You don't think poor black people support the idea that whites are privileged? Or first nations people? A black male, who has been harassed by the police many times over his life at age 25, who has been poor all his life, would typically think that the idea of white privilege is a load of hooey?BenMcLean wrote:
In case that wasn't clear enough for you, what I am saying is that privilege theory is largely developed and promoted by overprivileged white people.
What is white priviledge if what is white can't be defined?
- Mgrinder
- Premium Member
- Posts: 904
- Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
- Contact:
Re: What is white priviledge if what is white can't be defin
-
- Posts: 50
- Joined: January 17th, 2012, 11:42 am
Re: What is white priviledge if what is white can't be defin
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: What is white priviledge if what is white can't be defin
I do not know whether those who developed and promote privilege theory are over privileged white people, but even if it is true I do not see the relevance. The fact that over privileged white people think that they have benefited from white privilege does not invalidate the claim that white privilege exists. The fact that other white people who have to work are less concerned is also irrelevant to the problem of white privilege. They may still benefit even if they do not recognize that they benefit or even if they do recognize it and don’t want to make an issue of it since they are the recipients of the benefit.In case that wasn't clear enough for you, what I am saying is that privilege theory is largely developed and promoted by overprivileged white people.
It means “all” as a class or group. It means as a straight white man you will not have to overcome the obstacles that stand in the way of homosexuals, women, and people of color. The article goes on to say these privileges:What do you mean, you don't see my point? It says "all". It's saying all bourgeois ... er, I mean white, male, non-sodomite people have privilege and all proletariat ... er I mean blacks females and sodomites are victims. All means all, regardless of circumstance. What your sources say don't match what you're saying.
In your hypothetical country white privilege does not exist. In your hypothetical country, according to your description, white people are oppressed and blacks, by virtue of being or being perceived as black, enjoy certain privileges. All the the things you say affect black people in the United States would in your hypothetical country affect white people instead. In your hypothetical country black privilege would exist, because blacks as a class of group would benefit from being black and whites would suffer for being white.… are automatically bestowed by virtue of someone’s race, gender, sexuality and so on.
The issue of privilege and the question of who is privileged are not the same. Those who are privileged here and now are not those who are privileged in your hypothetical example. In that example, blacks are privileged and so, according to privilege theory, would be the beneficiaries of privilege. Privilege theory does not say that only a particular group or class of people can be privileged. It does, however, identify those who are privileged here and now.
-
- Posts: 50
- Joined: January 17th, 2012, 11:42 am
Re: What is white priviledge if what is white can't be defin
It does invalidate the claim that "privilege is invisible to those that have it" which I have often seen put forward as part of the definition of "white privilege".Fooloso4 wrote:The fact that over privileged white people think that they have benefited from white privilege does not invalidate the claim that white privilege exists.
It's very relevant because it completely undermines the "white" part of this. It would show whites aren't behaving as a single class in some kind of larger system.The fact that other white people who have to work are less concerned is also irrelevant to the problem of white privilege.
So you're telling me that white privilege is visible to rich whites, but not to poor whites and that explains why your theory is more accepted among the rich than among the middle class and poor?They may still benefit even if they do not recognize that they benefit or even if they do recognize it and don’t want to make an issue of it since they are the recipients of the benefit.
That doesn't seem to contradict what I said or the conclusion I drew from it.It means “all” as a class or group.
They were in the source you were quoting from. It said all whites, which would include the whites in my hypothetical.The issue of privilege and the question of who is privileged are not the same.
- Mgrinder
- Premium Member
- Posts: 904
- Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
- Contact:
Re: What is white priviledge if what is white can't be defin
That wasn't the Question. The question was whether or not they (on average) think that whites are privileged. Not who coined the term, or who uses the phrase the most.BenMcLean wrote:I don't think blacks or American Indians came up with privilege theory as an ideology, no.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: What is white priviledge if what is white can't be defin
I would have to read that in context but what I take it to mean is that those who benefit from privilege are not even aware that they are benefitting. It does not mean that they cannot become aware of it and act upon what they now see as an injustice.It does invalidate the claim that "privilege is invisible to those that have it" which I have often seen put forward as part of the definition of "white privilege".
