Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   White Privilege
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 196 of 276 (778885)
02-25-2016 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by xongsmith
02-25-2016 6:04 PM


Re: the history and mathematics of prejudice
Shouldn't the foundation of morality be empathy?
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by xongsmith, posted 02-25-2016 6:04 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 197 of 276 (778887)
02-25-2016 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Modulous
02-24-2016 4:21 PM


Re: some privilege
Thanks for the link, it helped.
Are you judging the concept by the fact that some people wield it as a rhetorical weapon?
I guess so. I'm not sure.
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.
So then I don't want to use the concept.
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.
I'm not suspicious of it, I just don't like the approach.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Modulous, posted 02-24-2016 4:21 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Modulous, posted 02-25-2016 7:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 198 of 276 (778888)
02-25-2016 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by ringo
02-25-2016 10:59 AM


Re: some privilege
Thank you. I try to rise above the lowest common denominator.
You also like to argue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by ringo, posted 02-25-2016 10:59 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 199 of 276 (778889)
02-25-2016 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by New Cat's Eye
02-25-2016 7:05 PM


Re: some privilege
Thanks for the link, it helped.
PErsonal experience time, it's Richard Dawkins' fault.
Well he and some others.
See, they issued a rallying call.
And the atheists rallied.
Then split into groups to work on their areas of interest. Some groups turned their attentions inwards. Naturally this group contained a lot of sociology, feminism and other equality studies types as that's what they like to do.
For a while the atheists felt morally superior but these people tried to burst that bubble by pointing out that atheism's public representation seems to be very white, pretty old, and overwhelmingly male. That many of the smug atheists who thought that publicly breaking with God was the end and they got to look down on the silly believers were young white males. And when minority voices spoke up, there was a lot of pushback and the privilege conversation got started.
Angry young white male atheists have, in general, privilege over middle aged black female atheists when it comes to having their views represented, their concerns and social needs met and so on. The minorities and those who had studied this, pointed out that this is the kind of thing those same angry young white men were smugly criticising insular religious communities for. The AYWM grew angrier and manlier (though probably not whiter), and the whole misogyny argument erupted.
These days, you are likely going to run into people who have been arguing about these issues for a half a decade or more. You know well enough that evolutionists in that position often become cranky and uncivil when they hear the same damn long dealt with objections time and again. It's like they feel they have to speak to every single white man individually but having the same discussion, rather than the white men just reading some academia or academic summaries on the subject. (it's not just white men, but to pretend they aren't disproportionally the egregious offenders would be kind of blind)
So then I don't want to use the concept.
Most people don't. But since there are others that do use it, it's good to know what it means and why it is used.
I'm not suspicious of it, I just don't like the approach.
I was thrown by your use of the terms 'shell game', 'dishonesty', 'con'
I'm not ignorant of my "privilege" and I've yet to be in a situation where I need to check it. So I guess I'm good already.
Sometimes you can say something which rhetorically shoots you in the foot. Here is an example.
On the one hand, maybe you have, but you have had the privilege to not have live with the consequences.
And if you haven't, you must be very privileged indeed. Very few people of any race or gender manage to escape benefiting from their race unconsciously and to have such confidence in your beliefs that you are 'good already' is a privilege I cannot even imagine having. It must be wonderful to rest assured in the knowledge that nobody has favoured you over someone equal or better, just because of your race.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-25-2016 7:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-25-2016 8:24 PM Modulous has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 200 of 276 (778890)
02-25-2016 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Modulous
02-25-2016 7:44 PM


Re: some privilege
PErsonal experience time, it's Richard Dawkins' fault.
Well he and some others.
See, they issued a rallying call.
And the atheists rallied.
Then split into groups to work on their areas of interest. Some groups turned their attentions inwards. Naturally this group contained a lot of sociology, feminism and other equality studies types as that's what they like to do.
For a while the atheists felt morally superior but these people tried to burst that bubble by pointing out that atheism's public representation seems to be very white, pretty old, and overwhelmingly male. That many of the smug atheists who thought that publicly breaking with God was the end and they got to look down on the silly believers were young white males. And when minority voices spoke up, there was a lot of pushback and the privilege conversation got started.
Angry young white male atheists have, in general, privilege over middle aged black female atheists when it comes to having their views represented, their concerns and social needs met and so on. The minorities and those who had studied this, pointed out that this is the kind of thing those same angry young white men were smugly criticising insular religious communities for. The AYWM grew angrier and manlier (though probably not whiter), and the whole misogyny argument erupted.
These days, you are likely going to run into people who have been arguing about these issues for a half a decade or more. You know well enough that evolutionists in that position often become cranky and uncivil when they hear the same damn long dealt with objections time and again. It's like they feel they have to speak to every single white man individually but having the same discussion, rather than the white men just reading some academia or academic summaries on the subject. (it's not just white men, but to pretend they aren't disproportionally the egregious offenders would be kind of blind)
Yeah that's definitely something I don't want to be a part of.
Most people don't. But since there are others that do use it, it's good to know what it means and why it is used.
For sure, that's why I asked. Thanks again for explaining it.
I was thrown by your use of the terms 'shell game', 'dishonesty', 'con'
Okay, but even your own admission:
quote:
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.
That just dissuades me from using the concept. That's what I'm talking about with the dishonestly. You're not being straight forward; you're employing a technique, or using a trick.
That's just gonna turn me away, I'm not gonna buy it. But I will entertain the idea for the purpose of discussion.
On the one hand, maybe you have, but you have had the privilege to not have live with the consequences.
And if you haven't, you must be very privileged indeed.
I think by your (proverbial) standards; Yes, I must be very privileged indeed.
Very few people of any race or gender manage to escape benefiting from their race unconsciously and to have such confidence in your beliefs that you are 'good already' is a privilege I cannot even imagine having. It must be wonderful to rest assured in the knowledge that nobody has favoured you over someone equal or better, just because of your race.
Oh, but they have.
It's just that that's not my fault, so I don't have to feel any guilt over it. Right?
I was just saying that I've never been in a situation where my privilege needed to be checked, because I'm already aware of it and don't offend people by it. Sure, it may have happened and I wasn't aware of it, but I've never been in a situation where I've actually needed to.
By "being good", I mean that I'm already following the principles in that link. I'm not a dick to people in-person, not even ignorantly.
Edited by Cat Sci, : Removed "I don't disagree with you." from first [quote] to be less personable than it seemed
Edited by Cat Sci, : *personal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Modulous, posted 02-25-2016 7:44 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Modulous, posted 02-25-2016 9:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 201 of 276 (778893)
02-25-2016 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by New Cat's Eye
02-25-2016 8:24 PM


