or me.
3. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.
4.I can be reasonably sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.
5. I can go shopping alone most of the time, fairly well assured that I will not be followed or harassed by store detectives.
6. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely and positively represented.
7. When I am told about our national heritage or about "civilization," I am shown
that people of my color made it what it is.
8. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the
existence of their race.
9. If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege.
10. I can be fairly sure of having my voice heard in a group in which I am the only
member of my race.
11. I can be casual about whether or not to listen to another woman's voice in a
group in which she is the only member of her race.
12. I can go into a book shop and count on finding the writing of my race represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods that fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser's shop and find someone who can deal with my hair.
13. Whether I use checks, credit cards, or cash, I can count on my skin color not to
work against the appearance that I am financially reliable.
14. I could arrange to protect our young children most of the time from people who
might not like them.
15. I did not have to educate our children to be aware of systemic racism for their
own daily physical protection.
16. I can be pretty sure that my children's teachers and employers will tolerate them
if they fit school and workplace norms; my chief worries about them do not
concern others' attitudes toward their race.
17. I can talk with my mouth full and not have people put this down to my color.
18. I can swear, or dress in secondhand clothes, or not answer letters, without
having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty, or the
illiteracy of my race.
19. I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial.
20. I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.
21. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.
22. I can remain oblivious to the language and customs of persons of color who
constitute the world's majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such
oblivion.
23. I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and
behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider.
24. I can be reasonably sure that if I ask to talk to "the person in charge," I will be
facing a person of my race.
25. If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I
haven't been singled out because of my race.
26. I can easily buy posters, postcards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys, and
children's magazines featuring people of my race.
27. I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat
tied in, rather than isolated, out of place, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance, or feared.
28. I can be pretty sure that an argument with a colleague of another race is more
likely to jeopardize her chances for advancement than to jeopardize mine.
29. I can be fairly sure that if I argue for the promotion of a person of another race, or
a program centering on race, this is not likely to cost me heavily within my
present setting, even if my colleagues disagree with me.
30. If I declare there is a racial issue at hand, or there isn't a racial issue at hand, my
race will lend me more credibility for either position than a person of color will
have.
31. I can choose to ignore developments in minority writing and minority activist
programs, or disparage them, or learn from them, but in any case, I can find
ways to be more or less protected from negative consequences of any of these
choices.
32. My culture gives me little fear about ignoring the perspectives and powers of people of other races.
33. I am not made acutely aware that my shape, bearing, or body odor will be taken
as a reflection on my race.
34. I can worry about racism without being seen as self-interested or selfseeking.
35. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having my
co-workers on the job suspect that I got it because of my race.
36. If my day, week, or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode
or situation whether it has racial overtones.
37. I can be pretty sure of finding people who would be willing to talk with me and
advise me about my next steps, professionally.
38. I can think over many options, social, political, imaginative, or professional, without asking whether a person of my race would be accepted or allowed to do what I want to do.
39. I can be late to a meeting without having the lateness reflect on my race.
40. I can choose public accommodation without fearing that people of my race cannot get in or will be mistreated in the places I have chosen.
41. I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help, my race will not work against me.
42. I can arrange my activities so that I will never have to experience feelings of rejection owing to my race.
43. If I have low credibility as a leader, I can be sure that my race is not the problem.
44. I can easily find academic courses and institutions that give attention only to people of my race.
45. I can expect figurative language and imagery in all of the arts to testify to experiences of my race.
46. I can choose blemish cover or bandages in "flesh" color and have them more or less match my skin.

---

WHITE PRIVILEGE AND MALE PRIVILEGE: A Personal Account of Coming to See
Correspondences Through Work in Women's Studies (1988), By Peggy McIntosh I disagree. And right, but irrelevant.Person A being deprived of something in favour of Person B because Person B has something Person A does not would be an example of Person B's privilege in relation to Person A. This doesn't have to be anybody's *fault*.If Person B was rich, he would have the privileges of excellent healthcare, education, contacts with successful mentors and potential investors etc.If Person B was white, he may have had the privilege of not being treated with a instinctive suspicion that he's 'trouble'.If Person B was male, and as he has had the privilege to be referred to by the default English pronoun he seems to be, he doesn't have to worry about pregnancy, employers attitudes to mothers of young children, whether wearing a certain outfit will be retrospectively judged to have been 'asking for it' or on the other hand, prudish or unladylike/unfeminine.If Person B was two legged he has the privilege of basic unaided motility and the privilege of being able to negotiate stairs. A privilege one or no legged individuals acutely feel but two legged individuals take for granted.Having one ear at school is likely to result in mocking and bullying. To have a quiet high school life would be considered a privilege to such an individual.and so on.