What I said is that having to work is irrelevant to the problem of white privilege. I am saying just the opposite of what you are accusing me of. I am not talking about white people behaving as a single class, I am talking about people whose main concern is with work (or for that matter anything else) and have little or no interest in the problem of white privilege.It's very relevant because it completely undermines the "white" part of this. It would show whites aren't behaving as a single class in some kind of larger system.
Why would you think I am telling you something that I did not say? I do not know the percentage of the population to whom white privilege is visible, but my suspicion is that it is more visible to those are or whose parents are college educated, and generally that means earning more money. I suspect that if you go into the average high school and asked about white privilege you would get a lot of blank stares. I also suspect that many white students and their parents would scoff at the idea that they benefitted from some kind of privilege. The middle class has shrunk significantly and that has caused resentment. The poor cannot get ahead and that has caused resentment. And so, most will dismiss any talk of privilege as nonsense. None of which means it does not exist.So you're telling me that white privilege is visible to rich whites, but not to poor whites and that explains why your theory is more accepted among the rich than among the middle class and poor?
And just what that conclusion is puzzles me.That doesn't seem to contradict what I said or the conclusion I drew from it.
The statement that all whites benefit from white privilege is a statement about what actually happens in places where white privilege exists. Any statement about privilege in your hypothetical country would be based on what you said happens there. And what happens there is that blacks benefit and whites are oppressed. It is a description of black privilege.They were in the source you were quoting from. It said all whites, which would include the whites in my hypothetical.The issue of privilege and the question of who is privileged are not the same.
-
- Posts: 50
- Joined: January 17th, 2012, 11:42 am
Re: What is white priviledge if what is white can't be defin
No it's not! You can read it for yourself: it's a statement about "all whites" without qualification.Fooloso4 wrote:those who benefit from privilege are not even aware that they are benefitting. It does not mean that they cannot become aware of itYes it does. If the fact that someone is benefitting entails that they are not aware, and rich white Leftists on college campuses are in facr benefitting then it follows logically that they cannot be aware. Yet it is from this group that large numbers of converts to belief in privilege theory are drawn.
This is of course just one of the many problems with the theory that says a homeless white man living under a bridge has privilege while the offspring of a rich NBA player somehow doesn't. You have to be buried deep into ideologically-induced blindness to think that.
(Nested quote removed.)
Clearly it can't be that much of a problem, then!
(Nested quote removed.)
It was a quedtion about the logical consequences of what you did say.
One logical consequence of the "privilege is invisible to those who have it" principle (hereafter called the Invisibility Rule or IR) is that "those to whom privilege is visible must therefore not have it."
(Nested quote removed.)
So clearly privilege must either have nothing to do with money or it is in some kind of inverse relatioship where people with more money are more likely to be aware of privilege and therefore less likely to have it (because of the IR) while people with less money are less likely to be aware of privilege and are therefore more likely to have it. (because of the IR)
So this ends up with poor people having privilege and rich people not having privilege.
(Nested quote removed.)
Yeah, because they haven't taken enough crazy pills yet. Too grounded in reality for privilege theory to sound plausible. It only really sounds plausible to college educated ideologues who are the most privileged people on Earth by the layman's reality-based definition of privolege.
(Nested quote removed.)
Exactly like you do when someone questions privilege theory.
(Nested quote removed.)
What? That doesn't follow.
Remember, my position is that wealth privolege is real and white privilege is paranoid ideological fantasy.
(Nested quote removed.)
This is exactly like some alt-right ideologue writing, "All blacks commit more crimes than whites." and when someone protests that this is nonsense, responding, "The statemenr that all blacks commit more crime than whites is a statemenr about what actually happens in places where higher black crime exists." That's word salad.