Re: some privilege
Yeah that's definitely something I don't want to be a part of.
Nobody was asking you to. I was just explaining factors that I am aware of that help explain why you have seen it's usage increase.
That just dissuades me from using the concept. That's what I'm talking about with the dishonestly. You're not being straight forward; you're employing a technique, or using a trick.
Yes, that was a debate tactic. I wasn't being dishonest. There really has been a terrible history surrounding race. My debate strategy has nothing to do with whether or not white people have privilege and how white people should handle it's existence if it does. {abe: just to be clear, I'm saying that what strategies I, Mod, adopt to persuade Hyro of the difficulty of the moral position he is in don't have any impact the reality of the subject at hand; the alternate reading is clearly strange} Have you considered the possibility that you are looking for rationalizations to avoid worrying about it. As a white person, it is your privilege to be able to do that without real consequence - after all.
Why else would you dismiss something like this on the basis of 'some people argue in a way I don't like'?
It's just that that's not my fault, so I don't have to feel any guilt over it. Right?
Right. As I've said numerous times.
quote:
There was nothing in my text that suggests you should feel responsible.
quote:
And when you said {that must mean I am complicit} the last time, I made it explicit that this was not the case.
quote:
I am not saying you are culpable.
quote:
my point wasn't that you ARE culpable
quote:
This doesn't have to be anybody's *fault*.
quote:
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 DOING
On the other hand, as a benefactor of those privileges it might be wise to not be that proverbial rich person who suggests the peasants 'eat cake' but presumably in a smaller social scale than in that story.
Like a certain someone who blithely suggested that for minorities to do well, they just need to embrace the culture...in a conversation about European-Americans and African-Americans. As if black people are not an integral part of American culture.
I was just saying that I've never been in a situation where my privilege needed to be checked, because I'm already aware of it and don't offend people by it.
Fantastic news. From point 2:
quote:
What you need to realize is that we all have privilege to some degree: white privilege, male privilege, heterosexual privilege, etc. The hardest thing is to do is to get over your instinct to fight and say, But I’m not like that!
Sure, it may have happened and I wasn't aware of it, but I've never been in a situation where I've actually needed to.
Are you sure? I mean the entire point is that it's fiendishly difficult to notice when you yourself are acting with unconscious privilege, but easier to see when others are doing it.
Consult again the list in Message 169
Can you be sure in every single conversation you've ever had you haven't unconsciously made implicit assumptions in your speech, behaviour etc based around what you regard as 'the normal experience' without realizing that you were around people for whom that is not a common experience and actually a bit of a sore point?
Like, have you ever talked to a person of another race about problems in their neighbourhood and suggested they just move elsewhere?
quote:
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.
Maybe you hit a nerve with that person, unless you don't interact with others it's probably impossible that you have not made any such errors. It's like confirmation bias, if you are experiencing it, it can be really difficult to notice.
By "being good", I mean that I'm already following the principles in that link. I'm not a dick to people in-person, not even ignorantly.
Assuming you are right - ultimately, you acknowledge your privileges when they arise and you treat others around you without the assumption that they share them. But you don't want to have anything to do with the concept of privilege?
You do realize that as people of the white race seem to say 'But I'm not like that' and therefore they don't need to address the issue, it causes anxiety in people of other races (or whatever other privilege relationships) that the things they are concerned about are not being taken seriously because most people think they generally good so there seems to be no mood for change, even though something is amiss. So by making this kind of declaration - once more, you may be shooting yourself in the proverbial foot.
Either way - as long as you are trying not to be a dick, that's a good start. Maybe next time if someone asks you to 'check your privilege' you might have a kinder, more receptive response that doesn't necessarily accept guilt while simultaneously treating the concern seriously. Such as 'if I am exhibiting privilege I am oblivious, please help me understand'.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-25-2016 8:24 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-26-2016 10:35 AM Modulous has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 202 of 276 (778895)
02-26-2016 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Modulous
02-24-2016 3:39 PM


