Opinion Why are people angry at white privilege being real?

[kpt018]

They provide it all of the time but it's sociological in nature and either you believe the sociological research or you don't.

What inevitably happens is that someone asks for proof. Someone else provides a link to some social science research supporting the claim. The first person then argues that the research isn't good, isn't on point, etc. They argue the validity of the research itself. Rather than accepting it as a valid part of the conversation, they reject it outright.

Well, that yields a pointless debate. It reduces the conversation to "I don't believe this is true, find me something that will convince me it's true but since I don't believe it's true, I already don't believe anything that claims it's true." It's circular, those people will never acknowledge any proof because, to them, the "research" is only valid if it aligns with their pre-existing belief systems.

This is similar to your constant request for laws. You know very well that the concept of "white privilege" isn't about codified law, it's about ingrained advantage. By setting a standard that you know cannot be met, you can pretend to be open to something without actually doing so.

It's like responding to the claim that tall people have an advantage in basketball with the request "Show me something in the rule book that explicitly favors tall people."

Superb post (and better articulated than me) and get's right to the heart of why I went on post after post refusing to post studies knowing this was the issue.

 

[Starman]

They provide it all of the time but it's sociological in nature and either you believe the sociological research or you don't.

No one provided anything whatsoever. If you have evidence, please show it to me now.

What inevitably happens is that someone asks for proof.

As they should.

Someone else provides a link to some social science research supporting the claim. The first person then argues that the research isn't good, isn't on point, etc. They argue the validity of the research itself. Rather than accepting it as a valid part of the conversation, they reject it outright.

Provide whatever evidence you have. If I think it is valid, I will explain why. If I think it isn't, I will explain why.

Do not just post links, however. State your argument in your own words, and use the links as a source.

Well, that yields a pointless debate. It reduces the conversation to "I don't believe this is true, find me something that will convince me it's true but since I don't believe it's true, I already don't believe anything that claims it's true." It's circular, those people will never acknowledge any proof because, to them, the "research" is only valid if it aligns with their pre-existing belief systems.

You can make that argument for either side. I've already stated that I am open to any and all evidence. Bring what you've got and let's talk about it.

This is similar to your constant request for laws. You know very well that the concept of "white privilege" isn't about codified law, it's about ingrained advantage. By setting a standard that you know cannot be met, you can pretend to be open to something without actually doing so.

Laws were only one example of evidence I would accept. I have said, over and over, literally, bring ANY evidence you have. ANY AT ALL.

It's like responding to the claim that tall people have an advantage in basketball with the request "Show me something in the rule book that explicitly favors tall people."

It's nothing like that. Stop with the pointless comparisons and start with the evidence. And keep in mind that correlation is not causation, and inference is not evidence. Go.

 

[panamaican]

Superb post (and better articulated than me) and get's right to the heart of why I went on post after post refusing to post studies knowing this was the issue.

I've generally stopped arguing with people who out of hand dismiss social science research where they don't agree with the conclusions. It's pointless.

You can show them 100 studies on a subject and their response will be that all 100 of the studies contain some flaw that invalidates the individual studies. After they finished doing so, they will then assert that nothing contradicts their belief system...before later linking some random news article that also relies on social science research but reaches a conclusion they do support.

 

[panamaican]

Provide whatever evidence you have. If I think it is valid, I will explain why. If I think it isn't, I will explain why.

And this is exactly why it's a disingenuous position. You will decide if 3rd party research is valid? Were you part of the research group? Were you part of the group that peer reviewed it? Did you decide it's merit for publication?

99.999999% of the time the answer is a resounding "No."

Yet, you're still going to suggest that you have any credibility in determining it's validity. <45>

 

[Starman]

I've generally stopped arguing with people who out of hand dismiss social science research where they don't agree with the conclusions. It's pointless.

You can show them 100 studies on a subject and their response will be that all 100 of the studies contain some flaw that invalidates the individual studies. After they finished doing so, they will then assert that nothing contradicts their belief system...before later linking some random news article that also relies on social science research but reaches a conclusion they do support.

What social studies have been done on white privilege that you think prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt? Or what other forms of evidence have you seen that you think prove it?

Give me your strongest evidence and let's talk about it. What evidence did you see that has you so convinced that white people on the basis of their whiteness alone have an advantage over non-whites? Start explaining yourself, use links as sources, and let's talk.

 

[Starman]

And this is exactly why it's a disingenuous position. You will decide if 3rd party research is valid? Were you part of the research group? Were you part of the group that peer reviewed it? Did you decide it's merit for publication?

