H10

You are not properly using the term the scientific method here. The scientific method gives no preferences. In a debate of any nature, where you argue against the widely accepted view point amongst experts, the onus is on you to prove your case. If I am trying to argue gravity doesn't exist, I must prove it. I can't just say the flying spaghetti monster is a simpler explanation "However, Alan Baker, who suggests this in the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is careful to point out that his suggestion should not be taken generally, but only as it applies in a particular context, that is: philosophers who argue in opposition to metaphysical theories that involve an allegedly "superfluous ontological apparatus."" See that doesn't fit the criteria here. We have real studies done by scientist. You can't just dismiss the studies without conducting studies that produce counter-evidence. "And btw, the most widely held position about the burden of proof by philosophers of science is that the burden of proof lies on the person arguing for the more complicated model of reality." Not at all, that is only limited to a tiny set of circumstances involving superfluous ontological apparatus. This doesn't apply here, nothing about white privilege is superfluous in its ontological apparatus. "So if white people admit that white privilege exists then that is evidence of white privilege. But if white people deny that white privilege exists then that is also evidence of white privilege? Do you not see the problem with that?" So if German pilots who have flown many planes admit that planes can fly it is evidence of flight, but if German pilots who have flown many planes deny that planes can fly it is evidence of flight? Do you not see a problem with that? There is no problem with that at all, the facts do not depend on what German pilots believe.

We cannot realistically ignore group dynamics when people do not function as individuals, they function as groups. Corruption perception is just that. I'd believe the opposite is true. The less corruption you perceive the likely more corruption there is. As often what occurs in low corruption perception states is there are less checks and boundaries and no one is even checking for corruption. Canada and Norway are good examples. People get away with murder and the most blatant forms of corruption in these countries because there is so little oversight and the general public is so naive on government corruption. Like for instance, how is North Korea more corrupt than China with poisionous baby milk? Or how is Libya all that corrupt in 2014? When you dig into the claims you find the same things all go on in Canada that these places are accused of. The funniest thing of all about this, is that they accuse the people of buying fifa and olympics wins except in the years USA wins them. "Defining corruption as "exerting influence, often through the provision of money or favours, to obtain a service," In Canada and the USA along with most "white countries" this practice is essentially legalized and called lobbying and almost every major company or industry engages in it. This ranking is essentially worthless. You need a universal definition of corruption. You then have to contend with the fact that there are congressmen in the usa who went in with regular government jobs and are now worth hundreds of millions and how congress gets to legally insider trade. How the hell was that not factored in? 60 minutes did a documentary on this. And the amoutn of backscrathcing to family members of rich and prominent isquiet normal in DC its not even called corruption. That is why the perception is so low. When Michael McCaul goes from a prosecutor salary to worth $300 million dollars because he pulled strings for his wife's family earning them billions, no one bats an eye. Look how Italy and France are tied for Corruption. That is ridiculous given Berlusoni and the mafia controlling all of Italian business. Even here in Canada much of the trade in construction is hooked controlled by the mafia. http://www.metronews.ca/news/canada/2014/04/24/canadas-largest-construction-union-linked-to-firm-with-alleged-mafia-ties.html The reality is White countries citizens just choose to be naive about white collar crime or corruption. White privilege is white is right mentality because they are white. And it is part of saying all religions are dumb. Your white conclusion was religions are dumb because the ancient whites had none so you can mock others. Where you want other groups to respect your views your free to insult others. Athiest also ignore empirical evidence that supports the truth of religions. They are dogmatic indeed, and they often lead to bad outcomes like communism, communist russia, chi-comms and viet-comms and north korean comms. There is no worse country on the planet than north korea and they are atheist.

