Page 5 of 7 [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,600
Location: Long Island, New York

31 Aug 2016, 1:21 am

TheAP wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
This is not white people bieng granted privileges but bieng treated as they should be and blacks bieng unfairly treated.

Maybe it's a bit of a misnomer, but that's what is meant by white privilege--never having to face discrimination for your race.


That is what is meant by the incorrectly hijacked definition. It was wrong to do this because of implies all whites should feel guilty because by accident of birth they have a lesser (not none at all) chance to be descriminited against or face racism. The actual people who actually descriminate should actually be punished. That would do more for discrimination and bigotry awareness and easing actual descrimination then yelling "check your privilege".


_________________
Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

"The lunatics have taken over the asylum" - The Specials


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,934
Location: USA

31 Aug 2016, 2:41 am

The examples cited here are wrong.

They don't indicate "white privilege".

Rather, they indicate non-black privilege.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,891

31 Aug 2016, 2:43 am

TheAP wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Saying that one group has inherent advantages over another on the basis of race is a de facto statement that one group is inherently superior to the other.

Oh, and you failed to answer my question.

Nope. It says that one group is treated better by society, not that one group is superior to the other.


And treated better on what grounds?

Are you starting to see the racist Kafkatrap of white privilege yet or do you need more prodding?

Quote:
People can be very easily separated from their experiences. Talking about an experience someone faced does not entail making a judgment about that person.


That's not separating people from their experiences, that's distancing yourself from their experiences - rather like the way white privilege is applied. Except with the notion of white privilege, you completely ignore the reality of the individual's experiences and ascribe them a value based purely on the colour of their skin.

Quote:
Quote:
The answer to your question is contained within the text you quoted. Did you perhaps misread it?

Ah. But if pointing out differences in wellbeing based on class is classist, then the term "classism" becomes useless, because acknowledging the problem of classism is then classist.


That isn't what you did. You said "That's like saying that it's classist to say that rich people have it easier than poor people.". You're making an a priori judgement based on a single subjective factor, wealth. You haven't provided a context for "easier", so you're relying on there being an existing discrimination in order to find concordance with others. You're also implying that class is based entirely on economic status, which is not a universal categorisation.

Quote:
Quote:
There wasn't a word for racism prior to the early 1900s. Whilst racism obviously existed prior to the invention of the word, nobody in the period described would have considered it racist.

Then I suppose I meant the former after all.


Then you should already know the answer.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,891

31 Aug 2016, 2:51 am

beneficii wrote:
You have to distinguish 2 terms:

1.) Racism: A caste system in which one race is in practice treated better than the others by society, either implicitly or explicitly, and the acts and attitudes which perpetuate that system.

2.) Racial prejudice: Treating or considering people differently because of their race, without regard to societal power structures.

This is why people of color cannot be racist against whites in the USA in the present day: Their prejudice does not perpetuate a currently existing racial caste system. But they can be prejudiced.


If your position relies on redefining language in order to justify bigotry, your position is untenable. Claiming that non-whites cannot be racist is, in and of itself, racist against whites.

Further, if society adopts your definition, society is implicitly favouring non-whites. The definition is a self-defeating semantic mess.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,891

31 Aug 2016, 2:54 am

ASPartOfMe wrote:
TheAP wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
This is not white people bieng granted privileges but bieng treated as they should be and blacks bieng unfairly treated.

Maybe it's a bit of a misnomer, but that's what is meant by white privilege--never having to face discrimination for your race.


That is what is meant by the incorrectly hijacked definition. It was wrong to do this because of implies all whites should feel guilty because by accident of birth they have a lesser (not none at all) chance to be descriminited against or face racism. The actual people who actually descriminate should actually be punished. That would do more for discrimination and bigotry awareness and easing actual descrimination then yelling "check your privilege".


Not to mention the clear hypocrisy of only asking people to "check your privilege" on the basis of skin tone or gender. That is, in and of itself, discrimination.



L_Holmes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,468
Location: Twin Falls, ID

31 Aug 2016, 3:20 am

I want to say this again, because apparently people still don't understand what the definition of a privilege is. A privilege is a specific right or advantage granted to a particular person or group.

So, white privilege would be exemplified in segregation (news flash, segregation has been illegal for quite some time).