Re: the history and mathematics of prejudice
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.
The problem here, Mod, is that you are only looking at one possible variable here as the reason. Do I think that systemic racism has contributed towards black people per capita earning less than whites? Absolutely. But would you likewise conclude that there is an unfair advantage for Asians knowing that, per capita, they not only make more money than anyone else, but also per capita get better grades?
Are schools systematically "oppressing" white people or is it simply that Asians are outperforming them -- perhaps because they have a culture that emphasizes the importance of school, hard work, and strategizing success? I only ask because if we look at your theory, it only includes oppression and tyranny as the sole, possible culprit. At what point would you entertain the notion the possibility that, per capita, black people are underperforming? And there are many possible variables to account for that: One is that, yes, there is a history of oppression that negatively impacts the black community. Another would be a culture that promotes or fosters self-destructive behavior. There are plenty of black voices that are critical of the black community in that regard.
Is that potentially a reason?
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.
Ah, so in other words, punishing the son for the great-great-great grandfather's sins?
Your solution is to discriminate against whites on the sole basis that they happen to be white to help black people on the sole basis that they so happen to be black?
That doesn't strike you as ironically racist?
The USA just a lifetime ago was very often an awful place for black people.
The same was the case for the Jew in Germany. But the generation that perpetrated that heinous crime is dead and gone. Are modern-Germans expected to carry the burden of their ancestors? The Nazi's bombed Great Britain. Should they pay you restitution even though contemporary Germans had nothing to do with it nor were you personally a victim? Should modern-day Japanese be held personally accountable for what their ancestors did at Pearl Harbor? Are Americans forever indebted to the Japanese for dropping an Atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? At what point does it end?
Call me crazy, but I hold people responsible for what they actually have done, not what their ancestors may or may not have been a part of.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Modulous, posted 02-24-2016 3:39 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Modulous, posted 02-26-2016 3:41 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 208 by Genomicus, posted 02-26-2016 3:22 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 203 of 276 (778901)
02-26-2016 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Hyroglyphx
02-26-2016 2:07 AM


Re: the history and mathematics of prejudice
The problem here, Mod, is that you are only looking at one possible variable here as the reason.
It's almost like it's the topic, or something.
Do I think that systemic racism has contributed towards black people per capita earning less than whites? Absolutely.
OK.
But would you likewise conclude that there is an unfair advantage for Asians knowing that, per capita, they not only make more money than anyone else, but also per capita get better grades?
Let's be frank, trying to shift blame is silly when blame isn't being pointed = but your insistence on talking about non-white-privilege in a thread about white-privilege looks exactly like that.
Other racial privileges exist. Which ones is not the topic.
I only ask because if we look at your theory, it only includes oppression and tyranny as the sole, possible culprit.
Nope.
And there are many possible variables to account for that: One is that, yes, there is a history of oppression that negatively impacts the black community. Another would be a culture that promotes or fosters self-destructive behavior.
What culture would that be?
African-American culture.
How does African-American culture differ from European-American culture?
Would you agree that an African-American is born into a culture that has been held back for centuries by white people? Would you agree that is not their fault? Your blaming black people for what they've inherited would be as crazy as being blaming white people for what they inherited. Which I am not doing. But you seem to be getting quite close to your version with this argument carefully phrased as a question.
If I am African-American and I am poor, what is the most likely reason? That my parents in the 60s, 70s, and 80s had a difficult time with employment and housing and were not able to participate fully in pursuit of the American dream? That when they were born, their parents had had it worse? And so on going back generations?
Tell me, does your hypothesis have an explanation as to why if you send out two identical CVs, one with a white sounding name and one with a black sounding name...the white sounding named CV gets more interviews? Does the black CV not apply itself or something?
Ah, so in other words, punishing the son for the great-great-great grandfather's sins?
My question, in case you had forgotten was do you prefer to do this, or would you prefer to punish the son for the great-great-great grandfather's punishment?
Both are obviously unfair. I said this from the outset. For some reason you get very energized when someone suggests discriminating against white people but its more apathy, denials and victim blaming when we're talking about discriminating against blacks.
Your solution is to discriminate against whites on the sole basis that they happen to be white to help black people on the sole basis that they so happen to be black?
Your solution seems to be to discriminate against black on the sole basis they happen to be black to help white people on the sole basis that they so happen to be white.
Because when you engage in denials as you have, you are arguing for the status quo. Which is discrimination against black people. That's my point.
That doesn't strike you as ironically racist?
That's my point.
The same was the case for the Jew in Germany. But the generation that perpetrated that heinous crime is dead and gone.
I really can't figure out what to criticize.
1) That Jewish oppression in Germany was only for one generation
2) That Jewish oppression has ended
3) That a generation of oppression is a reasonable comparator to the African-American experience
Are modern-Germans expected to carry the burden of their ancestors?
That does seem to be the case, yes.
he Nazi's bombed Great Britain. Should they pay you restitution even though contemporary Germans had nothing to do with it nor were you personally a victim?
No. Although my ancestors fled from the mainland to Britain during that time, so actually it benefited me in at least one way.
At what point does it end?
Psst. It's not about blame.
It's about acknowledging privileges given to us because of our race, not earned through character.
Call me crazy, but I hold people responsible for what they actually have done, not what their ancestors may or may not have been a part of.
Are you done?
Good. I hope so. Now, given this isn't about responsibility - how about you try and veer towards what I'm talking about?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-26-2016 2:07 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-26-2016 5:11 AM Modulous has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 204 of 276 (778903)
02-26-2016 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Modulous
02-26-2016 3:41 AM