According to multiple sources there are roughly 50-60 million refugees world wide. Refugees are defined by the UN as " "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country."" So my question, as someone who has served in Afghanistan and who has volunteered in real refugee camps in Africa and Europe and Middle East. I recall being in Dadaab (world's largest refugee camp) and coming across multiple Christians who had fled Somalia from their branch of Al Qaeda who kills any Christian who refuses to convert to Islam. I recall something similar in Afghanistan where they kill Christians for being Christians. Now I recall watching a US Governor saying he won't accept any Syrian refugees. And a group representing muslims said they were going to sue the governor for being discriminatory against Syrians. Which made me think of several things. 1. If refusing to accept Syrian refugees is discriminatory or racist, then isn't giving Syrian refugees express entry over the other 50-60 million refugees in the world discriminatory against all those other nationalities? How is Syrian only refugee not racism? 2. How is it not discrimination to fly in just one nationality of refugees but all the other refugees in real refugee camps who have no money, and cannot even work (because refugees in camps cannot seek employment and there is none in camps). 3. I still do not believe that Syrian refugees even meet the UN definition of refugee. I've heard many of them speak on tv how they are leaving syria because the economy was destroyed by war. While I understand that certainly sucks, that doesn't make you a refugee. There needs to be a specific threat against you based on your race, religion, nationality, social group, political opinion, sexuality etc. Ie. a gay syrian man could say ISIS is going to kill him. That is a real refugee. These are people displaced by war, but we cannot accept and fly in every person displaced by war, they outnumber refugees even more. 4. I believe there is a racism going on in the Trudeau government, there is a major war in Ukraine with lots of people being killed, there is the same Islamic State group in Nigeria and Mali, Cameron, Niger, Chad and Libya, just 2 days after Paris attacked murdered a town of 2000 christians just for being christian. There is crisises in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mexico, Libya, Egypt where thousands of people have been killed as well. And what about Iraq. Isn't it the ISLAMIC STATE in SYRIA AND IRAQ? Why only Syrian refugees when Christians are being butchered in Iraq too! This is the real racism that the media never talks about coming from the Trudeau government. In my view Sttephen Harper was much more fair. At least he denied most refugees and the few he take in were Christians who are REAL refugees. People made fun of Harper's "old stock Canadian" comment. But Trudeau had a far more significant racist outburst. He called Canada a nation of immigrants. Think about what he is telling native indians. You aren't an immigrant, so Canada isn't for you, its an immigrant nation and you aren't included. I think Trudeau is going to show his true racist colors over time and people will be begging for Harper back once the honey moon wears off.

offensive to islam. It would be like a muslim asking what on earth is wrong with wearing a swatika or insulting jews.

It was a different study if you are correct. Because that study, showed opposite. I will agree there are exceptions. But does that mean we should make policies for exceptions or for general rules? Who made the sexist traditions? How are white women more privileged than white males when most ceo's and very rich and powerful, and particularly unqualified men getting crony favours are white men. Harper's cabinet was a good example of that. Atheists-whitemales believe this. but that is the white privilege, they make these broad statements as if no one else view matters. religion is dumb and that is that because the white male says so. Saudi Arabia is run by turkish descendant people from the ottoman colonizers, the indigeneous saudis are not even the same race and neither are most saudis turk breed purely, and turkish people are now claiming to be white, so you are in a strange situation where the saudi royals are white or claim to be white. this is no surprise actually, most of the ottoman empire colonies still have turks ruling them today. Just like how the queen of kenya is white queen elizabeth in england.