Statistics that show whites in America being less likely to be in poverty does not demonstrate a white privilege, because you are just assuming they are rich because they are white. Correlation does not equal causation. If they got their riches because someone gave them money specifically for being white, then that would be correct, but if they worked for their money, or even inherited it from their parents, it still isn't white privilege, because they didn't get that money specifically for being white, they got it for some other reason.


_________________
"It has long been an axiom of mine that the little things are infinitely the most important."

- Sherlock Holmes


L_Holmes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,468
Location: Twin Falls, ID

31 Aug 2016, 3:34 am

beneficii wrote:
You have to distinguish 2 terms:

1.) Racism: A caste system in which one race is in practice treated better than the others by society, either implicitly or explicitly, and the acts and attitudes which perpetuate that system.

2.) Racial prejudice: Treating or considering people differently because of their race, without regard to societal power structures.

This is why people of color cannot be racist against whites in the USA in the present day: Their prejudice does not perpetuate a currently existing racial caste system. But they can be prejudiced.

No, you made that definition up. Racism is the belief that one race is inherently superior to another. That's it. You are thinking of oppression, not racism. And even in the case of oppression, it is illegal to discriminate based on race in America, so unless you think laws that prevent discrimination are simply ignored on all levels, you cannot say America oppresses blacks.

And by your definition of racial prejudice, calling a black person black is prejudiced, because you wouldn't call a white person black, so you're treating them differently. That's also ridiculous. We can't treat everyone the same way, but we can treat them fairly.


_________________
"It has long been an axiom of mine that the little things are infinitely the most important."

- Sherlock Holmes


GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,139

31 Aug 2016, 4:13 am

Here is some more food for thought:

Corrado and Vlassopoulos (2015) wrote:
Discrimination in access to public services can act as a major obstacle towards addressing racial inequality.

We examine whether racial discrimination exists in access to a wide spectrum of public services in the US. We carry out an email correspondence study in which we pose simple queries to more than 19,000 local public service providers. We find that emails are less likely to receive a response if signed by a black-sounding name compared to a white-sounding name. Given a response rate of 72% for white senders, emails from putatively black senders are almost 4 percentage points less likely to receive an answer.

We also find that responses to queries coming from black names are less likely to have a cordial tone. Further tests demonstrate that the differential in the likelihood of answering is due to animus towards blacks rather than inferring socioeconomic status from race.

Source:
Giulietti, Corrado, Mirco Tonin, and Michael Vlassopoulos. "Racial Discrimination in Local Public Services: A Field Experiment in the US." (2015).
http://ftp.iza.org/dp9290.pdf
Informal description here: http://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2015/ ... vices.page

And a specific illustration from the study (my emphasis added):

Image

The names used in the study were, BTW:

White:
Jake Mueller
Greg Walsh

Black:
DeShawn Jackson
Tyrone Washington


_________________
Our comforting conviction that the world makes sense rests on a secure foundation: our almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance.

- Daniel Kahneman


Hopper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Aug 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,908
Location: North Wayels

31 Aug 2016, 5:02 am

adifferentname wrote:
beneficii wrote:
You have to distinguish 2 terms:

1.) Racism: A caste system in which one race is in practice treated better than the others by society, either implicitly or explicitly, and the acts and attitudes which perpetuate that system.

2.) Racial prejudice: Treating or considering people differently because of their race, without regard to societal power structures.

This is why people of color cannot be racist against whites in the USA in the present day: Their prejudice does not perpetuate a currently existing racial caste system. But they can be prejudiced.


If your position relies on redefining language in order to justify bigotry, your position is untenable. Claiming that non-whites cannot be racist is, in and of itself, racist against whites.

Further, if society adopts your definition, society is implicitly favouring non-whites. The definition is a self-defeating semantic mess.


Call number one what you want - systemic racism, maybe? - but it is a different thing to number two, and is not and cannot be directed against whites in the US, the UK, etc. Other systemic prejudices can be, but not racial ones.

Recognising the existence of systemic racial prejudice is not 'implicitly favouring non-whites', ffs.

It seems to me the issue here is whether or not one supposes that, sans any anti-racist movements, we already live in The Most Racially Equal Of All Possible Worlds. If you (general you, not you in particular) see The Way Things Are as fine and dandy and not containing a hint of systemic prejudice, then of course any attempt by someone who does see systemic prejudice and tries to address it is going to be seen by you as 'racist'. Hell, even seeing - even looking for - the systemic prejudice is itself taken by some to be 'racist'.

