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

[One Brow]

What negative effect does that belief have on the life of a black individual?

I would say it has considerable effect, starting with preventing people with privilege from acknowledging it, thereby allowing it to perpetuate.

 

[LogGrad98]

I absolutely refuse to change my ignorant beliefs that in the end all people should be treated equally no matter who they are or where they are from and the cops should stop shooting people who don't deserve it regardless of their race.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

I absolutely refuse to change my ignorant beliefs that in the end all people should be treated equally no matter who they are or where they are from and the cops should stop shooting people who don't deserve it regardless of their race.

And I want 1 million dollars.

 

[Stoked]

LogGrad98 and Gameface have both made posts indicating that they recognize white privilege exists, even if they don't always agree on the extent of it. For EJ Wells, it seems almost a will-o-the-wisp, sought-after yet just out of reach. Stoked seems uninterested in the idea entirely, but I would not equate him to Fox News, which actively supports maintaining white privilege.

Complete and utter falsehood.

It obviosuly exists, as I have readily admitted on this very forum. One only has to look at conviction rates for marijuana offenses, college admission rates or average income disaprities (among other areas)...for confirmation.

I am however, unwilling to make "white privilige" an excuse for every crappy action sometakes that might have racial tones. Nor will I feel guilty for being white. I am more interested in solutions (as evidenced by my repeated references to education in regards to this very topic) then justifications/excuses/reasons for why. We all know why.

Complete. Falsehood.

As for the Brown shooting as mentioned by Highland. I focused more on the facts of the case than the racial tones of it. I also stated that I think it is 50/50 that the officer gets convicted but that I think he should be charged.

 

[♪alt13]

I would say it has considerable effect, starting with preventing people with privilege from acknowledging it, thereby allowing it to perpetuate.

How?

When people acknowledge the plight of others they tend to take action in a spirit of solidarity. When people feel they may have something to lose they tend to cling to their privilege. I really feel that this term is a political wedge, not a tool for progress.

 

[candrew]

And I want 1 million dollars.

If you're white, you should have it already.

Sheesh.....OK, what's your PO Box?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

It is a nice video and I appreciated watching it but I think you are being unfair to the other posters you have mentioned. I have both agreed and disagreed with all of them but I have never found any of them to be unable or unwilling to examine issues from another perspective.

White privilege is a term that confuses the issue. No black person is upset that too few white people are being killed by the police. The term white privilege caries an implication that one groups rights are exercised at the expense of the other. It is not a zero sum game. We can build a better society for black America without taking anything from white America. If you want to talk about the black struggle or systemic discrimination you will find more willing listeners.

But it is a zero sum game--to an extent. Increased social and economic power of one group inherently means diminished social and economic power of other groups. This is precisely why politics is so hotly contested--it is about who has the power to allocate social and economic resources and to which groups. Increased social and economic power among blacks, Hispanics, etc. threatens and disrupts the existing power structure (or some elements of it). They don't like relinquishing this power or control and the ability to dictate how economic and social resources are allocated.

I wish it were as you've portrayed it. But, alas, it is not.

 

[♪alt13]

But it is a zero sum game--to an extent. Increased social and economic power of one group inherently means diminished social and economic power of other groups. This is precisely why politics is so hotly contested--it is about who has the power to allocate social and economic resources and to which groups. Increased social and economic power among blacks, Hispanics, etc. threatens and disrupts the existing power structure (or some elements of it). They don't like relinquishing this power or control and the ability to dictate how economic and social resources are allocated.

I wish it were as you've portrayed it. But, alas, it is not.

Let's break the problem down and see if it is in fact a zero sum game.

I'll start.

This specific issue. If less black people are shot by cops then that does not mean that cops need to start shooting white people to make up the difference. This issue is clearly not zero sum.

Your turn.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Let's break the problem down and see if it is in fact a zero sum game.

I'll start.

This specific issue. If less black people are shot by cops then that does not mean that cops need to start shooting white people to make up the difference. This issue is clearly not zero sum.

Your turn.

Here's your relevant quote: "The term white privilege caries an implication that one groups rights are exercised at the expense of the other. It is not a zero sum game. We can build a better society for black America without taking anything from white America."

I disagree, for the reasons stated above.

Now, if you'd like to make this about specifically about police shootings, then I agree with what you write above.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I am however, unwilling to make "white privilige" an excuse for every crappy action sometakes that might have racial tones. Nor will I feel guilty for being white.

In fairness, is there anyone who actually does this? (Bracing myself for the inevitable Al Sharpton reference.)

 

[Stoked]

In fairness, is there anyone who actually does this? (Bracing myself for the inevitable Al Sharpton reference.)

lol at the Al Sharpton jab.

It is brought up in every single debate that has to deal with race. It is used as an excuse for the anger (justifiable) and any illegal actions that result from it (unjustifiable imo). Now granted not everyone uses that as a crutch but someone always does.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

lol at the Al Sharpton jab.

It is brought up in every single debate that has to deal with race. It is used as an excuse for the anger (justifiable) and any illegal actions that result from it (unjustifiable imo). Now granted not everyone uses that as a crutch but someone always does.

Well, I think you've overstated things a bit, but fair enough.

I'm a masochist, so I sometimes read the comments to national news items, including Michael Brown. The degree of racism encountered there is shocking, if not surprising. I've learned that racists invariably refer at some point to Al Sharpton. It's like a variation of Godwin's Law, but instead of someone inevitably comparing someone to Hitler or Nazi's, racists inevitably invoke Al Sharpton in an attempt to discredit anyone who tries to suggest that racial discrimination remains a salient social and economic issue.