.

[cybercoma]

.

Edited January 30, 2017 by cybercoma

[-1=e^ipi]

In other news, people that are exposed to evidence of the flying spaghetti monster are more likely to deny the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.

[Black Dog]

In other news, people that are exposed to evidence of the flying spaghetti monster are more likely to deny the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.

This...doesn't make sense.

[TimG]

I think the term "white privilege" is a term that is deeply offensive to many and the use of the term is clearly a micro-aggression. Those of you who claim that microaggressions are really nothing but a way to raise awareness about how speach can be hurtful should have no problems agreeing, unless, of course, you are willing to admit that microaggressions have nothing to with raising awareness about hurtful terms and are really about spreading a regressive ideology that forever divides society between victims and oppressors based on one's DNA.

Edited November 5, 2015 by TimG

[cybercoma]

I think that you continue to demonstrate your ignorance to what microaggressions are. But hey, fill your boots.

[TimG]

I think that you continue to demonstrate your ignorance to what microaggressions are. But hey, fill your boots.

I know what they are. The trouble is getting people like you to admit what they are instead making up BS about 'educating people about causing offense'.

[cybercoma]

I know what they are.

It's abundantly clear that you don't, but I'm not going to argue with you about it since you're an anti-intellectual zealot.

[Moonlight Graham]

Cyber, unfortunately the paper in the OP can't be accessed by the non-paying public. What's an example of "white people reacting to evidence of white privilege by claiming greater personal hardships"? Please give an example you might find on MLW for better clarity. I honestly don't quite understand the premise of their argument.

[TimG]

Please give an example you might find on MLW for better clarity. I honestly don't quite understand the premise of their argument.

The argument is when an individual faces barriers and difficulties in life they reject the notion that they enjoy special privileges because of the colour of their skin. They use their own stories of hardship to demonstrate how they, as an individual, did not get any special breaks.

This is a classic example of how it is simply wrong to apply aggregate statistics to individuals. For example, aggregate statistics show the IQ of blacks is less that whites who have an IQ less than asians. But the variance is so large that the aggregate statistics tells use nothing useful about the relative IQs of individuals which is why most people don't put much weight on such statistics. Unfortunately, the PC crowd seems to have forgotten why aggregate statistics cannot be applied to individuals and terms like "white privilege" are meaningless exercises in race baiting.

Edited November 5, 2015 by TimG

[Black Dog]

Cyber, unfortunately the paper in the OP can't be accessed by the non-paying public. What's an example of "white people reacting to evidence of white privilege by claiming greater personal hardships"? Please give an example you might find on MLW for better clarity. I honestly don't quite understand the premise of their argument.

It's basically: "If white people are privileged, how come *insert bad thing* happened to me?"

[Black Dog]

The argument is when an individual faces barriers and difficulties in life they reject the notion that they enjoy special privileges because of the colour of their skin. They use their own stories of hardship to demonstrate how they, as an individual, did not get any special breaks.

Showing an abject failure to understand the concept they are arguing against in the process.

This is a classic example of how it is simply wrong to apply aggregate statistics to individuals.

See above.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Black Dog

[cybercoma]

Cyber, unfortunately the paper in the OP can't be accessed by the non-paying public. What's an example of "white people reacting to evidence of white privilege by claiming greater personal hardships"? Please give an example you might find on MLW for better clarity. I honestly don't quite understand the premise of their argument.

"White people aren't privileged. I lost my job last year."

[TimG]

Showing an abject failure to understand the concept they are arguing against in the process.

I was not making that argument. I was explaining that the op was making that argument. Except the people who fail to understand the nature of aggregate statistics are the ones arguing that all white people, as individuals, benefit from being white. That is is simply nonsense. The variance is too large to allow for any such conclusions to be drawn. Edited November 5, 2015 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

This...doesn't make sense.

Sure it does, look at this evidence or a flying spaghetti monster (which Michael will probably take down... at least leave the link):

BlackDog, if you still don't get it, I'm comparing white privilege with the flying spaghetti monster.

Unfortunately, the PC crowd seems to have forgotten why aggregate statistics cannot be applied to individuals and terms like "white privilege" are meaningless exercises in race baiting.

Because the neoprogressives are inherently collectivist. Here's a video that helps explain the collectivistness of neoprogressives.

Edited November 5, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[Michael Hardner]

But the variance is so large that the aggregate statistics tells use nothing useful about the relative IQs of individuals which is why most people don't put much weight on such statistics. Unfortunately, the PC crowd seems to have forgotten why aggregate statistics cannot be applied to individuals and terms like "white privilege" are meaningless exercises in race baiting.

