Well we could start by I dunno actually charging police officers who fatally shoot black people, tear down monuments to racist traitors, and stop openly preventing minorities specifically black people from voting/having a voice in government? Just a fucking thought.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I don't know. It's like asking everyone to kindly all believe in the same religion so we don't have to fight anymore. Others have suggested fixes, but it probably requires a lot of time and majority participation.
Color blind loans are one thing. But to really correct the imbalance I think you would need to get lenders to assume greater risk on certain loans otherwise the, on net poorer, black community will never achieve parity in home ownership with the white community.
I think this conflates one part of housing disparities (discriminatory lending practices) with the whole of housing disparities (which is complex and multicausal and is deeply entwined with wealth inequality in general.)
The specific issue I alluded to regarding banks involved lenders charging higher interest rates to black lenders in comparison to white lenders with comparable credit ratings buying properties of comparable value.
Ending discriminatory lending practices does not require banks to fund loans of a different risk class. It requires them to treat loans of comparable risk classes fairly.
This alone wouldn't solve racial housing disparities, but it would help.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I can't find it online, but Sherman Alexie has spoken about the amazing transition that happens for Native Americans who leave the West for areas of the United States where the locals don't have ingrained racist attitudes against them. A middle class Navajo family can fully assimilate by moving to the East Coast, and the benefits of that move mean that they and their children will no longer be constantly stopped by police, can get loans from the bank, get called back by employers when they apply for jobs, don't get the side eye from the teller when they buy a six pack at the grocery store, etc.
And while that is something no black American can do, it is telling about what it means for a region or a nation to have ingrained prejudices. It does not matter that any particular individual holds racism in their heart. It matters that there is a blanket of assumptions, discrimination and exclusion so pervasive that moving to a community where it does not exist can literally be a life-changing experience for a family that carries through for generations.
+1
Options
Nbspshe laughs, like Godher mind's like a diamondRegistered Userregular
But who should bear the cost of correcting for institutional racism?
And, boom! This is where all my white peers shut off when talking race issues. Assuming an individual grasps the issue of implicit bias (racism in this case) they are then confronted with a big problem for anyone of any race to deal with: letting go of a privilege for oneself and one's offspring. The ego hates aknowledging a privilege because it undermines one's accomplishments. Self-preservation, greed, and even protectivness of family then kick in and reject giving up said privilege and the drop in social/material status.
And how exactly does one turn off "white privilege" so other races can get a shot?
Continual self analysis, self awareness of those around you, research and stopping any bad behavior once you've found what is wrong. This can't be done unless you let go of your ego, and let your humility guide your actions.
Sure, those are things I can control for myself.
But what about others who prejudge me for being white?
But who should bear the cost of correcting for institutional racism?
And, boom! This is where all my white peers shut off when talking race issues. Assuming an individual grasps the issue of implicit bias (racism in this case) they are then confronted with a big problem for anyone of any race to deal with: letting go of a privilege for oneself and one's offspring. The ego hates aknowledging a privilege because it undermines one's accomplishments. Self-preservation, greed, and even protectivness of family then kick in and reject giving up said privilege and the drop in social/material status.
And how exactly does one turn off "white privilege" so other races can get a shot?
Continual self analysis, self awareness of those around you, research and stopping any bad behavior once you've found what is wrong. This can't be done unless you let go of your ego, and let your humility guide your actions.
Sure, those are things I can control for myself.
But what about others who prejudge me for being white?
Come again with the bolded, please do explain.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Well we could start by I dunno actually charging police officers who fatally shoot black people, tear down monuments to racist traitors, and stop openly preventing minorities specifically black people from voting/having a voice in government? Just a fucking thought.
We do charge police officers for fatally shooting someone, even blacks, when it's uncalled for. We should have no problem with an officer shooting down someone who is wielding a gun, or worse a knife, and getting no charges.
Tearing down monuments to racist traitors? No, I hesitate to tear down something that is of any historical value. I wouldn't even say lets tear down a statue of Adolf Hitler for instance. The key is to display such a thing in a proper context, like a museum, not as an endorsement of that thing.
When were minorities openly prevented from having a voice recently in government? That's pure, white-man mustache twirling hyperbole. Black people certainly do vote and have a voice in government, like any citizen.
Nbsp on
0
Options
Nbspshe laughs, like Godher mind's like a diamondRegistered Userregular
But who should bear the cost of correcting for institutional racism?
And, boom! This is where all my white peers shut off when talking race issues. Assuming an individual grasps the issue of implicit bias (racism in this case) they are then confronted with a big problem for anyone of any race to deal with: letting go of a privilege for oneself and one's offspring. The ego hates aknowledging a privilege because it undermines one's accomplishments. Self-preservation, greed, and even protectivness of family then kick in and reject giving up said privilege and the drop in social/material status.
And how exactly does one turn off "white privilege" so other races can get a shot?
Continual self analysis, self awareness of those around you, research and stopping any bad behavior once you've found what is wrong. This can't be done unless you let go of your ego, and let your humility guide your actions.
Sure, those are things I can control for myself.
But what about others who prejudge me for being white?
Come again with the bolded, please do explain.
People will treat me better because I'm white, what do I do about that?
Although, I'm sure I'm about to hear arguments about how that's not actually racist, good for black Americans and its racist for me to even bring it up.
But who should bear the cost of correcting for institutional racism?
And, boom! This is where all my white peers shut off when talking race issues. Assuming an individual grasps the issue of implicit bias (racism in this case) they are then confronted with a big problem for anyone of any race to deal with: letting go of a privilege for oneself and one's offspring. The ego hates aknowledging a privilege because it undermines one's accomplishments. Self-preservation, greed, and even protectivness of family then kick in and reject giving up said privilege and the drop in social/material status.
And how exactly does one turn off "white privilege" so other races can get a shot?
Continual self analysis, self awareness of those around you, research and stopping any bad behavior once you've found what is wrong. This can't be done unless you let go of your ego, and let your humility guide your actions.
Sure, those are things I can control for myself.
But what about others who prejudge me for being white?
Come again with the bolded, please do explain.
People will treat me better because I'm white, what do I do about that?
Nothing other than recognize that a privilege you have that others do not? I mean again there are some things ingrained in our society that will not change over night, but you can't demand people treat you worse, but at the same time turning a blind eye to that you are being favored and voting for people who want to keep the status quo does the country no good.
This is an interesting article on how voting rights have degraded in the US, specifically for black people since the inception of the civil rights, its long but its solid.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Well we could start by I dunno actually charging police officers who fatally shoot black people, tear down monuments to racist traitors, and stop openly preventing minorities specifically black people from voting/having a voice in government? Just a fucking thought.
We do charge police officers for fatally shooting someone, even blacks, when it's uncalled for. We should have no problem with an officer shooting down someone who is wielding a gun, or worse a knife, and getting no charges.
Tearing down monuments to racist traitors? No, I hesitate to tear down something that is of any historical value. I wouldn't even say lets tear down a statue of Adolf Hitler for instance. The key is to display such a thing in a proper context, like a museum, not as an endorsement of that thing.
When were minorities openly prevented from having a voice recently in government? That's pure, white-man mustache twirling hyperbole. Black people certainly do vote and have a voice in government, like any citizen.
