4 ms·

Just as a minor correction: Nobody is telling you that you specifically are the problem. The problem is that as a white male, what is called "western society" w

Just as a minor correction: Nobody is telling you that you specifically are the problem. The problem is that as a white male, what is called "western society" was built with you as the presumed default, and that confers to you tons of small benefits that fall into one of two categories: 1) Unfair advantages that allow you certain freedoms other groups don't have, that one could argue no one should have 2) Advantages that everyone should have, but due to being ethnic or female, they don't. The best example I usually have for this is that when I'm pulled over by a cop for speeding, I'm annoyed to be sure and it's going to be a really bad inconvenience and probably a fair financial burden too. But I don't fear for my life. I'm not panicking on whether or not my vehicle will be searched or if the officer might plant something on me. That's not to say those things can't happen, but it's intrinsically not on my mind at all, even though it could. And those things happen to other groups all the time.

dabbledash 7y ago
“...ethnic or female.” It’s funny to me that you’re treating white here as the “presumed default.” White people have ethnicities, just like midwestern newscasters have accents.
easymodex 7y ago
Those things are on my mind as well, why are you just assuming they aren't?
hyperdunc 7y ago
If you're going to say that Western society was built with white males as the presumed default, you might want to also mention who the builders were. And as a broader point, it also might be worth considering how Western society stacks up against all other societies to ever exist.
- istjohn 7y ago
  Slave labor built this country.
  - hyperdunc 7y ago
    I don't see how such sweeping statements about the nature of a country are useful. Slave labor was only one component of practically all great countries/empires. The West was the first to outlaw it. The US in particular was built upon the hard-earned lessons of the past, including the moral worth of individual liberty.
    - c0nducktr 7y ago
      How is the US in particular built upon the hard-earned lessons of the past. Because it is younger? This just sounds like more American exceptionalism that most of the world is tired of, and that includes many Americans.
      - hyperdunc 7y ago
        The counterpoint to your second sentence is that most of the world would sacrifice much to migrate to the US.
        c0nducktr 7y ago
        Fine: USA, #1 when compared to developing nations. Got an answer to my first sentence?
        hyperdunc 7y ago
        One example - the US Constitution draws from Ancient Greece and Rome, and is a response to the oppression of European monarchies. Louis XIV: "I am the state." US Constitution: "We the people...secure the Blessings of Liberty" That's no cosmetic difference.
        ascorbic 7y ago
        Sure, that was a big deal in 1776. But there's nothing exceptional about being a liberal democracy today, and there are plenty of countries that are more free than the US.
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  Except that Western civilization as in the minds of it's inhabitants likely wouldn't have existed without the subjugation and exploitation of those other societies, including but not limited to: China, India, the Middle East, most of Africa minus Ethiopia, and even some parts of Europe, and much more recently, South America. The West has largely won because it won a lot back in the day, and that inertia builds up and continues to favor us.
  - hyperdunc 7y ago
    There is no realistic scenario where one civilization does not dominate others. Macro-history is fundamentally about the rise and fall of civilizations - the undesirable elements of this are consistent, but Western tradition and enlightenment has also given us democracy and science, and put us in a collective position where we are so relatively prosperous that we can look at the past with an inflated sense of shame.
    - dabbledash 7y ago
      Failing to see how this is responsive to parent’s observation that white privilege is a thing. Maybe you’re arguing that if the enlightenment never happened we wouldn’t have the set of egalitarian political values that cause us to give a shit about that. But even if that argument were true: the enlightenment did happen and we do care. And you’re not really articulating any reason we shouldn’t.
