02-14-2016, 07:43 PM
(02-14-2016, 05:25 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Exactly, I didn’t say that white people don’t struggle. If your point was to state that you disagree with me that blacks struggle more than whites in this country then state your point instead of saying I said something I never said, because saying “white people don’t struggle” and “blacks struggle more than whites” are two different statements. One infers that whites don’t have any problems and the other infers that whites and blacks struggle but blacks experience more struggle than their white counterparts.
Then you go on to say
Yet another episode of “Let’s put words in this guy’s mouth”, Just because I think blacks struggle more than whites does not mean I think black people “deserve” to complain about white privilege. I think the struggles of black people go beyond the reaches of white privilege. However, I think white privilege has been part of the problem, but I don’t think that white privilege is the main problem or even the “biggest” problem. I simply acknowledge it as part of the problem.
Also, you again seem to put words into my mouth about “ignoring white struggles”. I think struggles of all people should be taken seriously, given that such struggles are not due to their own negative actions and are actual struggles.
So are you saying I did say those things? Because if so than you’re a liar. What you’re trying to do here is twist my arguments in a way that you can control my position and context. First what you did was say that I said “White’s don’t struggle” which was something I never said, then you go on to admit that I actually never did say that (effectively conceding that you did in fact use a strawman argument). So no, I didn’t have to say you used a strawman argument because you already convicted yourself of that. Next you go on to say that I said “Blacks struggle more than whites, which means you’re saying blacks deserve to complain about white privilege”. Umm, no I never said that either.
You see, there you go again trying to say “what I said” when it actually isn’t even what I said. You’re trying to control the argument by telling me “what I mean” when that is simply not the case. That is what you assume or believe I mean and thus are creating arguments for me that I never argued in an attempt to slander my position.
Well thanks for clarifying, I honestly didn’t know what you meant by the term.
Well no, white privilege isn’t a form of oppression. White privilege is white privilege. People can be oppressive towards those who they perceive to have white privilege, but white privilege in itself is not oppressive. White privilege is privileges given to whites based on their skin color, just as black privilege is privileges given to blacks based on the fact that they’re black or how homosexual privileges are privileges given to individuals based on the fact that they’re homosexual.
Again you seem to be acting as if I’m making the argument that black people are always being called thugs by white people. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that a black man is more likely to be considered a “thug” than a white guy. A black guy is more likely to be followed through the store than a white guy. A black guy is more likely to be considered “dangerous” than a white guy. This is part of what white privilege is, where white people are given the benefit of the doubt more than black people.
So I have to be white to know how white people get treated in this country? Again, if this is true, why then are you even arguing with me? You just contradicted yourself by saying that we both have to be a part of each other’s races to know how our races are treated. If that’s true then this argument is pointless.
And what gave you this conclusion? The fact that I’m talking more about white privilege than black privilege? Well of course I am, is that not the main topic we’re discussing here? What I’ve really noticed here is that you’re good at assuming things about your opposition that aren’t true and making arguments for them they never made. I could talk more about black privilege but the argument here has been about white privilege so that’s what I’ve focused on. Just because I’m focusing on white privilege does not mean I don’t “see the black privilege I have”. As a matter of fact I do see that and if I can recall, I even mentioned in my first post and acknowledged that black privilege does exist just as privileges exist for everyone in different ways. So how you came to the conclusion that I don’t “see my black privilege” is beyond me.
Because youtube videos are the holy grail of academic research. Give me a break man. Here you go again saying “This is probably one of your videos that proves racial profiling right?” Nope not really. I would rather get more context as to what happened in this particular instance because there isn’t much proof of anything here other than “what the cop said” and “what the black guy said”. However you somehow concluded that this cop wasn’t harassing this man even though you really have no clue what happened other than what the video portrays, leaving the viewer to interpret the matter. And then you go on to complain about how the black man was being “non-compliant and argumentative”. Maybe if you stopped and think that for a second maybe this cop did do something wrong, then you could understand this man’s possible reason for being “non-compliant”. I find it strange that whenever it comes to “black-compliance” people like you always want to say that black people shouldn’t be arguing with the cops and instead be complying with their requests and not back talk. Why? Because cops are always right and the citizen is always wrong? If you believe that then you are a very delusional man.