1. No, we don't charge officers for shooting minorities except in rare, especially egregious cases. What is happening in Cincinnati right now is very much an outlier. However, the thread for discussion of this sort of matter is currently under mod enforced hiatus.
2. Many of these monuments do not actually have any real historical value. Instead, they served as a form of social control - a reminder of the place of minorities in society. Which is why they need to torn down.
3. We have had a number of threads on voter suppression in the modern era. I will refer you to them for the discussion of how the political voice of minorities is squelched in this day and age.
Well we could start by I dunno actually charging police officers who fatally shoot black people, tear down monuments to racist traitors, and stop openly preventing minorities specifically black people from voting/having a voice in government? Just a fucking thought.
We do charge police officers for fatally shooting someone, even blacks, when it's uncalled for. We should have no problem with an officer shooting down someone who is wielding a gun, or worse a knife, and getting no charges.
It isn't that simple. It's hard enough to get a cop past a grand jury when they blatantly shoot someone who did nothing wrong on camera, and this is ten times worse of a minority. In this country we'd have entire town's encouraging this, as well as profiteering off their disenfranchisement, by steamrolling over the minority population - until it boils over into rioting, RE: Ferguson. That wasn't an isolated event.
Tearing down monuments to racist traitors? No, I hesitate to tear down something that is of any historical value. I wouldn't even say lets tear down a statue of Adolf Hitler for instance. The key is to display such a thing in a proper context, like a museum, not as an endorsement of that thing.
There is no historical value in leaving monuments that honors traitors and monsters up, the proper context is in museums where they'll be shown with a negative light. Unless they're in museums they're causing more harm than good.
When were minorities openly prevented from having a voice recently in government? That's pure, white-man mustache twirling hyperbole. Black people certainly do vote and have a voice in government, like any citizen.
Technically correct, in practice we don't. Minorities of all stripes are still playing catch up to whites in government. We elected our first black president in 2008. Pakistan is ahead of us in electing female head of state's, they had theirs in 1988.
Electing people to office who are of color doesn't do shit. Obama is president and half the country is openly racist against him. If anything when black people get to higher echelon's of office it insulates racists.
"We elected the nword now you know we treat nwords great in america."
I mean fuck sake there are "think" pieces that Obama shouldn't say things about racial tragedies in america because it upsets americans.... FUCK AMERICA!
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
When were minorities openly prevented from having a voice recently in government? That's pure, white-man mustache twirling hyperbole. Black people certainly do vote and have a voice in government, like any citizen.
Technically correct, in practice we don't. Minorities of all stripes are still playing catch up to whites in government. We elected our first black president in 2008. Pakistan is ahead of us in electing female head of state's, they had theirs in 1988.
This isn't the same as saying minorities have no voice or representation in government, and I wish people would stop saying it.
Did you know that more than half of the voters who put elected officials in office are women?
And yet half of the representatives in government are not even women. We've never even had a female president yet, but that doesn't mean women have no voice in government. Same with minorities.
When were minorities openly prevented from having a voice recently in government? That's pure, white-man mustache twirling hyperbole. Black people certainly do vote and have a voice in government, like any citizen.
Technically correct, in practice we don't. Minorities of all stripes are still playing catch up to whites in government. We elected our first black president in 2008. Pakistan is ahead of us in electing female head of state's, they had theirs in 1988.
This isn't the same as saying minorities have no voice or representation in government, and I wish people would stop saying it.
Did you know that more than half of the voters who put elected officials in office are women?
I know. It's galling that despite it they can't get themselves elected to higher office in greater numbers.
And yet half of the representatives in government are not even women. We've never even had a female president yet, but that doesn't mean women have no voice in government. Same with minorities.
It's not just about having a voice, it's having the power to effect the electorate for their interests. Minorities and women don't have the same power as white males in government or business. That third world nations have done better then us with heads of state shows how pitiful we are with who we elect to run the country.
When were minorities openly prevented from having a voice recently in government? That's pure, white-man mustache twirling hyperbole. Black people certainly do vote and have a voice in government, like any citizen.
Technically correct, in practice we don't. Minorities of all stripes are still playing catch up to whites in government. We elected our first black president in 2008. Pakistan is ahead of us in electing female head of state's, they had theirs in 1988.
This isn't the same as saying minorities have no voice or representation in government, and I wish people would stop saying it.
Did you know that more than half of the voters who put elected officials in office are women?
And yet half of the representatives in government are not even women. We've never even had a female president yet, but that doesn't mean women have no voice in government. Same with minorities.
Yeah because reading recent headlines about women's health from colleges no longer offering health coverage to deny women from getting birth control to the the bullshit planned parenthood stings to shut down low income women's health coverage women sure have that voice being heard loud and clear in american politics!
I mean who can forget that great moment for our country when Sandra Fluke stood up for birth control coverage and was called a slut and tarred and feathered by a major voice on the right!
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
There isn't a whole lot a you can do about receiving privileged treatment. Some people devote their lives to social justice and I find that admirable but I don't expect everybody to do that.
"How can I correct privileged treatment?" also has a corollary question, "should I correct privileged treatment?" Some "privileges" are things that we get that we don't deserve, but I think those are relatively rare and more closely aligned with being wealthy.
More common are privileges that everybody deserves but are unfairly withheld from some groups more often than others. Everybody deserves basic respect from authority figures. Everybody deserves a shot at getting an education and a job. I don't want white people to give up these privileges; I want them to be equally granted to other ethnicities. And I don't think they are necessarily zero-sum.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
There isn't a whole lot a you can do about receiving privileged treatment. Some people devote their lives to social justice and I find that admirable but I don't expect everybody to do that.
"How can I correct privileged treatment?" also has a corollary question, "should I correct privileged treatment?" Some "privileges" are things that we get that we don't deserve, but I think those are relatively rare and more closely aligned with being wealthy.
More common are privileges that everybody deserves but are unfairly withheld from some groups more often than others. Everybody deserves basic respect from authority figures. Everybody deserves a shot at getting an education and a job. I don't want white people to give up these privileges; I want them to be equally granted to other ethnicities. And I don't think they are necessarily zero-sum.
This is an approach to and description of privilege I can agree with. White people aren't getting 'bonus' treatment. They are being treated by society as a citizen should be. Privilege needs to be extended to everyone.
In mmo terms people aren't calling for white people's racial to be nerfed, we are calling for every other classes racial to be buffed.
Yes, but the way these arguments often go makes it seem more like people believe that white people are somehow cheating, or getting something they shouldn't get. 'Privilege' is usually the most useless and counterproductive argument brought to these sort of discussions. By framing it as 'How can you make sure others are being treated as you have been treated' instead of 'Think of all the unfair ways you have gotten ahead of people due to your privilege and feel bad about that' it makes the entire argument more useful and functional as a tool to persuade people to behave differently.
The reason privilege gets brought up is that for a lot of white people they literally have no idea how hard minorities have it and their blindness to the subject causes it to go unresolved forever and ever.
Like a common thing I hear from white people I work with in western washington.
"If black people don't want to get shot by the police, don't commit crimes."
