Louis CK on white privilege

Post Reply New Topic

Whites more prone to suffering depression committing suicide and getting skin cancer yep that's a wonderful privilege. Yep it is funny when white people commit suicide more white people should commit suicide more often as well as get cancer their skin turns red in the sun long enough proving white people are devils and demons!Yep ALL white people are evil and should be exterminated and any brother who disagrees is an uncle Tom!
*sarcasm*

Last edited by AspieOtaku on 02 Mar 2015, 1:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

-A small employer may fear to hire black people, because he may fear a racism lawsuit.
-There are small employers who have admitted they refuse to hire black people for what they may do.
-People move away from black people because of the huge crime numbers.

These would seem to be concrete examples of "non-black privilege" ?

A. "Non-Black priviledge" = people fear you less
B. "White privledge" would include "Non-Black priviledge" as a subset.
C. Therefore, mathematically, "White priviledge" exists ?

If you move to Detroit as a white person you'll get the privilege of being robbed! Im not saying all black folks will do this just the gang bangers but they will use the white man is the devil excuse to rob people hell they rob eachother!

Serves the pinkie right he had white priviledge!The killer gets off with only 4 years yeah to hell with the white race!

Damn, where is that clumsy satire shock implant when I need it?

My "strategy" did not fail.

Again, you and ominous essentially agree on the morality. You merely disagree on the definition of racism. This does not mean that either of you are any more racist than the other.

By way of analogy, in many countries "rape" is legally defined as something like the non-consentual penetration of another person's orifice with a penis. If you said to a British lawyer that you were raped by a woman, they might well at you - highly insensitively, of course, but legally you would be suggesting something impossible. They would be using a different definition of rape to you - presumably you would use something like "forced to have sex without consent". However, the woman would be guilty of sexual assault and still subject to the same potential punishments, and there would be no question that her offence was just as grievous as if the boot was on the other foot. Similarly, some people may not use the word "racism" to describe anti-white racial prejudice, or even some casual forms of anti-black racial prejudice, but only structural systems which inherently oppress under-privileged racial groups. That doesn't mean they condone some forms of prejudice, just that they feel it is useful to have different words for personal prejudice and structural oppression. Apologies for that verbosity, but it's necessary for precision and clarity.

Ominous' post was insensitive - perhaps she would have been better off simply saying "I disagree with your definition of racism, and I think you are exaggerating the extent and impact of anti-white sentiment in this country" - but it was not racist. It's also important to note the context, which was someone making an outright ridiculous comment about race relations in the United States.

I totally agree!! I see a shift----a shift to whites now feeling oppressed, and not wanting to tolerate it, anymore, and "fighting"-BACK (unfortunately, LITERALLY, in some cases).

Also, maybe the "plan" was, all-along, for it to be a "self-fulfilling prophecy", so that there would be yet another reason, to cry "Oh, woe, is me".



I think it's just the opposite!! I feel it's the UNeducated that are making more of the mistakes, regarding this country's history, etc.



Oh, MY----I must respectfully disagree!! I think we made progress, for awhile; but, as I stated, earlier, I'm afraid the oppression, is now going in the other direction----so, IMO, we're no where NEAR "a cure".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In regard to OP: Sure, I believe there is such a thing as "White Privilege"----but, because whites are the majority, and that privilege would be afforded ANY majority race. I also believe that the term was made "fashionable", or went "viral", by people who, again, thought there weren't already enough reasons to cry "Oh, woe, is me", no.1; and, no.2, the term became "viral" because there are still too many sheeple who seem content with wearing a badge of "White Guilt"; and, no.3, the media, possibly, INSURED that it would become viral, because then anyone mentioning it, would also mention the broadcast company, magazine name, publishing company, etc. that said it----free advertising, at it's most vile, if the intention was, indeed, to "raise a ruckus", to get publicity; as I fear is, all-too-often, the case.

I'm "Team Dillogic / adifferentname", in that racism against whites, DOES exist!! Those who DON'T believe it exists, are, IMO, "buying" "the con"----meaning that, there are those who work very hard at getting you to believe that there couldn't possibly be racism against whites, because then the focus would be taken away from THEM, and would, thereby, cease all the sympathy, and allowances that they currently enjoy, feel entitled to, and can't get enough of----all, while crying that it's not enough!!