Communism was just a way for Russian Bolshevik khazarians jews to grip power in Russia as they were being lynched by white people. The jews had the capital and the big industries were run by whites and bolsheiviks jews were politically active so they ended up being the one to take over all the industries who got nationalized leaving the whites not a bucket to piss in. You want to see real communism, people living in an egalitarian society, go to a commune or communal societies where people live out in the wild and don't even have money and live off the land, that is true communism. The bolsheiviks like Karl Marx don't want that. They want government (and of course their jewish handlers and aids) to take away the business built by everyone else and hand it over to be controlled by the government. No one ever stops to think why a group so successful in business would support a system nattionalizing all businesses. Killing the filthy goyim competitors. On one hand you have to respect the jews for being able to jew down christians goyims out of all their money, its a nice little racket. Jews are not a race because they come in different races. Jews are not a religion because as you duly note, Karl Marx was an atheist jew and there are huge amounts of atheist jews. Ever heard of an atheist christian or atheist muslim? didn't think so. Jews are not an ethnic group, they take on the characteristics of their host civilizations. Spanish jews practice spaniard culture, german jews practice german culture, nigerian jews, indian jews, chinese jews and peruvians jews all do the same. There is no unifying jew culture. Jew is not a language because as I previously pointed out they all speak different languages. Where white european culture gave us adam smith and Thomas mun, the great industrialist like Henry Ford of America. Jew culture gave us marxism. Which said take from the goyim and give to the collective, which of course was to be run by a jew. So then what is a jew if it is not a religion, race, culture or ethnicity. Jew is an economics. Jew money is used 19 times in the jew community before it goes out of the jew community. Goyim money bounces 1 time and it scraped up quickly by the jew. Jew is an economics used to remove money from goyims to enrich the jew community. That is the only one unifying trait of jew cultures all over the world. The jews are much like the patel class of india or any other economic monopoly class.

White privilege is a fact. No, " "White Privilege" is not a fact - it is an opinion put forth by researchers with an agenda as a way to explain the actual facts. " No, that is an opinion! The Onus is on you to prove the entire body of reasearch wrong because you are arguing against the more widely held position amongst the expert community. Most people think the world is round, if I argue its flat, the onus is on me to prove that you will sail of the edge of the planet. It is your opinion they cherry picked data and had a pre-determined narrative. In fact your opinion is full of logical errors. Because it is much more likely that the opposite occured. White privilege was widely believed to exist, so researchers conducted studies to find if it exist and verified its existence. This is how science works. People make hypothesis, then the researchers look for evidence to see if this is true or not. I provided multiple sources on white privilege, you call them my opinions. You are an expert in knocking down strawmans. You haven't proved white privilege isn't there. In fact your very statements of denial are precisely what the original study posted by the op are about. White privilege causing white privileged males to deny their privilege and exaggerate how bad they have it to disassociate with the privilege. Which is not suprising. It is the same reason why people like Ann Romney or Hilary Clinton think they are "not rich" or "not wealthy" while they rake in piles of cash most people could only dream of.

Why do medical marijuana users need to smoke in public again? I don't see what exactly is the impetus here? Why can't they smoke outdoors like everyone else? Smoking is a public health issue. Its not the effect of the user, it is the effect to employees who have no choice and to other patrons. Now some single mother will have to take second hand smoke in her place of employment and risk the health effects of marijuana just to get a pay check. Seems pretty shitty for people who chose to not smoke. This is FAR worse than a hookah lounge or cigar lounges. In cigar loungers or hookah bars, people have made an ACTIVE choice to work in a SMOKING environment. People who dislike it can EASILY avoid it. I don't smoke, so you know what, I never went to a hookah bar. I was fine with them. Heck I am even fine with cigar bars. This is very bad policy, what about exposing children to smoke? What about if you find an employer or bar who permits this but other employees are allergic to the smoke (allergies, asthma, copd, etc). What about on people who work with heavy equipment who are breathing in this second hand smoke. How will they pass a drug test. What if you sit in a room with these smokers while eating dinner, get in your car, cop pulls you over and blood test you because you smell like weed and you test positive. So now you go to jail for DUI which the government says is the devil. This will open up a pandora''s box. Because now they either have to convict you for letting someone practice their "right" or every weed smoker who drives high and gets caught is going to blame some medicinal user. This is going to make it impossible to convict anyone who is high while driving. I don't oppose the med marijuana, but I do oppose this dumb law, which is probably a distrction from Wynee's failing government.

LOL, yeah not being able to discriminate against minorities is such a heavy burden how will I ever survive. Why are white men trying to insult other people's prophets. See that is the white privilege, you feel you should be able to insult other groups but go nuts if other groups insult you. Yes because white privilege is created for white males.

