White privilege

[temptotalk]

I know that a lot of perfectly reasonable Americans, of all races, are getting bored of your type of belligerence.

Right. It's all me isn't it Drifterwood. No it isn't those that come onto the site posting nazi flags or the ones that harress women no it's me. You've singled me out specifically because of what i say about race and ignored all others. Good luck on that gun control. Seeing as how your thoughts on race gel completely with many gun owners.

 

[temptotalk]

Rather than white privlege, the real discussion might be around pigmentocracy, as was alluded to earlier in this thread. It appears in many societies and cultures around the world, including Africa, Latin America, and Asia, the lightness (whiteness) of the skin is more valued. It therefore suggests that within races an internal hierarchy (of social and class standing) exists. Maybe the thread should be renamed "Whiteness Privlege."

Right. And where did that come from? Right. If you can't talk about racism and slavery that whole entire conversation falls to pieces anyway. Both reasonably and logically.

Once again, if you can't talk about racism, bigotry and slavery how can you ever...ever hope to have an honest discussion on pigmentation? You can't. It would be like talking about the modernization of man while leaving out the invention of electricity.

 

[Jjz1109]

Right. And where did that come from? Right. If you can't talk about racism and slavery that whole entire conversation falls to pieces anyway. Both reasonably and logically.

Once again, if you can't talk about racism, bigotry and slavery how can you ever...ever hope to have an honest discussion on pigmentation? You can't. It would be like talking about the modernization of man while leaving out the invention of electricity.

Is this not legitimate? I think a "whiteness privlege" discussion would garner more support in general. It's more PC. Also probably less offensive to our white brothers and sisters.

 

[temptotalk]

Ok.


Whoa, whoa. Is this not legitimate? I actually think a whiteness privlege would garner more general. support. It's also more PC, less offensive to our white brothers and sisters.

Nope my good buddy. Not saying it isn't legitimate. But how exactly are you going to talk about pigmentation fully while avoiding the discussion of racism, bigotry AND slavery. Cause we aren't just talking minor cherry picked pieces of information and history. To talk about pigmentation and the effects of it....sooner or later you'll have to broach the subjects of.....racism, bigotry, religion, geography, culture, economy, health, politics and a megafuck ton of other issues.

And currently speaking, Drifterwood thinks i'm a racist for even bringing white privilege up, which is only an after effect of racism. Soooo if you can't talk about racism, bigotry or slavery without being called a racist then it isn't possible to have an honest discussion about pigmentation. And it's not my doing. (Raises hand)

Hell to bring up the topic of pigmentation you'd also have to bring up why people thing theres differences in them. Which would point to how and why scientist pointed toward pigmentation as a difference to begin with.

No matter which way you go on talking about race you'll inevitably have to talk about racism, bigotry and slavery. And once again, if you can't talk about any of those things.....there is no real discussion. The want to talk about these things are valid. The ability to....once again....gets derailed the second you can't talk about an aspect of it.

Once more, it's like talking about the modernization of man while leaving electricity out completely. Sure, it seems like you're talking about it but ultimately you're only doing so in the most casual of ways without actually looking for solutions.

 

[Drifterwood]

Right. It's all me isn't it Drifterwood. No it isn't those that come onto the site posting nazi flags or the ones that harress women no it's me. You've singled me out specifically because of what i say about race and ignored all others. Good luck on that gun control. Seeing as how your thoughts on race gel completely with many gun owners.

You know I quite like you, but you need to improve your reading skills. I said your type of belligerence, type of belligerence. That isn't just your belligerence, but your type of belligerence.

 

[temptotalk]

You know I quite like you, but you need to improve your reading skills. I said your type of belligerence, type of belligerence. That isn't just your belligerence, but your type of belligerence.

Well i guess we're quite similar then. There are many people i like and/or enjoy, difference being i'm the social version of willy wonka (aka weird). And as far as my type of belligerence...yeah i don't really know what you mean by that. From my perspective,.....which could be wrong since no one is perfect but seems on average to be spot on, most times i'm matching ideology for fake ideology of the same caliber. Which should to all intents and purposes nullify a person's argument that was either created from bias or was influenced by it.