Re: the history and mathematics of prejudice
It's almost like it's the topic, or something.
Yes, and perhaps in some instances it is a mischaracterization.
Let's be frank, trying to shift blame is silly when blame isn't being pointed = but your insistence on talking about non-white-privilege in a thread about white-privilege looks exactly like that.
It's an illustration demonstrating your simplistic conclusions. Again, it was you who stated "minorities," but you shifted to "African-Americans" after showing you how minorities aren't wrapped up in this system of oppression. Now it's off limits because it undermines your point about how privileged white people are.
What culture would that be? African-American culture.
Yes. I'm referring to some of the aspects among African-American culture that negatively impact their community.
How does African-American culture differ from European-American culture?
One thing that comes to mind is gangster rap. And while that is a sub-culture within the overall culture, I'm sure you would agree that it is glorifying something that is very self-destructive.
Tell me, does your hypothesis have an explanation as to why if you send out two identical CVs, one with a white sounding name and one with a black sounding name...the white sounding named CV gets more interviews? Does the black CV not apply itself or something?
Yes, because people stick to what they know. It's not merely "black-sounding names," it's inclusive of most unique names. I have a friend who's named, "Sunbow," because his mom was a hippie. He had a lot of issues too. Not only do most black people have very Anglicized names, but plenty of white people have bizarre sounding names as well. How you name your child can have far-reaching effects on their success.
Now, is that very superficial and well, bullshit, to judge a person on their name? Yeah, I totally agree. But this emphasizes that this phenomenon encompasses everyone. It isn't specific to black people.
For some reason you get very energized when someone suggests discriminating against white people but its more apathy, denials and victim blaming when we're talking about discriminating against blacks.
Is it that I get energized when someone suggests discriminating against whites or do I think it's bullshit to punish innocent people period?
Your solution seems to be to discriminate against black on the sole basis they happen to be black to help white people on the sole basis that they so happen to be white. Because when you engage in denials as you have, you are arguing for the status quo. Which is discrimination against black people. That's my point.
What is it exactly that I am in denial about?
I really can't figure out what to criticize.
1) That Jewish oppression in Germany was only for one generation
2) That Jewish oppression has ended
3) That a generation of oppression is a reasonable comparator to the African-American experience
Ostensibly the Jewish could say they've always been oppressed. But that's not really the point. Are Germans today responsible for Jews today? Yes or no? If the answer is no, then how is that any different with the situation in America?
It's about acknowledging privileges given to us because of our race, not earned through character.
Maybe I just don't see things the way you do, but I certainly don't see how I'm privileged. For one thing, it makes a mockery of what I have been able to accomplish in my life, as if everything I have was handed to me on a silver platter or that it was at the expense of someone else.
Now, given this isn't about responsibility - how about you try and veer towards what I'm talking about?
I have been.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Modulous, posted 02-26-2016 3:41 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Modulous, posted 02-26-2016 2:49 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 207 by Genomicus, posted 02-26-2016 3:15 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 205 of 276 (778914)
02-26-2016 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Modulous
02-25-2016 9:10 PM


Re: some privilege
Yes, that was a debate tactic. I wasn't being dishonest. My debate strategy has nothing to do with whether or not white people have privilege and how white people should handle it's existence if it does.
I don't mean that you're being dishonest with the existence of white privilege, just that tactic is.
Like, there's a tacit insinutation of fault that, when responded to, is immediately discounted with explaining the lack of responsibility. Then you admit that you're appealing to emotion, so it looks like you don't mind that your opponent feals guilt, but you want to act like you're not trying to imply any. I dunno, it just smells scammy to me.
Why else would you dismiss something like this on the basis of 'some people argue in a way I don't like'?
When the concept is too loosey-goosey, such that people can consider normal things that practically everybody has as being a privilege (like having two legs), then I don't find any use for the concept.
Now, the academic concept doesn't look too bad to me, but really the only exposure to this concept I've had is on the internet, where the concept is being used in a way that really turns me off.
Sure, it may have happened and I wasn't aware of it, but I've never been in a situation where I've actually needed to.
Are you sure?
Well, it's literally never been brought up to me in RL (I've only seen it on the internet).
There may be situation where I could have, but it's never been something that I've needed to do.
Can you be sure in every single conversation you've ever had you haven't unconsciously made implicit assumptions in your speech, behaviour etc based around what you regard as 'the normal experience' without realizing that you were around people for whom that is not a common experience and actually a bit of a sore point?
That's not what I'm saying. If it has happened, it has never been a big enough deal for anyone to say anything.
Too, I don't really talk to a lot of people in RL except at work where I'm very professional.
By "being good", I mean that I'm already following the principles in that link. I'm not a dick to people in-person, not even ignorantly.
Assuming you are right - ultimately, you acknowledge your privileges when they arise and you treat others around you without the assumption that they share them. But you don't want to have anything to do with the concept of privilege?
No, in principle I'm good, but I don't use the concept of privilege.
I just realize that there are disadvantages that black people have that I don't have to deal with.
Maybe next time if someone asks you to 'check your privilege' you might have a kinder, more receptive response that doesn't necessarily accept guilt while simultaneously treating the concern seriously.
Well, it's never happened yet, and I don't feel any guilt. The only time guilt comes into play is when I see emotional appeals on the internet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Modulous, posted 02-25-2016 9:10 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Modulous, posted 02-26-2016 3:35 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 206 of 276 (778921)
02-26-2016 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Hyroglyphx
02-26-2016 5:11 AM