The racial demographics are not changing though ...

the white Hispanic "race" is surging .... based on the census finding out how people self-identify

and Mexicans are generally 50-60% genetically European

If Mexicans are to be excluded as "white" then I think someone needs to look
closer at Italians, and other sourthern Europeans. My deceased step dad was native Italian, and pretty dark.

Heck, the US government even counts northern Africans as white. So many African Americans are white.

The true "white white" people are probably already a minority.

Many predict that most Hispanics will incorporate into "white America", thus, the white legacy will continue. This is backed up by the increase in a few million Hispanics changing their self-designation to white in the last census.

"White" is an idea; it is not really a race, or skin color.

Yep, it failed. Apparently that's not going to stop you trying again. I applaud your commitment.



Provide the quote where Ominous defines racism.



And when MRA's raise this point, along with other legal inequalities against men, your feminist brothers and sisters malign them. When anyone who does not identify as "a MRA" makes this point, they call them MRA and malign them.



I am again astounded at both the lengths you are willing to go to in order to defend racism, and the arrogance with which you dismiss my knowledge of a subject.

I just asked a British solicitor how she would react if one of her male clients told her that a woman raped him. Bizarrely, her answer didn't include any indication that she would mock the poor chap. She then pointed out that women have actually been convicted of rape under British law, but only as accomplices to a man - which rather puts a hole in your 'legally impossible' argument. I can't quote her on what she said when I read her your post, as it would breach the forum rules.

The difference between rape and racism is that one has a legal definition (as it is a criminal offence) and one does not (as it is not). Racial discrimination can be an aggravating factor but racism itself is not a crime unless coupled with an existing offence. Rather, it is a moral failing.



Such people are misusing the word "racism". Anti-white racial prejudice is racist, overt anti-white racial prejudice is overt racism.



They just pretend that they don't or can't happen, or that when they do they're trivial and unimportant.



That was sophistry, not verbosity. Which one could argue makes it prolix by default.



If you had been honest enough to state; "Ominous' post was racist, if arguably only mildly so." then I'd respect your integrity and leave it there. At this point, however, I'm quite content to dismiss you as a racism apologist.



Now you're arguing that white people cannot be exploited or dehumanised in the US based solely on their skin colour. Congratulations, you're (at the very least) mildly racist too.

Thanks for voicing your support, though I'd suggest I'm little more than a fringe member of Team Reason. I'm right there with you in the belief that much of the problem stems from a politically-directed media campaign, designed to sow discord and promote partisan entrenchment. The ruling minority have mastered the notion of divide and conquer when it comes to the plebs.



There's a great deal of sense in what you say here. I've had the - I want to say 'pleasure' but, well, you know - of living in both the UK and the US, and it's always concerned me that there's an overwhelming desire to categorise people as simplistically as possible. My experiences inform me that how people identify themselves is far too complex a matter for such an approach to be valid or useful, especially (as you mention) among Hispanic Americans.

I don't necessarily agree with your conclusion, but I agree with the logic that informs it.

TOTALLY!!

a. Racist topics are not allowed on WrongPlanet.

b. "White Priviledge" is a racist topic.

: : This thread should be locked.

It probably feels like it, when you benefit from its existance and someone has the temerity to dare ask if its existance should be called into question.


This is the last time i listen to another lecture from conservatives/libertarians on 'freedom of speech' then.

Well, PPR rules say:

b) Creating threads attacking black people (or any other colour) is not acceptable. However, it is quite acceptable to discuss issues regarding racial tensions and racism itself. So there would be no problem debating why race riots occurred somewhere, but it would not be acceptable to say that a particular race smells bad or are stupid.

I'll wait for the other mods to chime in, as I'm not sure whether this one is any better from the one created by AspieOtaku which was closed yesterday.

Discussing racism seems to be OK, if this thread degenerates into racism then it will be closed.

That's always been my understanding, like the difference between discussing the linguistic origin of a racial slur vs hurling the slur at people.

Trolling is of course it's own separate thing, especially when it comes from members with a history of doing it.