Jump to content

Racist Doctrine in Come Follow Me Lesson Manual Already Distributed


Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.

 

My experience of being for a year and a half, maybe two, one of 4 females in a department of over 200 students makes this one stand out for me.  I think I can relate to it to a certain extent, but it might be similar to someone who has experienced a couple of months of insomnia not being able to really know what it is like to live with chronic insomnia where it impacts even the most minor aspects of one's life.

 It is probably the only time I had no choice in being with another female outside of quitting the program, though I have felt like an outsider for other reasons at times ( being younger or being older, not wearing makeup, not being interested in the subject while feeling I should be, not being politically conservative, not understanding the language).  While it felt weird to look around and be the only female in a class of 30 or more, it didn't strike me as altering the way I acted (since I was very shy, I already felt awkward in groups) until years later when I realized that when I had the opportunity, the one class that all freshman EE students had to take at the same time (held in the de Jong concert hall iirc) where there had to be at least a hundred (balcony wasn't full iirc, but the lower part wasn't packed, but what I remember as full in having to climb over people), I and the one other woman ended up as a 'couple'.  We sat together and no guys came to sit with us.  And I liked that once a week, one hour experience though if that had been all my EE classes, I would likely have hated it as I hated certain HS classes I was relegated to as a girl.  I didn't choose to sit with women in my GE courses I was taking either.  So it may not have seemed reasonable to someone looking in that having another woman in a class when I didn't usually for that subject was a very positive thing for me...and yet it was.

I would be interested to hear of others' experiences where they were in situations where they felt they stood out as "other" rather than "normal" to see variations on the theme.

Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

This is the original "bandaid" list (#46).  Are these all trivial experiences in posters' views or is there a mix?  

Why didn't the presenter choose one of the more serious ones as his example?

 

Some are more trivial than others, obviously. But the list was compiled nearly 31 years ago now by a white woman writing largely theoretical assumptions. That’s a whole generation ago now. Is it not feasible that there has been a great deal of change in the meantime?

I think so, given that a goodly number of young, black Americans are moving off the white, leftest plantation and manifesting the will to make it on their own initiative without having excuses proffered for them by virtue-signaling, white liberals. 

Link to post
40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is it not feasible that there has been a great deal of change in the meantime?

So why did the presenter choose that to trash in his video instead of a more uptodate list?  Remember it got brought up not by a defender here, but by someone rebutting the idea.  Isn't that like someone using an abuse incident from the 80's to condemn church practices today?

Edited by Calm
Link to post

I like this article because it is talking about talking about "white privilege" (in quotes not because I don't believe that what is labeled as white privilege exists, but because what it is in this forum is not agreed upon) and the difficulty of one highly educated and articulate black woman to find the right words in her own view to discuss it even when it is her job to discuss and research it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/magazine/white-men-privilege.html

How do we get past created for ourselves by doubt (fear, defensiveness, embarrassment) obstacles to actually talk and listen enough to understand each other? To not assume we do understand...which I think way too many conclude after superficial conversations when they don't (though maybe I am just reading certainty about someone else into what people say), but instead really actually understand...at least to the limits of language.  Too often we don't want to even make the effort, don't see a need, or worse, think we have. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post
9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If “systemic racism in the U.S. is [present tense] a reality that still impacts individuals today on measurable scales,” you ought to be able to cite one or more of those “measurable scales” from, say, the last five years or so. Can you do it without using facially absurd indicators like the preponderance of flesh-colored Band-Aids at the local Rite-Aid?

And I reject the false dichotomy that one cannot be kind to others without swallowing whole the ideological dogma of the “woke” mentality. Which, in itself, is racism of the paternalistic sort, the kind that presupposes the unfortunate subject can’t succeed through his own efforts without political advocacy from the leftist, because the person is, after all, a victim of “systemic white privilege.” But don’t let the person get so uppity as to think he can throw off the paternalism and succeed without the “kindness” of leftists. 

