I use "white privilege" as it was taught to me by non whites. I draw correlations between "white privilege" and the actual negative effects/affects(personal injury) that systemic racism has had and continues to have upon non white individuals. We language users who employ "white privilege" in such a way are not saying that white people should feel guilty. We are most certainly not demonizing white people when discussing white privilege.

Discussions about white privilege can be focused upon uplifting people who are being oppressed. Discussion about white privilege do not require shaming bystanders who are not actually voluntarily participating in the oppression. Discussions of white privilege do not require trying to make the case that whites are somehow 'wrong' by virtue of benefitting from systemic racism. — creativesoul

I'm trying to start over in the relevant strain of this conversation...

I agree with most of what you're saying, just not with the unfortunate name you're giving it. It's like coming up with a delicious new flavor of ice cream, then naming it "child abuse". Ok, it's not like that at all, but maybe you see what I mean? :D

If you want to have internal conversations with your circle where you've all agreed on a particular meaning for this phrase then you absolutely should - that is a benefit of the flexibility that language has. I would caution you that when you carry the same language outside that venue the understandings of that term are going to vary widely, as will the reactions (and some if not many of them will be negative). This is the detriment of the flexibility that language has. Because of this, I doubt its value in open discourse with anyone not already schooled in racial theory.

In addition to what I see as its dubious utility, I think it reinforces racial stereotypes and is itself an example of systemic racism. "The experience of being black in America" is not saying the same thing as "the experience of being non-white in America". People don't say they were pulled over for being non-white. They say they were pulled over for "driving while black." Their blackness is essential to their experience, not their non-whiteness. There are other non-white groups that do not receive the level of discrimination that falls to blacks. There are non-white groups that tend to demonstrate as much discrimination toward blacks as some whites do. This is not a white/black issue. It is an issue of discriminatory treatment directed very specifically at black people. To characterize that as a "white" phenomenon is incorrect, and more importantly just perpetuates a racist viewing of society.

Finally, there are examples that the "privilege" exists for non-whites in some places. In some areas on the West Coast, Asians are entrenched in the ranks of the "privileged". They have equal or even greater access to capital, higher representation in elite educational circles, and can be found living in the poshest zip codes. There may be some racist feeling toward them from some whites, but they are in a position to ignore it. It doesn't affect them unless they choose to have it do so. Are they experiencing "white privilege?" Or does it become "Asian privilege?"

The worst feature of this term is that it is itself racist. It draws the wrong conclusion from the black experience, which is that the adversary is white people. If white people would just stop taking advantage of them, things would improve. The people that are taking advantage of them might be mostly white, but not all of them are, and not all white people are taking advantage of them. To see the world in this black/white dialectic reinforces the very condition that we are trying to change.

I know you and those you say you use these terms with don't "mean" any of this, but the words do have this "meaning".

What's 'wrong', if you insist upon talking like this, is not acknowledging that whites born in America are exempt from the liabilities of being non white in America — creativesoul

I don't think you're saying that I do not acknowledge that there are broad and pervasive differences between the experiences of white and black people in America. If you are, I can assure you that I do (and I have on multiple occasions during this conversation). I don't agree with oversimplifying it to simply a white/non-white calculus. I don't even agree with the assertion that the experiences of all "whites" are identical and can be lumped together as such. That is definitionally racist thought - determining conclusions based on the sole criterion of race.

This post is way too long, but I want to stress something if you're still reading. I believe we agree on all the important things here. In any movement there is the danger that counterproductive ideas and strategies will creep in to even the most well-intentioned messages. It is my opinion that "white privilege" is a somewhat counter-productive idea nesting in the absolutely correct and vital push for the end of racism. It's not fatal or anything, but it's not helping. That is my opinion. You do not share my opinion, and that's fine. We don't have to agree on everything. Thanks for the dialogue, I hope I've at least given you an opportunity to think critically about your position, even if only to figure out why I'm wrong. Cheers.

I think that makes sense. It's not quite my experience of the term's use, but I do think we can put that down to our respective fields or social circles. A small amount of my work is with people who've had a pretty shit deal in life, I've never really 'checked my privilege' and it hasn't prevented me from doing my job (I don't think), but maybe it's a valuable exercise in humility.

Very well put. I think we've all had our say, and we'll just have to agree to disagree. In the end we are reaching for the same conclusion, just discrepancies what path to take to get there.