Which is astonishingly ignorant of what goes on with regards to minority slayings by the police.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
When were minorities openly prevented from having a voice recently in government? That's pure, white-man mustache twirling hyperbole. Black people certainly do vote and have a voice in government, like any citizen.
Technically correct, in practice we don't. Minorities of all stripes are still playing catch up to whites in government. We elected our first black president in 2008. Pakistan is ahead of us in electing female head of state's, they had theirs in 1988.
This isn't the same as saying minorities have no voice or representation in government, and I wish people would stop saying it.
Did you know that more than half of the voters who put elected officials in office are women?
And yet half of the representatives in government are not even women. We've never even had a female president yet, but that doesn't mean women have no voice in government. Same with minorities.
Yeah because reading recent headlines about women's health from colleges no longer offering health coverage to deny women from getting birth control to the the bullshit planned parenthood stings to shut down low income women's health coverage women sure have that voice being heard loud and clear in american politics!
I mean who can forget that great moment for our country when Sandra Fluke stood up for birth control coverage and was called a slut and tarred and feathered by a major voice on the right!
Well to be fair not all women are feminists. For example, I saw on Facebook that Donald Trump had made and later deleted a tweet saying "How can we expect Hillary to please America when she can't even please her husband." When I told my dad and step-mom this (intending to follow it up with "what an asshole, right?") my step-mother (who is pretty conservative) busted out laughing. Similarly, I overheard several of my female co-workers state that they didn't believe Bill Cosby was a rapist and that his accusers were lying.
It could be that the majority of women's voices are being heard, but they aren't saying what feminists would like them to.
Most people will make a real-world analogy based on limited resources. For instance: total jobs being steady then reducing black unemployment means raising unemployment for another group. Ditto with scholarships, wages, home value, etc.
Hard to sell any equalization methodology with fear some group will be equalized lower than before.
In mmo terms people aren't calling for white people's racial to be nerfed, we are calling for every other classes racial to be buffed.
Yes, but the way these arguments often go makes it seem more like people believe that white people are somehow cheating, or getting something they shouldn't get. 'Privilege' is usually the most useless and counterproductive argument brought to these sort of discussions. By framing it as 'How can you make sure others are being treated as you have been treated' instead of 'Think of all the unfair ways you have gotten ahead of people due to your privilege and feel bad about that' it makes the entire argument more useful and functional as a tool to persuade people to behave differently.
The thing is that the latter framing is the more honest of the two. It's not just about how I've been treated in a more beneficial manner, but that, in many, many real ways I've been given breaks that came at the expense of others. And yes, it's not a comfortable thing to talk about. But it has to be discussed. Trying to sugar coat it doesn't make the argument more useful - it just delays the ripping of the band-aid.
In mmo terms people aren't calling for white people's racial to be nerfed, we are calling for every other classes racial to be buffed.
Yes, but the way these arguments often go makes it seem more like people believe that white people are somehow cheating, or getting something they shouldn't get. 'Privilege' is usually the most useless and counterproductive argument brought to these sort of discussions. By framing it as 'How can you make sure others are being treated as you have been treated' instead of 'Think of all the unfair ways you have gotten ahead of people due to your privilege and feel bad about that' it makes the entire argument more useful and functional as a tool to persuade people to behave differently.
The thing is that the latter framing is the more honest of the two. It's not just about how I've been treated in a more beneficial manner, but that, in many, many real ways I've been given breaks that came at the expense of others. And yes, it's not a comfortable thing to talk about. But it has to be discussed. Trying to sugar coat it doesn't make the argument more useful - it just delays the ripping of the band-aid.
I am not certain about this. While discussion certainly needs to be framed differently than "try to make other people get treated as well as you do," it's very clear that striking the wrong tone when attempting to discuss privilege makes comes off as confrontational, and as soon as people see it as an attack they are more likely to double down rather than listen. And yes, some of the people who double down couldn't ever be reached, but it is very possible to drive away people who would be receptive if it was framed as less of an attack on them, especially people who grew up poor-but-white or in another situation where they can't immediately see any benefits of being privileged.
Like, a lot of times I see very well written posts that evoke strong emotions and convey how terrible it can be to lack privilege while still explaining it properly, and those posts are wonderful reads for people who already agree. But they're also so clearly hostile that they have no or even negative value for making somebody understand privilege better, though it may drive them out of the thread.
E: I'm not trying to say that an honest explanation of privilege is bad, but that dividing it into this sort of binary where you're either sugarcoating privilege too much to be useful or trying to evoke negative emotions to make people understand their privilege is silly. There has to be a middle ground.
When were minorities openly prevented from having a voice recently in government? That's pure, white-man mustache twirling hyperbole. Black people certainly do vote and have a voice in government, like any citizen.
Technically correct, in practice we don't. Minorities of all stripes are still playing catch up to whites in government. We elected our first black president in 2008. Pakistan is ahead of us in electing female head of state's, they had theirs in 1988.
This isn't the same as saying minorities have no voice or representation in government, and I wish people would stop saying it.
Did you know that more than half of the voters who put elected officials in office are women?
And yet half of the representatives in government are not even women. We've never even had a female president yet, but that doesn't mean women have no voice in government. Same with minorities.
Yeah because reading recent headlines about women's health from colleges no longer offering health coverage to deny women from getting birth control to the the bullshit planned parenthood stings to shut down low income women's health coverage women sure have that voice being heard loud and clear in american politics!
I mean who can forget that great moment for our country when Sandra Fluke stood up for birth control coverage and was called a slut and tarred and feathered by a major voice on the right!
Well to be fair not all women are feminists. For example, I saw on Facebook that Donald Trump had made and later deleted a tweet saying "How can we expect Hillary to please America when she can't even please her husband." When I told my dad and step-mom this (intending to follow it up with "what an asshole, right?") my step-mother (who is pretty conservative) busted out laughing. Similarly, I overheard several of my female co-workers state that they didn't believe Bill Cosby was a rapist and that his accusers were lying.
It could be that the majority of women's voices are being heard, but they aren't saying what feminists would like them to.
Nah. It's more that women can be sexist too and prop up sexist policies and institutions and social structures. This is, in fact, ridiculously common to the point where we don't even blink at it.
When were minorities openly prevented from having a voice recently in government? That's pure, white-man mustache twirling hyperbole. Black people certainly do vote and have a voice in government, like any citizen.
Technically correct, in practice we don't. Minorities of all stripes are still playing catch up to whites in government. We elected our first black president in 2008. Pakistan is ahead of us in electing female head of state's, they had theirs in 1988.
This isn't the same as saying minorities have no voice or representation in government, and I wish people would stop saying it.
Did you know that more than half of the voters who put elected officials in office are women?
And yet half of the representatives in government are not even women. We've never even had a female president yet, but that doesn't mean women have no voice in government. Same with minorities.
Yeah because reading recent headlines about women's health from colleges no longer offering health coverage to deny women from getting birth control to the the bullshit planned parenthood stings to shut down low income women's health coverage women sure have that voice being heard loud and clear in american politics!
I mean who can forget that great moment for our country when Sandra Fluke stood up for birth control coverage and was called a slut and tarred and feathered by a major voice on the right!
