3 ms·

Let me try to bridge the gap as someone who used to find it offensive but no longer does. When people complain about "whiteness", they're talking about the soc

Let me try to bridge the gap as someone who used to find it offensive but no longer does. When people complain about "whiteness", they're talking about the social construct of the racial majority in the US and how this prevents certain disadvantages from being conferred on the individual based on that individual's race. The lack of race-based disadvantage is labelled "privilege". It's a shame that such divisive terms like "whiteness" were chosen, because the phenomenon is broader than a specific skin color. Han Chinese in China also benefit from their version of "whiteness", with Uyghurs and other minorities being disadvantaged. But they aren't white. Same with Jews in Israel, Turks in Turkey, and so on. There is undeniably an advantage (privilege) to bring a Turk in Turkey and not a Kurd. If you're part of the racial majority, there can be an empathy gap that leads you to not see the disadvantages that certain minorities face. So then any claims that you have privilege (defined as the absence of race-based disadvantaged) seem farfetched if not malicious and racist. But it isn't racism, it's a sociological explanation of cause and effect. Now, many people go to far and do actually turn it into clear cut anti-white racism. I really don't think that was what Arthur Hayes was going for, though. He was aiming for a sociological explanation of SBF's rise. Which, in those case, I happen to believe was rather flimsy and unsupported by evidence.

leereeves 4y ago
> There is undeniably an advantage (privilege) to bring a Turk in Turkey and not a Kurd. Certainly. And there was undeniably an advantage to being white in America fifty years ago (and even twenty, probably). But we now live in a nation where the stated policy of many institutions is to favor non-whites. And in California, non-Hispanic whites aren't even the largest ethnic group. The assumption that white people have never experienced "race-based disadvantage" seems to be likewise rather flimsy and unsupported by evidence. As for SBF, I suspect that being wealthy and well-connected was far more helpful than being white. Indeed, if he had been black or Hispanic, he would have been celebrated for that reason alone, whereas, as we see in this article, being white is cause for opposition.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  > As for SBF, I suspect that being wealthy and well-connected was far more helpful than being white. Nobody would argue with this. What they would say is one of the contributing reasons he was wealthy and well-connected is because he was accepted as a member of the racial majority. Which is certainly partly true. Just because there are no laws that are directly de jure racist, doesn't mean there isn't systemic racism (which is partly cultural, not only legal) that reduces the statistical probability of success of people who aren't in the majority group. > as we see in this article, being white is cause for opposition. This is a stretch. My understanding of the article is that it's a cause for explanation. What we go and do with that explanation is up for discussion.
lordfrito 4y ago
> The lack of race-based disadvantage is labelled "privilege" For some reason we seem to be changing the meaning of words lately. It's troubling to me. We already have a word for lack-of-disadvantage. It's called advantage. Privilege is a loaded word, it implies "unearned" advantage, this word is chosen for it's negative connotations. Accusing people of unearned advantages is inflammatory does nothing to address the real problems of inequality. "Check your privilege" is really just coded speak for calling someone racist to win an argument. Shades of Godwin's Law anyone? The art of subtly/persistently changing the meaning of words is a weapon used in politics and cultural wars. Orwell wrote extensively on this.[1] Once you understand how this works you begin to understand why politicians speak the way they do. A journalist can choose to call a group of armed men "freedom fighters" or "terrorists". Each word has a very clear/strong connotation, one group good the other bad. Once you've got a definition like this to stick, you've set hard limits for what is deemed acceptable discussion and debate. Once a group is labelled as terrorist it becomes hard to say "what they are doing is good", as you're in effect saying "terrorism is good". This was the entire point of Orwell's idea of Newspeak in his novel 1984, where the official language was engineered to make it impossible to hold the idea "Big Brother is bad". I'm not making a judgment here on anything related to the present and past history of racism in this country, and what should/shouldn't be done about it. I'm merely pointing out that I am seeing that more and more we aren't using words the way we used to, and this seems (to me) being done on purpose to win political arguments, shutting down entire avenues of reasoned/civil debate. I don't know to what ends this will lead us, but I do know it doesn't end well when a group with a political power begins subtly defining an out-group. Whether or not you believe anti-white racism is a real thing or not, I worry that the use of the term is on the rise. And that this may not be a bug, it may be a feature. "Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past." [1] https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/ https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_poli...
- hackerlight 4y ago
  Yes, it's loaded, which is why I never use the word "privilege" myself. But the reason it's loaded is because these terms were created by people who largely don't believe in advantage that's "earned". They believe all outcomes comes down to circumstance outside of an individual's control (lucky genes that predispose them to hard work, born into a wealthy family, born into a good country, born in a good area). Or that any effort expended to achieve an outcome is done in a context that enables that effort to exist (partner who takes care of menial work), and enables that effort to be productive (being a member of the upper caste that affords you opportunities so you can turn effort to money, or being part of a rich society that can afford to give you money for your effort). The effort -> outcome pipeline isn't context free. This all comes from the usual leftist perspective on things. So while I partly agree with your point here (although with less cynicism), that doesn't detract from the case that there are large societal consequences to having a social construct of a racial majority, which is divisively and unfortunately labelled "whiteness" in the US. You shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater in your criticism.

