A partial list of philosophical ideas and topics? Perhaps you're confused what the word "evidence" means? Or are you asserting that, say, all math is about the Christian God? Because if you are, you're just talking crazypants! :D

I know, his existence is real. — 3017amen

Or at least his caricatures are...

"unintentionally and/or unconsciously taking part in or supporting systemic racism practices." — Number2018

So where do I fit in? I am fully conscious of systemic racism, but I do not support its practices. Yet I am white. What now?

Notions of "racism" and "white privilege" and "systemic racism" that are utterly inadequate for discriminating between racists and non racists(the irony) — creativesoul

They are perfectly adequate, you just don't like the outcomes. I define racism as using the concept of race to define, categorize, or judge people. Without race, there can be no racists. Race is a construct that didn't even exist 500 years ago. We don't have to use it. If people choose to, then I would call that racist in a clear, definitional way.

You have defined racists as "white people who discriminate against colored people." This is a very radicalized view of racism. Only whites can be racist because racists are bad people, and the oppressed cannot ever be wrong about anything. You cannot see the irony contained in this line of thinking: "there are 2 kinds of people who are wrong - racists and white people." Mike Myers made this joke in Austin Powers 3 in a slightly different context. Here it's less funny. Saying "all white people are X" is an inherently racist proposition because it is based on judging a group of people entirely on the basis of race. That is so obviously true if you have any fidelity to the English language itself. If you don't, then why do you talk to people at all?

just plain wrong and/or ignorant by sheer will alone(refusal to carefully consider what's been actually written) — creativesoul

Back at ya. I've demonstrated your shortcomings on logical, linguistic, and practical grounds over and over. You don't want to believe me. Ok, don't. It doesn't change how logic works, what words mean, or whether its a good idea to employ a strategy that specifically seeks to alienate white people at a moment in history where many of them are starting to take your side in the conversation...

and conflating systemic racism with one of it's many bi-products(white privilege). — creativesoul

Systemic racism is an observable fact. White privilege is an argumentative construct. One exists, the other is a tactic (I've explained many times why I think it's a bad tactic, but that won't stop any of you from continuing to use it). I've acknowledged that some white people have benefited from racial attitudes and laws in all sorts of ways, and that that is a problem that must be addressed. I do not think that you can support the idea that all white people at all times are benefiting in any calculable way from the oppression of black people. I don't even think you can satisfactorily define who exactly all these "white" people are. You refuse to confront any of this. You just think it's a good idea because it makes white people mad when you say it to them. Good luck with that. You are perpetuating the system.

In Christianity, was Jesus Italian? (For some reason I thought he was Jewish.) — 3017amen

Possibly. He's usually depicted as a tall thin pale-skinned guy, often with some facial hair. But you know, he's whatever you want him to be, just like any other fantasy. Perhaps he learned that trick from hanging out with so many hookers.

Over 75% of Philosophical domains invoke God, Ummm, no? — 3017amen

Not sure what exactly you are claiming here, but you're going to need to cite some evidence. I suspect you don't have any.

Theoretical physicists invoke God, in some way shape or form (causation), no? — 3017amen

No. If you are using "God" as a synonym for "causation" you are distorting both terms beyond recognition.

Cognitive science does studies on things like the Religious Experience Ummm, no? — 3017amen

Yes, along with all sorts of other delusions and disorders.

My argument was given back on page seven, I think. I've given several since. I do not believe you. Use my words, and I'll gladly respond in kind. — creativesoul

We've tried that already. It didn't work.

If you think about the "solution" to systemic racism, what does that look like in your mind? — Pro Hominem

Can we look at this, please? I'm not laying a trap, I'm curious to know what outcomes you are hoping for. What does the "equitable" system look like? If there were no more problems of disadvantage or hate crimes, if police treated everyone the same way, if racial slurs and discriminatory encounters disappeared, how would people behave? Do you see a world in which people of all skin tones are evenly populated across schools and neighborhoods, or are there still "black communities" and "white communities?" Is there still a distinct "black culture?" Do people still talk about "black people" and "white people" or do they just talk about "people?"

You don't have to use my questions if you don't want to. I just want to know what you think success ultimately looks like.

This is so common... Funny thing...