You have made an appeal to authority error. Not me, I quoted people who have expertise from a broad brush of academia. You quoted some street psycho. Besides they use facts and studies. You haven't disproved the studies, you can't they are facts. The study didn't support your chinese name engineering benefit. I couldn't find it anywhere in there. I found the opposite. You are mixing unfortunate circumstances with privilege. men engage in more risky behaviours due to biology. Men are more likely to be seen as threats by other men. This is mainly men doing this to each other not an outside group like women. That being the case there is still male privilege and white privilege and white male privilege is the most privilege group of all.

These are studies supported by data. You need to prove the studies wrong, you can't just whine about bias. You sound like a flat earther. You are peddling a religion, I am showing facts and evidence.

Nope, it is just factually true, its not the appeal to authority, it is appeal to the factual information that the authroitys use. You haven't addressed that. You just call them bias, but it doesn't matter, it doesn't change the facts

You are creating strawmen about religion. This isn't about religion. It can't be proven false because it is true. Look at how whites say bandaids as skin tone are really WHITE skin tone. Whites create thing for white culture, they pretend they are neutral. Perhaps the biggest proof of white privilege at all, is the ability for whites to deny it. They can pretend it doesn't exist while it crushed the other races under the jack boot foot of oppression.

We aren't talking about religion. Your study confirms white privilege. "Combining all three cities, resumes with English-sounding names are 35 percent more likely to receive callbacks than resumes with Indian or Chinese names, remarkably consistent with earlier findings from Oreopoulos (2009) for Toronto in better economic circumstances." Table 14 says foreign name engineers get called back less. You cannot dismiss this point by dismissing other experts, you need to dismiss THESE experts as wrong and prove it, and all the evidence says white privilege exist. its like trying to disprove gravity. Yes male privilege exist. I've seen it only after it was pointed out to me. There are indeed certain advantages and privileges conferred just for being male.

Nope, not about dealbinating anyone. It was whites who invented the term

White privilege is not simply a question of wealth, it is positive privileges that even poor whites benefit from. White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for societal privileges that benefit white people in Western countries beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.[note 1] According to McIntosh and Lee, whites in a society considered culturally a part of the Western world enjoy advantages that non-whites do not experience.[1] The term denotes both obvious and less obvious passive advantages that white persons may not recognize they have, which distinguishes it from overt bias or prejudice.[2] These include cultural affirmations of one's own worth; presumed greater social status; and freedom to move, buy, work, play, and speak freely.[1] The effects can be seen in professional, educational, and personal contexts.[3] The concept of white privilege also implies the right to assume the universality of one's own experiences, marking others as different or exceptional while perceiving oneself as normal.[4][5] Academic perspectives such as critical race theory and whiteness studies use the concept of "white privilege" to analyze how racism and racialized societies affect the lives of white people.

How would you know? Sure there are whites who can work hard, no one disputes that, but it doesn't negate white privilege. Nope, all whites benefit rom white privilege, besides a poor white man can become a rich white man with the flick of a wand. White privilege is not limited to "Rich whites" "White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for societal privileges that benefit white people in Western countries beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.[note 1] According to McIntosh and Lee, whites in a society considered culturally a part of the Western world enjoy advantages that non-whites do not experience.[1] The term denotes both obvious and less obvious passive advantages that white persons may not recognize they have, which distinguishes it from overt bias or prejudice.[2] These include cultural affirmations of one's own worth; presumed greater social status; and freedom to move, buy, work, play, and speak freely.[1] The effects can be seen in professional, educational, and personal contexts.[3] The concept of white privilege also implies the right to assume the universality of one's own experiences, marking others as different or exceptional while perceiving oneself as normal.[4][5] Academic perspectives such as critical race theory and whiteness studies use the concept of "white privilege" to analyze how racism and racialized societies affect the lives of white people."

You are dancing away from the facts that the vast majority of the experts say white privilege is real and occurs.

Ok, but your initial claim was incorrect.