In addition to this, what I find ridiculous is that you somehow expected me to take you seriously when you posted a 15 minute video that specifically picks bits and pieces from various news stories that show “black on white crimes” and tried to compare it to a video that is not even 2 minutes long that shows a questionable confrontation between a black man and a white cop as if these 2 videos are even comparable and somehow account for years of social experience and represent a wholesome collective of analytical data. I mean really?
You’re going to seriously sit here and act like the N word and the C word carry the same weight? The N word has been used as a way to perpetuate the idea that black people are a bunch of lazy, welfare ridden, uneducated thugs. That is not even close to what the C word means for white people. When a black guy calls a white guy the C word it is the equivalent of saying that they’re “Just another white guy that hates/is racist towards black people.” Those two words have never carried the same weight and to act like they do is ridiculous. Blacks are seen as no good low lifes and whites are seen as a bunch of racists in the contexts of these words. Neither of the words should be used, but they’re definitely not the same.
What world do you live in? That is not reality. You say that if I want equality I would be equally outraged at white slurs as I am with black slurs, but that is not how the human brain works. Human emotion is not a matter of picking and choosing what and what not to get mad at. Emotions are spontaneous reactions of the brain. People are naturally offended by certain things based on their race, religion, upbringing etc…
I don't think black people should be insulting white people in that way either, but to act like I'm somehow supposed to be "equally outraged" in order to get equality is devoid of any realistic notion.
Nor has that been my objective.
Do you not see the ignorance in what you just said? You’re essentially saying that unless blacks experience something that whites haven’t then there is nothing that black people can complain about experiencing because whites have experienced those things too. So then if tomorrow a bunch of black people rose up and started enslaving a bunch of whites and hanging them on trees you wouldn’t see much to complain about because blacks already experienced those things? Get real.
You again are missing the point. It is not about what blacks have experienced and what whites haven’t. It’s about who experiences those things more.
I will say this. I feel that in order for there to be equality there needs to be equal treatment of everyone. Clearly that will never happen because that in itself is an impossible feat to achieve due to our human nature and inability to be perfect.
I will tell you right now that I am not on the black side and I am not on the white side either. I think both sides are wrong for different reasons. As long as there are people like you who want to believe that black people are just a bunch of complainers and as long as there are black people who want to feel like the white man is always out to get them then the world will never be any closer to an equal state.
Semantics - you claim MORE suffering, so you think blacks aren't privilege or that the privilege is justified because whites have more of it. So White privilege cancels out black privilege to the point of no privilege for blacks, yet white privilege still exist since there is more of it and no way to cancel the rest out. So you just want to hear, I disagree with you? Fine, I disagree with you.
It's isn't me putting words in you mouth as much as it is taking what you say at face value, this is a big issue with MBs and chat rooms, since there aren't the other factors of communication to use to get a broader picture of what you mean. So people have to fill in the blanks of sorts to get the idea, then we post the idea back to see if we got it correct. I do better with face to face debates than with MB debates. Though conversations with me can take hours, which depending on how sensitive you are to things, can either be highly enjoyable or completely uncomfortable. I like strong people, so my friends aren't so delicate as the snowflakes found on MBs.
I see you are a lot like the other members of this board, you say something and then shout. Strawman! I didn't say that. You are making assumptions! Since I will take what you put at face value, then be sure to be very precise in what you are saying. A lot of your argument has been "You're putting words in my mouth". What I am doing is taking what you said, and repeating back to you in my own words, along with counterpoints, this is called effective communication.
So again, I disagree with your premise that blacks have privilege but whites have more privilege. That to me suggest that there is an imbalance in the Force that needs correcting. If both of us are privileged then why even mention mine?
The reason white privilege is a form of oppression, is because of the way it is used... Check your Privilege. That is not something you will ever hear a white person say to a black person (well maybe with me, but I am racist so I don't count). It is used to tell silence a person because they aren't apart of a marginalized group. The term was first used by a liberal feminist when discussing her perceptions of supposed disparities between men and women. Just as mansplaining before it, liberals adapted it to fit whites. Think about this...
