fadskier said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Hey White Guys,
Stop being so afraid and defensive.
White privilege is not your fault. No of you asked to be born white. It simply happened.
Acknowledging WP does not mean your racist. It simply means "Oh white privileges exists."
If you looking for blame then look to the founding fathers because they let black slavery stand and that set in motion white privilege. You're the beneficiary of WP. I am too.
But by being aware of WP I work to overcome it and eradicate it.
It's what we do with that knowledge of WP that counts.
WP doesn't insult you or blame you. If you took advantage of your whiteness then we might need to have conversation.
But to blame you for an accident of birth seems silly.
What's the answer? I am not sure but I sm sure that we need to talk to one another about how to overcome it.
I think one of BIG mistakes in the early days of desegregation was that whites made the decisions on how to desegregate. At that time we needed a more collaborative effort.
I think we need collaboration with people of color again.

---

Do I have half white privilege since I am mixed race?

---

Only when it helps their cause

---

Well since I don't believe it exists...except in excuse-making, low-self esteem, dependent individuals...

---

Yep

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

quash said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

7 pages and still zero examples of white privilege

---

You have to get it to see them. You don't so you don't. No biggie.

---

NO that is not how it works at all. I am waiting for valid proof but no one can provide that.

No one has been able to explain how it is white privilege to be on food stamps, or all the poor whites in numerous areas of the country on welfare.

Or any other example of white privilige.

The most I get is statements like yours that because "I don't get it, I don't see it."

---

It's very easy to explain. If you're a white person on food stamps, you're less likely to go to prison than a black person, on food stamps, who behaves the same way you do.

---

Since when did being on food stamps become a crime?

---

It's not a crime, though one could easily make that mistake listening to some conservatives talk about it.

---

Then why would a person of any color go to prison for being on food stamps as you implied?

---

They wouldn't. They'd be more likely to go to prison for whatever crimes they did or were accused of doing.

---

So they are going to prison because of a crime they commit?

So the food stamps have zero to do with them being sent to prison and is unrelated to an attempt to prove white privilege as I've asked.

---

You asked how a white person on food stamps is privileged. They're privileged to this extent: they're less likely to go to prison than a similarly situated black person who commits or doesn't commit the same crimes that the white person commits or doesn't commit. It may not be much, but it's something.

---

False equivalence.

Food stamps has no impact on going to or staying out of prison.

---

Bingo! So if it's not the food stamps, what is it?

---

The fact they committed a crime? Which still had nothing to do with food stamps. So why bring it up in the first place? You mentioned it now back it up.

---

I have no idea. You're the one who brought up food stamps.

No, it's not the fact they committed a crime. The white person and the black person are behaving the same way, remember.

---

I asked where the white privilege was for whites on welfare.

You then mentioned food stamps and prison as if the two were connected.

Now you back away from that connection after admitting there is no connection.

Now you are saying they did not commit a crime but are being sent to jail for their "behavior"

Man. Pick a point and stick with it. You are doing an awful job at even pretending white privilege exists.

So again I ask where is this privilege for all the poor whites in the country? On welfare or not.

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

quash said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

7 pages and still zero examples of white privilege

---

You have to get it to see them. You don't so you don't. No biggie.

---

NO that is not how it works at all. I am waiting for valid proof but no one can provide that.

No one has been able to explain how it is white privilege to be on food stamps, or all the poor whites in numerous areas of the country on welfare.

Or any other example of white privilige.

The most I get is statements like yours that because "I don't get it, I don't see it."

---

It's very easy to explain. If you're a white person on food stamps, you're less likely to go to prison than a black person, on food stamps, who behaves the same way you do.

---

Since when did being on food stamps become a crime?

---

It's not a crime, though one could easily make that mistake listening to some conservatives talk about it.

---

Then why would a person of any color go to prison for being on food stamps as you implied?

---

They wouldn't. They'd be more likely to go to prison for whatever crimes they did or were accused of doing.

---

So they are going to prison because of a crime they commit?

So the food stamps have zero to do with them being sent to prison and is unrelated to an attempt to prove white privilege as I've asked.

---

You asked how a white person on food stamps is privileged. They're privileged to this extent: they're less likely to go to prison than a similarly situated black person who commits or doesn't commit the same crimes that the white person commits or doesn't commit. It may not be much, but it's something.

---

False equivalence.

Food stamps has no impact on going to or staying out of prison.

---

Bingo! So if it's not the food stamps, what is it?

---

The fact they committed a crime? Which still had nothing to do with food stamps. So why bring it up in the first place? You mentioned it now back it up.

---

I have no idea. You're the one who brought up food stamps.

No, it's not the fact they committed a crime. The white person and the black person are behaving the same way, remember.

---

I asked where the white privilege was for whites on welfare.

You then mentioned food stamps and prison as if the two were connected.

Now you back away from that connection after admitting there is no connection.

Now you are saying they did not commit a crime but are being sent to jail for their "behavior"

Man. Pick a point and stick with it. You are doing an awful job at even pretending white privilege exists.

So again I ask where is this privilege for all the poor whites in the country? On welfare or not.

---

It's right here: they're less likely to be imprisoned for the same conduct.