...On the one hand, we have the assertion that an important step in changing matters of discrimination, whether on the basis of race or gender or similar ideas, is to acknowledge that there is a privileged group that is immune(ish) to that discrimination (let's set aside the conversation of height or beauty discrimination, as these really aren't relevant to the discussion). — Pro Hominem

The above is almost acceptable, as it is written. I would remove the implied uncertainty accompanying the use of "ish". I would continue by properly accounting for situations where a white individual suffers because they were/are believed to be non white. That results in a much stronger claim.

When you further critiqued the above, you went sorely astray...

My problem with the first position is that I think it improperly places the focus on some perceived misconduct by a given group(all white people)... — Pro Hominem

The rest of that post, beginning with the falsehood quoted immediately above, is based upon a gross misunderstanding. One cannot properly critique that which is not understood. Trust me when I kindly say that you're misunderstanding. What follows below is clear undeniable prima facie evidence thereof.

Talking about all of the different negative effects/affects that non whites suffer because they are non white does not place focus upon some perceived misconduct of all white people.

...instead of placing the focus where it should be, on the targeted misconduct AGAINST a different group (people of color). In other words, the movement must and should be BLACK Lives Matter, not WHITE Lives Don't Matter As Much As You Think They Do, which is the subtext of this need to make white privilege a conspicuous part of this discussion.

The problem is NOT that white people have generally safe(r) neighborhoods, more access to education and higher paying jobs, and a general lack of suspicion directed at them as they go about their daily lives. The problem IS that people of color shouldn't have less of those things for the simple reason that they are people of color. Systemic racism doesn't spring from the general public's attitude that white people deserve to have advantages (taking out the case of white supremacists, who are just awful people), it springs from a deep seated fear that has been woven into the culture over a long period of time with varying degrees of intent and aimed at people of color. Calling attention to that phenomenon and actively trying to root it out is placing the focus on the problem - trying to shame people for a state of affairs that they did not create and in most cases are not even conscious of is not. — Pro Hominem

The above is a textbook example of how to employ and argue against a strawman. None of what you're arguing against above is what I've claimed. Nor does any of it follow from what I've claimed

I completely understand what you're saying. I swear. Let me see if I can reframe this so we can get somewhere.

I say that BLM is the way to go. It highlights the problem of detrimental treatment of people of color.

You say white privilege is the way to go. — Pro Hominem

That's neither, what I said, nor does it always/necessarily follow from what I said. Unfortunately, too much of what followed the seven sentences in the above quote was based upon a gross (mis)understanding put on display by the last in the group.

:meh:

When you return, if you'd still care to tease out some subtleties by responding to what I've actually written, and what follows from that(the above most certainly doesn't), may I suggest that you scroll back through this thread paying particularly close attention to the clear unambiguous definition that I offered earlier for "white privilege"? That would go a long way with me, because doing so could help us to complete a bridge(of sorts) of mutual understanding. The sheer amount of misunderstanding that has shown itself(from my vantage point anyway) is immense. Your initial objection was met with valid rebuttal, and everything went askew from there it seems.

Many(all but one, I think) of the 'objections' that followed and claimed to be about that definition were not even based upon it. That's a problem, and I'm not interested in pointing out each and every time that that occurred. All one needs to do, if they are so inclined, is to compare the actual definition I offered to each and every subsequent use of "white privilege" that you offered afterwards. The disconnect becomes quite clear.

You've made it abundantly clear that you do not believe that talking in terms of "white privilege" is helpful for accruing additional support(particularly from potentially malleable white people) for the cause of redressing systemic racism. As you've noted, that seems to be where our disagrement is. There have been some fair points in support of your view made by several different participants. Isaac has even offered an expert opinion on the potential and/or actual negative effects/affects that talking in terms of "white privilege" can result in, the like of which could possibly be a negative personal conclusion about poor white people based upon the idea that they had not taken advantage of the privilege that they've had since birth. I've actually witnessed that very same sort of conversation as it was happening.

Poor whites very often equate privilege with wealth. That is a source of offense at the use of "white privilege" as well. There's much to be unpacked. I ask only that you - at the very least - look into the box I've presented.

Mike Cole at UEL a few years ago produced a seminal study on this. Unsurprisingly students on such courses (I think he studies both race and gender studies) generally showed more sympathetic language use and policy leanings than before the courses, but he noted the opposite effect with a minority of 'resistant' students. It depends on your target audience. There's also a paper (not out yet) which claims to show positive relationships between perspective taking and system justification behaviour - so people who are shown other perspectives tend to justify existing systems less. Again this is generally positive as far as 'white privilege' discourse is concerned, but again the effect was switched around when system justification preceded the perspective-taking. — Isaac

This is exactly what I've been trying to communicate. Like, exactly. However @Isaac, reading between the lines gives me an impression that you don't find merit in what I've been saying. Can you please explain to me how you see my assertions differing from the information you've presented here? My tone here is sincere, not argumentative.