Black man - You don't KNOW what it is like being a black man in America,
Liberals (all ethnicities) Why don't you tell us about them, we want to make it easier for you.
White man - Well it isn't easy being a white man in America either.
Liberals- Check your privilege! As if a white man in America can be marginalized, YOU don't know what black people have to go through.
Do you see the hypocrisy here? The liberals are marginalizing the white man by not even wanting to hear what he has to say, yet pretend that his voice is heard. Then they actually use a factual statement but in a dishonest way. A white man doesn't know what a black man goes through, so he goes along with staying silent and unheard. However, people like me, refuse to stay silent, I point out that a black man doesn't know what white people go through either. It is a "grass isn't always greener" scenario. You can never know fully what it feels like being white, you can empathize and sympathize, but you can't fully know. Just like I can't fully know about being black.
You are welcome btw, I have no problem explaining terms to people that are honest enough to not know them. You won't hear blacksplaining on the MSM, but you will hear whitesplaining and mansplaining.
Moving on - I would have to disagree again. Black men aren't considered more dangerous, the crime statistics do paint a more negative light on blacks, but people by nature are cautious around strangers. Especially women. I have myself been given the "is he still looking" side glance from black women when walking past. I have also been followed in a store. Again, this is a perception that is noticed by blacks, and not noticed by whites. A white man might be followed around a store, but he doesn't pay attention to it, so to him it doesn't happen. Blacks have been told that it happens, so they look for it. You know what they say about those who look really hard for something?
A white man might go into 10 shops and be followed by 7 store owners, since he isn't looking because he has been told it doesn't happen to him, he doesn't even notice it. So he doesn't say anything about it.
A black man might go into the same 10 shops and on the very last one is followed, since he is looking for it because he has been told that it happens, he does notice it. Then he tells his family and friends, "can you believe I went out shopping today and at ____ I was followed around?" He doesn't mention that in the other 9 shops he wasn't followed. So to him in his mind, he is the victim of racial profiling.
Now to go even more deeper in this hypothetical, that would change the dynamic - that 10th shop actually was just robbed recently and he actually followed both the white guy and black guy, so he wasn't actually racially profiling, he was just being cautious from a past experience. Again, the white guy wasn't looking for it, and the black guy was.
Youtube isn't scientific data, but it is a great source to get additional information and to use as a resource for proving points. (Funny how you claim I put words and thoughts in your mouth, but you go on to make the assumption that I think youtube is scientific).
I posted the 1st video that came in the search of youtube for "Black on white crime" and "Police racially profiling", these were the 2 that popped up. The point wasn't the length of the video, the point is that there is information out there that is counter to the narrative being fed by the MMSM (that is Mass Mainstream Media). The broader point was your contention that whites aren't profiled or under any threat in America for being white. The first video disproves this. You said you could find videos showing police racially profiling blacks, so I have asked you to provide one. I even posted one that you might find and gave commentary on how even though the video tries to show profiling, it actually doesn't. Since as you have said, there isn't enough information.
Again, you make a big fuss about me arguing points that you didn't make but then you make claims against me that I didn't make (I can't blame you, since I have already gone over this above, I am just pointing out that YOU do it to.
) I have never said the guy in the 2nd video wasn't racially profiled (he might have been), I am just saying that the video doesn't PROVE racial profiling. I also have never said that black men should be compliant, I am just saying that in the video the man is not very compliant. You don't know this about me, but I am not a very pro police person. I don't like the police myself. It isn't the individuals as much as the concept in general, but that is a different discussion.However there is merit to not fighting against the police, be compliant. This goes back to the above about perceptions. If you are told repeatedly that black men are stopped by the police more, and that the only reason the police are stopping you is because you are black, then when a police officer approaches you, what is the first thing you think? To me it is only natural to think that you are being racially profiled. However, if the police officer is responding to a call of a suspicious person in the area that just committed an armed robbery and the description of the suspect is a black male of average height (which I hate that description, what is average?) and he is stopping you, if you decide at that moment to try and call him out, it will more than likely end badly for you, if you survive, will you believe the officer wasn't racially profiling you and was just responding to a call and that you fit the description of the suspect? Perception.
