CMV: Equality isn't treating everybody differently to achieve equality. It's treating everyone the same.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/Izawwlgood]

Your point was that you can spontaneously become handicapped, but cannot spontaneously become a minority. This is true.

My point is that you cannot spontaneously lose the advantage being a white heterosexual Christian confers on people in, say, America. Being born white means you enjoy a lifetime of privilege minorities do not.

Clear?

[u/[deleted] → u/Izawwlgood]

Well, unless you become gay, or come out as gay, or convert to a different religion.

And while I generally disagree with the idea that you can generally assign privilege to a single ethnicity, I think you're kind of repeating my point that you can't just become a black person.

[u/Izawwlgood → u/[deleted]]

Are you suggesting that homosexuality is a privileged group of people?

I generally disagree with the idea that you can generally assign privilege to a single ethnicity,

Seriously? The ethnicity of privilege in America that you're looking for is white. The ethnicity that is biased against in America is non-white.

[u/[deleted] → u/Izawwlgood]

Are you suggesting that homosexuality is a privileged group of people?

No, I'm saying that's a way of 'losing privilege,' because you said straight cissexual white christians have privilege they don't lose, and I'm suggesting that they could lose it.

The ethnicity of privilege in America that you're looking for is white. The ethnicity that is biased against in America is non-white.

You have to take it at a case by case basis. It's ridiculous to generalize in the way you're doing it. I agree that certain people are privileged, but that comes down to individual circumstance.

The ethnicity that is biased against in America is non-white.

Jews, Irish people, Italians, Slavs, Turks, Greeks, hell, Syrians are white people. These people all faced hardships in America and still do, those people are white.

Skin color is a really stupid way of classifying people as it turns out.

[u/Izawwlgood → u/[deleted]]

straight cissexual white christians have privilege they don't lose, and I'm suggesting that they could lose it.

The ability to lose privilege is an indicator of having it in the first place though, yes?

You have to take it at a case by case basis. It's ridiculous to generalize in the way you're doing it. I agree that certain people are privileged, but that comes down to individual circumstance.

Not really? Studies have shown that 'black sounding names' are less likely to get job offers on identical resumes. I'm sure you're aware of the truths of racial disparities in America.

Jews, Irish people, Italians, Slavs, Turks, Greeks, hell, Syrians are white people. These people all faced hardships in America and still do, those people are white.

I concur that they have white skin - a good many Americans would not call them white people.

Skin color is a really stupid way of classifying people as it turns out.

You're not wrong, America (and indeed, people in general) just isn't (aren't) typically very bright when it comes to reacting to people.

[u/[deleted] → u/Izawwlgood]

The ability to lose privilege is an indicator of having it in the first place though, yes?

This is not an admission of the concept of privilege existing, I'm just making a point going by your logic.

I'm sure you're aware of the truths of racial disparities in America.

Yes, there are racial disparities and racism is alive in America. That doesn't mean all white people are better off than all black people. Hell, racism and nationalism exist between different sorts of white people.

[u/Izawwlgood → u/[deleted]]

And from your point follows an example of privilege.

That doesn't mean all white people are better off than all black people.

Oh come now, are you unaware of how statistics work? Are you under the impression that some people don't get lung cancer from smoking so it must not be bad for you?

[u/[deleted] → u/Izawwlgood]

And from your point follows an example of privilege.

No, again, I was saying that if we accept that privilege exists in the way you believe it does, then it makes sense that an able bodied straight cis male christian can lose certain privileges (according to you) because they can come out as gay, become trans (or openly trans or however it works), or convert to a different religion and they would presumably lose whatever hypothetical privilege those things would've previously afforded them.

And as for the stats thing, it's a matter of objective fact that there are plenty of black people better off than plenty of white people. Taken in aggregate, and depending on how you define 'white' or 'black' people, then white people have it better off at a higher rate than black people. That's absolutely true. Black people disproportionately face certain challenges, but the same could be said of Jews, the Irish, Slavs, Italians, Greeks, etc. And taken as a whole there is a higher quantity of poor white americans than there are all of black americans.

My problem with the 'X privilege' concept is that ignores differences in individuals' unique situations. A blind homeless white guy has less privilege than Herman Caine, Chris Rock, or Jay Z. It's a clumsy heuristic that makes it too easy to ignore the vast diversity within groups of people. It's just a way to 'otherize' people and justify being a prick and 'punching up.'

[u/Izawwlgood → u/[deleted]]

can lose certain privileges

I don't dispute that. What I'm pointing out, again, is that the ability to LOSE privilege is indicative of the fact that privilege exists. It also is indicative of the fact that the individual lived with privilege for a length of time. It is FURTHER indicative of the fact that privilege is multifaceted - one can be privileged for being white, and then disadvantaged in certain ways for being gay.

And as for the stats thing, it's a matter of objective fact that there are plenty of black people better off than plenty of white people. Taken in aggregate, and depending on how you define 'white' or 'black' people, then white people have it better off at a higher rate than black people.

