It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by dollmonster
Now think about what that implies. Do poor whites get AA? Do poor whites get the same social tolerance for their status, making excuses for their unemployment, unwed Welfare mothers, illegal drug use and other crime. HELL NO! These people are universally viewed as white trash.
White people as a whole, are far from privileged. Historically, their poor have been just as exploited and abused as any other group by those in power. The elitists are a very small minority, yet somehow because many are white, the entire white race gets grouped together with them, blamed for their sins and made the scapegoats.
Originally posted by Rockpuck
You forgot the most important privilege of the blacks, the ability to scream race in any case and have it blown out of proportion. Duke case anyone?
Originally posted by jsobecky
Slop eating police? Your ignorance and immaturity shine through and through. You are disgusting.
Originally posted by Rockpuck
That it does. Where do the racist posters come from anymore? .. Man.. seems like a sudden rush of them over the past few months. Truthseeka it would be best to bring about your arguments in a more mature and .. adultly fashioned way.. other wise in my eyes you are nothing more then a bigoted racist.
Originally posted by truthseeka
Originally posted by Wildbob77
The thing that I disagree with about the whole white Privlege concept is that it becomes an excuse for failure. The cards are stacked against you if you are black because of something that is invisible, that can't be measured and in my mind is just an academic construct.
I disagree with this.
White privilege is not so much about holding blacks back as it is about elevating whites. The odds being against blacks is part of it, but not central to it.
As for your notion that WP is used to excuse failure, let me stray a bit and ask you something. What do you say of times in history when blacks WERE indeed held back, despite trying to make it in America? The former sharecroppers who, after working and starting to come up, were run back to the plantations with GUNS is one example. Black Wall Street is another. All-black towns, with the citizens actually making something of themselves, that were burned to the ground are other examples.
I agree with some of the possible solutions you offered for the poor. However, do you REALLY think the poor, of any race, want to be poor?
Originally posted by wagnerian21
Anyone can arrange anything they want. This is not indicative of any sort of 'priviledge'; rather, it`s called free will.
If one wishes to move, they would need to choose an area that fits both criteria. This is called 'economics'. It has nothing to do with bias.
Logical fallacy; this statement is structured so as to convey the assertion that the existance of 'systemic racism' is an undeniable fact. This is nothing more than an underhanded attempt at indoctrination.
The author is leading the respondant with a heavily weighted question.
McIntosh saves the most loaded and leading question for last; the author is playing with the emotions of the respondant and allowing any sort of concievable example to be brought up and then reduced to fit into the equation of 'systemic racism'.
Originally posted by shooterbrody
Systematic racism" is a fact? Gee I thought that the civil rights movement got rid of that. Were laws not enacted to make that behavior illegal?
Originally posted by truthseeka
Originally posted by wagnerian21
Anyone can arrange anything they want. This is not indicative of any sort of 'priviledge'; rather, it`s called free will.
Not true.
Whites who want to avoid non-whites can do this with relative ease. Non-whites who wish to do this cannot. They MUST interact with white people on some level every day if they want to have money in America.
SHOW ME THIS !!!!!!!!!!!!! SHOW ME THIS !!!!!!!!!!!!! SHOW ME THIS !!!!!!!!!!!!! SHOW ME THIS !!!!!!!!!!!!! SHOW ME THIS !!!!!!!!!!!!! You saying this shows how oblivious you truly are to what is really going on in the world.
If one wishes to move, they would need to choose an area that fits both criteria. This is called 'economics'. It has nothing to do with bias.
This is not true. A non-white who has the money to live in an affluent neighborhood may choose not to do so if the whites in this area are not welcoming. So, they would like to live there, but they choose not to because of the neighbors.
And what about WHITE-WHITE's that want to live in that area but are treated a certain way by thier neighbors just because thier families haven't lived next to them for 20 years. Would that make a White-White family move or would ... I would personally take it as a responsibility to break down those walls if it were me ... Unless the person next door was coming outside with his CREW ... and Making Idol threats to me ... Flashing pistols or what not ... But we are talking about a neighborhood where the homes range from 500,000++ why am I having a prblem seeing these threats taking place ???
Logical fallacy; this statement is structured so as to convey the assertion that the existance of 'systemic racism' is an undeniable fact. This is nothing more than an underhanded attempt at indoctrination.
Systemic racism is not a fact? Tell that to someone who's gullible...
You are the gullible one letting yourself believe that there is Systemic RACISM ... GO to South Africa and tell them that there ... To the White-White people ... Go to Syrbia and tell that to the Lebonese ... then we will see what Systematic Racism is ... IDIOT !
The author is leading the respondant with a heavily weighted question.
I disagree. One can look at how often blacks who talk about racism are "playing the race card" to see this. Blacks apparently cannot talk about racism without being self-serving in their discussion; whites apparently are the only ones who can.