So your position is that it is OK to comment on the accuracy of research you had no part in as long as you agree with it, but not OK if you don't?

99.999999% of the time the answer is a resounding "No."

Yet, you're still going to suggest that you have any credibility in determining it's validity. <45>

So you do have credibility in determining its validity? How much research have you personally done on the subject? How many "studies" have you authored or been a part of that give you the working knowledge to determine that the information being given is accurate?

You do understand your argument works both ways, do you not?

 

[Starman]

You will all notice now what the argument is. It is the typical Stalinist/leftist approach of "He/she is a _____, so what's the point in debating him/her?"

It is a common ploy of the left. You don't believe one of their ideological claims to be true, and ask them to provide evidence for it. Rather than provide evidence they do not have, they will simply respond, "Well, you don't believe in it, and people like you will never accept any evidence to the contrary, so why should I give it?"

The reality of course is simply that they never provide evidence, because they rarely have any. And what little they do have is easily disproven.

 

[mixcontactsport]

Was this really worth coming back to say?
I mean, you waited a day and then came back to basically declare "I have no evidence, I have nothing to say and I think I'm saving face by pointing that out."

Why?

So you have no evidence whatsoever. Your entire argument rests on inference. Thank you for admitting this. We are done.

Is that not evidence enough? lol, Maybe another time young ones. When you guys grow up.

 

[EZShrimpn]

Do Chinese people have Chinese privledge in China? Or is it just white people that have to feel guilty for other people's misfortunes?

 

[panamaican]

So your position is that it is OK to comment on the accuracy of research you had no part in as long as you agree with it, but not OK if you don't?



So you do have credibility in determining its validity? How much research have you personally done on the subject? How many "studies" have you authored or been a part of that give you the working knowledge to determine that the information being given is accurate?

You do understand your argument works both ways, do you not?

Actually, it doesn't work both ways.

In one scenario, someone points to the product of a professional and says "This is what the professionals believe." They don't have to have credibility in the subject because they are not questioning the quality of the professional's work, they are simply referencing it. In the other scenario, someone points to the product of a professional and says "The professional's work is flawed."

It's the difference between saying "The doctor says John has cancer" and saying "The doctor's conclusion that John has cancer is wrong even though I haven't examined John and I don't have any medical training."

 

[kpt018]

You will all notice now what the argument is. It is the typical Stalinist/leftist approach of "He/she is a _____, so what's the point in debating him/her?"

It is a common ploy of the left. You don't believe one of their ideological claims to be true, and ask them to provide evidence for it. Rather than provide evidence they do not have, they will simply respond, "Well, you don't believe in it, and people like you will never accept any evidence to the contrary, so why should I give it?"

The reality of course is simply that they never provide evidence, because they rarely have any. And what little they do have is easily disproven.

There are people of every political view that believe in things that have been disproved by science or have no scientific evidence. The right has people who refute climate change, dismiss everything they don't like from the social sciences, they believe tax cuts will produce large economic growth while taxes are relatively low, we have full employment and the economy is strong, etc.. The left has people who are anti-vax bullshit, think GMOs will kill you, etc..

To draw a line here based on political views says a lot about your own biases. And I found the Stalinist/leftist grouping hilarious, as if there is no spectrum of view points on the left.

 

[Soul Crusher]

Basically the only "evidence" is that study about black sounding names not receiving as many call backs as white sounding names.

Did that study take into account the racial make up of the company? Did the researchers have access to every single resume sent to the company?

What if the company had a diversity quota and already had a La Wakandanesha and was instead looking for a Caihong or an Amandeep or Abdul Muhammad?

Were all the people looking at the resumes white?

If you feel like it's a serious issue, start your own business and hire people with those names or apply to black run businesses that have been proven to have a preference for black workers. Get that family run business going if you can.

Remember it's ok when other races prefer to hire people that look like them and have names similar to their culture.

If it's really that bad, change your name. The chances of you changing society by screaming white privilege and hating white people are pretty slim.

 

[milkmandanl]

Basically the only "evidence" is that study about black sounding names not receiving as many call backs as white sounding names.

Did that study take into account the racial make up of the company? Did the researchers have access to every single resume sent to the company?

What if the company had a diversity quota and already had a La Wakandanesha and was instead looking for a Caihong or an Amandeep or Abdul Muhammad?

Were all the people looking at the resumes white?

If you feel like it's a serious issue, start your own business and hire people with those names or apply to black run businesses that have been proven to have a preference for black workers. Get that family run business going if you can.

