Chewbacca mom accused of white privilege

[*bfine32*]

(06-23-2016, 12:05 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You're all over the place here. You're asking about whether I would judge one person based on their race, religion, sex, or membership of another class when making a hiring decision, so, yea, you're asking about an individual. 

Somehow this makes me a hypocrite... not sure how not discriminating makes me a hypocrite, but I am sure you'll be able to tell me. 

I'm also not sure how I wasn't concerned about the individual when I cited the Princeton study on callbacks if I was explaining how the individual is ignored and their skin color is looked at.

And, yes, you are aware that my answer is I would not discriminate on the basis on skin color when hiring. 

I'm glad we found common ground on white privilege is bullshit and the person should be based on their individual merit instead of a class they belong to. 

But to the rest it was selecting from  a pool of individuals. You quote and adhere to a "study" that says what you want them to say about demographics, yet dismiss actual numbers because we must consider the individual.  

[BmorePat87]

(06-23-2016, 12:12 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm glad we found common ground on white privilege is bullshit and the person should be based on their individual merit instead of a class they belong to. 

I do agree that a person should be judged on their merit but you must have misread something I posted if you believe I think the concept of white privilege is inaccurate. 

Quote:But to the rest it was selecting from  a pool of individuals. You quote and adhere to a "study" that says what you want them to say about demographics, yet dismiss actual numbers because we must consider the individual.  

So you are asking if I would dismiss all candidates belonging to a particular race from a pool of candidates (this is the first time you've said pool)? No, of course not.

As for the study, which it is (not sure why there were quotes), I'm still not sure what you're getting at here. What contradiction exist in being against discrimination while concurrently recognizing that college educated black males get just as many call backs as white males with criminal records? If anything, recognizing the findings of the Princeton study validates my anti-discrimination stance. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-23-2016, 12:33 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I do agree that a person should be judged on their merit but you must have misread something I posted if you believe I think the concept of white privilege is inaccurate. 




So you are asking if I would dismiss all candidates belonging to a particular race from a pool of candidates (this is the first time you've said pool)? No, of course not.

As for the study, which it is (not sure why there were quotes), I'm still not sure what you're getting at here. What contradiction exist in being against discrimination while concurrently recognizing that college educated black males get just as many call backs as white males with criminal records? If anything, recognizing the findings of the Princeton study validates my anti-discrimination stance. 

Nobody said dismiss a candidate but you. I simply asked if you would consider it. 

But enough. I got all I need.  

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-23-2016, 12:12 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm glad we found common ground on white privilege is bullshit and the person should be based on their individual merit instead of a class they belong to. 

You're asking a guy that's never given an indication that he would discriminate. What about all the people out there that would discriminate on your basis?

You know, all the ones that helped create the term "white privilege". 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-22-2016, 10:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ...and you're awfully pissy for a guy that didn't know the correct term. We can just "pretend" I knew the answer when I corrected you on the term.

Yeah, I believe you suggested I "goggle" it so by your logic you don't know WTF Google is.

I noticed you still haven't answered my question. If you refuse to answer questions WTF do you think others are obligated to answer your questions?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-22-2016, 10:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course I would. Most have shown a strong work ethic and ability to work under adverse conditions. What does that have to do with committing violent crime? 

According to the profile for lone shooters in the workplace, you and I are more likely to shoot and kill our co-workers compared to our civilian counterparts without military experience.

You can goggle that shit, if you like, for confirmation.

[BmorePat87]

(06-23-2016, 07:41 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Yeah, I believe you suggested I "goggle" it so by your logic you don't know WTF Google is.  

I noticed you still haven't answered my question. If you refuse to answer questions WTF do you think others are obligated to answer your questions?

He argued for 12 hours that I shouldn't use the actual definition of "sexuality" and should instead use the one he made up. I wouldn't worry about his attempts to smack you for misusing a word. 

[Griever]

(06-23-2016, 10:45 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: He argued for 12 hours that I shouldn't use the actual definition of "sexuality" and should instead use the one he made up. I wouldn't worry about his attempts to smack you for misusing a word. 

maybe bfine has a brain injury

[Rotobeast]

(06-23-2016, 11:15 AM)Griever Wrote: maybe bfine has a brain injury

Or maybe he enjoys trolling the bejesus out of you guys ?
It's like bobber-fishing for bluegill.

[Griever]

(06-23-2016, 11:42 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: Or maybe he enjoys trolling the bejesus out of you guys ?
It's like bobber-fishing for bluegill.

theres trolling, and then theres just being stupid about it

he leans more on the side of just being a plain dumbass

[*bfine32*]

(06-23-2016, 10:45 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: He argued for 12 hours that I shouldn't use the actual definition of "sexuality" and should instead use the one he made up. I wouldn't worry about his attempts to smack you for misusing a word. 

This may have merit if I were the one that kept bring up things from other threads. Short of that, unlike your head, you have no point.

[Rotobeast]

(06-23-2016, 11:50 AM)Griever Wrote: theres trolling, and then theres just being stupid about it

he leans more on the side of just being a plain dumbass

You know the different methods.
This is the ignore into the slow poke method.

[*bfine32*]

(06-23-2016, 07:41 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Yeah, I believe you suggested I "goggle" it so by your logic you don't know WTF Google is.

I noticed you still haven't answered my question. If you refuse to answer questions WTF do you think others are obligated to answer your questions?