I have to say, I find this adoption of crying 'racist' by whites to be ridiculously churlish and pissy. A non-white can cuss me with a racial slur if they really want to, but the difference in our socio-historical contexts will mean the weight and impact of that slur is far less than if the situation were reversed.


_________________
Of course, it's probably quite a bit more complicated than that.

You know sometimes, between the dames and the horses, I don't even know why I put my hat on.


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,891

31 Aug 2016, 5:47 am

Hopper wrote:
Call number one what you want - systemic racism, maybe? - but it is a different thing to number two, and is not and cannot be directed against whites in the US, the UK, etc. Other systemic prejudices can be, but not racial ones.


Having white skin is no barrier to systemic racism. Just ask anyone of Irish or Scottish descent. Black and white are not universal ethnic categories.

Quote:
Recognising the existence of systemic racial prejudice is not 'implicitly favouring non-whites', ffs.


However, asserting that it cannot adversely affect people with white skin most certainly is implicitly favouring non-whites.

Quote:
It seems to me the issue here is whether or not one supposes that, sans any anti-racist movements, we already live in The Most Racially Equal Of All Possible Worlds. If you (general you, not you in particular) see The Way Things Are as fine and dandy and not containing a hint of systemic prejudice, then of course any attempt by someone who does see systemic prejudice and tries to address it is going to be seen by you as 'racist'. Hell, even seeing - even looking for - the systemic prejudice is itself taken by some to be 'racist'.


No. The issue is whether or not our society has legislation that makes discrimination on the grounds of race a criminal offence. Legally protected characteristics in the UK are as follows:

-age
-being or becoming a transsexual person
-being married or in a civil partnership
-being pregnant or on maternity leave
-disability
-race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
-religion, belief or lack of religion/belief
-sex
-sexual orientation

These protections extend to the workplace, educational facilities, being a consumer, using public services, buying or renting property or as a member or guest of a private association.

To enable the upholding of our legal rights, means-tested legal aid is widely available in the UK for those who have been discriminated against in those circumstances described above.

Note that race, in the legal (i.e. the rules of the "system" alluded to in "systemic") context of discrimination, is inclusive of nationality, ethnicity and nation of origin, as well as colour.

Quote:
I have to say, I find this adoption of crying 'racist' by whites to be ridiculously churlish and pissy.


Whereas I find such derogatory dismissal of other people's experiences and perspectives to be bigoted.

Quote:
A non-white can cuss me with a racial slur if they really want to, but the difference in our socio-historical contexts will mean the weight and impact of that slur is far less than if the situation were reversed.


Which is an admission that you hold non-whites to a lower standard than whites. I prefer to advocate for equality.



Hopper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Aug 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,908
Location: North Wayels

31 Aug 2016, 7:49 am

adifferentname wrote:
Hopper wrote:
Call number one what you want - systemic racism, maybe? - but it is a different thing to number two, and is not and cannot be directed against whites in the US, the UK, etc. Other systemic prejudices can be, but not racial ones.


Having white skin is no barrier to systemic racism. Just ask anyone of Irish or Scottish descent. Black and white are not universal ethnic categories.


First, that's on grounds of nationalist prejudice, not racial prejudice. Further, in those cases, the Scottish and Irish are being excluded from 'whiteness' on other grounds. The Irish in particular have a history of being considered 'swarthy'. That is, non-white.

Quote:
Quote:
Recognising the existence of systemic racial prejudice is not 'implicitly favouring non-whites', ffs.


However, asserting that it cannot adversely affect people with white skin most certainly is implicitly favouring non-whites.


No, it isn't. Further, I did not say it could not affect people with white skin. I said that systemic racial prejudice (in US, UK etc) is not and cannot be directed against whites. Other prejudices can. Though as I'm sure you're aware, we are not talking about something as simple as skin colour or flesh tone here. Witness David Starkey's anguished cry during the 2011 riots that 'the whites have become black!'.

Quote:
Quote:
It seems to me the issue here is whether or not one supposes that, sans any anti-racist movements, we already live in The Most Racially Equal Of All Possible Worlds. If you (general you, not you in particular) see The Way Things Are as fine and dandy and not containing a hint of systemic prejudice, then of course any attempt by someone who does see systemic prejudice and tries to address it is going to be seen by you as 'racist'. Hell, even seeing - even looking for - the systemic prejudice is itself taken by some to be 'racist'.