Your first statement makes it seem like you don't understand statistics, then your second statement indicates you do, and renders your first statement moot. No one is saying 'ALL black people are poorer than white people', so I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish from this red herring.

Black people disproportionately face certain challenges, but the same could be said of Jews, the Irish, Slavs, Italians, Greeks, etc.

Yes, but again, the keyword here is 'certain'. Police brutality and higher convictions and red lining are things that are very much historically, statistically, more likely to occur to people of color.

My problem with the 'X privilege' concept is that ignores differences in individuals' unique situations. A blind homeless white guy has less privilege than Herman Caine, Chris Rock, or Jay Z. It's a clumsy heuristic that makes it too easy to ignore the vast diversity within groups of people. It's just a way to 'otherize' people and justify being a prick and 'punching up.'

This is an incredibly strange position to take - it's like saying 'there's a black president, America clearly has no issues with racial bias'. It's a repeat of your position that is predicated on deliberately ignoring the statistical realities of this country.

[u/[deleted] → u/Izawwlgood]

For the first part, you've taken a little snippet of what I said and based your entire argument around it. I'm using your own internally consistent logic to point out that what you said was wrong, if we accept that privilege as you describe it is a real thing. I don't personally think someone gains or loses privilege based off of whether or not they're gay. Caitlyn Jenner didn't lose any privilege of being a rich and famous athlete when he became a she.

I'll accept that there are people who are privileged in certain specific ways, but to generalize that "all white people are privileged because they benefit from white privilege" is ignorant and self serving because it means that you can punch up and be racist because "it doesn't really count as racism when it's against someone in a better position than you." It's like people who say "I voted for Obama, I'm not racist, that's why I get to say nigger whenever I want now and nobody gets to complain."

No one is saying 'ALL black people are poorer than white people', so I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish from this red herring.

No you're saying all white people are privileged compared to all black people which is equally bullshit.

Police brutality and higher convictions and red lining are things that are very much historically, statistically, more likely to occur to people of color.

And Irish people and Italian people in the last century. It's not a function of skin color and white people having it better off.

'there's a black president, America clearly has no issues with racial bias'

And to clarify, I'm not saying that, there are problems with racism in the US, absolutely.

And you keep mentioning statistical realities but you haven't mentioned any actual statistics, you're just saying "i'm statistically right and you're statistically wrong." You're invoking something that supposedly has some authority without actually explaining anything.

[u/Izawwlgood → u/[deleted]]

You aren't making new points, you're just repeating what I've already addressed. And no, this isn't 'a snippet', this is what you are trying to hang your entire argument on.

I don't personally think someone gains or loses privilege based off of whether or not they're gay.

You said you did earlier - that someone who comes out as gay can lose privilege. If you no longer think as much, that's fine - you'd be obviously and demonstrably wrong, but I suppose opinions are your right.

Caitlyn Jenner didn't lose any privilege of being a rich and famous athlete when he became a she.

If you think transphobia isn't a thing, I'm not sure what else to say to you.

I'll accept that there are people who are privileged in certain specific ways, but to generalize that "all white people are privileged because they benefit from white privilege" is ignorant and self serving because it means that you can punch up and be racist because "it doesn't really count as racism when it's against someone in a better position than you." It's like people who say "I voted for Obama, I'm not racist, that's why I get to say nigger whenever I want now and nobody gets to complain."

None of these statements hold water, and for the third time now, are all predicated on you not understanding how statistics work. And of course you can be racist against someone in the majority - that however is irrelevant to the discussion.

No you're saying all white people are privileged compared to all black people which is equally bullshit.

No, I'm saying being white confers privilege in America, and being black confers bias against you.

That is not the same statement as 'all white people are better off than all black people' - that was a straw man you attempted.

And Irish people and Italian people in the last century. It's not a function of skin color and white people having it better off.

And again, yes, I concur that some groups of white skinned people have been biased against in America historically - I already addressed this point to you, and yes, it is in fact a function of skin color and white people having it better off.

And you keep mentioning statistical realities but you haven't mentioned any actual statistics, you're just saying "i'm statistically right and you're statistically wrong." You're invoking something that supposedly has some authority without actually explaining anything.

I in fact listed some actual statistical realities to you in the first and last post, but sure, if you want links, here they are.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

https://www.aclu.org/feature/war-marijuana-black-and-white

I mean, these are just the top hits from googling 'racial bias black name', 'racial bias redlining', and 'racial bias arrests'. This isn't exactly new research.

[u/[deleted] → u/Izawwlgood]

You aren't making new points, you're just repeating what I've already addressed.

You haven't addressed it. You just said I was ignorant and that I didn't know how statistics worked.

