Facebook prioritizing different types of hate speech

Post Reply New Topic

It would be a racial generalisation that "white people are XXXX", clearly, but that's not what "white privilege" in and of itself is saying. It's a term describing a specific concept of privilege, and whether that concept in itself is fair, mistaken, or has any validity is another matter; a different conversation.

What about "black power" and "gay pride"? Do those terms for concepts somehow negatively generalise black and gay people?

It is not a generalisation to say that all white people experience white privilege. It is axiomatic. A white person is someone who experiences white privilege. We are not in the business of censoring facts because individuals don’t understand them.

If you interpret it as an axiomatic truth about all white people, which is absurd, then I would think that would be banned as racist.

It follows the form of "All Black people are axiomatic XXXX" ,where XXXX is some assumed axiomatic trait.

Repeating the same flawed points won't make your case more convincing. Do you have a more compelling argument or just more of the same argument that's already been refuted?

It makes me feel guilty and hurts my feelings isn't a compelling argument when that reaction is due to one's own misunderstanding of what the term means, especially after multiple posters have attempted to explain the concept repeatedly.

Discussion of white privilege is within the rules even if a few posters who chose to ignore what the concept actually refers to become emotional and insist it must be a personal attack. You're entitled to your opinion even if it's widely considered incorrect by your peers and by moderation, you're entitled to not participate in those threads if you feel they personally attack you, but you're not entitled to demand they be closed or that those who engage in them be punished because they're allowed within the rules.

If you can't handle logic, then stay out of the kitchen!

The irony is strong with you.

"White privilege" is so misunderstood by many. it is not an insult nor an attack. It just means you get benefits from it you didn't even earn. Like as a white person, I don't even need to worry I will get attacked or assaulted by the cops when I am pulled over or stopped by one. I have no fear just as long as I comply to their commands and answer their questions. But as a person of color, this is not so simple because you can still be assaulted and attacked even if you are complying because of implicit bias.

Another white privilege is I won't ever look suspicious when I am minding my own business and no one will call the cops on me. Another white privilege is I won't be followed around in the stores or stared at while I shop. Look up "racial profiling."

White privilege does not mean you do not have problems and don't suffer or struggle and it does not mean you are rich. If you are born into wealth, that is a privilege as well because you get more benefits and that means your parents will bail you out of you need money for medical or for car repair or if something happens. It also means you have a place to live if you cannot afford to be on your own. I have heard of parents being too poor to let their adult kids live with them or else charge them high in rent and charge them utilities too. Kids of wealth don't need to worry about this stuff and they can live for free and save up for a place of their own. Or they can live at home while attending school and not pay a dime to live with their parents. Only bills they pay is their car and their phone and maybe their own food and drinks their parents won't buy.


My mom and I once got into an argument about the meaning of white privilege. She was saying how Trump had white privilege so he is delusional and doesn't know how life actually works. I told her "you are thinking of rich privilege. Lot of white people are not millionaires."

There is also celebrity privilege.

There is also class privilege as well. If you need to cancel your subscriptions to Netflix or Hulu and Youtube and stuff so you can pay off your debt or medical bills, that is a privilege there. There are people out there who cannot cancel anything to pay off stuff because they don't have it in the first place and are living paycheck to paycheck and bam they end up with a medical bill or some extra bill and they just don't have that money to pay it.

Being born into a middle or high class family is a privilege because when you are born into a poor family, you are at rock bottom and will have to work harder to get out of that class to be unpoor as an adult.

No one likes to hear how they were already given benefits to be where they are now because they want to believe they actually worked hard, not because they were already benefitted.


If no one wants to be accused of privilege, don't be so ignorant and say stupid stuff. Me telling someone "just ask your parents for money" when they get a dental bill they cannot afford is a sign of privilege because I am assuming their parents have money and that their parents are not poor or I am assuming they have supportive parents who do not abandon them financially just because they are an adult now. If I just argue with them, then I deserved to be called privileged for not listening to their story and them going to their parents for money is not an option, same as if I am judging people for not going to their parents for financial support and calling them too prideful to ask for help because of my ASSumption. In some families, they just simply don't believe in financial support and they believe when you are an adult, you need to face the real world and drown into debt and be stuck with debt when s**t happens. It's not like that in my family at all. Even my schizophrenic aunt was privileged because she had her parents and her siblings buy her groceries and buying her kids school clothes and my grandparents were even helping her out with bills. Yes she was poor but she was still privileged because she never had to be out in the streets and she had financial support from her family. She smoked and that was it. How many homeless people with mental illnesses have families to support them? I wonder how many of them were abandoned by their families or how many of their families were too poor to help them?

There are many privileges out there.

Cis privilege
straight privilege
Christianity privilege
Wealth privilege
Rich privilege
Celebrity privilege
NT privilege
Able Bodied privilege
1st World Privilege
Intelligence privilege
Female privilege
Male privilege

I think even having a natural gift is a privilege. You can benefit from it and didn't have to work as hard to get better.


At the end, everyone has privilege. Everyone has disadvantages.

This is an exercise in thinking.

What if:
1. member makes topic called "BLACK CRIME".
2. member makes argument that people of race A are more dangerous than other races
3. member uses factual crime data to make argument
4. member concludes that factual data shows this to be an axiomatic truth

Racist or OK?