No. The issue is whether or not our society has legislation that makes discrimination on the grounds of race a criminal offence. Legally protected characteristics in the UK are as follows:

-age
-being or becoming a transsexual person
-being married or in a civil partnership
-being pregnant or on maternity leave
-disability
-race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
-religion, belief or lack of religion/belief
-sex
-sexual orientation

These protections extend to the workplace, educational facilities, being a consumer, using public services, buying or renting property or as a member or guest of a private association.

To enable the upholding of our legal rights, means-tested legal aid is widely available in the UK for those who have been discriminated against in those circumstances described above.

Note that race, in the legal (i.e. the rules of the "system" alluded to in "systemic") context of discrimination, is inclusive of nationality, ethnicity and nation of origin, as well as colour.


You are remarkably confident in the interest and intention of bigots to follow the law to the letter, and in the ability of those who face such discrimination to make their case succesfully.

Quote:
Quote:
I have to say, I find this adoption of crying 'racist' by whites to be ridiculously churlish and pissy.


Whereas I find such derogatory dismissal of other people's experiences and perspectives to be bigoted.


I'm not dismissing people's experiences in the slightest. I am questioning this ressentiment that sees a grab for the role of victim.

Quote:
Quote:
A non-white can cuss me with a racial slur if they really want to, but the difference in our socio-historical contexts will mean the weight and impact of that slur is far less than if the situation were reversed.


Which is an admission that you hold non-whites to a lower standard than whites. I prefer to advocate for equality.


No, it's not, as well you know. It's a statement that I simply would not be affected by someone non-white using a derogatory term against me. Why would I? The term has no historical or social weight or meaningful impact. A white person could use the term, and my response would be the same. Which would be '......ok?', and then getting on with my day. My whiteness has never, ever, ever had a negative impact on my life, nor on the lives of my ancestors. Someone may as well refer to my being right-handed, or wearing shoes.

Remind me, what was that term you used for those dismissive of others' experiences and perspectives?

You cannot advocate meaningfully for equality if you do not recognise inequality.


_________________
Of course, it's probably quite a bit more complicated than that.

You know sometimes, between the dames and the horses, I don't even know why I put my hat on.


L_Holmes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,468
Location: Twin Falls, ID

31 Aug 2016, 8:04 am

Why is it that when we talk about "black issues" like police brutality, everyone insists that we defer to the judgement or perspective of a person of color over anybody else, but when we talk about a white issue, like whether or not white people have special privileges in our society, a white person who finds this idea insulting is simply laughed at? I should know better than anybody else whether people give me things for being white, seeing as I'm about as white as they come, yet I cannot think of anything, other than accusations of racism, that I get just for being white.

And the response to this is, "You have so much white privilege, you can't even see how privileged you are." Translation: "Because of your white skin, you simply can't understand issues such as this. All black people are better than you in this regard."

To that I say: f**k you, you disgusting racists. Stop judging me for being white, and try to actually have an open discussion where you don't judge individual people simply based on their race. The cognitive dissonance you "anti-racists" must experience saying s**t like this is absolutely astounding.

This cognitive dissonance is, I assume, where the bullshit definitions of racism come from. Because you clearly are racist towards white people, but you want to claim you're not racist, you have to redefine the word to mean something that specifically excludes white people from being the victims of racism, which allows you to continue treating people like me dismissively, for no other reason than my white skin. Go f**k yourself, and take your white guilt and thinly veiled racism somewhere else, you worthless pieces of trash.


_________________
"It has long been an axiom of mine that the little things are infinitely the most important."

- Sherlock Holmes


L_Holmes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,468
Location: Twin Falls, ID

31 Aug 2016, 8:27 am

Hopper wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Hopper wrote:
Call number one what you want - systemic racism, maybe? - but it is a different thing to number two, and is not and cannot be directed against whites in the US, the UK, etc. Other systemic prejudices can be, but not racial ones.


Having white skin is no barrier to systemic racism. Just ask anyone of Irish or Scottish descent. Black and white are not universal ethnic categories.