-- Updated April 28th, 2017, 2:31 pm to add the following --
Oh no, I screwed up the formatting on that post. Maybe I should repost to fix it later
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: What is white priviledge if what is white can't be defin
But it does not entail that. The claim is that white privilege exists even if those who benefit are not aware that they are benefitting.If the fact that someone is benefitting entails that they are not aware …
This is what the source you cited says:
Often does not mean always or necessarily.… whiteness is often invisible to white people …
That is not what the theory says. The theory is that white privilege is a systemic problem. It does not mean that every white man enjoys more benefits than every black man or that every white man is better of than every black man. It means that by virtue of being white you will not have to deal with the problems that will be encountered by virtue of not being white.This is of course just one of the many problems with the theory that says a homeless white man living under a bridge has privilege while the offspring of a rich NBA player somehow doesn't.
I have not commented on anything I can make no sense of because of formatting problems.
Except there is no such rule that white privilege must remain invisible to those who are white.One logical consequence of the "privilege is invisible to those who have it" principle (hereafter called the Invisibility Rule or IR) is that "those to whom privilege is visible must therefore not have it."
You are clinging to this statement about “all X” as if it were the formulation of an inviolable universal law of human nature. Here is what the article you cited says:No it's not! You can read it for yourself: it's a statement about "all whites" without qualification.
‘Whiteness,' like ‘colour' and ‘Blackness,' are essentially social constructs applied to human beings rather than veritable truths that have universal validity.
Your position seems to be that as long as there is one example of a white man who does not benefit from white privilege it does not exist. I think the choice of the word “all” is misleading, especially when one takes it to mean without qualification or exception, and even more problematic if one thinks it must apply in hypothetical worlds where blacks enjoy privilege and whites don’t.
Did white privilege exist when blacks were banned from the NBA? Did white privilege exist when real estate redlining was standard practice? Did white privilege exist when black men could be arrested on suspicion that they were runaway slaves? Are you saying that white privilege never existed because there was always at least one black man that did not suffer as much as some white men? Are you saying that racism never existed or no longer exists because not “all” whites are racist or at least one black man was not directly adversely affected?
-
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm
Re: What is white priviledge if what is white can't be defin
No. progressive education has taught us that there is no priviledge. The only question is who is entitled. I am in a minority group. I'm a broad shouldered, long nosed, white Aries male and there are not many of us as compared to other minority groups. Therefore I'm entitled. Don't ask questions; just fork over the bucks and your apology will be accepted.LuckyR wrote:Are you trying to imply that the victims of a systemically unfair system are wrong to be resentful of that unequal environment?Nick_A wrote:BenMclean wrote:
(Nested quote removed.)
This could be said to be a racist remark. Progressive education has taught us that that where there is white priviledge, it is being replaced by black entitlement. The progressive view is that where whites are priviledged, blacks are entitled. Don't ask me to explain it. You need a Harvard education and a bottle of scotch to appreciate this logic.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7987
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: What is white priviledge if what is white can't be defin
What's the matter? Whites get to complain that the term White Privilege is inaccurate, yet Blacks have to suck it up and NOT complain about an actually skewed system?BenMcLean wrote:[Edited]
-- Updated April 27th, 2017, 1:47 pm to add the following --
Yes, because the "systemically unfair system" is not "white privolege" -- it's just real life. Life's not fair and you go on from there.LuckyR wrote:Are you trying to imply that the victims of a systemically unfair system are wrong to be resentful of that unequal environment?
Ya really wanna go with that?
-
- Posts: 886
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 8:05 am
- Location: The Evening Star
Re: What is white priviledge if what is white can't be defin
-
- Posts: 50
- Joined: January 17th, 2012, 11:42 am
Re: What is white priviledge if what is white can't be defin
Yes it does. If the fact that someone is benefiting entails that they are not aware, and rich white Leftists on college campuses are in fact benefiting then it follows logically that they cannot be aware. Yet it is from this group that large numbers of converts to belief in privilege theory are drawn.Fooloso4 wrote:those who benefit from privilege are not even aware that they are benefitting. It does not mean that they cannot become aware of it
This is of course just one of the many problems with the theory that says a homeless white man living under a bridge has privilege while the offspring of a rich NBA player somehow doesn't. You have to be buried deep into ideologically-induced blindness to think that.