Yes, I think The Naomi Zack article could even go further. The fact that white people have paths open to them which people of colour do not have have is a privilege and that cannot really be denied, and shouldn't be lost in any talk of the effect of 'white privilege' discourse, but any attempt to broadcast or use that undeniable fact in political society becomes discourse, we cannot avoid it and we cannot be mindless to its consequences — Isaac

Even here, your thoughts correlate to mine. The fault I see is not in the idea itself, the fact that there are vastly different conditions for living that are based largely (when not entirely) on race. That is obvious. The issue I'm raising is what happens when you begin to try to deliver that information into the public discourse, which has to be done in some way if change is going to happen. The information you've provided demonstrates that the form of that message is perhaps even more important that its substance, in terms of being accepted and perhaps acted upon by the audience. Have I missed something?

I ask only that you - at the very least - look into the box I've presented. — creativesoul

Noted. I am doing so. My intent was never to mischaracterize your position. I have no interest in attacking straw men. To the extent it appeared I was doing so, it is because I believe that in a certain context, your position as I understood it led to certain conclusions, and I was proceeding from those conclusions. I will reread your initial position and proceed more slowly.

If possible, could you let me know which page it was on? I'd ask you to quote it, but I don't want to give the impression of laziness. :)

The information you've provided demonstrates that the form of that message is perhaps even more important that its substance, in terms of being accepted and perhaps acted upon by the audience. Have I missed something? — Pro Hominem

How can you tell if someone who extremely dislikes the concept of white privilege is doing so for system justification/self palliative reasons or not? I'm not saying don't be critical of it, I'm saying that the very idea inspires so much vitriol in some people and pages and pages of text. Often, after the pages and pages the person who says they hate the concept of white privilege actually agrees with all of the substantive content it criticises, but feels either personally attacked by it or that (generic white person) will be turned off by it. Projecting personal discomfort onto the absent other, maybe. Regardless, they dislike the present because of the package. Complicity should never feel comfortable, and self flagellating doesn't make any difference.

I've got a personal wager that people who get super animated about it being a hard sell to some white people to begin with more often than not are duckspeaking system justification in an academic dialect. But that's neither here not there I suppose.

I don't understand why we're only talking about privilege along racial lines here. One of the biggest privileges in life is physical attraction and its something that is largely outside of our control. Each one of us is likely privileged and unprivileged in a billion different ways and yo focus exclusively on only one facet in a discussion thread about privilege in general seems like we're missing the bigger picture.

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

Is this what you were directing me to? I found it on page 7 for anyone interested. It is part of a much longer post, so I don't want to fail to include anything essential or take something out of context. Is this sufficient?

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

That's it.

:smile:

How can you tell if someone who extremely dislikes the concept of white privilege is doing so for system justification/self palliative reasons or not? I'm not saying don't be critical of it, I'm saying that the very idea inspires so much vitriol in some people and pages and pages of text. Often, after the pages and pages the person who says they hate the concept of white privilege actually agrees with all of the substantive content it criticises, but feels either personally attacked by it or that (generic white person) will be turned off by it. Projecting personal discomfort onto the absent other, maybe. Regardless, they dislike the present because of the package. Complicity should never feel comfortable, and self flagellating doesn't make any difference.

I've got a personal wager that people who get super animated about it being a hard sell to some white people to begin with more often than not are duckspeaking system justification in an academic dialect. But that's neither here not there I suppose. — fdrake

Perhaps, but belief it or not, some people are actually concerned with precision in the words they use. Like, don't try to convince me by manipulating the meaning of words, just give me accurate facts and let me decide.

I appreciate you being here.

Can you please explain to me how you see my assertions differing from the information you've presented here? My tone here is sincere, not argumentative. — Pro Hominem

The information I've presented shows that there is limited and as yet un-replicated experimental support for the idea that the term might have undesirable consequences in specific circumstances. I do have reservations about its use, but as the Xi paper shows (and as Streetlight and Banno have corroborated anecdotally), it clearly does have some positive impact in other circumstances. I've not followed your posts closely, but it seems you might possibly be more condemnatory of the net use than I am? My concern is mostly about the use of the term to distract from the real issues, which I see as the systemic necessity for an oppressed underclass. Where it's not used for that purpose, I've no issue with it.