First, that's on grounds of nationalist prejudice, not racial prejudice. Further, in those cases, the Scottish and Irish are being excluded from 'whiteness' on other grounds. The Irish in particular have a history of being considered 'swarthy'. That is, non-white.

Are you seriously saying that Irish people - f*****g IRISH PEOPLE - are non-white? My God, what is this thread? I'm f*****g Irish, you imbecile! So according to you, I actually am not white... are you aware of how ridiculous you sound right now? Jesus f*****g Christ.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Recognising the existence of systemic racial prejudice is not 'implicitly favouring non-whites', ffs.


However, asserting that it cannot adversely affect people with white skin most certainly is implicitly favouring non-whites.


No, it isn't. Further, I did not say it could not affect people with white skin. I said that systemic racial prejudice (in US, UK etc) is not and cannot be directed against whites. Other prejudices can. Though as I'm sure you're aware, we are not talking about something as simple as skin colour or flesh tone here. Witness David Starkey's anguished cry during the 2011 riots that 'the whites have become black!'.

Yes, it is, because anybody who DOES face discrimination for being white is not really being treated unfairly according to you, because you think it's simply impossible. A black employer could be racist against whites and not hire them. Do you seriously think that has never happened? Yes, it would be illegal, just like it's illegal if the roles are reversed. But it can and does happen both ways.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It seems to me the issue here is whether or not one supposes that, sans any anti-racist movements, we already live in The Most Racially Equal Of All Possible Worlds. If you (general you, not you in particular) see The Way Things Are as fine and dandy and not containing a hint of systemic prejudice, then of course any attempt by someone who does see systemic prejudice and tries to address it is going to be seen by you as 'racist'. Hell, even seeing - even looking for - the systemic prejudice is itself taken by some to be 'racist'.


No. The issue is whether or not our society has legislation that makes discrimination on the grounds of race a criminal offence. Legally protected characteristics in the UK are as follows:

-age
-being or becoming a transsexual person
-being married or in a civil partnership
-being pregnant or on maternity leave
-disability
-race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
-religion, belief or lack of religion/belief
-sex
-sexual orientation

These protections extend to the workplace, educational facilities, being a consumer, using public services, buying or renting property or as a member or guest of a private association.

To enable the upholding of our legal rights, means-tested legal aid is widely available in the UK for those who have been discriminated against in those circumstances described above.

Note that race, in the legal (i.e. the rules of the "system" alluded to in "systemic") context of discrimination, is inclusive of nationality, ethnicity and nation of origin, as well as colour.


You are remarkably confident in the interest and intention of bigots to follow the law to the letter, and in the ability of those who face such discrimination to make their case succesfully.

He's not talking about the perpetrators, you f*****g ravioli. He's talking about a victim of discrimination seeking out legal help, which help is available in our country, specifically for that reason. Are you implying that a black person is simply not capable of "making their case" in a country where we made these laws specifically to help minorities, particularly black people, and where I'm sure they could easily find a lawyer to take such a case as a result? Quit condescending to minorities, you hypocrite. If they never seek out help, of course they won't get it. But they are certainly not incapable of taking legal action just because they are minorities, and if they really had a case, I guarantee someone would take it. Unless you seriously think all black people are all just too incompetent to do such a thing.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I have to say, I find this adoption of crying 'racist' by whites to be ridiculously churlish and pissy.


Whereas I find such derogatory dismissal of other people's experiences and perspectives to be bigoted.


I'm not dismissing people's experiences in the slightest. I am questioning this ressentiment that sees a grab for the role of victim.

Yes, you are dismissing people's experience. You're seriously implying here that white people can't be victims, so if I'm ever a victim of racism, you will simply dismiss me as being whiny without taking into consideration what I've said, just because I'm white.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
A non-white can cuss me with a racial slur if they really want to, but the difference in our socio-historical contexts will mean the weight and impact of that slur is far less than if the situation were reversed.


Which is an admission that you hold non-whites to a lower standard than whites. I prefer to advocate for equality.


No, it's not, as well you know. It's a statement that I simply would not be affected by someone non-white using a derogatory term against me. Why would I? The term has no historical or social weight or meaningful impact. A white person could use the term, and my response would be the same. Which would be '......ok?', and then getting on with my day. My whiteness has never, ever, ever had a negative impact on my life, nor on the lives of my ancestors. Someone may as well refer to my being right-handed, or wearing shoes.

