Louis CK on white privilege

Post Reply New Topic

Careful with quotes - I didn't say the above quote. I said the bit after the quote.
I've made the same mistake, easy to do, so I preview a lot now.
And I can't fix what went on above... so it is what it is now... lol

We have the technology!

But we don't know how to use it.

Swell
Another lecture in sociology from a comedian...

Louis, or Thomas? I mean I laugh at both of them regularly...

What is white privilege? Can I have some? Can I get discounts because Im White?

Not really Im white and I get harassed by cops on a near daily basis by simply going on walks and riding a bike at night. They assume im intoxicated or are a dealer!Had a cop tellme that there are only 2 kinds of people who ride bikes and thats kids and parolees he frisked me and everything rand my ID it came up clean and he was boggled!

I don't see it being as the first part (evil white racists), and I agree with your latter point. Though I'd rather simply call it majority or cultural privilege (depending on the privileged group), as there's no need to bring in old concepts such as aesthetic based descriptors for something that has many, many reasons for the behavior.

"White" implies that white is the reason for the privilege and explains the behavior of the privileged, which is inherently racist and goes against the worldwide evidence of color actually being a small to zero factor in privilege.

Of course, that's rather simplistic, using a tribal/cultural model, but its depth and closeness to reality is far more encompassing compared to the areas where skin color can be a factor (beauty standards and proactive policing, being examples brought up), which is a very simple way to describe something.

Of course again, back in the day, where you couldn't ride a public bus due to your skin color, was racist, and color was a factor in that. I like to think we're beyond that point now.

I see some people bring up how the free markets pander to "white" people, but when your viewership is a specific cultural majority, you'll pander to them if you want to make lots of money. The good thing here is, people can pander to the minority just the same.

Yeah, black people are failing miserably in the schools. It is often said that half of the population of Detroit is illiterate. Ha hah .. i found here it ....

Nearly Half Of Detroit's Adults Are Functionally Illiterate, Report Finds
see, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/0 ... 58307.html

For some reason, these people don't give a hoot about education , or maybe they just can't figure it out.

A cop that doesn't suspect a black person over a white person is failing basic probability theory. Blacks are tremendously more likely to be engaged in criminal acitvity than whites.

Just do a google search on ANY state for "Black students failing" and you can find articles that black people are failing pretty much everywhere, unlike non-blacks.

Try being black for a while, so you can harrassed during daytime as well.

(edit: If you watch the full routine, Chip his friend is a white guy)

Have you tried being black?

I enjoy "middle aged privilege." When I was young I sometimes noticed clerks and security guards keeping an eye on me as I poked around in a shop, but now that I am older apparently I'm considered unlikely to be a thief and safe to ignore. And when I'm waited on nowadays, I'm always called "sir." Perhaps I should ask for a manager and demand to be regarded with the same suspicion and lack of respect I inspired at 18.

What makes you say that?

Bit tired so sorry if this doesn't make much sense, but whether someone receives the benefits of being white depends largely on how society perceives them, not necessarily their "true" race. For example, in America, many people who would be considered "white" in the UK (Hispanics) are "othered". Albino black people, on the other hand, might not be.

Perception is very much a part of it.

I would add that pandering to a majority - even if it is based on sound economic grounds - still sucks for the minority.

I haven't missed the point. Again, Ominous was simply using a different definition of "racism" to you - one in which it simply cannot happen to white people in the West. I am sure she would accept that racial minorities can be racially prejudiced, but that equating anti-white racial prejudice to structural anti-black racial prejudice is inappropriate. In her definition, "anti-white racism" is an oxymoron, and therefore, like all oxymorons, hilarious.

Dictionary definitions are not necessarily the English definition or the only English definition... Quoting from the Wall Street Journal, "online definitions are also usually from older, out-of-print dictionaries - and thus are often outdated."

As another example, you yourself repeatedly reject the dictionary definition of "feminism" as "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes". Once I realised that you were using a different definition to me, I accepted that you were actually a feminist, not a sexist bigot who thought woman should not have political, economic and social equality with men (which was what you were literally expressing when you claimed to be an anti-feminist). Our discussion immediately petered out. Again, accept


You have made two elementary mistakes here. Your first is to make assumptions regarding the breadth and depth of my reading. [/quote]
Oh, sorry. Perhaps you should try understanding Wittgenstein rather than just reading, because if you don't know what a language game is then you don't understand Wittgenstein.