I can see why some black Americans, such as those in the “Blexit” movement, are angered by such a mindset. I would be too. 

Regarding an earlier example I gave of maternal and infant mortality rates:

"But David, who at the time was at the Cook County Hospital in Chicago, and his colleague James Collins at Northwestern University Medical School found that even educated, middle-class African-American women were at a higher risk of having smaller, premature babies with a lower chance of survival.

For example, David says, black and white teenage mothers growing up in poor neighborhoods both have a higher risk of having smaller, premature babies. "They both have something like a 13 percent chance of having a low birth weight baby," he says.

But in higher-income neighborhoods where women are likely to be slightly older and more educated, "among white women, the risk of low birth weight drops dramatically to about half of that, whereas for African-American women, it only drops a little bit."

In fact, today, a college-educated black woman like Samantha Pierce is more likely to give birth prematurely than a white woman with a high school degree.

"That's exactly the kind of case that makes us ask the question: What else is there?" says David. "What are we missing?"

Some people suggested that the root cause may be genetics. But if genes are at play, then women from Africa would also have the same risks. So, David and his colleague, Collins, looked at the babies of immigrant women from West Africa. But as they reported in their 1997 study in The New England Journal of Medicine, those babies were more like white babies — they were bigger and more likely to be full term. So, it clearly isn't genetics, says David.

Then, many years later, David and Collins noticed something startling. The grandchildren of African immigrant women were born smaller than their mothers had been at birth. In other words, the grandchildren were more likely to be premature, like African-American babies."

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/12/20/570777510/how-racism-may-cause-black-mothers-to-suffer-the-death-of-their-infants?fbclid=IwAR1zxzTcC4LuR2JM4GYA1bSSfa-QChOUEUCIP3Z-IQXecbdcjVltZkCgs50

 

Addressing such a problem isn't simply a matter of believing one is a victim or not. Black women in the US consistently face more difficulty experiencing proper care and time with their healthcare providers, in addition to any other stressors impacting their health. All pregnant women need good prenatal care, and the data suggests that more effort should be made ensuring attention to black pregnant patients, to offset what seems to be, at best, unconscious neglect.

  • Like 2
Link to post
8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

🤗👏

Thanks for this response, I'm grateful for your stamina and intellect in putting it together. Love your story of growing up and wanting certain things that weren't all that common maybe, but probably more common than we think. Today I watched Yentl on Amazon Prime because I'm trying to watch as many movies as possible before cancelling, lol. Your comments above reminded me of Yentl! :)

I just have to remember to make sure I make the 'obvious' connections in my comments that are happening in my mind.  Rereading that...I should have taken more time to edit for clarity, lol.

Link to post
12 hours ago, Calm said:
Quote

For example, programs like New York City’s now-abandoned “Stop and Frisk” policy target a disproportionate number of black and Latinx people. People of color are more likely to be arrested for drug offenses despite using at a similar rate to white people. Some people do not survive these stereotypes. In 2017, people of color who were unarmed and not attacking anyone were more likely to be killed by police.

This isn't data or reasoned analysis?

No, I don't think it is.  It's conclusory.  What does "disproportionate" mean?  And how does this statistic suggest causation?

By way of analogy: More than 90% of incarcerated persons in the U.S. are male.  That seems "disproportionate," so is it per se evidence of gender discrimination in the justice system?  Would that be "reasoned analysis"?  I don't think so.

I find Ben Shapiro's assessment of this issue to be interesting:

See also here (transcripted excerpts from the above debate):

Quote

“The majority of people who are stopped and frisked in New York City are blacks and Hispanics,” said Shapiro, “that’s because the vast majority of the people in New York City who actually commit gun crimes are blacks and Hispanics. I’m sorry, I can’t do anything about that.”

When Kohn insisted “that’s not the truth,” Shapiro got more specific. “From January to June 2008, 95 percent of gun assailants in the city of New York are black and Hispanic,” he said.