Re: the history and mathematics of prejudice
Yes, and perhaps in some instances it is a mischaracterization.
This is true of every characterisation in the universe.
. Again, it was you who stated "minorities," but you shifted to "African-Americans" after showing you how minorities aren't wrapped up in this system of oppression.
For at least the second time, you showed no such thing. You asserted it. There's a difference.
Furthermore, there is nothing odd about starting a debate with a general position which for the purposes of argument becomes more specific in discussion with a small number of people. This is normal and the fact that you think this means something in your favour somehow is most peculiar.
I didn't 'shift' when I was 'shown' otherwise. I focussed on the most glaring and obvious privilege situation in the USA because I was trying to persuade a USAian about privilege. Discussing subtle cases is less persuasive than the obvious ones.
Now it's off limits because it undermines your point about how privileged white people are.
I am happy to talk about white privilege in relation to Arab-Americans, Latin-Americans etc if you really want to. Rather than discuss hills, slopes, gradients, and bumps - I think it important to clear up that Mountains really do exist if someone denies even this. My complaint was that you want to talk about non-white privilege. Which is off topic. Go start your own topic on Asian privilege if you are so keen to discuss it.
How does African-American culture differ from European-American culture?
One thing that comes to mind is gangster rap. And while that is a sub-culture within the overall culture, I'm sure you would agree that it is glorifying something that is very self-destructive.
Congratulations on spectacularly missing/avoiding the point. You are now pointing to art and saying that is why Black people are doing poorly. It's foolish at best and also white people have various rap, including gangster rap in their culture. Check out the charts from the 70s through to the 90s. Those tapes and LPs weren't only bought by black people. Furthermore, white culture have grunge and death metal, for which similar arguments could be made.
Would you agree that an African-American is born into a culture that has been held back for centuries by white people? Would you agree that is not their fault? Would you agree that their music, from gospel to rap is music born of poverty and oppression? Blues, gospel soul or rap - can you not hear how social situations of the artists in question are informing their art?
quote:
Fuck the police coming straight from the underground
A young nigga got it bad cause I'm brown
And not the other color so police think
They have the authority to kill a minority
Fuck that shit, cause I ain't the one
For a punk motherfucker with a badge and a gun
To be beating on, and thrown in jail
We can go toe to toe in the middle of a cell
Fucking with me cause I'm a teenager
With a little bit of gold and a pager
Searching my car, looking for the product
Thinking every nigga is selling narcotics
NWA, Fuck the Police, Straight Outta Compton, 1988
If I am African-American and I am poor, what is the most likely reason? That my parents in the 60s, 70s, and 80s had a difficult time with employment and housing and were not able to participate fully in pursuit of the American dream? That when they were born, their parents had had it worse? And so on going back generations? Or do you rather think they had all the same opportunities and advantages as you but the pissed it away for some reason associated with their culture?
Yes, because people stick to what they know. It's not merely "black-sounding names," it's inclusive of most unique names.
That's fine. I look forward to you showing me the study that shows the effect is basically the same. Even if it is, it doesn't actually affect the point. White people still have the privilege having white sounding names more commonly than black people do. White people have the privilege of being able to use names from their own, mostly European, heritage without worrying about their child's future if they do so.
Now, is that very superficial and well, bullshit, to judge a person on their name? Yeah, I totally agree. But this emphasizes that this phenomenon encompasses everyone. It isn't specific to black people.
A fact that has never been in disagreement. Everybody has privileges somebody else hasn't, but likewise everybody lacks privileges somebody else has.
For some reason you get very energized when someone suggests discriminating against white people but its more apathy, denials and victim blaming when we're talking about discriminating against blacks.
Is it that I get energized when someone suggests discriminating against whites or do I think it's bullshit to punish innocent people period?
The only way in which this serves as a rebuttal to what I said is if you think black people are not innocent.
What is it exactly that I am in denial about?
Really? You've forgotten what it is you are arguing about now? White Privilege. You deny either its existence or its effects.
Are Germans today responsible for Jews today? Yes or no?
Sorry, the question is tricky parse.
Do we owe the existence of Jews to Germans? No
Are Germans responsible for their actions against Jews? Yes, same as anybody.
Are Germans morally culpable for the actions of their ancestors? No.
If the answer is no, then how is that any different with the situation in America?
It is not. How many times would you like me to say that this is not about holding contemporary white people responsible for historical white people's actions? I suppose you could I argue that I am suggesting that contemporary white people are responsible for the direction contemporary white culture goes in.
Maybe I just don't see things the way you do, but I certainly don't see how I'm privileged.
This is the standard position. It takes a little effort, and sometimes asking people who know you - especially other races, the disabled, the mentally ill etc., to understand.
I don't know you so it's difficult to really be specific and even if I managed to be perfectly right you could argue it and I'd have no way to disprove it. So here are some suggestions

