Louis CK on white privilege

Post Reply New Topic

My "strategy" did not fail.

Again, you and ominous essentially agree on the morality. You merely disagree on the definition of racism. This does not mean that either of you are any more racist than the other.

By way of analogy, in many countries "rape" is legally defined as something like the non-consentual penetration of another person's orifice with a penis. If you said to a British lawyer that you were raped by a woman, they might well at you - highly insensitively, of course, but legally you would be suggesting something impossible. They would be using a different definition of rape to you - presumably you would use something like "forced to have sex without consent". However, the woman would be guilty of sexual assault and still subject to the same potential punishments, and there would be no question that her offence was just as grievous as if the boot was on the other foot. Similarly, some people may not use the word "racism" to describe anti-white racial prejudice, or even some casual forms of anti-black racial prejudice, but only structural systems which inherently oppress under-privileged racial groups. That doesn't mean they condone some forms of prejudice, just that they feel it is useful to have different words for personal prejudice and structural oppression. Apologies for that verbosity, but it's necessary for precision and clarity.

Ominous' post was insensitive - perhaps she would have been better off simply saying "I disagree with your definition of racism, and I think you are exaggerating the extent and impact of anti-white sentiment in this country" - but it was not racist. It's also important to note the context, which was someone making an outright ridiculous comment about race relations in the United States.

I totally agree!! I see a shift----a shift to whites now feeling oppressed, and not wanting to tolerate it, anymore, and "fighting"-BACK (unfortunately, LITERALLY, in some cases).

Also, maybe the "plan" was, all-along, for it to be a "self-fulfilling prophecy", so that there would be yet another reason, to cry "Oh, woe, is me".



I think it's just the opposite!! I feel it's the UNeducated that are making more of the mistakes, regarding this country's history, etc.



Oh, MY----I must respectfully disagree!! I think we made progress, for awhile; but, as I stated, earlier, I'm afraid the oppression, is now going in the other direction----so, IMO, we're no where NEAR "a cure".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In regard to OP: Sure, I believe there is such a thing as "White Privilege"----but, because whites are the majority, and that privilege would be afforded ANY majority race. I also believe that the term was made "fashionable", or went "viral", by people who, again, thought there weren't already enough reasons to cry "Oh, woe, is me", no.1; and, no.2, the term became "viral" because there are still too many sheeple who seem content with wearing a badge of "White Guilt"; and, no.3, the media, possibly, INSURED that it would become viral, because then anyone mentioning it, would also mention the broadcast company, magazine name, publishing company, etc. that said it----free advertising, at it's most vile, if the intention was, indeed, to "raise a ruckus", to get publicity; as I fear is, all-too-often, the case.

I'm "Team Dillogic / adifferentname", in that racism against whites, DOES exist!! Those who DON'T believe it exists, are, IMO, "buying" "the con"----meaning that, there are those who work very hard at getting you to believe that there couldn't possibly be racism against whites, because then the focus would be taken away from THEM, and would, thereby, cease all the sympathy, and allowances that they currently enjoy, feel entitled to, and can't get enough of----all, while crying that it's not enough!!

The racial demographics are not changing though ...

the white Hispanic "race" is surging .... based on the census finding out how people self-identify

and Mexicans are generally 50-60% genetically European

If Mexicans are to be excluded as "white" then I think someone needs to look
closer at Italians, and other sourthern Europeans. My deceased step dad was native Italian, and pretty dark.

Heck, the US government even counts northern Africans as white. So many African Americans are white.

The true "white white" people are probably already a minority.

Many predict that most Hispanics will incorporate into "white America", thus, the white legacy will continue. This is backed up by the increase in a few million Hispanics changing their self-designation to white in the last census.

"White" is an idea; it is not really a race, or skin color.

Yep, it failed. Apparently that's not going to stop you trying again. I applaud your commitment.



Provide the quote where Ominous defines racism.



And when MRA's raise this point, along with other legal inequalities against men, your feminist brothers and sisters malign them. When anyone who does not identify as "a MRA" makes this point, they call them MRA and malign them.



I am again astounded at both the lengths you are willing to go to in order to defend racism, and the arrogance with which you dismiss my knowledge of a subject.

I just asked a British solicitor how she would react if one of her male clients told her that a woman raped him. Bizarrely, her answer didn't include any indication that she would mock the poor chap. She then pointed out that women have actually been convicted of rape under British law, but only as accomplices to a man - which rather puts a hole in your 'legally impossible' argument. I can't quote her on what she said when I read her your post, as it would breach the forum rules.