Remember it's ok when other races prefer to hire people that look like them and have names similar to their culture.

If it's really that bad, change your name. The chances of you changing society by screaming white privilege and hating white people are pretty slim.

Yes, question the source and ask for evidence to support their claims.

Am I the only one that sees this example as “name bias” and nothing else?

 

[S-dot]

Basically the only "evidence" is that study about black sounding names not receiving as many call backs as white sounding names.

Did that study take into account the racial make up of the company? Did the researchers have access to every single resume sent to the company?

What if the company had a diversity quota and already had a La Wakandanesha and was instead looking for a Caihong or an Amandeep or Abdul Muhammad?

Were all the people looking at the resumes white?

If you feel like it's a serious issue, start your own business and hire people with those names or apply to black run businesses that have been proven to have a preference for black workers. Get that family run business going if you can.

Remember it's ok when other races prefer to hire people that look like them and have names similar to their culture.

If it's really that bad, change your name. The chances of you changing society by screaming white privilege and hating white people are pretty slim.

I think most people who take that study as 100% proof have no experience or limited experience with hiring people or understanding how the hiring process works. I’m betting there’s some racial bias based on names, and it could potentially be exactly what they say, but from my experience there are almost limitless variables as to why one person gets a call and one doesn’t. There’s a lot of randomness involved in there as well as human/computer error.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Excellent article demolishing the "White Privilege" nonsense. From Canada's Global News:

Privilege is the right of everyone to speak, not the burden of some to stay quiet

Check your privilege. In the House of Commons, that used to mean, check your constitutional rights and immunities...To be privileged was a good thing, because it allowed for the exchange of ideas that are the cornerstones of our Parliamentary democracy.

Alas, in 2018, the word “privilege” has taken on a far different meaning. It now refers to advantages based on race, gender, ability, or orientation, characteristics over which people have no control, but which are now used to limit the ability to freely express one’s opinions. And that meaning has now seeped into our political lexicon as well, with predictably toxic results.

...it is impossible to measure the subjective effect of prejudice, because we all react to it differently...It is possible, however, to measure one objective effect: the impact of “privilege” on income. If being white, straight and male is to be privileged, then those characteristics should guarantee a higher income than for persons who are not “privileged.” And yet, statistically, that is not uniformly the case.

Sexual orientation is routinely cited as a privilege: if you are straight, you are deemed to be privileged. Yet, according to Statistics Canada, same-sex couples earn more than opposite-sex couples. “Female same-sex couples had a median total income of $92,857 in 2015, while male same-sex couples had a median income of $100,707 — the highest among all couple types. In fact, over 12 per cent of male same-sex couples had incomes over $200,000, compared with 7.5 per cent of female same-sex couples and 8.4 per cent of opposite-sex couples.” This held true not just for higher earners, but lower earners as well: “Lower income partners in same-sex couples also had higher median incomes than their opposite-sex counterparts. The median income of lower income partners was $31,192 in male same-sex couples and $30,942 in female same-sex couples compared with $24,969 in opposite-sex couples.”

When it comes to ethnicity, being white is also not a ticket to financial privilege. In the United States, where the census slices and dices the population in over 100 groups based on ancestry, the prototypical “white guy” (of British, Irish, or Scottish ancestry) also doesn’t see privilege translated into cash. In 2015, the top five households with the highest median income were (all U.S. dollars): Indian (South Asian) American, at $101,390; Jewish American, at $97,500; Taiwanese American, at $85,566; Filipino American, at $82,566; and Australian American, $81,452. Israeli, Russian, Greek, Lebanese and Sri Lankan households rounded out the top 10. Japanese Americans sat at 22nd place, British American, at 23rd. Chinese Americans scored 30th, German Americans, 42nd, and English Americans, 43rd. Nigerian Americans out-earned Scotch-Irish Americans, at 53rd and 54th place respectively. Ghanaian Americans out-earned Yugoslavian Americans, 61st place to 62nd.

-Tasha Kheiriddin
https://globalnews.ca/news/4067768/tasha-kheirriddin-check-privilege/

 

[Metusalemi]

Actually, it doesn't work both ways.

In one scenario, someone points to the product of a professional and says "This is what the professionals believe." They don't have to have credibility in the subject because they are not questioning the quality of the professional's work, they are simply referencing it. In the other scenario, someone points to the product of a professional and says "The professional's work is flawed."

It's the difference between saying "The doctor says John has cancer" and saying "The doctor's conclusion that John has cancer is wrong even though I haven't examined John and I don't have any medical training."

Things like economics and social sciences aren't exact sciences, though.

