White Pride

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

1) You were the one who posted household income disparity as an example of white privilege.

2) Pointing out that Asians earn more than whites is entirely logical.

3) And your response now seems to be that household income is not really an indication of white privilege after all?

1) Yes, is it an example.

2) Yes, it is logical.

3) Yes it is an indicator of white privilege.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Yes, is it an example.

2) Yes, it is logical.

3) Yes it is an indicator of white privilege.

And yet, Whites earn less than Asians.... So maybe income isn't so much controlled by your skin colour as it is by your behavior.

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, Argus said:

And yet, Whites earn less than Asians.... So maybe income isn't so much controlled by your skin colour as it is by your behavior.

I didn't say it was controlled by skin colour.  So far, this discussion has consisted of me explaining basics to you, followed by garish strawmen being burned over and over again.  Maybe we should move on ?  I seem to have reached a milestone agree-to-disagree with Bonham on nomenclature at least.  You're not going to get me to change language any more readily than I will you.

[GostHacked]

20 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) I get to ignore this drive-by because you are demonizing people.

2) Once again: Asian people making more money does not mean racism is fake.

Well it seems again you are confusing racism with white pride...  again.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Well it seems again you are confusing racism with white pride...  again.

I said nothing about white pride in that post, nor did I assert anything about racism.  I said it's not 'fake', ie. it exists.  Not sure how you can derive your point from my post given those points.

[Argus]

35 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I didn't say it was controlled by skin colour.  So far, this discussion has consisted of me explaining basics to you, followed by garish strawmen being burned over and over again.  Maybe we should move on ?  I seem to have reached a milestone agree-to-disagree with Bonham on nomenclature at least.  You're not going to get me to change language any more readily than I will you.

Okay then. You are unwaveringly supportive of the idea of white privilege while being entirely incapable of explaining what it is or offering up any evidence of its existence.

I wouldn't want to challenge a man's faith in his religious beliefs.

Edited June 1, 2018 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

1)You are unwaveringly supportive of the idea of white privilege while being entirely incapable of explaining what it is or offering up any evidence of its existence.

2) I wouldn't want to challenge a man's faith in his religious beliefs.

1) I think we already discussed that pages ago.  I have done this in the past also, though, so it's no big deal for me to restate: I believe I said it's an advantage that you get due to your skin colour.  It's pretty much analogous to racism.

2) It's a pretty basic idea.  The most valid concern I have seen so far is from Bonham, who disputes use of those words.  As I said I can't make someone use certain words.

[Scott Mayers]

On 5/9/2018 at 9:18 AM, Argus said:

A few items and articles have provoked thought of late about the deliberate division of people into separate identity groups that politicians and social activists are busily engaged in. For politicians it's a way to win votes by tailoring legislation and policies to specific identity groups and sub-identity group members. For the social justice activists, who are inspired by Marxist anti-Capitalist ideology its the division of the world into oppressor and oppressed so they can harangue the former while exploiting the latter.

If we're all divided into separate 'tribes' now, then tribal behaviour will follow. We are, as a species, hard wired into tribalism after all. If the politicians and media and academics keep separating us into our separate groups, then those groups become tribes. The white tribe, the black tribe, the native tribe, the muslim tribe and the christian tribe, the asian tribe and the the gay tribe among others.

The problem is that these tribes are not treated equally. In fact, one is constantly singled out for abuse and attack. That being the white one. And that produces an obvious sense of resentment we can see rising in the form of populism and far right political parties, particularly in Europe where such tribalist separation is more advanced than here (though Trudeau is fighting desperately to catch up). Political tribalism and identity group tribalism are dividing America in the same way.

At its core, the problem is simple but fundamental. While black Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Jewish Americans, and many others are allowed – indeed, encouraged – to feel solidarity and take pride in their racial or ethnic identity, white Americans have for the last several decades been told they must never, ever do so.
People want to see their own tribe as exceptional, as something to be deeply proud of; that’s what the tribal instinct is all about. For decades now, nonwhites in the United States have been encouraged to indulge their tribal instincts in just this way, but, at least publicly, American whites have not.

On the contrary, if anything, they have been told that their white identity is something no one should take pride in. “I get it,” says Christian Lander, creator of the popular satirical blog Stuff White People Like, “as a straight white male, I’m the worst thing on Earth.”

...

Or consider this blog post in the American Conservative, worth quoting at length because of the light it sheds:

I’m a white guy. I’m a well-educated intellectual who enjoys small arthouse movies, coffeehouses and classic blues. If you didn’t know any better, you’d probably mistake me for a lefty urban hipster.