Waco1947 said:

---

Hey White Guys,
Stop being so afraid and defensive.
White privilege is not your fault. No of you asked to be born white. It simply happened.
Acknowledging WP does not mean your racist. It simply means "Oh white privileges exists."
If you looking for blame then look to the founding fathers because they let black slavery stand and that set in motion white privilege. You're the beneficiary of WP. I am too.
But by being aware of WP I work to overcome it and eradicate it.
It's what we do with that knowledge of WP that counts.
WP doesn't insult you or blame you. If you took advantage of your whiteness then we might need to have conversation.
But to blame you for an accident of birth seems silly.
What's the answer? I am not sure but I sm sure that we need to talk to one another about how to overcome it.
I think one of BIG mistakes in the early days of desegregation was that whites made the decisions on how to desegregate. At that time we needed a more collaborative effort.
I think we need collaboration with people of color again.

---

Since you have listed this position multiple times, I will address at least one issue I see with your post that seems to have a intrinsic flaw in my opinion. (The major issue in my opinion is the lack of coming to (if possible) an agreed upon definition of White Privilege.)

I think that it is interesting that you propose that "White privilege is not your fault. No of you asked to be born white. It simply happened" and "Acknowledging WP does not mean your racist. It simply means "Oh white privileges exists.".

That position seems to me is in direct conflict of your position in the post that "by being aware of WP I work to overcome it and eradicate it."

My initial simple thoughts are

1) How can anyone (much less an identified race of people) whom has/have a privilege "overcome it"? I must admit that I haven't given the idea a lot of time to work out but maybe you have and can provide an example.

2) I can generally see that if one believes a "privilege" exists in one racial group then they can also believe "privilege" can be "eradicated" in a racial sense, but that brings up a timing issue in my opinion.

Based on the premise that if today a race has a "privilege" that is due to factors in the past (which they cannot/ do not have any control of) and that group can set up a social set of laws and biases today (with no input from other races) that puts that group as whole on a "downward privilege track" due to race, then how is that group to identify the exact time and circumstances to stop that "downward privilege" and not achieve the underlying issue that one race is "privileged" over another?

Since you stated you are not sure of answers but we need to talk it.

Please, answer in your opinion.....
1) How can a race/group can "overcome" a privilege? (Obviously, it will be your first try so you can refine your response as needed but please lets try and get started with a answer by you).

2) How can a "privileged" race eradicate that "privilege" without putting other races in a privileged position (the very premise that is to be avoided)? (Again, the request open to refinement of ideas so please don't think that changing of a position is not allowed)

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not quite the same. It's a combination of systemic injustice and cultural decay.

---

Welfare system injustice has caused the cultural decay imo fwiw

It hurts me the older I get to see it and remain quiet

It's what I call being on the democrat plantation too

---

Wouldn't have needed the welfare system if we'd allowed blacks to participate in homeownership and Soc Sec.

---

I find that post interesting.

I am unaware of any national case law or litigation in reference to Social Security Act and how it was/has been applied to African Americans specifically.

Please reference a case if you know of one so I can read up on it.

Please disregard if "Soc Sec." had a alternate meaning.

---

The original law. It excluded ag and domestic workers because those fields were dominated by PoC and the Southern Democrats wanted none of that.

---

Interesting interpretation of the law. Since you didn't provide any historical legal challenges on the law, can you link to any historical articles in reference to the crafting of the law?

Were those two classifications of workers you identified the only two or was there others? And if so where they "dominated" by "Poc"?

In total population numbers in 1935 what race of people working as agricultural labor (in the US) would be the most is impacted?

What generally accepted economic event was going on in the 1930's (including 1935) that may/may influenced policy makers in determine which classification of workers should be exempt?

---

Lot of questions I have no interest in researching.

---

Not a problem. Good luck on supporting future points.

---

This stuff is pretty well known. Tbe basics I gave you anyway. I don't have the numbers you're looking for. If it matters a lot to you then feel free to research them and post up.

Edit: FTR the SSA has an article on their website denying racial bias. I just find the bias explanation better supported.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n4/v70n4p49.html

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not quite the same. It's a combination of systemic injustice and cultural decay.

---

Welfare system injustice has caused the cultural decay imo fwiw

It hurts me the older I get to see it and remain quiet

It's what I call being on the democrat plantation too

---

Wouldn't have needed the welfare system if we'd allowed blacks to participate in homeownership and Soc Sec.

---

I find that post interesting.

I am unaware of any national case law or litigation in reference to Social Security Act and how it was/has been applied to African Americans specifically.

Please reference a case if you know of one so I can read up on it.

Please disregard if "Soc Sec." had a alternate meaning.

---

The original law. It excluded ag and domestic workers because those fields were dominated by PoC and the Southern Democrats wanted none of that.

---

Interesting interpretation of the law. Since you didn't provide any historical legal challenges on the law, can you link to any historical articles in reference to the crafting of the law?

Were those two classifications of workers you identified the only two or was there others? And if so where they "dominated" by "Poc"?

In total population numbers in 1935 what race of people working as agricultural labor (in the US) would be the most is impacted?

What generally accepted economic event was going on in the 1930's (including 1935) that may/may influenced policy makers in determine which classification of workers should be exempt?

---

Lot of questions I have no interest in researching.

---

Not a problem. Good luck on supporting future points.

---

This stuff is pretty well known. Tbe basics I gave you anyway. I don't have the numbers you're looking for. If it matters a lot to you then feel free to research them and post up.

Edit: FTR the SSA has an article on their website denying racial bias. I just find the bias explanation better supported.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n4/v70n4p49.html

---

Not sure where you are going with this response. I said your response was fine with me and gave you a general good luck in future posts. So, I am unsure why you responded with this.

I don't know the numbers either exactly but figured if you were going to make a claim (like you did) you would have some back up data supporting postings. You did not.