The point @StreetlightX made about how it is necessary to respond to the toxifying of discourse by being firm about the meaning of terms is important here. If there is some use to the term, and also some risk, we need to take care not to allow right-wing exaggeration of that risk diminish the use. I've not personally found much use, and I have academically seen some misuse, but I'm not about to dismiss people's experiences of having been positively affected by the concept.

Very kind of you to say so.

The information you've provided demonstrates that the form of that message is perhaps even more important that its substance, in terms of being accepted and perhaps acted upon by the audience. Have I missed something?
— Pro Hominem

How can you tell if someone who extremely dislikes the concept of white privilege is doing so for system justification/self palliative reasons or not? I'm not saying don't be critical of it, I'm saying that the very idea inspires so much vitriol in some people and pages and pages of text. Often, after the pages and pages the person who says they hate the concept of white privilege actually agrees with all of the substantive content it criticises, but feels either personally attacked by it or that (generic white person) will be turned off by it. Projecting personal discomfort onto the absent other, maybe. Regardless, they dislike the present because of the package. Complicity should never feel comfortable, and self flagellating doesn't make any difference.

I've got a personal wager that people who get super animated about it being a hard sell to some white people to begin with more often than not are duckspeaking system justification in an academic dialect. But that's neither here not there I suppose. — fdrake

1. I'm not able to see how anything you said here relates to the quoted text. Were you just using that as a convenient way to direct this message at me? That seems disingenuous and overtly hostile, but perhaps I've misunderstood your intent. Either way, I'll proceed.
2. I've never said I hated anything. My response to the subject matter has not been emotional, and I've never appealed to emotion in making my arguments. Perhaps this minor slight is a piece of your master plan to discredit me?
3. Yes, here we go. I'm projecting. I'm personally offended by the term. Blah, blah, etc. I guess if you can't confront the argument, there's always ad hominem attacks to fall back on. "I don't like Al Gore, therefore climate change isn't happening." Rock solid reasoning here.
4. How shall we determine the outcome of your wager? And what do I get when I win?
5. In no way do I feel personally targeted or in the least defensive about "white privilege". I have raised 3 critiques of it:

• It is inexact and potentially misleading

• It reinforces the very race-based structures of mind that its proponents say they are trying to eradicate

• It has no utility for promoting positive change because it requires too much explanation before one will accept it

If you have something relevant to say about those assertions, please do. If not, please just leave me alone. You and others like you are just exasperating.

PS - you said "duckspeaking" and your name is drake. That's hilarious. Well done.

I think you've misunderstood my responses to you... — Judaka

I see that there has been some misunderstanding. Patience and genuine desire to understand one another will go a long way. I appreciate all the effort of those so engaged, yourself included. Have you been reading Isaac's recent additions?

"White privilege" when used in the best way, puts a white in the shoes of non whites...

Is that what's meant - or close at least - to perspective-taking?

"White privilege" when used in the best way, puts a white in the shoes of non whites...

Is that what's meant - or close at least - to perspective-taking? — creativesoul

Yes, that's exactly it. Perspective taking generally increases empathy and sympathy and makes system justification less likely. The exception seems to be when the context of the perspective taking exercise is system-criticism itself. If the experiment is set up deliberately to examine some system, the perspective-taking seems to have the opposite effect. It's possible that this is simply the effect of prior beliefs on belief-updating, but as yet I don't think that's been established. People tend to view ambiguous information as more confirmatory of prior beliefs if they consider those beliefs to be under challenge than if they don't. That may explain the effect, but as I say, it's not been replicated yet.

q

How can you tell if someone who extremely dislikes the concept of white privilege is doing so for system justification/self palliative reasons or not? I'm not saying don't be critical of it, I'm saying that the very idea inspires so much vitriol in some people and pages and pages of text. Often, after the pages and pages the person who says they hate the concept of white privilege actually agrees with all of the substantive content it criticises, but feels either personally attacked by it or that (generic white person) will be turned off by it. Projecting personal discomfort onto the absent other, maybe. Regardless, they dislike the present because of the package. Complicity should never feel comfortable, and self flagellating doesn't make any difference.

I've got a personal wager that people who get super animated about it being a hard sell to some white people to begin with more often than not are duckspeaking system justification in an academic dialect. But that's neither here not there I suppose.

