And you do all this without placing importance upon the color of their skin too? — creativesoul

What is important was the discrimination they were subjected to rather than the colour of their skin. That's all we're trying to learn about. Of course, their skin colour made it possible but skin colour shouldn't be the focus. The focus should be perpetrator (cause) and victim.

You're making less and less sense as we go along. Focusing upon economic redistribution will not correct mass incarceration of blacks. — creativesoul

I didn't draw a connection between those two things.

Strawman. — creativesoul

It's a silly oversimplification which wasn't attempting to do anything but demonstrate a point.

You're the only one returning over and over to focus upon characterizations, framing, interpretations, and narratives... I would love to talk about actual events. You seem to want to avoid them. — creativesoul

I am not saying I want people to talk about the actual events in this thread, which is about the white privilege framing. I am just pointing out that white privilege is a distraction that detracts from real issues.

Oh, you got me. I was pretty lazy in my responses to Pro Hominem - writing them as I did while being a bald white wearing a black t-shirt. If I put a bit more effort in and wore the steel-toed black boots as well that would've deffo upped my White Power creds. — fdrake

What?

The provocative remark that I'm "more prone to race-based discrimination" based on my support for the term "white privilege" is mostly unsubstantiated - do you really expect people who use the term to be more racist than people who do not use the term? — fdrake

I couldn't possibly substantiate my claim, it's anecdotal and a weak claim but I certainly believe it is more likely that a person who uses the term white privilege to be more prone to making assumptions based on race.

Apparently defining racism is a controversial topic in this thread, what is your definition of racism? Isaac claims that it requires oppression, while I would say any race-based discrimination is racism, that's the definition I'm working on.

The only way I see that this makes sense is the series of equivocations:

Racist = uses racial categories in arguments = can think about people in terms of races. — fdrake

Wouldn't that make those who use the white privilege framing necessarily racist rather than "more prone"? Since white privilege is the argument that "you, white person, are privileged". I'm not going to call merely describing reality while identifying people by their races is racist, I do that and have done it many times this thread.

An argument like "white people are disproportionately more likely to be offended by the concept of white privilege", I mean, I totally agree. Who wouldn't? It's just obvious. Like saying people who listen to rap are more likely to be offended by saying "rap is awful". The issue is when you use that understanding to inform yourself about the individual. I will just repost what I said to Banno.

You want to be very careful about giving validity to the idea that you can use statistics, anecdotes, feelings about a race to inform yourself about or characterise an individual. Because it may even be true that white people are more likely to dislike the white privilege framing for bad reasons but once you start using that to characterise disagreement with the framing as a result of their race, you aren't really much different or really any different from what you're supposedly condemning. — Judaka

There are many reasons I think people who like the term white privilege are more likely to be racist but the main one is simply that the term is very race-orientated. It calls out being white in the US as a privilege and what I see people doing is using the idea of white privilege to presume the privilege of somebody who is white. Which gives you a lot to work with, a lot of assumptions that you can make about someone simply for being white.

I don't think one can criticise white privilege without stipulating some aims or goals to establish what is at stake here. Firstly, the term "white privilege" is not a literal description of the social phenomena I agreed to, it is a characterisation and a framing by which one understands and describes society. As opposed to asking "does white privilege accurately describe reality" the question is "what does the white privilege description of reality produce?"

What are the various implications and consequences of a person using "white privilege" to understand society? If your answer is, nothing and it's just a name and it just describes reality then that would be when you and I started to disagree.

The second disagreement is whether the facts we're characterising are fairly characterised by the term "white privilege". I take issue with both words "white" and "privilege" and have talked at length as to why. Briefly, it shifts the focus away from the actual injustices taking place, which is systemic racism and instead puts the focus on those who aren't directly affected by systemic racism - white Americans. I don't believe that the correct way to understand systemic racism is how white people are avoiding problems or getting a leg up. The aim here is not to have white Americans experiencing self-loathing nor for people to view "white success" with anger or frustration. It is actually very hard to see what is constructive about this focus on "white privilege". It's not about protecting white culture (?) or white people, it's about asking what do you want people to focus on and why isn't it the actual racism or racist policies? Or at least the victims?

As for calling being exempt from racism a privilege, I disagree with it and once again, why is the focus here? If we accept that many white Americans find systemic racism to be abhorrent and detestable, why insist it's their privilege? Say a naive white American reflects on this and starts to inform themselves about all the ways in which they're privileged due to their whiteness. If we have any sympathy towards this individual or any plan for them, this is wrong. What we want is for this individual to realise how systemic racism works and, to ask, "how can such an unjust thing happen in the supposed greatest country on Earth? Why is nobody doing anything about it?" That's how I want them to get educated and involved.

When you describe the problem of systemic racism as white privilege, aren't you just arming those who might disagree with you with the means of your own destruction? When you are trying to convince someone of systemic racism, is the best way to explain to them how their whole life, their whole experience, is a result of how society has handed them all these privileges due to their whiteness? Is it effective? Or ethical? To do it that way?

