White Privilege?

[fredtoast]

(07-06-2018, 12:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope, can honestly say I have never visited the site and if not for this forum, I would be unaware of his existence. 

You are so ignorant of politics that you never heard of Steve Bannon?

 

That's almost as good as your claim that you don't support Trump.

[fredtoast]

(07-06-2018, 01:07 PM)Beaker Wrote: It is my belief that terms and ideas such as white privilege and institutional racism are covered under the umbrella of racism. We dont need them to further divide us.

I don't see how "white privilege" is any more divisive than "racism".

[Millhouse]

Shouldn't it be "ORANGE privilege"? Get it, orange!    

[*bfine32*]

(07-06-2018, 01:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You are so ignorant of politics that you never heard of Steve Bannon?

 

That's almost as good as your claim that you don't support Trump.

Sure I've heard of Steve Bannon. I don't know how much slower I can type the next part. I have supported Trump on numerous occasions. Have no idea where this false narrative come from. 

[Beaker]

(07-06-2018, 01:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't see how "white privilege" is any more divisive than "racism".

Because its already covered under racism. Adding more ways to say the same thing simply makes the problem seem larger, and provides another way for people to feel downtrodden. Therefore it's exacerbating and divisive.

To me, there is privilege anytime someone favors another based upon the color of their skin....and isn't that kinda the definition of racism? If a black person favors another black person simply based upon skin color rather than merit, then that person has been extended black privilege. Same for all types of privilege. When in reality, it's simply racism.

[fredtoast]

(07-06-2018, 03:04 PM)Beaker Wrote: To me, there is privilege anytime someone favors another based upon the color of their skin....and isn't that kinda the definition of racism? If a black person favors another black person simply based upon skin color rather than merit, then that person has been extended black privilege. Same for all types of privilege. When in reality, it's simply racism.

This post proves why we need the term "white privilege".

All races are guilty of racism, but it is only a privilege to the majority race that controls a disproportionate amount of the power and wealth.

[jj22]

(07-06-2018, 01:07 PM)Beaker Wrote: It is my belief that terms and ideas such as white privilege and institutional racism are covered under the umbrella of racism. We dont need them to further divide us.

I don't consider either "racism". People don't really know they are doing this it's just "natural" based on generations of stereotypes etc. Most people who vote for Trump under these circumstances aren't thinking "he's white so it's ok". It's just if he was black the perception would be different, but people wouldn't say it was because he was "black". I don't know if I'm explaining that clear. I don't think either is "racism" tho.

[jj22]

(07-06-2018, 03:04 PM)Beaker Wrote: Because its already covered under racism. Adding more ways to say the same thing simply makes the problem seem larger, and provides another way for people to feel downtrodden. Therefore it's exacerbating and divisive.

To me, there is privilege anytime someone favors another based upon the color of their skin....and isn't that kinda the definition of racism? If a black person favors another black person simply based upon skin color rather than merit, then that person has been extended black privilege. Same for all types of privilege. When in reality, it's simply racism.

No the definition of racism is a majority race using prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

Minorities can't argue their race is superior because quite frankly there just isn't enough of them to use that to hold the Majority race down. Black people can not like white people, I'm sure there are those that don't, but they have no control to disenfranchise a majority race. However the majority race, if they don't like a minority race can. Which is why black people can't be racist. They can just not like White people, but a minority race would never be able to enslave a majority race, establish Jim Crow laws, commit a holocaust against the majority race etc.

I think people misuse the term racism. But a minority race can never be racist to a majority race.

[fredtoast]

(07-06-2018, 03:17 PM)jj22 Wrote: No the definition of racism is a majority race using prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

I think people misuse the term racism. But a minority race can never be racist to a majority race.

I disagree with the semantics.

Any race can be racist.

Only the majority can be oppressive.  Unless you are a rapper a white person in the United States can not complain about being held back by race.

[jj22]

I connect racism to oppression (good term). If not then it's just a white person not liking black people, or black people not liking a white person but so what? People can like or dislike who they want. It only matters if they can oppress based on that dislike.

It's the act of oppression that changes regular old "hate" to racism. That's what I've always felt anyway. But it's just my opinion I'm willing to listen to others thoughts on my statement.