Yeah, you seem hopelessly lost from what I was talking about. Sorry if that was my fault.But what do the physical and mental characteristics of any race have to do with a moral question of social equity? I can only hope this is a misunderstanding. I will press on as if it were not...In the USA black people are poorer. This is due to a number of factors, but one factor is that there has been much smaller window of opportunity for black families to accrue wealth, and they don't get to enslave people as a means to doing it.Today, they are still losing out on getting work to white people. For the most part, this is thought to be lots of little unconscious behaviours adding up to a problem. There are some cases of overt racism still,. unfortunately.The history that many African-Americans share in common is still reverberating through to today.I think this history is of important consideration if we have decided to be deliberately unfair to one particular race moving forwards.Whatever considerations you may think are important when deciding which race should lose out in a fairly minor way - I can't see how the fact that African-Americans have a higher average body mass, better spatial reasoning or whatever would have any impact on our decision at all.Here's another argument. If white people are systematically discriminated against until such time as white people wouldn't systematically discriminate against others -then we have a nice alignment of interest and incentive. We want to stop being discriminated against. In order to do that, we have to stop being discriminatory. It's beautiful in a way.Alternatively, we agree instead to discriminate against black people. Cos, you know, what can they do - am I right?

The question was about policy. If we cannot use tricks like blind CV reviews or whatnot then we have to go with an unfair system.By default, the system is unfair to black people and always has been.So if we get to choose - which race should we systematically disadvantage? Should institute Affirmative Action type policies and disadvantage white people or should we leave things be to the disadvantage black people?We have two people, both alike in qualification, from fair Verona where we lay our scene. From old drudge to new job interview. Where the colour of skin makes administrative hands unclean. From forth the loins of these two great races a pair of star crossed job seekers take their seats.All physical and mental characteristics match up where necessary with the job description.Should we err towards hiring the black guy or the white guy as a general policy? In a system that is consciously being racially unfair. Which is the kind of system I'm discussing here. Not celebrating, or advocating. Just saying if we can't have a fair one, it'll have to unfair - so how do we want that unfairness to manifest - if we could choose? Yes, my preferred solution involves acknowledging human weakness and devising strategies to work around this, including this kind of training. This kind of training exists, and it doesn't seem to be sufficient alone though. That's not my solution. My solution was

quote:

---

Studies have shown that CVs with white male names on the top tend to get more interviews than identical CVs with 'ethnic' or female names on the top. So adding more blindness to the candidate selection process may be of use.

​

However, you should acknowledge your privilege in being able to say 'we shouldn't actively try to discriminate' and have the natural biases in humans work in your favour until a better solution occurs. In the meantime, people of races who have historically been oppressed by white people and are generally socially disadvantaged have to continue living under the default state of having to lose out to jobs to less qualified white people. You might want to look at Europe's methods such as Positive action

---

That was it really.Hyro was being a negative nancy about trying to modify our system to be fair.So I said your options seem to be to have an unfair system.I asked him who we should be being unfair to.It's not my position. We either try and come up with methods to move us closer to fairness and employ them soon, or instead of a scalpel we pull out the hammer. The question is, can the privileged white folk stand to say 'if a race is to be disadvantaged systematically, and if we have a choice in which race, it should be the white race'.?So which is it - do we try to acknowledge white privilege and take reasonable measures to overcome it?Or do we dispute white privilege and argue against any proposed changes?The latter puts us into a position where we can empirically confirm black people are losing out.I want Hyro to say, given he doesn't think overcoming bias is possible, then if he could choose a system going forwards. Would it be one where the blacks are disadvantaged or whites? By not saying anything, he opts for the default of having blacks be disadvantaged. I don't think he can explicitly say that this is the outcome he desires.So hopefully he'll see that he either
a) Consider positive methods to minimize the effects of privilege
b) Throws black people under the bus, possibly regretting saying something like 'I don't... feel bad for someone who doesn't get a job because they are a minority'
c) Throws white people under the busRealizing that arguing for b) is arguing that the historical oppressors get to stay on top. This is a bit...racist. Probably something hyro will want to avoid if he wants to argue he is not jointly culpable in maintaining white privilege as he would quite literally just argued for it.arguing for c) is against everything white people stand for. Even the lovely hippy liberal types.So he has to opt for a) and rather than just pooh-poohing methods of mitigation or amelioration, instead of sounding skeptical about the existence of white privilege he try to imagine some methods of his own and together maybe we can come to an agreement over how we could lessen white privilege.Sometimes explaining a rhetorical strategy is much more work than just letting it play out