Sort of like an "I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude!" - Kirk Lazarus.

Except a little more like a Yo dawg, i heard you like....and since you like or agree with this then you should like or agree with that. Most times i'm not even stating a full on opinion but pointing out what i see as contradictions or a hypocritical idea. Other then that i'm just plain asking questions. And other then that i'm curious. Then further i'm silly and slightly annoying.

What you see as aggressive or warlike behavior is not in fact that. Of course though, you are free to express your opinions. I just say good luck on being able to have discussions when you're completely ignoring certains things that have everything to do with the actual discussion. Cause the less you know of something or the more you ignore the less of a chance you'll have to fix it and any issue tied to it. And it just so happens that race is damn near directly tied to the issue of gun control. Especially right now...today...these few events...i don't know how else to point that out because i'm pretty much barred from talking about.....

Racism
Bigotry
White privilege
And slavery

All of these things play a part in a whole gaggle of other things and the less you can talk about it the less will actually get fixed. Does that at all sound familiar Drifterwood? Weren't you saying something similar in a private conversation?

So, what is and isn't acceptable to talk about? I mean, you're the self proclaimed master here with the privilege of saying what is or isn't and who is or isn't. So, how can you talk about the history of the world....while ignoring the history of the world?

 

[Drifterwood]

So, what is and isn't acceptable to talk about? I mean, you're the self proclaimed master here with the privilege of saying what is or isn't and who is or isn't. So, how can you talk about the history of the world....while ignoring the history of the world?

You can talk about anything that takes your whim. So can I.

28 million Africans were taken and sold by Africans to Arab Slave traders. 1.2 million Africans were taken and sold by Africans to North American Slave traders and most of these after the Louisiana purchase by the proclaimers of all men being equal.

Do you know how many people are slaves today?

 

[temptotalk]

You can talk about anything that takes your whim. So can I.

28 million Africans were taken and sold by Africans to Arab Slave traders. 1.2 million Africans were taken and sold by Africans to North American Slave traders and most of these after the Louisiana purchase by the proclaimers of all men being equal.

Do you know how many people are slaves today?

Ok since i can talk about anything and anyone i want. What race, gender and sexuality has done the most horrible things than any other race, gender and sexuality during the entire span of the human race?

And i might add. If you can call me a racist for making that point. Shouldn't you be called a racist for making your point?

Oh and this includes religion, politics and anything else you can come up with. Oh and it includes republicans. It includes what is currently happening as well as what has already happened. And it includes legislation currently on the books as well as ceos actions. It also includes the environment. And the social ideals that got the human race where it is today. It includes bombs, wars and healthcare. It also includes sexism. Ideals that were adopted by the majority because of social ideals and the people who started and re-enforced those ideals.

In short, it includes everything humanity has done, is doing and will do. Gun control, suicide, homophobia, sexism, elitism and any category you can attribute to human beings.

Soooo who has been, is and will be thee worse of them all across the board no questions asked?

That is....because you want to play the blacks behaving badly game.

 

[StormfrontFL]

I thought that it was clear from my post that what I was saying was what I said rather than your rather lame attempt to start putting words into my mouth.

I will leave you guys to carry on.

I did check out the US media.

I imagine some of you will call him rude names.

You are so like Trump....saying much but saying nothing. You call a thread about race racist. You call Tempt a racist for discussing race but are unusually silent when certain people post that blacks are criminals or less intelligent. Where was your cry then? Discussing white privilege isn't racist. As stated before taking advantage of a privilege isn't racist or wrong. It's actually smart. The problem is when you accept a privilege while aware that someone else is being robbed of disadvantaged in order to give you that privilege.

Quite telling that of all the many reports on many different instances you pick only one that supports your theory.

 

[deleted15807]

Actually I would say exactly the same about you. I have provided a link to wiktionary that gives three definitions. You have linked to two sites that give a single definition. That definition being narrow and relating to your experience in America. Your definition supports the lie that groups who have suffered racism can't be racist themselves. Got it.