Possible privileges you may have or had

1) You were born in America. This is a privilege. Most people are born in Indonesia, China, India and the like. Being born in America is therefore to be considered a huge privilege. The advantages afforded to you by the job market, the healthcare system, the military, the economy. These are all things that you did not earn, you were born with them - more or less.
2) You were born white. You've probably had very limited amount of stop and searches, police encounters when they occur are usually polite and cordial. The police are less likely to approach you with their gun aimed at you yelling various commands at you. It is likely that your high school experience didn't involve considerable amounts of exclusion and bullying by unenlightened children
3) You are neurotypical. You haven't spent life seen teenager years assaulted by hallucinations and delusions confirming your worthlessness and how disgusting and useless you are. You haven't had to realize that this state of being is likely to never be cured and you will feel like hell for your entire life, probably until your ultimate suicide - which you believe you're such a failure you'll not succeed at. You never have to worry about being tortured over whether you can trust yourself, whether others know and if they do whether are taking you seriously.
4) You are heterosexual. When you were a teenager, success or fail, you were confident that telling someone you found celebrity x or schoolmate y attractive would at worst only draw months of mockery rather than 5 years of beatings and ostracisation. You haven't needed to worry about becoming associated with a disease, being thought of as a disease, thought of as a paedophile, an zoophile, been denied adoption rights, being spat at, murdered, raped, etc etc just because the person you loved was a woman.
5) Your gender and sex align. You don't have always feel clumsy, ugly, ungainly, too short, too tall while being socially pressured into wearing clothes that exacerbate these feelings. You haven't had to spend time with a psychiatrist trying understand the nature of gender and sex and how this relates to your feelings, you've escaped life of feeling like a freak worrying that the only cure for that feeling is to go through a period of telling all your friends and family and all strangers you meet that you're a freak. You haven't fallen in love with someone and wondered if you left it too late to discuss how you feel about certain items of clothing. You haven't had the love of your life discover your taste in clothing and makeup choices in way that was shocking to her resulting in her insulting you to your core and a messy and humiliating divorce.
6) You are male. You haven't had a lifetime of people warning you about rape in some fashion every time you step outside alone, and you haven't had live under the same degree of risk of rape. You don't have worry about getting pregnant. You don't have menstrual cycles. You don't have spend $50-$100 on extra items of underwear, and the associated back aches, breast matter pains. If you like sex, you haven't had to worry about your reputation nearly as much. Casual sexual harrassment, groping and lewd comments if you've experienced are probably rare enough that you can remember each one specifically. The President has always been your sex/gender. As is most of the rest of government. The churches you attended were run by your sex.
For one thing, it makes a mockery of what I have been able to accomplish in my life, as if everything I have was handed to me on a silver platter or that it was at the expense of someone else.
I'm sure you worked hard for it.
Imagine how much harder schizophrenic black Nigerian immigrant transsexual women would have had to work to achieve what you did.
You honestly think it would be equally as hard for them? In Texas? You don't think they might have a lot more challenges to deal with? What if they were paralyzed?
Is the fact that man with no legs climbed Everest more incredible than a man with two working legs? Do you feel that by suggesting the man with no legs had to deal with additional challenges, making the accomplishment even sweeter and perhaps even greater...diminishes the able bodied man?
I don't think so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-26-2016 5:11 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 207 of 276 (778923)
02-26-2016 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Hyroglyphx
02-26-2016 5:11 AM


Re: the history and mathematics of prejudice
Maybe I just don't see things the way you do, but I certainly don't see how I'm privileged.
You are enormously privileged. Did you go to college? If yes, you had a greater chance of getting in because you're white. Because, e.g., SAT tests structurally favor whites. And SAT scores impact scholarship opportunities, too. And college choices, as well. Did you "earn" that privilege? Nope.
You also likely come from a family who earned more than African-American families, on average, earn. That right there is much more opportunity provided to you -- opportunity that you didn't earn.
Your parents are/were likely more literate than the average African-American parent, because their parents had greater educational opportunities. So, as a consequence, you have the privilege of being more or less literate. This isn't something you "earned," either.
You probably had a more decent house than the average African-American, when you were a child. You probably didn't go to bed hungry as often as African-American children do. Guess what? That certainly impacts educational outcomes. Did you earn that better house and better food choices? Not really.
You've had a better chance of getting employment than your African-American peers by virtue of the color of your skin and (likely) your name. So your standard of living is higher.
And you didn't have to walk the streets at night fearing you'd be shot to death.
By the police. Who are supposed to protect U.S. citizens but instead often choose to execute young black men in extrajudicial fashion.
For one thing, it makes a mockery of what I have been able to accomplish in my life, as if everything I have was handed to me on a silver platter or that it was at the expense of someone else.
Exactly as I suspected. You have an emotional bias towards not believing in your white privilege. A bit insecure, if you ask me.
Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.
Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-26-2016 5:11 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-27-2016 2:17 AM Genomicus has replied
 Message 216 by Jon, posted 02-27-2016 1:51 PM Genomicus has replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(1)
Message 208 of 276 (778924)
02-26-2016 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Hyroglyphx
02-26-2016 2:07 AM