All my black friends, family members and loved ones throughout my entire life have called themselves "black". "African American" is used by those who feel strongly about keeping their roots in mind, particularly in the late 80's and since. Even then, none of them have ever had any problem with being black or called "black" or categorized as "black", aside from being subject to injury by white racists. That's certainly a problem with being black. — creativesoul

I didn't say I don't like using it because I thought anyone was offended by it or because no one else uses it. Just the opposite. I said I don't like it because too many people use it to create a category of thought that is contributory to racist behavior.

I acknowledge that it is used by "black" people to describe themselves, and I have used it in their company. I don't think the word is taboo in and of itself. I just don't want people to go to this well of self-categorizing or making generalizations based on this concept. It perpetuates it, and that same mindset is reflected in the bigot, he is just attaching different meanings to the same generalization.

I have black loved ones, asian loved ones, and white loved ones, but according to that definition of "racist", I am racist. — creativesoul

Not speaking about you personally at all, but it is entirely possible for those things to both be true of someone.

I have family, friends, acquaintances, and strangers. They all lack a racial dimension to me. I don't use these signifiers when I identify anyone internally. Personally, I don't have a filter labeled "race" when I consider other people.

If you categorize, differentiate, or single people out for their skin tone, that is racist thinking. You realize that you're having the same reaction you're so proud of inflicting with your "white privilege" formulation, right? You feel offended because someone is accusing you of a thing you're sure you haven't done.

Accounting malpractices won't do. — creativesoul

These are called syllogisms. They are meant to make it easier to judge the logic of an argument by removing a lot of the words that allow for misinterpretation. Believe me, the logic of your argument actually got better when I simplified it that way.

Every language user who has ever used the terms "black", "white", "asian" is racist according to that criterion for what counts as being racist. — creativesoul

You are intentionally ignoring the nuances here. It is possible to use the terms without believing in their descriptive power. I can talk about God without believing that it exists. I can understand what other people mean when they use a term and use that term to interact with them without believing the term is well founded. I don't like using the word black, but I do sometimes because it means something in common usage. I prefer "people of color" because it is less charged and less overbroad, but it is still problematically inexact (and reeks of PC-ness). Ideally I wouldn't have to use this at all because people would stop seeing themselves and others this way and just treat each person as they found them. I do this, so I know it's possible.

Well. Do it. — creativesoul

Racism:
X is bad
You are X
You are bad

Post racism:
There is no X.

Your formulation (white privilege):
Y says X is bad
some people are X
Y is bad

What would you replace "white privilege" with? I'm genuinely curious, not asking in a "gotcha" way. Or if you don't agree that the role that concept plays in discourse still needs to be played, why not? — fdrake

Systemic racism. The concept includes everything that you are trying to say with white privilege with the exception of trying to make it intentionally confrontational and controversial. I understand that those that employ it think the confrontational aspect is a useful thing, but I do not. I think it breeds resistance and resentment.

(1) If established physics cannot explain all observations, then there should be something else that can explain all these. FALSE
(2) If there should be something else that can explain all these, then it should be the existence of God. FALSE
(3) Therefore, if established physics cannot explain all observations, then the existence of God is necessary to explain all these. FALSE (necessarily, as one cannot derive a true conclusion from false premises) — Isabel Hu

1. Why should there be such a thing? What requires its existence? If there ever were to be such a thing, it would probably be "physics, in the future". It would not be "God" because if we had actual knowledge of God, then that would be an observation for which we had no explanation. Infinite regress.

2. Why? The flying spaghetti monster works just as well.

3. This is an attempt to play the God of the gap concept in reverse. But much like when you play music backwards, you can tell yourself the devil is speaking, but you're really just imagining things.

Some people do, and some people don't. The irony is that Philosophy itself, posit concepts of God.
And of course science does as well (theoretical physicists, cognitive science). — 3017amen

Ummm, no.

In my opinion if Hitler didn't exist then most likely the Nazi party wouldn't have reached this present fame. — philosopher004

The party pre-existed Hitler. The situation in Germany was the situation in Germany. Mussolini rose in Italy, Franco in Spain, etc. There is no reason to think that the Nazis (or a proxy of them) don't rise to power in the absence of Hitler.

