• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Social Justice White/Straight/Cis/Male Privilege

Just because you dont understand it doesnt mean its crap. Your comment at the beginning of this thread was discriminatory. You justify it because we're "privileged".

Giving other races extra points on college applications is discriminatory because were "privileged".
 
I don't understand it?

I don't understand the argument that believing white privilege exists requires believing it's fair to discriminate against whites?

How about instead of just repeatedly insulting me by assuming I don't understand you actually counter my arguments.

My arguments btw, not ones you assigned to me on my behalf.
 
People suck at nuance, they want things to be simple, cut and dry, black and white, them and us.

Hence why the conversation is dominated by people who insist that all white people are racist and need to apologize for what their ancestors did etc etc, and by people who insist that there is no systemic racism and that whites are the real disadvantaged group.

And anyone who believes something more moderate and in the middle is automatically assigned by both groups into the reverse group of they are anything less than fully embracing if that groups beliefs.

It's such bullshit.
 
Last edited:
Sort of like how you assign everyone into black and white pro Trump and anti Trump categories.

I dont think most people (or anyone) in this thread is doing what you say they're doing.

Nobody said all white people are racist.

Nobody said whites are the "real disadvantaged group"... except maybe What 23 and he is hardly dominating this thread with his extreme views.

Nobody said there is no systemic racism.

You are seeing things in B&w

You started this thread by responding to a quote from a FTM trans man that was talking about discrimination against a minority. You saw what you wanted to see just as you see what you want to see now. Youre not really having a conversation with the people in this thread. You are projecting your issues and hsving a conversation with the men that did wrong to you. Im sorry that happened btw. I really am. But we are not those men. We are also not the men in your life that said white males are the real disadvantaged people. We are merely saying that we are disadvantaged in some ways. Whenever i say this in any context, wimen get outraged because they were arguably more disadvantaged historically. But it isnt a comparitive statement. To say that men experience discrimination doesnt mean that others dont.
 
Last edited:
JessFR said:
i don't understand the argument that believing white privilege exists requires believing it's fair to discriminate against whites?

How about instead of just repeatedly insulting me by assuming I don't understand you actually counter my arguments.

My arguments btw, not ones you assigned to me on my behalf.

No evidently you dont understand.

Im not trying to insult you.

I did respond to your argument.

If individual white males (regardless of their circumstances) are disadvantaged on college applications because of the colour of their skin and this is justified because white men (generally) are "privileged" that is discrimination.

Perhaps you could respond to this without tangents.
 
Last edited:
No evidently you dont understand.

Im not trying to insult you.

I did respond to your argument.

If individual white males (regardless of their circumstances) are disadvantaged on college applications because of the colour of their skin and this is justified because white mean (generally) are "privileged" that is discrimination

Perhaps you could respond to this without tangents.

Of course it's discrimination. And I don't in fact support that.

I've NEVER brought up this college application bullshit. You're the one that keeps bringing it up and acting like I'm supposed to defend it, so don't talk to me about tangents.

And yes. Just saying "oh you don't understand it" is an insult.
 
Its not any more of an insult than to call someones argument crap.... and you dont understand still, not because youre incapable bit because youre being stubborn. If i said you were incapable of understanding because of a lack of intelligence that would be an insult but thats not what im saying. You have suggested MANY times that i dont understand things, so dont give me that insult shit. Be consistent.

Im not suggesting you agree with the college example discrimination. I am citing it as an example of perceived privilege directly resulting in discrimination. It is not in any way tangential.
 
But why are you bringing it up at all?
Just because some people come up with poorly conceived ways to fight racial disadvantage doesn't mean the disadvantage doesn't exist.

And it's not a stretch to assume you're saying "you're too stupid to understand" when you say you don't understand in the context of what was at the time an extremely simple argument. Not to mention that being too stubborn to agree with something doesn't mean you don't understand it anyway.
 
Ive explained why im bringing it up mlre than once now. Youre not listening.

@thujone said accepting that white people are inherently privileged leads us to accepting discrimination against white individuals.

You said that was crap so i brought up an example (of ehich there are many) in which white individuals are discriminated against in the name of white "privilege".

You agree this is wrong so clearly you agree (at least to some extent) that what @thujone said is not "crap".

Hes not saying you think discrimination against whites is fair. Hes saying that perceiving skin colour as privilege demonstrably results in racial discrimination.

I hope this clears up why i brought it up.
 
If youre so sensitive that somebody twlling you that you dont understand something is an insult, thats not my issue... and (like i said) you should be more sensitive with your choice of words like calling thujones argument crap and telling me im a horrible person because im defending Trump. Im glad that you retracted the latter but its still far worse than anything ive ever said to you, so dont be a hypocrite.

Failing to understand something doesnt make you stupid. I didnt call you stupid. Please Dont put words in my mouth.
 
Ive explained why im bringing it up mlre than once now. Youre not listening.

@thujone said accepting that white people are inherently privileged leads us to accepting discrimination against white individuals.

