4 ms·

>The Cagots were not an ethnic group, nor a religious group. They spoke the same language as the people in an area and generally kept the same religion as well.

>The Cagots were not an ethnic group, nor a religious group. They spoke the same language as the people in an area and generally kept the same religion as well. Their only distinguishing feature was their descent from families identified as Cagots. Yet, now despite a history of abuse and segregation, descendants of the Cagots are now just seen as "privileged whites" who need to apologise for historical slights against ethnic groups their ancestors never met.

glibgil 9y ago
wow, you're low empathy in two directions
- legostormtroopr 9y ago
  Care to elaborate?
orbat 9y ago
Your comment is based on a complete misunderstanding of what white privilege (or privilege in general) is about, and it seems to be mostly based on getting all your information about the subject from other similarly misinformed people. Nobody is saying all whites "need to apologise for historical slights against ethnic groups their ancestors never met", this is a strawman perpetrated by, again, people who have no idea what they're talking about. I'd suggest reading e.g. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gina-crosleycorcoran/explaining-white-privilege-to-a-broke-white-person_b_5269255.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gina-crosleycorcoran/explainin...
- Chris2048 9y ago
  > Nobody is saying.. Plenty people say that
  - orbat 9y ago
    So instead of actually reading the article that I linked to that explains the concept, you decided to argue semantics? I'm fine with you not wanting to educate yourself, but don't pretend your answer was somehow a good rebuttal if you didn't even bother with the actual meat of my argument
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      It's HuffPo, a thoroughly biased media - there is no "education" to be had. It also doesn't appear to be a regular article, but part of "the blog" i.e, an opinion piece. Why don't you argue the point from the article you think are relevant? As far as I see, it just throws up a load of anecdotes, and assumes a bunch of premises around them, e.g: > If you were born cisgender ... you don’t have to worry that using the restroom or locker room will invoke public outrage. I'm cisgender male. I'm pretty sure people would be outraged if I tried using the female toilets. Why is this point lost if I weren't cis? The "Invisible Knapsack" document that post references is bullshit. What is it supposed to "prove"? Is this what you consider an argument? > After one reads McIntosh’s powerful essay, it’s impossible to deny.. Nope. Entirely possible.. Finally, why do I only have to respond to the points you want me to respond to? If you don't want to be contradicted about something, don't say it in the first place. "argue semantics" usually means arguing over "different interpretations of one or two particular words that were used" - can you tell me how this applies here? You straight-up said something that wasn't true, and I contradicted you; this is not arguing semantics.
- legostormtroopr 9y ago
  > Nobody is saying all whites "need to apologise" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/08/02/new-website-allows-white-people-to-offer-reparations-directly-to-people-of-color/?utm_term=.8b1c0611e4fd https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/08/0... > Here’s the basic concept: White people have created a political and cultural system that discriminates against and excludes people of color every day. Therefore, white people have a responsibility to actively work to level the playing field for the people of color who are disadvantaged and threatened by racism and racial inequality. It looks like, yes, yes they are wanting white people to (if not apologise) but make amends for historical grievances.

glibgil 9y ago

wow, you're low empathy in two directions

legostormtroopr 9y ago
Care to elaborate?

orbat 9y ago

Your comment is based on a complete misunderstanding of what white privilege (or privilege in general) is about, and it seems to be mostly based on getting all your information about the subject from other similarly misinformed people. Nobody is saying all whites "need to apologise for historical slights against ethnic groups their ancestors never met", this is a strawman perpetrated by, again, people who have no idea what they're talking about. I'd suggest reading e.g. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gina-crosleycorcoran/explaining-white-privilege-to-a-broke-white-person_b_5269255.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gina-crosleycorcoran/explainin...

Chris2048 9y ago
> Nobody is saying.. Plenty people say that
- orbat 9y ago
  So instead of actually reading the article that I linked to that explains the concept, you decided to argue semantics? I'm fine with you not wanting to educate yourself, but don't pretend your answer was somehow a good rebuttal if you didn't even bother with the actual meat of my argument
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    It's HuffPo, a thoroughly biased media - there is no "education" to be had. It also doesn't appear to be a regular article, but part of "the blog" i.e, an opinion piece. Why don't you argue the point from the article you think are relevant? As far as I see, it just throws up a load of anecdotes, and assumes a bunch of premises around them, e.g: > If you were born cisgender ... you don’t have to worry that using the restroom or locker room will invoke public outrage. I'm cisgender male. I'm pretty sure people would be outraged if I tried using the female toilets. Why is this point lost if I weren't cis? The "Invisible Knapsack" document that post references is bullshit. What is it supposed to "prove"? Is this what you consider an argument? > After one reads McIntosh’s powerful essay, it’s impossible to deny.. Nope. Entirely possible.. Finally, why do I only have to respond to the points you want me to respond to? If you don't want to be contradicted about something, don't say it in the first place. "argue semantics" usually means arguing over "different interpretations of one or two particular words that were used" - can you tell me how this applies here? You straight-up said something that wasn't true, and I contradicted you; this is not arguing semantics.
legostormtroopr 9y ago
> Nobody is saying all whites "need to apologise" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/08/02/new-website-allows-white-people-to-offer-reparations-directly-to-people-of-color/?utm_term=.8b1c0611e4fd https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/08/0... > Here’s the basic concept: White people have created a political and cultural system that discriminates against and excludes people of color every day. Therefore, white people have a responsibility to actively work to level the playing field for the people of color who are disadvantaged and threatened by racism and racial inequality. It looks like, yes, yes they are wanting white people to (if not apologise) but make amends for historical grievances.