By this same argument, is it necessarily true that there is no United States if one commits infanticide against George Washington or Thomas Jefferson? Just because a person did a thing doesn't mean that no other person could have done that same thing or something very similar under the same circumstances.

I enjoyed every second of that. :D

Immunity is a thing. Exemption is a thing. — creativesoul

...and you've decided to "name" those things "white privilege?"

Seriously, what are you saying? That's incoherent.

Oh no. That's not what I meant at all. I simply meant that how we talk about race isn't the primary means by which systemic racism re/produces itself - in my view the primary means are economic and legal (function of the enforcement of law rather than letter of the law). Say when Glasgow Council decided to tackle the systemic risk of knife crime, they didn't intervene on how people spoke about each other, they treated it as a public health and education issue; effectively increasing the social capital of the target communities to address the conditions that lead to knife crime being more commonplace in those areas. They did not and could not stop anyone referring to community members as neds or schemies, but they could address the disadvantages that increased the risk of knife crime for the targets of the words.

"Defund the Police" from the BLM protests wants a similar shift in strategic focus; public health over punishment, prevention through addressing the economic issues that lead to higher crime rates over the punitive treatment of the symptoms of those issues — fdrake

Straw manning again. I did not say that vocabulary was sufficient to end racism. I said it was a factor. Obviously addressing the conditions that support the racist fiction is a bigger factor. I would never say otherwise, and have in fact said that I don't think the "white privilege" framing is somehow fatal to progress in race issues - I just think it's unproductive.

In a time where "Black Lives Matter" is an effective rallying slogan, and "white privilege" as a concept is forcing us to discuss systemic racism like this, it is still completely necessary. — fdrake

I'm taking the second part first because it dovetails with my comments above. To say that "white privilege" is a "necessary" concept is pure fiction. It is not "forcing" us to discuss anything. I am going round and round with you people because it amuses me to do so and it just helps that I think you're wrong about this. I am perfectly aware of institutional and systemic racism and have a solid grasp of the problems associated with racist law enforcement policies and practices, and I have reached all these conclusions and understandings without any help from this "white privilege" nonsense. It is in no way necessary to understand or even be aware of that terminology in order to be aware of the systemic nature of racism in this country (sorry if an American bias is present there - I acknowledge it and it doesn't change my point).

As for Black Lives Matter, I have already expressed my support for it because of its obviously beneficial effects and clear goals. I oppose white privilege for its lack of both.

The determinants of crime are largely unknown and what hypotheses have been made are largely inconsistent, but it seems to me to be common sense that a legacy or culture of poverty, especially those that align with racial disparities, can cause crime. A poor, desperate person of color forced into a bad situation is more likely to break a law than a complacent white middle-class person I think, but correct me if I’m wrong. I would like to banish the thought that culture matters, so please change my mind. — Aleph Numbers

This is tough, and fraught with the potential for misunderstanding and emotional outbursts.

I'll venture that there is a negatively symbiotic effect here. Systemic racism combined with more personal racism within police forces have served to change the culture in some communities into a resistance culture. Within such a culture, there is a lower level of respect for legal authority and its enforcement, and there can be motivation to break laws as a matter of principal - as a show of resistance. Graffiti is a really common example.

Of course, institutional racism plays a role in this as well. There is no doubt that the continued criminalization of marijuana is used for the de facto purpose of incarcerating black people in large numbers. Marijuana is a gateway drug - a gateway to searching your house, your car, your bag and anything else in the hopes of finding something to charge you with more serious than simple possession. Also, pretextual policing has been shown repeatedly to erode confidence in law enforcement and foster disrespect for the laws they enforce in the communities where it is used. These things skew statistical analyses by maintaining high arrest and crime rates through outside factors.

On the other hand, there is a lot of mixed messaging going on within the culture itself. Glorification of criminal behavior in pop culture, reinforcing norms that going to jail is correlated to masculinity, the open display of guns and drugs in communities - these all serve to perpetuate a cycle of criminality. I think there is evidence to suggest that most of this originated from the outside, but it has been around long enough that it is now being heavily reinforced from the inside.

It is also difficult to talk about this in a vacuum because poverty is so closely interlinked with it. If i imagine a neighborhood composed entirely of middle class homeowning people of color and am asked if the crime rate would be higher there than in a "white" neighborhood of the same description I would say no. There's no reason I see to expect it to be, excepting the possibility of overtly racist police enforcement.

