Jon Stewart on white privilege (cc: unnamed posters... etc.)

[jimmy eat jazz]

Y'all go get vesectomies and we can talk.

My apologies in advance to any women who might get offended . . . you never know how much things bounce around down there until you get a vasectomy and every bounce sends a shudder of pain through your body.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I fully acknowledge that white privilege as we have discussed numerous times on this board does exist. I do not believe that means that the majority of white people seek it out, and actively would wish to keep black people oppressed.

Not the majority, but a non-trivial minority? Absolutely.

Even if a majority does not actively seek to oppress blacks, wide swaths of white America persistently oppose remedies intended to mainstream blacks (e.g, affirmative action), vilify efforts to make society more inclusive (e.g., dismissing such efforts as politically correct), oppose policies to create more equitable economic outcomes (they're socialist, after all), continue to vote bigots into office, engage in pervasive negative stereotyping of blacks (e.g., our very own Carolina Jazz), and so forth. So, while not actively and consciously seeking to keep black people oppressed, many, many whites continue to oppose just about every approach conceived to remedy the results of past oppressions, while clinging to comforting myths, such as the rugged American pulling him/herself up by bootstraps, merit and hard work ensure success, race is a non-issue, policies designed to benefit the entrenched economic elites actually benefit all of society, etc.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

K, then don't. I didn't read beyond this. If you don't have time to engage with me then that is ok.

I didn't say I don't have time to engage you. My point (perhaps not well-expressed), is that I don't have time or inclination to engage you following rules you seek to impose on me with regards to the nature of the engagement. You've no obligation to accept anything I say, while I have no obligation to adhere to arbitrary rules of engagement you might wish to impose.

 

[Stoked]

Not the majority, but a non-trivial minority? Absolutely.

Even if a majority does not actively seek to oppress blacks, wide swaths of becausmerica persistently oppose remedies intended to mainstream blacks (e.g, affirmative action), vilify efforts to make society more inclusive (e.g., dismissing such efforts as politically correct), oppose policies to create more equitable economic outcomes (they're socialist, after all), continue to vote bigots into office, engage in pervasive negative stereotyping of blacks (e.g., our very own Carolina Jazz), and so forth. So, while not actively and consciously seeking to keep black people oppressed, many, many whites continue to oppose just about every approach conceived to remedy the results of past oppressions, while clinging to comforting myths, such as the rugged American pulling him/herself up by bootstraps, merit and hard work ensure success, race is a non-issue, policies designed to benefit the entrenched economic elites actually benefit all of society, etc.

You bring up some good points but without allowing for the myriad of reasons one might do so. Such as Affirmative Action, I oppose it not to keep blacks under my boot but because it is a horribly ineffective remedies to a symptom and not the problem. It rewards a lucky few without ever leveling the playing field. It does nothing to stem the flow of minorities that reach adulthood and are dramatically unprepared.

As for bigots. Bigots is often used a catch phrase for those that simply hold different views and loses its meaning as a result. But let us focus on why someone you consider a bigot gets voted into office. Perhaps it is that they are pro-life and anti abortion. Or the fact that they support the military. Or maybe even that they support gay marriage. It's not because they are bigoted against any specific group.

Many whites disapprove of the current policies and methods as they have proven to do nothing more then preserve the status quo. A status quo which confines most minorities to a lesser standard of life.

If society wants to talk about addressing the problems and not the symptoms then I think some actual progress will be made.

I made a post highlighting some areas to focus on in the white privilege poll thread.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

You bring up some good points but without allowing for the myriad of reasons one might do so. Such as Affirmative Action, I oppose it not to keep blacks under my boot but because it is a horribly ineffective remedies to a symptom and not the problem. It rewards a lucky few without ever leveling the playing field. It does nothing to stem the flow of minorities that reach adulthood and are dramatically unprepared.

