5 ms·

It seems that a large number of posters believe that discriminating against white men is okay because they enjoy "white privilege", whatever that is. Either yo

It seems that a large number of posters believe that discriminating against white men is okay because they enjoy "white privilege", whatever that is. Either you believe it is okay to discriminate against someone on the basis of their skin color or you don't. Attempts to redefine the word notwithstanding, those who subscribe to the former philosophy are known as racists. It is hard to distinguish the anti-white vitriol I see on this page from the antisemitism of yesteryear. It was often said that Jews were over-represented in various occupations not because their industriousness, intelligence or other virtues, but because of devious trickery (they plot together to deprive others of opportunities). I fail to see how the arguments regarding white men are any different.

striking 11y ago
It wasn't uncommon to hear in Eastern Europe a short while ago that "Jews control the world" and that's why we should take their power from them. Clearly absurd, but that's how people felt. (And I'm not making points about the Nazis, I'm making points about Poland in 1989 during the fall of Communism.) But now we hear "white men control the world," and are expected to take their power away. Just because they're similar doesn't mean they're the same, I realize. But we should at least be self-aware about that similarity, because it means something.
exolymph 11y ago
I think you're misunderstanding the argument people make about the concept of privilege. Nothing about it is intentional in the standard sense. It's more that people behave to benefit themselves -- which is natural and fine -- and power has slowly accrued over time to white men more than to other types of people. The argument is not that white men are malicious, but that their traits are implicitly favored and promoted because we tend to gravitate toward and feel more comfortable around people who are similar to ourselves. Ergo, white men in power enable other white men to gain more power.
- verylongaccount 11y ago
  I understand perfectly. This is precisely what was (and is still to an extent) said of Jews.
bmh_ca 11y ago
> Either you believe it is okay to discriminate against someone on the basis of their skin color or you don't. In most anti-discrimination policy discussions, the question being asked is not what colour ones skin is. It is whether the person belongs to an identifiable group that has suffered systemic prejudice. The ordinary intention of anti-discrimination is to rectify past and prevent future wrongs, and in particular to break cycles of stereotype, poverty, and crime. Colour of skin is incidental to the formula, being an identifiable group. The primary consideration for preferential bias is belonging to a group that has suffered prejudice. One could as readily substitute for skin colour those discriminations founded upon language, hair colour, sexual orientation, height, and body shape, among many others. The factor itself is not an entitlement to preference; it is the history of prejudice and prospect of systemic improvement that determines suitability for discrimination. The argument that white people are being discriminated against based on a formula that rectifies past wrongs and undoes future ones belies a misunderstanding of the purpose, benefit, and impact. One may only come to this conclusion by discounting those past and future wrongs that have been committed and will continue to be committed by a system with inherent biases.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- striking 11y ago
  > The argument that white people are being discriminated against based on a formula that rectifies past wrongs and undoes future ones belies a misunderstanding of the purpose, benefit, and impact. That's perfectly absurd. Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. How do we measure wrongs? How do we "undo future wrongs"? I can't. Totally cannot. 100% can't deal with your argument.
  - bmh_ca 11y ago
    > I can't. Totally cannot. 100% can't deal with your argument. I find it telling that you think it is my argument. What I wrote is neither mine nor an argument. It is a description of a theory. > Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. Not all discriminations are equal. To argue that all discrimination is discrimination is to give equivalence to police murdering for traffic violations and being denied the pole position on a job application. Both are wrong, but there are quantitative differences – they can be measured. > How do we measure wrongs? How do we "undo future wrongs"? We can measure the effect of discrimination by the number of people affected, and the impact a discrimination has on an individual. It's not an unknown problem; statisticians measure it on jobs, income, applications, promotions, employment types. The data exists or can be gathered, and it can ascribed monetary value ("damages" in law). No formula will be ideal in all cases, but that is not an excusable barrier. Societies with affirmative action have in essence determined, whether founded or not, that the aggregate of prejudice against classes of victims outweighs the aggregate prejudice of attempting to correct it. If you want to discredit the theory you must first understand that it is a widely published and peer reviewed theory of many facets of society and not just an argument from some guy on the internet. The theory is founded in the philosophy of law, and touches on many other aspects ranging from the relationship between culture and economics through criminology.
rotw 11y ago
> believe that discriminating against white men is okay because they enjoy "white privilege", whatever that is > It is hard to distinguish the anti-white vitriol I see on this page from the antisemitism of yesteryear. It was often said that Jews were over-represented in various occupations not because their industriousness, intelligence or other virtues, but because of devious trickery (they plot together to deprive others of opportunities). I fail to see how the arguments regarding white men are any different. It's because you don't even make an attempt to understand the terms of the debate. White privilege is a structural, societal-level advantage that white people have stemming from centuries of economic and cultural disenfranchisement of ethnic minorities, that while you personally can't change, can be worked towards overcoming it. Educate yourself before you throw Godwins around. https://library.gv.com/unconscious-bias-at-work-22e698e9b2d#.l5qe8cgqa https://library.gv.com/unconscious-bias-at-work-22e698e9b2d#... http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case...
- striking 11y ago
  > Educate yourself before you throw Godwins around. He's not invoking Hitler or Nazism, he's making a comparison between white privilege and anti-semitism. It's pertinent because of whites and Jews being races; it's not just a random invocation of whatever to win an argument. Not all anti-semites are Nazis. There are plenty of otherwise normal people who just randomly hate Jews for literally no reason. There's a point there, and I think you missed it. (Please note I am not arguing for or against that point, just that you may have missed it.) I also appreciate the "Educate yourself" thought-terminating cliche. It's an interesting one. If you call an argument Godwinesque but turn out to be wrong, who has lost the argument?
- Globrazu 11y ago
  Who exactly are you reffering to when you talk about "white people"? Anglo-Saxons/Saxons? Franks/Gauls? Celts? Slavs? Greco-Romans? Nordic people? You're talking and generalizing an awful lot of people.