So I would say that the premise is half-true? There are cultural elements that contribute to perpetuating some criminal behaviors in these communities, but poverty and institutional factors are at least as responsible, and probably more responsible.

Magically abolish racial categorisation in language, there would still be systemic discrimination, and it won't be long after that until racial stereotypes crop up — fdrake

So racism is inevitable? I could not more vehemently disagree.

Your straw man formulations are wearing thin as well. I am not saying "If people could not say the word 'black', then racism would end." That's just stupid. I'm saying it is possible to conceive of a world in which people do not infer anything about others based on their skin tone, but it is necessary to stop labeling people based on skin tone before that can happen.

This is a long term view, by the way. Systemic racism is still very real, but it has been diminishing for the last few decades. If we continue that trend, eventually it will be necessary to jettison the vocabulary of race. Why not start on that now?

Racial discrimination is all about the color of one's skin. — creativesoul

I am tentatively agreeing with this. I think it's correct, but it's very broad so reserving the right to re-examine. This is me agreeing with you.

You cannot correct racial discrimination without focusing upon it. You cannot focus upon it without focusing upon skin color. — creativesoul

To finish this syllogism, "therefore you cannot correct racial discrimination without focusing on skin color." I would argue this is false. This is certainly one of the key points of difference in our arguments. I would say that "focusing on skin color" is the very root of the problem of racial discrimination. If the goal is the end of racism, life in a post-racist world, then skin color must become a non-issue, not a focus.

If however, one perceives the situation as a "race war" or believes that the distinction between "white" people and "black" people is a real thing that cannot be discarded, then I guess you are trapped in this cycle until one group exterminates the other. I believe this scenario is demonstrably false, but even if I thought it might be true I'd fight against it because I see it as a horribly evil thing.

You seem to have referenced having a daily personal stake in acts of racial discrimination, so perhaps your insistence is born of the moment. I have been in that same circumstance, but I am not anymore. Perhaps I have the luxury of the long view from my perspective, but that isn't satisfying from your perspective.

I'd like to reiterate what I said several pages back - I think we want the same things. If you identify with my "post-race" scenario, then we are in agreement, and are just in different places on a similar path. If you agree with the "race war" or "race is real" formulation, however, then that would explain why it is so difficult to reach any accord here.

Since you have accused me repeatedly of trying to put words in your mouth, I'll let you speak for yourself on this matter. If you think about the "solution" to systemic racism, what does that look like in your mind?

If complicity and collaboration in an injustice both require that that injustice is illegal, it becomes impossible to be complicit in or collaborate in the execution of an unjust law; since by definition it is legal — fdrake

Yes, this is correct. You must campaign for the changing of the law. Or, in the inverse, if one cannot be charged with a crime or be held liable for a behavior, then one can also not be held as an accomplice to that crime or behavior.

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

Ok, this is the crux of the miscommunication. This is absolutely not what Judaka and I are saying. I would say it's a straw man, but I think you think this is what you're actually arguing against.

We are saying:
Racist = personally defines or categorizes people by the color of their skin, according to a made up concept called "race"

Racist =/= being able to understand, describe, and discuss the fact that (most) people think this way, resulting in a range of undesirable effects

Thus, there is a difference between recognizing the "mass incarceration of blacks" as a real problem based on a range of factors (which include defining people as "black" in the first place), and using a statement like "black power" or "white privilege" which indicates a personally held belief that all people are members of these distinct "races".

There are, of course, nuances to this. I dislike the reinforcement of the concept of "blackness" that "Black Lives Matter" implies, but I recognize that in this moment that language is necessary, I think the message and the goals of this movement are obviously beneficial, and the benefits of this framing far outweigh the detriment of its reinforcement of the race concept.

That said, I believe (and I think Judaka believes, but it's not my place to say so) that the ultimate goal is to stop using these terms at all. There is no need nor benefit to referring to people as black or white in the way that we do. I realize terms like "dark-skinned" or "pale-skinned" may have utility as descriptive terms, similar to saying someone has black hair or green eyes, but we must stop using these words "black" and "white" unless we can collectively understand we are not describing ANYTHING beyond the color of their skin.