leereeves 4y ago

> There is undeniably an advantage (privilege) to bring a Turk in Turkey and not a Kurd. Certainly. And there was undeniably an advantage to being white in America fifty years ago (and even twenty, probably). But we now live in a nation where the stated policy of many institutions is to favor non-whites. And in California, non-Hispanic whites aren't even the largest ethnic group. The assumption that white people have never experienced "race-based disadvantage" seems to be likewise rather flimsy and unsupported by evidence. As for SBF, I suspect that being wealthy and well-connected was far more helpful than being white. Indeed, if he had been black or Hispanic, he would have been celebrated for that reason alone, whereas, as we see in this article, being white is cause for opposition.

hackerlight 4y ago
> As for SBF, I suspect that being wealthy and well-connected was far more helpful than being white. Nobody would argue with this. What they would say is one of the contributing reasons he was wealthy and well-connected is because he was accepted as a member of the racial majority. Which is certainly partly true. Just because there are no laws that are directly de jure racist, doesn't mean there isn't systemic racism (which is partly cultural, not only legal) that reduces the statistical probability of success of people who aren't in the majority group. > as we see in this article, being white is cause for opposition. This is a stretch. My understanding of the article is that it's a cause for explanation. What we go and do with that explanation is up for discussion.

lordfrito 4y ago

> The lack of race-based disadvantage is labelled "privilege" For some reason we seem to be changing the meaning of words lately. It's troubling to me. We already have a word for lack-of-disadvantage. It's called advantage. Privilege is a loaded word, it implies "unearned" advantage, this word is chosen for it's negative connotations. Accusing people of unearned advantages is inflammatory does nothing to address the real problems of inequality. "Check your privilege" is really just coded speak for calling someone racist to win an argument. Shades of Godwin's Law anyone? The art of subtly/persistently changing the meaning of words is a weapon used in politics and cultural wars. Orwell wrote extensively on this.[1] Once you understand how this works you begin to understand why politicians speak the way they do. A journalist can choose to call a group of armed men "freedom fighters" or "terrorists". Each word has a very clear/strong connotation, one group good the other bad. Once you've got a definition like this to stick, you've set hard limits for what is deemed acceptable discussion and debate. Once a group is labelled as terrorist it becomes hard to say "what they are doing is good", as you're in effect saying "terrorism is good". This was the entire point of Orwell's idea of Newspeak in his novel 1984, where the official language was engineered to make it impossible to hold the idea "Big Brother is bad". I'm not making a judgment here on anything related to the present and past history of racism in this country, and what should/shouldn't be done about it. I'm merely pointing out that I am seeing that more and more we aren't using words the way we used to, and this seems (to me) being done on purpose to win political arguments, shutting down entire avenues of reasoned/civil debate. I don't know to what ends this will lead us, but I do know it doesn't end well when a group with a political power begins subtly defining an out-group. Whether or not you believe anti-white racism is a real thing or not, I worry that the use of the term is on the rise. And that this may not be a bug, it may be a feature. "Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past." [1] https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/ https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_poli...

hackerlight 4y ago
Yes, it's loaded, which is why I never use the word "privilege" myself. But the reason it's loaded is because these terms were created by people who largely don't believe in advantage that's "earned". They believe all outcomes comes down to circumstance outside of an individual's control (lucky genes that predispose them to hard work, born into a wealthy family, born into a good country, born in a good area). Or that any effort expended to achieve an outcome is done in a context that enables that effort to exist (partner who takes care of menial work), and enables that effort to be productive (being a member of the upper caste that affords you opportunities so you can turn effort to money, or being part of a rich society that can afford to give you money for your effort). The effort -> outcome pipeline isn't context free. This all comes from the usual leftist perspective on things. So while I partly agree with your point here (although with less cynicism), that doesn't detract from the case that there are large societal consequences to having a social construct of a racial majority, which is divisively and unfortunately labelled "whiteness" in the US. You shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater in your criticism.