D. C. Bear said:
Flaming Moderate said:
D. C. Bear said:
Flaming Moderate said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Porteroso said:
I understand that it's not all that factual or accurate, but if you'd like to have a discussion on how minorities don't have access to as good of education as whites, or how blacks are unfairly targeted by the justice system, or how minorities don't truly have the same opportunitiesas whites, all due to racism, that's an easy conversation to have, where the racism is clear from objective metrics.
A problem, though, is that especially among the left, differences are immediately attributed to race rather than considering whether or not certain cultural and behavioral problems within a race, for example, may be the dominant factor in disparate outcomes. It's as if the meaning of "racism" has been co-opted, and now racism means "anything that leads to disparate outcomes". We can't have real solutions, if the problem isn't dealt with honestly.
"...where the racism is clear from objective metrics." - can you cite a specific example? I'm not saying you're wrong. If systemic racism truly exists, then any reasonable person in this country would agree it needs to be fixed. But we need to have an honest conversation first.
Or put simply ... every rich black person is significantly more privileged than every dirt poor white person.
Depends on how you define "privileged." In any event, the term "white privilege" is not accurate. What some call "white privilege" is neither "white" nor "privilege."
<Not being sarcastic>I did not think the definition was controversial. I would think the "textbook" definition.</Not being sarcastic>
You have the "privilege" of being rich, and you have the "privilege" of not being pulled over in your work van every couple of months because you are black. Which is a greater privilege?
This is a problem for me, using the word
privilege to describe both contentions.
'Privilege' is a reward or special benefit, while bad things happening to you are punishment or persecution.
For example, I had a job once where we sold unusual games, like Cribbage or some of the early video games (
this was in 1983). I had the
privilege of being able to play games as part of my job, in order to show customers how they worked. On the other hand, in another job I had a boss who would punish people he did not like by giving them extra work, like ordering me to paint the outside of a building, after my regular work shirt, overnight with no work lights to even make sure the paint was even. I would not say that the employees who did not get this crap assignment were 'privileged', they simply were not punished by that dictator boss.
If you are rich, that is not a privilege, especially if you became rich by working hard and saving your money, which is how most rich people get rich. But someone who is poor may see someone who is rich as privileged, but that does not make it so. The poor person, for their part, may be poor through no fault of their own, or they could be some lazy idiot who could have made wealth for themselves but they blew their opportunities. I don't judge people, rich or poor, on the basis of their wealth, but on the basis of their actions and choices.
I do believe that when someone uses their power and influence to harm innocent people, they are doing evil and should be stopped from that kind of behavior, but that means focusing on the specific wrong-doer and on the victim who needs help, not looking for some innocent third party to attack just because they were not the target.
