Jump to content

Racist Doctrine in Come Follow Me Lesson Manual Already Distributed


Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, Calm said:
Quote

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".

Not so.  I am open to changing my view point.  It's not set in stone.

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you actually believe 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".

I think there is a world of difference between a religious question of faith (do angels exist?) and an empirically testable/provable assertion of fact ("White Privilege").

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

SMAC, why are you jumping from the social topic of systemic racism, to white privilege as a legal concept?

No jumping needed.  "White privilege" is a purported example of "systemic racism."

And you already asked this question, and I already answered.  Hamba said: "I asked [my black housemate] once his opinion of white people who feel the need to twist themselves up in knots on his presumed behalf."

I responded with the Prager U video because, as I see it, "White Privilege" = "white people who feel the need to twist themselves up in knots on {black folks'} presumed behalf."

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

1) 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.

2).  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

1)  Perhaps you weren't aware but segregation continued after it became illegal.  The last school in Mississippi was desegregated in 2016 after a federal order forced their hand.  

2)  And a lot doesn't.  After all, we are talking about 100s of years of racism verses 50 ish years where it's been illegal.   

3)  It seems absurd to attempt to argue that racism of whites against those of color exists but does not negatively affect people of color more than whites.  

Like Calm, I don't see the point of continuing the conversation.  You are determined not to believe in white privilege and to ignore any data that supports it as 'not actually data.'  I'm not sure if it's the lawyer in you or what exactly is causing the disconnect, but you are entrenched in your position so further discussion wouldn't serve any purpose.  

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No jumping needed.  "White privilege" is a purported example of "systemic racism."

And you already asked this question, and I already answered.  Hamba said: "I asked [my black housemate] once his opinion of white people who feel the need to twist themselves up in knots on his presumed behalf."

I responded with the Prager U video because, as I see it, "White Privilege" = "white people who feel the need to twist themselves up in knots on {black folks'} presumed behalf."

Thanks,

-Smac

You're asking people to provide a legally enforceable definition for a systemic social concept. That's unnecessarily miring the conversation.

I'd say one easy way to describe white privilege is the cumulative statistical advantage of being white, especially in factors beyond an individual's control.

Link to comment
2 hours 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.

Hmm..  so I'm thinking our difference of opinion on the definition for racism, might be that you believe the intentions of the authors play a key role in defining the policy as racist.  Let me ask this question.  When you have a policy to exclude people of a certain background, and you identify those people based on skin color and other physical attributes, does it matter what the intentions of the originators of this policy were intending, when it comes to determining if the policy fits the definition of racism?  

In other words, you say that you don't believe the priesthood ban was about an aversion to skin color or culture.  If I grant that you are correct.  Does that make the policy to discriminate based on skin color and other attributes, not fit the definition of racism?  Do the intentions of the people instituting the policy, which clearly barred people of a certain dissent from the priesthood, determine whether or not the policy fits the definition of a racist policy?  

Edited by hope_for_things
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

1)  Perhaps you weren't aware but segregation continued after it became illegal.  The last school in Mississippi was desegregated in 2016 after a federal order forced their hand.  

2)  And a lot doesn't.  After all, we are talking about 100s of years of racism verses 50 ish years where it's been illegal.   

3)  It seems absurd to attempt to argue that racism of whites against those of color exists but does not negatively affect people of color more than whites.  

Like Calm, I don't see the point of continuing the conversation.  You are determined not to believe in white privilege and to ignore any data that supports it as 'not actually data.'  I'm not sure if it's the lawyer in you or what exactly is causing the disconnect, but you are entrenched in your position so further discussion wouldn't serve any purpose.  

Here it seems that not only are you scorning Smac’s profession, but you are disparaging Smac as a practitioner of it. More ad hominem, this time closer to home. If this is what the conversation has devolved to, then perhaps you are right in saying it would be best not to continue it. 
 

But for the record, I submit that, if anything, Smac’s background in the legal profession qualifies him to view the matter rationally and to argue it logically and effectively. 

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, bluebell said:
Quote

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.

1)  Perhaps you weren't aware but segregation continued after it became illegal.  The last school in Mississippi was desegregated in 2016 after a federal order forced their hand.  

You are pointing to an exception that proves the rule.  "White privilege" is not a thing.  To the extent race-based-segregation-that-favors-whites exists in some isolated places, it is being wiped out.

Meanwhile, other types of "privileges" are becoming increasingly common.  These days some colleges are creating race-based segregated housing, events, graduations, and so on (sadly, at the request/demand of radicalized minorities).  

