Do you think constantly talking about racism is good for race relations?

[ncordless]

Why? Is anyone starving in America because of inequality? You're more likely to be obese if you're in poverty than if you're wealthy. Why is there any pressing need to deal with racial inequality, so long as talented people of all races can rise to their proper level?

Yes, people are starving in America because of inequality. And I don't think "not-starving" is the proper benchmark for whether we have dealt effectively with racial inequality, anyway. The fact that obese people tend to be poor proves nothing, either besides suggesting that it's a lot easier to eat healthy and exercise when you have discretionary money than when you are poor. It also helps to have learned good eating and exercise habits growing up. Finally, why are we only concerned with talented people? My own experience is that it's lot easier to rise to the proper level and above if you are white. I know some pretty untalented white guys who have risen to a level far above where they should be. I also know some naturally talented black guys who have not risen as far as they would have if they had been born to wealth.

 

[sangreporsangre]

Look, it's good to be aware of what's going on. But this "white privilege conference" type bullshit? That's not helping anyone, except the people who make money off it. It's just gonna drive a wedge between us as a people.

 

[ncordless]

Look, it's good to be aware of what's going on. But this "white privilege conference" type bullshit? That's not helping anyone, except the people who make money off it. It's just gonna drive a wedge between us as a people.

The wedge is and has been there. The "White Privilege Conference" is an attempt to discuss and deal with the problem. If their ideas are wrong, they will be exposed as such and discarded just like the many other failed attempts to deal with the problem. The White Privilege Conference is helping us. Either they are right or they are wrong, and over time we will figure out which. But just ignoring it doesn't make it suddenly go away.

 

[Cold Front]

Yes, people are starving in America because of inequality. And I don't think "not-starving" is the proper benchmark for whether we have dealt effectively with racial inequality, anyway.

Well, then what is the proper benchmark? How do you know that most people aren't finding their proper level already?

The answer is you assume, a priori, that racial differences are ipso facto proof of a racist system.

The fact that obese people tend to be poor proves nothing, either besides suggesting that it's a lot easier to eat healthy and exercise when you have discretionary money than when you are poor.

Everything is easier when you're rich than when you're poor. But people are not dying in the streets because of inequality. How do I know this? Because even many of the homeless people in my neck of the woods are overweight.

Finally, why are we only concerned with talented people? My own experience is that it's lot easier to rise to the proper level and above if you are white.

I see a lot of Asians, a lot of non-white immigrants, and a lot of individual blacks whose lives contradicts you.

I know some pretty untalented white guys who have risen to a level far above where they should be. I also know some naturally talented black guys who have not risen as far as they would have if they had been born to wealth.

Born to wealth? 98 percent of whites are not born to wealth.

 

[panamaican]

It's productive to the extent that the people talking about it are trying to be productive. If it's just blame gaming or blanket denials then it's not productive.

 

[sangreporsangre]

The wedge is and has been there. The "White Privilege Conference" is an attempt to discuss and deal with the problem. If their ideas are wrong, they will be exposed as such and discarded just like the many other failed attempts to deal with the problem. The White Privilege Conference is helping us. Either they are right or they are wrong, and over time we will figure out which. But just ignoring it doesn't make it suddenly go away.

lmao the white privilege conference is helping who? Have you watched the videos? It's a ridiculous circle-jerk by a bunch of academics who are completely out of touch with reality. The term "white privilege" itself is designed to be divisive.

 

[panamaican]

lmao the white privilege conference is helping who? Have you watched the videos? It's a ridiculous circle-jerk by a bunch of academics who are completely out of touch with reality. The term "white privilege" itself is designed to be divisive.

The term is designed to be descriptive. I don't see how the term itself is divisive unless you don't think it's descriptive.

But let's say it is designed to be divisive - what is a better term for what they're discussing?

 

[Cold Front]

The term is designed to be descriptive. I don't see how the term itself is divisive unless you don't think it's descriptive.

It's obviously proscriptive, not descriptive. "Check your white privilege."

 

[sangreporsangre]

The term is designed to be descriptive. I don't see how the term itself is divisive unless you don't think it's descriptive.

But let's say it is designed to be divisive - what is a better term for what they're discussing?

No idea. "Systematic racial inequality" or something along those lines? You can't tell me with a straight face they aren't trying to rustle some cracker jimmies when they call their conference the "white privilege conference". The whole thing is a fuckin joke

 

[panamaican]

It's obviously proscriptive, not descriptive. "Check your white privilege."

No. Your phrase is proscriptive. The term white privilege isn't.

 

[shunyata]

Interesting u should jump to this yet there are countless black on white crimes that are never reported on

Where the black person got away with murder by using a flimsy stand your ground self defense plea? Not so much.

And I did correct myself, he wasn't found not guilty of murder, the jury mistrialed on the first degree murder charge and the prosecutor intends to retry it. He was found guilty of three counts of attempted 2nd degree murder for firing into an occupied vehicle.


And to anyone dense enough to think I was talking about Zimmerman, all my references were to the Michael Dunn trial.