Re: the history and mathematics of prejudice
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.
The problem here, Mod, is that you are only looking at one possible variable here as the reason. Do I think that systemic racism has contributed towards black people per capita earning less than whites? Absolutely. But would you likewise conclude that there is an unfair advantage for Asians knowing that, per capita, they not only make more money than anyone else, but also per capita get better grades?
You are not quite addressing what Mod said. Very appropriately, Mod stated that "the question is about history." It's part of a "long history of race relations." So automatically stating that Asian Americans have an unfair advantage without a look at the history of race relations which explain better GPA and SAT scores is a grossly flawed line of reasoning.
Are schools systematically "oppressing" white people...
Hardly.
...or is it simply that Asians are outperforming them...
Asian Americans do have a statistical propensity for outperforming whites on standardized educational tests, yes.
...perhaps because they have a culture that emphasizes the importance of school, hard work, and strategizing success?
Or perhaps you are falling for a myth that's been repeated to you by pop culture, without considering that the cultural value hypothesis to explain this phenomenon has been empirically falsified. Anecdotal speculation is hardly evidence.
The whole notion that Asian Americans have academically outperformed other races because of a cultural emphasis on the "importance of hard work and strategizing success" has been largely refuted by data (see the work by Dornbusch and colleagues).
Here's a more complete perspective on the above phenomenon (based on evidence outlined by Suzuki, 1977 and Sue and Okazaki, 2009):
- During the 1940s, labor unions specifically discriminated against Asians. So many Asian Americans were systematically excluded from manual labor jobs in a way that other minorities were not. This, coupled with advancing technologies and a post-WWII economy that demanded white collar technical professionals, meant that the only way for Asian Americans to achieve upward mobility was through education. They had no other choice, based on the racism of the 1940s.
- This trend was then reinforced by stereotype susceptibilities (see Shih et al., 1999). In other words, stereotypes about ethnic identity help shape performance -- not cultural values, but the stereotypes externally attributed to an ethnic/racial group by the predominant race.
- Blacks and African-Americans, on the other hand, have had to grope with systematic racism in a way that is much more deeply embedded and much more negative than encountered by other minorities.
At what point would you entertain the notion the possibility that, per capita, black people are underperforming?
That's not the point. We know that blacks and African-Americans, for example, score lower on SAT tests than whites. Why do you think this is the case? I'm curious here -- will you respond with knee-jerk anecdotal conjectures or actually look at the empirical evidence?
And there are many possible variables to account for that: One is that, yes, there is a history of oppression that negatively impacts the black community.
Yes, and there are many lines of very good evidence that support this thesis. Are you aware of this evidence? Have you looked into it?
Another would be a culture that promotes or fosters self-destructive behavior.
And why would a culture promote or foster self-destructive behavior? You're ignoring the history of race relations -- and decades of oppression -- and what this means for present African-American communities.
There are plenty of black voices that are critical of the black community in that regard.
Sure. And there have been many anti-Semitic Jews. What's your point?
Your solution is to discriminate against whites on the sole basis that they happen to be white to help black people on the sole basis that they so happen to be black?
Actually, it's not exactly discrimination. Here's an example: many whites (who are inordinately defensive about their privilege) think that Affirmative Action is "reverse racism" against whites. Well, let's tear this idea apart a bit. SAT tests are constructed in a way that positively inflate the scores of white test-takers, even whites who come from poverty (see Freedle, 2003). This is statistically significant. Now, SAT scores play an enormous role in college admissions. So to paint Affirmative Action as some weird discrimination against whites is to completely ignore this artifact of SAT test-taking.
One thing that comes to mind is gangster rap. And while that is a sub-culture within the overall culture, I'm sure you would agree that it is glorifying something that is very self-destructive.
See, Hyroglyphx, you don't even understand the historical and cultural context behind so-called gangster rap. Here's to ameliorating your myopic perspective:
"...rap constitutes a strident form of cultural combat and critique, it generates in response censorship, blacklisting, arrests, and the police-enforced cancellation of concerts. Rap's cultural roots and primary audience are among the minority residents of US inner cities. While many of these citizens are unable or unwilling to speak out -- for lack of access to cultural channels, for fear of reprisal -- rappers invoke a militant black pride, and portrays and confront social injustic in ways that threaten complacent status quo of mainstream society. As part of this critique, rappers lay bare the daily reality of police violence against minority populations..." From: Rap, Cops, and Crime: Clarifying the "Cop Killer" Controversy
Instead of taking the time to understand the cultural basis of rap, you're instead opting to assume you know what it's all about and how it affects blacks and African Americans. You don't know, though. You're not bringing any evidence that it's actually having a measurable, statistically significant negative affect. So why are you tacitly assuming that it does?
Yes, because people stick to what they know. It's not merely "black-sounding names," it's inclusive of most unique names. I have a friend who's named, "Sunbow," because his mom was a hippie. He had a lot of issues too. Not only do most black people have very Anglicized names, but plenty of white people have bizarre sounding names as well. How you name your child can have far-reaching effects on their success.
As usual, you're going for a very anecdotal line of thinking. The issue of racial discrimination as it comes to employment -- and with regards to Mod's example of a C.V. with a white-sounding name vs. a black-sounding name -- goes much deeper than just "people stick with what they know." Your friend Sunbow is going to have an easier time finding a job than Jamal, based only on his name. Here's one reason why: many employers don't carry out criminal background checks. Those who don't often assume that a candidate with a black-sounding name will have a prior criminal conviction. This is systematic bias and racism -- employers who do run criminal background checks are more likely to hire African-Americans than those who don't. Your perspectives on race appear to need a great deal more of nuance.
Are Germans today responsible for Jews today? Yes or no? If the answer is no, then how is that any different with the situation in America?
Wow, you really don't get it. First, African Americans are far more oppressed today than Jews are in present-day Germany. Secondly, African Americans are faced with what amounts to centuries of institutionalized and systematic racism from all sectors of society.
References
Dornbusch, et al., 1987. The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance.
Suzuki, R.H., 1977. Education and the socialization of Asian Americans: A revisionist analysis of the model minority thesis.
Sue, S., Okazaki, S., 2009. Asian-American Educational Achievements: A Phenomenon in Search of an Explanation.
Shih, et al., 1999. Stereotype Susceptibility: Identity Salience and Shifts in Quantitative Performance.
Freedle, R., 2003. Correcting the SAT's Ethnic and Social-Class Bias: A Method for Reestimating SAT Scores.
Edited by Genomicus, : Correcting embarrassing grammar errors n' stuff.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-26-2016 2:07 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-28-2016 1:08 AM Genomicus has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 209 of 276 (778925)
02-26-2016 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by New Cat's Eye
02-26-2016 10:35 AM


