Louis CK on white privilege

Post Reply New Topic

Asians in particular have far more symmetrical facial features than white people do. Blaq people in Africa also have this tendency. Some of the ugliest faces Ive seen are from white/caucasoid people since we have the most asymmetrical features: Like giant noses, brow ridges, narrow faces, crooked teeth, and sunken eyes.

In the west, the most prominent privilege group are whites (not so elsewhere in the world), but there are other privilege groups. Some of which are harder to find a simple identifier for. For example, it's easy to say "white" privilege. It's not so easy to say "old money, advantaged, and connected" privilege. The easier it's named, the easier it's targeted.

In America, if you aren't white, you are more likely to recieve arbitrary harrassment or ill treatment by police. As simple as that.

Where in America? Everywhere?
p.s. What's not so 'simple' is that this isn't an America only forum. For example, white privilege would be very contestable in certain parts of the UK.

Which is why the word "privilege" needs to be done away with, in this context, because it usually means (when used outside the social justice context) something additional to what people deserve for being people. Hence, when you tell them they're privileged, they see it more as you trying to take away their rights, rather than you trying to get them to think about other people not having the same rights.

I suggest a rationalist taboo of the word, even if it does mean using buffyspeak.

I'm really not convinced that sex or race are the biggest factors in the quality of someone's life (which is, after all, the only measure you can really use). It seems more that it should be the socio-economic class they're raised in, and their family background. To check, I'd have to see whether the gap in quality of life between poor blacks and poor whites is bigger than the gap between poor whites and rich blacks...

Yeah, but why ? Why do people suspect black people as criminals ?

On last night's Detroit area evening news :

- black person kills person
- black person kills person
- federal idictment against black gang in "smash and grab" robberies of jewerly stores,
- black person robs bank
- black parents torture their child.

No, you've rather missed the point. Ominous was mocking the mere suggestion of the existence of anti white racism. When you introduce power into the equation, an entirely new dynamic comes into play. Economic oppression is race blind.



We're discussing the concept that racism doesn't happen to white people, or that it doesn't count, or that it's somehow less important. It's possible you've missed the context of what's gone before, so perhaps a re-read of the thread is in order.



The language I use is called English. When discussing concepts in English, it is important that you stick to the English definitions of words. For example, in the above 'definition', you have included redundant components. N.B. if you wish to introduce a 'concept word' as an idea, it is important to define precisely what you mean by said concept.



You have made two elementary mistakes here. Your first is to make assumptions regarding the breadth and depth of my reading. The second is to suppose that the handegg vs football vs soccer debate is anything more than a banterous meme betwixt culturally similar sports fans. The name Football applies to multiple sports, regardless of pseudo-partisan conversations taking place via the pondpipe.



I have no interest in the buffoonery of Piers Morgan.

Of course you don't view what she did as racist, you share her ideology. That's how extremism works, mein freund. It turns seemingly sensible people into blinkered followers. Tell you what, I'll overtly spell it out for you and see how you respond. The results will likely be interesting, even if unsatisfactory.

When this:



becomes an acceptable response to even the suggestion that racism happens to white people, you have created an environment where racism is socially acceptable.



Ah, the "you don't understand" ad hominem rears its ugly head. How novel.

Seriously, how many times does this need to be explained? "I do not disagree with you" does not mean "I do not understand you". In fact, it rather suggests the opposite, no?



Hence "majority privilege", however flawed as a concept, still applies. Perhaps your resistance to the concept of "majority privilege" stems from your knowledge that female voters are a majority in most western countries. It's moot either way, as privilege cannot be applied in general terms.



That's no more than a contested hypothesis. There are a larger number of impoverished white Americans than there are impoverished black Americans, albeit a smaller percentage. Currently the most likely candidate for primary factor seems to be cultural, which muddies the waters even further.



