BLM Violent Hate Group

[paulpablo]

[GrandizerII]

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.

[CapnAwesome]

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.

Then don't reply to him, and don't be too lazy to cut and paste one sentence, but expect him to read a 100 paragraph wikipedia article? C'mon.

[GrandizerII]

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.

Then don't reply to him, and don't be too lazy to cut and paste one sentence, but expect him to read a 100 paragraph wikipedia article? C'mon.

Where's the fun in that?

[Jello]

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.

Then don't reply to him, and don't be too lazy to cut and paste one sentence, but expect him to read a 100 paragraph wikipedia article? C'mon.

You could say that's..... Irrational!  
*Puts on Sunglasses*

[A Theist]

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.

Hmmmm....you educated yourself all about white privilege in Wikipedia, and you can't take me seriously? Lol!

[RobertE]

[GrandizerII]

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.

Hmmmm....you educated yourself all about white privilege in Wikipedia, and you can't take me seriously? Lol!

Haha, very funny, because Wikipedia isn't at all a useful resource for education </sarcasm>.

But for the record, I've known about white privilege for a number of years now. I only referred to Wikipedia as a quick summary for you to check for how white privilege is generally defined. And you only had to check the first paragraph or two for just the definition.

[Little lunch]

https://youtu.be/jQ_0bqWKO-k

Did you watch this A theist?
I'd like to hear your what you think and if it changed your mind a little.

[BrokenQuill92]

Did you watch this A theist?
I'd like to hear your what you think and if it changed your mind a little.

He's probably ignoring it