Oh, is it obvious? Is this an acceptable argument?

When white people start telling me how better off they are by nature of their skin color I become immediately suspicious. So be my guest, argue how some people, by virtue of their skin color, are better off than others. — NOS4A2

I don't need to argue that, because that's not the argument. The argument is that some people are better off by virtue of having been in power in the past.

I don't need to argue that, because that's not the argument. The argument is that some people are better off by virtue of having been in power in the past.

Then the “white” in “white privilege” is superfluous.

Then the “white” in “white privilege” is superfluous. — NOS4A2

As superflous as any descriptor. "White privilege" is "white" because, historically, white people were indeed better off because of their skin color.

But I do think too many people assume that equality of opportunity can somehow be established without ever looking at outcomes, past or present. — Echarmion

In support of that: if outcome is the product of opportunity and ability, and ability has a normal (gaussian) distribution as most statistics about human characteristics seem to, then if opportunity had a uniform (equal) distribution, we would expect outcome to have a normal distribution as well. Seeing a non-normal distribution of outcomes (as we do, since success is heavily right-skewed) is therefore evidence of some inequality of opportunity or another.

ability has a normal (gaussian) distribution as most statistics about human characteristics seem to, then if opportunity had a uniform (equal) distribution, — Pfhorrest

How would we establish the distributions, exactly?

The reaction is understandable, but slavery does have a very real and direct effect on the wealth of the descendants of those slaves today. — Echarmion

That seems like it would be almost impossible to establish. There are so many variables at play, and we'd be trying to connect current data with a situation that ended 150 years ago.

Distribution of various kinds of ability is measured in many varied scientific studies, straightforwardly. I don’t know what more to say about that. And that entire previous post was about measuring distribution of opportunity by comparing distribution of ability to distribution of outcome.

As superflous as any descriptor. "White privilege" is "white" because, historically, white people were indeed better off because of their skin color.

I thought it was power that made them privileged.

Distribution of various kinds of ability is measured in many varied scientific studies, straightforwardly. — Pfhorrest

Are they maybe just utilizing scores on certain sorts of tests? We'd need, for one, to examine whether the tests are really well-designed to tell us something about abilities, especially in a broader sense. And then re opportunities, we wouldn't have something as straightforward as tests.

I'm skeptical about it epistemically.

You have a point about checking the soundness of ability testing, but again, I am not talking about measuring opportunity directly, just checking if it is indeed uniform by comparing ability and outcome.

I thought it was power that made them privileged. — NOS4A2

That's not a contradiction.

That seems like it would be almost impossible to establish. There are so many variables at play, and we'd be trying to connect current data with a situation that ended 150 years ago. — Terrapin Station

The situation didn't end 150 years ago (if we are talking about the US). It ended perhaps 60 years ago, at best. Until that point, there was still plenty of open discrimination, especially in the southern states. In certain areas, like housing, it went on even longer.

But it would certainly be difficult to establish any specific numbers. It seems like a fairly reasonable assumption that there hasn't been enough time to catch up though.

The situation didn't end 150 years ago (if we are talking about the US). It ended perhaps 60 years ago, at best. — Echarmion

There weren't slaves in the US 60 years ago.

The claim was that it's connected to slavery.

Privilege is bestowed, given. There certainly are people who would privilege others because of skin color, and they should be called out for doing so, but the receiver cannot be blamed for being a part of the privilege transaction unless he is aware of it and is in agreement with it. He is not a participant in white privilege, willingly or otherwise. Neither is he born with privilege.

There weren't slaves in the US 60 years ago.

The claim was that it's connected to slavery. — Terrapin Station

You're taking the claim unreasonably literally.

In any event, it is connected to slavery. For one, racial segregation was an outgrowth of slavery, the next best thing when slavery was no longer possible. For another, to assess the impact of slavery on the current state of affairs, we still need to look at what happened after the emancipation. And it turns out the former slaves were not allowed an even footing even then.

Privilege is bestowed, given. There certainly are people who would privilege others because of skin color, and they should be called out for doing so, but the receiver cannot be blamed for being a part of the privilege transaction unless he is aware of it and is in agreement with it. He is not a participant in white privilege, willingly or otherwise. Neither is he born with privilege. — NOS4A2

I didn't say white people are somehow universally to blame for there being white privilege.