As long as we continue to employ the language and symbolism of the race-based view of the world, we will never live in a "post-racist" world. This is my concern with most anything that uses the "black" or "white" labels. If every one of us just stopped believing those terms correlated to something real in the world, racism would immediately disappear. That is what the end of racism looks like.

For me there's a distinction between complicity - what I think MLK diagnoses as the system justifying behaviour of the "white moderate" in a different vocabulary - and collaboration, like the FBI's actions against black civil rights movements in COINTELPRO + within Garvey's movement. Complicity's "The wrong life cannot be lived rightly" vs collaboration's being an agent that works to promote or sustain the unjust conditions of life. — fdrake

You're trying to create a distinction where there is no difference. Accomplice and collaborator mean more or less the same thing. Both require direct, knowledgeable involvement in a previously determined illegal act. Neither of them apply in this case, as even @creativesoul has been telling you.

Therefore, individuals may exercise acts of systemic racism unbeknownst to themselves, or even contrary to their intentions, — Number2018

There is no such thing as an "act of systemic racism". Systemic racism is system-wide, by definition. It is not contained in specific instances, it is perpetually present by virtue of the system in which it lives. Acts of racism are interpersonal, not systemic. You argument holds true if you make this distinction, but fails if you do not.

People engaged in discrete acts of interpersonal racism absolutely bear responsibility for those acts. There is no such thing as systemic responsibility. The results of enforcing such a concept would be laughably insane.

Yeah. You seem to think that names only refer to people(or perhaps that only proper nouns are names?). Names pick something out of this world to the exclusion of all else. Not just people have names. The red brick has a name too. "Red brick" is the name we've given to red bricks. "Red brick" is not a red brick. Houses are made of red bricks, not "red bricks". When I name the object I want you to hand me, if it is a red brick, I call it by it's name. "Hand me a red brick". — creativesoul

I didn't say anything about people. I said a brick's name was Sergio. Names are arbitrary titles given to specific instances of things. But that's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of the people who catalog what our words mean based on how they are used:

name
/nām/
noun
1. a word or set of words by which a person, animal, place, or thing is known, addressed, or referred to.
"my name is Parsons, John Parsons"

so,

"White privilege" is a name that refers to the immunity that all white individuals have from suffering injury because one is non white. Below are explicit descriptions of white privilege. — creativesoul

...is not correct. It is an attempt to describe the phenomenon, using those specific words.

If it were really nothing more than a name, why would you fight so hard against changing it? We've all agreed that it is broadly irritating when deployed against people who are not privy to academic discussions of race. You see that as a feature, I see it as a bug.

If you could name it anything, why would you choose something that makes large numbers of people instantly denounce it upon its utterance, unless you felt that label had specific descriptive powers? Maybe the working title was "Final Solution", but then "White Privilege" was settled on as being slightly less controversial?

You can't have it both ways. Either (A) the words "white privilege" mean what they say they mean and were specifically chosen to convey those ideas (the facts support this entirely), or (B) "white privilege" is just an arbitrary "name", and it has no meaning, and you shouldn't care or be surprised when people tell you it's a stupid name.

If you choose option A, then you need to confront my arguments that it fails as a description because it falsely attempts to create a privilege in an overly broad and poorly defined case, instead of focusing on the real detriment in a different case. It also fails as an attempt to combat racism because it reinforces concepts of race that are artificial and need to be wiped out entirely, not perpetuated by created new ways to use (weaponize?) them.

If you choose option B, then you need to change the name to something better. I suggest "systemic racism".

↪Number2018

It seems to me that that account is an oversimplification based upon a couple of false equivalencies. Supporting X is not equivalent to not challenging X.

Complicity requires knowledge of that which one is an accomplice to and the intent to be an accomplice. Typically it is some illegal action and/or wrongdoing. Typically speaking many white people - particularly those lacking close relationships with non whites - are not aware of the everyday struggles that non whites suffer simply for being non white. White privilege is a benefit that many(perhaps most poor) whites do not realize that they have. To say that they are complicit in systemic racism is problematic to say the very least. To say that they are responsible for something that was otherwise completely out of their control, is wrong-minded to say the least. There are much better approaches. — creativesoul

Thank you for responding to that so I didn't have to.