Well to be fair not all women are feminists. For example, I saw on Facebook that Donald Trump had made and later deleted a tweet saying "How can we expect Hillary to please America when she can't even please her husband." When I told my dad and step-mom this (intending to follow it up with "what an asshole, right?") my step-mother (who is pretty conservative) busted out laughing. Similarly, I overheard several of my female co-workers state that they didn't believe Bill Cosby was a rapist and that his accusers were lying.
It could be that the majority of women's voices are being heard, but they aren't saying what feminists would like them to.
Nah. It's more that women can be sexist too and prop up sexist policies and institutions and social structures. This is, in fact, ridiculously common to the point where we don't even blink at it.
It like black people being racist against their own race is an example of our patriarchal society influencing women against themselves. Witness all those famous female celebs saying "No I'm not a feminist because I like believe in equality."
The best way to protect yourself from the master is to be on his side.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
In mmo terms people aren't calling for white people's racial to be nerfed, we are calling for every other classes racial to be buffed.
Yes, but the way these arguments often go makes it seem more like people believe that white people are somehow cheating, or getting something they shouldn't get. 'Privilege' is usually the most useless and counterproductive argument brought to these sort of discussions. By framing it as 'How can you make sure others are being treated as you have been treated' instead of 'Think of all the unfair ways you have gotten ahead of people due to your privilege and feel bad about that' it makes the entire argument more useful and functional as a tool to persuade people to behave differently.
The thing is that the latter framing is the more honest of the two. It's not just about how I've been treated in a more beneficial manner, but that, in many, many real ways I've been given breaks that came at the expense of others. And yes, it's not a comfortable thing to talk about. But it has to be discussed. Trying to sugar coat it doesn't make the argument more useful - it just delays the ripping of the band-aid.
I don't know. I mean, it's easy to figure out if say a black person is more likely to be arrested for drugs relative to their rates of usage but whether and any one persons life would be drastically different is a lot more difficult.
It's only 15 percent of the population so I guess 15 percent more people applying for your job, max?
In mmo terms people aren't calling for white people's racial to be nerfed, we are calling for every other classes racial to be buffed.
Yes, but the way these arguments often go makes it seem more like people believe that white people are somehow cheating, or getting something they shouldn't get. 'Privilege' is usually the most useless and counterproductive argument brought to these sort of discussions. By framing it as 'How can you make sure others are being treated as you have been treated' instead of 'Think of all the unfair ways you have gotten ahead of people due to your privilege and feel bad about that' it makes the entire argument more useful and functional as a tool to persuade people to behave differently.
The thing is that the latter framing is the more honest of the two. It's not just about how I've been treated in a more beneficial manner, but that, in many, many real ways I've been given breaks that came at the expense of others. And yes, it's not a comfortable thing to talk about. But it has to be discussed. Trying to sugar coat it doesn't make the argument more useful - it just delays the ripping of the band-aid.
I am not certain about this. While discussion certainly needs to be framed differently than "try to make other people get treated as well as you do," it's very clear that striking the wrong tone when attempting to discuss privilege makes comes off as confrontational, and as soon as people see it as an attack they are more likely to double down rather than listen. And yes, some of the people who double down couldn't ever be reached, but it is very possible to drive away people who would be receptive if it was framed as less of an attack on them, especially people who grew up poor-but-white or in another situation where they can't immediately see any benefits of being privileged.
Like, a lot of times I see very well written posts that evoke strong emotions and convey how terrible it can be to lack privilege while still explaining it properly, and those posts are wonderful reads for people who already agree. But they're also so clearly hostile that they have no or even negative value for making somebody understand privilege better, though it may drive them out of the thread.
E: I'm not trying to say that an honest explanation of privilege is bad, but that dividing it into this sort of binary where you're either sugarcoating privilege too much to be useful or trying to evoke negative emotions to make people understand their privilege is silly. There has to be a middle ground.
It's not about evoking negative emotions, but about being honest. It's what Coates was talking about here:
But at the end of the segment, the host flashed a widely shared picture of a 12-year-old black boy tearfully hugging a white police officer. Then she asked me about “hope.” And I knew then that I had failed. And I remembered that I had expected to fail. And I wondered again at the indistinct sadness welling up in me. Why exactly was I sad? I came out of the studio and walked for a while. It was a calm late-November day. Families, believing themselves white, were out on the streets. Infants, raised to be white, were bundled in strollers. And I was sad for these people, much as I was sad for the host and sad for all the people out there watching and reveling in a specious hope. I realized then why I was sad. When the journalist asked me about my body, it was like she was asking me to awaken her from the most gorgeous dream. I have seen that dream all my life. It is perfect houses with nice lawns. It is Memorial Day cookouts, block associations, and driveways. The Dream is tree houses and the Cub Scouts. And for so long I have wanted to escape into the Dream, to fold my country over my head like a blanket. But this has never been an option, because the Dream rests on our backs, the bedding made from our bodies. And knowing this, knowing that the Dream persists by warring with the known world, I was sad for the host, I was sad for all those families, I was sad for my country, but above all, in that moment, I was sad for you.
There's really no "nice" way to have this conversation, not without leaving critical parts on the cutting room floor.
Most people will make a real-world analogy based on limited resources. For instance: total jobs being steady then reducing black unemployment means raising unemployment for another group. Ditto with scholarships, wages, home value, etc.
Hard to sell any equalization methodology with fear some group will be equalized lower than before.
They're completely and totally incorrect (when well implemented), though it is reasonably complicated why they are incorrect.
The problem is that certain individuals and groups either don't believe this, or deliberately muddy the waters for personal advantage.
In mmo terms people aren't calling for white people's racial to be nerfed, we are calling for every other classes racial to be buffed.
Yes, but the way these arguments often go makes it seem more like people believe that white people are somehow cheating, or getting something they shouldn't get. 'Privilege' is usually the most useless and counterproductive argument brought to these sort of discussions. By framing it as 'How can you make sure others are being treated as you have been treated' instead of 'Think of all the unfair ways you have gotten ahead of people due to your privilege and feel bad about that' it makes the entire argument more useful and functional as a tool to persuade people to behave differently.
The thing is that the latter framing is the more honest of the two. It's not just about how I've been treated in a more beneficial manner, but that, in many, many real ways I've been given breaks that came at the expense of others. And yes, it's not a comfortable thing to talk about. But it has to be discussed. Trying to sugar coat it doesn't make the argument more useful - it just delays the ripping of the band-aid.
I am not certain about this. While discussion certainly needs to be framed differently than "try to make other people get treated as well as you do," it's very clear that striking the wrong tone when attempting to discuss privilege makes comes off as confrontational, and as soon as people see it as an attack they are more likely to double down rather than listen. And yes, some of the people who double down couldn't ever be reached, but it is very possible to drive away people who would be receptive if it was framed as less of an attack on them, especially people who grew up poor-but-white or in another situation where they can't immediately see any benefits of being privileged.
Like, a lot of times I see very well written posts that evoke strong emotions and convey how terrible it can be to lack privilege while still explaining it properly, and those posts are wonderful reads for people who already agree. But they're also so clearly hostile that they have no or even negative value for making somebody understand privilege better, though it may drive them out of the thread.
