the white privilege rhetoric is racist and anti-historical

Yes they do

Unhappy with some results does not translate into HARD LIFE. The vast majority of people here do not habve a hard life

People do not oppose the lie and myth of white privilege because they are resentful due to a hard life. They oppose it because it is a lie and it is racist by design

The vast majority do NOT have a harder road. That report is opinion and nothing more.
You didnt read the report in the 2 minutes it took you to type this. You clearly are having an emotional petty response driven by Human Nature. I understand your response as being natural based on your income and education but it’s wrong though. I linked surveys and studies, not opinion articles.
 
Balderdash. It isn't a theory. It's the name given to the observable reality of being a white person living in a country dominated culturally, historically, economically, and politically by white people.

So, Muslims living in Muslim lands have Muslim privilege and Blacks in Africa have Black privilege.
 
As I said, it clearly exists. The question is the way it's addressed. If it's addressed in a way that creates new problems, or even bigger problems (as we're seeing), then it needs to be reviewed.
It does not clearly exist
 
You didnt read the report in the 2 minutes it took you to type this. You clearly are having an emotional petty response driven by Human Nature. I understand your response as being natural based on your income and education but it’s wrong though. I linked surveys and studies, not opinion articles.
Clearly you are lying

You are defending the indefensible in a petty and reactionary manner

You have a poro grasp on human nature and are out of touch with reality

you linked opinion and I had plenty of time to read it
 
No. What the democrats have a hard time conveying is that America is producing poor results for almost everyone but the top earners and it is most punishing for out-of-favor groups. The problem is, even in-favor groups are struggling so they dont really care. The message by Talarico is right: It’s not left vs right, it’s top vs bottom.

All the wealth and income consolidation charts point to this. However every attempt to address by anyone is characterized as socialism, Marxism and any “ism”. Capitalism isnt perfect. It’s imperfect and needs regulation. Since 1990 the republicans successfully have unleashed unregulated capitalism and we are in the middle of its imperfect results.
No. What the Democrats can’t wrap their head around is that you don’t have to be a “top earner” to have a decent life. A decent life is a roof over one’s head, groceries in the fridge, a public transportation system to allow you to get around, kids doing well in school, and enough for dinner out at Olive Garden or Applebees a couple times a week.

That is a decent life, and one that is better than most of the world.
 
The reality is otherwise. As long as almost everyone is struggling to get by, however, there will never be any ability to empathize and the wealthy will use that pettiness to control the underclass like the OP and those of you freaked out here.
Another means of control being to pit people against each other as Repub's are expert at doing. Sowing division and anger due to race, religion, ethnicity, and sexual orientation has been an essential aspect of trumpery.
 
Clearly you are lying

You are defending the indefensible in a petty and reactionary manner

You have a poro grasp on human nature and are out of touch with reality
Insults get us no where on the exchange of ideas. I am present the facts that people are stuggling and that is why they have no open to listen about the inequities that negatively affects minorities. The inequities are documented and are undebatable. They exist. The question is how to address. I’d argue that pairing it with lifting all people’s outcomes works better than evening out the misery in isolation.
you linked opinion and I had plenty of time to read it
Oh yea? What did it say?
 
He probably didn't get millions, or he'd be bragging he got millions. NBC made the mistake of paying him "Go Away" money instead of doing what the press should do when confronted by a shithead... tear his life apart.

I'm sure if they looked, they'd have had no problem finding classmates who'd have happily ratted him out for being a racist and misogynist shithead.
How was he a racist when the Indian…..oops, Native American….got in his face to taunt him?
 
Insults get us no where on the exchange of ideas. I am present the facts that people are stuggling and that is why they have no open to listen about the inequities that negatively affects minorities. The inequities are documented and are unarguable. They exist. The question is how to address. I’d argue that pairing it with lifting all people’s outcomes works better than evening out the misery in isolation.

Oh yea? What did it say?
I posted NO insults towards you of any kind. Thus proving you are posting the petty and reactionary response

You have yet to prosent a single fact
 
Except none of those people I listed were "smarter", just more privileged.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or is your Fake Hebrew to English translator not working?
By merit ior would you rather have Kamala Harris Claudine Gay Jasmine Crocket and the rest of the DEI incompetents.
 
What the Democrats can’t wrap their head around is that you don’t have to be a “top earner” to have a decent life.
I don't think that's true. But I do think D's better appreciate the damage enormous wealth disparities and the conditions that allow them creates.
 
You said I was an out of touch liar. I didnt realize that was a compliment. My bad.

What did the study I linked show you?
No I did not

I never once used the word liar in any of my responses to you.

petty and reactionary how DARE someone challenge your untoucable preachings.
 
By merit ior would you rather have Kamala Harris Claudine Gay Jasmine Crocket and the rest of the DEI incompetents.
We have a DEI TV commentator as Sec of Defense and a lifelong nepo-baby DEI realtor in charge of national security. We have a DEI wife of the WWE wrestling entertainment company as Sec of Education. What the fck are you talking about? DEI only bothers you if they are qualified and brown. Unqualified and white is no problem. Fck off.
 
White privilege theories are a strange mix of 19th-century racial theories and Marxist oppressor-oppressed dialectics

First of all, there has never been a "white people" nation, civilization or culture. And there are many European peoples that had no colonial empire at all and were not involved in slave trading. If any, some of them have been historically the victims of it.

Secondly, blaming people for the actions of their ancestors is deeply troubling and wrong.

Third, major civilizations through history and around the world have enslaved people. Some northern African civilizations and the Ottoman Empire were massive traders of Sub-saharan African and Slavic European (Czechs, Polish, Ukrainians...) slaves. Mainly because they were poor, poorly defended and had another religion. A centuries-long episode that we prefer not to talk about.
The concept of "white" was consciously developed as a social and legal category that carried privileges, many historians point to the colonial period of the late 1600s and early 1700s.

The basic argument is not that Europeans arrived in America thinking of themselves primarily as "white." Rather, they tended to identify as English, Irish, Scottish, Dutch, German, etc. Over time, colonial elites created and reinforced a broader "white" identity through laws and social practices that distinguished Europeans from Africans and Indigenous peoples.

Several developments are often cited:
Following events such as Bacon's Rebellion, colonial authorities became concerned about alliances between poor Europeans and enslaved or indentured Africans.
Colonies increasingly enacted laws that granted privileges to people classified as white while restricting the rights of Africans and their descendants.

By the early 1700s, "white" had become a recognized legal category in several colonies.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 extended citizenship only to "free white persons," embedding the category in federal law.

Many scholars, including Theodore W. Allen, David Roediger, and Nell Irvin Painter, argue that "whiteness" functioned as a social status that conferred legal, political, and economic advantages. Others emphasize that the process was gradual and varied by region rather than being the result of a single deliberate invention.

So, from that perspective, the concept of "white" as a privileged legal and social category was largely constructed in the late 17th century colonial period, particularly in colonies such as Virginia, and then expanded and formalized throughout the 18th century and early United States.

One important nuance: historians generally distinguish between the creation of a racial category ("white") and the existence of people of European ancestry. Europeans existed long before the category; the category itself was a social and legal development that evolved over time and whose boundaries changed repeatedly. For example, groups such as the Irish, Italians, and many Eastern European immigrants were not always regarded as fully part of the dominant white majority when they first arrived in the United States.

Per ChatGPT
 
15th post
Balderdash. It isn't a theory. It's the name given to the observable reality of being a white person living in a country dominated culturally, historically, economically, and politically by white people.
One of the prime excuses used when libs defend excessive welfare spending is that more whites than blacks are on welfare

That refutes the lib lie about white privilage
 
Back
Top Bottom