Crime is a behaviour that involves personal choice.
Privilege is a social situation that the people benefiting from didn't choose.

apples ≠ oranges

Got it?

Our reality is ruled by probability.

Among billions of people, there are no absolutes.

You may think people have only 1 head, 1 heart, 1 gender ... and there are examples to prove you wrong.

Probability suggests to me that non-white people have an equal number of ADVANTAGES.

Your perspective appears to be one-sided, and you appear to ignore their ADVANTAGES to make your argument.

Your argument appears to suggest: whoever, whatever the circumstance, whenever, the white person always has probability on their side, and comes out as the privileged one. It defies probability.

I am struggling to remember the last time I saw somebody post this on WP? much ado about nothing.

Spoken like someone with absolutely zero grasp of how probability works. Probability is not a universal reference point. "White privilege" recognizes the social workings that make people who are white MORE probably to receive a positive consequence, and less probable to receive a negative consequence.

The way you're portraying probability, everyone has the exact same odds of getting struck by lightening, even if one person is in alaska inside a house, and the other one is in the middle of a lightning storm in florida while hugging a flagpole in a field. Probability is neither constant nor immutable. It is an eternal variable that depends entirely on the circumstances present in the situation. Ergo, if a society is built to inherently favor white people over non-white people, there IS a greater probability of it benefitting white people. The end.

Ironically, "there ARE NO absolutes" is an absolute statement. Paradox much?

You can take things to suggest whatever you want, just like anyone can take anything to mean whatever they want. Saying things doesn't make them true. Believing things doesn't make them true either, except in the mind of the believer.

It came up a lot in Trump topics with generalizations about Trump supporters.

Mod Skillpaddle stepped in a lot to point out the rule that people generalizations are not allowed, because it's interpreted to be a personal attack on every member in the group.

(It's not in the written rules, so it catches members off guard, which is why a mod had to step in).

Strawman argument, but also subtle racism. In this creative hypothetical, the "poster" themselves created the overt link between "black crime" and the claim that "(all) people of a race are more dangerous". Just because this imaginary individual crammed these two ideas together doesn't mean they belong together, or expected to go together.

3. member assumes that crime data IS factual, and ignores the possibility of over-policing people of color, and under-policing white people. Funny how there's more black people in jail if you MOSTLY arrest black people.

"Black crime" is a TERM. It means "crime committed by a black person". There are also stats on "White crime". It means "crime committed by a white person". In neither case does it mean "all (race) are criminals".

Bring up "black crime" on it's own - not racist. Bringing up back crime to "prove" that "blacks ARE criminals" is racist. Because "white crime" exists, too. And guess what? Black-on-black crime and white-on-white crime occur at THE SAME RATE! Black on white crime, and white on black crime ALSO occur at the same rate. WOW! And yet blacks are arrested more, and whites are arrested less, for similar crime that occurs at the same rate. White people are stopped MORE for minor drug charges, but blacks still get arrested MORE for the same charges. It's almost as if one side is being policed more heavily than the other. And america TOTALLY NEVER did anything like that, least of all between the time of the civil war and and the civil rights movement in the 1960's... Oh wait, they totally did, and rounding up "the blacks" (slaves) and "controlling" the "violent blacks" once whey were freed was literally the original job of the police force in america.

It's begging the question.

Mods and admins have already chimed in about it. What's say we follow their lead, eh?

White Privilege = ok to discuss.

Spongebob did an episode on this FFS. "Squirrels are furry" is ok, because they objectively are, and it has no affect on the way they are treated or valued. "Squirrels are stupid" is NOT ok, because that's a subjective claim, and DOES affect the way they are treated and valued. Even if there was statistical evidence that some squirrels were in fact stupid, treating ALL of them like they are is stereotyping, and affects how they are treated and valued. If it came to light, that the test used to "prove" squirrels were stupid was biased to show that, a la "vaccines cause autism", then that "proof" really shouldn't be touted as proof.

In that same token, simply referencing "squirrel stupidity" does not mean "all squirrels are stupid", it is merely referring to instances when specifically squirrels do happen to actually be stupid.

Even then, even if "squirrels are stupid", are they actually naturally stupid, or are the merely "less educated" because they've been denied the same educational opportunities as others, and historically have been punished if they did try to learn or acted intelligent. Wait, sorry, was talking about real world black people there. Lemme go back to squirrels. Ok, is Sandy "stupid" cos "she's a squirrel", or is sandy merely new to being underwater, and hasn't had all of the same learning opportunities that everyone else has up to this point in their lives.

Funny how people don't know things if you never teach them. Funny how people are less inclined to learn if you punish them for doing so.

You seem to be fishing for arguments, it appears you threw out several off-the-cuff thoughts.

You start off with a stupid statement that I don't understand probability, then you make a stupid argument that a sentence is an absolute, when I was talking about people, then you assume I was talking about different circumstances. You can't explain yourself without involving me. You don't ask for clarification. You're all over the place. Then you end it with that I am "just saying things" , which I guess makes sense cause you can't deal with them on an intellectual level.

When I said, "there are no absolutes", I was referring to humans.

In our reality, only self-defined absolutes exist, such as ideas, like the sentence you point out, or neutrons and protons. I made a topic about this on this site.

Regarding probability, probability is a function of time and numbers, so in one context, at one time, probability can defy odds.

I think it's possible that what you think is an advantage, over time and large number, might even out.

It would be nice to know the logic of their decision.