And yet. I find some of the alt-right stuff exerts a pull even on me. Even though I’m smart and informed enough to see through it. It’s seductive because I am not a person with any power or privilege, and yet I am constantly bombarded with messages telling me that I’m a cancer, I’m a problem, everything is my fault.

I am very lower middle class. I’ve never owned a new car, and do my own home repairs as much as I can to save money. I cut my own grass, wash my own dishes, buy my clothes from Walmart. I have no clue how I will ever be able to retire. But oh, brother, to hear the media tell it, I am just drowning in unearned power and privilege, and America will be a much brighter, more loving, more peaceful nation when I finally just keel over and die.

Trust me: After all that, some of the alt-right stuff feels like a warm, soothing bath. A “safe space,” if you will. I recoil from the uglier stuff, but some of it— the “hey, white guys are actually okay, you know! Be proud of yourself, white man!” stuff is really VERY seductive, and it is only with some intellectual effort that I can resist the pull … If it’s a struggle for someone like me to resist the pull, I imagine it’s probably impossible for someone with less education or cultural exposure.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/01/how-americas-identity-politics-went-from-inclusion-to-division

I haven't read all of this thread but have to respond:

I understand you feel 'pulled' but this is actually a 'push'. It is hard to notice the difference when they mean the same thing by those treating the 'White Pride' side as the sole representative of the reactions that get noticed. In fact, I feel both a push and a pull. THIS is the con. Those who are independent individuals of any set of extremes being most prevalent in the media get pushed by the side stereotyping one class of peoples as some perpetrator that while the VERY same KIND of people of the extreme are pulling to take credit as the defenders of the lost. This is NOT the reality and don't get suckered into it in mind. 

BUT, when it comes to actions, like voting, given these times of extremes, we are all forced to polarize or risk being those volunteering to walk into slaughter knowingly. I'm sick of this stupidity everywhere. I don't believe the independent minded majority everywhere are actually aware either. The way the portrayal of media doing this is very intentional and unfortunate for us. The media of any political spectrum will think they are not at fault either. They too are made up of independent minds within that cannot notice which is the truth or not when their upper management have the power to favor special sides for their own reasons.

I believe though that all parties are generally 'conservative': they favor one or more culturally identified special groups. They are also both 'liberal' but differ on which culture should have the power more. It just happens to be that the 'democratic' sides favor the masses because their collective SET of conservatives groups at least favor more people over all. In contrast, the 'republican' sides favor authority to those who have inherent ownership by virtue of no limits to wealth. 

Most of us are stuck in the middle and are forced to choose OR we lose by default of simply NOT joining in on any group. If you are forced to, pick the side that least harms you regardless OR think up some other way to overthrow all these cults stealing the voices in all political parties today. 

 

 

[Note that I purposely used the American "Democrat" versus "Republic" in small letters. These better describe the essence of the right to left spectrum. "Republic" minded are 'conservative' of wealthy people to BE government because they represent what they believe is more intellectually proof of authority: power to succeed. This original name comes from Plato's Republic in that Socrates argued against the KIND of democracy being used then. He wrote to suggest 'representative' democracy that only allows the demos to vote IN the most intellectual from those classes. Thought this has certain merit given we ALL use this form of 'republicanism' today, the right-wing belief is to have power selectively in the hands of a SPECIAL elite based upon wealth. The classes strongest in these happen to ADD favor to one's select culture inherited as well and why we see them as most outspoken. They believe their success is DUE to their 'cult' and genetic link to their religions within. 

In contrast, "Democrats" are insincere democrats when they favor (by the numbers) the plural strengths of those who happen to be in strong subsets of similar types of conservatives. That is, they are not 'democrat' meaning EACH person is rightfully government, but that the ONLY minority ARE the cults. 

Our "Liberals", "NDP", and "Conservative" general classes fit into the American dichotomy more clearly for the masses. Notice how the "Liberals" here are never clear on a platform. This is because they represent just a different select SET of groups that are both larger (democratically) AND believe they are more 'superior' in their select groups AND have wealth (representative authoritarian: republicanism). The NDP represents the SET of groups that are both POOR but democratically of those who segregate into cults.]

Edited June 1, 2018 by Scott Mayers
Crossed out "t" in thought to "though", my actual meaning

[turningrite]

Those who assert white privilege too often conflate outcomes with design and confuse specific circumstances with generalized assumptions. For those of us who grew up decades ago, as I did, the concept of having benefited from white privilege amounts to an absurdity. In the high school I attended, for instance, there were a handful of non-whites among a total of about 1,500 students. The situation at university wasn't a whole lot different. Back in those days, economic class was the biggest single predicator of economic outcomes, as I suspect is still the case today. We had an entire class structure, from top to bottom, within the context of an overwhelmingly European population. So, privilege and associated inequality long predated Canada's current relatively more diverse demographic reality. Logically, diversity didn't and doesn't in its own right generate privilege or inequality. 

