What is white priviledge if what is white can't be defined?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
User avatar
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

Post by Mgrinder »

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.
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
Posts: 50
Joined: January 17th, 2012, 11:42 am

Re: What is white priviledge if what is white can't be defin

Post by BenMcLean »

I don't think blacks or American Indians came up with privilege theory as an ideology, no.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: What is white priviledge if what is white can't be defin

Post by Fooloso4 »

BenMcLean:
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.
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.
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.
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:
… are automatically bestowed by virtue of someone’s race, gender, sexuality and so on.
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.

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.
BenMcLean
Posts: 50
Joined: January 17th, 2012, 11:42 am

Re: What is white priviledge if what is white can't be defin

Post by BenMcLean »

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 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".
The fact that other white people who have to work are less concerned is also irrelevant to 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.
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.
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?
It means “all” as a class or group.
That doesn't seem to contradict what I said or the conclusion I drew from it.
The issue of privilege and the question of who is privileged are not the same.
They were in the source you were quoting from. It said all whites, which would include the whites in my hypothetical.
User avatar
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

Post by Mgrinder »

BenMcLean wrote:I don't think blacks or American Indians came up with privilege theory as an ideology, no.
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.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: What is white priviledge if what is white can't be defin

Post by Fooloso4 »

BenMcLean:
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".
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'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.
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.
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?
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.
That doesn't seem to contradict what I said or the conclusion I drew from it.
And just what that conclusion is puzzles me.
The issue of privilege and the question of who is privileged are not the same.
They were in the source you were quoting from. It said all whites, which would include the whites in my hypothetical.
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.
BenMcLean
Posts: 50
Joined: January 17th, 2012, 11:42 am

Re: What is white priviledge if what is white can't be defin

Post by BenMcLean »

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
Yes 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.)
No it's not! You can read it for yourself: it's a statement about "all whites" without qualification.

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
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: What is white priviledge if what is white can't be defin

Post by Fooloso4 »

BenMcLean:
If the fact that someone is benefitting entails that they are not aware …
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.

This is what the source you cited says:
… whiteness is often invisible to white people …
Often does not mean always or necessarily.
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.
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.

I have not commented on anything I can make no sense of because of formatting problems.
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."
Except there is no such rule that white privilege must remain invisible to those who are white.
No it's not! You can read it for yourself: it's a statement about "all whites" without qualification.
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:
‘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?
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: What is white priviledge if what is white can't be defin

Post by Nick_A »

LuckyR wrote:
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.
Are you trying to imply that the victims of a systemically unfair system are wrong to be resentful of that unequal environment?
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.
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: What is white priviledge if what is white can't be defin

Post by LuckyR »

BenMcLean wrote:[Edited]

-- Updated April 27th, 2017, 1:47 pm to add the following --
LuckyR wrote:Are you trying to imply that the victims of a systemically unfair system are wrong to be resentful of that unequal environment?
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.
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?

Ya really wanna go with that?
"As usual... it depends."
Dolphin42
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

Post by Dolphin42 »

I'd say white privilege exists only in the same sense that people have a natural advantage in life due to any other visible physical characteristic. For example, I think there is such a thing as good-looking privilege. Other things being equal (or perhaps even if other things aren't equal), good-looking people do better in life than people whom society (there's that word again) generally regards as ugly. C'est la vie.
BenMcLean
Posts: 50
Joined: January 17th, 2012, 11:42 am

Re: What is white priviledge if what is white can't be defin

Post by BenMcLean »

OK, here is that post fixed:
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
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.

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.
What I said is that having to work is irrelevant to the problem of white privilege.
Clearly it can't be that much of a problem, then!
Why would you think I am telling you something that I did not say?
It was a question 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."
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 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)

So this ends up with poor people having privilege and rich people not having 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.
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 also suspect that many white students and their parents would scoff at the idea that they benefitted from some kind of privilege.
Exactly like you do when someone questions privilege theory.
And so, most will dismiss any talk of privilege as nonsense.
What? That doesn't follow.