More than 75 colleges host blacks-only graduation ceremonies:

Quote

Graduation used to be for coming together as a class one last time to celebrate academic accomplishments, but today there’s a growing trend for segregated celebrations highlighting race and ethnicity.

A new report by the National Association of Scholars has identified more than 75 schools offering segregated graduations. These supplemental commencement ceremonies are offered in addition to the universities’ regular graduation ceremonies and are not mandatory.

The National Association of Scholars looked at 173 schools and found that 76 of them, or 44%, offer these ceremonies. These range from small private schools to big public universities. Some notable ones include Harvard, UC San Diego, UC Irvine, Arizona State University, Stanford, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and Yale.

In many cases, these ceremonies are co-hosted by black student groups, campus resource centers, or specific academic departments.

Some colleges and universities are also offering separate ceremonies for Latino or LGBT student populations. This year, Harvard held its first “UndocuGraduation” for students in the country illegally. One speaker at the "UndocuGraduation" was a Harvard history professor who was arrested while protesting President Trump's decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals back in 2017.

Other forms of segregation take place on campus in separate dorms and freshmen orientations.

Racially-divisive rhetoric will, in the end, cause some measure of racial division.  That's pretty unfortunate.  

Quote
Quote

Sweatt was decided in 1950.  70 years ago.  A lot can change in nearly three quarters of a century.

2)  And a lot doesn't.  After all, we are talking about 100s of years of racism verses 50 ish years where it's been illegal.

We're not talking about "racism" generally.  We're talking about "white privilege."

I concede the former exists.  Some folks in Racial Group A may harbor prejudices against folks in Racial Group B.  No racial group is immune from being on either the giving or receiving side of it.  

"White privilege," however, is a much more debateable issue.  

Quote
Quote

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.  

3)  It seems absurd to attempt to argue that racism of whites against those of color exists but does not negatively affect people of color more than whites.  

"It seems absurd" is not an argument.

Again, if you can you provide nonpartisan, empirical data to substantiate the concept of "white privilege," I'm happy to consider it.  Merely asserting it exists, and that it is "absurd" for me to question that, doesn't work for me.

Quote

Like Calm, I don't see the point of continuing the conversation.  

As you like.

Quote

You are determined not to believe in white privilege and to ignore any data that supports it as 'not actually data.'  

Nope.  I am open to nonpartisan, empirical data to substantiate the concept of "white privilege."  I've said that several times.

Again, if "white privilege" is a thing, then why isn't it being used as a litigation tool in courts throughout the land?  There are huge incentives to do so.  Huge amounts of money to be made by lawyers who would drool at the prospect of fleecing government and private entities.  Employment discrimination.  Housing discrimination.  Statutory penalties.  Attorney's fees galore.  

If "white privilege" is a thing, why isn't it defined in dictionaries?

If "white privilege" is a thing, why is it that it is only (or overwhelmingly) used in hyper-partisan and politicized contexts?

Quote

I'm not sure if it's the lawyer in you

Hmm.  This has whiffs of ad hominem to it.

I am not stupid.  I am not closed-minded.  I am willing to listen to what you have to say.  I have repeatedly asked for nonpartisan, empirical data to substantiate the concept of "white privilege."  I have yet to see any.

I have noted that no court in the United States has recognized "white privilege" as something that is sufficiently established to warrant legal investigation and intervention.  I have also noted that "white privilege" is so amorphous that it's not even included in any dictionary (that I know of, anyway).

You are not addressing these points.

Quote

or what exactly is causing the disconnect,

It's not a "disconnect."  It's a disagreement.  

Folks here are asserting "white privilege" as some sort of self-evident, actualized, axiomatic fact.  It's not.  It's not even close to that.  Heck, we can't even settle on a clinical definition of what it means.

Quote

but you are entrenched in your position so further discussion wouldn't serve any purpose.  

I am not "entrenched" in my position.  I will again ask for nonpartisan, empirical data to substantiate the concept of "white privilege."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

How is pointing out that the Daily Wire is home territory for Shapiro and therefore bias is likely involved in their portrayal of him ad hom?

It is like protesting if someone points out you can expect positive views of Church leaders from the Church News.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Here it seems that not only are you scorning Smac’s profession, but you are disparaging Smac as a practitioner of it. More ad hominem, this time closer to home. If this is what the conversation has devolved to, then perhaps you are right in saying it would be best not to continue it. 
 

But for the record, I submit that, if anything, Smac’s background in the legal profession qualifies him to view the matter rationally and to argue it logically and effectively. 