I think the vitriol stems from “white privilege” being a sweeping and unjust generalization upon people with lighter skin colors, in this case the projections of Peggy McIntosh upon an amorphous, abstract group of people rather than a thoughtful analysis of flesh and blood individuals. I can imagine other such generalizations made about other skin colors, and I think it is safe to say there would be some warranted vitriol, and rightly so.

For me it’s a hard sell because it’s a racialist and racist concept, and not much more than that.

Thank you for your response.

The information I've presented shows that there is limited and as yet un-replicated experimental support for the idea that the term might have undesirable consequences in specific circumstances. I do have reservations about its use, but as the Xi paper shows (and as Streetlight and Banno have corroborated anecdotally), it clearly does have some positive impact in other circumstances. I've not followed your posts closely, but it seems you might possibly be more condemnatory of the net use than I am? My concern is mostly about the use of the term to distract from the real issues, which I see as the systemic necessity for an oppressed underclass. Where it's not used for that purpose, I've no issue with it. — Isaac

I acknowledge that we are working with a very small sample size of real information. Of the things you have presented from a clinical(?) setting, it seems that the preponderance at least indicate that there may be detriment to the use of the term in a general setting, but that it can be constructive with a more sophisticated audience or a more sophisticated presentation. Would you say that I have characterized that accurately?

Yes, I have been questioning its use, maybe some would say I have gone as far as condemning, but I haven't intended to. That's why I'm still here discussing. I share your concern that it may be nothing more than a distraction. I have phrased this by saying I think it lacks utility to foster change, and that it misses the point. I think we are saying most of the same things there, but I invite you to distinguish, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.

The point StreetlightX made about how it is necessary to respond to the toxifying of discourse by being firm about the meaning of terms is important here. If there is some use to the term, and also some risk, we need to take care not to allow right-wing exaggeration of that risk diminish the use. I've not personally found much use, and I have academically seen some misuse, but I'm not about to dismiss people's experiences of having been positively affected by the concept. — Isaac

Is it possible that this cuts both ways? In other words, is it possible that someone committed to the idea on the left could exaggerate its utility and turn a blind eye to the risk? In my experience, people who are already sympathetic to notions of racial justice seem accepting of the term, and those who are not respond somewhat aggressively to it. If it were only that, it might be a sort of litmus test for where an individual stands, but my concern is for the people in the middle, and although it seems hard to imagine sometimes, there are a lot of those people. Moving those people in the direction of positive change should be the goal, and based upon my own experience, as well as the information you've provided from some (admittedly limited) formal settings, there is at least reason for concern that "white privilege" as a label for this idea is potentially working against that goal.

I'm not asking you point blank to say you agree with me, but do you see any flaw in my reasoning?

"White privilege" when used in the best way, puts a white in the shoes of non whites...

Is that what's meant - or close at least - to perspective-taking? — creativesoul

In strict logical terms, however, this is a fallacy - appeal to emotion (pity). I would also note that this type of argument is explicitly forbidden in legal proceedings because it is so often misleading and prejudicial.

I will admit that in ordinary social settings it can be persuasive, but it is still a play on the person's emotions, and not an appeal to their reason. If all you're trying to do is indoctrinate someone, it can work, but that person won't be able to effectively articulate their beliefs without further education. This is basically what Fox News spends all its time doing.

Yeah, its basically saying that you can't be trusted to make up your own mind.

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?

PS - you said "duckspeaking" and your name is drake. That's hilarious. Well done. — Pro Hominem

That quacked me up.

Correct me if I'm wrong, it seems to me the main thing you dislike about white privilege is that you believe the phrase has essentialist connotations. As in, stating that there is a character entailed by a person's colour. A kind of prejudice by oversimplification. Moreover, you find white privilege unhelpful as a term insofar as it may suggest a universal character of oppression based on not being white - which, problematically, isn't sensitive to ethnicity or local context.

Both of these are instances of the term "white privilege" being judged by its possible interpretations. I agree that they are possible connotations. Just like some people felt excluded by "Black Lives Matter" the name for not being verbatim "All Lives Matter".

That fits into the context of considering the term "white privilege" as somewhere between an organising concept of discourse + activism + solidarity and as an anti-racist propaganda tool. I think if you understand, which you seem to, the realities associated with white privilege (the legacy of European settler colonialism and its justifying ideologies + the economic and cultural means of reproduction of its effects), the utility of the term for you is spent. The concept no longer functions for you in a Kangaroo court of reason, the question remains of evaluating its status as a brick through a window.