E: I'm not trying to say that an honest explanation of privilege is bad, but that dividing it into this sort of binary where you're either sugarcoating privilege too much to be useful or trying to evoke negative emotions to make people understand their privilege is silly. There has to be a middle ground.
It's not about evoking negative emotions, but about being honest. It's what Coates was talking about here:
But at the end of the segment, the host flashed a widely shared picture of a 12-year-old black boy tearfully hugging a white police officer. Then she asked me about “hope.” And I knew then that I had failed. And I remembered that I had expected to fail. And I wondered again at the indistinct sadness welling up in me. Why exactly was I sad? I came out of the studio and walked for a while. It was a calm late-November day. Families, believing themselves white, were out on the streets. Infants, raised to be white, were bundled in strollers. And I was sad for these people, much as I was sad for the host and sad for all the people out there watching and reveling in a specious hope. I realized then why I was sad. When the journalist asked me about my body, it was like she was asking me to awaken her from the most gorgeous dream. I have seen that dream all my life. It is perfect houses with nice lawns. It is Memorial Day cookouts, block associations, and driveways. The Dream is tree houses and the Cub Scouts. And for so long I have wanted to escape into the Dream, to fold my country over my head like a blanket. But this has never been an option, because the Dream rests on our backs, the bedding made from our bodies. And knowing this, knowing that the Dream persists by warring with the known world, I was sad for the host, I was sad for all those families, I was sad for my country, but above all, in that moment, I was sad for you.
There's really no "nice" way to have this conversation, not without leaving critical parts on the cutting room floor.
I didn't use the word "nice," and you directly agreed with the approach of "think about the unfair ways you have gotten ahead... and feel bad."
That is literally an approach with the stated goal of making people feel bad for being privileged. I understand honesty, but there are plenty of times when people (Coates included, holy shit) antagonize privileged listeners far beyond what is necessary to explain to them why their privilege results in worse outcomes for others. That is the approach I disagree with; you can make people feel for others without trying to make them feel bad or attacked for who they are.
In mmo terms people aren't calling for white people's racial to be nerfed, we are calling for every other classes racial to be buffed.
Yes, but the way these arguments often go makes it seem more like people believe that white people are somehow cheating, or getting something they shouldn't get. 'Privilege' is usually the most useless and counterproductive argument brought to these sort of discussions. By framing it as 'How can you make sure others are being treated as you have been treated' instead of 'Think of all the unfair ways you have gotten ahead of people due to your privilege and feel bad about that' it makes the entire argument more useful and functional as a tool to persuade people to behave differently.
The thing is that the latter framing is the more honest of the two. It's not just about how I've been treated in a more beneficial manner, but that, in many, many real ways I've been given breaks that came at the expense of others. And yes, it's not a comfortable thing to talk about. But it has to be discussed. Trying to sugar coat it doesn't make the argument more useful - it just delays the ripping of the band-aid.
I am not certain about this. While discussion certainly needs to be framed differently than "try to make other people get treated as well as you do," it's very clear that striking the wrong tone when attempting to discuss privilege makes comes off as confrontational, and as soon as people see it as an attack they are more likely to double down rather than listen. And yes, some of the people who double down couldn't ever be reached, but it is very possible to drive away people who would be receptive if it was framed as less of an attack on them, especially people who grew up poor-but-white or in another situation where they can't immediately see any benefits of being privileged.
Like, a lot of times I see very well written posts that evoke strong emotions and convey how terrible it can be to lack privilege while still explaining it properly, and those posts are wonderful reads for people who already agree. But they're also so clearly hostile that they have no or even negative value for making somebody understand privilege better, though it may drive them out of the thread.
E: I'm not trying to say that an honest explanation of privilege is bad, but that dividing it into this sort of binary where you're either sugarcoating privilege too much to be useful or trying to evoke negative emotions to make people understand their privilege is silly. There has to be a middle ground.
It's not about evoking negative emotions, but about being honest. It's what Coates was talking about here:
But at the end of the segment, the host flashed a widely shared picture of a 12-year-old black boy tearfully hugging a white police officer. Then she asked me about “hope.” And I knew then that I had failed. And I remembered that I had expected to fail. And I wondered again at the indistinct sadness welling up in me. Why exactly was I sad? I came out of the studio and walked for a while. It was a calm late-November day. Families, believing themselves white, were out on the streets. Infants, raised to be white, were bundled in strollers. And I was sad for these people, much as I was sad for the host and sad for all the people out there watching and reveling in a specious hope. I realized then why I was sad. When the journalist asked me about my body, it was like she was asking me to awaken her from the most gorgeous dream. I have seen that dream all my life. It is perfect houses with nice lawns. It is Memorial Day cookouts, block associations, and driveways. The Dream is tree houses and the Cub Scouts. And for so long I have wanted to escape into the Dream, to fold my country over my head like a blanket. But this has never been an option, because the Dream rests on our backs, the bedding made from our bodies. And knowing this, knowing that the Dream persists by warring with the known world, I was sad for the host, I was sad for all those families, I was sad for my country, but above all, in that moment, I was sad for you.
There's really no "nice" way to have this conversation, not without leaving critical parts on the cutting room floor.
I didn't use the word "nice," and you directly agreed with the approach of "think about the unfair ways you have gotten ahead... and feel bad."
That is literally an approach with the stated goal of making people feel bad for being privileged. I understand honesty, but there are plenty of times when people (Coates included, holy shit) antagonize privileged listeners far beyond what is necessary to explain to them why their privilege results in worse outcomes for others. That is the approach I disagree with; you can make people feel for others without trying to make them feel bad or attacked for who they are.
No it's stated goal is to make people aware of privilege. That they then feel bad is, well, a human having empathy.
In mmo terms people aren't calling for white people's racial to be nerfed, we are calling for every other classes racial to be buffed.
Yes, but the way these arguments often go makes it seem more like people believe that white people are somehow cheating, or getting something they shouldn't get. 'Privilege' is usually the most useless and counterproductive argument brought to these sort of discussions. By framing it as 'How can you make sure others are being treated as you have been treated' instead of 'Think of all the unfair ways you have gotten ahead of people due to your privilege and feel bad about that' it makes the entire argument more useful and functional as a tool to persuade people to behave differently.
The thing is that the latter framing is the more honest of the two. It's not just about how I've been treated in a more beneficial manner, but that, in many, many real ways I've been given breaks that came at the expense of others. And yes, it's not a comfortable thing to talk about. But it has to be discussed. Trying to sugar coat it doesn't make the argument more useful - it just delays the ripping of the band-aid.
I am not certain about this. While discussion certainly needs to be framed differently than "try to make other people get treated as well as you do," it's very clear that striking the wrong tone when attempting to discuss privilege makes comes off as confrontational, and as soon as people see it as an attack they are more likely to double down rather than listen. And yes, some of the people who double down couldn't ever be reached, but it is very possible to drive away people who would be receptive if it was framed as less of an attack on them, especially people who grew up poor-but-white or in another situation where they can't immediately see any benefits of being privileged.
Like, a lot of times I see very well written posts that evoke strong emotions and convey how terrible it can be to lack privilege while still explaining it properly, and those posts are wonderful reads for people who already agree. But they're also so clearly hostile that they have no or even negative value for making somebody understand privilege better, though it may drive them out of the thread.