      - hyperdunc 7y ago
        I was just giving their observation some context. To address the idea of white privilege directly: - It's increasing racial awareness and conflict. - It's a blunt instrument that doesn't take into account the myriad of circumstances each individual faces (such as financial wealth, mental health and physical height). To provide a counter example to parent's, I'd rather be a rich ethnic minority unfairly stopped by a cop, than an ethnic majority person living in a trailer park and addicted to meth. The ethnic bigotry in this example isn't excused, but it's not the main concern. Perhaps, all else being equal, one could argue that 'white privilege' matters. But all else will never be equal. And the one place where equality really matters, it already exists - the law. Notions of privilege could at least attempt a full accounting at the individual level, rather than dictating in broad strokes.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
Aloha 7y ago
If you're not at least mildly afraid of the cops when being pulled over, you're not paying attention. My whiteness (in my opinion) does very little for me in a situation with such a large power imbalance.
toasterlovin 7y ago
> Nobody is telling you that you specifically are the problem. They very much are. I'm guessing you don't live in a coastal city or read the newspaper of record?
dextralt 7y ago
>Nobody is telling you that you specifically are the problem. You are either blissfully unaware of the existence of semi-mainstream news/gossip/propaganda sources like Vox, Salon, Huffington Post and countless others, or you conveniently pretending not to. >The problem is that as a white male, what is called "western society" was built with you as the presumed default, Do you have the same problem with Asian people being the presumed default in every Asian country, Latino people being the presumed default in every South American country, Black people being the presumed default in every African country, an so on and so forth? If you choose to answer this question, please refrain from cultural relativism.
rjf72 7y ago
Doesn't it strike you as odd to suggest that society was built for "white" males when such classification, as a meaningful indicator, didn't even exist until extremely recently? Irish, German, Italian, and many more are all groups today you'd just often just refer to as "white males." In times past? People who were very much second class citizens. And it went well beyond just national origin. Protestant vs Catholic was a huge deal and this also persisted until extremely recently. For instance something lost to history is how monumental JFK's election was because of the fact that he was a Catholic - the Obama of his time. Incidentally the first and last Catholic elected, even though more than 20% of America is Catholic. Even when you get into things like slavery, Africans were not enslaved because they were black. Slavery was global and of course always began as in group - whites enslaving whites, browns enslaving browns, blacks enslaving blacks, etc. The big reason that "white" on "white" slavery ended was because of a shared religion and Christian church declaring it illegal for any Christian to enslave another Christian (in times before the schisms, such as 'Christian' was reasonably encompassing). The "problem" this posed for those seeking slaves is that tremendous empires were starting to form around the world. For instance in the ~18th century you're looking at the Qing dynasty in China, the Mughal Empire in South Asia, the Ottoman empire in the Mideast, etc.. The world was rapidly unifying under incredibly powerful empires who were more than capable of protecting their borders and people. But Africa was a major exception. It not only lacked both meaningful unification and technology, but also had a thriving domestic slave trade. This made them a prime target. It had nothing to do with the color of their skin. Had Africans happened to have had a bit less melanin, but the situation remained otherwise identical, it's extremely improbable that things would have changed in any way whatsoever.