Remember, my position is that wealth privilege is real and white privilege is paranoid ideological fantasy.
The statement that all whites benefit from white privilege is a statement about what actually happens in places where white privilege exists.
No it's not! You can read it for yourself: it's a statement about "all whites" without qualification.

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.
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.
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.
Often does not mean always or necessarily.
That was about "whiteness" while this was about "privilege."
That is not what the theory says.
That is absolutely what the theory says and you know it.
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.
That is absolutely what you're saying when you say "all." "All" is an absolute.
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.
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.
Except there is no such rule that white privilege must remain invisible to those who are white.
You are clinging to this statement about “all X” as if it were the formulation of an inviolable universal law of human nature.
That's what "all X" means.
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.
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.
I think the choice of the word “all” is misleading
"Misleading" meaning incorrect?
Did white privilege exist when blacks were banned from the NBA?
Did white privilege exist when the NBA got rid of that?
Did white privilege exist when real estate redlining was standard practice?
Did white privilege exist when real estate redlining stopped being standard practice?
Did white privilege exist when black men could be arrested on suspicion that they were runaway slaves?
Did white privilege exist when black men could no longer 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.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: What is white priviledge if what is white can't be defin

Post by Fooloso4 »

BenMcLean:
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.
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?
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.
Kimmel says:
I had to start thinking about them, and it had been privilege that had kept it invisible to me for so long.
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.
That is absolutely what you're saying when you say "all." "All" is an absolute.
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.
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.
The problems faced by black men and women are not insignificant because there are homeless white men and rich black NBA players.
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.
Then you have completely missed the point.
I think the choice of the word “all” is misleading
"Misleading" meaning incorrect?
It is misleading because it leads you to assume that it means without exception, which is incorrect.
Did white privilege exist when blacks were banned from the NBA?
Did white privilege exist when the NBA got rid of that?
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 real estate redlining stopped being standard practice?
Yes, the practice still exists even though it is officially prohibited.
Did white privilege exist when black men could no longer be arrested on suspicion that they were runaway slaves?
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.
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.
So, now you admit that white privilege does exist but that it is not necessarily a bad thing.
Up to now, I was including the assumption that "white privilege" is an inherently 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.

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?
BenMcLean
Posts: 50
Joined: January 17th, 2012, 11:42 am

Re: What is white priviledge if what is white can't be defin

Post by BenMcLean »

Fooloso4 wrote:lThe fact that someone is benefiting does not entail that they are not aware of the benefit.
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.
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?
That would be an internal logical inconsistency with privilege theory if it includes that premise linking benefit and visibility of privilege.
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.
OK, then under that usage of "all" I can say statistics show that "all" American blacks commit more crimes than whites.
The problems faced by black men and women are not insignificant because there are homeless white men and rich black NBA players.
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.
Then you have completely missed the point.
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.
It is misleading because it leads you to assume that it means without exception, which is incorrect.
That is in fact what "all" means. It's not just some private quirk of my own.
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.
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.

The privileges attached to being wealthy in our society are so significant that any privileges attached to race are absurdly insignificant by comparison.
So, now you admit that white privilege does exist but that it is not necessarily a bad thing.
Sure. I mean, if the definition of the thing changes then my evaluation of whether or not it exists would also have to change.
Well, those who benefit might not see it as a bad thing but those who suffer from it certainly do.
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?

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.
If being black means that you will be treated unfairly by the justice system then how is that not an inherently bad thing?
You haven't established that blacks are being treated unfairly by the justice system or that this is an example of white privilege.

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.
If being black means that you will be denied a job then how is that not an inherently bad thing?
That's illegal.
If being black means being suspect because one is black how is that not inherently a bad thing?
Because it may be grounded in reality.

-- 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.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: What is white priviledge if what is white can't be defin

Post by -1- »

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?
If you are full of craph, are you still partly white, that's what you should ask yourself.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021