And I said it provided strong evidence for the existence of white privilege. Yes maybe.I have made no unreasonable demands nor attempted to elicit white guilt, but maybe they are spoiled brats. This is definitely something a spoiled person could say:

quote:

---

I mean is it supposed to mean that I am supposed to feel bad for BEING white and should I debase myself because of it?

---

In response to

quote:

---

If you don't feel bad that some people are losing job opportunities to less qualified people on the grounds (ultimately) that their ancestors lived closer to the equator - then there's something wrong with you. You don't need to be in a position to change things to feel that the situation is bad.

---

I mean, is it really so monstrous of me to suggest that humans being treated unfairly in a way that impacts their lives to a significant degree is something we should all agree is bad, and we should feel bad that this seems interwoven into our present culture. I said 'bad'. I explicitly said "There was nothing in my text that suggests you should feel responsible.", but you seem to want to whine about how I am trying to make you feel guilty.I AM NOT TRYING TO MAKE YOU FEEL GUILTY
NOR AM I STATING YOU ARE GUILTY
ANY GUILT YOU DO HAPPEN TO FEEL IS NOT MY DOINGJeeez, you white guys can be sensitive about white guilt, neh? But victims of racism are victims. Of racism. It's right their in their description as a group.I don't see anything that implies 'rescue' in my statement.Let me remove all subtlety from my sentence.People who suffer from the effects of white privilege are generally not white. Those non-white people, by virtue of not having white privilege, have less power to influence white culture than you, a white man, does. Indeed, if every single black person wanted white culture to change really really badly....well history has proven it isn't enough.So yes, we need to be responsible for our own culture.And finally on this point. You missed out that this was based on the conditional.

quote:

---

if they can't fix it, it's up to us

---

If they can't. If black people are able to stop white people from being racist without any cooperation from white people, then I'm cool with that. I just don't think that's realistic, do you? Do you think that saying that 10% are unlikely to change the culture of the 85% on their own is demeaning to the 10%? You aren't everywhere. You are in the USA. Where white privilege, the topic of this thread, reigns supreme. So let's not start pointing overseas and saying 'but they do it too...the black man be as guilty as me guvnor!' Such attempts to distract from the mess we have left in our own back garden looks a little pitiable. You don't think adversities are bad? Are we both using the same language protocol here? And why are we talking about foreigners all of a sudden?African-Americans are not foreigners on US soil. No more than European-Americans are anyway. So did Ghandi. Isn't this pointless? It might be. But 'Latinos hate blacks' is not evidence for this. You had better have a fucking fine argument to back this up, or you get tossed into the 'oblivious racist' discard pile in my mind.They did it to themselves. Cos they is lazy, I suppose? You seem to be carrying some baggage from another discussion into this one. It's the only explanation. I've never implied everything can be explained by white privilege.I have asserted white privilege exists.
And stated we should work to overcome it.That's really about it. I've given some examples here and there.You raised doubts about white privilege
Dismissed attempts to overcome it
and then made up a load of stuff to get upset about regarding me trying to induce white guilt in you.I put it to you:
a) We try and overcome the problem of privilege using deliberate and thought out methods
b) We discriminate against black people
b) We discriminate against white peopleWhat do you choose? I haven't denounced any nation for perceived racism. I don't think I've even brought up British culture. You seem to be making things up.Both cultures have white privileges. I didn't claim them to be teeming cesspools of racism so the paradox doesn't need resolving. You are just making this up too.Just because white people are privileged doesn't mean the culture is a teeming cesspool of racism. The privileges of white people is very often unconscious and unthinkingly enjoyed. As a previous post said, it could be a simple privilege like 'I can enjoy the company of others of my race and culture easily' or something complex like 'I don't have to teach my young children about institutional racism so they might have a chance to protect themselves when they are out of sight'.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

