(July 15, 2016 at 2:44 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:(July 15, 2016 at 1:38 pm)Irrational Wrote: It's going to be pretty much the same as what Wikipedia says. I read the article earlier. So if they want to know what definition I stick to, it's in there.
The wikipedia article is very long, includes several different eras several different countries, white privledge as viewed by everything from Marxists to feminists to critiques of white privilege to deny it's existence. So you can't 'just read the what wikipedia says' since it gives different and sometimes contradictory points of view. Which is exactly what most wikipedia articles do and is the whole point of wikipedia. What it doesn't do is give some magic, handy universal definition. You can't say 'I agree with wikipedia' Wikipedia doesn't agree with itself. It gives an overview of different points of view about it. That's why it's my pet peeve on here. You are basically telling someone else to do your research for you. You'd think that you would at least be able to narrow it down to the section that you agreed with.
By the way, this has nothing to do with my views on white privilege, which I think for sure exists and I wrote a bit about in the thread on white privilege.
It's in the first sentence of the article, CA. Forgive me if I don't have enough time to take someone like A Theist seriously.