Do you think women can't be sexist then?

Nothing in your link matches up with your definition. Ahhh and out comes the typical 'I'm not racist but you certainly are." And your evidence? Just discussing the advantages of being the majority and the privilege that goes along with it. We are to pretend it doesn't exist when even just last week the first African American woman to ever win an Emmy for Best Actress. I wonder why all the others were white women? Was it a privilege that made that possible? Was it racism? No of course not. Just by nothing that fact makes me racist and I suppose even the writer that noted that fact is in fact racist. Not the academy that never voted for a black woman or the industry that didn't give big roles to black women.

.

 

[deleted15807]

Rather than white privlege, the real discussion might be around pigmentocracy, as was alluded to earlier in this thread. It appears in many societies and cultures around the world, including Africa, Latin America, and Asia, the lightness (whiteness) of the skin is more valued. It therefore suggests that within races an internal hierarchy (of social and class standing) exists. Maybe the thread should be renamed "Whiteness Privlege."

The term is colorism - Throughout the numerous pigmentocracies across the world, the lightest-skinned peoples have the highest social status, followed by the brown-skinned, and finally the black-skinned who are at the bottom of the social hierarchy.

 

[StormfrontFL]

 

[Mercurygirl]

I imagine some of you will call him rude names.

A man asking the logical questions and holding the correct people accountable. Love it.

I really don't know how Driftwood and Jjz can keep up the mostly off-topic dialogue of absurd accusations and doublespeak by their racially blinded opponents but bravo to them.

 

[b.c.]

Nothing in your link matches up with your definition. Ahhh and out comes the typical 'I'm not racist but you certainly are." And your evidence? Just discussing the advantages of being the majority and the privilege that goes along with it. We are to pretend it doesn't exist when even just last week the first African American woman to ever win an Emmy for Best Actress. I wonder why all the others were white women? Was it a privilege that made that possible? Was it racism? No of course not. Just by nothing that fact makes me racist and I suppose even the writer that noted that fact is in fact racist. Not the academy that never voted for a black woman or the industry that didn't give big roles to black women. .

Well, Sargon, that's because in THEIR minds (like black people who don't get certain jobs, promotions, or CEO positions) NONE of the black actresses were ever QUALIFIED to win.

SURELY it had NOTHING to do with privilege or racism.

You are so like Trump....saying much but saying nothing. You call a thread about race racist. You call Tempt a racist for discussing race but are unusually silent when certain people post that blacks are criminals or less intelligent. Where was your cry then? Discussing white privilege isn't racist. As stated before taking advantage of a privilege isn't racist or wrong. It's actually smart. The problem is when you accept a privilege while aware that someone else is being robbed of disadvantaged in order to give you that privilege.

Quite telling that of all the many reports on many different instances you pick only one that supports your theory.

Either that, or they cherry-pick through millions of opinions and op-ed's to find whatever black people they CAN who SEEM to support their point of view.

Why? Because if you can find another Clarence Thomas, then all THEY say (and everything they IGNORE) must be LEGIT.

 

[deleted15807]

Well, Sargon, that's because in THEIR minds (like black people who don't get certain jobs, promotions, or CEO positions) NONE of the black actresses were ever QUALIFIED to win.

SURELY it had NOTHING to do with privilege or racism.

And that's the worst of all possible beliefs as now you've not slid right into home base white supremacy. Next up "let's take America back" bumper stickers.

 

[Jjz1109]

Well by now, it should be abundantly clear that the OP was a farce to enter into an agenda. Call it pigmentocracy (sorry Sargon, it is a term increasingly being used by social scientists - Google it) or colorism, the suggestion is that "whiteness" is a privlege. To acknowledge white privlege is to acknowledge any light colored skin as a privlege within all races. Does it not having anything to do racism, since many cultures who embrace this may not have slavery, as it was mentioned, in their histories? Or does it, in fact, have to do with racism, and the desire by some to be white because that is viewed as preferable? Are there hierarchies within races, and is this racism? And nope, not blaming the victim as I am so lovingly always accused; I am asking an honest, soul searching question, especially of those without privlege.