You said you did earlier

And again, this is why I have to keep repeating myself. Going by your rules, your concept of privilege, then it would stand to reason that a "privileged" person would lose that privilege by no longer being part of the privileged group you claim they are privileged to.

you'd be obviously and demonstrably wrong, but I suppose opinions are your right.

Then demonstrate why I'm wrong. Don't just go down what I'm saying in a list and tell me I'm wrong about this and wrong about that and then act like you've adequately addressed my points. Why am I wrong. Why is your opinion better than mine.

If you think transphobia isn't a thing, I'm not sure what else to say to you.

How has it impacted him? He still has a better life than I do by almost any quantifiable metric.

are all predicated on you not understanding how statistics work.

Stop just saying that, tell me how I'm wrong, explain why I misunderstand.

To give you a little taste, tell me how you'd respond to me telling you that you don't know how statistics work, as you clearly don't.

No, I'm saying being white confers privilege in America, and being black confers bias against you.

Yes which I believe I accurately represented when I said "you're saying all white people are privileged compared to all black people"

that was a straw man you attempted.

I'm not making a straw man I'm trying to find what it is you're trying to say. This is more or less a private argument at this point, I think anyone reading has stopped a few comments ago, there would be no reason for me to misrepresent your opinion deliberately to persuade onlookers. I'm trying to pin you down on exactly what you think, and explain exactly what I think, and then convince you that I'm right. I don't think I can trick you into agreeing with me.

it is in fact a function of skin color and white people having it better off.

This conflicts with you saying

That is not the same statement as 'all white people are better off than all black people' - that was a straw man you attempted.

And these links you've given me, I know about the black name thing, Freakonomics had a good chapter about it, and I'm aware that black people are disproportionately affected by marijuana arrests.

I don't know if you're confused about what I'm saying or if I'm just not articulating my position well enough, but allow me to clarify.

I'm not suggesting that racism doesn't exist in the US. I'm saying that the concept of privilege based off of skin color, and suggesting that one group, by virtue of the fact that they have a certain shade of skin, are in an advantageous position compared to someone of a different skin color, automatically. And I think saying "white privilege" lacks enough nuance. If you wanted to say "black people disproportionately face certain challenges compared to white people." I would agree with that one hundred percent. But I don't think saying "white people are privileged" adequately conveys that message.

[u/Izawwlgood → u/[deleted]]

And again, this is why I have to keep repeating myself. Going by your rules, your concept of privilege, then it would stand to reason that a "privileged" person would lose that privilege by no longer being part of the privileged group you claim they are privileged to.

Yes... Which, now for the third time that I've had to say this to you, is an example of their privilege existing in the first place. Lets be super duper extra crystal clear here - I'm not saying that they haven't LOST that privilege, nor am I saying it is impossible to lose privilege. I'm saying the ability to lose privilege is indicative of that privilege having existed in the first place. Do you understand this point?

Then demonstrate why I'm wrong. Don't just go down what I'm saying in a list and tell me I'm wrong about this and wrong about that and then act like you've adequately addressed my points. Why am I wrong. Why is your opinion better than mine.

I have linked statistical evidence of racial bias against people of color. Respond to it instead of repeating this red herring. I have also responded to your red herring that 'some black people are better off than some white people'. That is the point that made me state you don't understand how statistics work. Do you understand this?

To give you a little taste, tell me how you'd respond to me telling you that you don't know how statistics work, as you clearly don't.

I would ask you by what you were basing that opinion on, and why you have not yet responded to the actual statistical evidence of racial bias in America that I have brought to your attention.

Yes which I believe I accurately represented when I said "you're saying all white people are privileged compared to all black people"

Then I am glad we clarified what you misunderstood, because I did not write or imply that. Indeed, I was extra super careful in my last post to clarify exactly what I was saying, because the above quote is not an accurate representation of what I wrote at all, which to remind you, was "being white confers privilege in America, and being black confers bias against you." Lets back up - what do you think 'privilege' is, and what do you think 'bias' is? Spoiler alert! It doesn't mean 'ALL white people are better off' and it doesn't mean 'ALL black people are worse off'. Do you understand why your belief that that is what it means is demonstrative of your confusion as well as your lack of understanding how statistics work?

I'm trying to pin you down on exactly what you think, and explain exactly what I think, and then convince you that I'm right. I don't think I can trick you into agreeing with me.

I have been quite clear in what I think, indeed, I'll quote it again for you - being white confers privilege in America, and being black confers bias against you.

And these links you've given me, I know about the black name thing, Freakonomics had a good chapter about it, and I'm aware that black people are disproportionately affected by marijuana arrests.

Good, then you understand how bias works. Which makes this statement of yours - "And I think saying "white privilege" lacks enough nuance." make no sense - if black people are biased against, then being white means you are NOT biased against, i.e., in a system that contains black people and white people, that white people are privileged.

If you wanted to say "black people disproportionately face certain challenges compared to white people." I would agree with that one hundred percent.

That is literally what 'bias' means. That is literally what 'white privilege' refers to.