Predictably, Kohn attempted to dismiss the “statistical regressions” by blaming minority arrests on racial prejudice, claiming that minorities are “overrepresented … again and again and again and again.”

After Kohn, who had grown increasingly animated, was calmed down by the moderator, Shapiro responded by debunking her claim with more statistics.

“It’s not anyone’s fault that 50 percent of the murders being committed in the country are by young black men. It’s not the fault of the people putting them in prison that those people happen to be black. It’s not the fault of the New Jersey Turnpike police that they’re pulling over 23 percent black men when they did a statistical analysis and found that 25 percent of the people speeding were black,” he said.

Citing an extensive study of crime in big cities, Shapiro argued that, according to statistics, the opposite of Kohn’s argument is true.

“Again, since 1994, the 75 largest cities in America when they analyzed whether there’s overrepresentation in crimes that were reported—not just crimes that were charged, crimes that were reported—versus the prison population, they found that blacks and Hispanics were statistically underrepresented,” said Shapiro. “The biggest problem for blacks and Hispanics in inner cities is that there aren’t enough police officers to actually take care of them and police the crime to make their cities safe for investment and education.”
...
Shapiro noted that women now earn more undergraduate and graduate degrees than men; meanwhile, he said, there are more men in prison than women. Was that because “the jailing system is sexist against men?” he asked.

“More men commit crimes,” answered Kohn, an admission that brought a strong reaction from the crowd. Though she was able to admit for a moment that sometimes trends among some groups are different than trends among others, Kohn refused to apply the same logic when it came to race and crime.

If and when "white privilege" is used in a legal context, such as an affirmative defense, I will be very interested in how that turns out.  But I'm not holding my breath, because "white privilege" is a sham.  It's racism writ large.  It's a mechanism for silencing political opponents and undesireables.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 1
Link to post
18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, I don't think it is.  It's conclusory.  What does "disproportionate" mean?  And how does this statistic suggest causation?

By way of analogy: More than 90% of incarcerated persons in the U.S. are male.  That seems "disproportionate," so is it per se evidence of gender discrimination in the justice system?  Would that be "reasoned analysis"?  I don't think so.

Thanks,

-Smac

So because it is data you don't agree with, you don't see it as data?  Why does this sound familiar?

And the Daily Wire for a "reasoned analysis" on Ben Shapiro?  Sure, use it as a resource for his ideas, but for comparison why choose what amounts to a self promotion source?

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2
Link to post
17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, I don't think it is.  It's conclusory.  What does "disproportionate" mean?  And how does this statistic suggest causation?

By way of analogy: More than 90% of incarcerated persons in the U.S. are male.  That seems "disproportionate," so is it per se evidence of gender discrimination in the justice system?  Would that be "reasoned analysis"?  I don't think so.

I find Ben Shapiro's assessment of this issue to be interesting:

See also here (transcripted excerpts from the above debate):

If and when "white privilege" is used in a legal context, such as an affirmative defense, I will be very interested in how that turns out.  But I'm not holding my breath, because "white privilege" is a sham.  It's racism writ large.  It's a mechanism for silencing political opponents and undesireables.

Thanks,

-Smac

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/inside-100-million-police-traffic-stops-new-evidence-racial-bias-n980556 This seems like a balanced article.

Also, if you ever get the chance I hope you watch, "Just Mercy", to give you some insight. 

Link to post
22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But I'm not holding my breath, because "white privilege" is a sham

When a conclusion is stated so definitely ('angels don't exist'), I see little reason to anticipate an actual exchange of ideas.  I don't feel the need to invest in something that is not an actual conversation, so I withdraw.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 3
Link to post
24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, I don't think it is.  It's conclusory.  What does "disproportionate" mean?  And how does this statistic suggest causation?

By way of analogy: More than 90% of incarcerated persons in the U.S. are male.  That seems "disproportionate," so is it per se evidence of gender discrimination in the justice system?  Would that be "reasoned analysis"?  I don't think so.