striking 11y ago

It wasn't uncommon to hear in Eastern Europe a short while ago that "Jews control the world" and that's why we should take their power from them. Clearly absurd, but that's how people felt. (And I'm not making points about the Nazis, I'm making points about Poland in 1989 during the fall of Communism.) But now we hear "white men control the world," and are expected to take their power away. Just because they're similar doesn't mean they're the same, I realize. But we should at least be self-aware about that similarity, because it means something.

exolymph 11y ago

I think you're misunderstanding the argument people make about the concept of privilege. Nothing about it is intentional in the standard sense. It's more that people behave to benefit themselves -- which is natural and fine -- and power has slowly accrued over time to white men more than to other types of people. The argument is not that white men are malicious, but that their traits are implicitly favored and promoted because we tend to gravitate toward and feel more comfortable around people who are similar to ourselves. Ergo, white men in power enable other white men to gain more power.

verylongaccount 11y ago
I understand perfectly. This is precisely what was (and is still to an extent) said of Jews.

bmh_ca 11y ago

> Either you believe it is okay to discriminate against someone on the basis of their skin color or you don't. In most anti-discrimination policy discussions, the question being asked is not what colour ones skin is. It is whether the person belongs to an identifiable group that has suffered systemic prejudice. The ordinary intention of anti-discrimination is to rectify past and prevent future wrongs, and in particular to break cycles of stereotype, poverty, and crime. Colour of skin is incidental to the formula, being an identifiable group. The primary consideration for preferential bias is belonging to a group that has suffered prejudice. One could as readily substitute for skin colour those discriminations founded upon language, hair colour, sexual orientation, height, and body shape, among many others. The factor itself is not an entitlement to preference; it is the history of prejudice and prospect of systemic improvement that determines suitability for discrimination. The argument that white people are being discriminated against based on a formula that rectifies past wrongs and undoes future ones belies a misunderstanding of the purpose, benefit, and impact. One may only come to this conclusion by discounting those past and future wrongs that have been committed and will continue to be committed by a system with inherent biases.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
striking 11y ago
> The argument that white people are being discriminated against based on a formula that rectifies past wrongs and undoes future ones belies a misunderstanding of the purpose, benefit, and impact. That's perfectly absurd. Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. How do we measure wrongs? How do we "undo future wrongs"? I can't. Totally cannot. 100% can't deal with your argument.
- bmh_ca 11y ago
  > I can't. Totally cannot. 100% can't deal with your argument. I find it telling that you think it is my argument. What I wrote is neither mine nor an argument. It is a description of a theory. > Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. Not all discriminations are equal. To argue that all discrimination is discrimination is to give equivalence to police murdering for traffic violations and being denied the pole position on a job application. Both are wrong, but there are quantitative differences – they can be measured. > How do we measure wrongs? How do we "undo future wrongs"? We can measure the effect of discrimination by the number of people affected, and the impact a discrimination has on an individual. It's not an unknown problem; statisticians measure it on jobs, income, applications, promotions, employment types. The data exists or can be gathered, and it can ascribed monetary value ("damages" in law). No formula will be ideal in all cases, but that is not an excusable barrier. Societies with affirmative action have in essence determined, whether founded or not, that the aggregate of prejudice against classes of victims outweighs the aggregate prejudice of attempting to correct it. If you want to discredit the theory you must first understand that it is a widely published and peer reviewed theory of many facets of society and not just an argument from some guy on the internet. The theory is founded in the philosophy of law, and touches on many other aspects ranging from the relationship between culture and economics through criminology.

rotw 11y ago

> believe that discriminating against white men is okay because they enjoy "white privilege", whatever that is > It is hard to distinguish the anti-white vitriol I see on this page from the antisemitism of yesteryear. It was often said that Jews were over-represented in various occupations not because their industriousness, intelligence or other virtues, but because of devious trickery (they plot together to deprive others of opportunities). I fail to see how the arguments regarding white men are any different. It's because you don't even make an attempt to understand the terms of the debate. White privilege is a structural, societal-level advantage that white people have stemming from centuries of economic and cultural disenfranchisement of ethnic minorities, that while you personally can't change, can be worked towards overcoming it. Educate yourself before you throw Godwins around. https://library.gv.com/unconscious-bias-at-work-22e698e9b2d#.l5qe8cgqa https://library.gv.com/unconscious-bias-at-work-22e698e9b2d#... http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case...

striking 11y ago
> Educate yourself before you throw Godwins around. He's not invoking Hitler or Nazism, he's making a comparison between white privilege and anti-semitism. It's pertinent because of whites and Jews being races; it's not just a random invocation of whatever to win an argument. Not all anti-semites are Nazis. There are plenty of otherwise normal people who just randomly hate Jews for literally no reason. There's a point there, and I think you missed it. (Please note I am not arguing for or against that point, just that you may have missed it.) I also appreciate the "Educate yourself" thought-terminating cliche. It's an interesting one. If you call an argument Godwinesque but turn out to be wrong, who has lost the argument?
Globrazu 11y ago
Who exactly are you reffering to when you talk about "white people"? Anglo-Saxons/Saxons? Franks/Gauls? Celts? Slavs? Greco-Romans? Nordic people? You're talking and generalizing an awful lot of people.