Not much more I can say other then I tried to get you to support your post with some kind of factual basis for other readers of our posting to take into account.

Edit:
I appreciate that you have posted a link (most do not) of a opinion that you disagree with and contains a population estimate that can be closely associated with my question number 2 "In total population numbers in 1935 what race of people working as agricultural labor (in the US) would be the most is impacted?" (1935 vs Census Bureau (1933, Table 12, p. 24).) I will read the entire article and take it into account.


The Decision to Exclude Agricultural and Domestic Workers from the 1935 Social Security Act

"This article examines both the logic of this thesis and the available empirical evidence on the origins of the coverage exclusions. The author concludes that the racial-bias thesis is both conceptually flawed and unsupported by the existing empirical evidence. The exclusion of agricultural and domestic workers from the early program was due to considerations of administrative feasibility involving tax-collection procedures. The author finds no evidence of any other policy motive involving racial bias."

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's right here: they're less likely to be imprisoned for the same conduct.

---

What conduct? Being on food stamps?

It's kind of like Denzel said in an interview: the black community has given the police and others a reason to mistrust us; we don't police ourselves very well; we have too many unwed mothers and too many our welfare. How can we expect people to step up for us when we don't step up for ourselves?

I'll acknowledge that white privilege existed at one time, but it doesn't anymore. If anything there exists nowadays "rich" privilege. There are many of all races that are born into wealth whose rules differ than ours.

I'm okay with that because I'm not entitled to their money...and I really don't care.

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not quite the same. It's a combination of systemic injustice and cultural decay.

---

Welfare system injustice has caused the cultural decay imo fwiw

It hurts me the older I get to see it and remain quiet

It's what I call being on the democrat plantation too

---

Wouldn't have needed the welfare system if we'd allowed blacks to participate in homeownership and Soc Sec.

---

I find that post interesting.

I am unaware of any national case law or litigation in reference to Social Security Act and how it was/has been applied to African Americans specifically.

Please reference a case if you know of one so I can read up on it.

Please disregard if "Soc Sec." had a alternate meaning.

---

The original law. It excluded ag and domestic workers because those fields were dominated by PoC and the Southern Democrats wanted none of that.

---

Interesting interpretation of the law. Since you didn't provide any historical legal challenges on the law, can you link to any historical articles in reference to the crafting of the law?

Were those two classifications of workers you identified the only two or was there others? And if so where they "dominated" by "Poc"?

In total population numbers in 1935 what race of people working as agricultural labor (in the US) would be the most is impacted?

What generally accepted economic event was going on in the 1930's (including 1935) that may/may influenced policy makers in determine which classification of workers should be exempt?

---

Lot of questions I have no interest in researching.

---

Not a problem. Good luck on supporting future points.

---

This stuff is pretty well known. Tbe basics I gave you anyway. I don't have the numbers you're looking for. If it matters a lot to you then feel free to research them and post up.

Edit: FTR the SSA has an article on their website denying racial bias. I just find the bias explanation better supported.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n4/v70n4p49.html

---

Not sure where you are going with this response. I said your response was fine with me and gave you a general good luck in future posts. So, I am unsure why you responded with this.

I don't know the numbers either exactly but figured if you were going to make a claim (like you did) you would have some back up data supporting postings. You did not.

Not much more I can say other then I tried to get you to support your post with some kind of factual basis for other readers of our posting to take into account.

Edit:
I appreciate that you have posted a link (most do not) of a opinion that you disagree with and contains a population estimate that can be closely associated with my question number 2 "In total population numbers in 1935 what race of people working as agricultural labor (in the US) would be the most is impacted?" (1935 vs Census Bureau (1933, Table 12, p. 24).) I will read the entire article and take it into account.


The Decision to Exclude Agricultural and Domestic Workers from the 1935 Social Security Act

"This article examines both the logic of this thesis and the available empirical evidence on the origins of the coverage exclusions. The author concludes that the racial-bias thesis is both conceptually flawed and unsupported by the existing empirical evidence. The exclusion of agricultural and domestic workers from the early program was due to considerations of administrative feasibility involving tax-collection procedures. The author finds no evidence of any other policy motive involving racial bias."

---

As I pointed out earlier the exclusion of agricultural workers does not explain how it affected blacks living and working in cities, which was a very large number by the 1930s. So to claim this exemption kept ALL blacks from SS is just stupid on his part. It also would have applied to numerous whites and Hispanics. So it clearly was not any sort of racial exemption.

cowboycwr said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not quite the same. It's a combination of systemic injustice and cultural decay.

---

Welfare system injustice has caused the cultural decay imo fwiw

It hurts me the older I get to see it and remain quiet

It's what I call being on the democrat plantation too

---

Wouldn't have needed the welfare system if we'd allowed blacks to participate in homeownership and Soc Sec.

---

I find that post interesting.

I am unaware of any national case law or litigation in reference to Social Security Act and how it was/has been applied to African Americans specifically.

Please reference a case if you know of one so I can read up on it.

Please disregard if "Soc Sec." had a alternate meaning.

---

The original law. It excluded ag and domestic workers because those fields were dominated by PoC and the Southern Democrats wanted none of that.

---

Interesting interpretation of the law. Since you didn't provide any historical legal challenges on the law, can you link to any historical articles in reference to the crafting of the law?

Were those two classifications of workers you identified the only two or was there others? And if so where they "dominated" by "Poc"?

In total population numbers in 1935 what race of people working as agricultural labor (in the US) would be the most is impacted?

What generally accepted economic event was going on in the 1930's (including 1935) that may/may influenced policy makers in determine which classification of workers should be exempt?