It's never a good sign when an interlocutor insists upon telling me what I believe, despite my explicitly saying otherwise — creativesoul

White privilege is the direct, demonstrable, and inevitable result of systemic and/or institutional racism. Put simply, it is what white people do not have to deal with on a daily basis that non whites do. It is the injury because one is non white that white people avoid suffering because they are not. The negative effects/affects that racist people, policies, belief systems, and social practices created remain extant in American society. They continue to directly impact the lives and livelihoods of the people that they were originally designed to discriminate against. — creativesoul

I am not "insist[ing] on telling you what you believe", nor do I think you can make the case you have said otherwise. Here are your own words. I was merely paraphrasing them for brevity and simplicity.

You believe that a privilege accrues to all white people by virtue of their whiteness. — Pro Hominem

Which part of this is so incongruent with your position that you feel I've done you a grave injustice? This statement wasn't intended to be the least bit controversial. I believe(d) it was a simplified. but correct statement of the case you've been presenting all along. If I I've offended you, it was not my intent.

You have previously in this thread made the case that being offended by things is good and we should try to understand why we are offended. Perhaps this is an opportunity to follow your own advice?

I get the impression that you get offended by the term. Perhaps it was a misreading, but I found your prose in this thread had a wounded narrative voice. Albeit a wound dressed with abstractions. Analysis written with the urgency of a deep felt wound, defending yourself from the (alleged) accusations inherent in the idea. I imagine that you feel scared because you believe if it's true that makes you racist and complicit in oppression and there's not much you can do to change it. — fdrake

Ha! Ok, we are even. I told you a joke, and you made me laugh, although I don't think you meant to.

Is there any way it would be enough for me to simply say you are completely incorrect? Could you then engage my perfectly rational arguments without having to resort to ad hominem projections? Or are you going to demand my bona fides and waste a lot of time before we get back to the actual point of the conversation, which is the general poverty of the term white privilege as a tool to help end racism?

Up to you.

In fact it is the thing that is mostly discused in the world by smart people.
— philosopher004

Please provide your data. — Pro Hominem

Martin Luther,Soren Kierkegaard,Fyodor Dostoevsky(not considered a theologian but discusses theology).I think they are smart because they didn't write for their time but took the fundamentals of everything from human attitude towards divinity to why we should take the 'leap of faith'. — philosopher004

This is 3 examples of people who you consider smart (I think most poeple would agree, so I won't take the argument there) who have, to some degree, written about theology. That is not sufficient to support saying that theology is the single most discussed topic by smart people. There are plenty of smart people who don't discuss it at all.

Basically, this statement is so broad that it would be essentially impossible to prove and I don't think you need to anyway in order to discuss what you are wanting to discuss. Try to keep your assertions more focused. :)

In fact it is the thing that is mostly discused in the world by smart people. — philosopher004

Please provide your data.

People super uncomfortable with the claim get more uncomfortable when the discomfort is pointed out, and super duper uncomfortable if it's psychologised. — fdrake

Just out of curiosity, do you have the impression that I am made personally uncomfortable by the term? Or are you speaking to the larger suggestion that it causes discomfort in some people?

Agreed. It's a name. Names are not descriptions. — creativesoul

It is not. It is highly descriptive. Steve is a name. If you stop calling it white privilege and call it Steve, that would remediate a lot of my objections. But you won't do that because you have specifically chosen to use these words to describe what you are talking about.

You believe that a privilege accrues to all white people by virtue of their whiteness. You call that phenomenon "white privilege". It could hardly be a more explicit attempt to be descriptive. Or a more explicitly racist concept.

Let's say I hand you a red brick. You say, "what's this?" I say, "red brick." You say, "why did you hand me a red brick?"

Let's say I hand you a red brick. You say, "what's this?" I say, "Sergio." You say, "why did you name this red brick Sergio?"

See the difference?

First, you acknowledge the existence of institutional racism. — Number2018

I do.

The notion implies the institutional, systemic discrimination of a particular group of people. — Number2018

No, it reflects that the concept of race and attitudes or beliefs about specific racial groups are woven into the fabric of our culture and its institutions. Racial discrimination is any action that follows from these embedded ideas. Do not conflate the racist ideas in the system with the individual acts of discrimination. Not all members of a culture must adhere to every one of that culture's constituent beliefs. It is possible to be American and not be racist, even though American culture is rife with racist attitudes and symbols. On the whole, the culture may be racist, but not every member of the culture participates in or is responsible for that racism. Many reject it. I do.