Even after they agree with you, "yes, you're right, I'm so privileged" says the white American, a previously ignorant person is now convinced of systemic racism through the lens of white privilege. Which means what? They remain totally ignorant about systemic racism! Because it was never something that can be understood by looking at interactions between the government and white society, that's the one place it's actually absent.

What I want is to see a framing for systemic racism that brings attention to the various injustices which constitute systemic racism. To ask the individual, no matter your skin colour, is this right? Or good for the country? To encourage discussion about changes that would actually help improve the situation. Rather than leaving people to their own devices to conceptualise systemic racism through the lens of white privilege.

The last thing I'll bring up is whether you want to have every problem in society described as a race problem. There is both white and black poverty in America and a valid question is, should we view the two differently? Yes, there are historical reasons for why there is greater poverty among black Americans but nowadays, poverty functions the same for people of either race and the US government does the bare minimum to help regardless of your race. The term white privilege may not be helpful here, it creates unhelpful divisions between people of either race, rather than merely describing them.

My contribution to this thread has been talking about these issues and more and my basis for rejecting "white privilege" has always been to ask these kinds of questions and arriving at answers that make me conclude, we would simply be much better off describing and framing the conversation differently.

If you read the whole thread then your bizarre questions and comments become even stranger. It's impossible to believe actually.

There is no denial of the "material condition" and I do agree with the truth of the social phenomena that others are identifying with the words white privilege.

You are making assumptions though because you misrepresented me yet again, I am not denying the facts characterised by white privilege. As I said, you don't need to read the thread but instead of addressing me with whys, you addressed me with "this is your position and its wrong" when that's not my position. So what's the point of it? We just play this game until you finally say something valid?

Both myself and pro hominem acknowledge the reality of systemic racism and have always been talking about the white privilege concept within the context of the social, economic, political, judicial landscape of the US. Your comments only show that you haven't made an effort, you don't need to read the whole thread to participate but it is not good for you to make assumptions about me and my position.

I was kidding but when you respond to me, admonishing me for not realising that white skin doesn't have special properties, it shows you just didn't read what I have been saying, therefore, I don't understand why you "responded" to me.

Please no racism on this forum, it is not appropriate.

Honestly, I am not entirely sure what your position is but I don't think that people are escaping their own perspective using empathy. The way we do it is through understanding causation, interactions and so on. So you can understand economics without empathy, you can view the world through economic theory without empathy and so on. You can't learn much by just looking out of your own eyes, it's all intellectual right?

fdrake is just doing exactly what makes the criticism of the framing correct, by showing that those who see the world through it, are in fact most prone to race-based discrimination. How can something producing such an effect possibly counter racism?

Becoming increasingly aware of the effects/affects and injury that systemic racism has had and still has upon non whites(blacks in particular) requires talking about experiences that non whites share - as a result of being non white - that whites do not. — creativesoul

To talk incredibly simply, systemic racism discriminates against the "blackness" of a black American, we want to hear about how this happened from the victim because it helps us to better understand the issue. Is that victim a nameless black American? Are they representative of every black American? No, we listen to a person with a name, a story, a personality, someone was trying to live their life and had to deal with injustice because of a stupid reason like racism.

There is no non-white experience, each non-white person has their own experience and each individual has their own story. When someone has a story to tell pertinent to racism, whether it be as a witness, perpetrator or victim, it's always the story of an individual.

I'm not saying you don't see black Americans as individuals but if we're going to look at the terminology you're using, it clearly divides between white and black rather than victim, witness and perpetrator. The key issue for me is that when you divide on white and black, it legitimises making assumptions about people based on skin colour. It reinforces the idea that because I know that you're white or black, I know more about you as a person.

People should be rejecting the notion of dividing people based on race in these incredibly important issues, not reinforcing and legitimising it.

There is most certainly a benefit to being white in America. — creativesoul

Much of the average black American's woes are economics, they make up a disenfranchised economic class which is constantly exploited and rarely given a helping hand. It actually doesn't matter whether you're black or white, making your way up in capitalism is rare and doesn't happen to many people. Sadly, you are more or less forced to choose your narrative.

Is the average black American a victim of American capitalism or a victim of systemic racism? Of course, the answer is both but even if you removed the latter, would anything really change? Would the average black American start to gain the means to economic privilege and achieve the American dream? No, he would not. He would still struggle to move into a different economic class, just like all who occupy the bottom economic class.

It's about competing narratives, it's about what actually needs to be done to challenge the status quo. Rather than reinforcing the racial differences as a result of an unspecified problem, we should challenge the actual issues themselves. When you talk about "white privilege" and I accept it, now we only just begin to talk about what I want to talk about. You are really only talking about getting people onside and educated. What are they actually educated about though? What are they onside with? You've gained a totally useless, hapless ally who doesn't know the first thing about what needs to be done to change things.

Actually the "white privilege" narrative doesn't only not help people to know how to change things, it instructs them on how to make things worse. It reinforces the importance of race, legitimises prejudice, leaves people to figure out the causes, characterises an injustice as a privilege for whatever reason.