I am not an extremist. That is an ad hominem - and the first one used in this discussion, at that.

Again, you are using a different definition of "racism" to Ominous. I do not think racial prejudice in any form is acceptable.

"You are talking at cross purposes" is not an ad hominem, and it is not a way of saying "I do not understand you". The two of you are using different definitions of a word, and in both cases you seem to be doing it so you can monsterise your opponent. Pointing out that that is the case is not an ad hominem, nor does it accuse you of a lack of understanding or intelligence.



Interesting read, particularly as it was a meta-analysis.

Of 17 studies, nine found a positive association between racial minority status and police force in at least some models.

It seems that generally, there are issues comparing the data because methods in determining what constitutes "force" differ wildly between studies.


That seems a fair a priori assumption, though equally, we know crimes against white people are generally more likely to be reported prominently. It could go either way.

Sorry, I should have been more clear - I meant "shot by a police officer".


Again, I think you've missed my point here (I was a bit opaque).

Based on casual browsing, the autistic victims of police brutality are disproportionately likely to be black (or other racial minority) relative to autistic people at large. Neli Latson, Steven Washington Ernest Vassell, Tairo Anderson, Stephon Watts, Oscar Guzman, that kid who got handcuffed and photographed on the top of a police car. These are most of the poster children of the "police violence against autistic people" movement, and they're all minorities. There are a few high profile white cases too, but they're dwarves by these.


I think ignoring the realities of racism and replacing them with pithy remarks is what actually makes us worse off.


This is a laudable statement, and it might be how most people think in our countries, but the sentiment doesn't manifest as reality for many.





*emphasis mine

Ipso Facto, simply believing in white privilege is inherently racist.[/quote]
Ah, OK. Again, it seems like your definition of "white privilege" is different from the one most people use.

You have admitted that black people are statistically more likely to be murderers, right? You surely don't think that this is due to the melanin content in their skin or some such, but probably social or cultural factors or some such. Take two identical space colonies, fill one with black babies and one with white babies, have their raised by robots, and compare the murder rate - presumably you think there would not be a statistically significant difference?

"White privilege", as I understand it, is comparable to that. White people do not have some genetic advantage, but they benefit from social and cultural systems that are biased in their favour, as well as the historical, economic and social success of their group.


I read your quote. It did not give me reason to read the whole article. It seemed like it was another person thinking that "white privilege" is a way of blaming white people or minimising their difficulties.

Hardly but unlike some white men i listen to the views of minorities without belittling their experiences as victim card playing.

Especially since my wife is an ethnic minority i have to be impartial.

It's amazing how far you're willing to bend your personal morality to defend the racism of another. There is no 'different' definition of racism. Whether one is a minority or not is irrelevant. Racism is a belief or assertion that different races possess characteristics that are specific to that race, that said differences make said race superior or inferior to other races. Neither is this a competition. Racism is racism. You don't get a pass because you happen to be a member of a minority - that in itself would be racist!



Her definition is incorrect and does not excuse her racism.



You don't get more up-to-date than:



Interesting to note is that the definition of 'feminism' in the OED has changed recently, to the point that it is almost completely divorced conceptually from 'feminist'.



That's not even close to the truth. I reject the dictionary definition as being unfit for purpose, especially as it does not match the definition of 'feminist'.

Also, there's a world of difference between the definition of an ideology and the definition of a behaviour, which I'm sure you know full well. Ideologies are judged by their teachings and by the behaviour of those who represent said ideologies, not by how adherents to said ideologies would like them to be defined. I have no objection to the first and second wave feminists who helped women and men to achieve parity under the law. I take umbrage with modern feminism because it wishes to take things at least a step too far in the West.



Incorrect. The dictionary ideal of feminism is a feminised (so much irony here) rebranding of egalitarianism. I have yet to meet a feminist who is an egalitarian. I advocate the rights of all human beings, whereas feminists have proven time and time again that they do not. And lest you make a claim along the lines of "not all feminists", it is true of the overwhelming majority of feminists I come into contact with both on and offline. Either there's a secret bunker containing millions of egalitarians who identify as feminists who are denied access to the outside world, or feminists using that argument are ignorant of the truth.



