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. — Pro Hominem

:brow:

That's totally coherent. It's exactly what I've been saying all along. It also dovetails nicely with the standard dictionary definitions/most common use of the term "privilege". I suggest you re-examine my words with that in mind...

Immunity is a thing. Exemption is a thing.

No longer interested

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

What utter nonsense!

Racial discrimination is all about the color of one's skin. You cannot correct racial discrimination without focusing upon it. You cannot focus upon it without focusing upon skin color. Focusing upon skin color does not make one racist. Devaluing someone based upon skin color does.

Tell me some stories of how you, your friends, your family, and/or any of your loved ones have suffered racial discrimination...

What do you know about suffering from racial discrimination?

...a totally useless conversation about characterisations, framing, interpretations, narrative... — Judaka

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

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

I am saying that you are the one doing the stuff which you say is useless... You are the one talking about characterizations, framing, interpretations, and narratives. You are the one that keeps focusing upon those things. You are the one.

Insincerity offends me.

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

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

Focusing upon the mass incarceration of BLACKS is to focus - in part - upon skin color.

:roll:

By your own definition... it's rather inconvenient... that you're guilty of all you rail against... when it's convenient...

Insincerity offends me.

Insincerity offends me. Especially about racism. This shit is important. My friends, my family, my loved ones' lives depend upon it.

I am just pointing out that white privilege is a distraction that detracts from real issues. — Judaka

Understanding white privilege requires understanding actual events.

Real? Pfft!

Tell me some stories of how you, your friends, your family, and/or any of your loved ones have suffered racial discrimination...

Insincerity offends me.

You're both all over the place. Perhaps I'll make fun of both of you by simply holding your own words next to one another and watch the squirming begin...

It seems there's been more than enough rope given...

...white privilege is the argument that "you, white person, are privileged" — Judaka

Strawman.

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

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

Yeah...

The exemption and/or immunity from the injustice(s) is the privilege.

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

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

...we listen to a person with a name, a story, a personality, someone was trying to live their life and had to deal with injustice because of a stupid reason like racism. — Judaka

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

Seriously dude.

I'm not entirely disagreeing. I'm warning that you seem to be placing the cart ahead of the horse.

Complicity and complacency are different things in and of themselves. Both require awareness of wrongdoing if one is to be held liable and/or responsible for being either. The account you've presented judges a group of people who are oblivious to the extent of systemic racism as if they were not oblivious.

Understanding and/or becoming aware of white privilege requires knowing about enough of the situations that non whites deal with because they are not white. White privilege is the exemption from just these sorts of specific circumstances and/or situations. Those situations are only thought about when a non white individual tells their own story. Until then, the white individual cannot know about all of the injustices that they are themselves immune to.

So, I disagree with characterizing such broad-based innocent ignorance as if it were not.

However...

After one becomes aware of the wrongdoing they can also become a willing and knowing accomplice of continued wrongdoing. However, at that time they are not yet willing accomplices to any wrongdoing, for let us not forget that they have just became aware of the wrongdoing. So, an otherwise unknowing white individual becomes aware of the residual effects/affects of racism that still pervade American society to this day.

What personal responsibility do they have? That ought be established by the amount of power they have to influence and/or effect change.

For the sake of argument alone...

What would a Trump presidency look like if he were compromised?

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.

No, I disagree with you. I think that your position is inherently controversial and inconsistent. First, you acknowledge the existence of institutional racism. The notion implies the institutional, systemic discrimination of a particular group of people. They are targeted and singled out as a specific community of colour.

Further, 'institutional' means the function of society's various institutions. They are culturally contextual; they are embedded in the social fabric and conventional everyday practises. It is the function of society as a whole. 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

The last statement strikes me as too strong(maybe too broad a brushstroke)...

What I still don't like about your approach
(1) Emphasises the importance of race
(2) Contextualises systemic racism as a benefit for white Americans (privilege)
(3) Creates a simplified "non-white" experience which factors in nothing but race — Judaka

Let's tackle these first...