You are conflating the issue. You are trying to imply their is no casual relation where that is not in question. The expert evidence from critical race theory and experts on race at the top institutions tell us this is the case. You have provided no evidence they are all wrong. All whites benefit from white privilege, by definition. If they didn't it would be called something else. Its not about collectively better outcomes. Whites could have privilege and still have collectively worse outcomes. I gave many good examples from the black codes and jim crow era United States. You are trying to create a false equivaency between white privilege and as an invariable cause and effect relationship with outcomes of socio-economics. As I previously pointed out, this is not only wrong but also illogical and patently false. In fact in many cases white privilege leads to ethnic minorities actually earning more money than them. For instance, when whites said african americans cannot shop at white owned stores, cannot buy white made products and cannot stay at white hotels, hospitals, schools and places of accommodations. This certainly created a white privilege where whites could go anywhere they wanted and do anything they wanted and originals couldn't. However it had an unintended consequence of creating a rich african american class of people who owned businesses and product lines particularly in the cities, hotels, hospitals, schools, places of accommodations, bus lines, consumer products etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege Check yourself. And there are a bunch of reference from university textbooks. This is not a stereotype, it is a scientifically documented phenomena that is recorded and published to millions of people all over the world by professors from world class institutions. Bigotry would require hate, I don't hate anyone, I reported a scientific fact. It would be like saying the sun is hot is bigoted. If you read what I wrote you would have seen were I said its what you do with your white privilege which is the real determinant of the person. So I never branded anyone a certain way. It is actually you with your euro-khazarian -jew privilege who created the straw man of all whites bad. A white person who tries to deny their privilege or defer is precisely as thee study describes, simply in denial and behaving childishly because they have been caught and are angry so attempt to lash out. The real mature adults admit they have privilege and come from a privileged lifestyle and behave responsibly from that. Its like the difference between the billionaire kids like Donald Trump who pretend they worked for what they have when daddy gave them $100 million trust fund and multimillionaires like JFK who was just as rich when inflation adjusted but said yeah I am rich and come from a privilege lifestyle but I am not going to deny that I got into Harvard with a B- average because my daddy was a made man. But instead I will use my privilege as a white male to help others and level the playing field. Black privilege does not exist. I don't have a stereotype, I do have facts and evidence though.

Employment equity was created by whites who acknowledge the reality and listened to the experts that white privilege is real. Link to the study. I suspect it was usa? And that is just one job, what about chinese being denied housing for accents as found in the star? It occurs to me the leading experts on race have come to a conclusion white privilege is real from Tim Wise to Jane Elliot or Dr Ron Walters, who is widely considered to be the foremost expert on race in America.

White privilege does exist. Why would white privilege mean every white has to be living like donald trump?People who look at IQ scores ignore the scores showing whites with half the intelligence. It is not about skills here, it is a question of white skin privilege.

So because someone else can over come white privilege or because someone white fails it means there is no white privilege? Do you understand that there was blatant on the books racist laws during the 1800s and 1900s in the united states yet there were legions of poor whites and plenty of rich originals? In fact on average the originals in the major cities were richer than the poor whites in the cities because a large degree of them owned businesses of very basic products. By your logic there was no white privilege in the 1950s because Samuel Fuller, african american ceo of the fuller company, had the equivalent of 180 million dollars of sales a year. James Forten was a free African American man who became a multi-millionaire during the 1700s and 1800s, would you have me believe well there was no white privilege then either?

Sorry if you are white in Canada, you have white privilege. Simple as that. It isn't even a question of. It hasn't even occured to you, you might not be employed if you weren't white, you might not get that home loan because of discrimination against non-white lenders. You see people don't notice that they were got the loan they were suppose to get. People don't notice they got the job they were suppose to get. But the Chinese or Indian who had more education, more income, more credit than you but got denied the loan, sure does notice. White privilege isn't something a white person would even really notice. No one is rolling out a red carpet and a clown horn infront of you. Its how having an English or german accent makes you "smart" but having a Chinese accent makes it harder to rent an apartment. The English doesn't notice he called in, and got what he was suppose to get.