White privilege isn't real - Jordan Peterson
ironpony wrote:
toadsnail wrote:
slam_thunderhide wrote:
Ironpony has asked a perfectly good question.
I'm sorry, but he did not. It's not a matter of total points on some kind of global scoreboard. It's about the way how life is affected for real people in real places in real contexts.
Quote:
But I thought I was talking about real people, in real places, in real contexts. In the entertainment industry for example, a lot of people complain about white privilege. But it seems that in a lot of parts of the world, there are no white privilege in the entertainment industry. I watch a movies from India, and a lot of movies from Hong Kong, and South Korea, since they are too of my favorite industries. I have never seen white actors in any of those movies I watch, for example.
So it all seems to even out all over the world. And those are real movies, with real people in them.
Indian film stars tend to be tall and of bright skin tone. You'll meet Indians like that on the plane there, but the vast majority is short and varying shades of brown and couldn't afford a flight anywhere if they saved up for a year. Bollywood is, if anything, a prime example of skin-shade-based hierarchy.
_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.
Sweetleaf wrote:
"Anslinger claimed that the majority of pot smokers were minorities, including African Americans, and that marijuana had a negative effect on these “degenerate races,” such as inducing violence or causing insanity. Furthermore, he noted, “Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.” Perhaps even more worrisome to Anslinger was pot’s supposed threat to white women’s virtue. He believed that smoking pot would result in their having sex with black men."
https://www.britannica.com/story/why-is ... d%20States.
Not sure quite who that guy was but, yeah some pretty messed up thinking there.
Also white people smoke just as much pot as minorities...
https://www.britannica.com/story/why-is ... d%20States.
Not sure quite who that guy was but, yeah some pretty messed up thinking there.
Also white people smoke just as much pot as minorities...
That's shocking! I never realised how American hatred for black Americans was so insidiously deep....also explains the war on drugs aimed at black neighborhoods preventing marijuana use there but somehow every white college kid is a user?
cyberdad wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
"Anslinger claimed that the majority of pot smokers were minorities, including African Americans, and that marijuana had a negative effect on these “degenerate races,” such as inducing violence or causing insanity. Furthermore, he noted, “Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.” Perhaps even more worrisome to Anslinger was pot’s supposed threat to white women’s virtue. He believed that smoking pot would result in their having sex with black men."
https://www.britannica.com/story/why-is ... d%20States.
Not sure quite who that guy was but, yeah some pretty messed up thinking there.
Also white people smoke just as much pot as minorities...
https://www.britannica.com/story/why-is ... d%20States.
Not sure quite who that guy was but, yeah some pretty messed up thinking there.
Also white people smoke just as much pot as minorities...
That's shocking! I never realised how American hatred for black Americans was so insidiously deep....also explains the war on drugs aimed at black neighborhoods preventing marijuana use there but somehow every white college kid is a user?
Wikipedia:
Harry Jacob Anslinger was a United States government official who served as the first commissioner of the U.S. Treasury Department's Federal Bureau of Narcotics during the presidencies of Hoover, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy.
_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.
Pepe wrote:
I think a lot of the fuss is about the belief that Caucasians are wealthy.
Well, since poor people can't afford to travel to other countries, it stands to reason that the white people they're accustomed to seeing are generally well off financially.
shlaifu wrote:
I didn't try working in China, because I don't speak the language, but I was in India for work at an Indian company. The Skype interview before getting the job, which was well paid, took about 20 minutes (admittedly, I had the necessary education, but there's a bunch of people who have that), they paid for travel expenses, I had a housekeeper and at tourist attractions, I was singled out and led to the secret side entrance that would allow me to jump the queue. At the bank, there would be a guy standing in line for me while I was waiting, seated. Cars were stopping for me so I could cross the street.
I didn't like it. The people there were treating humans according to a strict hierarchy and were making jokes about how the colour of the skin you were born with determines your life. I tried not to treat people according to the colour of their skin and be friendly and polite and it upset people in the middle of the skin-shade-hierarchy.
I didn't like it. The people there were treating humans according to a strict hierarchy and were making jokes about how the colour of the skin you were born with determines your life. I tried not to treat people according to the colour of their skin and be friendly and polite and it upset people in the middle of the skin-shade-hierarchy.
I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that the Hindu caste system is based on skin color; with the lightest people at the top and the darkest people on the bottom. Your experiences seem to match up with this.
dorkseid wrote:
I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that the Hindu caste system is based on skin color; with the lightest people at the top and the darkest people on the bottom. Your experiences seem to match up with this.
As far as I know, that's still a reflection of the period way back in history when Indo-European speakers arrived from the northwest and conquered local Dravidian-speaking peoples in the subcontinent (and then codified it into religion). Though I should say I'm "not an expert" either.