My statement does not exclude your second sentence here. But do you honestly think that a person of equal status but who is black has more power to change how white people think and behave than a white person?This isn't a racist thing. It's just obvious.A person in a cultural environment has more control over their own culture than an outsider.You aren't utterly powerless, but I bet your attempts to change black culture will be marred with setbacks that wouldn't occur to someone who was the same as you but who was black.I'd suggest you try, but trying to strongarm another race into changing to your liking is a sensitive subject and you may get hurt. Which is why we've been talking about equally qualified candidates who differ only in their race.Like when we send two identical CVs to companies, one with a name on it that implies a black candidate and one which implies a white one and the 'white guy' (he doesn't exist) gets more interview requests than the black guy. Or we could erase all differences except race (such as the studies discussed above) and watch black people still do worse. It's easier, and more informative, than asking every single person for all of their experiences. But this isn't in dispute, nor is it on topic. I'm going to make a bet that white people are made homeless less often than black people in very similar financial situations. I'm going to bet that it is easier to be a white homeless man than a black homeless woman. Agreed, the numbers may be off, but yes basically. We're talking privilege not racism.If foreigners have privilege over black people as well as white people this just means the situation is worse. But we're talking about white privilege not foreigners who are wealthy enough to move country, smart enough to get into colleges etc. It's not the other way around, that's obvious.I don't know what your question means. This is a complex and messy world. I'm not proposing that white privilege is the only thing that affects human relationships. Assertion is not demonstration. And if you think you have identified something that IS NOT white privilege then it isn't on topic is it?In general, in white countries having an 'ethnic' name does you worse on getting job interviews. That was what I said, and this is something that has been studied, I'm sure I can find you some papers if you doubt this.Since we've been talking about the USA - the main area where white privilege rears its head is in white/black relationships. So focussing on other areas seems less useful. Here is the goalpostWhite people have privileges not afforded other races.
This includes applying for jobs.Maybe Asians have privileges not afforded white people. That isn't the topic though.We're talking about white privilege. Maybe in one specific sphere you can't find it. Applying to be a basketball player? Black privilege may rear its head. Want to get a grant to go to uni, maybe there is an Asian privilege. But society as a whole, white privilege is the dominant racial privilege.In the USA wealth is probably the biggest privilege factor. Here are 46 examples from the 1980s: Message 169Your initial point was actually 'assuming white privilege exists what do we do about it?' and that was what my question you are avoiding answering here was addressing.If you think that saying words such as 'assuming' is meant to convey 'that White Privilege is either non-existent Social Justice Warrior nonsense or massively overstated and/or is used as a catch-all excuse to explain other sociological factors. ' then actually you succeeded. In that I guessed your thoughts from your hedging approach to the question. But I couldn't argue direct to that point because you didn't directly make it.Do you dispute that Odewale Gbonka's CV is more likely to passed over in favour of Jonathan Thompson's even if the contents and layout of the CV are identical?And further - if you get turned down for a job, for most jobs you apply for you have the privilege of not worrying 'is it because of my race?'. Even if it wasn't because of their race, living with that anxiety is something most white people are privileged to not worry about.

Yes I did. The word 'privilege', like all terminology, was in competition with other terms. Privilege became the standard word to use in the natural selection process that is human discourse. Like how language works generally.You definitely didn't answer my question. You could look up what the word means.

quote:

---

A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group

---

It's not convoluted. It's simple. In the example you would have been granted an immunity from one ear related bullying and jibes at high school. You have a privilege that most have, but some do not. Because that's not how English works. In English I can talk about person A's status: disadvantaged. Or person B's. 'Advantaged' is clumsy. Privileged is perfectly cromulent and works well, is in common use, and is a technical term in an academic profession.

It's a term of art in sociology. It's the one that stuck around. People today inherited its usage from people long dead.I mean its like asking why the word 'evolution'. Various terms were being used, Darwin preferred 'Transmutation' but evolution is the one that stuck as the primary one. Check your privilege is a rather modern slogan based on a word that gained favour for use in this context in Edwardian times.It means you should analyze your situation for signs that you are obviously benefiting from privileges which you assume everyone has, but they don't.Here is an example of my privilege from when I was a child:

quote:

---

Why are the Nethenopians starving (Ethiopians)?
They can't get food.
Why don't they go to the shop?
They don't have any.
Why don't they just build one?