If the OP was sincere, then this is a legitimate follow up. Otherwise, call it for what might be its true intent, to link white privlege to racism.

 

[Klingsor]

Well by now, it should be abundantly clear that the OP was a farce to enter into an agenda. Call it pigmentocracy (sorry Sargon, it is a term increasingly being used by social scientists - Google it) or colorism, the suggestion is that "whiteness" is a privlege. To acknowledge white privlege is to acknowledge any light colored skin as a privlege within all races. Does it not having anything to do racism, since many cultures who embrace this may not have slavery, as it was mentioned, in their histories? Or does it, in fact, have to do with racism, and the desire by some to be white because that is viewed as preferable? Are there hierarchies within races, and is this racism? And nope, not blaming the victim as I am so lovingly always accused; I am asking an honest, soul searching question, especially of those without privlege.

If the OP was sincere, then this is a legitimate follow up. Otherwise, call it for what might be its true intent, to link white privlege to racism.

It's still not clear to me what this adds to the discussion. Surely basing privilege or disadvantage on skin color, under any circumstances, is an injustice to be fought against. That's certainly true in the U.S. manifestation.

 

[b.c.]

It's still not clear to me what this adds to the discussion. Surely basing privilege or disadvantage on skin color, under any circumstances, is an injustice to be fought against. That's certainly true in the U.S. manifestation.

It's all just more of the QUITE predictable Jjz kind of response, straight from the handbook employed by bigots, certain conservatives, assorted deniers of fact, and others of that ilk (whichever to which he may belong). The tactics:

• obfuscate
• dismiss
• deny
• shift the focus
• shift the blame
• villainize the victim and those who call out the injustice as being "the problem" or having "an agenda"
• dismiss statistics and links as coming from biased sources (file under: "won't follow a link without first knowing where it'll go")
• divide and conquer (as in, find ANY minority who disparages the rest)
• put words in other's mouths via straw man bullshit suppositions
• create their OWN version of the "truth"
• and otherwise, when all else fails, totally IGNORE the issue and all evidence provided.

Hence, a person who hasn't so much as ACKNOWLEDGED the unfairness of stop and frisk, who's offered NO commentary on DOZENS of stories on police misconduct and racial disparites, who's dismissed reported differences in the treatment of minorities in VARIOUS scenarios, including medical care, who believes black celebrities and athletes are responsible for setting example for other blacks, who believes 97% of black people voted for Obama because he's black - and who's come HERE to deny the existence of white privilege and its effects when COUPLED with institutionalized discrimination...

... is the SAME person who NOW wants to dictate the topic of discussion.

 

[deleted15807]

It's all just more of the QUITE predictable Jjz kind of response, straight from the handbook employed by bigots, certain conservatives, assorted deniers of fact, and others of that ilk (whichever to which he may belong). The tactics:

• obfuscate
• dismiss
• deny
• shift the focus
• shift the blame
• villainize the victim and those who call out the injustice as being "the problem" or having "an agenda"
• dismiss statistics and links as coming from biased sources (file under: "won't follow a link without first knowing where it'll go")
• divide and conquer (as in, find ANY minority who disparages the rest)
• put words in other's mouths via straw man bullshit suppositions
• create their OWN version of the "truth"
• and otherwise, when all else fails, totally IGNORE the issue and all evidence provided.

Hence, a person who hasn't so much as ACKNOWLEDGED the unfairness of stop and frisk, who's offered NO commentary on DOZENS of stories on police misconduct and racial disparites, who's dismissed reported differences in the treatment of minorities in VARIOUS scenarios, including medical care, who believes black celebrities and athletes are responsible for setting example for other blacks, who believes 97% of black people voted for Obama because he's black - and who's come HERE to deny the existence of white privilege and its effects when COUPLED with institutionalized discrimination...

... is the SAME person who NOW wants to dictate the topic of discussion.

Yep..that pretty much NAILS the strategy. Meanwhile back-at-the-ranch why won't minorities vote for us?

 

[tripod]

Gimme a f**king break... White Privilege isn't about melanin.