I find Ben Shapiro's assessment of this issue to be interesting:

See also here (transcripted excerpts from the above debate):

If and when "white privilege" is used in a legal context, such as an affirmative defense, I will be very interested in how that turns out.  But I'm not holding my breath, because "white privilege" is a sham.  It's racism writ large.  It's a mechanism for silencing political opponents and undesireables.

Thanks,

-Smac

I really don't understand how anyone can believe that white privilege doesn't exist in a country where 40 some years ago it was illegal for black people to drink out of the same water fountains as whites in some placea because of the fear of getting a disease from black people.  How can anyone believe that a country can support those kinds of beliefs and interactions (and much much worse) for over a hundred years and then, because the law changes against most of those states' wills, there are no residual affects left over from those practices and beliefs?  That mindset makes no sense to me.  

As for the court recognizing white priviledge, there are instances.  This was written by Vernellia R. Randall, Professor Emerita of Law from the University of Dayton School of Law

"Court decisions have recognized privilege without naming it as such. For example, in Sweatt v. Painter, one of the legal building blocks that led to the decision in Brown v. Board of Education, Thurgood Marshall and the lawyers who worked with him tackled inequality and segregation in legal education. Heman Marion Sweatt, who was African American, applied for admission to the University of Texas Law School. The school denied his application because it admitted only white students. The Court acknowledged the potential argument that no denial of equal protection had occurred because, just as Texas excluded African-American students from the University of Texas, it excluded white students from the School of Law of the Texas State University for Negroes, a black law school created in response to the litigation. In Sweatt, the Court stepped out of the traditional legal liberalism, "equal treatment" paradigm. The Court rejected the argument that excluding whites from an all black school paralleled excluding blacks from a white school. Rather the Court said that argument "overlook[ed] realities." In Sweatt, the Court identified tangible and intangible factors that were important to a quality education, factors that related to privilege. Although the Court did not use the term privilege, it recognized its existence in the form of tangible factors, like faculty, courses, and library, and intangible factors such as faculty reputation, administration experience, alumni influence, school tradition, and prestige."

  • Like 2
Link to post
15 minutes ago, Calm said:

When a conclusion is stated so definitely ('angels don't exist'), I see little reason to anticipate an actual exchange of ideas.  I don't feel the need to invest in something that is not an actual conversation, so I withdraw.

Well, I didn't intend to shut down the discussion.  

And my conclusion was not "stated so definitely."  I said: "If and when 'white privilege' is used in a legal context, such as an affirmative defense, I will be very interested in how that turns out."

That remains my position.  Can "white privilege" withstand scrutiny in an impartial, adversarial setting?  If "white privilege" is a demonstrably extant, where is the data to substantiate it?  Why is it only used in hyper-partisan online arguments?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
35 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I really don't understand how anyone can believe that white privilege doesn't exist in a country where 40 some years ago it was illegal for black people to drink out of the same water fountains as whites in some placea because of the fear of getting a disease from black people.  

I'm interested in evidence and data.  Not partisan, racially-divisive talking points.

I am speaking in 2020, not 1980 ("40 years ago").  Moreover, "{s}egregation of public facilities — including water fountains and restrooms — was officially outlawed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 2, 1964."  So we should be comparing 2020 America with its counterpart from 56 years ago, not 40.

A lot can change in more than half a century.

If there is credible data about "white privilege" being a thing in 2020, then I'm certainly willing to consider it.  But again, I won't hold my breath.  It's a partisan talking point.  It's not a given.  

Quote

How can anyone believe that a country can support those kinds of beliefs and interactions (and much much worse) for over a hundred years and then, because the law changes against most of those states' wills, there are no residual affects left over from those practices and beliefs?  

I don't know what this means.

I've read quite a bit about this topic.  I have yet to see competent data to support it.

