4 ms·

you already made up your mind that [white males] got to where they are unfairly Given the disproportionate amount of power that white males have in Americ

you already made up your mind that [white males] got to where they are unfairly Given the disproportionate amount of power that white males have in America, there are two possibilities. One possibility is that white males really are that superior. We (white males) have the power because we're the best. Conversely, this would also of course imply that other groups like women and minorities are intrinsically inferior. The other possibility is that the system really is tilted in the favor of certain groups, and that has affected the distribution of power and wealth that you see in America today. I believe strongly in the second possibility and reject the first. why would Caucasians desire equality if they benefit from inequality We (again, speaking as a white male here) might benefit in the short term from inequality, but I believe that in the long term we benefit a lot more from equality. I love my country and my country is much stronger if we have an equal playing field. I respect the fact that many people feel that actions like minority hiring initiatives are in fact the opposite of a level playing field. In the most myopic possible sense, that is correct. In a broader sense, I do not agree.

jshevek 11y ago
> there are two possibilities. Oh no! > The other possibility is that the system really is tilted in the favor of certain groups, and that has affected the distribution of power and wealth that you see in America today Wrong. There is another possibility, which is that once upon a time the system was severely tilted, and for various complex reasons there is a _massive_ multi-generational delay between leveling the system seeing the results of leveling the system. Consider how difficult and unlikely it is for a low income white male living in a trailer with, say, alcoholic anti-intellectual parents to, say, become one of the wealthiest people in the country. If we eliminated racism, we would not eliminate all of the factors that work against black children who are born into poverty.
- JohnBooty 11y ago
  There is another possibility, which is that once upon a time the system was severely tilted, and for various complex reasons there is a _massive_ multi-generational delay between leveling the system seeing the results of leveling the system. I think most people would agree that many of the effects of inequality are felt on a multigenerational scale, and that solutions will only fully be realized on a similar time frame. Nobody, even the people making slides at Github, think this can be fixed in an afternoon. What's the functional difference between "living in a system that is severely tilted" and "living in a system that has allegedly been repaired, but in practice will remain tilted for a number of generations until this alleged new-found fairness has a chance to propagate through the system?" To those affected, I think there would be no useful difference between the two. Long-term solutions do not preclude the need for short-term action. Consider how difficult and unlikely it is for a low income white male living in a trailer with, say, alcoholic anti-intellectual parents to, say, become one of the wealthiest people in the country. Absolutely. Odds are definitely stacked against that guy. White males can have any number of horrible problems. And many people of color are born into relatively easy lives. To be clear: nobody is claiming otherwise. Regardless of your feelings about white priviledge, please understand that it does not involve the idea that all things are always easy for all white people.
  - jshevek 11y ago
    >> What's the functional difference between "living in a system that is severely tilted" and "living in a system that is severely tilted" and "living in a system that has allegedly been repaired, but in practice will remain tilted for a number of generations until this alleged new-found fairness has a chance to propagate through the system?" The second half of your second quote does not at all reflect the intention behind my statements. When people go around thinking that a 'system' is broken, it is all too easy to be sloppy in one's thinking about what _exactly_ it is that is broken. The definition of the 'system' is easily, dynamically changed to meet the emotional needs or political goals of the thinker or speaker at that moment; and they lose sight of (or intentionally hide) the logical fallacies (or dishonesty) that occur as a result. My first point is this: At any point in time, manifest inequality of results does NOT logically require that there is necessarily either inequality of ability or, at PRESENT, inequality of treatment by 'the system'. This over simplifies the situation and you presented it as a nice, tight, seemingly irrefutable logical argument from which one _must_ conclude that the system is presently tilted. (Either that, or own the identity of the particularly terrible kind of racist who thinks one race is intrinsically superior to another). This is not just logically wrong onto itself, it forms the foundation for bigoted thinking on a larger scale. To answer your question, the critical difference lies in developing an accurate understanding of the true nature of the problems. If we walk around thinking "group X has less money then group Y, therefore there MUST be a problem of Xism towards group X which benefits group Y" we are not only being irrational, we are missing out of important opportunities to more effectively improve the condition of the world for all involved. > Long-term solutions do not preclude the need for short-term action. I don't see how this really applies, on the face of it. If theoretically there were _no_ racism in the US, it would take generations for blacks and whites to have equal results, for a variety of reasons including the effects of inter-generational poverty and classism. But what types of 'short term' race-related actions might be needed in the hypothetical world in which there is no longer any racism? Reparations? I mentioned the example of some poverty afflicted white male to emphasize the difficulties that _poor_ people have, not to draw attention to the plight of any white males as a group. I used a white male as an example to really drive the point home about the lingering consequences of generations of racism; the racism of the past has left many of today's black people in poverty, and not even a (presumed advantaged) white male can easily overcome some of the effects of poverty. > please understand that it does not involve the idea that all things are always easy for all white people. Who gets to decide the one true meaning of white privilege? I've discussed this topic with hundreds of people, and can confidently say there is a small but still frighteningly large group of people out there who disagree with you.
dracht 11y ago
Do you have a theory for Jews winning a disproportionate amount of Nobel prizes? Is "the system" rigged in their favour?
- dang 11y ago
  Please stop using HN to conduct ideological flamewars. The other comments are bad too but at least they aren't hauling in entirely new barrels of talking-point petrol.
Raheml 11y ago
So one group holds all the power and success, but they are not superior. What's your definition of superiority?