They are all true. They are all necessary.

Becoming increasingly aware of the effects/affects and injury that systemic racism has had and still has upon non whites(blacks in particular) requires talking about experiences that non whites share - as a result of being non white - that whites do not. The only way for an otherwise unknowing white individual to even become aware of that is for them to listen to non whites describe their own personal experiences. As soon as a white individual becomes aware of just some of all the different difficulties, injustices, and/or other injury based upon racial discrimination that non whites have to deal with on a daily basis, it's not hard at all to see that being white in America is better than not, in those specific regards. There is most certainly a benefit to being white in America.

White racism is the devaluation of an entire group of people because they are not white. The United States of America was founded and formed by mostly white racists. The result was/is systemic and/or institutional racism. White privilege is a result of that. To capture all of the relevant racial discriminatory practices that resulted in all of the different experiences of those who suffered from white racism, the "non white" term works best for it can be used to pick out each and every one.

In order to grasp all of this, an emphasis is placed upon race, as it must be because it's of pivotal importance to understand race-based issues. There is no valuation of someone because of race. I think that that's what you're arguing against. I would agree. I do not value or devalue someone because of the color of their skin. So, what's wrong with realizing the pivotal importance that race plays in identifying residual effects/affects of systemic racism? There is no other way.

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? — Pro Hominem

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".

"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.

Whites do not get red bricks thrown at them for being too close in proximity to a white racist. Whites do not suffer from lynchings because they are black. Whites do not get stopped for walking black at night. Whites do not need to carefully explain to their teenage and/or young adult children how to not appear threatening to the police despite their physical stature. Whites do not have to deal with the sheer difficulty of hailing a taxi when one is black. Whites do not have the harshest sentences thrown at them for misdemeanor crimes. Whites do not have laws written for the explicit purposes of making them criminals as a means to continue to benefit from free slave labor. Whites do not get profiled as a criminal simply for being white. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Whites are exempt from the liabilities of being non white in America.

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. — Pro Hominem

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

If "white privilege" counts as being an explicitly racist concept on your view, then I suggest you clearly explain to me what you mean by "racist", because I would be more than willing to wager that you're working from an utterly inadequate criterion. If "white privilege" counts as being racist, then the scope of your notion is much too broad, anything would count as such. Tell me, what does it take? Talking about race? Mentioning race? Using "white"?

Here's what I do mean to say...

"White" is the name given to particular a group of people(typically of European ancestry) due to the color of their skin(fair complexion lack of melanin). "White" picks out such people. "Privilege" is the name given to an exemption from duty or liability granted as a special benefit, advantage, or favor. "White privilege" refers to the injuries and/or liability of being non white that whites are exempt from as a result of being white.

Your insistence here to keep arguing about these things is beyond me. The quoted terms are names. The rest further describes the names. That's how language works. It's a bit too pretentious for you to tell me what I mean and/or believe, especially after ignoring/neglecting the valid criticism I offered.

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

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

I appreciate your continuing to engage with me here, especially given the depth that your heels were dug in when our exchanges began. Had your understanding of systemic racism not been so well articulated, I would not have even bothered talking much with you regarding this topic. Because it was, I had a very hard time understanding how you had arrived at such deeply held convictions against the use of "white privilege". I think that we've both come quite a ways in understanding of one another.

Here's why I keep bringing up the fact that "white privilege" is just a name used by different people to refer to different stuff...

Knowing that much ought temper the offensiveness of it's very mention/invocation. Knowing that much is cause for paying particularly careful attention to exactly how it's being used, what it's referring to and/or picking out, in addition to the overall attitude and/or demeanor of the speaker themselves - rather than immediately discounting it's use based upon the unsavory ones. Knowing that "white privilege" has more than one use ought compel one to further discriminate between the uses.