You said that was crap so i brought up an example (of ehich there are many) in which white individuals are discriminated against in the name of white "privilege".

You agree this is wrong so clearly you agree (at least to some extent) that what @thujone said is not "crap".

Hes not saying you think discrimination against whites is fair. Hes saying that perceiving skin colour as privilege demonstrably results in racial discrimination.

I hope this clears up why i brought it up.

My argument was that there's no reason accepting the existence of white privilege means you have to agree with discriminating against white people.

Uhh, no.

Believing white people are privileged in absolutely no way requires by extension believing that it's OK to discriminate against white people. That's crap.

Nothing said since then in any way disproves that. Pointing out an example of whites being discriminated against doesn't prove anything.

Maybe it's you that doesn't understand. As I've said before I've noticed that nearly all our argument go in circles because you haven't really paid attention to what I said.
 
Your argument was a response to @thujone. You failed to understand what he was saying. Sometimes you need to read between the lines and consider what is said in context.

He said essentially: believing white people are inherently privileged leads to us (as a society) racially discriminating against some white people who are not privileged.

Poor white people are not privileged (not suggesting youre saying otherwise; bear with me here) but if society treats} them as privileged anyway because white people are generally privileged relative to other groups, those individuals are being racially discriminated against.

I'm not saying you disagree with this. I never suggested (or thought for a second) that you woukd disagree. I brought up the college thing as an example of what @thujone was saying whixh you described as crap. It is not "crap".

Perceiving a group of people as privileged results in discrimination against members of that group that have no privilege. Therefore calling any group privileged leads to discrimination.

Im not going to bother explaining this again. You are being a brick wall. I have a new job and i don't have time to do this with you any more. I'm typing on my phone hence yhe spelling mistakes and poor grammar. You are one of the only people I go in endless circles with. It's not because I don't read what you say. You are approaching this discussion through an emotional lense that is distorting your ability to be objective. A lot of our discussions dont go in circles. Certain topics trigger you. That is my opinion. I could be wrong.

Im done here. I have better thinhs to do. Go ahead and have the last word.
 
Uhh, no.

Believing white people are privileged in absolutely no way requires by extension believing that it's OK to discriminate against white people. That's crap.

Maybe you think it's crap but that doesn't mean that isn't what's actually happening out in the real world that we have to interact with.

The U.S. has been setting Affirmative Action policies since the 60s, which led to race-based quotas in the 80s (when the term “white privilege” entered the public consciousness), which were later outlawed for being discriminatory.

Recently, social activists started beating that “white privilege” drum again, so governments have again begun mandating race (and gender) based quotas, which forced corporations to start practicing discrimination again:

In January, James Damore, the engineer who was fired after writing a screed against Google’s diversity efforts, filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination against white people, men, and political conservatives. Then Arne Wilberg, a former technical recruiter in Google’s YouTube unit, filed suit1, alleging that YouTube illegally used quotas as recently as last year in an attempt to hire more black, Latinx, and female engineers. Exhibits in the complaint include a screenshot of an internal document where recruiters tracked diversity goals for women and minorities, as well as two emails where a hiring manager instructed the recruiting team to “only consider” candidates from “historically underrepresented groups.” Wilberg's suit was earlier reported by the Wall Street Journal.

Wilberg, who worked as a Google recruiter for seven years, claims that he was retaliated against and wrongfully fired for complaining that these practices discriminated against white and Asian men. Black and Hispanic engineers, the racial groups Wilberg claims were unfairly favored by YouTube, together account for only 4 percent of Google’s technical workforce.



The hiring practices challenged in the lawsuit fall into a controversial area of labor law, where setting goals to diversify is acceptable, but setting quotas is not. Both federal and California anti-discrimination laws prohibit employers from making hiring decisions based on race or gender.


Note that this discrimination is also alleged to extend to Asians. Is that supposed to imply that "Asian privilege" also exists? Never mind.

In spite of it being illegal, this happened earlier this year:


Sixty years of affirmative action and it's still not working. Why does anyone think it suddenly is going to start working this time?
 
Nobody in this discussion ever answers the "Asian privilege" question, because there is no socially acceptable (non racist) answer.

You can't tell Asian people they are privileged, because they're not white... and that's racist!

There should be quotas to get more white people in the NBA.
 
Did life imitate art or art imitate life? I dont remember which year it was when they started hiring way more colored actors for movies. Not surprised if companies like Google really started to hire more colored people. Maybe it has a point maybe not, but I believe it is happening.
 
You said in another thread you are from the middle east. There is no effort within US corporations to meet quotas and hire more middle eastern people that I am aware of. So, the term Asian fits well enough. Indian people are also technically Asian and (again) there is no effort that I'm aware of to hire more Indian people?
 
You just said that you're from the west Asian part of the middle east. I don't want to get into a pedantic discussion about geography that has no relevance to the discussion.

The middle east crosses three continents. You could argue that there is an effort to hire people from certain middle eastern countries because they happen to lie within Africa. Maybe you're right. I don't care. It has no significant impact on whether or not there is Asian privilege.
 
Top