E: I'm not trying to say that an honest explanation of privilege is bad, but that dividing it into this sort of binary where you're either sugarcoating privilege too much to be useful or trying to evoke negative emotions to make people understand their privilege is silly. There has to be a middle ground.
It's not about evoking negative emotions, but about being honest. It's what Coates was talking about here:
But at the end of the segment, the host flashed a widely shared picture of a 12-year-old black boy tearfully hugging a white police officer. Then she asked me about “hope.” And I knew then that I had failed. And I remembered that I had expected to fail. And I wondered again at the indistinct sadness welling up in me. Why exactly was I sad? I came out of the studio and walked for a while. It was a calm late-November day. Families, believing themselves white, were out on the streets. Infants, raised to be white, were bundled in strollers. And I was sad for these people, much as I was sad for the host and sad for all the people out there watching and reveling in a specious hope. I realized then why I was sad. When the journalist asked me about my body, it was like she was asking me to awaken her from the most gorgeous dream. I have seen that dream all my life. It is perfect houses with nice lawns. It is Memorial Day cookouts, block associations, and driveways. The Dream is tree houses and the Cub Scouts. And for so long I have wanted to escape into the Dream, to fold my country over my head like a blanket. But this has never been an option, because the Dream rests on our backs, the bedding made from our bodies. And knowing this, knowing that the Dream persists by warring with the known world, I was sad for the host, I was sad for all those families, I was sad for my country, but above all, in that moment, I was sad for you.
There's really no "nice" way to have this conversation, not without leaving critical parts on the cutting room floor.
I didn't use the word "nice," and you directly agreed with the approach of "think about the unfair ways you have gotten ahead... and feel bad."
That is literally an approach with the stated goal of making people feel bad for being privileged. I understand honesty, but there are plenty of times when people (Coates included, holy shit) antagonize privileged listeners far beyond what is necessary to explain to them why their privilege results in worse outcomes for others. That is the approach I disagree with; you can make people feel for others without trying to make them feel bad or attacked for who they are.
No it's stated goal is to make people aware of privilege. That they then feel bad is, well, a human having empathy.
The quote he agreed with, in full:
'Think of all the unfair ways you have gotten ahead of people due to your privilege and feel bad about that'
You would need a very charitable and very biased view to read the goal of that as anything but "feel bad for having privilege."
E: I agree with you that people should be aware of privilege! I just disagree with the idea, which seems to be accepted in a lot of circles, that the best way to do that is to go about it in a way focused on battering or guilt-tripping somebody into accepting privilege. What you are saying (make them aware of privilege, and have them feel bad for somebody else) is exactly the approach I want to be used. But the approach stated, which is to make them feel bad about themselves because of their privilege, is going to drive otherwise receptive people off.
So 24k to make up by 5.5 people.
4.3k per person per year.
You are not doing the math incorrectly but these numbers are pointless because they assume that total income is a zero sum game and all white people would pay equally into some kind of reparation fund. This sort of math is only useful to create a soundbyte that convinces a white family making 40k a year that they're about to lose 25% of their total income.
In mmo terms people aren't calling for white people's racial to be nerfed, we are calling for every other classes racial to be buffed.
Yes, but the way these arguments often go makes it seem more like people believe that white people are somehow cheating, or getting something they shouldn't get. 'Privilege' is usually the most useless and counterproductive argument brought to these sort of discussions. By framing it as 'How can you make sure others are being treated as you have been treated' instead of 'Think of all the unfair ways you have gotten ahead of people due to your privilege and feel bad about that' it makes the entire argument more useful and functional as a tool to persuade people to behave differently.
The thing is that the latter framing is the more honest of the two. It's not just about how I've been treated in a more beneficial manner, but that, in many, many real ways I've been given breaks that came at the expense of others. And yes, it's not a comfortable thing to talk about. But it has to be discussed. Trying to sugar coat it doesn't make the argument more useful - it just delays the ripping of the band-aid.
I am not certain about this. While discussion certainly needs to be framed differently than "try to make other people get treated as well as you do," it's very clear that striking the wrong tone when attempting to discuss privilege makes comes off as confrontational, and as soon as people see it as an attack they are more likely to double down rather than listen. And yes, some of the people who double down couldn't ever be reached, but it is very possible to drive away people who would be receptive if it was framed as less of an attack on them, especially people who grew up poor-but-white or in another situation where they can't immediately see any benefits of being privileged.
Like, a lot of times I see very well written posts that evoke strong emotions and convey how terrible it can be to lack privilege while still explaining it properly, and those posts are wonderful reads for people who already agree. But they're also so clearly hostile that they have no or even negative value for making somebody understand privilege better, though it may drive them out of the thread.
E: I'm not trying to say that an honest explanation of privilege is bad, but that dividing it into this sort of binary where you're either sugarcoating privilege too much to be useful or trying to evoke negative emotions to make people understand their privilege is silly. There has to be a middle ground.
It's not about evoking negative emotions, but about being honest. It's what Coates was talking about here:
But at the end of the segment, the host flashed a widely shared picture of a 12-year-old black boy tearfully hugging a white police officer. Then she asked me about “hope.” And I knew then that I had failed. And I remembered that I had expected to fail. And I wondered again at the indistinct sadness welling up in me. Why exactly was I sad? I came out of the studio and walked for a while. It was a calm late-November day. Families, believing themselves white, were out on the streets. Infants, raised to be white, were bundled in strollers. And I was sad for these people, much as I was sad for the host and sad for all the people out there watching and reveling in a specious hope. I realized then why I was sad. When the journalist asked me about my body, it was like she was asking me to awaken her from the most gorgeous dream. I have seen that dream all my life. It is perfect houses with nice lawns. It is Memorial Day cookouts, block associations, and driveways. The Dream is tree houses and the Cub Scouts. And for so long I have wanted to escape into the Dream, to fold my country over my head like a blanket. But this has never been an option, because the Dream rests on our backs, the bedding made from our bodies. And knowing this, knowing that the Dream persists by warring with the known world, I was sad for the host, I was sad for all those families, I was sad for my country, but above all, in that moment, I was sad for you.
There's really no "nice" way to have this conversation, not without leaving critical parts on the cutting room floor.
I didn't use the word "nice," and you directly agreed with the approach of "think about the unfair ways you have gotten ahead... and feel bad."
That is literally an approach with the stated goal of making people feel bad for being privileged. I understand honesty, but there are plenty of times when people (Coates included, holy shit) antagonize privileged listeners far beyond what is necessary to explain to them why their privilege results in worse outcomes for others. That is the approach I disagree with; you can make people feel for others without trying to make them feel bad or attacked for who they are.
No it's stated goal is to make people aware of privilege. That they then feel bad is, well, a human having empathy.
The quote he agreed with, in full:
'Think of all the unfair ways you have gotten ahead of people due to your privilege and feel bad about that'
You would need a very charitable and very biased view to read the goal of that as anything but "feel bad for having privilege."
No, you would just need to know english.
You should look at your privilege. And then you should feel bad about that because it's obviously bad if you have any empathy for other human beings.