---

Lot of questions I have no interest in researching.

---

Not a problem. Good luck on supporting future points.

---

This stuff is pretty well known. Tbe basics I gave you anyway. I don't have the numbers you're looking for. If it matters a lot to you then feel free to research them and post up.

Edit: FTR the SSA has an article on their website denying racial bias. I just find the bias explanation better supported.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n4/v70n4p49.html

---

Not sure where you are going with this response. I said your response was fine with me and gave you a general good luck in future posts. So, I am unsure why you responded with this.

I don't know the numbers either exactly but figured if you were going to make a claim (like you did) you would have some back up data supporting postings. You did not.

Not much more I can say other then I tried to get you to support your post with some kind of factual basis for other readers of our posting to take into account.

Edit:
I appreciate that you have posted a link (most do not) of a opinion that you disagree with and contains a population estimate that can be closely associated with my question number 2 "In total population numbers in 1935 what race of people working as agricultural labor (in the US) would be the most is impacted?" (1935 vs Census Bureau (1933, Table 12, p. 24).) I will read the entire article and take it into account.


The Decision to Exclude Agricultural and Domestic Workers from the 1935 Social Security Act

"This article examines both the logic of this thesis and the available empirical evidence on the origins of the coverage exclusions. The author concludes that the racial-bias thesis is both conceptually flawed and unsupported by the existing empirical evidence. The exclusion of agricultural and domestic workers from the early program was due to considerations of administrative feasibility involving tax-collection procedures. The author finds no evidence of any other policy motive involving racial bias."

---

As I pointed out earlier the exclusion of agricultural workers does not explain how it affected blacks living and working in cities, which was a very large number by the 1930s. So to claim this exemption kept ALL blacks from SS is just stupid on his part. It also would have applied to numerous whites and Hispanics. So it clearly was not any sort of racial exemption.

---

I didn't say all.

PoC includes Hispanics.

Urban areas are where domestic workers are employed.

quash said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not quite the same. It's a combination of systemic injustice and cultural decay.

---

Welfare system injustice has caused the cultural decay imo fwiw

It hurts me the older I get to see it and remain quiet

It's what I call being on the democrat plantation too

---

Wouldn't have needed the welfare system if we'd allowed blacks to participate in homeownership and Soc Sec.

---

I find that post interesting.

I am unaware of any national case law or litigation in reference to Social Security Act and how it was/has been applied to African Americans specifically.

Please reference a case if you know of one so I can read up on it.

Please disregard if "Soc Sec." had a alternate meaning.

---

The original law. It excluded ag and domestic workers because those fields were dominated by PoC and the Southern Democrats wanted none of that.

---

Interesting interpretation of the law. Since you didn't provide any historical legal challenges on the law, can you link to any historical articles in reference to the crafting of the law?

Were those two classifications of workers you identified the only two or was there others? And if so where they "dominated" by "Poc"?

In total population numbers in 1935 what race of people working as agricultural labor (in the US) would be the most is impacted?

What generally accepted economic event was going on in the 1930's (including 1935) that may/may influenced policy makers in determine which classification of workers should be exempt?

---

Lot of questions I have no interest in researching.

---

Not a problem. Good luck on supporting future points.

---

This stuff is pretty well known. Tbe basics I gave you anyway. I don't have the numbers you're looking for. If it matters a lot to you then feel free to research them and post up.

Edit: FTR the SSA has an article on their website denying racial bias. I just find the bias explanation better supported.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n4/v70n4p49.html

---

Not sure where you are going with this response. I said your response was fine with me and gave you a general good luck in future posts. So, I am unsure why you responded with this.

I don't know the numbers either exactly but figured if you were going to make a claim (like you did) you would have some back up data supporting postings. You did not.

Not much more I can say other then I tried to get you to support your post with some kind of factual basis for other readers of our posting to take into account.

Edit:
I appreciate that you have posted a link (most do not) of a opinion that you disagree with and contains a population estimate that can be closely associated with my question number 2 "In total population numbers in 1935 what race of people working as agricultural labor (in the US) would be the most is impacted?" (1935 vs Census Bureau (1933, Table 12, p. 24).) I will read the entire article and take it into account.


The Decision to Exclude Agricultural and Domestic Workers from the 1935 Social Security Act

"This article examines both the logic of this thesis and the available empirical evidence on the origins of the coverage exclusions. The author concludes that the racial-bias thesis is both conceptually flawed and unsupported by the existing empirical evidence. The exclusion of agricultural and domestic workers from the early program was due to considerations of administrative feasibility involving tax-collection procedures. The author finds no evidence of any other policy motive involving racial bias."

---

As I pointed out earlier the exclusion of agricultural workers does not explain how it affected blacks living and working in cities, which was a very large number by the 1930s. So to claim this exemption kept ALL blacks from SS is just stupid on his part. It also would have applied to numerous whites and Hispanics. So it clearly was not any sort of racial exemption.

---

I didn't say all.

PoC includes Hispanics.

Urban areas are where domestic workers are employed.

---

Oh so now blacks only worked in agriculture or as domestic workers.....

Keep moving those goal posts.

The original SSA did not discriminate based on race.

cowboycwr said:

---

quash said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not quite the same. It's a combination of systemic injustice and cultural decay.

---

Welfare system injustice has caused the cultural decay imo fwiw

It hurts me the older I get to see it and remain quiet

It's what I call being on the democrat plantation too

---

Wouldn't have needed the welfare system if we'd allowed blacks to participate in homeownership and Soc Sec.

