Is white privilege real? To what extent?

[Edwardo Piet]

Add to the evidence the shock that I would dare to question even the extent at which white privilege exists. White privilege already exists we don't have to talk about asian privilege to accept that fact.

And then the false allegations, repeated allegations that I don't believe white privilege exists because I question the extent and definition of it.

The fact that you say that you are willing to believe white privilege exists if it can be shown that other races have privilege too is just a fallacy.

"shock"? More like "facepalming at your persistent denial of reality" than shock.

You're flying in the face of evidence and pushing it so hard it's embarassing.

Seriously even if every post in this thread directed at you was nothing but false allegations and shouting you down whenever you disagreed it is still not evidence of your bullshit accusation that the majority of this forum has an agenda and a dogma that not following results in insults, mocking and false accusations

The majority of this forum has an agenda and a dogma that not following results in insults, mocking and false accusations.

You seriously said this.


Oh and, of course, no one has shouted you down or had a problem with you disagreeing. The only evidence you're providing that it is you that has a problem with disagreement because apparently the majority of the forum has an agenda simply because your denial of white privilege is, thankfully, in the minority.

It's okay to question things and it's okay for your questions to be questioned. No one is telling you to shut up. That doesn't mean we don't think your opinion on this matter of undeniable fact isn't silly.

[paulpablo]

Add to the evidence the shock that I would dare to question even the extent at which white privilege exists. White privilege already exists we don't have to talk about asian privilege to accept that fact.

And then the false allegations, repeated allegations that I don't believe white privilege exists because I question the extent and definition of it.

The fact that you say that you are willing to believe white privilege exists if it can be shown that other races have privilege too is just a fallacy.

"shock"? More like "facepalming at your persistent denial of reality" than shock.

You're flying in the face of evidence and pushing it so hard it's embarassing.

Seriously even if every post in this thread directed at you was nothing but false allegations and shouting you down whenever you disagreed it is still not evidence of your bullshit accusation that the majority of this forum has an agenda and a dogma that not following results in insults, mocking and false accusations

The majority of this forum has an agenda and a dogma that not following results in insults, mocking and false accusations.

You seriously said this.


Oh and, of course, no one has shouted you down or had a problem with you disagreeing. The only evidence you're providing that it is you that has a problem with disagreement because apparently the majority of the forum has an agenda simply because your denial of white privilege is, thankfully, in the minority.

It's okay to question things and it's okay for your questions to be questioned. No one is telling you to shut up. That doesn't mean we don't think your opinion on this matter of undeniable fact isn't silly.

You perpetuating the false claim I denied the existence of white privilege is more evidence.

I have said the extent of white privilege is dependant upon the definition of privilege and that in either case I think it exists to an extent.

But carry on shouting that dogmatic narrative, it's popular on this thread and I'm sure you'll get kudos

[paulpablo]

And people have had a problem with me disagreeing, it's been asked why is white privilege being questioned.
From the start it's been said that this thread is amusing and embarrassing other non argument pleas to emotion.

[Edwardo Piet]

And then the false allegations, repeated allegations that I don't believe white privilege exists because I question the extent and definition of it.

(my bolding)

Questioning the definition of it is to equivocate it. When you define something differently you are no longer talking about the thing originally defined.

You can 'question the definition' of X all you want but once you do remember now that we're talking about X2 instead of X and no matter how true the things you say about X2 it has no bearing on X.

If you redefine 'white privilege' because of your rigid attachment to specific dictionary definitions of the word 'privilege' -- that unsurprisingly also happen to suit your own opinions on white privilege (*cough* confirmation bias *cough*) -- it doesn't change the reality of the fact that white privilege actually exists in the world.

You can talk about "white privilege" the concept all you want but it doesn't change the reality of white privilege itself. White people are generally going to be privileged however you define it.

[Edwardo Piet]

And people have had a problem with me disagreeing, it's been asked why is white privilege being questioned.

Questioning why you're questioning it isn't telling you you can't question it. It seems you have a problem with your own questions being questioned. Again, irony. Funny really because you're the one playing the victim here and is still yet to demonstrate your laughable accusation that the majority of this forum has an agenda. Apparently when people don't agree with your thankfully unpopular denial of the facts that means the majority of the forum has an agenda. And yes you've said as much because you've hilariously suggested that posts on this thread is evidence of your ridiculous accusation that the majority of this forum has an agenda. Seriously! Hilarious! Talk about a ridiculous generalization! It's so hilariously ironic that you're speaking of false accusations. Do you realize how much evidence you need to actually support such an absurd claim that the majority of this forum of thousands of posters has an agenda against anyone who disagrees with them?! The majority of this forum don't even agree with each other! We're all individuals....