E: I agree with you that people should be aware of privilege! I just disagree with the idea, which seems to be accepted in a lot of circles, that the best way to do that is to go about it in a way focused on battering or guilt-tripping somebody into accepting privilege. What you are saying (make them aware of privilege, and have them feel bad for somebody else) is exactly the approach I want to be used. But the approach stated, which is to make them feel bad about themselves because of their privilege, is going to drive otherwise receptive people off.
There is no difference. It can't not be a "guilt-trip" because it's a horrible thing that you are making people aware of. It's like accusing someone of "guilt-tripping" for pointing out the differing rates of incarceration by race.
shryke on
0
Options
Nbspshe laughs, like Godher mind's like a diamondRegistered Userregular
When were minorities openly prevented from having a voice recently in government? That's pure, white-man mustache twirling hyperbole. Black people certainly do vote and have a voice in government, like any citizen.
Technically correct, in practice we don't. Minorities of all stripes are still playing catch up to whites in government. We elected our first black president in 2008. Pakistan is ahead of us in electing female head of state's, they had theirs in 1988.
This isn't the same as saying minorities have no voice or representation in government, and I wish people would stop saying it.
Did you know that more than half of the voters who put elected officials in office are women?
And yet half of the representatives in government are not even women. We've never even had a female president yet, but that doesn't mean women have no voice in government. Same with minorities.
Yeah because reading recent headlines about women's health from colleges no longer offering health coverage to deny women from getting birth control to the the bullshit planned parenthood stings to shut down low income women's health coverage women sure have that voice being heard loud and clear in american politics!
I mean who can forget that great moment for our country when Sandra Fluke stood up for birth control coverage and was called a slut and tarred and feathered by a major voice on the right!
Well to be fair not all women are feminists. For example, I saw on Facebook that Donald Trump had made and later deleted a tweet saying "How can we expect Hillary to please America when she can't even please her husband." When I told my dad and step-mom this (intending to follow it up with "what an asshole, right?") my step-mother (who is pretty conservative) busted out laughing. Similarly, I overheard several of my female co-workers state that they didn't believe Bill Cosby was a rapist and that his accusers were lying.
It could be that the majority of women's voices are being heard, but they aren't saying what feminists would like them to.
Nah. It's more that women can be sexist too and prop up sexist policies and institutions and social structures. This is, in fact, ridiculously common to the point where we don't even blink at it.
It like black people being racist against their own race is an example of our patriarchal society influencing women against themselves. Witness all those famous female celebs saying "No I'm not a feminist because I like believe in equality."
The best way to protect yourself from the master is to be on his side.
There is a huge difference between "feel bad for this person, because they have it worse" and "feel bad about yourself, because you have it better." If you don't think there is, I don't think we'll have any productive discussion on this part of the issue.
I ate an engineer
+5
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
Most people will make a real-world analogy based on limited resources. For instance: total jobs being steady then reducing black unemployment means raising unemployment for another group. Ditto with scholarships, wages, home value, etc.
Hard to sell any equalization methodology with fear some group will be equalized lower than before.
It's a ridiculous fear when you think about it because the groups that'd be worse off are groups no one cares about. Foreign workers, in the case of jobs, and the people who make 40 grand every five minutes, for wages/scholarships.
Sadly people don't think about it and immediately assume that "if the black man is better off, then that means I must be worse off" and then they vote against jobs programs and a safety net. Right-wing politicians and left-wing writers like Coates don't help.
Right right wing politicians setting actual regressive policy is totes equivalent to a black writer who doesn't sugar coat his harsh truths for the audience of privileged people not listening to him. Totes.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Posts
pleasepaypreacher.net
I think this conflates one part of housing disparities (discriminatory lending practices) with the whole of housing disparities (which is complex and multicausal and is deeply entwined with wealth inequality in general.)
The specific issue I alluded to regarding banks involved lenders charging higher interest rates to black lenders in comparison to white lenders with comparable credit ratings buying properties of comparable value.
Ending discriminatory lending practices does not require banks to fund loans of a different risk class. It requires them to treat loans of comparable risk classes fairly.
This alone wouldn't solve racial housing disparities, but it would help.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
And while that is something no black American can do, it is telling about what it means for a region or a nation to have ingrained prejudices. It does not matter that any particular individual holds racism in their heart. It matters that there is a blanket of assumptions, discrimination and exclusion so pervasive that moving to a community where it does not exist can literally be a life-changing experience for a family that carries through for generations.
Sure, those are things I can control for myself.
But what about others who prejudge me for being white?
Come again with the bolded, please do explain.
pleasepaypreacher.net
We do charge police officers for fatally shooting someone, even blacks, when it's uncalled for. We should have no problem with an officer shooting down someone who is wielding a gun, or worse a knife, and getting no charges.
Tearing down monuments to racist traitors? No, I hesitate to tear down something that is of any historical value. I wouldn't even say lets tear down a statue of Adolf Hitler for instance. The key is to display such a thing in a proper context, like a museum, not as an endorsement of that thing.
When were minorities openly prevented from having a voice recently in government? That's pure, white-man mustache twirling hyperbole. Black people certainly do vote and have a voice in government, like any citizen.
People will treat me better because I'm white, what do I do about that?
Although, I'm sure I'm about to hear arguments about how that's not actually racist, good for black Americans and its racist for me to even bring it up.
Nothing other than recognize that a privilege you have that others do not? I mean again there are some things ingrained in our society that will not change over night, but you can't demand people treat you worse, but at the same time turning a blind eye to that you are being favored and voting for people who want to keep the status quo does the country no good.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/29/magazine/voting-rights-act-dream-undone.html?_r=0
This is an interesting article on how voting rights have degraded in the US, specifically for black people since the inception of the civil rights, its long but its solid.
pleasepaypreacher.net
1. No, we don't charge officers for shooting minorities except in rare, especially egregious cases. What is happening in Cincinnati right now is very much an outlier. However, the thread for discussion of this sort of matter is currently under mod enforced hiatus.
2. Many of these monuments do not actually have any real historical value. Instead, they served as a form of social control - a reminder of the place of minorities in society. Which is why they need to torn down.
3. We have had a number of threads on voter suppression in the modern era. I will refer you to them for the discussion of how the political voice of minorities is squelched in this day and age.
It isn't that simple. It's hard enough to get a cop past a grand jury when they blatantly shoot someone who did nothing wrong on camera, and this is ten times worse of a minority. In this country we'd have entire town's encouraging this, as well as profiteering off their disenfranchisement, by steamrolling over the minority population - until it boils over into rioting, RE: Ferguson. That wasn't an isolated event.
There is no historical value in leaving monuments that honors traitors and monsters up, the proper context is in museums where they'll be shown with a negative light. Unless they're in museums they're causing more harm than good.
Technically correct, in practice we don't. Minorities of all stripes are still playing catch up to whites in government. We elected our first black president in 2008. Pakistan is ahead of us in electing female head of state's, they had theirs in 1988.
"We elected the nword now you know we treat nwords great in america."
I mean fuck sake there are "think" pieces that Obama shouldn't say things about racial tragedies in america because it upsets americans.... FUCK AMERICA!
pleasepaypreacher.net
This isn't the same as saying minorities have no voice or representation in government, and I wish people would stop saying it.
Did you know that more than half of the voters who put elected officials in office are women?