---

Now imagine we grow up a little:

quote:

---

Why are you saying Black Lives Matter? White Lives matter too!

---

or

quote:

---

Why complain about the police? All my police encounters have been peaceful and respectful. Black people must be bringing it on themselves'.

---

This would be an ideal time to ask the person to check their privilege.
It's not appropriate to call them a racist. They are just ignorant of other experiences. They are privileged to NOT experience the fact that deaths of their race were treated less seriously than deaths of the predominant race. They are privileged that police officers assume 'some white guy' is a blank slate as far assumptions of violence or weapon holding. Or drug holding. Privileged to not have to be searched by the police once a week or whatever.So the slogan 'check your privilege' was born. A simple three word command meant to bring into attention that you may approaching the issue from a position of unconscious privilege and that you are simply blind from the issues because they don't happen to your race in the systematic way they do to black people. It works for other types of privilege too.

quote:

---

Privilege is a special right or advantage available only to a particular person or group of people. The term is commonly used in the context of social inequality, particularly in regard to social class,[1] race, age, sexual orientation, gender, and disability. Two common examples would be having access to a higher education and housing.[1] Privilege can also be emotional or psychological, regarding personal self-confidence and comfort, or having a sense of belonging or worth in society.[2] It began as an academic concept, but has since become popular outside of academia.[3]

​

Substantial analysis of privilege and specific social groups have been published and have included a variety of perspectives. Some commentators have addressed limitations in the term, such as its inability to distinguish between concepts of "spared injustice" and "unjust enrichment", and its tendency to conflate disparate groups.

---

wiki (standard)

quote:

---

Privilege is a key concept within a sociological and social justice context. It describes the benefits and advantages held by one group relative to another, often arising through the oppression or stigmatization of minority groups. These benefits and advantages are not usually codified as legal rights and arise as secondary qualities to suppression. As such, they can be difficult to spot, and remain unseen or unrecognised. This privilege blindness sometimes leads those who ostensibly support equal rights to inadvertently marginalize the concerns of less-privileged groups.

---

wiki (rational)It's been used this way for the last 100 years.Your problem seems to be that you hadn't heard it used this way until recently and you might normally think of privilege as being quite exclusive - something that only rich and powerful people really have as that was conversational usage for a good while. It's a technical term of art in use since 1911. Like 'evolution' has a meaning its own right and can be used in different ways in different contexts. But in many contexts it refers to a specific biological phenomena. You'll notice that normally people don't. I mean technically having two ears grants privileges which you would notice most if you only had one. For instance, being shortsighted and one eared presents a problem for wearing glasses. It's a disability, but its not crippling like some other disabilities, and the privileges two eared people have don't typically result in one eared people being socially marginalized. So you are examining a subtle edge case which is a terrible idea when trying to understand a concept.Have you read the list from one author about the White Privileges she felt she had after much introspection and talking with non-white friends and colleagues? The privileges there are probably more numerous, cover a wider range of issues or the issues are of such significance (employment, reputation, raising children) and they affect many people in pretty significant ways. Except I'm just using a word with an accepted and longstanding technical definition within academia. I'm not abusing the language, I'm using the language our ancestors left us. A century long setup to a con?Seems inplausible.Besides your characterisation is not right. It should be"That guy is missing an ear, he is lacking the privilege of being able to wear normal glasses without them falling off, and maybe lacks the privilege of full and complete hearing, protection from the rain, directionality of sound etc etc."or"That guy is allergic to everything. I'm aware that I have the privilege of not having to check food ingredient labels as a survival mechanism and I should avoid mocking this behaviour. I should also consider taking measures to make his life easier by checking nut contents of things before it gets to him. I'm sure he's sick of doing it; he'll probably double check but he might appreciate that he has other people looking out for him and aware of his problems...."or"That guy is black. I am privileged to be able to walk into O'Malley's bar without sour looks, secretive whispers and a reasonable fear of racially motivated violence on top of any alcohol related ones. I should probably not make a big public deal out of him declining coming out to drink with us."