---

I find that post interesting.

I am unaware of any national case law or litigation in reference to Social Security Act and how it was/has been applied to African Americans specifically.

Please reference a case if you know of one so I can read up on it.

Please disregard if "Soc Sec." had a alternate meaning.

---

The original law. It excluded ag and domestic workers because those fields were dominated by PoC and the Southern Democrats wanted none of that.

---

Interesting interpretation of the law. Since you didn't provide any historical legal challenges on the law, can you link to any historical articles in reference to the crafting of the law?

Were those two classifications of workers you identified the only two or was there others? And if so where they "dominated" by "Poc"?

In total population numbers in 1935 what race of people working as agricultural labor (in the US) would be the most is impacted?

What generally accepted economic event was going on in the 1930's (including 1935) that may/may influenced policy makers in determine which classification of workers should be exempt?

---

Lot of questions I have no interest in researching.

---

Not a problem. Good luck on supporting future points.

---

This stuff is pretty well known. Tbe basics I gave you anyway. I don't have the numbers you're looking for. If it matters a lot to you then feel free to research them and post up.

Edit: FTR the SSA has an article on their website denying racial bias. I just find the bias explanation better supported.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n4/v70n4p49.html

---

Not sure where you are going with this response. I said your response was fine with me and gave you a general good luck in future posts. So, I am unsure why you responded with this.

I don't know the numbers either exactly but figured if you were going to make a claim (like you did) you would have some back up data supporting postings. You did not.

Not much more I can say other then I tried to get you to support your post with some kind of factual basis for other readers of our posting to take into account.

Edit:
I appreciate that you have posted a link (most do not) of a opinion that you disagree with and contains a population estimate that can be closely associated with my question number 2 "In total population numbers in 1935 what race of people working as agricultural labor (in the US) would be the most is impacted?" (1935 vs Census Bureau (1933, Table 12, p. 24).) I will read the entire article and take it into account.


The Decision to Exclude Agricultural and Domestic Workers from the 1935 Social Security Act

"This article examines both the logic of this thesis and the available empirical evidence on the origins of the coverage exclusions. The author concludes that the racial-bias thesis is both conceptually flawed and unsupported by the existing empirical evidence. The exclusion of agricultural and domestic workers from the early program was due to considerations of administrative feasibility involving tax-collection procedures. The author finds no evidence of any other policy motive involving racial bias."

---

As I pointed out earlier the exclusion of agricultural workers does not explain how it affected blacks living and working in cities, which was a very large number by the 1930s. So to claim this exemption kept ALL blacks from SS is just stupid on his part. It also would have applied to numerous whites and Hispanics. So it clearly was not any sort of racial exemption.

---

I didn't say all.

PoC includes Hispanics.

Urban areas are where domestic workers are employed.

---

Oh so now blacks only worked in agriculture or as domestic workers.....

Keep moving those goal posts.

The original SSA did not discriminate based on race.

---

Dude, you so into ascribing absolutes.

But you win as always. Now go away.

cowboycwr said:

---

quash said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not quite the same. It's a combination of systemic injustice and cultural decay.

---

Welfare system injustice has caused the cultural decay imo fwiw

It hurts me the older I get to see it and remain quiet

It's what I call being on the democrat plantation too

---

Wouldn't have needed the welfare system if we'd allowed blacks to participate in homeownership and Soc Sec.

---

I find that post interesting.

I am unaware of any national case law or litigation in reference to Social Security Act and how it was/has been applied to African Americans specifically.

Please reference a case if you know of one so I can read up on it.

Please disregard if "Soc Sec." had a alternate meaning.

---

The original law. It excluded ag and domestic workers because those fields were dominated by PoC and the Southern Democrats wanted none of that.

---

Interesting interpretation of the law. Since you didn't provide any historical legal challenges on the law, can you link to any historical articles in reference to the crafting of the law?

Were those two classifications of workers you identified the only two or was there others? And if so where they "dominated" by "Poc"?

In total population numbers in 1935 what race of people working as agricultural labor (in the US) would be the most is impacted?

What generally accepted economic event was going on in the 1930's (including 1935) that may/may influenced policy makers in determine which classification of workers should be exempt?

---

Lot of questions I have no interest in researching.

---

Not a problem. Good luck on supporting future points.

---

This stuff is pretty well known. Tbe basics I gave you anyway. I don't have the numbers you're looking for. If it matters a lot to you then feel free to research them and post up.

Edit: FTR the SSA has an article on their website denying racial bias. I just find the bias explanation better supported.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n4/v70n4p49.html

---

Not sure where you are going with this response. I said your response was fine with me and gave you a general good luck in future posts. So, I am unsure why you responded with this.

I don't know the numbers either exactly but figured if you were going to make a claim (like you did) you would have some back up data supporting postings. You did not.

Not much more I can say other then I tried to get you to support your post with some kind of factual basis for other readers of our posting to take into account.

Edit:
I appreciate that you have posted a link (most do not) of a opinion that you disagree with and contains a population estimate that can be closely associated with my question number 2 "In total population numbers in 1935 what race of people working as agricultural labor (in the US) would be the most is impacted?" (1935 vs Census Bureau (1933, Table 12, p. 24).) I will read the entire article and take it into account.


The Decision to Exclude Agricultural and Domestic Workers from the 1935 Social Security Act

"This article examines both the logic of this thesis and the available empirical evidence on the origins of the coverage exclusions. The author concludes that the racial-bias thesis is both conceptually flawed and unsupported by the existing empirical evidence. The exclusion of agricultural and domestic workers from the early program was due to considerations of administrative feasibility involving tax-collection procedures. The author finds no evidence of any other policy motive involving racial bias."