Quote

As for the court recognizing white priviledge, there are instances.  This was written by Vernellia R. Randall, Professor Emerita of Law from the University of Dayton School of Law

"Court decisions have recognized privilege without naming it as such. For example, in Sweatt v. Painter, one of the legal building blocks that led to the decision in Brown v. Board of Education, Thurgood Marshall and the lawyers who worked with him tackled inequality and segregation in legal education.

This doesn't really help your case.  Sweatt was decided in 1950.  70 years ago.  A lot can change in nearly three quarters of a century.

If you want an example of legally-enshrined "privilege," I can give you one: Affirmative Action.

And another: Race-based admissions to colleges and universities:

Quote

{T}he U.S. departments of Justice and Education plan to investigate racial bias in admissions at Harvard and other elite institutions where Asian-Americans are held to far higher standards than other applicants. This type of practice was used during the first half of the 20th century to limit the number of Jews at Harvard and other Ivy League schools.

Drs. Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Radford documented discrimination against Asians in their 2009 award-winning book, “No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life.” Their research demonstrated that, when controlling for other variables, Asian students faced considerable odds against their admission. To be admitted to elite colleges, Asians needed SAT scores 140 points higher than whites, 270 points higher than Hispanics and 450 points higher than blacks. An Asian applicant with an SAT score of 1500 (out of a possible 1600 on the old SAT) had the same chance of being admitted as a white student with a 1360 score, a Latino with a 1230 and a black student with a 1050 score. Another way of looking at it is that among applicants who had the highest SAT scores (within the 1400-1600 range), 77 percent of blacks were admitted, 48 percent of Hispanics, 40 percent of whites and only 30 percent of Asians.

I am not denying that racism exists.  It does, and I find that deplorable (for a number of reasons, including that I come from a racially diverse family).

What I am disputing is the concept of "white privilege" as a proven, demonstrated thing in 2020.  

Brandon Tatum, the fellow in the Prager U video I posted, presented some good points:

Quote

For starters, what is “white privilege” anyway? Because you were born with white skin, you have all these advantages that I don’t have? 

Like what? 

Like, you can get a mortgage loan that I can’t get?

Hmm. I got a loan—at a great rate, by the way—and I got the house. Why would a banker not give a loan to someone who met the loan requirements? He doesn’t want to make money? I’ve never heard of such a banker. 

If you can show me a banker that discriminates based on race in 2020, that would be good.  

If you can show me an industry that discriminates based on race in 2020, that would be good (no need to point to colleges and universities, since we already know they discriminate against people of certain racial categories, and in favor of other certain racial categories).

Quote

But there’s another way of looking at this: In many ways, in today’s America, blacks have more privilege than whites. It’s been my experience that whites bend over backwards to give blacks every possible advantage.

If two people are equally qualified for a job, the black person will usually get it. Big companies and prestigious universities fall all over one another trying to sign up talented black people. 

If you deny this, you are denying reality. 

Which is what the person who dreamed up this whole thing did—a professor of women’s studies at Wellesley College by the name of Peggy McIntosh. She wrote an article in 1988 about all the “white privilege” she thought she had. She listed 46, including this one: “I can choose…bandages in ‘flesh’ color and have them more or less match my skin.” Wow, that’s some kind of privilege!

I would like to see the data for Mr. Tatum's point about job applicants.

Quote

Now, I wouldn’t deny for a second that there are privileges in life. They’re all over the place. There’s two-parent family privilege (that’s huge); there’s being lucky to be born in America privilege; there’s good gene privilege. But white privilege? Doesn’t it depend on the person?

Let’s take this, for example: A black lawyer and his wife have a baby. And a meth addict, single white woman has a baby. Which kid has privilege? The white one? Because he’s white? 

Come on now. 

"Doesn't it depend on the person?"

That's a fair question.

Quote

And here’s the kicker: Even if it were true—all those claims about white privilege, so what? Would it change a single thing I did? If white people apologize for being white, is that supposed to help me? In what way?

So, let’s be real: White privilege is an attempt by the left to divide Americans by race. 

It’s all theory and all nonsense. If you want to fall for it, go ahead—it’s a free country. But don’t try to sell it to me. 