Apology accepted fully.
And here is my own:
I am sorry for any lack of clarity when clearing up the oversight. I was on heavy duty painkillers and was actually quite woozy when I wrote a couple of those messages and didn't realize how woolly I was until I had slept it off. Haha Preferable. Noble. Fairer, maybe. Not fair. The system is consciously, explicitly and from the outset acknowledged as fundamentally unfair. Justice? No. It's explicitly unfair. Unfair. It's an unfair system.The question is about history. By creating a system today to be used going forwards, we are creating something that is part of a long history of race relations. Black people have less wealth between them than white people per capita. This is because of our history of oppression and tyranny.Does anybody who thinks oppressing whites in this system of the future is wrong (eg., the Affirmative Action critics) be willing to say that it would be preferable instead to build a system that deliberately disadvantages black people?Is anyone willing to take an awful history we had no control over, and exhibit our control by continuing the tradition? Then we *should* feel white guilt.I am essentially removing the default as an option. I am restructuring the situation to avoid conservativism seeming as noble as it might (ie., arguing for the status quo) The status quo is the same as building a system to deliberately target black people. Can the status quoers really say that?The history is relevant, but not because it would be just to get 'even' on white people. It's relevant because I want to see if anybody has the balls to explicitly argue for what their arguments imply. Like, if 3 Germans were locked in a room with a Jewish person and the only exit is a room full of gas from a rupture. A valve can be turned off in that same room but not before a lethal exposure has occurred. It would be pretty unusual for Germans aware of history to conspire and argue that they should make the Jewish guy get gassed to death - especially if their was video and audio surveillance equipment in their room.White people arguing *for* discriminating against black people is distasteful in like manner.That's the rhetorical angle.Also, at least discriminating against white people has the advantage of a broad social correction between the races. Allow for more money to flow into black families so they can climb the social ladder we took away from them after their ancestors built it for our ancestors and us. AS I said, the effects of history reverberates strongly into today. The USA just a lifetime ago was very often an awful place for black people. The disadvantages a black person's mother experienced, disadvantages him today. The rich get richer. The poor get poorer. And almost all rich people are white.If anyone wants to provision an argument as to why we should discriminate against blacks they can have at it.Turns out Hyro did provide a reason to discriminate against blacks. Apparently they disadvantage themselves so we can just have that be the system. Yeah, more math is needed. The same number of jobs are being awarded, the same average wage will exist. It's just more of those jobs will have black workers who will be paid the same (which may be more than now, I haven't looked up race/wage issues recntly) but since they are replacing equally paid white people the economic situation won't change other than by adding more wealth to African-Americans as a group.Furthermore, the handicap, distributing between 2/3 of people will be less individually onerous than the same handicap distributed between 1/10 of people. Think about it this way: Even if black people get the job more than 50% of the time when they are competing against an equally qualified white person. The white person still finds themselves against an equally qualified black competitor 1/10 of the time. The black person faces a white equally qualified competitor 2/3 of the time. Examining only the case of one equally qualified competitor.That means the black person risks losing out 2/3 of the time they equally best.
White guys, only 1/10 times.If the risk of losing out is the same (we examine things from equally unfair systems) The individual white guy has a much lower chance of being negatively affected by the policy per job application than the black guy living under corresponding systematic discrimination. Slash gal etc.So yeah, you'll need to show your working because this affect on its own suggests somethings up with your economic/social sense perspective.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This was written, bringing the term gradually into more general consciousness.That's what the wikipedia article on the subject indicates with linking to a newspaper article in The Guardian (UK) which cited this particular article as a meme-seed.It was the first thing I saw on the subject and that would have been about 2006/2007. Are you judging the concept by the fact that some people wield it as a rhetorical weapon? Yes. It's different because it is no longer used this way in academia but is now in common discourse. The slogan is an ideal way to express a complex concept in media such as Twitter. This means it gets used more loosely in general, people don't quite use the term in a way that makes sense from the technical perspective and sometimes they are still basically right, sometimes it leads them to all kinds of wrong.This isn't suspicious. Lots of terms hang around in academia before they enter into common discourse in one way or another. Waterboarding, hitman, carcinogenic, computer, spacetime, Schrodinger's Cat etc. and sometimes they don't get used quite right.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I was more succinct the first time, the explanation grew each as you dug down into the details of my reasoning. Also, my argument may be simplified to what you say, but it isn't quite right to simply say that. My argument included both the concept of historical pressures, our own vision of how history would judge such a hypothetical decision, how we will judge ourselves today for doing it, the twist of making one or other option a choice, the notion of making it a decision between self-serving and self-sacrificing options. It takes many more words to explain what I hoped would be evident from the structure of the argument itself. I've had conversations conversations with people like Hyro before. There are denials, accusations and further denials regarding guilt, finger pointing, saying that sometimes other races do better. I think my first response to Hyro was to give him the benefit of the doubt but here is how he started:

quote:

---

Whether "white privilege" exists or not, what do you suggest be done in lieu of it?