Yes ... this is so true I see white people talking about how many White's made it into the Oscars ... or how many have won .. As apposed lost ... Or what about the last white basketball player to get into the Hall of fame ... Hmmmmm .. Or what about the Percentages there ... Think it has anything to do with Pure Talent ?? Or just the fact that it is a RACE thing !??!?!? Hmmmmmmmmmm .... I know there is some rascial tension there simply because my new Father-n-law won't even watch it .. because there are to many blacks oposed to whites ... Don't get me wrong there are Racist out there .. but ... the are far and few between .. and Usually 95% of the time stick to themselves and a Black person would never even be around these people because they go out of thier way to stay away from places like Wal-Mart ... and so forth
McIntosh saves the most loaded and leading question for last; the author is playing with the emotions of the respondant and allowing any sort of concievable example to be brought up and then reduced to fit into the equation of 'systemic racism'.
BY ALL MEANS List what you THINK is an example ... I really am insterested in this ... and by the way what someone told you is not a good example I want personal LIFE EXPERIENCES ....
Biggest disagreement yet. The "norm" is defined as being white America, and everyone is NOT welcome in all aspects of white America. There are too many examples of not feeling a sense of belonging to list here.
Originally posted by truthseeka
Originally posted by shooterbrody
Systematic racism" is a fact? Gee I thought that the civil rights movement got rid of that. Were laws not enacted to make that behavior illegal?
Riiight. I guess you missed the 2000 presidential elections. You know...voter disenfranchise? Which could NOT have happened, according to you, since the Voting Rights Act of 1965 banned this.
You know full well that laws are NOT always followed...and those who tossed the mostly black, poor, poor/black votes in Florida have not been punished.
Originally posted by truthseeka
A non-white who has the money to live in an affluent neighborhood may choose not to do so if the whites in this area are not welcoming. So, they would like to live there, but they choose not to because of the neighbors.
Originally posted by truthseeka
Originally posted by jsobecky
Slop eating police? Your ignorance and immaturity shine through and through. You are disgusting.
I call them pigs, you call them law enforcement officers. Tomato, to-MAH-to.
Guess that makes me disgusting, huh? Fine with me. Personally, I find someone who supports white privilege disgusting...but that's just me.
Originally posted by semperfortis
So TS,
According to your own words....
It is perfectly acceptable for you to call me a "Pig" because of my profession..
but
You can not be called a racist even though your words indicate you are?
Hypocrisy at it's best..
Semper
You know full well that laws are NOT always followed...and those who tossed the mostly black, poor, poor/black votes in Florida have not been punished.
Originally posted by truthseeka
Logical fallacy; this statement is structured so as to convey the assertion that the existance of 'systemic racism' is an undeniable fact. This is nothing more than an underhanded attempt at indoctrination.
Systemic racism is not a fact? Tell that to someone who's gullible...
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I suppose there may be monocultural enclaves remaining somewhere in this country; offhand, though, I couldn`t list them.
That's the thing. There ARE monocultural enclaves (I like the way you talk, mister!) still existing in the US, but they're few and far between. More and more, the actual 'melting' of the cultures here is taking place.
I see more and more blacks (and affluent blacks) on TV as well as in RL.
I`d imagine it would be rather difficult for anyone to arrange the details of his or her life anymore to avoid a person of any given racial background with any degree of confidence in achieving that goal.
My point was that if it was desired, and depending how important it was to an individual, it could be done. I don't see the benefit, however.
In many of these discussions, I've seen an apparent effort to remove other factors from the discussion. For example, wealth is a huge factor in race discussions. It's also a factor in a discussion of discrimination. As are religion, gender and sexual orientation. But when I've brought them up, I get reminded that we're talking about race here. And it's my opinion that we can't ignore these other aspects and get an overall ACCURATE understanding of the racial and cultural experience here in the US.
We all know that racism is alive and well. But to omit the other aspects or culture in these United States distorts the big picture. We can talk about race alone, but to get an accurate idea of the benefits of this "White Privilege", I think it's only fair to include other aspects. Here's why:
She was thinking of racial discrimination in housing, and the subtle inference is 'whites have it easy'. Which is the subtle assertion that the whole theory of 'white priviledge' is built from. And it just ain`t the case.
I'm getting the impression that some people think that
"white privilege" = "whites have it easy" = "ALL whites have it easier than ALL blacks" = "It's better to be white than black"
And that's simply inaccurate. And everyone should be aware of that. There are so many other factors to consider. And that's too simplistic a formula to believe to be the truth.
Originally posted by wagnerian21
Originally posted by truthseeka
Logical fallacy; this statement is structured so as to convey the assertion that the existance of 'systemic racism' is an undeniable fact. This is nothing more than an underhanded attempt at indoctrination.
Systemic racism is not a fact? Tell that to someone who's gullible...
< snip >
This one response is totally illustrative of the mentality of the majority of people who espouse the 'white priviledge' theory; moreso, it`s the one major rhetorical technique they use to gain the upper hand in the argument. You`ll notice a few things about the statement "Tell that to someone who's gullible."
A) It serves to close debate by establishing the theory of 'white priviledge' as an a priori fact and beyond questioning. This is more or less another logical fallacy, insofar as it takes the subject and removes it from the rigors of intellectual discussion.
B) It serves as an attack on the listener; by laughing and inferring that the theory of 'white priviledge' is an established fact, it embarasses anyone who may be listening and yet to reach a final conclusion on the topic- no one likes to be laughed at or made to feel stupid.