It's going to be used again and again, and it only makes sense for those of us who want to see it used to effect/affect positive change to show how it can as well as showing how it does not, because it can do both. We show it's positive use by using it to pick out injuries that non white individuals suffer from as a result of being non white, and nothing else. Srap just detailed one of many nuanced instances of this without ever mentioning "white privilege". We do this by condemning it's being used in counterproductive ways. We insist that it be used in the former way by refusing to allow another to change what's being referred to and/or picked out. We remain vigilant in our consistent terminological use, and in doing so are well prepared for arguing against those other uses(which has yet to have been actually performed here as a result of the opponents' resistance to acknowledge the different uses).

This is particularly applicable for conversation with people who have watched and/or heard it's being used as a weapon to belittle, berate, and/or minimize a particular white individual's personal accomplishments in American society, or even worse - by my lights - to berate poor whites for a lack of successful accomplishment(given the "three hundred year head start"). Some people do in fact use the term "white privilege" for such purposes. Some major media outlets highlight and focus solely upon the worst case examples without ever comparing or contrasting those with the better ones. White individuals who've been attacked in such a way will tend to remember that attack and all that it entailed with each successive mention of "white privilege", and quite understandably so if it's the only exposure they've had to it.

However, not everyone uses "white privilege" to pick out the same things, Some do use it as a means to degrade white people because they are white. That is racism. Devaluing all white people because they are white is racist belief practiced in the exact same way that devaluing all black people because they are black is. Neither is acceptable or helpful if our goal is to end racism and it's residual effects/affects(systemic racism). Neither is acceptable or helpful if our goal is to generally improving racial relations, which is part and parcel for gaining members in the ever-growing ever-expanding coalition against the residual effects/affects of systemic racism.

Could you imagine yourself engaging another who uses "white privilege" as a means for devaluing a successful white individual if you were armed with the ability to fully grant the existence of white privilege as the immunity from any and all injuries sustained by non white individuals because they are non white? Could you imagine yourself defending and/or advocating my use of "white privilege"?

It is not an accurate description. Period. — Pro Hominem

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

The enumerated list is good. I want to set it aside momentarily and clear up what I see as pivotal aspects to understand...

I don't think I said that white privilege can only be understood using the leftist identity politics... — Judaka

You certainly did. I quoted you by clicking on your avatar and perusing the comments icon. That's a nice feature of this site. The statement was false at the time and remains so. You're the proof. You understand and do not use leftist identity politics. You falsify the claim.

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

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

It matters because we're comparing/contrasting all of the different uses of "white privilege", and that's a unique aspect of each one; what - exactly - is being picked out.

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

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

Not exactly. "Fundamental" is different than "fundamentally". Sure though, it depends upon what counts as being fundamentally the same. Here's the catch though...

Neither you nor I determine that.

The term had sense long before either of us ever learned to use it. All uses of "white privilege" are not fundamentally the same, and that much is easily understood by anyone and everyone capable of previously understanding that the same name can refer to different things.

You ought know by now what I'm using the name to refer to. You ought know by now that others use it to refer to things other than what I'm referring to. Thus, they are not fundamentally the same aside from consisting of the same marks and being names.

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

Do you realize that that is not at all what I was saying?

The bit about "white privilege" being a name was not flippant. That's important. The name picks out something that existed in it's entirety prior to the name being first used. What "white privilege" is used to pick out differs, and knowledge of what's being picked out is knowledge of all the different senses/meanings of the term. They are not all compatible with one another. Yet you claim that they're all fundamentally the same... which is false.

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

But, what other reason have you given for dismissing my use???

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

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

Here, you've acknowledged some utility for my use of "white privilege". You clearly recognize the difference between some uses... yet, at the end... somehow... still hold on to the false idea that it only makes sense if one subscribes to identity politics.

You do not subscribe to left wing identity politics, and yet my use made sense to you.

What is fundamentally the same?

Can we talk reparations yet?

Leftist identity politics... — Judaka

Is self defeating and self refuting. The term "leftist" is itself identity politics. I abhor such oversimplifications of political concerns. That's a big part of the problem in the States, on both sides.