I’m an American who deals with my fellow Americans one-on-one. 

Try it. It works.

"It's all theory and all nonsense."

I share that assessment.  If that assessment is incorrect, then I'd like to see the data.  And I'd like to see the testing of that data (such as in a legal setting).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to post
2 hours ago, Calm said:
Quote

No, I don't think it is.  It's conclusory.  What does "disproportionate" mean?  And how does this statistic suggest causation?

By way of analogy: More than 90% of incarcerated persons in the U.S. are male.  That seems "disproportionate," so is it per se evidence of gender discrimination in the justice system?  Would that be "reasoned analysis"?  I don't think so.

So because it is data you don't agree with, you don't see it as data?  

No.  I am not disagreeing with the data.  I am questioning extrapolations and inferences drawn from the data.  "White privilege" falls into that category.

It's not a data point.  It's a politically partisan and intentionally racially-divisive talking point.

Quote

Why does this sound familiar?

And the Daily Wire for a "reasoned analysis" on Ben Shapiro?  

Reasoned analysis by Ben Shapiro.

Quote

Sure, use it as a resource for his ideas, but for comparison why choose what amounts to a self promotion source?

His comments about white privilege are not "self promotion." 

You are discounting Shapiro, and I get that (though I am surprised to see ad hominem coming from you).  He's partisan, and he's talking about a partisan issue.  "White privilege" is a partisan talking point.  Mr. Tatum is, I think, pretty much spot-on: "So, let’s be real: White privilege is an attempt by the left to divide Americans by race. It’s all theory and all nonsense. If you want to fall for it, go ahead—it’s a free country. But don’t try to sell it to me."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 1
Link to post
24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 Why is it only used in hyper-partisan online arguments?

It's not "only used in hyper-partisan online arguments." 

 

31 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I really don't understand how anyone can believe that white privilege doesn't exist in a country where 40 some years ago it was illegal for black people to drink out of the same water fountains as whites in some placea because of the fear of getting a disease from black people.  How can anyone believe that a country can support those kinds of beliefs and interactions (and much much worse) for over a hundred years and then, because the law changes against most of those states' wills, there are no residual affects left over from those practices and beliefs?  That mindset makes no sense to me.  

As for the court recognizing white priviledge, there are instances.  This was written by Vernellia R. Randall, Professor Emerita of Law from the University of Dayton School of Law

"Court decisions have recognized privilege without naming it as such. For example, in Sweatt v. Painter, one of the legal building blocks that led to the decision in Brown v. Board of Education, Thurgood Marshall and the lawyers who worked with him tackled inequality and segregation in legal education. Heman Marion Sweatt, who was African American, applied for admission to the University of Texas Law School. The school denied his application because it admitted only white students. The Court acknowledged the potential argument that no denial of equal protection had occurred because, just as Texas excluded African-American students from the University of Texas, it excluded white students from the School of Law of the Texas State University for Negroes, a black law school created in response to the litigation. In Sweatt, the Court stepped out of the traditional legal liberalism, "equal treatment" paradigm. The Court rejected the argument that excluding whites from an all black school paralleled excluding blacks from a white school. Rather the Court said that argument "overlook[ed] realities." In Sweatt, the Court identified tangible and intangible factors that were important to a quality education, factors that related to privilege. Although the Court did not use the term privilege, it recognized its existence in the form of tangible factors, like faculty, courses, and library, and intangible factors such as faculty reputation, administration experience, alumni influence, school tradition, and prestige."

Exactly. And unconscious bias is not easily reversed.

  • Like 1
Link to post

SMAC, did you watch the video Tacenda shared with you? This demonstrated near-instantaneous effects of group oppression. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I said: "If and when 'white privilege' is used in a legal context, such as an affirmative defense, I will be very interested in how that turns out."

Which is meaningless when you deny the possibility of that ever happening by stating it "is a sham".