Clearly it can't be that much of a problem, then!What I said is that having to work is irrelevant to the problem of white privilege.
It was a question about the logical consequences of what you did say.Why would you think I am telling you something that I did not say?
One logical consequence of the "privilege is invisible to those who have it" principle (hereafter called the Invisibility Rule or IR) is that "those to whom privilege is visible must therefore not have it."
So clearly privilege must either have nothing to do with wealth or it is in some kind of inverse relationship where people with more money are more likely to be aware of privilege and therefore less likely to have it (because of the IR) while people with less money are less likely to be aware of privilege and are therefore more likely to have it. (because of the IR)my suspicion is that it is more visible to those are or whose parents are college educated, and generally that means earning more money.
So this ends up with poor people having privilege and rich people not having privilege.
Yeah, because they haven't taken enough crazy pills yet. Too grounded in reality for privilege theory to sound plausible. It only really sounds plausible to college educated ideologues who are the most privileged people on Earth by the layman's reality-based definition of privilege.I suspect that if you go into the average high school and asked about white privilege you would get a lot of blank stares.
Exactly like you do when someone questions privilege theory.I also suspect that many white students and their parents would scoff at the idea that they benefitted from some kind of privilege.
What? That doesn't follow.And so, most will dismiss any talk of privilege as nonsense.
Remember, my position is that wealth privilege is real and white privilege is paranoid ideological fantasy.
No it's not! You can read it for yourself: it's a statement about "all whites" without qualification.The statement that all whites benefit from white privilege is a statement about what actually happens in places where white privilege exists.
This is exactly like some alt-right ideologue writing, "All blacks commit more crimes than whites." and when someone protests that this is nonsense, responding, "The statemenr that all blacks commit more crime than whites is a statemenr about what actually happens in places where higher black crime exists." That's word salad.
-- Updated April 30th, 2017, 12:55 am to add the following --
OK now here is my new response.
Oh, right. It was Michael Kimmel who popularized the line I am using as a premise there. Are you disagreeing with Kimmel on this? Because if not, then my argument does follow.Fooloso4 wrote:But it does not entail that. The claim is that white privilege exists even if those who benefit are not aware that they are benefitting.
That was about "whiteness" while this was about "privilege."Often does not mean always or necessarily.
That is absolutely what the theory says and you know it.That is not what the theory says.
That is absolutely what you're saying when you say "all." "All" is an absolute.The theory is that white privilege is a systemic problem. It does not mean that every white man enjoys more benefits than every black man or that every white man is better of than every black man.
These alleged problems are clearly insignificant compared to the real situations of real people in real life like my example of the homeless man and the NBA rich kid.It means that by virtue of being white you will not have to deal with the problems that will be encountered by virtue of not being white.
Except there is no such rule that white privilege must remain invisible to those who are white.
That's what "all X" means.You are clinging to this statement about “all X” as if it were the formulation of an inviolable universal law of human nature.
My position is that as long as there is one example of a white man who does not benefit from "white privilege" then the claims of a universal, invisible "white privilege" are disproved.Your position seems to be that as long as there is one example of a white man who does not benefit from white privilege it does not exist.
"Misleading" meaning incorrect?I think the choice of the word “all” is misleading
Did white privilege exist when the NBA got rid of that?Did white privilege exist when blacks were banned from the NBA?
Did white privilege exist when real estate redlining stopped being standard practice?Did white privilege exist when real estate redlining was standard practice?
Did white privilege exist when black men could no longer be arrested on suspicion that they were runaway slaves?Did white privilege exist when black men could be arrested on suspicion that they were runaway slaves?
If your answer is "Yes" to all these questions then you will have demonstrated that while these things are a sufficient condition for "white privilege" to exist, none of these things are a necessary condition for "white privilege" to exist. I think that if you look strictly at the necessary conditions for "white privilege" to exist, ignoring all accidental conditions, you won't be able to prove that "white privilege" is necessarily a bad thing.