One may not be a racist consciously, but as a member of society, one unintentionally takes part in the discriminatory practices and benefits from their outcomes. Next, since one has not been discriminated, but has been benefited, as a member of the majority of the unjust and oppressing society, one necessarily bears responsibility for the beneficiary results of discriminatory practices. — Number2018

I don't see why any of this MUST BE true. If you are riding in a bus, and the bus runs over a person crossing the street, do you bear responsibility for that event because you are a beneficiary of the bus ride?

Are you responsible for George Floyd's death? Are you responsible for Trump's stormtroopers firing on peaceful protesters?

How much benefit do you need to get to be a beneficiary? I (and most other people in this country, including blacks and members of other minority groups) benefit from the security and stability of this country's institutions and services. On some occasions, individuals receive less of the benefit of those institutions than is normal and expected. Sometimes that's because of race. When that happens is everyone else in the country responsible? Or only the white people?

What if you are the only white kid in a minority community and you are routinely discriminated against? Do you still have white privilege? Are you responsible for your own discrimination?

@creativesoul has tried to articulate a formulation of white privilege that avoids placing blame and is meant to make people aware of differences in treatment through this lens. I can understand the intent, I just don't think it's the best way to go about ending racism (and may actually reinforce a race based view of society). What you are suggesting is far worse. If you think it is appropriate to make every white person "responsible" for every racist act that occurs in this country, you need to think some more. That is facially unjust. Also, extremely racist.

Consequently, we come to the "white privilege" concept. You cannot embrace the notion of institutional racism and, at the same time, argue that "white privilege" is counterproductive and unnecessarily. — Number2018

Sure you can. If you've been reading this thread, you've already seen me do it several times. Institutional racism is about ideologies of race permeating our cultural institutions. I don't believe that introducing another idea that relies on race-based generalizations is an effective (or even rational) way to combat those ideologies.

It's just not what word means, like we know what the word table means and when and where it is applicable.
— ChatteringMonkey

My dictionary has 'privilege' meaning

an advantage that only one person or group of people has, usually because of their position or because they are rich:
— Cambridge

a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor
— Merriam-Webster

I'm struggling to see how it is so obvious that its use in 'white privilege' is "just not what word means". Its meaning seems quite congruent to me, it's saying that freedom from certain types of oppression and restriction, the opening of certain opportunities is an advantage which white people have.

Being able to go about one's daily business with a lower chance of being arrested or shot by your own police force in certain parts of America is an advantage afforded to white people simply because they're white is it not?

That's right there in the dictionary definition. I'm not sure what your objection on semantic grounds is. — Isaac

"Only one person or group of people" - the syntax of this indicates a group of relatively limited size and uses the examples of wealth or position as opposed to large scale qualifiers like race or gender.

"A peculiar benefit" - again, peculiar here indicates something out of the ordinary. An isolated or unusual case. "Whiteness" is not a peculiar trait, it is exceedingly common. Both of these definitions clearly imply a limited scope. If a benefit is granted to a huge group of people, a category of people, the term used would likely be a "right", not a privilege.

I wasn't going to keep posting, but here I am again... I'm not sure I would have replied to someone other than you. If you want to take issue with the efficacy or impact of the term, I'll grant that the jury may still be out on that. The fact that the term is a misnomer is not in question, however. It is not an accurate description. Period.

The accurate way to describe what people like creative say they are talking about is that there are human rights, and the rights of white people are generally observed but the rights of blacks are quite frequently not. This is racial discrimination, and when we see its prevalence in our culture, we acknowledge that the racism is systemic.

Human rights are not privileges because people are supposed to have them. If anyone is denied them, ever, that is wrong. If it is done on the basis of race, then that is a specific strain of this wrong behavior. The most certain way to prevent these particular abuses is to educate people away from viewing the world through the lens of race. "White privilege" explicitly reinforces that race-bound view of the world and perpetuates the most necessary condition of racist thought, the very concept of race itself.

How do you think we got the conception that god is just?Did we start by conceptualizing that god was just or more simply was our morality back then deontological or Consequentialism. — philosopher004

Define God as you're using the term.