Education is clearly the key to breaking down entrenched privilege, provided individuals are prepared to take advantage of the opportunities that are made available. My paternal grandfather moved from subsistence farming to become an urbanized industrial labourer. During the Great Depression, he and his family suffered enormously, living in inadequate housing and facing malnutrition. Of his five children, however, three were able to obtain post-secondary qualifications, two as a result of programs made available to service members returning from WWII, while the other, who was an academic genius, studied on scholarship and obtained a PhD at an American university. None of this newfound prosperity was premised on pre-existing or inherent "privilege" but, instead, was grounded in opportunity, hard work and perhaps a bit of luck. Who, after all, could have designed to benefit from a war or planned to have a genius-level IQ? 

There is a lot of inequality in our society. The best we can hope for is to ameliorate its worst impacts over time by promoting the ethos of "equality of opportunity" because in a free and open society it is almost impossible to achieve equality of outcome. And were we to pursue the latter, we might find the society that results to be far less appealing than the paradise some imagine it might be. 

[Michael Hardner]

21 minutes ago, turningrite said:

1) Those who assert white privilege too often conflate outcomes with design and confuse specific circumstances with generalized assumptions.

2) For those of us who grew up decades ago, as I did, the concept of having benefited from white privilege amounts to an absurdity. In the high school I attended, for instance, there were a handful of non-whites among a total of about 1,500 students.

3) Logically, diversity didn't and doesn't in its own right generate privilege or inequality. 

4) My paternal grandfather...

5) There is a lot of inequality in our society.  

1) How does asserting WP do that ?  We have people on this very thread saying the term is designed to elicit guilt.  That to me is a conflation out comes vs. design.  And how does WP as a term speak to specificity vs generalized assumptions ?  I use the term as a generalized effect.

2) The number of non-whites in your high school is relevant how ?

3) Racism exists, and those who are discriminated against the most suffer economically.  That creates an automatic advantage or privilege.  

4) Your family history is anecdotal, and not evidence of anything in the big picture.

5) But... why ?  In countries that enslaved and abused a class of people for centuries, there is still an effect happening.  It's uncomfortable to talk about things our nation has done wrong, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

 

 

 

Edited June 4, 2018 by Michael Hardner

[turningrite]

30 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) How does asserting WP do that ?  We have people on this very thread saying the term is designed to elicit guilt.  That to me is a conflation out comes vs. design.  And how does WP as a term speak to specificity vs generalized assumptions ?  I use the term as a generalized effect.

2) The number of non-whites in your high school is relevant how ?

3) Racism exists, and those who are discriminated against the most suffer economically.  That creates an automatic advantage or privilege.  

4) Your family history is anecdotal.

5) But... why ?  In countries that enslaved and abused a class of people for centuries, there is still an effect happening.  It's uncomfortable to talk about things our nation has done wrong, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

 

 

 

I believe racism exists, as it does and pretty much always has in most of the world throughout modern (I.e. recorded) history because by nature human beings are tribal. I believe that "white privilege" on the other hand is an academic construct that attempts to draw (often erroneous) conclusions on the basis of conflating current circumstances, which are presented in isolation as outcomes, with a system that's somehow (and even conspiratorially!) designed to allocate benefits on grounds that are related to race. My point is that unequal class structure, entrenched privilege and negative outcomes long predate Canada's current demographic circumstances. In fact, class and economic differences may be less entrenched in this country today than was the case several generations ago. If we allow ourselves to believe that current inequities are predicated primarily on race, the argument for diversity is lost. In a recent NY Times article ("Educated Elite's Failure"),  David Brooks discusses what he calls the "misplaced idolization of diversity," noting that "diversity is a midpoint, not an endpoint" and that "diversity for its own sake, without a common telos, is infinitely centrifugal and leads to social fragmentation." The academic stratagem of "white privilege" distracts from objective analysis and, worse, negates the possibility of and prospects for organic social progress. 

Edited June 4, 2018 by turningrite

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, turningrite said:

1)I believe that "white privilege" on the other hand is an academic construct that attempts to draw (often erroneous) conclusions on the basis of conflating current circumstances, which are presented in isolation as outcomes, with a system that's somehow (and even conspiratorially!) designed to allocate benefits on grounds that are related to race.