I'm really excited to see a thread here about "challenging the mass incarceration", I think, that's something I want to see done, I am a huge supporter. It's so much better than reading about "white privilege" which is a totally useless conversation about characterisations, framing, interpretations, narrative and just a lot of not-actually-doing-anything useless bullshit.

When you say the class system is not sustainable - do you mean morally, politically, economically?

When we look at Amazon, we see a company utterly destroying local businesses that cannot compete and this has been happening since the industrial revolution. If mass production could be competed with by "local living" then why has this happened and what's going to happen differently?

Soon Amazon is going to have driverless trucks, increased automation across the board and they will be so affordable, convenient and just all-around great for consumers, who can compete? So the trajectory for the destruction of the lone person making a chair, the lone person owning a shop and the small business, it's all being destroyed and it's going to keep getting worse.

Automation is going to replace millions of workers and whoever owns the automation is going to be exceedingly rich and not having to pay any workers - unions and such won't cut it anymore.

Besides wealth redistribution, we could examine a model such as how Singapore dealt with land, forced acquisition by the government and perhaps in the future we will see the US government somehow force Amazon to sell them their company. I don't know but wealth redistribution seems to be the only thing that can be looked at right now.

I think it is important when analysing Marx and the problem of private property, that the issue of communism, as a means of resolving the issue through collective ownership not be conflated with the problem. The problem of communisms are not really relevant to today and dealing with the issue of private property. Could we agree that we are not going to be seeing a return to the approach of aiming for collective ownership?

The issues are still pertinent today, of course, we can agree, actually it's worse than ever. Amazon as an example, is such an efficient producer and that has destroyed so many livelihoods and we know it's only going to get worse. The control over the means of mass efficiency are going to end up in the hands of fewer and fewer people because of ever-increasing efficiency.

I don't see a way to address the disease but it is possible to mitigate the damage by wealth redistribution and I think that has become what we're resigned to. Either wealth redistribution will occur in equal measure to the destruction caused or we will end up in a dystopia. That and limiting the profiteering by creating appropriate rights and protections for workers.

What kind of "intelligent restructuring" are you looking to discuss?

I suppose I could have been more precise in my language, I think most of the support for the white privilege framing comes from the same people who peddle leftwing identity politics and it's easy to understand why. I accept that you are not arguing from the position of that ideology and anything I said in the past to the contrary, I acquiesce.

It matters because we're comparing/contrasting all of the different uses of "white privilege", and that's a unique aspect of one. — creativesoul

All iterations of white privilege framing are framings and I won't accept a justification of "its a name". I accept that you have your own brand and I'm happy to respond to it but I think the major differences between you and someone like banno, isn't the actual framing itself, it's about how you act. Most of what I see as being different is that you have different intentions, different rules, different goals.

Names matter, I don't even know why I'm having this conversation. If I decided to call you sillysoul instead of creativesoul and you thought "hm Judaka, I guess he prefers to call me sillysoul, guess its just a name so whatever" without thinking there's any meaning behind me calling you sillysoul then I guess your new nickname would seem very appropriate wouldn't it? My objection has a lot to do with the name you've chosen, having exactly the same understanding with a new name would make me a lot happier and I don't think there's any way to convince me to think otherwise.

Overall, I have done my best to show that I recognise there are differences between your concept and others of the same name, to acknowledge your intentions and motivations, to show I understand the logic behind why the framing is a good idea. I just think there are things we can disagree on where I can understand and respect your decision and things I can disagree with and be really upset about and critical of your approach.

I don't think I said that white privilege can only be understood using the leftist identity politics ideology but it's no coincidence that posters like streetlightx, banno, fdrake are here defending the term, posters who I would call extreme left. I don't know about Isaac but certainly the way he talks, it seems very likely he's in a similar boat. I don't think I've ever tried to use the term against you because I haven't seen that it be warranted.

What I still don't like about your approach
(1) Emphasises the importance of race
(2) Contextualises systemic racism as a benefit for white Americans (privilege)
(3) Creates a simplified "non-white" experience which factors in nothing but race
(4) Divides people on important social issues such as economic redistribution by opinions on race issues
(5) Competes with a justice-based, humanitarian narrative which I'd prefer
(6) Legitimises race-based solutions to systemic racism and racial inequity

For the time being, I am prepared to say, the aspects of the framing you've criticised, I won't bring up. However, I am not entirely convinced that we won't see:

(7) White privilege being used to discriminate against the "white" experience and characterising white success in light of their advantages
(8) The privilege framing having an effect on causing things such as "white guilt", shame and so on.

I am not going to assure you that I've listed all of my objections but the list is already pretty substantive.

The name picks out something that existed in it's entirety prior to the name being first used. — creativesoul

I'm not sure why you think that matters but I don't.

Yet you claim that they're all fundamentally the same... which is false. — creativesoul

Hmm, it depends on what is meant by "fundamental" right? When I say that, I am sure what I mean is not the same as what you would mean if you said it.