Yay.. back to the name calling. (Which honestly is the only reason I am responding, the other stuff is fluff, they are full of points, but this one is the one I was looking toward discussion.)
The N word- the word comes from Latin, nigrum, meaning black. It has morphed through time and languages and in many languages they still use a semblance of the word. Spanish uses, Negro, and the slave owners in the south (which is close to Spanish speaking Mexico) would further bastardize the word to what we call the N word. The word has negative connotation because that is what the white masters called their slaves. However, the meaning of the word is black. The root is even used in anthropological names, Negroid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroid
Contrary to popularity, and also perception (that word again), it doesn't actually mean lazy, welfare ridden, uneducated thugs. The term was used in conjunction with those terms. I can still call you a lazy person. However if I wanted to be specific I would say you are a lazy N-word. Both would be an insult if you were not a lazy person. I can still call you an uneducated thug, again I would be more specific though if I said that N-word is an uneducated thug. Pick any insult you want, and I can insult you without using the word, but to be more descriptive in my insult, I would use the word.
Now the C word (seriously, I am not a PC person, I don't care if you use the word, it would be easier if we could just use plain speak and not have to say N word or C word). This actually means a racist, bigot that has hate in their heart. You are in essence calling me an evil, vile person. Based on your own definition.
Yet for some reason you think having a descriptive term that was used in conjunction with normal insults is a worse name to be called than one that means, according to you an evil, vile person? I would rather be called the N-word than the C-word if we went by these definitions.
However, C-word, A History. It was a term used to describe poor southern whites that had to survive by eating crackers. Rich whites would also call these whites the C-word. It also could mean the person who is "cracking the whip" or one that had to crack their own corn due to not being rich enough to pay for workers after the Civil War (Jimmy Cracked Corn, but I don't care). However it has since been used by blacks as an insult directed to whites. The thing is, whites, usually like Jimmy, don't really care. It is an insult just like any other.
To me, policing the words, doesn't change society or the people in it. N-word or C-word, both words are not necessarily bad, they aren't necessarily good either. They are just words. Once these words are seen as just words, then they will cease to be anything more than what they are.
So you ask what world I live it, the same one as you. Funny in this part you actually support my stance that black can't possibly know what it is like to be white. Just like whites can't possibly know what it is like to be black. You say people are naturally more offended by things based on their race. (you do have other qualifying factors, but since this is about race). That is my point. You can't tell me what to find offensive, you aren't me. As such since you aren't white you can't see how something that isn't a big deal to you because you are black, is actually a big deal to a white. Remember when I said you can easily see my privilege, but you can't so easily see your own? You then asked what gave me that conclusion. Well, here is your answer, you have answered yourself.
You see, I am not an idealist, I don't actually cry for equality. I do point out the hypocrisy of those calling for equality by claiming outrage for one thing (whites calling blacks N-word) but staying silent about the same thing but with a twist (blacks calling whites C-word). People who claim that the girl in SC was a victim and that the officer should be fired, but are silent about the kids in Tuscaloosa.
Those who say that the BLM is a good group and deserve support and that they fight for equality, but their name is extremely divisive because it is only focused on one group in our shared society. These people would attack me if I started a WLM group for being racist and divisive. The cheer on Black student Unions and Muslim Student Affairs and all the other groups out there, but are angry when White Student Unions pop up.
Do you not see the ignorance of this comment - The topic is about white privilege, as in whites not knowing or experiencing about any of the grievances or oppression that blacks in this country face. So my counter to that, is that none of what YOU have provided support any oppression that is "black only" so the notion that whites are privileged to be sheltered from this oppression is flawed.
You say that we can all experience them, but black experience them more. So in essence what you are saying is... Check your privilege white boy.
I think in the future, I may PM you, since these are a tad bit airy. Contrary to what you might believe, I am actually enjoying this back and forth and I do hold you in high esteem.