I can tell you this much - regardless of your god-definition, god predates notions of a "just god" by centuries if not millenia. In the case of the Judeo-Christian god, the notion that "he" is just is an entirely modern creation, and not scriptural at all. Like every other part of the god concept, justice was created at the time it needed to be to keep the religion relevant to the flock.

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. — Judaka

But I've repeatedly said I don't want to talk about white privilege. I've raised the same point that you have, which is that it serves to reinforce racial categories (among my other criticisms). I thought maybe at least one person agreed with me to some degree...No?

Oh well

PS - As annoying as they are, you might stop feeding the trolls. They go away if you ignore them.

Probably, the different groups that promote the "white privilege" concept as the urgent object of the public debate have different intentions and aspirations. Likely, some of them strive for positive social change (by the way, it is the very arguable concept itself). Others want to bring the maximum possible change, to disbalance the homeostasis of the existing social system, and then manage and control the spectrum of accelerating processes. — Number2018

It seemed liked you almost agreed with me in a way here, but don't worry, I won't tell anyone. :D

I know that this notion of white privilege will continue to get pushed by the high-educated left, and my thoughts are of no consequence to that. I'm just saying that I think there are better alternatives. But maybe the struggle is more important than the goal.

I don't think you could ask for a better two word propaganda tool. The costs associated with the analytic imprecision actually show up as gains in transmissibility and scope. It's even very very accurate for a slogan. — fdrake

Hey,

I appreciate the more even tone of this message. We certainly have points of difference that might be explored, but I'm feeling a little punched out about this topic. I've made my position clear (in bullet points, no less) and I think my reasoning has some merit although there are clearly those who disagree. I certainly feel confident that my position is not way off base or essentially wrong in any way.

Apologies if I'm shortchanging you by not responding fully, but it feels like I would just be retreading what I've already said.

I'm sure we can spar on another thread sometime soon. :)

Cheers

White privilege is the direct, demonstrable, and inevitable result of systemic and/or institutional racism. Put simply, it is what white people do not have to deal with on a daily basis that non whites do. It is the injury because one is non white that white people avoid suffering because they are not.
— creativesoul

↪Pro Hominem

That's it.

:smile: — creativesoul

Ok, I understand what you are saying. I believe that the effect you are describing is real. Please keep that in mind - I am not saying that the effects of what you are describing don't exist.

Here are my concerns:
1. I see this as inexact. Specifically overbroad. It assumes that the experiences of all white people are more or less the same, it assumes that the experiences of all non-white people are more or less the same, and it assumes that the experiences of whites and non-whites are mutually exclusive - one cannot have the experience of the other. I think that individual experiences of racial prejudice are usually much more specific than this - one is mistreated for being black, or latin, or asian, etc - as opposed to the generalization of non-white. But that is in the realm of individual racism. In terms of systemic oppression, I think it is far more complicated than this model, which glaringly excludes economic factors and ignores that on the broadest scale, race is simply a tool of the oppression, not its object.

2. This statement is in itself racist, and supports a racially derived view of the world. I mean racist here in the sense of prioritizing race above all other factors, not in the KKK sense of the word. As I said above, the history of racism is not only about race. It is about power and property, and someone needing to be the scapegoat so the powerful and the rich could remain so. That is why the system continues even though we've reached a point where most people would never even consider being casually racist in public. The priesthood needs the masses to turn on each other so they pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

3. It's a hard sell. The people you need to get on board to effect positive change are the middle ground people who don't feel strongly one way or the other about race. These people are the balance in elections and they turn protests into movements. Since (statistically) most of them are white, why go at them with something that calls them out right from the beginning? I'm speaking in very practical terms here, but the only formal information we've had supplied here (by @Isaac) suggests that the results may not be what you are hoping for. Sure, it's not conclusive, but it's worth considering. In this sense, it comes down to the fact that I don't believe that it is necessary to convince someone of the verisimilitude of the term "white privilege" to convince them that they should care about racial oppression and support changing it.

@creativesoul Ok, I'm not sure I spoke as clearly as I wanted to, but at least I've given a framework for my position. I've highlighted the pieces of 1 and 3 that seem to me to be points of difference. 2 explains itslef. Is there anything here you find worth discussing?