Leftist identity politics is just a name, right? That's how things work, give names... Don't complain about my clearly biased framing, it's just a name.

I've written page after page of criticisms towards the white privilege framing, I'm not "offhandedly dismissing" it because of a connection the left.

I've said pretty much all I have to say on reparations, I am all for economic redistribution but not by race and not done by acknowledging racial histories.

Perhaps. I ran into this issue with you earlier where you asked me if I wanted to be treated like black people are known to be treated by police and you said this was an innocent question with no implications. Which is not an easy thing to believe but I supposed it was the truth. I'll accept I've misinterpreted you. However, Banno is clearly holding pro hominem's whiteness against him, he is clearly devaluing pro hominem by insinuating that he is not capable of giving an honest moral opposition to the white privilege framing, he must be just upset about having his privileged called out. I do not know why you say that is not taking place, I am really surprised to have seen such an overt example and in this thread no less, if this isn't discrimination then I don't know what is.

If white privilege is to be viewed as a fact, and one denies facts, can it be called anything but ignorance? What else can I conclude but what I have?

Using the term "white privilege" doesn't give you a monopoly over opposition towards racism, you realise that right? There is no use trying to tell me "oh, didn't you realise this happens to non-whites, now you're finally beginning to understand" don't be deluded. I condemn it regardless of the skin colour of the person who does it and regardless of the skin colour it's being done to.

Yes, yes, I am well aware of simple you think the white privilege framing is. Banno is openly discriminating against white people using his prejudices and you're cool with it. It is pointless for me to look for common ground with someone like that. The exact same logic is applied but based on your race, Isaac may refrain from calling it actual racism, I can't look for common ground with someone who thinks like that.

There's really nobody in this thread who I disagree with who seems to have a similar condemnation of racism. The interpretative relevance of race is something to be maintained, the individual is to be understood through their identity.

Leftist identity politics just helps explain why certain people are so focused on race/sex/sexual orientation. Why the oppressor/victim narrative so central to understanding history for certain people. To understand the rules followed by certain people about how you can/should talk to or talk about someone from a "marginalised group". If you wrongly think that someone is coming to these conclusions on their own, by thinking honestly, then you miss the point. It's ideological possession, how else can you describe it? It is not natural for thinkers to have such similarities and such focuses in such specific contexts.

The white privilege framing starts to make sense when you buy into these narratives, the unfairness faced by marginalised groups needs to be addressed and the culprit is white people or as Banno says, "straight cis white males". Spend enough time on this forum and maybe you start to believe that's just the only way to think. It's another, new brand of discrimination and when using it, the white privilege framing doesn't sound so bad. I mean you can't even be racist to white people so what is the problem.

Anyway, I don't think I've made any progress with you since my first comments, we're back to "omg, you don't realise there's racism?!" I was interested to see if you actually applied what you preached but besides seeing you don't, I have not much interest in continuing a conversation.

I am not asking you to comment on his comments to me. If a white person disagrees with the white privilege framing, is it fair to characterise them as "begging for the term not to be used because it offends them" regardless of what they say? Isn't that kind of discrimination something you told me the framing wasn't about?

We are seeing the unpleasantness of the white privilege framing rear its ugly head. Why wouldn't people oppose the term with ambassadors like @Banno demonstrating their own brand of racial discrimination while advocating for it? It's the same as usual, the same people who use the term inevitably demonstrate what makes it problematic.

I don't think that was his point and I'm not sure what made you think it was.

If you want to have a serious debate about whether your definition is standard, I'd be more than happy have it. It is not an argument you are going to have success in unless you care to appeal to some kind of authority. Your definition is barely coherent, race transcends any political structure, the white race doesn't belong to any country nor the black race to only America. The "power" structure behind racism would make being racist in a multinational forum such as this very difficult. Banno, streetlight, myself, we're not even American. The power structures that you're talking about - we don't even have access to them. A black American has far more resources in the political structure in America than any of us. Calling Banno a racist because he "oppresses" who? Black Americans?

Your definition would make the principal factor not the nature of the logic being used but the effect that it has and whether it oppressed someone. Which I'll tell you, is a very controversial word to be applying to a random citizen of a country. I was not unaware of your definition, which I always considered to be an ideological one based on leftist identity politics theory. Even on this forum, however, which is almost an ideological hub, I would have no pains finding more example of people here using my definition than yours.

Your logic of my "plan" makes no sense either, I made it clear from the start that I was calling Banno due to his comments about white people, whom by your ideologically informed definition, is a nonsense way to call someone a racist to begin with.

Systemic racism has far stronger connotations to oppression, at least that is clearly defined to be contained within a singular political structure.

Regardless of the definition of racism, your personal belief may be that "no one cares" about what I accused Banno of. Once again, I am worried for you, you don't have any idea that what you're talking about. Outside of the extreme left, people absolutely care. I care too and I don't give a shit whether Banno is "oppressing" someone or not. His comments were egregious examples of discrimination based on race, I'm embarrassed for him and angry at him for making such comments.