Re: some privilege
I don't mean that you're being dishonest with the existence of white privilege, just that tactic is.
Like, there's a tacit insinutation of fault that, when responded to, is immediately discounted with explaining the lack of responsibility.
Huh? There is no tacit insinuation of fault. If you feel that, I didn't put it there.
It's a perfectly simple question, shaved down to two races and some simple facts. If we decide a fair system is impossible, we are left with building an unfair one. We know the history and how it affects the people of today. Black people were denied so much for so long they have had to scrabble out of poverty through brazenly inequal situation and those black people today are still on average considerably behind the curve of white folks.
So do you choose to further disadvantage the disadvantaged?
Or do you choose to disadvantage the advantaged?
If you choose to further disadvantage a group of people with such a history of being disadvantaged then at THAT point guilt maybe appropriate.
If you choose to pull white people back slightly for a while so that black folks can progress by a greater degree for longer....it might be unfair but it seems to me to be preferable.
If you think that pointing out that black people have been disadvantaged, by the very race of people choosing whether to disadvantage them further is a dishonest tactic then fine.
It's kind of sad that you would rather focus on rhetorical style than the contents of the points being raised to the point of dismissing an entire area of academic study because of it. Furthermore, you will not be able to characterize my discussion as primarily pursuing emotional appeals (which are fine in human discourse - 'I have a dream', 'Ask not what your country...'. 'We band of brothers....') of this nature. For the most part EvC has decided my writing is rather cold and insensitive, or logical and pragmatic depending on your stance. I think that characterisation describes my contribution here. For all the discussion about it, it was a few lines of text among my many in this thread.
And the person I was addressing? Just so we're clear, has blamed black people, for their difficulties getting employment - citing that other races hate them so there must be something in it. Has pointed out that their culture's art, symbolized by gangster rap, is evidence of self-destructive character of African-American culture....all he has said about white privilege comes down to that he doesn't have it and he shouldn't feel guilty.
But it's my debating tactic that turns you off. OK.
Now, the academic concept doesn't look too bad to me, but really the only exposure to this concept I've had is on the internet, where the concept is being used in a way that really turns me off.
Then learn about it and win arguments against people not doing it right. It's rich pickings on either side of the debate. I'm guessing this is quite common when technical terms enter common vernacular. If you are successful you can contribute towards correcting misconceptions and changing the way it is used. Win-win.
Incidentally - that is exactly how I started debating the concept.
Well, it's literally never been brought up to me in RL
That's hardly unexpected. Just as when someone's obliviousness offends you in fleshtime conversations, most of the time you probably decide making a big deal out of it would damage the relationship more than the occasionally inadvertent offensive comment. If you are in a minority position, that pressure is probably just that bit greater.
I just realize that there are disadvantages that black people have that I don't have to deal with.
The fun thing about English is the way you can move words around to express the same state of affairs.
quote:
I just realize that there are privileges I have that black people don't.
It's actually more succinct, for what its worth. As I said - if you want to avoid certain words you can. You can ensure every sentence is structured in terms of synonyms for 'disadvantages' if you like. It's a little negative, a little limiting - but it's your speech.
Well, it's never happened yet, and I don't feel any guilt.
Nobody has asked you to check your privilege?
Check your privilege!
Oh, I guess you just lost that privilege, never mind
There is no reason to feel any guilt about having privileges. Nor is there any shame in having disadvantages.
The only shame around this that I might try and dish out is on those that refuse to acknowledge their privileges, or if you prefer, others disadvantages.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-26-2016 10:35 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-26-2016 4:14 PM Modulous has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 210 of 276 (778928)
02-26-2016 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Modulous
02-26-2016 3:35 PM


Re: some privilege
Huh? There is no tacit insinuation of fault. If you feel that, I didn't put it there.
I don't feel it, I see it. And it's not just you.
It's the general way the concept is argued on the internet.
Consider it constructive criticism; the standard way of arguing against white people about thier privileges contains some counter-productive rhetoric.
It's a perfectly simple question, shaved down to two races and some simple facts.
I haven't even addressed that question.
I just realize that there are disadvantages that black people have that I don't have to deal with.
The fun thing about English is the way you can move words around to express the same state of affairs.
quote:
I just realize that there are privileges I have that black people don't.
It's actually more succinct, for what its worth.
Maybe by word count, but what we're talking about is:
quote:
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.
Ugh, I'll just stick with: Person A has a disadvantage.
Nobody has asked you to check your privilege?
Check your privilege!
Nope, you are the first one.
So what am I supposed to actually do?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Modulous, posted 02-26-2016 3:35 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2016 5:00 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 212 by Modulous, posted 02-26-2016 5:22 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024