If I walk into a store and the manager doesn't like me because I'm black. Then people would claim he was racist. I disagree. If he can't do anything to stop me from shopping, coming in his store etc then really he and his feelings means nothing. I personally don't see that as racism because he is powerless.

I don't know. Racist as a term is so overused that it's true meaning has evolved over time.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-06-2018, 11:29 AM)Benton Wrote: I agree with Fred, it's more about politics than skin color.

Obama got called out for everything he did not because he was black, but because he wasn't a Republican. Clinton was the same. When the GOP finally had enough to go after him, they impeached. Clinton's impeachment had nothing to do with getting a BJ — a good chunk of congress at the time was cheating on their spouses (many with members of the same sex) — and all to do with political standing. Clinton was well liked and the country was in good shape, Republicans were in danger of losing everything if they couldn't rally the base or slander the POTUS. If we hadn't cut taxes and gone to war at the same time under Bush, the cuts under Clinton and Congress would have started to reduce the deficit a couple years after he left office. A democrat that lowered the deficit? That would have crippled the GOP, so they need to impeach. Of course, it didn't matter as we got W's cuts and a super expensive war.

You are correct.  It had a lot to do with a felony.

[fredtoast]

(07-06-2018, 03:45 PM)michaelsean Wrote: You are correct.  It had a lot to do with a felony.

Lying about an extra-marital affair?


Sounds kind of funny now doesn't it.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-06-2018, 03:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Lying about an extra-marital affair?


Sounds kind of funny now doesn't it.

Just don't do it under oath I guess would be the lesson here. He didn't did he? I can't keep track of what he said when anymore.

[Beaker]

(07-06-2018, 03:17 PM)jj22 Wrote: No the definition of racism is a majority race using prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

Racism is simply favoring one race over another based upon skin color. It has nothing to do with majority.

racism


[rey-siz-uh m]
ExamplesWord Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
   

[Beaker]

(07-06-2018, 03:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This post proves why we need the term "white privilege".

All races are guilty of racism, but it is only a privilege to the majority race that controls a disproportionate amount of the power and wealth.

Its privilege if you are given an advantage. If you are given an advantage based solely upon your skin color, then the person who gave you that advantage is racist. It does not matter whether that racist person is in the majority or not. 

[fredtoast]

(07-06-2018, 04:06 PM)Beaker Wrote: Its privilege if you are given an advantage. If you are given an advantage based solely upon your skin color, then the person who gave you that advantage is racist. It does not matter whether that racist person is in the majority or not. 

If one group controls a disproportionate amount of the power and wealth it makes a big difference.  It is a privilege to belong to that race because they have the control and power to help (or hurt) you more.

The racism today is not as extreme as it was 70 years ago in the south, but you do agree that there was a white privilege back then, correct?

[*michaelsean*]

I don't like the term white privilege, and that knapsack of unearned assets. It seems more a case of minorities being denied God given or however you want to think of them liberties. Any example of white privilege seems to really be liberty that all should have. Not being pulled over because of your skin color is not a privilege, it is a right denied to some.

[jj22]

(07-06-2018, 03:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I disagree with the semantics.

Any race can be racist.

Only the majority can be oppressive.  Unless you are a rapper a white person in the United States can not complain about being held back by race.

Or a cornerback!

[Beaker]

(07-06-2018, 03:41 PM)jj22 Wrote: I connect racism to oppression (good term). If not then it's just a white person not liking black people, or black people not liking a white person but so what? People can like or dislike who they want. It only matters if they can oppress based on that dislike.

What if the black boss fails to promote a white subordinate because he doesn't like white people? I would argue that's both racism and oppression. And if he promotes a less qualified black subordinate over the more qualified white subordinate, then that would be privilege. 

That example of privilege was obtained due to a person who was racist. That's why it is my opinion that terms like white privilege are covered under the umbrella of racism and are therefore not needed. 

[fredtoast]

(07-06-2018, 04:11 PM)jj22 Wrote: Or a cornerback!

I believe sports today are pretty much a true meritocracy.  Black QBs have become so common I don't even think of their race anymore.