Remind me, what was that term you used for those dismissive of others' experiences and perspectives?

You cannot advocate meaningfully for equality if you do not recognise inequality.

So if a white person calls a black guy a n****r and walks away, he has no choice but to get extremely upset and throw a tantrum, or possibly assault someone, just because at one point in history blacks were oppressed? No, you are being condescending to black people. Plenty of black people would probably respond in the same way you would to a racial slur, because they are emotionally stable and realize a word is just a word, yet here you are painting them all as super-sensitive to mean words. That is condescending, that is degrading, and that is racist.


_________________
"It has long been an axiom of mine that the little things are infinitely the most important."

- Sherlock Holmes


AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,299

31 Aug 2016, 9:28 am

At the risk of being called a silly acronym, denying white privilege is racism. Experiments have been done submitting job applications with white names and black names, with equal qualifications. The applications with black names are far less likely to get a call.
Also check this s**t out:


These people don't think they are racist either, but the very different reaction to a white guy stealing a bike vs. a black one says it all.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,891

31 Aug 2016, 10:01 am

Hopper wrote:
First, that's on grounds of nationalist prejudice, not racial prejudice. Further, in those cases, the Scottish and Irish are being excluded from 'whiteness' on other grounds. The Irish in particular have a history of being considered 'swarthy'. That is, non-white.


Race,n

a. A group of people belonging to the same family and descended from a common ancestor; a house, family, kindred.

b. An ethnic group, regarded as showing a common origin and descent; a tribe, nation, or people, regarded as of common stock.

c. A group of several tribes or peoples, regarded as forming a distinct ethnic set.

d. According to various more or less formal attempted systems of classification: any of the (putative) major groupings of mankind, usually defined in terms of distinct physical features or shared ethnicity, and sometimes (more controversially) considered to encompass common biological or genetic characteristics.

Tell me again how ethnicity has nothing to do with race.

It's fascinating to me that you consider people like myself or L_Holmes to be "non-white". If Celts can't be considered white, nobody can.

Quote:
Quote:
However, asserting that it cannot adversely affect people with white skin most certainly is implicitly favouring non-whites.


No, it isn't.

Yes, it is.

Quote:
Further, I did not say it could not affect people with white skin. I said that systemic racial prejudice (in US, UK etc) is not and cannot be directed against whites.


At what point were you confused into believing we were talking about somewhere else? You remain incorrect, as has been explained to you.

Quote:
Other prejudices can. Though as I'm sure you're aware, we are not talking about something as simple as skin colour or flesh tone here. Witness David Starkey's anguished cry during the 2011 riots that 'the whites have become black!'.


I have no interest in a discussion about metaphysical whiteness. A white chav who adopts cultural behaviours that are commonly stereotyped as "black" does not become black.

Quote:
You are remarkably confident in the interest and intention of bigots to follow the law to the letter, and in the ability of those who face such discrimination to make their case succesfully.


I highly recommend you steer away from any career that relies on cold reading.

Quote:
I'm not dismissing people's experiences in the slightest. I am questioning this ressentiment that sees a grab for the role of victim.


You've informed me that I'm "non-white" and made a crass attempt at putting words in my mouth (see previous quote). The evidence is firmly against you on this one.

Quote:
Quote:
Which is an admission that you hold non-whites to a lower standard than whites. I prefer to advocate for equality.


No, it's not, as well you know.


And you have the temerity to follow up by telling me what I know. Usually I put this down to issues with Theory of Mind, common to those of us on the spectrum. Of course, one should never rule out egocentrism.

Quote:
It's a statement that I simply would not be affected by someone non-white using a derogatory term against me. Why would I? The term has no historical or social weight or meaningful impact. A white person could use the term, and my response would be the same. Which would be '......ok?', and then getting on with my day. My whiteness has never, ever, ever had a negative impact on my life, nor on the lives of my ancestors. Someone may as well refer to my being right-handed, or wearing shoes.


Your experience is your experience. Your experiences are not representative of those of all white Westerners or all of your ancestors. If you believe otherwise, you've left egocentrism far behind and have entered the realm of the god complex.

Quote:
Remind me, what was that term you used for those dismissive of others' experiences and perspectives?


Is your browser not functioning correctly?

Quote:
You cannot advocate meaningfully for equality if you do not recognise inequality.


Then I suggest you resist any temptation to do so.