I agree it is unspecific and very broad, I agree that someone seeing "white privilege" by itself as an adequate description of the mechanisms that perpetuate white privilege is intellectually lazy. But it's a framing device, it opens a space for a kind of discussion that is still very necessary, and it suggests essentially the right collection of ideas: ( a ) the legacy of settler colonialism and its racism advantages whites relative to PoCs ( b ) it's a "privilege", not a guarantee - systemic+statistical/population based rather than an iron law, it's not "white success guarantee", ( c ) it's agent neutral, it doesn't say who or what does it or how - broad enough to be applicable to apartheid and other legalised racisms, systemic+institutional effects like in hiring and health outcomes... And finally ( d ) it emotionally resonates enough to provoke discussion.

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.

Yeah, its basically saying that you can't be trusted to make up your own mind. — ChatteringMonkey

Perhaps, but belief it or not, some people are actually concerned with precision in the words they use. Like, don't try to convince me by manipulating the meaning of words, just give me accurate facts and let me decide. — ChatteringMonkey

In context, what have you decided?

Yet, it is quite common now to define systemic racism as a set of
institutional practises that function to favour certain racial groups over others:
— Number2018

I understand that this is common, but that doesn't make it correct. — Pro Hominem

Systematic racism is maintained for the perceived benefit of racists and elites, not all whites. — Pro Hominem

You may insist that your understanding is correct, appropriate, making sense, and you may bring the best arguments in favour of your version. However, in our environment, public discourse's agenda and content are not shaped due to academic or intellectual discussion. It is primarily formed and controlled by the coherent actions of the media, the leading groups of political, cultural, academic elites, corporations, and the most active political activists. Only the singular conjuncture of the acute political and ideological struggle could bring such heterogeneous forces together to impose the discussion of the "white privilege" as a vehicle for social change.

To the extent that ordinary middle-class whites receive a "benefit" from it, it is a byproduct (although I still say characterizing freedom from abuse as a benefit or privilege and not a norm that all should expect and receive is a terrible conceptual precedent to set). — Pro Hominem

I acknowledge that there is inequity between both the opportunities and outcomes of generally all whites versus generally all blacks. — Pro Hominem

It is the only factual basis for claiming a causal correlation between institutional racism and white privilege. Likely, given the complexity of the contemporary society, it is impossible to show that there is a kind of cause and effect relation here. Yet, there is almost no need for such research. The processes of the creation of dominant public opinion utilize facts and researches as secondary and subordinate means.

if someone can demonstrate the efficacy of the "white privilege" concept as a vehicle for positive social change, then I'm on board. Ultimately, the goal is the destruction of race (not culture) as a meaningful category in public thought. — Pro Hominem

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.

and even generated an increased use of individualist language regardless of race (ie, talk of privilege merely ressurects ideas of assessing achievement by comparison with origin rather than as a indicator of it). — Isaac

That's interesting. I guess one reading of it is causal, like "I am privileged /because/ I'm white" - so someone who did not feel privileged might go a bit nuts over that- one of the guys on the Partially Examined Life was pretty vexed by it since he grew up poor. My initial reaction to the term (about a decade ago now?) was a surprising amount of hostility to it, at the intersection of the stereotypical reasons from Working Class White Brit + Leftist - "it's the working class that matters most" + "white supremacy is a subprocess of the class antagonism" + "this is individualist liberal identity politics" .

While I can agree with all three of those things still (though in a different way now), I do remember feeling very accused by the idea of white privilege, and my mind was definitely doing some ego defence mechanism bullshit with those three ideas. I was not happy with my complicity in it, which influenced the strength I rejected the idea with. Warding off guilt using anger. If you asked me at the time I would not have been able to admit that the idea made me extremely uncomfortable, I would've justified my emotions using those leftist tropes.

Wish I would've heard of Akala back then:

Behind my painted smile is the most painful grimace
This mental prison I live in cause I am so conditioned
By my privilege, what a strange contradiction
To grow up brown in Britain and know that your living
Was paid for by a carcass that resembles yours
Born in the heart of the empire
You're worth more than others just like you
But less then the native ones, raised by my mum but in this world I am a father's son

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.

I noted the lack of presence of a black voice, or of a disabled voice, or of a gay voice.

If that characterisation of the discussion pisses you off, perhaps you might take pause and consider why a word so offends you.

I think it's time to go join the riot.

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.

Justify your claim that what I have written is racist.