Are we not literally talking about that exact issue with the term 'privilege'? — Isaac

Yes, and I would feel comfortable disagreeing with a definition for privilege that you gave, regardless of how confident you sounded while saying how right yours was. It as likely, however, for me to stop using my definition of racism as it is for you to stop using yours. Which like I said, I am very happy to have a debate about which one is more common.

I think the direction you were taking the discussion about privilege was a good one and I'd be more than happy to have a similar debate about our definitions for racism. I see your definition as emphasising the importance of race, different rules apply to you based solely on your race and knowing your white privilege seems necessary, even just for knowing whether you're being racist or not. I'd likely be far more sympathetic to the white privilege framing if I agreed with your definition of racism. Of course, that would mean giving up the idea of being colour blind and judging peoples ideas on their merits rather than their identity.

What about sexism is that also based on oppression? Or specism, classism, ageism, or really any of the isms which refer to discrimination based on identity?

Also, when you say most common, where is it the most common? Do all dictionaries define it as you do? What authority defines it only as you do that makes it a question of ignorance for me to not share yours?

True, streetlightx hasn't said anything racist in this thread but my statements there were not based on just this thread. I think it is appropriate to point out that your definition of racism, which necessitates oppression is not one that I agree with and I have never used the word with that definition in mind.

The quote does not say that there "are" people like that who do that, the quote says that posters here who formulated perfectly coherent criticism of the white privilege framing are just white middle class cis hetro males who beg that the word "privilege" not be used because it upsets them. I believe pro hominem is the poster being referred to here. He clearly says that he re-read posters in this thread and is characterising those posters with his comments.

I can't imagine what you think a more egregious example might be but okay.

Sure, the level of moral severity differs, arguably, between examples of racism. I am not equating racism to other kinds of prejudice. If I can demonstrate racism towards "privileged" racial groups, would you counter that they are privileged?

We frequently use group identifiers to summarise a range of disparate opinion and even in doing so ignore outliers and minority dissonance. — Isaac

The difference between this and bigotry is when you use an individual's belonging to a group to characterise their opinions and prejudice against them.

There is no problem with saying that black Americans are disproportionately criminal in an appropriate context but there is a problem with using that fact to discriminate against individual black Americans. It isn't wrong just because it oppresses people. It violates all rules of decency and fairness. Your objection to it can't be solely based on how it is used to oppress people?

I've flicked back over this thread, too.

I re-read the denials.

I re-read white middle class cis hetro males begging that the word "privilege" not be used because it upsets them. — Banno

Perhaps you are not referring to my denials, or Asif's (who isn't white) or anyone but just @Pro Hominem but it doesn't make much difference.

Your opinions about me are convenient for you because they allow you to dismiss me and my opinions. Just as you tried to do by talking about my race. On one hand you complain about heavy-handed comments and on the other, you deliver your own. I am not sure what is worse, being a racist or belittling the disabled and twisting it so it becomes about me, hard choice.

I appreciate creativesoul at least trying to defend the white privilege framing, as far as I think, you are out of your depth on this topic. The way you've responded to either me or @Pro Hominem has been things such as ad hominem, straw-manning, mocking with "yawn" and so on. You still don't seem to appreciate that what you are doing is offering a framing, using contentious language, it's just facts for you.

Moreover, the hypocrisy, in how you decided to characterise our statements based on a prejudice you have against "white people", in a topic like this - it's astounding. I would not accuse you of something so disgraceful if I didn't believe it was warranted. I think you made a good choice in not answering my question, I hope it was because you recognised it would be difficult to justify your behaviour and not actually because of these reasons you've given to leave.

Besides the whole oppressor/victim narrative, what differences are there between the way you discriminate against people based on their whiteness and how others may discriminate against others based on their blackness? What's the logical difference? You want to be very careful about giving validity to the idea that you can use statistics, anecdotes, feelings about a race to inform yourself about or characterise an individual. Because it may even be true that white people are more likely to dislike the white privilege framing for bad reasons but once you start using that to characterise disagreement with the framing as a result of their race, you aren't really much different or really any different from what you're supposedly condemning.

Why can't one characterise black people as criminals if they're disproportionately more likely to be if you can characterise white people as being merely offended about white privilege just because they're disproportionately more likely to be? You tell me the difference.

I think your views of racism are outdated, or simply wrong, you have informed yourself about the individual using your prejudices against a racial group. You specifically noted the race, sexual orientation and sexual identity of individuals and used your feelings about how you think people of that race, sexual orientation and sexual identity usually behave to discriminate against the individual. There is no other justification for your comments, only that. — Judaka

I do agree, what I meant was that the white privilege framing results in different outcomes being prioritised, different methods of tackling systemic racism becoming legitimate and different means of identifying progress. I don't consider myself to be closely aligned in my goals to most of these other posters at all. Only in recognising systemic racism and objecting to it, past that, there's more disagreement than agreement.

This is what you did in our debate about privilege, I wrote a lot and you said "I don't see why we should care about the feelings of the privileged" as if to suggest that was the crux of my argument. Parody? No, that's your style of argumentation.