"White privilege" stands on it's own merit. It neither relies upon nor need to rely upon such gross oversimplifications. Offhandedly dismissing all use of "white privilege" due to being believed to be connected with "the left" is itself identity politics at it's worst. It perpetuates closed mindedness. A refusal to actually listen because it's from someone on "the left". The operative presupposition is that anyone on the left is wrong because they're on the left. The same goes for such generalizations about the right.

Perhaps. I ran into this issue with you earlier where you asked me if I wanted to be treated like black people are treated and you said this was an innocent question with no implications. Which is not an easy thing to believe but I supposed it was the truth. I'll accept I've misinterpreted you. — Judaka

It was not about you personally. Had I known at that time that you were not an American citizen, I may not have asked you.

That question is actually the most brilliant segue that I've ever heard leading into substantive conversations about otherwise non racist white individual's continued complicity in maintaining systemic racism simply by virtue of their non action, keeping quiet, and/or turning away from the injury suffered because one is non white.

That portion of the topic can be very offensive, particularly if one is already overly sensitive and feels as though they are being attacked. Everything begins looking like a nail. However, it's not about that at all. It's about the particular residual negative effects/affects that systemic racism has had upon white individuals. There was once a time when standing up for blacks could have horrible negative personal effects/affects. It could get one killed by those in power just for doing so, and did. That time has long since passed.

Turning away from the atrocities in plain sight is no longer tolerable or even possible. Now, the description and/or reporting upon the actual events has as much or more influence than the actual events themselves, particularly with those not directly involved.

If white privilege is to be viewed as a fact, and one denies facts, can it be called anything but ignorance? — Judaka

"White privilege" is a name.

Using the term "white privilege" doesn't give you a monopoly over opposition towards racism, you realise that right? — Judaka

Of course. Never believed otherwise. Have no idea why you felt the need to ask me such a question...

There is no use trying to tell me "oh, didn't you realise this happens to non-whites, now you're finally beginning to understand" don't be deluded. I condemn it regardless of the skin colour of the person who does it and regardless of the skin colour it's being done to. — Judaka

Again, what makes you think that that description of my approach towards you is accurate? Those words have not been written here by me about you.

Banno is openly discriminating against white people using his prejudices and you're cool with it. — Judaka

That's not an accurate depiction of my attitude. In fact, I'm not even sure what makes you think that he's openly discriminating against white people. Discriminating against white people is to devalue and/or hold the fact that someone is white against them. That's simply not taking place Judaka.

The interpretative relevance of race is something to be maintained, the individual is to be understood through their identity.

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

The white privilege framing starts to make sense when you buy into these narratives... — Judaka

I've not mentioned any of these other things you're railing against. In fact, I suspect I'd join you in railing against at least a few of them. The way that I use "white privilege" makes perfect sense all by itself.

Set those notions aside...

The immunity from being injured because one is non white is something that only whites have. That's just the brute fact of the matter. Actually, that could use a bit of further qualification, because there are cases where white individuals have suffered harm from being mistaken as non white. However, those exceptions actually prove the rule, and trust me, it takes little to convince those whites that white privilege is real.

I mean you can't even be racist to white people so what is the problem. — Judaka

Here again is something that is not true. I've not said, nor do I support it's being said. Yet it's being used as though I have? That idea works from an emaciated notion of racism. Not all whites are racist. Not all racists are white.

Racism is devaluing another group of people because of the color of their skin(race) alone.

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

Here again, you're arguing with your own imagination; against your own thoughts about what mine are. Problem is that the words you use are neither the one's I have used nor ones that I would.

I have not much interest in continuing a conversation. — Judaka

Well, I thought we were having an ongoing one. However, you've just (mis)attributed a slew of different ideas, sayings, emotions, and beliefs to me that actually came directly from, and live inside of... you. That reply is chock full of things that I've never said. You vehemently describe attitudes, beliefs, and all sorts of other thoughts that I do not have, nor have I expressed here...

I can only tell you that you've misunderstood.