jshevek 11y ago

> there are two possibilities. Oh no! > The other possibility is that the system really is tilted in the favor of certain groups, and that has affected the distribution of power and wealth that you see in America today Wrong. There is another possibility, which is that once upon a time the system was severely tilted, and for various complex reasons there is a _massive_ multi-generational delay between leveling the system seeing the results of leveling the system. Consider how difficult and unlikely it is for a low income white male living in a trailer with, say, alcoholic anti-intellectual parents to, say, become one of the wealthiest people in the country. If we eliminated racism, we would not eliminate all of the factors that work against black children who are born into poverty.

JohnBooty 11y ago
There is another possibility, which is that once upon a time the system was severely tilted, and for various complex reasons there is a _massive_ multi-generational delay between leveling the system seeing the results of leveling the system. I think most people would agree that many of the effects of inequality are felt on a multigenerational scale, and that solutions will only fully be realized on a similar time frame. Nobody, even the people making slides at Github, think this can be fixed in an afternoon. What's the functional difference between "living in a system that is severely tilted" and "living in a system that has allegedly been repaired, but in practice will remain tilted for a number of generations until this alleged new-found fairness has a chance to propagate through the system?" To those affected, I think there would be no useful difference between the two. Long-term solutions do not preclude the need for short-term action. Consider how difficult and unlikely it is for a low income white male living in a trailer with, say, alcoholic anti-intellectual parents to, say, become one of the wealthiest people in the country. Absolutely. Odds are definitely stacked against that guy. White males can have any number of horrible problems. And many people of color are born into relatively easy lives. To be clear: nobody is claiming otherwise. Regardless of your feelings about white priviledge, please understand that it does not involve the idea that all things are always easy for all white people.
- jshevek 11y ago
  >> What's the functional difference between "living in a system that is severely tilted" and "living in a system that is severely tilted" and "living in a system that has allegedly been repaired, but in practice will remain tilted for a number of generations until this alleged new-found fairness has a chance to propagate through the system?" The second half of your second quote does not at all reflect the intention behind my statements. When people go around thinking that a 'system' is broken, it is all too easy to be sloppy in one's thinking about what _exactly_ it is that is broken. The definition of the 'system' is easily, dynamically changed to meet the emotional needs or political goals of the thinker or speaker at that moment; and they lose sight of (or intentionally hide) the logical fallacies (or dishonesty) that occur as a result. My first point is this: At any point in time, manifest inequality of results does NOT logically require that there is necessarily either inequality of ability or, at PRESENT, inequality of treatment by 'the system'. This over simplifies the situation and you presented it as a nice, tight, seemingly irrefutable logical argument from which one _must_ conclude that the system is presently tilted. (Either that, or own the identity of the particularly terrible kind of racist who thinks one race is intrinsically superior to another). This is not just logically wrong onto itself, it forms the foundation for bigoted thinking on a larger scale. To answer your question, the critical difference lies in developing an accurate understanding of the true nature of the problems. If we walk around thinking "group X has less money then group Y, therefore there MUST be a problem of Xism towards group X which benefits group Y" we are not only being irrational, we are missing out of important opportunities to more effectively improve the condition of the world for all involved. > Long-term solutions do not preclude the need for short-term action. I don't see how this really applies, on the face of it. If theoretically there were _no_ racism in the US, it would take generations for blacks and whites to have equal results, for a variety of reasons including the effects of inter-generational poverty and classism. But what types of 'short term' race-related actions might be needed in the hypothetical world in which there is no longer any racism? Reparations? I mentioned the example of some poverty afflicted white male to emphasize the difficulties that _poor_ people have, not to draw attention to the plight of any white males as a group. I used a white male as an example to really drive the point home about the lingering consequences of generations of racism; the racism of the past has left many of today's black people in poverty, and not even a (presumed advantaged) white male can easily overcome some of the effects of poverty. > please understand that it does not involve the idea that all things are always easy for all white people. Who gets to decide the one true meaning of white privilege? I've discussed this topic with hundreds of people, and can confidently say there is a small but still frighteningly large group of people out there who disagree with you.

dracht 11y ago

Do you have a theory for Jews winning a disproportionate amount of Nobel prizes? Is "the system" rigged in their favour?

dang 11y ago
Please stop using HN to conduct ideological flamewars. The other comments are bad too but at least they aren't hauling in entirely new barrels of talking-point petrol.

Raheml 11y ago

So one group holds all the power and success, but they are not superior. What's your definition of superiority?