The difference between rape and racism is that one has a legal definition (as it is a criminal offence) and one does not (as it is not). Racial discrimination can be an aggravating factor but racism itself is not a crime unless coupled with an existing offence. Rather, it is a moral failing.



Such people are misusing the word "racism". Anti-white racial prejudice is racist, overt anti-white racial prejudice is overt racism.



They just pretend that they don't or can't happen, or that when they do they're trivial and unimportant.



That was sophistry, not verbosity. Which one could argue makes it prolix by default.



If you had been honest enough to state; "Ominous' post was racist, if arguably only mildly so." then I'd respect your integrity and leave it there. At this point, however, I'm quite content to dismiss you as a racism apologist.



Now you're arguing that white people cannot be exploited or dehumanised in the US based solely on their skin colour. Congratulations, you're (at the very least) mildly racist too.

Thanks for voicing your support, though I'd suggest I'm little more than a fringe member of Team Reason. I'm right there with you in the belief that much of the problem stems from a politically-directed media campaign, designed to sow discord and promote partisan entrenchment. The ruling minority have mastered the notion of divide and conquer when it comes to the plebs.



There's a great deal of sense in what you say here. I've had the - I want to say 'pleasure' but, well, you know - of living in both the UK and the US, and it's always concerned me that there's an overwhelming desire to categorise people as simplistically as possible. My experiences inform me that how people identify themselves is far too complex a matter for such an approach to be valid or useful, especially (as you mention) among Hispanic Americans.

I don't necessarily agree with your conclusion, but I agree with the logic that informs it.

TOTALLY!!

a. Racist topics are not allowed on WrongPlanet.

b. "White Priviledge" is a racist topic.

: : This thread should be locked.

It probably feels like it, when you benefit from its existance and someone has the temerity to dare ask if its existance should be called into question.


This is the last time i listen to another lecture from conservatives/libertarians on 'freedom of speech' then.

Well, PPR rules say:

b) Creating threads attacking black people (or any other colour) is not acceptable. However, it is quite acceptable to discuss issues regarding racial tensions and racism itself. So there would be no problem debating why race riots occurred somewhere, but it would not be acceptable to say that a particular race smells bad or are stupid.

I'll wait for the other mods to chime in, as I'm not sure whether this one is any better from the one created by AspieOtaku which was closed yesterday.

Discussing racism seems to be OK, if this thread degenerates into racism then it will be closed.

That's always been my understanding, like the difference between discussing the linguistic origin of a racial slur vs hurling the slur at people.

Trolling is of course it's own separate thing, especially when it comes from members with a history of doing it.

And such discussion is important on a forum where we place boundaries on speech. It occurs to me that there are occasions where someone might appear ignorant of the rules, but is in fact ignorant of the fact that what they say constitutes an insult or personal attack.

"Privilege", when used in the context feminists are wont to, is an allegation of Kollektivschuld against the accused group and anyone arbitrarily lumped into it. Its use is a dehumanising attack on the individuality of anyone accused of having X privilege, where "X" is a broadly defined group such as 'white people' or 'men'. When your target happens to be someone with a neurological disorder, the suggestion that they are in any way "privileged" is especially inappropriate and insulting.

In the words of Christina Sommers, "check your facts, not your privilege".

I disagree, and I can see how this would make you feel hostile towards privilege talk. I understand your perspective better now. I do agree with Magneto's earlier point that the term does seem to imply posh people with butlers and manor houses, and I think it looks at issues the wrong way.

As I understand it, the feminist (here used as a shorthand for a collective of ideologies which may not be concerned with gender or sex very much at all) concept of privilege is merely an acknowledgement that people experience life differently. If someone does not have mobility-related physical disabilities, they probably don't worry about short flights of stairs - that's their "able-bodied privilege". That isn't an attack on them for being able-bodied, just that they don't need to worry so much about their ability to physically access services.

There are some people who might use it that way, particularly as a thought-terminating cliché, and they're wrong to do so, but I don't think that's how it is "supposed" to be used, or even how most people use it.

An extreme example: happening to be a heterosexual able bodied Gentile in 1930s German was not a war crime, but there's no doubt that they were privileged.


OK, first up, I'm not too keen on the idea that neurological disorders are so crippling as to remove any advantages of birth a person has! David Beckham has OCD; are his children completely lacking in privilege if they inherit it?

I hope I'm not being patronising, but what you've hit on here is intersectionality and is a pretty trendy idea in the same circles that "privilege" is a trendy idea. Oppression doesn't work in a vacuum. An autistic man has things tough, but an autistic woman is less likely to get diagnosed and more likely to live her life without that comfort. If she has a stereotypically black name, she's (even) less likely to get hired. If she's homosexual, she might not be able to have a legally-recognised relationship and enjoy the benefits of marriage. If she lives in Saudi Arabia, oh boy... The point is, we don't have a simple, categorisable identity; all the facets of our identity blend together to create complex humans, who can be oppressed in a myriad of interacting ways.