Do you actuallybelieve someone is open to discussing the possibility that Moroni appeared to Joseph if they say "if you have some evidence, I will be very interested, but I am not holding my breath because angels don't exist".

  • Like 1
Link to post
26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm interested in evidence and data.  Not partisan, racially-divisive talking points.

I am speaking in 2020, not 1980 ("40 years ago").  Moreover, "{s}egregation of public facilities — including water fountains and restrooms — was officially outlawed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 2, 1964."  So we should be comparing 2020 America with its counterpart from 56 years ago, not 40.

A lot can change in more than half a century.

If there is credible data about "white privilege" being a thing in 2020, then I'm certainly willing to consider it.  But again, I won't hold my breath.  It's a partisan talking point.  It's not a given.  

I don't know what this means.

I've read quite a bit about this topic.  I have yet to see competent data to support it.

This doesn't really help your case.  Sweatt was decided in 1950.  70 years ago.  A lot can change in nearly three quarters of a century.

If you want an example of legally-enshrined "privilege," I can give you one: Affirmative Action.

And another: Race-based admissions to colleges and universities:

I am not denying that racism exists.  It does, and I find that deplorable (for a number of reasons, including that I come from a racially diverse family).

What I am disputing is the concept of "white privilege" as a proven, demonstrated thing in 2020.  

Brandon Tatum, the fellow in the Prager U video I posted, presented some good points:

If you can show me a banker that discriminates based on race in 2020, that would be good.  

If you can show me an industry that discriminates based on race in 2020, that would be good (no need to point to colleges and universities, since we already know they discriminate against people of certain racial categories, and in favor of other certain racial categories).

I would like to see the data for Mr. Tatum's point about job applicants.

"Doesn't it depend on the person?"

That's a fair question.

"It's all theory and all nonsense."

I share that assessment.  If that assessment is incorrect, then I'd like to see the data.  And I'd like to see the testing of that data (such as in a legal setting).

Thanks,

-Smac

https://racism.org/articles/defining-racism/white-privilege/1890-the-ultimate-white-privilege-statistics-data-post-2?start=4 Here is your "legal" data you mention. 

Link to post
15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

You’d fail the quiz question as you can’t answer twice. 😆

I think it’s hard to characterize the ban as anything other than fitting a generally accepted definition of racism.  I imagine most people here who want to say it’s more complicated and are uncomfortable calling it racism, likely wouldn’t have a problem calling this racism if it were practiced by a different organization other than the church they are loyal to.  I believe proximity and loyalty are the difference here.  

What you think and believe are totally up to you.  I just don't believe the priesthood ban was all about some priesthood leaders aversion to a particular color of skin or a particular culture background. I believe there was another, better, reason, even though it did affect people with a particular color of skin from a particular cultural background.

Link to post
1 minute ago, Ahab said:

What you think and believe are totally up to you.  I just don't believe the priesthood ban was all about some priesthood leaders aversion to a particular color of skin or a particular culture background. I believe there was another, better, reason, even though it did affect people with a particular color of skin from a particular cultural background.

OH Ahab, you must do somersaults in your sleep...what you don't believe here is right in front of you!   😊

Link to post
7 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

OH Ahab, you must do somersaults in your sleep...what you don't believe here is right in front of you!   😊

How can you tell?  Or what makes you think the ban was based on an aversion some people had?  Even if some people had an aversion to those things, how would you be able to tell or know the priesthood ban was instituted because of that aversion?

Do you claim your ability to read people's minds and hearts is even better than mine?  I would think it must be if you were actually able to tell what motivated those priesthood leaders. Otherwise you're just speculating.

Edited by Ahab
Link to post
51 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It's not "only used in hyper-partisan online arguments." 

Pretty much.

Can you provide nonpartisan, empirical data to substantiate the concept of "white privilege"?  Probably not, since I have yet to see a particularly coherent definition of the term, let alone objectively supportive data.  But I'm certainly willing to consider anything you have.