dabbledash 7y ago

“...ethnic or female.” It’s funny to me that you’re treating white here as the “presumed default.” White people have ethnicities, just like midwestern newscasters have accents.

easymodex 7y ago

Those things are on my mind as well, why are you just assuming they aren't?

hyperdunc 7y ago

If you're going to say that Western society was built with white males as the presumed default, you might want to also mention who the builders were. And as a broader point, it also might be worth considering how Western society stacks up against all other societies to ever exist.

istjohn 7y ago
Slave labor built this country.
- hyperdunc 7y ago
  I don't see how such sweeping statements about the nature of a country are useful. Slave labor was only one component of practically all great countries/empires. The West was the first to outlaw it. The US in particular was built upon the hard-earned lessons of the past, including the moral worth of individual liberty.
  - c0nducktr 7y ago
    How is the US in particular built upon the hard-earned lessons of the past. Because it is younger? This just sounds like more American exceptionalism that most of the world is tired of, and that includes many Americans.
    - hyperdunc 7y ago
      The counterpoint to your second sentence is that most of the world would sacrifice much to migrate to the US.
      - c0nducktr 7y ago
        Fine: USA, #1 when compared to developing nations. Got an answer to my first sentence?
        hyperdunc 7y ago
        One example - the US Constitution draws from Ancient Greece and Rome, and is a response to the oppression of European monarchies. Louis XIV: "I am the state." US Constitution: "We the people...secure the Blessings of Liberty" That's no cosmetic difference.
        ascorbic 7y ago
        Sure, that was a big deal in 1776. But there's nothing exceptional about being a liberal democracy today, and there are plenty of countries that are more free than the US.
FussyZeus 7y ago
Except that Western civilization as in the minds of it's inhabitants likely wouldn't have existed without the subjugation and exploitation of those other societies, including but not limited to: China, India, the Middle East, most of Africa minus Ethiopia, and even some parts of Europe, and much more recently, South America. The West has largely won because it won a lot back in the day, and that inertia builds up and continues to favor us.
- hyperdunc 7y ago
  There is no realistic scenario where one civilization does not dominate others. Macro-history is fundamentally about the rise and fall of civilizations - the undesirable elements of this are consistent, but Western tradition and enlightenment has also given us democracy and science, and put us in a collective position where we are so relatively prosperous that we can look at the past with an inflated sense of shame.
  - dabbledash 7y ago
    Failing to see how this is responsive to parent’s observation that white privilege is a thing. Maybe you’re arguing that if the enlightenment never happened we wouldn’t have the set of egalitarian political values that cause us to give a shit about that. But even if that argument were true: the enlightenment did happen and we do care. And you’re not really articulating any reason we shouldn’t.
    - hyperdunc 7y ago
      I was just giving their observation some context. To address the idea of white privilege directly: - It's increasing racial awareness and conflict. - It's a blunt instrument that doesn't take into account the myriad of circumstances each individual faces (such as financial wealth, mental health and physical height). To provide a counter example to parent's, I'd rather be a rich ethnic minority unfairly stopped by a cop, than an ethnic majority person living in a trailer park and addicted to meth. The ethnic bigotry in this example isn't excused, but it's not the main concern. Perhaps, all else being equal, one could argue that 'white privilege' matters. But all else will never be equal. And the one place where equality really matters, it already exists - the law. Notions of privilege could at least attempt a full accounting at the individual level, rather than dictating in broad strokes.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Aloha 7y ago

If you're not at least mildly afraid of the cops when being pulled over, you're not paying attention. My whiteness (in my opinion) does very little for me in a situation with such a large power imbalance.

toasterlovin 7y ago

> Nobody is telling you that you specifically are the problem. They very much are. I'm guessing you don't live in a coastal city or read the newspaper of record?

dextralt 7y ago

>Nobody is telling you that you specifically are the problem. You are either blissfully unaware of the existence of semi-mainstream news/gossip/propaganda sources like Vox, Salon, Huffington Post and countless others, or you conveniently pretending not to. >The problem is that as a white male, what is called "western society" was built with you as the presumed default, Do you have the same problem with Asian people being the presumed default in every Asian country, Latino people being the presumed default in every South American country, Black people being the presumed default in every African country, an so on and so forth? If you choose to answer this question, please refrain from cultural relativism.

rjf72 7y ago

Doesn't it strike you as odd to suggest that society was built for "white" males when such classification, as a meaningful indicator, didn't even exist until extremely recently? Irish, German, Italian, and many more are all groups today you'd just often just refer to as "white males." In times past? People who were very much second class citizens. And it went well beyond just national origin. Protestant vs Catholic was a huge deal and this also persisted until extremely recently. For instance something lost to history is how monumental JFK's election was because of the fact that he was a Catholic - the Obama of his time. Incidentally the first and last Catholic elected, even though more than 20% of America is Catholic. Even when you get into things like slavery, Africans were not enslaved because they were black. Slavery was global and of course always began as in group - whites enslaving whites, browns enslaving browns, blacks enslaving blacks, etc. The big reason that "white" on "white" slavery ended was because of a shared religion and Christian church declaring it illegal for any Christian to enslave another Christian (in times before the schisms, such as 'Christian' was reasonably encompassing). The "problem" this posed for those seeking slaves is that tremendous empires were starting to form around the world. For instance in the ~18th century you're looking at the Qing dynasty in China, the Mughal Empire in South Asia, the Ottoman empire in the Mideast, etc.. The world was rapidly unifying under incredibly powerful empires who were more than capable of protecting their borders and people. But Africa was a major exception. It not only lacked both meaningful unification and technology, but also had a thriving domestic slave trade. This made them a prime target. It had nothing to do with the color of their skin. Had Africans happened to have had a bit less melanin, but the situation remained otherwise identical, it's extremely improbable that things would have changed in any way whatsoever.