We'll perhaps never know what you were intending to write here. Forum discussions have a habit of petering out when the other person has important things to deal with in the real world. Had I the time to respond I would have merely acknowledged your admission that you were willing to defend someone based on the fact that they only want to practice eugenics to drastically reduce the number of male babies born.



Now you're assuming that either I don't understand Wittgenstein or that if I only did understand him I'd agree with both Wittgenstein in general and you specifically. That's a remarkably arrogant position to take.



I didn't call you an extremist. At best I implied that you were a victim of its application.



I'm using the correct definition, she neither used the word herself nor did she define it. I find it interesting that someone who identifies as a feminist thinks it appropriate to speak on behalf of a woman who has already demonstrated the ability to do so for herself.



Ah, I see the problem. You used the phrase without actually understanding what you were saying. I'll break it down for you.

When two people are speaking at cross purposes, they are both failing to understand what the other is saying. When a third party claims two people are speaking at cross purposes, and uses said claim to suggest that one of the parties is wrong (or in this case unreasonable), it is an ad hominem. As is saying that person is being unreasonable, incidentally.



As I have already established that I was the only party overtly using the word, and that I was applying it correctly, it is you who has demonstrated a lack of understanding. Clearly the ad hominem was unintentional, yet it remains ad hom.



Quite so. I'm sure you can see how that is problematic when we have partisan support of statistical claims when the statisticians who actually collate said statistical data can't even agree what constitutes force, or what the various degrees are. A great deal of the hyperbole thrown around regarding police victimisation is based entirely on the political leanings or preconceptions of the speaker. The reality is that cops do a bloody hard job and that a minority of cops are... shall we say error prone?



That isn't my personal perception. The name Rodney King is etched indelibly in my memory - I can't say the same for any white victims of crime save those I have a personal connection to.



Well that would be shot specifically than generally, but we all make mistakes when transferring our thoughts onto the uberinfo-autobahn. The percentage per capita of people of different races being shot by police officers is not something we can use to demonstrate racism, either by the individual cops or the police force or society as a whole. We can speculate but any hard claim one way or the other is meaningless. The important thing is that regardless whether the cause is sub-cultural differences, racism or anything else, there is a great deal of energy being poured into studying the problem and finding a solution - assuming one is tenable.



Quite the opposite. I think you'll find that the data is incredibly lacking for obvious reasons.



Casual browsing is no substitute for hard data. The fact is that the important factor is disability, not race. There is an unfortunate tendency for officers of the law to misinterpret behaviour they find unusual in disabled people as either non-compliance or antagonism. This is arguably a result of police training, in part, but the fact that some cops are simply unfit to wear the uniform is also a factor.



There's nothing pithy about the statement you quoted. You actually condemn yourself here with your own words. You are the one who is pretending a genuine form of almost socially-sanctioned racism does not exist. The existence of more extreme examples of racism does not excuse the defending of racism we deem to be milder or less impactful. Equality requires that we don't make exceptions for arbitrary reasons.



I'm not idealistic enough to even hope it might be how most people think, let alone behave. I would like to think, though, that a significant number at least attempt to adhere to a moral code beyond that of any doctrine they may have been exposed to. To err is human - failure to so much as try to be better is inhuman.



Perhaps most people in your personal social circles use the phrase "white privilege" un-ironically. In the real world, the majority of people are not third wave feminists.



White people are not a collective, neither are black people. The thinking you demonstrate here is racist, yet you have either been conditioned by your environment to fail to recognise it or you fail to understand what racism actually means.



Who are you to dismiss the effect that racist labels have on another human being? I personally believe that you chose not to read the article because, like the majority of feminists, you prefer the sanctity of your echo chamber over the difficult nuances of reality.

For the record, I do not believe that you are an intrinsically immoral person. You may have become temporarily tangled in the web of an unhealthy ideology, but I have faith (the secular variety) that you'll find your way free of its clutches sooner or later. Preferably sooner.