F*** "White Privelege."

[konradv]

Now you're qualifying your statement. A sure sign you lost the argument. In truth parties recruit candidates and different factions offer inducements, sometimes to declare and sometimes to stay out.

What's wrong with qualifying a statement? It often has to be done to help those out who aren't that quick on the uptake. Was Trump offered an inducement to run or did he decide that on his own? I don't envy your predicament. You have to prove that no candidate entered the race of his/her own volition. Do you really think the Republican Party thought it was a good idea to have that many candidates? Also, considering the number, one woman and one black is under-representation. Given that there are only three declared Democratic candidates, one women and no blacks is hardly out of whack with statistical probability. Since we've had a black Democratic president for the last eight years, it's stretching credulity to suggest that the lack of a black candidate now is a sign of racism.

 

[SwimExpert]

The concept of 'white privilege' is valid, and it exists. The problem is that, like so many race relation subjects, it's instantly perverted and warped into something nonsensical.

Sure, there's 'white privilege.' As an example, research has shown that identical resumes will receive more attention and generate more interviews when headed by a 'white sounding' name than when headed with an ethnic name. There is no doubt that there is a bias at work accounting for the marked discrepancy in frequency of response.

The problem is when race baiters take a piece of information like this, and they extrapolate wild ideas that everything that all white people have comes from white privilege. Or, the inverse, which is that all black people are perpetually undermined by an absence of white privilege. Or, perhaps the most insidious inferences that are often drawn, that all white people have an inherent degree of racism or that all black people are inherently victims of racism.

I personally end up with a front row seat of how this nonsense plays out. I'm Hispanic. According to the "theory" I'm not subject to white privilege. But on the other hand, nothing about my life reflects the typical "poor oppressed minority" storyline. By and large, my life has played out with the absence of any bias, favorable or unfavorable, associated with race. Nobody has hired me because I'm Hispanic. Nobody has denied me work because I'm Hispanic. The closest I've experienced was dating a girl back in high school whose parents forbade her from dating me because they were flaming racists. We dated anyway. For a while, at least. Eventually her parents found out and threatened to kick her out of the house, and at that was the end of that. That sucked. Ironically, about a year later she was taking after her parents and had some pretty ugly racist shit to say to my younger sister. But I quickly put that to an end when I pointed out she herself had Hispanic in her, or at least she had had some in her, and she quite loved it. You know, that bitch hasn't sent me a Christmas card ever since.

Anyway, when I make the point to people that I've never had 'white privilege' work against me, all of a sudden my identity undergoes a dramatic change. Instantly, I go from being a Hispanic man who is unwittingly held back by other people's white privilege, to being a "white looking" man who is so soaked in white privilege that I don't even know it. The narrative becomes instantly different, and bizarrely so. All of a sudden I'm being told that because I 'look' white, I get white privilege too. The weird thing about this is that I don't really 'look' white. Sure, I might not look like the image of a reddish Mexican mestizo that most people bear in mind when they think "Hispanic." But most people who meet me for the first time can instantly identify me as Hispanic based on my appearance alone. While 'looking' white (or Hispanic) may be somewhat subjective, what's remarkable is how I don't start to look white until after I make the case that what I accomplish in my life is on my shoulders and not based on racism.

 

[whitehall]

You just can't please some people. One day they will complain about being underpriveleged because of some stupid incident they imagined and the next day they will complain about too much damn privelege because they imagined some other segment of society has been impuned. Mostly it's the left that cannot function even in the greatest most tolerant Country in the world unless they are angry and upset about something real or imagined.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Went to the local mall with my wife after our meal today. While walking through...noticed that the crowd was very, very diverse. In fact...I'd say that white folks were in the minority.

Only "privilege" I've noticed myself receiving for being white around here is to be cussed at in Spanish because they think I can't understand what they're saying.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The only example of white privileges I see is the Democratic Party picking all whit candidates. Where is the diversity?

After electing the first black POTUS...twice. The Dems didn't "pick" anybody, there are several who chose to run.

Yeah, amazing how that same argument mysteriously never applies to the GOP candidates.

 

[The Rabbi]

Now you're qualifying your statement. A sure sign you lost the argument. In truth parties recruit candidates and different factions offer inducements, sometimes to declare and sometimes to stay out.

What's wrong with qualifying a statement? It often has to be done to help those out who aren't that quick on the uptake. Was Trump offered an inducement to run or did he decide that on his own? I don't envy your predicament. You have to prove that no candidate entered the race of his/her own volition. Do you really think the Republican Party thought it was a good idea to have that many candidates? Also, considering the number, one woman and one black is under-representation. Given that there are only three declared Democratic candidates, one women and no blacks is hardly out of whack with statistical probability. Since we've had a black Democratic president for the last eight years, it's stretching credulity to suggest that the lack of a black candidate now is a sign of racism.

I dont have to prove any such thing. In fact I dont have to answer your absurd post or any of the straw men fallacies you present.
The facts speak for themselves. Your post was wrong. Once I pointed that out, you had to backpedal and invent circumstances where it might be right.

 

[The Rabbi]

The only example of white privileges I see is the Democratic Party picking all whit candidates. Where is the diversity?

After electing the first black POTUS...twice. The Dems didn't "pick" anybody, there are several who chose to run.

Yeah, amazing how that same argument mysteriously never applies to the GOP candidates.

The GOP is the party of old white people. That's the bedrock belief of the Left. So when you get cognitive dissonance, like the Democrats' candidates for president consist entirely of old white people while the gOP's slate is filled with diversity, they have to deflect, attack, or deny.

 

[konradv]

[I dont have to prove any such thing. In fact I dont have to answer your absurd post or any of the straw men fallacies you present. The facts speak for themselves. Your post was wrong. Once I pointed that out, you had to backpedal and invent circumstances where it might be right.

Once again, accusations with absolutely no corroborating evidence. your appeals to logic don't impress me. You use them to deflect rather than elucidate. If you make statements, OF COURSE you have to prove your contentions. What makes you think you're special?

 

[leftwinger]

Went to the local mall with my wife after our meal today. While walking through...noticed that the crowd was very, very diverse. In fact...I'd say that white folks were in the minority.

so happy for you. no go Celebrate about it quietly you..........

 

[The Rabbi]

[I dont have to prove any such thing. In fact I dont have to answer your absurd post or any of the straw men fallacies you present. The facts speak for themselves. Your post was wrong. Once I pointed that out, you had to backpedal and invent circumstances where it might be right.

Once again, accusations with absolutely no corroborating evidence. your appeals to logic don't impress me. You use them to deflect rather than elucidate. If you make statements, OF COURSE you have to prove your contentions. What makes you think you're special?

Hey, Sherlock. YOU'RE the one who made a statement without proof. I just called you on it.
Face it. You've failed. Your post is wrong. No amount of deflection, back paddling, name calling or fallacy can change any of that.

 

[konradv]

Hey, Sherlock. YOU'RE the one who made a statement without proof. I just called you on it. Face it. You've failed. Your post is wrong. No amount of deflection, back paddling, name calling or fallacy can change any of that.

You haven't proved my post was wrong. Again, simply saying so, doesn't make it so. Tell me who picked Trump to be a candidate, if he didn't do it himself. That was the original question. You said candidates were selected, while I said some if not most were self-selected. Who selected Trump? If you asked him, I'm sure he'd say it was his own decision. He doesn't strike me as someone who takes orders from others or he wouldn't be threatening to go third party.