In another thread SMAC has already admitted to Bluebell some habits of argumentation that sometimes perhaps carry over a but too much here. It sounds to me that she is trying to understand.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Here it seems that not only are you scorning Smac’s profession, but you are disparaging Smac as a practitioner of it. More ad hominem, this time closer to home. If this is what the conversation has devolved to, then perhaps you are right in saying it would be best not to continue it. 
 

But for the record, I submit that, if anything, Smac’s background in the legal profession qualifies him to view the matter rationally and to argue it logically and effectively. 

Calm down Scott.  I did not mean that as a smear against Smac personally or his profession.  Like Meadowchik said, Smac has admitted on occasion that his training as a lawyer affects how he responds to different issues.  That is all I was referring to. 

Maybe don't always assume the worst possible interpretation and instead ask for clarification if you are confused.  

Link to comment
1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Calm down Scott.  I did not mean that as a smear against Smac personally or his profession.  Like Meadowchik said, Smac has admitted on occasion that his training as a lawyer affects how he responds to different issues.  That is all I was referring to. 

Maybe don't always assume the worst possible interpretation and instead ask for clarification if you are confused.  

I don’t know that I was all that confused. It was definitely not expressed in a complimentary vein. 

And if by alluding here to what Smac has said in the past you are hinting that his “training as a lawyer” is causing him to respond irrationally, well, I’ll leave it to him to speak to that. 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

If you're curious, of the list of 50 that you gave, I resonated strongly with 27 of them and could see a little 8 more in my personal experiences in my life. 

I'm willing to share experiences but I would like to say that I'm not up to debating them and whether they're evidence of white privilege. To most minorities saying there's white privilege is like saying there's clouds in the sky. It's not a matter of if but when they'll appear and how. I'm not assuming you would at all, but I've had that experience here before of sharing racial issues and having a white male then go through them to decide whether or not he found those experiences as legitimate examples. Which Ironically, fits a couple of the points I think. 

A couple of points that come to mind immediately. 

Once upon a time my aunt tagged me into a political and race-based post I strongly disagreed with. Though I responded back asking to be removed and explaining my problems with what she said, I didn't feel like I could call it racist until some of my white relatives did. I knew it was, I just didn't feel that I had the space to call a spade a spade.

I had another aunt caution me about a man who was part Poly due to her stereotypes/beliefs about the race

Recently my mother had serious problems with the name we chose for our daughter. Among her complaints was that he middle name wasn't "american" enough and that I should choose a good "american" name....AKA a white/english sounding name.  (I note these 1st 3 to point out that having a brown relative or association does not exclude people from racism)

My husband had to repeat his entire major instead of starting a masters here because his education wasn't recognized as valid since it happened in a 3rd world country. they didn't tell him he could try testing out till way later.

I've made contingency plans for living in UT so my children can interact with a diverse group of people and see an array of looks and thoughts that vary from the UT norm. I want them to feel beautiful, confident, an comfortable in their own skin and I've seen what happens to some when representation is very limited

I chose my birth plan with some consideration about the increased mortality rate for women of color

I worry about my daughter and what she may experience in UT. I also worry about her being exoticized like I at times have been. 

I've definitely been the only or few minority voices in educational settings and have been asked or ended up representing groups I don't even fully ID with.

oh one more: when I was dating I noticed a solid pattern while swiping for a companion on Mutual. in spite of being in a wite dominate area well over half my matches were PoC. I almost always matched with minorities while white men were far less likely to swipe up (indicate interest) and were more likely to be religiously....unorthodox) 

etc.

(AS much as I can type right now with a bored baby...time to play) 

With Luv, 

BD

Edited by BlueDreams
Link to comment
39 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:
Quote

No jumping needed.  "White privilege" is a purported example of "systemic racism."

And you already asked this question, and I already answered.  Hamba said: "I asked [my black housemate] once his opinion of white people who feel the need to twist themselves up in knots on his presumed behalf."

I responded with the Prager U video because, as I see it, "White Privilege" = "white people who feel the need to twist themselves up in knots on {black folks'} presumed behalf."

You're asking people to provide a legally enforceable definition for a systemic social concept.

I am not.  That would be helpful, but it's not essential.

I am challenging the legitimacy of the concept.  It is extraordinarily partisan and politicized and racially divisive.  It has no agreed-upon definition.  It was apparently coined/popularized by a leftists academic in the 80s.  It has no entry for it dictionaries.  It is not recognized in the law (despire there being huge incentives for that).  

Quote

That's unnecessarily miring the conversation.

When "the conversation" turns to "white privilege," and then that conversation treats this concept, which we can't even agree exists and is defined, as a self-evident, beyond-reasonable-dispute fact, I think the conversation needs to back up a bit and start over.

