Louis CK on white privilege

Post Reply New Topic

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.

I found the original clip to be funny. I don't think it is reverse racism. I think it's just sort of a fact that white privilege is a large part of our history.

Strange strange strange responses in this thread.

I mean it's skin color. What difference does it make? Better yet, what difference should it make?

Im not saying all black people are saints. But it's skin color. Skin color has no relevance to behavior. Societal attitudes do.

If you can't follow the argument "A and B are equally immoral but A is not B" then it is impossible to have a constructive argument with you. If you can follow the argument, then act like it.

It's pretty obvious that many non-whites have worked out that they are onto a good thing complaining about "white privilege" and trying to guilt-trip white people with claims about what white people owe them. Even some conservatives have managed to work that out (at least those ones who don't need to reframe everything as a liberal v conservative or right v left issue).

What conservatives don't get, or won't admit, is that (as I've said before) there's nothing wrong with privilege anyway, because there's nothing intrinsically wrong with a race or tribe building a society and running it for their own benefit. If white privilege were so bad for non-whites they would be trying to get away from white people instead of following them around.

White people built America for the benefit of their fellow white people, just as thousands of other groups have built societies for themselves. All that's happened is that it has been largely taken over by Jews and their non-white "allies". If white people became more aware of the legitimacy of their own group interests and of what had really happened in America in recent decades, then Jewish and non-white privilege wouldn't be nearly as great as it is.

And this is the explanation for what you see in the American media - endless whining about how whites really have privilege, how that's a problem, and how anyone who even speaks about Jewish privilege without celebrating it is a stupid crazy bigot.

Of course, this is all eagerly lapped up by liberal whites who don't question the source of these memes because they're more interested in basking in the fact that they've worked out what they're "supposed" to think. Not that conservatives are much better - see above.

Yep this stuff is funny because White people are priviledged so its ok... *sarcasm alert*

Yep serves them honkies right.

At 0:51 there is a white guy kicking the white guy on the ground. Am I missing something? It says "white couple attacked by six black guys". I see the guy at 0:51 as white.

Also, the attacker at 0:40 looks like he could be white. He does not look black.

No, The_Walrus. You still fail to understand the fatal flaw in your ideological position. If your position begins with the presupposed notion that one race is superior or inferior to another, that one gender is superior or inferior to the other, that one arbitrary group has an advantage or disadvantage over another arbitrary, your position is morally untenable. Racists do not get to take the high ground, nor do supporters of eugenics.

Your statement has no relevance to this conversation because nobody has suggested or implied that any race is superior or inferior to another.

Being white I unashamedly take advantage of any privilege it entails. Unfortunately being socially awkward often negates that privilege....

Anti-whites could be told about any number of violent crimes committed by non-whites against whites, and they'd still say that whites shouldn't care about that and that whites should care about making non-whites more comfortable instead. They'll then try to justify this by pulling some fact out of their ass and claiming that it trumps everything (e.g., "but blacks keep getting stopped and searched!").

Even if non-whites were treated the same as whites by the police, anti-whites would just find something else to whine about ("there aren't enough black CEOs! The fashion industry is too white! My school books are too Eurocentric!" Etc). Racial separation is the solution. So who is preventing it and why?

In this particular discussion, the arbitrary advantage example is the pertinent one. There should be an 'or' in that list, but its omission should be obvious even though the three are not mutually exclusive.

Now you would appear to be assuming that people begin with the assumption that the average white Westener enjoys certain advantages over the average black Westener, rather than concluding with it.

Meanwhile in Los Angeles, a homeless black man has died at the hands of police in another completely disproportionate and unwarranted shooting. Footage of the entire incident from begining to end is available online.

It's almost as if somebody derided the possibility that a white person could be a target of racism!

You've tried to redefine racism in order to argue that this is not racist. When that strategy failed, you effectively resorted to "There's no point debating this with you because you don't accept my suggested example of what another person's definition of racism might be.", as if what another person might or might not define as racism is any justification for that person saying something racist.

I've explained exactly why I find derision of the very existence of anti-white racism to be itself racist. You have failed to demonstrate that my position is wrong.

Whites more prone to suffering depression committing suicide and getting skin cancer yep that's a wonderful privilege. Yep it is funny when white people commit suicide more white people should commit suicide more often as well as get cancer their skin turns red in the sun long enough proving white people are devils and demons!Yep ALL white people are evil and should be exterminated and any brother who disagrees is an uncle Tom!
*sarcasm*

Last edited by AspieOtaku on 02 Mar 2015, 1:28 am, edited 1 time in total.