---

As I pointed out earlier the exclusion of agricultural workers does not explain how it affected blacks living and working in cities, which was a very large number by the 1930s. So to claim this exemption kept ALL blacks from SS is just stupid on his part. It also would have applied to numerous whites and Hispanics. So it clearly was not any sort of racial exemption.

---

I didn't say all.

PoC includes Hispanics.

Urban areas are where domestic workers are employed.

---

Oh so now blacks only worked in agriculture or as domestic workers.....

Keep moving those goal posts.

The original SSA did not discriminate based on race.

---

I suspect it discriminates based on race today in the aggregate.

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's right here: they're less likely to be imprisoned for the same conduct.

---

What conduct? Being on food stamps?

---

Criminal conduct, or lack thereof.

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not quite the same. It's a combination of systemic injustice and cultural decay.

---

Welfare system injustice has caused the cultural decay imo fwiw

It hurts me the older I get to see it and remain quiet

It's what I call being on the democrat plantation too

---

Wouldn't have needed the welfare system if we'd allowed blacks to participate in homeownership and Soc Sec.

---

I find that post interesting.

I am unaware of any national case law or litigation in reference to Social Security Act and how it was/has been applied to African Americans specifically.

Please reference a case if you know of one so I can read up on it.

Please disregard if "Soc Sec." had a alternate meaning.

---

The original law. It excluded ag and domestic workers because those fields were dominated by PoC and the Southern Democrats wanted none of that.

---

Interesting interpretation of the law. Since you didn't provide any historical legal challenges on the law, can you link to any historical articles in reference to the crafting of the law?

Were those two classifications of workers you identified the only two or was there others? And if so where they "dominated" by "Poc"?

In total population numbers in 1935 what race of people working as agricultural labor (in the US) would be the most is impacted?

What generally accepted economic event was going on in the 1930's (including 1935) that may/may influenced policy makers in determine which classification of workers should be exempt?

---

Lot of questions I have no interest in researching.

---

Not a problem. Good luck on supporting future points.

---

He's right about the history. There is some debate about whether racism was behind the decision to exclude agricultural and domestic workers. Some scholarship suggests other factors were at play. Here's a link to the review of a book on the subject.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/03/a-second-look-at-social-securitys-racist-origins/?utm_term=.83748ddc4f58

Quash is also right that he's under no special obligation to teach you the history or else forfeit the argument.

Bump

Why is everyone avoiding this question:

What is an example of rectifying white privilege?

This is the kind of rhetoric that believing in white privilege creates:



I didn't get any help. But it's assumed that I did and I'm hated for it.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Why is everyone avoiding this question:

What is an example of rectifying white privilege?

---

I'm still waiting for that answer as well. Additionally, no one has answered what privilege I have received or am receiving for being half-white.

For all of the rhetoric discussed on this board about this, you'd think we'd get some answers...

fadskier said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Why is everyone avoiding this question:

What is an example of rectifying white privilege?

---

I'm still waiting for that answer as well. Additionally, no one has answered what privilege I have received or am receiving for being half-white.

For all of the rhetoric discussed on this board about this, you'd think we'd get some answers...

---

Do y'all have me on ignore?

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Why is everyone avoiding this question:

What is an example of rectifying white privilege?

---

I'm still waiting for that answer as well. Additionally, no one has answered what privilege I have received or am receiving for being half-white.

For all of the rhetoric discussed on this board about this, you'd think we'd get some answers...

---

Do y'all have me on ignore?

---

Haha you won't answer the question.

You have not given an example.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Why is everyone avoiding this question:

What is an example of rectifying white privilege?

---

I'm still waiting for that answer as well. Additionally, no one has answered what privilege I have received or am receiving for being half-white.

For all of the rhetoric discussed on this board about this, you'd think we'd get some answers...

---

Do y'all have me on ignore?

---

Haha you won't answer the question.

You have not given an example.

---

I don't. I've looked back at your answers and cannot locate what Doc can individually do about making his white privilege go away nor have you provided examples of how my half white privilege has benefited me or still is. If I'm wrong, I apologize but you can copy and paste the answers I overlooked.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Why is everyone avoiding this question:

What is an example of rectifying white privilege?

---

I'm still waiting for that answer as well. Additionally, no one has answered what privilege I have received or am receiving for being half-white.

For all of the rhetoric discussed on this board about this, you'd think we'd get some answers...

---

Do y'all have me on ignore?

---

Haha you won't answer the question.

You have not given an example.

---

I did. In response to one of your posts. And this is the second time I've told you as much.

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Beck is using an excessively broad definition of white privilege because that's the definition that's become accepted. See for example those ridiculous and demeaning videos where people line up and take a step forward for each privilege they have.

---

Video? Man, I had to participate in one of those. Except you stepped back. The person closest to the middle (least privileged) was an ablebodied cis white male. Next was a black woman and then me. All about definitions.

Yesterday I went fishing with my son in one of those tony exurb neighborhoods with a chain of "cement ponds" stocked with perch and largemouth bass. My privilege was invisible: nobody asked if we lived there, nobody assumed that my son's parents were never married, nobody was afraid of me and no crime watch wannabe cop called 911 and then stalked my son.

And nobody blamed me for my life choices.

---

You a countless millions of other people across this country....

---

Now you're getting a small piece of it.

---

that are white, black, and brown.