My previous post contained all I needed to say, any insufficiency from your perspective is ignorance about how racism functions from mine.

What is racism to you? What I find sad is that creativesoul argues that the white privilege framing is necessary to understand racism, meanwhile, it is the foundation for your discrimination. I am very interested @creativesoul what do you think about Banno's comments, is this something you support?

I think your views of racism are outdated, or simply wrong, you have informed yourself about the individual using your prejudices against a racial group. You specifically noted the race, sexual orientation and sexual identity of individuals and used your feelings about how you think people of that race, sexual orientation and sexual identity usually behave to discriminate against the individual. There is no other justification for your comments, only that.

Honestly, you are new here but it's not just this thread. StreetlightX and Banno are horrible, they're racist, they engage in ad hominem, they are the definition of ideologically possessed and if you call them out on anything, they just continue with their smug self-assurance, they'll happily misrepresent people, discriminate against people based on race/sex/sexual orientation, as see you above.

You say we are trying to accomplish the same thing but I disagree, I think what I want is worlds apart from most people who want to talk about white privilege. My condemnation of racism necessarily means not discriminating based on race in exactly the same way that the white privilege framing does. I can't even do it another way. Once you allow using statistics to prejudice against racial groups, you are no longer capable of condemning racism. The line between doing that and the white privilege is so small, I'm not sure it even exists. What banno and streetlightx are condemning isn't racism, their condemnation is orientated around oppressor/victim narratives based on leftist identity political theory. That's why the criticisms of virtue signalling become so valid. It doesn't make any sense to do that unless you are motivated by helping the underdog.

There is no shortage of race-based discrimination going on in this thread but if you're doing it towards the privileged classes then no foul. That doesn't represent what I want to achieve at all, I think the far left is extremely dangerous and not to be considered a convenient ally when fighting for social change. The standard brand of racism is going to die out, I'm convinced of that but what it gets replaced with might end up being just as bad.

As I said in my OP, that we characterise, prioritise, emphasise and interpret facts is inevitable.

It might be easier if we work backwards, let's first distinguish between types of conclusions. If I say that a rock weighs 1kg then the rock either weighs 1kg or it does not, there's a truth value to my assertion whereas if I say the rock is beautiful then there is no truth value, it is according to beauty standards. So if you ask me to prove the rock weighs 1kg.

(1) I bought 2 different, working scales (true)
(2) Each of them weighed the rock at 1 kg (true)
(3) Therefore the rock weighs 1kg (true)

The "arrangement" here is a logical one, I only did what any reasonable person would expect me to do to prove my assertion. Earlier I accused you of conflating truth with logic, reasonableness, rules of justification etc. An arrangement can be all of those things, also the conclusion (the rock weighs 1kg) is in accordance with reality, is true. The arrangement is good because it is logical, effective and led me towards the truth.

(1) The rock is shiny (fact)
(2) The rock is multicoloured (fact)
(3) This really appeals to me (characterisation)
(3) Therefore the rock is beautiful (no truth value)

The conclusion has no truth value but my reasons for believing that the rock is beautiful are true, there's clearly a lot missing from this picture though. Standards of beauty, for example, however, once again, forgetting that, if we say that the rules for the characterisation are fair then the arrangement is coherent, logical, reasonable and the conclusion is valid.

In the first example, clearly we have discriminated against true pieces of information, we only included the relevant information but we did that because we are following an effective method for discovering the truth (the conclusion). Hence, I would not argue that the rock doesn't weigh 1kg just because you made a choice about what information is relevant. The arrangement itself should be looked at as follows:

(1) true but is not responsible for the truth of the conclusion
(2) ""
(3) is true because it is in accordance with reality

Without the rules of justification, without seeing the arrangement as an effective way for demonstrating the validity of the conclusion and proving it is true, the arrangement doesn't make sense. To challenge the arrangement, I wouldn't challenge that it isn't "true" I would challenge that it wasn't effective.

(1) The rock weighs 1kg (irrelevant)
(2) The rock is multicoloured (important)
(3) The rock is shiny (important)
(4) This really appeals to me (important)
(5) The rock is beautiful (no truth value)

I could challenge this arrangement by saying it doesn't matter that the rock weighs 1kg. If the first example happened as a result of you asking me to prove the rock is beautiful, you could counter the arrangement by saying it is not relevant to the beauty of the rock.

or

Person A : What do you think about this rock?
Person B: It is very beautiful
Person A: I was talking about using the rock for my slingshot, whether it's beautiful or not is totally irrelevant

Your choice to talk about specific truths due to a perceived relevance, implication, importance to your point or argument can't have a truth value, your choosing of things to talk about is done at your discretion. What implications that has is a separate debate.

