Louis CK on white privilege

Post Reply New Topic

Actually, there are valid reasons why "non-Western" beauty standards are shifting West - lighter skin is generally considered more attractive (a sign that you're rich enough to not work in the sun all day), and double eyelids (a trait that's uncommon amonst East Asians) have also been considered attractive in Asia since *before* Europe became dominant there.

Hey, don't hate us because we're beautiful :p

Actually, when they did the studies, Asians were considered most attractive, followed by Europeans, then Africans coming in last. That's not strong evidence that a European look is considered most attractive. It's probably more to do with neoteny. But you shouldn't leap to the conclusion that it's racism, unless you have evidence to back up such a claim as to causation.

What gives you the right to talk to him like that? There's nothing hateful or incendiary about Thomas's post. White privilege is real and harmful, and the first step toward correcting the problem is to acknowledge a problem exists.

And your alternative definition of racism is...?



Ominous has already adequately demonstrated her disdain for targets of anti-white prejudice. It sounds like you agree with her argument against equality.



Correct. One is marginally less flawed than the other as a basis of categorisation.



White South Africans were the voting majority under Apartheid.



Do you have a reliable source for this claim? Most studies report that gender is a factor in the use of force by police, but not race. On the other hand, black people are far more likely to commit violent crimes in America, especially murder.



Magneto's response to this was on the money. Even if it were the case, who are we to dictate what other cultures should or should not define as 'beautiful'.



Only if the race in question is the human race - you know, the one we all belong to.



You're absolutely correct. The racist concept of white privilege is a problem which needs to be corrected, along with divisive extremism and partisan politics. As someone who would be considered liberal by American standards, I find it disturbing that the voice of reason in the US appears to be coming from the moderate right:

http://theprincetontory.com/main/checki ... privilege/ - excerpt below

It depends.

The South African [white] minority held the majority of power, though that was due to reasons that go behind skin color; they were the most effective at running the place [for the whites that held the power]. Here, it'd be, "power privilege". Those who hold the power, hold the privilege. It would be the same if it was a culturally different black group in the same place.

Minorities in the US are massively overrepresented in crime there, so they'll be targets of the proactive policing policies. Whilst it's inherently racist, it's technically not illogical or unsound, even if it's unfair. Though it'll target white people just the same if they so happen to be overrepresented in crime too, so it's also fair (even when unfair).

Beauty standards are...odd things, and probably another subject entirely.

Dominant race could work, but dominant culture would also work when you're dealing with places that have the same race -- this would be like Iraq under Sunni rule, where the minority were privileged, even though they're the same race as the Shiite majority.

Not to invoke a slippery slope, but "birth privilege" is probably the biggest one of the lot:

born smart
born into wealth
born with good looks
born without illness
and so on

A lot of times, when people talk about "white privilege", they tend to talk about concepts that are due white people being the majority, but...that's kinda fair, as in society, the majority are the ones pandered to.

Race and privilege is an anachronism that we in the west are slowly curing. Money and privilege on the other hand is resistant to all attempts at finding a cure.

If we look at non first world countries, race and privilege still plays a big part. Colour, religion, race - still a deciding factor in half of the world.

Agree with the first part, Narrator, but I don't think that distribution of wealth and resources can be ignored as a factor in the second.

Anything that shifts focus away from the oligarchs (e.g. blaming society's ills on "white privilege") does nothing to redress the imbalance.

Liberals should watch these.

Yeah thats the PC view anywho.

I think it is best approaching this from a humanist point of view. Rights originations have a role, but discrimination can be quite specific and there is a push pull.

I don't think decisiveness, segregation, supremacy hold any answers.

I also think education is a big dividing factor. In combination with other traits it can create resentment even within social strata.

White priviledge exists. Period.

Load of simple minded crap. Results are also incorrectly mentionned; I read that study myself. I don't know why everyone taking part in these race based discussion always says these stupid, simple minded things. I never considered myself all that intelligent, but every time I visit these kinds of topics, it makes me doubt as to whether I should maybe still join Mensa.

Don't care for what Dillogic and Adifferentname have to say either. They're the typical, rather simplistic answers I read by plenty of people. Then again I rarely read intellectually satisfying, well argumented posts from people that deny there is such a thing as white priviledge.

These topics make me feel so intelligent. Boost to my self-esteem!

I find Dillogic and Adifferentname's posts logical and well-argued. If you find flaws in their arguments, you are welcome to articulate them. But if you only want to congratulate yourself on how smart you are, I guess you can do that too.

I've trimmed out a lot of things that I basically agree with or are more or less irrelevant.

To be honest, I don't think you really understand what is usually meant by "privilege" in this context. I don't mean that in a nasty way, it's just that what you're debunking here isn't privilege, but rather a popular caricature of privilege that even some social justice advocates use.

I don't think anyone seriously claims that white skin is some kind of magic +2 card. There are obvious historical, political and sociological reasons for privilege existing.

Privilege is the "good stuff" - or perhaps more accuracy, lack of "bad stuff" - that less-oppressed groups enjoy simply by being part of that group. For example, in much of America (probably all of America, but the data isn't great), white people are less likely to be profiled by policemen, and inconvenienced or shot. They also do shorter prison sentences for the same time, are more likely to be employed, more likely to graduate high school and university, if they release a hip hop album then it's more likely to win a Grammy ... Now some of these things are very complex social issues, and some of them are, to an extent, justified - but that's scant consolation to the black people affected by them.

White privilege is not "OMG teh whitez are evulz!", it's an acknowledgement that the experience of being black is different to the experience of being white, and usually it is the African American who gets the sharp end of the stick. I think that's something you'd agree with, judging by your post here.

There are multiple definitions. The one Ominous was using was, in short, "racial prejudice plus power". In long, probably something like "the systematic social, cultural and economic oppression of racial groups".

Rather than squabbling about definitions, we should talk about concepts. Try to play the same language game. Perhaps you could look up a popular account of the linguistic philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein. You and I probably have different definitions of the word "football". Rather than pointlessly argue about whether it is always legal to use your hands, we could agree that it is in gridiron but not in soccer.

I don't think that was what she was doing at all. She was demonstrating her disdain for privileged people who unreasonably claim they are oppressed, in the same way you'd laugh at Piers Morgan claiming to be the victim of "cisphobia". She was also doing the same thing you are and unreasonably talking at cross purposes.



Exactly!

I don't think the violent crime statistic is relevant here, particularly as it disappears once you control for other factors such as poverty. I would also be interested in reading these studies. I am certain that gender is a factor in the use of force by police, probably the major factor. People who don't conform to the gender binary are particularly affected, but also men. However, I would be skeptical of any claim that black people are not at increased risk of police violence - there would need to be some pretty convincing data.

I don't actually have any data to directly back up that specific claim. However, there's no doubt that black people are at greater risk of being shot generally (see here - the best data available, even if it is incomplete), and that many of these cases occur in majority-minority areas, such as, oo, NYC and Ferguson.

Also try looking up autistic people who have been victims of police brutality. You might notice another factor that connects most of them...


That's not the point. The point is, that benefits lighter-skinned people in an unfair way.

Again, you are talking at cross purposes here.

Firstly, the "human race" is nothing of the sort - it's a species, not a race. Secondly, you know full well what the definition of race being used is, and you also know full well that race exists.



You're absolutely correct. The racist concept of white privilege [/quote]
White privilege isn't a racist concept. HTH.

H8ers g0nna H8!! !!