-- Updated April 30th, 2017, 1:01 am to add the following --
Up to now, I was including the assumption that "white privilege" is an inherently bad thing as being part of the definition of "white privilege" the same way being wrongful killing is built into the definition of "murder". I was also assuming that "white privilege" must be actually significant in some way for the proposition that it exists to be true. But if it doesn't necessarily have to be bad or it doesn't necessarily have to be significant in order to exist, then sure, it exists. Anything could be said to exist if it doesn't need to be significant.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: What is white priviledge if what is white can't be defin
This is circular and question begging. The fact that someone is benefiting does not entail that they are not aware of the benefit. If, as you say, rich white Leftists on college campuses are in fact benefiting, then it follows logically that they are aware. If they were not aware they would not be protesting white privilege. How could they object to something they were not aware of?Yes it does. If the fact that someone is benefiting entails that they are not aware, and rich white Leftists on college campuses are in fact benefiting then it follows logically that they cannot be aware.
Kimmel says:Oh, right. It was Michael Kimmel who popularized the line I am using as a premise there. Are you disagreeing with Kimmel on this? Because if not, then my argument does follow.
He is saying just the opposite of what you think he is saying. His own privilege had been invisible to him but it was no longer invisible. Things are invisible in the dark that become visible when a light is shone.I had to start thinking about them, and it had been privilege that had kept it invisible to me for so long.
All can be used as an absolute, but it is also used to refer to group or class. What is true of a class is not necessarily true of every member of that class. Human beings walk upright, but some humans do not walk at all. When I say “all things considered” I do not mean that I have considered each and every thing. If I say “all are welcome” I do not mean that I am welcoming someone who might be intent on killing me and everyone else present. All in all, “all in all” does not mean either that everything is in everything or that each and every thing that exists or has existed is being included.That is absolutely what you're saying when you say "all." "All" is an absolute.
The problems faced by black men and women are not insignificant because there are homeless white men and rich black NBA players.These alleged problems are clearly insignificant compared to the real situations of real people in real life like my example of the homeless man and the NBA rich kid.
Then you have completely missed the point.My position is that as long as there is one example of a white man who does not benefit from "white privilege" then the claims of a universal, invisible "white privilege" are disproved.
It is misleading because it leads you to assume that it means without exception, which is incorrect."Misleading" meaning incorrect?I think the choice of the word “all” is misleading
If they had to get rid of it, it means it did exist. Whether it still exists I do not know. I do not know what goes on behind the scenes. It certainly does not mean that a white NBA player will no longer enjoy privileges that the black NBA player will not in other areas of life.Did white privilege exist when the NBA got rid of that?Did white privilege exist when blacks were banned from the NBA?
Yes, the practice still exists even though it is officially prohibited.Did white privilege exist when real estate redlining stopped being standard practice?
Of course. In each of these cases you seem to admit that white privilege did exist at some time in the past, but you think it is a thing of the past. And so, if examples could be pointed to where blacks and whites are still treated differently, you would have to admit that white privilege still exists.Did white privilege exist when black men could no longer be arrested on suspicion that they were runaway slaves?
So, now you admit that white privilege does exist but that it is not necessarily a bad thing.I think that if you look strictly at the necessary conditions for "white privilege" to exist, ignoring all accidental conditions, you won't be able to prove that "white privilege" is necessarily a bad thing.
Well, those who benefit might not see it as a bad thing but those who suffer from it certainly do. But if those who benefit from it believe that it is wrong that others should pay the price for their privilege then they will conclude that it is a bad thing.Up to now, I was including the assumption that "white privilege" is an inherently bad thing …
If being black means that you will be treated unfairly by the justice system then how is that not an inherently bad thing? If being black means that you will be denied a job then how is that not an inherently bad thing? If being black means being suspect because one is black how is that not inherently a bad thing?
-
- Posts: 50
- Joined: January 17th, 2012, 11:42 am
Re: What is white priviledge if what is white can't be defin
OK, then privilege is not invisible to those who have t. It can be visible. And furthermore, it's just as possible for blacks to be unaware or black privolege as it is for whites to be unaware of white privilege. Visibility and benefits of privilege have been shown to be completely unrelated.Fooloso4 wrote:lThe fact that someone is benefiting does not entail that they are not aware of the benefit.