Millions move on about their lives not harassed or questioned or anything. There are exceptions of course. But white privilege does not exist.

---

Because you choose not to see it.

---

Yeah...uh huh...you right bro.

---

I understand. Nobody can discuss border policy with you unless they lived it as long as you did, so something you claim not to experience must not exist. That's your... privilege.

---

No, you just speak of border policy that you read about, rather than listen to people who are living it.

It's hard to experience white privilege when many people think I'm Hispanic. I've been profiled as have many...I just get over it. Police are doing their job, I'm thankful. Have you experienced white privilege?

---

I posted about it. You replied. ***?

---

So if you have it, what are you doing about it? Do you just announce it so that it clears you conscience?

---

No, not at all. It mainly comes into play silently. I just repress the urge to tell the judge "Humph, bet you got into law school through affirmative action."

Or to lecture my client about life choices.

Or stop random black folk to see if they have a criminal record, or can cite the homicide rate in Chicago or DC or Baltimore or America.

It's a real time saver.

---

This is what you're doing?

I don't randomly stop anyone...not my job.

---

My bad, it was in response to fadskier.

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Why is everyone avoiding this question:

What is an example of rectifying white privilege?

---

I'm still waiting for that answer as well. Additionally, no one has answered what privilege I have received or am receiving for being half-white.

For all of the rhetoric discussed on this board about this, you'd think we'd get some answers...

---

Do y'all have me on ignore?

---

Haha you won't answer the question.

You have not given an example.

---

I did. In response to one of your posts. And this is the second time I've told you as much.

---

Actually, I just went through all of your posts and did not see you answer his questions as to what he should do...nor do you answer my question or even address what white privilege is, other than you sitting at a lake.

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Why is everyone avoiding this question:

What is an example of rectifying white privilege?

---

I'm still waiting for that answer as well. Additionally, no one has answered what privilege I have received or am receiving for being half-white.

For all of the rhetoric discussed on this board about this, you'd think we'd get some answers...

---

Do y'all have me on ignore?

---

Haha you won't answer the question.

You have not given an example.

---

I did. In response to one of your posts. And this is the second time I've told you as much.

---

Actually, I just went through all of your posts and did not see you answer his questions as to what he should do...nor do you answer my question or even address what white privilege is, other than you sitting at a lake.

---

Look up.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Why is everyone avoiding this question:

What is an example of rectifying white privilege?

---

Changing Social Security to a 401k-style personal account system.

quash said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

quash said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not quite the same. It's a combination of systemic injustice and cultural decay.

---

Welfare system injustice has caused the cultural decay imo fwiw

It hurts me the older I get to see it and remain quiet

It's what I call being on the democrat plantation too

---

Wouldn't have needed the welfare system if we'd allowed blacks to participate in homeownership and Soc Sec.

---

I find that post interesting.

I am unaware of any national case law or litigation in reference to Social Security Act and how it was/has been applied to African Americans specifically.

Please reference a case if you know of one so I can read up on it.

Please disregard if "Soc Sec." had a alternate meaning.

---

The original law. It excluded ag and domestic workers because those fields were dominated by PoC and the Southern Democrats wanted none of that.

---

Interesting interpretation of the law. Since you didn't provide any historical legal challenges on the law, can you link to any historical articles in reference to the crafting of the law?

Were those two classifications of workers you identified the only two or was there others? And if so where they "dominated" by "Poc"?

In total population numbers in 1935 what race of people working as agricultural labor (in the US) would be the most is impacted?

What generally accepted economic event was going on in the 1930's (including 1935) that may/may influenced policy makers in determine which classification of workers should be exempt?

---

Lot of questions I have no interest in researching.

---

Not a problem. Good luck on supporting future points.

---

This stuff is pretty well known. Tbe basics I gave you anyway. I don't have the numbers you're looking for. If it matters a lot to you then feel free to research them and post up.

Edit: FTR the SSA has an article on their website denying racial bias. I just find the bias explanation better supported.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n4/v70n4p49.html

---

Not sure where you are going with this response. I said your response was fine with me and gave you a general good luck in future posts. So, I am unsure why you responded with this.

I don't know the numbers either exactly but figured if you were going to make a claim (like you did) you would have some back up data supporting postings. You did not.

Not much more I can say other then I tried to get you to support your post with some kind of factual basis for other readers of our posting to take into account.

Edit:
I appreciate that you have posted a link (most do not) of a opinion that you disagree with and contains a population estimate that can be closely associated with my question number 2 "In total population numbers in 1935 what race of people working as agricultural labor (in the US) would be the most is impacted?" (1935 vs Census Bureau (1933, Table 12, p. 24).) I will read the entire article and take it into account.


The Decision to Exclude Agricultural and Domestic Workers from the 1935 Social Security Act

"This article examines both the logic of this thesis and the available empirical evidence on the origins of the coverage exclusions. The author concludes that the racial-bias thesis is both conceptually flawed and unsupported by the existing empirical evidence. The exclusion of agricultural and domestic workers from the early program was due to considerations of administrative feasibility involving tax-collection procedures. The author finds no evidence of any other policy motive involving racial bias."

---

As I pointed out earlier the exclusion of agricultural workers does not explain how it affected blacks living and working in cities, which was a very large number by the 1930s. So to claim this exemption kept ALL blacks from SS is just stupid on his part. It also would have applied to numerous whites and Hispanics. So it clearly was not any sort of racial exemption.

---

I didn't say all.

PoC includes Hispanics.

Urban areas are where domestic workers are employed.

---

Oh so now blacks only worked in agriculture or as domestic workers.....