To be honest, it's hardly surprising that you're overgeneralising so absurdly... because after all: You do the same when you give anecdotes of non-whites who are privileged and whites who aren't as an argument for white privilege not existing to the extent that it undeniably does

If you questioned the fact of evolution and I incredulously wondered why you were questioning the reality of it that wouldn't mean that I had a problem with you disagreeing, I'd just think you were irrational and silly for denying reality. I'm entitled to that just as much as you're entitled to your questioning reality.

[paulpablo]

And then the false allegations, repeated allegations that I don't believe white privilege exists because I question the extent and definition of it.

(my bolding)

Questioning the definition of it is to equivocate it. When you define something differently you are no longer talking about the thing originally defined.

You can 'question the definition' of X all you want but once you do remember now that we're talking about X2 instead of X and no matter how true the things you say about X2 it has no bearing on X.

If you redefine 'white privilege' because of your rigid attachment to specific dictionary definitions of the word 'privilege' -- that unsurprisingly also happen to suit your own opinions on white privilege (*cough* confirmation bias *cough*) -- it doesn't change the reality of the fact that white privilege actually exists in the world.

You can talk about "white privilege" the concept all you want but it doesn't change the reality of white privilege itself. White people are generally going to be privileged however you define it.

I'm not trying to redefine it.

My understanding of it from how the words privilege and white are defined, and ontop of that how the phrase itself is commonly defined using a Google search is that white privilege is

Advantages whites people have not common to those of other non white races.

So if someone says not being shot by police is a white privilege it's not it's common among non white races to not be shot by police and in fact other groups are shot less than white people.

And that's my opinion based on what I think the definition of white privilege is.

But I'm not dictating my opinion to you as fact I really want to hear what you think the definition of white privilege is and if you disagree with any of the points I've made.

[paulpablo]

And people have had a problem with me disagreeing, it's been asked why is white privilege being questioned.

Questioning why you're questioning it isn't telling you you can't question it. It seems you have a problem with your own questions being questioned. Again, irony. Funny really because you're the one playing the victim here and is still yet to demonstrate your laughable accusation that the majority of this forum has an agenda.

If you questioned the fact of evolution and I incredulously wondered why you were questioning the reality of it that it that wouldn't mean that I had a problem with you disagreeing, I'd just think you were irrational and silly for denying reality. I'm entitled to that just as much as you're entitled to your questioning reality.

I'm not saying no one has the right to ask why I'm questioning it.
I'm saying its a warning sign to me of dogmatic belief if someone is amazed at something being questioned.

I've never heard anyone on this forum say "why is evolution even being questioned?"
And if I did I'd say it's a negative approach as I'd encourage everyone to question evolution.
It's fair to criticise the form of questioning but not just the pure fact that it's being questioned. In my opinion.

[Edwardo Piet]

White privilege exists however you define it. If you redefine it to mean "pumpkin" you're not talking about white privilege anymore.

There is generally less racism against white people overall in this world and that generally gives white people comparatively more advantages and less disadvantages than other races.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm saying its a warning sign to me of dogmatic belief if someone is amazed at something being questioned.

Or a reaction to a ridiculous belief that goes against facts, evidence and reality. If you were questioning gravity I'd seem amazed too.

[paulpablo]

I would have to disagree. It doesn't cloud the issue, it simply detracts from what the agenda is for some. For them, there exists two ethnic groups in the USA; the blacks and the whites. The inbetweens are insignificant and it has shown.

When you're treating cancer, focusing on trimming the toenails doesn't strike me as terribly useful. The fact that he's so wedded to such an approach strikes me as odd and raises questions in my mind.

I'm not saying that the others are insigificant. I'm saying that there are different dynamics at play in those racial relationships because they weren't, you know, kept legally as slaves for several hundred years, for the most part. And they weren't the object of specifically-targeted laws regulating where they could live, eat, sleep, and even relieve themselves. The racism Asian-Americans, Native Americans, and others endure has different antecedents, and different results. Lumping them all together would, as I wrote earlier, cloud the issue.

Also just to reiterate I also think that lumping groups together is precisely what the phrase white privilege does.

It lumps together all white people of all nations, religions, circumstances, economic statuses, health levels and age.

And lumps together all non white people which as you pointed out is irrational since black people and Asians do have totally different circumstances and so often enjoy the privileges some people would say are white privileges.