So, it is not exactly the same kind of scenario.

 

[RubberGuard5]

And this is exactly why it's a disingenuous position. You will decide if 3rd party research is valid? Were you part of the research group? Were you part of the group that peer reviewed it? Did you decide it's merit for publication?

99.999999% of the time the answer is a resounding "No."

Yet, you're still going to suggest that you have any credibility in determining it's validity. <45>

Why do you believe he can't question the validity of the study if he isn't one of those 3 things?

Social scientists question each others work all the time. That's how the system is supposed to work.

 

[kpt018]

I think most people who take that study as 100% proof have no experience or limited experience with hiring people or understanding how the hiring process works. I’m betting there’s some racial bias based on names, and it could potentially be exactly what they say, but from my experience there are almost limitless variables as to why one person gets a call and one doesn’t. There’s a lot of randomness involved in there as well as human/computer error.

In some of the studies that test this the resumes are identical except for the names and they yield very similar results. So the only “error” is they human or machine didn’t like the name.

What led me to look into the issue further is that I personally came across this very thing many times across different companies and industries. I’ve had discussions with high level people (different companies too) in the restaurant industry that they want to “whiten up” their restaurants because customers like it. I’ve heard “black people aren’t good accountants” and heard that it’s a bad idea to hire women because they’re more needy. It’s rampant and I live and work in liberal NYC.

Admittedly it’s very hard to test and quantify because no one is going to admit these practices (they’re illegal) but they happen all the time. So you have to resort to studies like testing the effects of black or Asian sounding names.

 

[milkmandanl]

In some of the studies that test this the resumes are identical except for the names and they yield very similar results. So the only “error” is they human or machine didn’t like the name.
What led me to look into the issue further is that I personally came across this very thing many times across different companies and industries. I’ve had discussions with high level people (different companies too) in the restaurant industry that they want to “whiten up” their restaurants because customers like it. I’ve heard “black people aren’t good accountants” and heard that it’s a bad idea to hire women because they’re more needy. It’s rampant and I live and work in liberal NYC.

Admittedly it’s very hard to test and quantify because no one is going to admit these practices (they’re illegal) but they happen all the time. So you have to resort to studies like testing the effects of black or Asian sounding names.

Have you seen the resumes used in that study? Do you know which companies the resumes were sent to? Do you know what percentage of the people who reviewed the resumes were not white? For me there are too many unknowns for that study to empirically equate said study to racism.

Is it just me that know quite a few African Americans that have “white sounding names”?

Yes, some people are racist sexist and ageist when it comes to hiring. Again, too many unknowns in that study (based on memory) to ascertain that the results equate to racism instead of name bias.

 

[S-dot]

In some of the studies that test this the resumes are identical except for the names and they yield very similar results. So the only “error” is they human or machine didn’t like the name.

What led me to look into the issue further is that I personally came across this very thing many times across different companies and industries. I’ve had discussions with high level people (different companies too) in the restaurant industry that they want to “whiten up” their restaurants because customers like it. I’ve heard “black people aren’t good accountants” and heard that it’s a bad idea to hire women because they’re more needy. It’s rampant and I live and work in liberal NYC.

Admittedly it’s very hard to test and quantify because no one is going to admit these practices (they’re illegal) but they happen all the time. So you have to resort to studies like testing the effects of black or Asian sounding names.

It could be, or what I mean by human error is that whoever reviewed the resumes missed something on the black sounding resume. It’s almost impossible to say that the reason it wasn’t accepted was the name. There’d have to be a study with moles inside companies’ HR departments to be real proof of racial bias.

If the resumes are completely identical, literally word for word except the name and sent to the same employer then most likely it would be racial bias that got one applicant a call back and one not. I don’t know if that is exactly what happened I may be misinterpreting it or I missed something but they seemed to class resumes by quality and then compared based on race/neighbourhood of the applicant. I did notice that there was no difference between races if both applicants had addresses in high end neighbourhoods though.

I’ll just give you an example of how this can be multi-variate vs simple racial bias. My office is significately more diverse than the general population, however it would be conceivable that this study could send us resumes they seem to be of equal quality and one gets a callback and the other doesn’t. We work in real estate valuation and so from the outside people think experience as a realtor would be an asset. In reality if we see your a realtor and currently hold a real estate licence we automatically reject your resume. There are also very specific programs at specific colleges and universities we highly value and others that sound similar but we couldn’t care less about. So someone trying to test us could think they’re sending us a superior quality resume to another when in actuality, by our criteria, the superior one gets auto-screened out.