Keep moving those goal posts.

The original SSA did not discriminate based on race.

---

Dude, you so into ascribing absolutes.

But you win as always. Now go away.

---

Translation-- you are to lazy to explain yourself or don't have the evidence to back up the claim YOU made so you will say something about absolutes and run away.

YOU CLAIMED it was racist because blacks worked on farms. I showed proof they all did not and therefore the law did not effect all blacks and you went and ADDED things to your claim and still did not address how it kept blacks from SS who did not work in the 2 fields you listed.

Using your logic I could claim that since teachers are not allowed to both Texas teacher retirement and SS that it is sexist because more women than males work in education, even though it has zero impact on the rest of females who are not teachers.

I am not going anywhere until you either admit you lied and blacks have never been prevented from taking part in SS or admit that I have proven you wrong.

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's right here: they're less likely to be imprisoned for the same conduct.

---

What conduct? Being on food stamps?

---

Criminal conduct, or lack thereof.

---

lack thereof??? So they are going to jail for not doing crime????

Dude seriously what is your point? You have not gotten close to even attempting to make one. You are all over the board. First it was some sort of connection to food stamps, then it was behavior, then conduct, then crimes.....

So what is your point? Because you are failing miserably at making one or getting close to anything to do with the so called white privilege.

bubbadog said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not quite the same. It's a combination of systemic injustice and cultural decay.

---

Welfare system injustice has caused the cultural decay imo fwiw

It hurts me the older I get to see it and remain quiet

It's what I call being on the democrat plantation too

---

Wouldn't have needed the welfare system if we'd allowed blacks to participate in homeownership and Soc Sec.

---

I find that post interesting.

I am unaware of any national case law or litigation in reference to Social Security Act and how it was/has been applied to African Americans specifically.

Please reference a case if you know of one so I can read up on it.

Please disregard if "Soc Sec." had a alternate meaning.

---

The original law. It excluded ag and domestic workers because those fields were dominated by PoC and the Southern Democrats wanted none of that.

---

Interesting interpretation of the law. Since you didn't provide any historical legal challenges on the law, can you link to any historical articles in reference to the crafting of the law?

Were those two classifications of workers you identified the only two or was there others? And if so where they "dominated" by "Poc"?

In total population numbers in 1935 what race of people working as agricultural labor (in the US) would be the most is impacted?

What generally accepted economic event was going on in the 1930's (including 1935) that may/may influenced policy makers in determine which classification of workers should be exempt?

---

Lot of questions I have no interest in researching.

---

Not a problem. Good luck on supporting future points.

---

He's right about the history. There is some debate about whether racism was behind the decision to exclude agricultural and domestic workers. Some scholarship suggests other factors were at play. Here's a link to the review of a book on the subject.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/03/a-second-look-at-social-securitys-racist-origins/?utm_term=.83748ddc4f58

Quash is also right that he's under no special obligation to teach you the history or else forfeit the argument.

---

There is debate...

Meaning it is not proven and not 100% fact.

Meaning it is not true.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Why is everyone avoiding this question:

What is an example of rectifying white privilege?

---

For you (but not anyone on the left who claims it exists) to give away all your money to blacks.

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Hey White Guys,
Stop being so afraid and defensive.
White privilege is not your fault. No of you asked to be born white. It simply happened.
Acknowledging WP does not mean your racist. It simply means "Oh white privileges exists."
If you looking for blame then look to the founding fathers because they let black slavery stand and that set in motion white privilege. You're the beneficiary of WP. I am too.
But by being aware of WP I work to overcome it and eradicate it.
It's what we do with that knowledge of WP that counts.
WP doesn't insult you or blame you. If you took advantage of your whiteness then we might need to have conversation.
But to blame you for an accident of birth seems silly.
What's the answer? I am not sure but I sm sure that we need to talk to one another about how to overcome it.
I think one of BIG mistakes in the early days of desegregation was that whites made the decisions on how to desegregate. At that time we needed a more collaborative effort.
I think we need collaboration with people of color again.

---

Do I have half white privilege since I am mixed race?

---

it depends. For instance Obama was mixed but seen as black. Look in a mirror and see yourself and you'll know your answer.

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's right here: they're less likely to be imprisoned for the same conduct.

---

What conduct? Being on food stamps?

---

Criminal conduct, or lack thereof.

---

lack thereof??? So they are going to jail for not doing crime????

Dude seriously what is your point? You have not gotten close to even attempting to make one. You are all over the board. First it was some sort of connection to food stamps, then it was behavior, then conduct, then crimes.....

So what is your point? Because you are failing miserably at making one or getting close to anything to do with the so called white privilege.

---

Before we proceed, I need to know whether you're doing this on purpose or whether you have a legitimate reading disability. Just because it will affect the tone of my rhetoric from here on.

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's right here: they're less likely to be imprisoned for the same conduct.

---

What conduct? Being on food stamps?

---

Criminal conduct, or lack thereof.

---

lack thereof??? So they are going to jail for not doing crime????

Dude seriously what is your point? You have not gotten close to even attempting to make one. You are all over the board. First it was some sort of connection to food stamps, then it was behavior, then conduct, then crimes.....

So what is your point? Because you are failing miserably at making one or getting close to anything to do with the so called white privilege.

---

Before we proceed, I need to know whether you're doing this on purpose or whether you have a legitimate reading disability. Just because it will affect the tone of my rhetoric from here on.

---

Another deflection.

What a surprise.

Make a point already.

Answer the simple questions that have been presented in this thread.