That would be an internal logical inconsistency with privilege theory if it includes that premise linking benefit and visibility of privilege.If, as you say, rich white Leftists on college campuses are in fact benefiting, then it follows logically that they are (not) aware. If they were not aware they would not be protesting white privilege. How could they object to something they were not aware of?
OK, then under that usage of "all" I can say statistics show that "all" American blacks commit more crimes than whites.All can be used as an absolute, but it is also used to refer to group or class. What is true of a class is not necessarily true of every member of that class.
Everyone has problems. But because there are homeless white men and rich black NBA players, the problems all individual black men and women face solely as a direct result of white privilege are shown to be insignificant.The problems faced by black men and women are not insignificant because there are homeless white men and rich black NBA players.
Who's point? I've addressed something a great many activists are claiming. Maybe you aren't, but I'm detecting a motte and bailey manouver going on here. The motte is the much more reasonable sounding definition of "white privilege" you're defending, while the bailey is what activists in BLM and Antifa and on college campuses typically say. I strongly suspect that if you were talking to someone like that then you'd readily accept their much more extreme definitions.Then you have completely missed the point.
That is in fact what "all" means. It's not just some private quirk of my own.It is misleading because it leads you to assume that it means without exception, which is incorrect.
No, I think there are different privileges and disadvanrages in every social situation. Sure, some privileges are attached to being white in some situations. Some privileges are also attached to being red, yellow or black in other situations. But all these usually aren't very significant in a society as heavily and radically egalitarian as ours.Of course. In each of these cases you seem to admit that white privilege did exist at some time in the past, but you think it is a thing of the past.
The privileges attached to being wealthy in our society are so significant that any privileges attached to race are absurdly insignificant by comparison.
Sure. I mean, if the definition of the thing changes then my evaluation of whether or not it exists would also have to change.So, now you admit that white privilege does exist but that it is not necessarily a bad thing.
So, if my kid gets a cookie today, and the kid across the street doesn't get a cookie today, the kid across the street is suffering from my kid's cookie privilege?Well, those who benefit might not see it as a bad thing but those who suffer from it certainly do.
You can't do something nice for someone without causing all the people you didn't do that thing for to suffer?
I think you can do something nice for someone without harming someone else.
You haven't established that blacks are being treated unfairly by the justice system or that this is an example of white privilege.If being black means that you will be treated unfairly by the justice system then how is that not an inherently bad thing?
It may be that blacks are treated differently from whites by the justice system. That is a question of facts which you could back up with statistics. But it may be that the way blacks are treated by the justice system is fair, and whites should be treated that way too. Which side of this is fair/unfair is a question of values.
That's illegal.If being black means that you will be denied a job then how is that not an inherently bad thing?
Because it may be grounded in reality.If being black means being suspect because one is black how is that not inherently a bad thing?
-- Updated April 30th, 2017, 12:42 pm to add the following --
I should point out that all the things you mentioned ("treated unfairly by the justice system", "being denied a job" and "being suspect") are still not necessary conditions for white privilege to exist. Please correct me if you actually any of these are necessary conditions! I'm just assuming you'd still answer "yes" that white privilege can exist without these things.
You do know the difference between a necessary condition and a sufficient condition, right? My claim was that if you look strictly at the necessary conditions for white privilege, disregarding all sufficient-but-not-necessary conditions, then you won't be able to show that "white privilege" is inherently wrong or bad from it's necessary conditions alone.
-- Updated April 30th, 2017, 12:47 pm to add the following --
Maybe I could make the thing clearer in different words: If you can find the thing for which you would say, "No, if that wasn't the case then white privilege would be shown to not exist" then my claim is that thing won't turn out to be something inherently bad.
- -1-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
Re: What is white priviledge if what is white can't be defin
If you are full of craph, are you still partly white, that's what you should ask yourself.Roel wrote: If a woman has a jewish father, and an Irish mother and looks completely white, although she is partly jewish and not fully white, is it still white priviledge?
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023