You're taking the claim unreasonably literally. — Echarmion

In my view, when we're doing philosophy, we need to make literal claims, especially if it's something that's supposed to be important, supposed to have a lot of significance. So what would the literal claim be?

For one, racial segregation was an outgrowth of slavery, the next best thing when slavery was no longer possible. For another, to assess the impact of slavery on the current state of affairs, we still need to look at what happened after the emancipation. And it turns out the former slaves were not allowed an even footing even then. — Echarmion

That sounds like you're talking about something historical primarily. If we're trying to connect something about slavery to something about conditions at present, I think it's going to be more or less impossible.

I didn't say white people are somehow universally to blame for there being white privilege.

Would you say white people universally have white privilege?

In my view, when we're doing philosophy, we need to make literal claims, especially if it's something that's supposed to be important, supposed to have a lot of significance. So what would the literal claim be? — Terrapin Station

That it's connected to slavery and the openly racist ideas and policies that preceded and followed it.

That sounds like you're talking about something historical primarily. If we're trying to connect something about slavery to something about conditions at present, I think it's going to be more or less impossible. — Terrapin Station

You think it's impossible to establish a causal connection between past and present?

Would you say white people universally have white privilege? — NOS4A2

No, I wouldn't say that. It seems evident that there are white people that are not priviledged, at least not in any significant way.

No, I wouldn't say that. It seems evident that there are white people that are not priviledged, at least not in any significant way.

Very fair. That’s at least a nuanced view of it.

Maybe i’m Understanding it wrong. I always thought white privilege was the unearned privilege afforded to white people in general.

That it's connected to slavery . . . — Echarmion

If that's the literal claim then how was I taking it "unreasonably literally"?

You think it's impossible to establish a causal connection between past and present? — Echarmion

When we're talking about something with so many variables and a 150+ year separation, yes.

If that's the literal claim then how was I taking it "unreasonably literally"? — Terrapin Station

By ignoring what happened after slavery ended, even though it was a continuation of racist policy.

When we're talking about something with so many variables and a 150+ year separation, yes. — Terrapin Station

Fair enough. I don't have sufficient evidence on hand to convince you otherwise.

Maybe i’m Understanding it wrong. I always thought white privilege was the unearned privilege afforded to white people in general. — NOS4A2

The qualifier "in general" can be used in a way that allows exceptions. But I am sure there are people who argue that all white people are privileged due to various deep-seated prejudices and similar factors. I think it's too difficult to assess the actual effect of such factors to make strong statements.

By ignoring what happened after slavery ended — Echarmion

But I didn't say anything like that. I just said that we haven't had slavery in over 150 years. You said that the literal claim is that the present situation is connected to slavery.

It’s the assumption that whites are somehow better off because of their skin color. — NOS4A2

Not just an assumption, but that was otherwise a good post.

. For one, racial segregation was an outgrowth of slavery, — Echarmion

It was an outgrowth of anxiety associated with the 1890's economic depression coupled with the failure of southern progressives, socialists, and communists to deliver support to the poverty stricken, leading to the rise of southern demagogues who resorted to race baiting, which led to a violent take-over by white supremacists who passed laws to reduce black votership from 50-70% to 3%.

If the rest if the US had given a fuck while the South descended into fascism, Jim Crow wouldnt have happened.

It wasnt a simple outgrowth from slavery.

Fair enough. I don't have sufficient evidence on hand to convince you otherwise. — Echarmion

Why do you hold a position that there's insufficient evidence of?

The burden of proof is not "hold no positions until there is sufficient evidence of them" but "hold no positions that there is sufficient evidence against".

The burden of proof is not "hold no positions until there is sufficient evidence of them" but "hold no positions that there is sufficient evidence against". — Pfhorrest

Nonsense.

If the rest if the US had given a fuck while the South descended into fascism, Jim Crow wouldnt have happened. — frank

Total nonsense.

Why do you say that?

Because it tries to blame Southern post war racism on Reconstruction, as if the slave states weren't blatantly racist prior to the war, considering they openly treated human beings as chattel. Jim Crow was child's play compared to the laws allowing slavery.

Because it tries to blame Southern post war racism on Reconstruction, as if the slave states weren't blatantly racist prior to the war, considering they openly treated human beings as chattel. Jim Crow was child's play compared to the laws allowing slavery. — Hanover

This would be an interesting conversation. I could write out many paragraphs explaining all the reasons that what I said is true. You're not worth it.