---

I assume 'in lieu' is not not what was meant, but instead vis--vis or something. Then he slipped into the fairly standard defensive mode

quote:

---

Because implicit in the narrative is that I should feel bad for something that I have no control over.

---

Before trying to point elsewhere

quote:

---

Seems that in whatever country their is predominant culture would tend to have some perceived privilege.

​

Does Black Privilege exist in Zimbabwe or Brown Privilege exist in Venezuela?

---

This is practically a script, psychologists might call it a schema. It's some kind of standard collection of defenses against accusations that aren't made. He we have a fairly normal person. They aren't racist, but they may not be fully informed of certain things that if they were, may cause them to reconsider.Since most of them aren't racist sometimes it pays to remind them that the default state of affairs in many cases would be considered racist if it was a system that was consciously built with foresight to the consequences. It's not a perfect method, but I have successes with it more than with some other methods. It also helps cut to the chase if I am talking to a racist. Sometimes you get to hear how maybe the 'Blacks bring it on themselves which is why even Latinos hate 'em' theory is a more significant factor than 'White people as a group have empirically observed biases against black people as a group, which has empirically been demonstrated to have significant social impacts on the individuals affected over sufficiently large sample sizes'The 'Yeah but...' method can often work, but it's best results are in verbal contexts on the subject. Validate their perception, but argue other people's experiences may differ and attempt to elicit a counter validation at least that one has a point.

I don't disagree with you. I prefer to discuss as much as I can with pragmatism, logic and dispassion.Then again, pathos is a useful technique in rhetoric. Given I was making a moral point, and given that the foundation of morality is based on emotion, and given that Hyro's formative moral systems were....skewed...I took the wager that Hyro would not be won over with cold reason alone. I would have to take a swipe at the trunk of emotion.Look at our earliest interactions in this thread. Hyro's position seemed to be quite reflexive, defensive over 'white guilt' issues. Emotion was still very much entangled with the moral and even ontological dimension of privilege in Hyro's being.In The psychology of political correctness we are discussing Haidt's (et al) work which is built on the foundation of emotion especially a sense of disgust being the main part of our moral choices. The reasons and rationalizations come afterwards. I'm not au fait with undertones but you clearly have an arrire-pense: quelle horreur! Not so, that would come under the rubric of having no control over something. I was talking of consciously deciding to be racist. Specifically, 'continuing the tradition' wouldn't be getting hired, but instead consciously choosing a white candidate over a black one because of their race.

I'm talking about what is.
Not what ought to be Technically I was referencing the work of Haidt

quote:

---

This model diverges from earlier rationalist theories of morality, such as of Lawrence Kohlberg's stage theory of moral reasoning.[2] Jonathan Haidt (2001) de-emphasizes the role of reasoning in reaching moral conclusions. Haidt asserts that moral judgment is primarily given rise to by intuition, with reasoning playing a smaller role in most of our moral decision-making. Conscious thought-processes serve as a kind of post hoc justification of our decisions.

​

His main evidence comes from studies of "moral dumbfounding" where people have strong moral reactions but fail to establish any kind of rational principle to explain their reaction.[3] An example situation in which moral intuitions are activated is as follows: Imagine that a brother and sister sleep together once. No one else knows, no harm befalls either one, and both feel it brought them closer as siblings. Most people imagining this incest scenario have very strong negative reaction, yet cannot explain why.[4] Referring to earlier studies by Howard Margolis[5] and others, Haidt suggests that we have unconscious intuitive heuristics which generate our reactions to morally charged-situations, and underlie our moral behavior. He suggests that when people explain their moral positions, they often miss, if not hide, the core premises and processes that actually led to those conclusions.[6]

---