Quote

I'd say one easy way to describe white privilege is the cumulative statistical advantage of being white, especially in factors beyond an individual's control.

Fine.  I'd say one easy way to describe white privilege is that it's a politically partisan potshot with no coherent meaning or substantiation, and which is used to short-circuit discussion, to foment racial animus and divisions, and to obtain unearned rhetorical points.

My definition is just as legitimate as yours (perhaps even more so).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Calm down Scott.  I did not mean that as a smear against Smac personally or his profession.  Like Meadowchik said, Smac has admitted on occasion that his training as a lawyer affects how he responds to different issues.  That is all I was referring to. 

You said: "I'm not sure if it's the lawyer in you or what exactly is causing the disconnect..."

That kinda sorta came across as ad hominem.  As in "Meh.  Smac is a lawyer, so he's only arguing for the sake of argument, and not because he has a legitimate point to make..."

That's how I took it, anyway.  You have now clarified that this was not your intent, and I accept that completely.  

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Maybe don't always assume the worst possible interpretation and instead ask for clarification if you are confused.  

Good counsel.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You are pointing to an exception that proves the rule.  "White privilege" is not a thing.  To the extent race-based-segregation-that-favors-whites exists in some isolated places, it is being wiped out.

Meanwhile, other types of "privileges" are becoming increasingly common.  These days some colleges are creating race-based segregated housing, events, graduations, and so on (sadly, at the request/demand of radicalized minorities).  

More than 75 colleges host blacks-only graduation ceremonies:

Racially-divisive rhetoric will, in the end, cause some measure of racial division.  That's pretty unfortunate.  

We're not talking about "racism" generally.  We're talking about "white privilege."

I concede the former exists.  Some folks in Racial Group A may harbor prejudices against folks in Racial Group B.  No racial group is immune from being on either the giving or receiving side of it.  

"White privilege," however, is a much more debateable issue.  

"It seems absurd" is not an argument.

Again, if you can you provide nonpartisan, empirical data to substantiate the concept of "white privilege," I'm happy to consider it.  Merely asserting it exists, and that it is "absurd" for me to question that, doesn't work for me.

As you like.

Nope.  I am open to nonpartisan, empirical data to substantiate the concept of "white privilege."  I've said that several times.

Again, if "white privilege" is a thing, then why isn't it being used as a litigation tool in courts throughout the land?  There are huge incentives to do so.  Huge amounts of money to be made by lawyers who would drool at the prospect of fleecing government and private entities.  Employment discrimination.  Housing discrimination.  Statutory penalties.  Attorney's fees galore.  

If "white privilege" is a thing, why isn't it defined in dictionaries?

If "white privilege" is a thing, why is it that it is only (or overwhelmingly) used in hyper-partisan and politicized contexts?

I am not "entrenched" in my position.  I will again ask for nonpartisan, empirical data to substantiate the concept of "white privilege."

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not arguing with you Smac.  I don't see the benefit.  

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t know that I was all that confused. It was definitely not expressed in a complimentary vein. 

And if by alluding here to what Smac has said in the past you are hinting that his “training as a lawyer” is causing him to respond irrationally, well, I’ll leave it to him to speak to that. 

Again Scott, I'm not alluding to anything.   There is no need to assume the worst about someone's post when they disagree with you.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not arguing with you Smac.  I don't see the benefit.  

Okay.

I'll continue to solicit nonpartisan, empirical data to substantiate the concept of "white privilege."

From anyone.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You are pointing to an exception that proves the rule.  "White privilege" is not a thing.  To the extent race-based-segregation-that-favors-whites exists in some isolated places, it is being wiped out.

Meanwhile, other types of "privileges" are becoming increasingly common.  These days some colleges are creating race-based segregated housing, events, graduations, and so on (sadly, at the request/demand of radicalized minorities).  

More than 75 colleges host blacks-only graduation ceremonies:

Racially-divisive rhetoric will, in the end, cause some measure of racial division.  That's pretty unfortunate.  

We're not talking about "racism" generally.  We're talking about "white privilege."

I concede the former exists.  Some folks in Racial Group A may harbor prejudices against folks in Racial Group B.  No racial group is immune from being on either the giving or receiving side of it.  

"White privilege," however, is a much more debateable issue.  

"It seems absurd" is not an argument.

Again, if you can you provide nonpartisan, empirical data to substantiate the concept of "white privilege," I'm happy to consider it.  Merely asserting it exists, and that it is "absurd" for me to question that, doesn't work for me.