I think you've misunderstood my responses to you, what I wanted to acknowledge is that not everything about the white privilege framing is just senseless. That you are trying to use it to help educate people on an important issue. To summarise, in the 20th-century racism was in-your-face overt, that isn't how racism functions anymore, it's unilaterally condemned by almost everyone. Yet systemic racism persists, how do you explain that if people aren't seeing that 20th-century racism anymore? If they're convinced systemic racism is over and done with because they only understand systemic racism through what they know happened in the 20th century. A possible answer to that is the white privilege framing.

By acknowledging the need for adaptation in describing racism, I have not acquiesced on any of my previous points. It's a dreadful approach which only makes sense if you subscribe to left-wing identity politics. Even though your brand of white privilege specifically condemns a lot of what I dislike about it, it's nonetheless fundamentally the same.

Racism is no longer about racial superiority, it's about prejudice, it's about giving a race qualities based on things like statistics and experience and using those descriptions to inform yourself about individuals who belong to that group. Suspecting black people might be criminals because they're more likely to be, stereotyping and discriminating. What is worst of all is that many of these stereotypes aren't factually incorrect, just like white privilege. The thinking is the same, justified by the same validity and that's why you're able to argue for things like reparations, something you can't do without discriminating based on race.

We're not even talking about the "whiteness" being discriminated on by perpetrators of systemic racism but the literal "whiteness" of white people. Race can't be less than the most important thing, provided you just put every aspect of a person's life into a race-based framing, it doesn't matter that sometimes it's not being false. When you put the specific emphasise and its conclusions on trial, it fails in every way for me. When someone mentions white privilege, I wait for the inevitable slip up, the comment which talks about a race as a living, thinking entity, the comments which show how much they care about someone's race and sadly, they rarely fail to come.

I have spent quite some time in this thread now and really, I've said all I've had to say twice over. The white privilege framing says "white people are privileged" and leaves you to figure out how and why and people come up with some pretty crazy stuff. It doesn't educate at all, it's a framing that emphasises the importance of race and little more.

You've claimed both that you agree with my premisses(certain statements as written), and that you disagree with all of my premisses. Those two claims are mutually exclusive. They cannot both be true. The one is the negation of the other. If the former is true, the latter is not, and vice-versa. — creativesoul

Hm, well I agree with some of your criticisms of white privilege and I believe your approach to white privilege is better than say, Banno's but considering I despise that approach, it's still less than ideal to me. Obviously I prefer to see people being respectful and wanting to have a mature conversation, I prefer it if you're not being anti-white and so on.

Unfortunately, all I can say is that I understand a bit better where you're coming from, I can understand your objective and I respect your objective but I still disagree that white privilege is helpful, I think it's harmful.

I would be more sympathetic to something like "black underprivileged" for the reasons that @Pro Hominem has given. To educate people on the more complicated aspects of systemic racism. At best, white privilege is a bad version of black underprivileged and I dislike both on the basis that I want the focus to be on the perpetrators and victims as individuals, systems, laws rather than races.

I think that the best I can do here is what I've done - which is to try to show that I do understand a little bit of why you are arguing for the white privilege framing, since you seemed upset that you'd been misrepresented. I think everything pro hominem is saying is correct, on top of my objections on the basis of minimalising the importance of race. Not every debate needs to end in capitulation for it to be worthwhile, I think that you and I are not going to be able to agree on this topic.

All I can say is that it's good to be reminded that many of the people pushing white privilege are well-intentioned, I hope you will be able to convince those who do appreciate the framing to use it in the way you've described because I believe that is better than what I usually see.

I mean I did already think you were a racist so it's a certainty that I'm biased against you but I am always open to being corrected.

The generic flaw in liberalism is that in seeking to treat everyone as equals it inadvertently seeks to minimises cultural differences. In the end this looks like white males arguing that the solution to the world's problems is for everyone to act more like white males. — Banno

Just like streetlightx, anti-racist but racist, talking in this way is racist, how can you be blind to that? If someone came and started talking about how "black males act" would you accept that?

Are the debates managed according to your model? Do participants start from some basic facts (objective, mere, bare facts, etc.)
and further arrange and evaluate them in particular ways, so that final truth is obtained? No, it does not look like this. And, it is not about selecting a set of suitable facts to get a preferred outcome. Most often, people start the debates having the final answer ready. — Number2018

Yeah, I spoke that quote within the context of evaluating the arrangement and what doing that means for the truth. Humans are complex and as I said earlier, we do not input information and output opinion, a lot goes into it. Personality, experience, psychology, motives and the list goes on forever. I consider OP a niche angle and it doesn't describe all approaches to a topic as complex as a debate about white privilege and etc.

I think OP pertains to white privilege only for people who think white privilege accurately describes reality when really it does more than that.

Not sure what you think I'm lying about, I have always been open and upfront about my contempt for the framing. If I agreed that white privilege was necessary, if I agreed that white privilege was an important marker, then my opposition makes no sense.

Good, this is certainly part of the goal here. Do you find any single sense of "white privilege" more well-grounded than any other? — creativesoul

I would agree that it is important to demonstrate the existence of systemic racism and part of that is by pointing out how imbalanced certain statistics are between the races. In the context where you're faced with someone who is denying systemic racism, the disparities you call white privilege need to be pointed out.