_________________
earth is just a tiny ball
toadsnail wrote:
dorkseid wrote:
I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that the Hindu caste system is based on skin color; with the lightest people at the top and the darkest people on the bottom. Your experiences seem to match up with this.
As far as I know, that's still a reflection of the period way back in history when Indo-European speakers arrived from the northwest and conquered local Dravidian-speaking peoples in the subcontinent (and then codified it into religion). Though I should say I'm "not an expert" either.
Me neither, but that is along the lines of what I thought, yeah.
The codification into religious law made sure people stay within certain gene pools. But officially, caste is inherited, and skin color merely correlates with it. It doesn't determine caste.
Anyway. I learned from googling a bit today that Bollywood has a serious brownface problem, because their star actors are all bright in skin shade. So to play a person from a disadvantaged community, they put on makeup.
That's how deeply ingrained this is in Bollywood: even an Indian actor has to darken his skin to be able to believably play a lower-caste Indian.
And apparently, lower caste Indians are not silent about this anymore. ... So, it's very much the same as in Hollywood, except, of course, FOX News doesn't care about it.
_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.
ironpony wrote:
Why does Bollywood prefer lighter skin for actors or is there a reason for it? Does it have to do with cinematography or something?
The caste system is deeply ingrained in Indian culture. Light skinned people are at the top while dark skinned people are at the bottom. Only people from higher castes are allowed to be actors.
Last edited by dorkseid on 21 Feb 2021, 11:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
shlaifu wrote:
But officially, caste is inherited, and skin color merely correlates with it. It doesn't determine caste.
In a much fuzzier way, that's... kinda how it works in Brazil. Though it's pretty much the opposite of India when it comes to strict distinctions. There are no clear boundaries, and people's perceptions on who or what exactly counts as "rich" or "poor" vary wildly, but the "rich/poor" divide is a MAJOR defining aspect of the collective consciousness of the country. And, the darker-skinned someone is, the more suspicion-by-default they'll be treated with.
I was a little shocked though when my brother-in-law said, not very long ago, that he had been stopped by the police for no reason. He has a pretty average mixed-race "Brazilian look", and he likes expensive motorcycles. He does not look poor. He said "well, I guess this means I'm black to Brazilian police now", and... yeah, I guess that sums it up. Angry people lately are actively looking for scapegoat categories to revive and latch onto. It's a worrying trend. Having a Hitler-wannabe sitting "president" sure doesn't help with that -- though I'm glad that he has at least lost a major ally now with the change of power in the US.
_________________
earth is just a tiny ball
dorkseid wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Why does Bollywood prefer lighter skin for actors or is there a reason for it? Does it have to do with cinematography or something?
The caste system is deeply ingrained in Indian culture. Light skinned people are at the top while dark skinned people are at the bottom. Only people from higher castes are allowed to be actors.
Oh okay, I see but why, what's the reason?
ironpony wrote:
dorkseid wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Why does Bollywood prefer lighter skin for actors or is there a reason for it? Does it have to do with cinematography or something?
The caste system is deeply ingrained in Indian culture. Light skinned people are at the top while dark skinned people are at the bottom. Only people from higher castes are allowed to be actors.
Oh okay, I see but why, what's the reason?
I believe it started when someone from Europe conquered India thousands of years ago. They implemented the system to put Europeans at the top and indigenous people at the bottom. Over time, that became part of the Hindu religion and culture.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Oh well that's the problem right there, if they are going to keep doing something simply for no other reason than it's ingrained. So I guess white privilege exists in India too then, but I think there are a lot of other countries where the actors do not look white at all in movies such as China, South Korea, and some African movies. I even saw two movies from Iranian cinema and the actors did not look very white to me. So I thought it all evens out.
dorkseid wrote:
Pepe wrote:
For starters, I think his point is, logically speaking, that 'privilege' may not only be something pertaining to Caucasians, but that is how it is portrayed.
Once again, we have a 'binary' that is being created where it is not justified.
This seems to be a tactic of the left, btw.
Once again, we have a 'binary' that is being created where it is not justified.
This seems to be a tactic of the left, btw.
I don't think the term was originally meant to be understood the way current SJW culture uses it.
Jiheisho wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
A lot of this is the fault of the people who coined a concept and term defined based on how one is born.
But not the fault of people who could simply look up the definition?
Do you think the SJW mobs demanding that impoverished and disabled white people "check their privilege" bothered to look up the definition?
I am still working out the concept of 'white privilege' myself.
Hence, this thread creation.
slam_thunderhide wrote:
Hence the question: if it is “privilege” to merely have one group of people who make up the majority of faces in a society’s history books or television programs, then what is abnormal or intrinsically wrong about privilege, since other groups will have their privileges all over the world?
That is the logical conclusion I came to, also.
China is fiercely pro-China, under xi.