And yet half of the representatives in government are not even women. We've never even had a female president yet, but that doesn't mean women have no voice in government. Same with minorities.
I know. It's galling that despite it they can't get themselves elected to higher office in greater numbers.
It's not just about having a voice, it's having the power to effect the electorate for their interests. Minorities and women don't have the same power as white males in government or business. That third world nations have done better then us with heads of state shows how pitiful we are with who we elect to run the country.
Yeah because reading recent headlines about women's health from colleges no longer offering health coverage to deny women from getting birth control to the the bullshit planned parenthood stings to shut down low income women's health coverage women sure have that voice being heard loud and clear in american politics!
I mean who can forget that great moment for our country when Sandra Fluke stood up for birth control coverage and was called a slut and tarred and feathered by a major voice on the right!
pleasepaypreacher.net
"How can I correct privileged treatment?" also has a corollary question, "should I correct privileged treatment?" Some "privileges" are things that we get that we don't deserve, but I think those are relatively rare and more closely aligned with being wealthy.
More common are privileges that everybody deserves but are unfairly withheld from some groups more often than others. Everybody deserves basic respect from authority figures. Everybody deserves a shot at getting an education and a job. I don't want white people to give up these privileges; I want them to be equally granted to other ethnicities. And I don't think they are necessarily zero-sum.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
This is an approach to and description of privilege I can agree with. White people aren't getting 'bonus' treatment. They are being treated by society as a citizen should be. Privilege needs to be extended to everyone.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yes, but the way these arguments often go makes it seem more like people believe that white people are somehow cheating, or getting something they shouldn't get. 'Privilege' is usually the most useless and counterproductive argument brought to these sort of discussions. By framing it as 'How can you make sure others are being treated as you have been treated' instead of 'Think of all the unfair ways you have gotten ahead of people due to your privilege and feel bad about that' it makes the entire argument more useful and functional as a tool to persuade people to behave differently.
Like a common thing I hear from white people I work with in western washington.
"If black people don't want to get shot by the police, don't commit crimes."
Which is astonishingly ignorant of what goes on with regards to minority slayings by the police.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Well to be fair not all women are feminists. For example, I saw on Facebook that Donald Trump had made and later deleted a tweet saying "How can we expect Hillary to please America when she can't even please her husband." When I told my dad and step-mom this (intending to follow it up with "what an asshole, right?") my step-mother (who is pretty conservative) busted out laughing. Similarly, I overheard several of my female co-workers state that they didn't believe Bill Cosby was a rapist and that his accusers were lying.
It could be that the majority of women's voices are being heard, but they aren't saying what feminists would like them to.
Hard to sell any equalization methodology with fear some group will be equalized lower than before.
The thing is that the latter framing is the more honest of the two. It's not just about how I've been treated in a more beneficial manner, but that, in many, many real ways I've been given breaks that came at the expense of others. And yes, it's not a comfortable thing to talk about. But it has to be discussed. Trying to sugar coat it doesn't make the argument more useful - it just delays the ripping of the band-aid.
I am not certain about this. While discussion certainly needs to be framed differently than "try to make other people get treated as well as you do," it's very clear that striking the wrong tone when attempting to discuss privilege makes comes off as confrontational, and as soon as people see it as an attack they are more likely to double down rather than listen. And yes, some of the people who double down couldn't ever be reached, but it is very possible to drive away people who would be receptive if it was framed as less of an attack on them, especially people who grew up poor-but-white or in another situation where they can't immediately see any benefits of being privileged.
Like, a lot of times I see very well written posts that evoke strong emotions and convey how terrible it can be to lack privilege while still explaining it properly, and those posts are wonderful reads for people who already agree. But they're also so clearly hostile that they have no or even negative value for making somebody understand privilege better, though it may drive them out of the thread.
E: I'm not trying to say that an honest explanation of privilege is bad, but that dividing it into this sort of binary where you're either sugarcoating privilege too much to be useful or trying to evoke negative emotions to make people understand their privilege is silly. There has to be a middle ground.
Nah. It's more that women can be sexist too and prop up sexist policies and institutions and social structures. This is, in fact, ridiculously common to the point where we don't even blink at it.
It like black people being racist against their own race is an example of our patriarchal society influencing women against themselves. Witness all those famous female celebs saying "No I'm not a feminist because I like believe in equality."
The best way to protect yourself from the master is to be on his side.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I don't know. I mean, it's easy to figure out if say a black person is more likely to be arrested for drugs relative to their rates of usage but whether and any one persons life would be drastically different is a lot more difficult.
It's only 15 percent of the population so I guess 15 percent more people applying for your job, max?
It's not about evoking negative emotions, but about being honest. It's what Coates was talking about here:
There's really no "nice" way to have this conversation, not without leaving critical parts on the cutting room floor.
They're completely and totally incorrect (when well implemented), though it is reasonably complicated why they are incorrect.
The problem is that certain individuals and groups either don't believe this, or deliberately muddy the waters for personal advantage.
I didn't use the word "nice," and you directly agreed with the approach of "think about the unfair ways you have gotten ahead... and feel bad."
That is literally an approach with the stated goal of making people feel bad for being privileged. I understand honesty, but there are plenty of times when people (Coates included, holy shit) antagonize privileged listeners far beyond what is necessary to explain to them why their privilege results in worse outcomes for others. That is the approach I disagree with; you can make people feel for others without trying to make them feel bad or attacked for who they are.
No it's stated goal is to make people aware of privilege. That they then feel bad is, well, a human having empathy.
The quote he agreed with, in full:
You would need a very charitable and very biased view to read the goal of that as anything but "feel bad for having privilege."
E: I agree with you that people should be aware of privilege! I just disagree with the idea, which seems to be accepted in a lot of circles, that the best way to do that is to go about it in a way focused on battering or guilt-tripping somebody into accepting privilege. What you are saying (make them aware of privilege, and have them feel bad for somebody else) is exactly the approach I want to be used. But the approach stated, which is to make them feel bad about themselves because of their privilege, is going to drive otherwise receptive people off.
14 percent black 77 white
5.5 white people per black person
Average income
Black 33k white 57k
So 24k to make up by 5.5 people.
4.3k per person per year.
You are not doing the math incorrectly but these numbers are pointless because they assume that total income is a zero sum game and all white people would pay equally into some kind of reparation fund. This sort of math is only useful to create a soundbyte that convinces a white family making 40k a year that they're about to lose 25% of their total income.
No, you would just need to know english.
You should look at your privilege. And then you should feel bad about that because it's obviously bad if you have any empathy for other human beings.
There is no difference. It can't not be a "guilt-trip" because it's a horrible thing that you are making people aware of. It's like accusing someone of "guilt-tripping" for pointing out the differing rates of incarceration by race.
Wow, I can just imagine a thread about this.
Edit: And how twisted this view is.
It's a ridiculous fear when you think about it because the groups that'd be worse off are groups no one cares about. Foreign workers, in the case of jobs, and the people who make 40 grand every five minutes, for wages/scholarships.
Sadly people don't think about it and immediately assume that "if the black man is better off, then that means I must be worse off" and then they vote against jobs programs and a safety net. Right-wing politicians and left-wing writers like Coates don't help.
pleasepaypreacher.net