..and as I said, we can consider you the expert of the proper spelling of internet browsers; just leave the weapons and their functions to the experts.

[*bfine32*]

(06-23-2016, 11:50 AM)Griever Wrote: theres trolling, and then theres just being stupid about it

he leans more on the side of just being a plain dumbass

there's

dumbass

[GMDino]

(06-23-2016, 12:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This may have merit if I were the one that kept bring up things from other threads. Short of that, unlike your head, you have no point.

(06-18-2016, 10:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hows about we just roll with the old rule. Attack the message, not the messenger?

[Griever]

(06-23-2016, 12:05 PM)GMDino Wrote:

yeah hes such a hypocrite

[*PhilHos*]

(06-22-2016, 12:48 PM)Nately120 Wrote: So basically studies that show a statistically significant racial bias towards blacks don't count according to you?  Or is it that they show being black can be a detriment, and not necessarily that being white is beneficial?

Studies only SHOW something. They rarely, if ever, show causation. So, sure a study can show that there is racial discrimination somewhere. That doesn't automatically mean that the cause of said discrimination is 'white privilege'.

(06-22-2016, 02:20 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: "I understand that anecdotal evidence can't be generalized. Having said that, white privilege cannot exist because I haven't seen it". 




Umm... yea... your white privilege is your treatment in society that differs from others who are victims of intentional or unintentional racial discrimination. 

What do you think white privilege is?

FYI, misrepresenting my point only makes it seem as if YOU have no real argument. I've said white privilege does not exist because I haven't seen it AND that there hasn't been any evidence of it shown.

(06-22-2016, 04:01 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Well the first part is just false. You don't need it to be applied to every single person for it to be a reality.

Yes, you do, other then it's not a privilege for that group. If every white person doesn't beneift from white privilege, then it truly isn't white privilege. 

(06-22-2016, 06:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How would you even know if you benefited from it?

How did the white people who were given more options for places to live or got call backs to job interviews know they were benefiting from white privilege.

In fact the level of your denial when faced with direct proof makes me feel that you know you have benefited from it.  "Me thinks the man doth protest too much."

What direct proof? No one has provided direct proof of white privilege yet. Those aforementioned studies don't prove white privilege; only that there seems to be some racial discrimination going on in hiring. And outside of that, there has been nothing else coming close to evidence.

Also, I may have missed your response, but I asked you to provide me a list of the privileges that I have as a white man making $30,000 a year that Oprah Winfrey does not currently enjoy.

[*bfine32*]

(06-23-2016, 12:18 PM)Griever Wrote: yeah hes such a hypocrite

Oh allow me to clarify and alleviate your confusion on the suggestion of attacking the message and not the messenger:

When you reply to a message and that reply is directly related to the original message then you are attacking the message, even if you through a little flair in there. For example:

Poster A: I would not hire a homosexual
Poster B: That is most likely because you are homophobic

While this reply points to the character of Poster A; it clearly is in direct response to the message; therefore, attacking the message.

When you reply to a message and that reply is not related to the original message then you are attacking the messenger. For example:

Poster A: Suddenly very interested in the specific study and the specific person. Answer my question and I'll answer yours. Sound fair enough?
Poster B: You're awfully pissy for a guy who still hasn't given me the answer for the cyclic rate for a M4.

or

Poster A: I think it only fair that the UK hold a vote to determine if they want to remain a member of the EU
Poster B: That’s because you are a racist, bigoted, homophobic idiot

Theses replies are in no way related to the topic at hand and brings up something from a totally unrelated subject; therefore, attacking the messenger.

Let me know if you require additional example for clarity, as I am sure I can find them for you. Perhaps in this very thread.

[GMDino]

(06-23-2016, 12:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh allow me to clarify and alleviate your confusion on the suggestion of attacking the message and not the messenger:

When you reply to a message and that reply is directly related to the original message then you are attacking the message, even if you through a little flair in there. For example:

Poster A: I would not hire a homosexual
Poster B: That is most likely because you are homophobic

While this reply points to the character of Poster A; it clearly is in direct response to the message; therefore, attacking the message.

When you reply to a message and that reply is not related to the original message then you are attacking the messenger. For example:

Poster A: Suddenly very interested in the specific study and the specific person. Answer my question and I'll answer yours. Sound fair enough?
Poster B: You're awfully pissy for a guy who still hasn't given me the answer for the cyclic rate for a M4.

or

Poster A: I think it only fair that the UK hold a vote to determine if they want to remain a member of the EU
Poster B: That’s because you are a racist, bigoted, homophobic idiot

Theses replies are in no way related to the topic at hand and brings up something from a totally unrelated subject; therefore, attacking the messenger.

Let me know if you require additional example for clarity, as I am sure I can find them for you. Perhaps in this very thread.

So are you saying calling people names and/or referring to things they have posted in other threads and/or dragging irrelevant details about their personal life into a discussion is "A" or "B"?

Also, would a person posting like "B" over and over while calling for such things to stop be simply a hypocrite or a dbag?

I'll eagerly await you to ignore me and not respond to me in a passive aggressive way.

[Griever]

(06-23-2016, 12:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh allow me to clarify and alleviate your confusion on the suggestion of attacking the message and not the messenger:

oh there's no confusion

you're a hypocrite

you wouldn't be a good christian if you weren't