Do countries not share our look at each others data or something? The US has just ok'ed convalescent plasma as a treatment. I think it's almost 2 months ago (edit: July 6) that this has proved to be so-so in the Netherlands because sick people make the antibodies anyway so injecting more of them via plasma doesn't improve recovery. — Benkei

Trump's thumb has been on the response to covid-19. The entire system has forsaken all the knowledge underwriting the stringent rules for clinical trials. "Warp speed" or some shit. He is desperate to be able to say that his abandoning the safety protocols of scientific study ending in a net positive. Those rules were in place for one reason and one reason only... public safety.

Those safety measures are characterized as "horrible red tape and massive regulations"... yet another Republican right wing trope.

The plasma stuff just allows him to boast that his actions had results. Those results are characterized as net positives by all those Trump apologists. They boast of having "started from scratch" and have since fast tracked all the current treatments and tests they claim are available, all the while conveniently ignoring the brute facts that the only reason they had to start from scratch is because Trump fucked up royally in his initial response.

It seems that much of the objections you came into this discussion with involve what you've called "leftist identity politics". You draw a direct correlation between "white privilege" and leftist identity politics. I'm assuming that you reject "identity politics" and perhaps a large part of your personal distaste for "white privilege" is based upon the strongly held belief that it is a kind of, or typical of, such leftist politics...

Is that about right(pardon the pun)?

If a white person disagrees with the white privilege framing, is it fair to characterise them as "begging for the term not to be used because it offends them" regardless of what they say? — Judaka

That takes it a bit farther than I would. Being offended by talk of "white privilege" is very shaky ground for denouncing it. People use "white privilege" as a weapon to belittle and/or attack someone. Such people are not using it in the way that I find best. With that in mind, it does not make much sense to denounce all uses based upon those, for those uses do not get it right to begin with.

Injury sustained by individuals because they were non white took place long before the name "white privilege" was first coined. They continue happening even as we speak. White people are exempt from such injury. In this very real sense...

"White privilege" simply picks out and further describes the exemption from such injuries. White privilege is extant in today's modern world as a result of a long standing system of public policies aimed at increasing the flourishing of white people and oppressing non whites. It is the result of systemic racism that we all know about.

Perhaps Banno is beside himself that people would be offended at this?

I find nothing in Banno's comments here that warrants calling him a racist. He is admittedly a grumpy old goat and a dick at times... that ought not be used by you as a means to continue being offended by a name.

"White privilege" is a name.

I've been in your shoes, on the other side of a debate with Banno. Had I allowed my personal offense stemming from his comments about me personally to cloud my judgment about something that was not about me personally, I would have missed so so many very good points that he is capable of making... I've learned a lot from Banno over the past decade or so. He's pissed me off a number of times...

If you're talking about Banno, then I would have to do a review of your conversation with him...

I'm not sure who or what you're referring to. Care to fill me in, so I know?

It's also worth noting that BLM and "white privilege" are not mutually exclusive and/or incompatible. It's not as if one has to choose between the two. The implication is so wrong minded. Rather, one who is otherwise ignorant of systemic racism, but is not racist can be convinced to support BLM simply by virtue of becoming aware the different injuries(besides the flagrant shootings/murders) suffered by individuals because they are non white.

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

I've not read all of Banno's comments here. What I know about Banno is that he is very good at keeping things as simple as they can possibly be in order to make his point. If his point is that privileged people can take offense at being called "privileged", then it's made as soon as one who is privileged takes offense at being called "privileged".

"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. — Pro Hominem

When one actually takes the time to fill in(properly understand what is meant by) "white privilege" they do so solely by virtue of taking into account injury sustained because one is non white. The sheer quantity of actual events is daunting, to put it mildly. To compare this to the sheer amount of misunderstanding and deliberate misinformation pervading Fox news is very insulting to many of those who you claim to share a goal with. With friends like that... who needs enemies?

Yet another performative contradiction...

By the way BLM also does exactly what you're arguing against doing on the one hand... I'm failing to see a coherent(lacking self-contradiction) position when I closely examine your language use.