As you like.

Nope.  I am open to nonpartisan, empirical data to substantiate the concept of "white privilege."  I've said that several times.

Again, if "white privilege" is a thing, then why isn't it being used as a litigation tool in courts throughout the land?  There are huge incentives to do so.  Huge amounts of money to be made by lawyers who would drool at the prospect of fleecing government and private entities.  Employment discrimination.  Housing discrimination.  Statutory penalties.  Attorney's fees galore.  

If "white privilege" is a thing, why isn't it defined in dictionaries?

If "white privilege" is a thing, why is it that it is only (or overwhelmingly) used in hyper-partisan and politicized contexts?

Hmm.  This has whiffs of ad hominem to it.

I am not stupid.  I am not closed-minded.  I am willing to listen to what you have to say.  I have repeatedly asked for nonpartisan, empirical data to substantiate the concept of "white privilege."  I have yet to see any.

I have noted that no court in the United States has recognized "white privilege" as something that is sufficiently established to warrant legal investigation and intervention.  I have also noted that "white privilege" is so amorphous that it's not even included in any dictionary (that I know of, anyway).

You are not addressing these points.

It's not a "disconnect."  It's a disagreement.  

Folks here are asserting "white privilege" as some sort of self-evident, actualized, axiomatic fact.  It's not.  It's not even close to that.  Heck, we can't even settle on a clinical definition of what it means.

I am not "entrenched" in my position.  I will again ask for nonpartisan, empirical data to substantiate the concept of "white privilege."

Thanks,

-Smac

What am I invisisible? Did you not see my link with legal data? Or maybe my opinion isn't appreciated? I'd link again but holding my sleeping grandbaby. Can you take a look? I understand the time you put forth on the board though. Maybe skim through?

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am not.  That would be helpful, but it's not essential.

I am challenging the legitimacy of the concept.  It is extraordinarily partisan and politicized and racially divisive.  It has no agreed-upon definition.  It was apparently coined/popularized by a leftists academic in the 80s.  It has no entry for it dictionaries.  It is not recognized in the law (despire there being huge incentives for that).  

When "the conversation" turns to "white privilege," and then that conversation treats this concept that we can't even agree exists and is defined as a self-evident, beyond-reasonable-dispute fact, I think the conversation needs to back up a bit and start over.

Fine.  I'd say one easy way to describe white privilege is that it's a politically partisan potshot with no coherent meaning or substantiation, and which is used to short-circuit discussion, to foment racial animus and divisions, and to obtain unearned rhetorical points.

My because-I-say-so definition is just as legitimate as yours (perhaps even more so).

Thanks,

-Smac

Yet whether you agree white privilege is legitimate or not, there are still the statistical advantages of being white, in particular factors beyond an individual's control.

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, Calm said:

How is pointing out that the Daily Wire is home territory for Shapiro and therefore bias is likely involved in their portrayal of him ad hom?

It is like protesting if someone points out you can expect positive views of Church leaders from the Church News.

Deleted because I initially mis-read the post. 
 

Edited to add: But I’m not certain what point you’re trying to make. Ben Shapiro is the editor of the Daily Wire. Saying the Daily Wire is biased in favor of Ben Shapiro is like saying Ben Shapiro is biased in favor of Ben Shapiro. True, but not very meaningful or astonishing. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.

I'll continue to solicit nonpartisan, empirical data to substantiate the concept of "white privilege."

From anyone.

Thanks,

-Smac

I've already cited maternal and infant mortality rates for black US women. Not being subject to them as a white person is an example of white privilege.

Link to comment
Just now, Meadowchik said:

Yet whether you agree white privilege is legitimate or not, there are still the statistical advantages of being white, in particular factors beyond an individual's control.

I don't know what you are referencing here.

As Mr. Tatum so poignantly observed

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. 
...
More than 50 years after the start of the Civil Rights movement, the message {by partisans who use "white privilege" in their rhetoric} is: “You’re still oppressed.” How can this not create a victim mentality? And anyone—of any color—who sees himself as a victim gets angry.

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. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I've already cited maternal and infant mortality rates for black US women. Not being subject to them as a white person is an example of white privilege.

Still not seeing any causation.

How about other racial groups that have better maternal and infant mortality rates as compared to black US women?  Do they have "white privilege" too?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

What am I invisisible? Did you not see my link with legal data? Or maybe my opinion isn't appreciated? I'd link again but holding my sleeping grandbaby. Can you take a look? I understand the time you put forth on the board though. Maybe skim through?

I'll take a look.

Thanks,

-Smac

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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...