Generally, if the variance weren't large, though, couldn't you use the statistics to validate statements.

[Moonlight Graham]

Honestly, it's impossible to for anyone with half a brain to deny that certain groups like non-whites and women sometimes face discrimination from some white males, who may be in positions of authority.

The thing is, other non-white racial groups are just as discriminating against whites as whites are against them. It just happens that it was mostly whites who historically built Canada and historically have been the dominant race with the most money and power, so their discrimination is the primary focus (and rightfully so I think). But we also need to recognize ALL forms of racial (and sexual) discrimination, and denounce them all.

The thing that bothers me is when you have many "privileged white" families who have lived in Canada a century or more, have worked hard, paid their taxes, in most cases had family members fight or die in wars defending Canada and thus these families have reaped the benefits of Canada's prosperity and secured good futures for their children...but then you have other families who have immigrated into Canada in the last few decades from very poor countries who don't arrive here with as much economic wealth and yet they (or white people who sympathize with them) blame the difference in wealth, education, and career level between recent immigrants and the "privileged whites" who have been in Canada for centuries entirely on racial discrimination by the "privileged whites" while living in this country. In some cases some of it may have to do with racial discrimination by whites but certainly not all or even most of it is. I mean if horse A has been running the race a lot longer than horse B, horse A is obviously going to be ahead. Those better off should help out those less advantaged but we all need to be fair and reasonable too.

[cybercoma]

.

Edited November 6, 2015 by cybercoma

[WestCoastRunner]

Honestly, it's impossible to for anyone with half a brain to deny that certain groups like non-whites and women sometimes face discrimination from some white males, who may be in positions of authority.

The thing is, other non-white racial groups are just as discriminating against whites as whites are against them. It just happens that it was mostly whites who historically built Canada and historically have been the dominant race with the most money and power, so their discrimination is the primary focus (and rightfully so I think). But we also need to recognize ALL forms of racial (and sexual) discrimination, and denounce them all.

The thing that bothers me is when you have many "privileged white" families who have lived in Canada a century or more, have worked hard, paid their taxes, in most cases had family members fight or die in wars defending Canada and thus these families have reaped the benefits of Canada's prosperity and secured good futures for their children...but then you have other families who have immigrated into Canada in the last few decades from very poor countries who don't arrive here with as much economic wealth and yet they (or white people who sympathize with them) blame the difference in wealth, education, and career level between recent immigrants and the "privileged whites" who have been in Canada for centuries entirely on racial discrimination by the "privileged whites" while living in this country. In some cases some of it may have to do with racial discrimination by whites but certainly not all or even most of it is. I mean if horse A has been running the race a lot longer than horse B, horse A is obviously going to be ahead. Those better off should help out those less advantaged but we all need to be fair and reasonable too.

And this may seem a silly argument, but my kids went to school with wealthy white families (we were not) and some of the kids from these families turned out gay or transgender and were certainly not treated as priviliged white family members.

[Guest]

And this may seem a silly argument, but my kids went to school with wealthy white families (we were not) and some of the kids from these families turned out gay or transgender and were certainly not treated as priviliged white family members.

I don't think it's a silly argument. I think it speaks to the importance of treating people as individuals and not solely as part of a large homogenuos group.

One would think that such an argument wouldn't need to be made on this site.

Edited November 6, 2015 by bcsapper

[WestCoastRunner]

I don't think it's a silly argument. I think it speaks to the importance of treating people as individuals and not solely as part of a large homogenuos group.

One would think that such an argument wouldn't need to be made on this site.

But yes, it does need to be made.

[Hal 9000]

Who exactly is handing out white privilege?

[Smallc]

I think there's no question there is some advantage to being a white male. I also think there's no question that what I just said is not true for everyone, or in all circumstances. Maybe people in the study weren't all making excuses?

[Bonam]

Research from Stanford's Graduate School of business, published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, shows that white people react to evidence of white privilege by claiming greater personal hardships.

This is a surprise to someone? It's a natural human reaction, completely expected. Tell anyone they are "privileged" and they will react by explaining how they are not in fact privileged.

Of course, that simple reality has nothing to do with whether there is actually such a thing as white privilege.

[Guest]

It doesn't matter whether there is or there isn't. It ain't my fault, so I'm not gonna worry about it.

Edited November 6, 2015 by bcsapper

[Hal 9000]

These Stanford kids should maybe do a study on white guilt, which I believe has had a larger and more negative impact than "white privilege".