This is why I keep asking about whether "white privilege" has ever been recognized in a court of law.  I did a quick search of Westlaw (all state and federal courts) and found a very few (as in about 15 or so) cases nationwide that reference the phrase, virtually all of which are in the context of allegations in employment discrimination cases (that is, a claimant was using the phrase, not the court).  Many of these cases were filed by pro se litigants.  That is, almost all of the references to "white privilege" came from non-lawyers (who were then quoted in the decisions by the courts).  This is understandable given that lawyers are not likely to use a term that has no particularly coherent definition, and is politically partisan rather than clinically descriptive.

I found this footnoted comment in a 2004 case: Scott v. University of New Hampshire Co-op. Extension (an employment discrimination case):

Quote

Scott devotes considerable attention to Roland Barnaby's alleged statement that he would seek to have her fired if she did not follow “his” rules, presumably the rules pertaining to the use of assistants. However, she does not indicate the legal theory under which that comment was wrongful, other than a vague assertion that Barnaby's attempt to impose the agency's rules upon her was an exercise of “white privilege.” Scott's invocation of “white privilege,” without more, is insufficient to state a claim under Title VII.

"{I}nvocation of 'white privilege,' without more, is insufficient to state a claim..."

And here's one from a 2016 case: Bonds v. Walton Verona Independent Board of Education

Quote

In his Complaint, Bonds makes no particular allegations of instances where any of the Defendants treated him disparately due to his race or ethnicity. Bonds conclusorily states that Defendants were “making use of white privilege and [committing] a Hate Crime” (R. 2, at 6). However, Defendant makes no factual allegations of any racially motivated conduct in support of that assertion. Bare assertions of racial discrimination without factual allegations to support them cannot survive a motion to dismiss despite viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

"Conclusorily states..."

"Defendant makes no factual allegations of any racially motivated conduct..."

"Bare assertions of racial discrimination without factual allegations to support them cannot survive a motion to dismiss..."

Continued in the next post.

Edited by smac97
  • Like 1
Link to post

Continued from the previous post:

And here's one froma 2018 case:  Ponder-Wallace v. Sanderson Farms, Inc.

Quote

Plaintiff's generalized belief that she earned a lower wage because of her race and “white privilege” is not enough to establish discriminatory animus. 

Hmm.  It seems like just spouting off a catchphrase like "White Privilege!" doesn't cut it in the courtroom.

Litigants and their lawyers are not stupid.  They are not oblivious.  Nor are the courts themselves.  If "white privilege" were an empirically provable thing, it would be in use all over the place in litigation.  There would be huge amounts of money to be made.  There would be every incentive in the world to use "white privilege" as an argument in litigation, provided it could pass evidentiary muster.

I couldn't find a single case in the entire country in which this has occurred.  Now why is that?

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT TO ADD: I did a search for "white privilege" on onelook.com (which allows you to search 30 or so online dictionaries simultaneously).  "White privilege" yields three hits:

Quote

We found 3 dictionaries with English definitions that include the word white privilege:
Click on the first link on a line below to go directly to a page where "white privilege" is defined.

General dictionaries General (2 matching dictionaries)

  1. white privilege: Wiktionary [home, info]
  2. White privilege (sociology), White privilege: Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia [home, info]


Slang dictionaries Slang (1 matching dictionary)

 

  1. white privilege: Urban Dictionary [home, info]

Huh.  Wiktionary, Wikipedia, and Urban Dictionary.  Not exactly bumping our heads against the limits of credible references, are we?

How is it that "white privilege," being such an eminently obvious and recognized concept, does not appear in any legitimate dictionary?

Edited by smac97
  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

So because it is data you don't agree with, you don't see it as data?  Why does this sound familiar?

And the Daily Wire for a "reasoned analysis" on Ben Shapiro?  Sure, use it as a resource for his ideas, but for comparison why choose what amounts to a self promotion source?

Blatant ad hominem? I know we strongly disagree here, but honestly, I would have expected better from you, Calm. 

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...