There are many white people who openly say and actually believe that racism is not acceptable and it ought be removed from American society. Some of these white people come from areas in the country where there is very little ethnic and/or racial diversity, so they have had little to no personal experience and/or interactions with non whites. Rural America in particular simply does not have the degree of diversity that is common in the larger cities, particularly along the coastlines. Not everyone in these areas holds strong and clear racist belief against non whites, even if they come from a community where those remain in practice. They see racism when it's undeniably open and public, they know it's wrong, but they do not recognize the subtlety of white privilege. That takes someone else to show them in a manner that they're open and able to understand, which does not include personal attacks because they are white, as well as a white who is capable of listening to another's plight because they are not. It takes mutual respect. — creativesoul

I am sympathetic here, you are coming from a similar position to me but with a different approach. I know that general views on racism can be a little simple, it can be frustrating. If people think that racism is just verbally insulting someone then you do need to show that it's more complicated than that. So I see the aspect of white privilege as a means to have people think more deeply about what racism is to be a stronger component of the framing.

What you see is based upon conflating distinctly different things, I'm afraid. However, we may have more than enough agreement between us to move the conversation forward. Perhaps it will help ease your fears... — creativesoul

I think poverty is actually one of the biggest and most relevant aspects of systemic racism - because money represents a lot. Education, health, quality of life, power, freedom, dignity - there's a lot that comes just from having money and the fact is that black Americans are disgustingly poor in comparison to white Americans.

Nonetheless, I am totally against the idea of reparations. Because it's race-based. Fdrake made the point when I brought this up that because black Americans are disproportionately poor, they would be disproportionately benefited by economic redistribution and thus, when I argue for economic redistribution but against race-based economic redistribution, the distinction is a bit redundant. Nonetheless, I think it is important to stay away from race-based solutions and treat people based on more important distinctions than race - such as their economics.

I think you have a three stage process in mind.

(A) There are brute facts.
(B) Brute facts are arranged discursively (with narrativisation, emphasis...).
(C) The discursive arrangement is evaluated normatively (morally, cost/benefit etc.). — fdrake

Honestly, I see that there are many possible ways to distinguish between different kinds of truths. All I am interested in is how the truth gains a distinct privilege in how it is not to be challenged on any basis but validity. That the truth is what it is irrespective of what you think about it. It is possible that this problem is due to how I've approached the truth and so, you have a hard time seeing it.

(A) could be brute facts, it could be objective truth or whatever. It doesn't matter. So (A) is just "things one takes as true". It's very hard for me to think of a way of defining truth that invalidates any of the points made in my OP.

Then (B) happens as a natural consequence of intelligence, you discriminate against true pieces of information for a variety of reasons. All the things I said in my OP.

Then (C) is just, recognising that the arrangement (not the conclusion) has no truth value because we don't give truth value to choices and how you've arranged your truths was a choice.

So we need to scrutinise over whether we couldn't or shouldn't introduce new truths, new interpretations, emphasise different points to get to a different outcome and then determine when we should aim to do this and when we shouldn't. I think how truths are arranged might challenge our understanding of what is true and what it means is a separate conversation from whether we do arrange truths and whether the way we do that is a choice.

I don't think brute facts exist. I think the idea of a brute fact is one which does not depend in any way on the capacities of an agent in perceiving/representing/inter
preting/explaining/articulating it. I don't believe it's possible for an agent to relate to any type of fact without compromising its brute-ness; as a brute fact is necessarily an unperceived, unrepresented, uninterpreted, unexplained and unarticulated one. — fdrake

I agree that the brute fact is separate from how it is used in language and thought. Is that what you're saying? I do at times use the terms fact and truth interchangeably but when it comes to analysing the terms, I don't think they're the same thing. A fact is determined by a ruleset, it's an assertion based off rules for determining what is or is not in accordance with reality, whereas the truth is just that which is in accordance with reality.

So, for me, a brute "fact", yes, it's kind of contradicting. Besides what's practical, epistemology sucks.

Yet I need to distinguish between that which is asserted to be in accordance with reality (and could be correct) and that which is asserted to be in accordance with reality (and couldn't be correct). As the assertion is dependent on institutions of thought which can only exist as assertions. This represents to me, the flexibility for me to evaluate outcomes.

When I wrote about Searle’s distinction between brute facts and social facts, I have already noted that any brute facts have resulted from social construction. It is possible show that brute facts do not exist. Yet, epistemically, didactically, and phenomenologically this concept is entirely justified. Likely, social actors live lives as if it is firmly grounded on brute facts, without noting their socially constructed organization. A set of stable conventional facts (brute facts) is necessary for maintaining individuals’ social routine, social order, and the development of various models and theories of truth. — Number2018

You are suggesting the brute fact is a useful category because it signifies a particular role in an individual's understanding of their environment? Without which we enter into some kind of epistemological nihilism? I am still not totally confident on the term, I plan to read Searle's construction of reality since I'm interested but haven't yet.