 

[Cold Front]

No. Your phrase is proscriptive. The term white privilege isn't.

The phrase came with an ideology, which my phrase rightly described. The idea that privilege in America comes with "whiteness," when more white people are in poverty than blacks, is obviously not meant to be descriptive. It's meant to skew one's vision of reality, not illuminate it.

 

[panamaican]

No idea. "Systematic racial inequality" or something along those lines? You can't tell me with a straight face they aren't trying to rustle some cracker jimmies when they call their conference the "white privilege conference". The whole thing is a fuckin joke

They may be but they didn't invent the term "white privilege". So I'm not assigning meaning to the term just because the people behind the conference may be trying to get a rise out of others.

The terms "X" privilege are descriptive and distinctly less aggressive than some of the alternatives. Although it's certainly becoming more often used as a term of attack than just description.

And while I like "systematic racial inequality", it is a bit of a mouthful. :icon_lol:

 

[backnthedaymma]

When America has an issue about race it's always fox news/repubs take the racist side like in the trayvon or Bundy case. LIBS take the other side. RACIAL issues are pretty much everywhere from prison system , profiling, to even the gop trying to suppress votes.

 

[panamaican]

The phrase came with an ideology, which my phrase rightly described. The idea that privilege in America comes with "whiteness," when more white people are in poverty than blacks, is obviously not meant to be descriptive. It's meant to skew one's vision of reality, not illuminate it.

No, it didn't. The term "white privilege" is meant to describe a range of societal factors that white people gain simply from being white that non-whites don't reap the same benefit of.

There's nothing proscriptive about that concept. It's descriptive.

Your side comment about numbers in poverty is irrelevant since being rich isn't part of "white privilege".

 

[kahiljabroni]

And this is why race still needs to be discussed.

I think continuing inequality is due to past and present oppresion. Cod Front thinks the continuing inequality is due to a natural inferiority of blacks. One of us is right and one of us is wrong. Until we figure out which one of us is wrong, we can't figure out a solution because we don't know what the problem is.

But ignoring it and pretending inequality doesn't exist doesn't solve anything except make us feel better in the same way an ostrich feels better about the world when it sticks its head in the sand.

I think ur confusing inequality with oppression. Where is this oppression?

 

[Cold Front]

No, it didn't. The term "white privilege" is meant to describe a range of societal factors that white people gain simply from being white that non-whites don't reap the same benefit of.

There's nothing proscriptive about that concept. It's descriptive.

Your side comment about numbers in poverty is irrelevant since being rich isn't part of "white privilege".

Yes, because the concept is not descriptive. If it was objective, then it would acknowledge the many ways in which whites share no common privileges.

But since it's not objective - hence, not descriptive - it's an ideological shakedown to try and milk out as many benefits as the cash cow can give.

 

[panamaican]

Yes, because the concept is not descriptive. If it was objective, then it would acknowledge the many ways in which whites share no common privileges.

But since it's not objective - hence, not descriptive - it's an ideological shakedown to try and milk out as many benefits as the cash cow can give.

What? Why does something have to be objective to be descriptive? And why isn't it objective?

What do whites not sharing some common privileges have to do with the privileges that they do share? How does that invalidate objectivity?

Seriously, between your misuse of "proscriptive", "objective" and "descriptive", you should be arguing with a dictionary and not me. :icon_neut

 

[Cold Front]

What? Why does something have to be objective to be descriptive? And why isn't it objective?

If I say the hair on your female in your avatar is red, am I being descriptive?

What do whites not sharing some common privileges have to do with the privileges that they do share? How does that invalidate objectivity?

Because if most whites don't share in this so-called privilege, then it's not objective and hence not descriptive. Your concept is ideologically-based and not factually-based. And when someone puts forward an ideology like this, they are doing so either for proscriptive reasons or because they're stupid.

Seriously, between your misuse of "proscriptive", "objective" and "descriptive", you should be arguing with a dictionary and not me. :icon_neut

No, I'm arguing with the right person.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Fallen from where? Where we really once in some state of grace and have fallen from it? Or have we always been that way and gotten better about it over time?

Fair enough, you don't have to buy into the Christian concept of fallen man, but the larger and more important point most religions are making is that people have a terrible capacity to make one another suffer.

I don't believe there has been a linear progression when it comes to morality. I'm not even sure how one would objectively measure if things are better or worse now? I believe the flow of life is cyclical not linear. To give a more substantial example I will quote the wisdom Ecclesiastes from the bible:


There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens:

Spoiler

A time to give birth and a time to die;
A time to plant and a time to uproot what is planted.

A time to kill and a time to heal;
A time to tear down and a time to build up.

A time to weep and a time to laugh;
A time to mourn and a time to dance.

A time to throw stones and a time to gather stones;
A time to embrace and a time to shun embracing.

A time to search and a time to give up as lost;
A time to keep and a time to throw away.

A time to tear apart and a time to sew together;
A time to be silent and a time to speak.

A time to love and a time to hate;
A time for war and a time for peace.

-Ecclesiastes 3:1-8