I'm trying to find a study I googled my way to after hours of reading in the aftermath of the Ferguson incident, if I find it I'll link it here. In the meantime, this 2010 paper is a review of over a decade of peer-reviewed studies into police use of force: http://swacj.org/swjcj/archives/7.2/Kla ... 285%29.pdf

It should be pointed out that there is racial disparity when it comes to the reporting of police violence and brutality. Call me cynical, but it's arguably due to the fact that "Black man shot dead by cops" sells more copy than "White man shot dead by cops".



And in more than 90% of cases, the shooter will be another black person. Likewise, black people are far more likely to commit homicide than white people.

Based on available data from 1980 to 2008—
-Blacks were disproportionately represented as both homicide
victims and offenders. The victimization rate for blacks (27.8
per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per
100,000). The offending rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost
8 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000) (table 1).

Source: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf



Sadly, I'm well aware of the attitude of police towards the disabled, and yet I also recognise that - like with most groups - it's a minority of offenders doing the majority of the offending.



Was that intended to be a pun, or mere happenstance?

What you actually mean is that it benefits 'attractive' people in an unfair way, where attractiveness is a subjective concept. However, being valued solely for ones looks is a fleeting advantage at best, a life-consuming struggle against nature and entropy at worst. There are far more important things to concern oneself with than the relative merits of other people's facial geometry compared to your own.



You could fall back on that tired ad hom.



Or you could consider that I was making the point that you're failing to see the larger picture, rather than implying I'm being disingenuous.

When we allow racist opinions to become acceptable (such as the belief that one race has an advantage that another does not) and fail to challenge them, we're all worse off.

Oh, and technically human beings can all trace their genetic heritage to "Mitrochondrial Eve". We are one race, regardless how many people seem intent on sticking labels marked "different" on each other, based purely on cosmetics.





*emphasis mine

Ipso Facto, simply believing in white privilege is inherently racist.

You also elected not to respond to the article I posted (though it's exclusion from the quotefest is perfectly reasonable, if not the omission of context for that cut-off sentence). Am I to assume you didn't read it?

Did the definition of 'arbitrary' change, or are you merely applying it arbitrarily?

Where in America? Everywhere?
p.s. What's not so 'simple' is that this isn't an America only forum. For example, white privilege would be very contestable in certain parts of the UK.[/quote]

I agree. There are parts of the west where wp is in play, and parts where the opposite is in play. I was thinking mainly of the UK.

It's been my experience that smart people say smart things; people who go on at length about how smart they are without actually demonstrating intelligence tend to fall into a different category...

So that the media chose to report these events is actually representative of all black people rather than a agenda on the part of wealthy lobbyists in the media to maintain the status quo?

That police harrassment of black communities is merely part and parcel of that same apparatus to maintain race divisions in america and perpetuate yet more crime?

Secondly are you actually advocating the idea that people are more predisposed to crime because of the melatonin content in their skin rather than any socio-economic factors which can also be observed between social classes in countries without the same extent of ethnic differences?

Such brilliant counter-arguments and resplendent wit are wasted on the elementary intellects of dullards such as myself and Dillogic. Your greater cognizance is manifestly more magnificent by a magnitude immeasurable than that of we mere mortals that one is compelled to feel prodigious compassion for the shoulders upon which it is superincumbent. Mayhap you should devote that incomparably multifarious mind of yours to a venture of loftier preponderance, such as the abolition of world hunger or the formulation of a contempary panacea?



There are just too many variables to consider when discussing how 'smart' one is. For cafeaulait, however, it's apparent that 'not smart' is interchangeable with 'person who disagrees with me', which is a quality rarely found in those I personally consider to be 'smart'.

Indeed. There are certainly many who brag about being intelligent; but their empty boasting serves only to give a bad reputation for those who actually are intelligent.

Careful with quotes - I didn't say the above quote. I said the bit after the quote.
I've made the same mistake, easy to do, so I preview a lot now.
And I can't fix what went on above... so it is what it is now... lol

We have the technology!

But we don't know how to use it.

Swell
Another lecture in sociology from a comedian...