My autism (or lack of NT privilege, if you will!) doesn't stop me from "enjoying" many of the benefits of being white, male, straight, cis, able bodied, and able to afford the necessities of life. I do agree that it is insulting and inappropriate to tell a starving, homeless man that he has "cis privilege", but he might be slightly better off than a pregnant trans man in the same situation.

There's nothing wrong with being privileged, it isn't something to be ashamed or guilty about and people shouldn't act like it is. IMO everyone is entitled to all the privilege out there.


Yes, objective factual accuracy is more important than subjective perspective, but perhaps sometimes we don't realise
that things that appear obvious to us actually just a product of our upbringing?

I've never been stopped and searched by the police, only by private security. My instinctive reaction is to think that private security are too heavy handed, but the police are fine. If I asked an Asian living in London, they'd probably have a very different view.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere - though there's still some distance to travel. You're still making flawed assumptions about my position (I can't speak on behalf of others, but it's pretty clear you've misunderstood Magneto's post too).

The term implies guilt and liability, not posh people with butlers. It implies that all members of a group are complicit in the perpetration of an injustice, not that you are advantaged. It is a deliberate discrimination that is designed to disempower and dehumanise [I noticed the alliteration while proof-reading this and had a wtf moment.], not a useful tool for fighting oppression or helping the disadvantaged. That is the real world application of privilege, because - as you rightly say - it examines issues in entirely the wrong manner.



Except we aren't talking about physical disabilities, because disability is not necessarily an accident of birth. Disability is not an arbitrary distinction, unlike race or gender. However, the same standard still applies to an extent. There is no reasonable grounds to argue that being born able-bodied is a "privilege".



Most people, no. The overwhelming majority of feminists, absolutely.



It's interesting that you've chosen that example. The very notion of "white privilege" should ring alarm bells for anyone familiar with Mein Kampf. There's a very good reason that so many feminist detractors use the phrase "feminazis", though most are sensible enough to reserve it for the more extreme feminists.



Is David Beckham a race, gender or culture? Is his privilege that he is white and male, or that he was born with the ability to strike a football with a precision that demonstrates an innate understanding of physics he most likely has no intellectual capacity to explain?

Your keenness relative to the effect of neurological disorders on individuals is, sadly, irrelevant.



You hope in vain. From this point onwards, it would be best if you assume that I'm more than passingly familiar with feminist doctrine, that I have examined it independently and drawn my conclusions based on the relevant merits and flaws and that my opinions are not informed in any way by 4chan, 8chan, reddit, tumblr or the Daily Mail. For the record: to say I find it lacking would be a gross understatement.

Should you raise anything novel or original (if only in terms of my familiarity), you can be assured that I shall ask you to explain or define where necessary.



Just call them feminist circles, it saves time.



Critical thinking doesn't work in an echo chamber.



Which autistic man? Which autistic woman? People are not statistics - this is just one part of the complaint that "privilege" is "look[ing] at issues the wrong way".



Names are not inherent properties we are born with. I've actually changed mine by deed poll in a bizarre twist of self-fulfilling prophecy.



Let's keep this in the realms of Western society, where the majority of feminists are to be found and where they focus the majority of their ire. If you wish to argue whether Saudi Arabia would benefit from feminism, I've already mentioned my support for the first wave.



No, that's my point, and that of many who have come before me. It predates the notion of "intersectionality" which is best described as "Oppression Top Trumps".



When you've met one person with autism, you've met one person with autism.



Or he might be worse off still. You're still making the same elementary mistake in reasoning that results from this asinine approach to categorising human beings. It is completely worthless to compare two homeless people in terms of privilege or relative quality of life. Your hypothetical non-persons would both be equally deserving of our attention.



Nobody is arguing that privilege is itself something to be demonised. The problem lies with the misapplication of the word, especially in conjunction with racial or gendered groupings.



All you've done is provide an example of why objective factual data is necessary to the discussion.



Whereas I have been stopped and searched by the police, on tenuous grounds (you boys fit the description...) on more than one occasion. These subjective experiences prove nothing of value. Weirdly enough, I'm also good friends with an Asian Londoner who happens to be a bobby.

I suppose a Homeless White person is more priviledged than Ricki Lake!

Nobody is saying that but a homeless white person is at least less likely to be a victim of arbitrarilly heavy handed police violence than a black homeless person.