As for bigots. Bigots is often used a catch phrase for those that simply hold different views and loses its meaning as a result. But let us focus on why someone you consider a bigot gets voted into office. Perhaps it is that they are pro-life and anti abortion. Or the fact that they support the military. Or maybe even that they support gay marriage. It's not because they are bigoted against any specific group.

Many whites disapprove of the current policies and methods as they have proven to do nothing more then preserve the status quo. A status quo which confines most minorities to a lesser standard of life.

If society wants to talk about addressing the problems and not the symptoms then I think some actual progress will be made.

I made a post highlighting some areas to focus on in the white privilege poll thread.

Just curious, how do you know with such certainty that Affirmative Action has been a failure?

By bigot, I mean someone who possesses an irrational feat/dislike/hatred/suspicion of groups of people based on immutable group characteristics (gender, skin color, ethnicity, sexual orientation). (I do not consider beliefs, religious or otherwise, to be an immutable characteristic.)

I don't know how you address the problem without addressing the symptoms. I can't imagine telling a Dr. to proceed that way. You can't always address the underlying problem so easily, and doing so can take generations to change. In the meantime, you can't ignore the symptoms. For example, while we can work for year after year to address the causes of racial bigotry, you really mean to suggest that we shouldn't address the symptoms, such as excluding blacks from, say, membership within a fraternity, discriminating against blacks in job applications, etc. These are ALL symptoms of racial bigotry, and you can't ignore them while trying to tack the underlying cause, which again will take generations to solve, although to be honest, I don't think you'll ever solve it.

 

[Stoked]

Does AA do anything to stop the flow of unprepared minority adults? No it does not.

It just tries to figure out what to do with them once they are there. Like giving someone a fever reducer but not doing anything to find out why they have a fever.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Does AA do anything to stop the flow of unprepared minority adults? No it does not.

It just tries to figure out what to do with them once they are there. Like giving someone a fever reducer but not doing anything to find out why they have a fever.

A program/policy can be successful and still not have achieved every imaginable goal/objective. A problem with public policies is that once they enter the public realm, every stakeholder attaches its own set of objectives to the policy, and in many cases, the objectives are not feasible, particularly given that no public policy will completely solve any problem, and nearly all policies have undesirable effects. This all makes evaluating the 'success' of public policies fraught with challenges.

To me, the success of AA will be primarily determined by the extent to which it has helped mainstream blacks and other targeted groups at a rate substantially exceeding what would have happened without it. I don't have the data to say one way or the other whether it's been successful--at the very least, I am comfortable concluding that its adverse effects are way, way overhyped by those who oppose it on purely ideological grounds. (I'm by no means suggesting this includes you Stoked.)

 

[♪alt13]

I didn't say I don't have time to engage you. My point (perhaps not well-expressed), is that I don't have time or inclination to engage you following rules you seek to impose on me with regards to the nature of the engagement. You've no obligation to accept anything I say, while I have no obligation to adhere to arbitrary rules of engagement you might wish to impose.

Arbitrary rules of engagement? really?


I made a statement.
You disputed that statement.
I gave you an example that I thought backed up my statement and asked you to provide a counter example.
You threw a tantrum.

There is nothing arbitrary about it.

 

[LogGrad98]

I have yet to see the data that AA specifically has contributed to the improvement of the minority condition in general.

 

[One Brow]

Does AA do anything to stop the flow of unprepared minority adults? No it does not.

Actually it does, but delayed by a generation. When you change the culture surrounding a parent, you change the culture that parent passes on to their children.

 

[One Brow]

I have yet to see the data that AA specifically has contributed to the improvement of the minority condition in general.

What form do you think such data would take? I don't think we have the usual access-to-affirmative-action vs. no-access-to-affirmative-action groups.

 

[Stoked]

Actually it does, but delayed by a generation. When you change the culture surrounding a parent, you change the culture that parent passes on to their children.

This is based on the assumption that everyone who benefits from AA. I find this stance interesting from someone who goes on and on about "human nature" all the time.

The vast majority of that next generation is still growing up with all the same crap that their parents dealt with. AA did not change any of that. AA can't.