2) My point is that unequal class structure, entrenched privilege and negative outcomes long predate Canada's current demographic circumstances.

3) In fact, class and economic differences may be less entrenched in this country today than was the case several generations ago.

4) If we allow ourselves to believe that current inequities are predicated primarily on race, the argument for diversity is lost.

5) In a recent NY Times article ("Educated Elite's Failure"),  David Brooks discusses what he calls the "misplaced idolization of diversity," noting that "diversity is a midpoint, not an endpoint" and that "diversity for its own sake, without a common telos, is infinitely centrifugal and leads to social fragmentation." The academic stratagem of "white privilege" distracts from objective analysis and, worse, negates the prospect of organic social progress. 

1) The conclusion is that being white has privileges.  It's not complicated and it's true that being white, on the whole, is an advantage.

2) Of course.  Canada had slavery long ago, I agree.

3) Agree

4) "Primarily" is your assumption.  It isn't a requirement of the idea of WP that it's the primary cause.

5) "Distracts from objective analysis" ?  I don't see how.  It is a starting point to acknowledging a problem, which is a predecessor to analysis.  We need to agree on language, or agree to disagree.

 

[Argus]

58 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3) Racism exists, and those who are discriminated against the most suffer economically. 

Unless you're Asian, of course. Then it doesn't count.

58 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

5) But... why ?  In countries that enslaved and abused a class of people for centuries, there is still an effect happening.  It's uncomfortable to talk about things our nation has done wrong, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

Which countries did NOT enslave and abuse a class of people at some point in history? Many are still doing it.

[turningrite]

5) "Distracts from objective analysis" ?  I don't see how.  It is a starting point to acknowledging a problem, which is a predecessor to analysis.  We need to agree on language, or agree to disagree.

Michael Hardner: Well, it distracts from objective analysis because it's based on a subjective premise. Actually, asserting the concept of "white privilege" does something worse as it sets an emotional and/or ethical presumption in place to oppose any challenge of its legitimacy, i.e. 'of course there's racism and inequality so the idea "white privilege" MUST be accepted as being legitimate'. While race-based stats do indicate that members of some racial groups face greater difficultly prospering in this country, the notion that this justifies the assumption of white privilege is nonsense. Some minority groups including East Asians and some South Asians, particularly those in the second generation or afterwards following immigration, have little difficultly competing for resources and achieving prosperity in countries like the U.S. and Canada. I recall a conversation I had a few years ago with a black guy, who asserted that the Canadian education system is fundamentally biased and racist. I asked why so many non-whites excel within that system if it's so inherently biased in favour of whites? His response was that East Asians (in particular) have been indoctrinated into complying with white culture - as if they had/have no cultural values of their own upon arriving here. (Hmmm...  seemed presumptive to me.) I asked him whether he was aware of the centuries-old value attached to education in Chinese culture, but apparently his mind was made up. His world view was predicated on an assertion of institutional racism and he wasn't changing his mind about it, whatever the evidence. Perhaps he had some justification in holding his opinion based on his own personal circumstances but in applying his opinion broadly I believe he was expressing a received rather than an actual truth. And that's why the concept of "white privilege," which requires acceptance of a received and broadly subjective premise or truth, is so inherently non-objective and, to apply David Brooks' logic, so counterproductively fragmentary and centrifugal. 

Edited June 4, 2018 by turningrite

[Michael Hardner]

17 minutes ago, Argus said:

1) Unless you're Asian, of course. Then it doesn't count.

2) Which countries did NOT enslave and abuse a class of people at some point in history? Many are still doing it.

1) Well, it does count.  But it doesn't mean racism doesn't exist.

2) Not many, I suspect, but your point is lost on me.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Well, it does count.  But it doesn't mean racism doesn't exist.

And round and round we go.

You: There is white privilege! White's earn more than blacks!

Me: But Asians earn more than Whites.

You: That doesn't mean racism doesn't exist!

You have offered no evidence of the impact of 'white privilege' other than economic success. And given whites are not the top economic success group that is not evidence of white privilege.

What else ya got?

 

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, Argus said:

And round and round we go.

You: There is white privilege! White's earn more than blacks!

Me: But Asians earn more than Whites.

You: That doesn't mean racism doesn't exist!

You have offered no evidence of the impact of 'white privilege' other than economic success. And given whites are not the top economic success group that is not evidence of white privilege.

What else ya got?

 

White Privilege is the same thing as the existence of racism.  Racism has impacted different races in different ways.

Saying Chinese people make more than whites doesn't falsify racism's existence

 

[Scott Mayers]

 Racism and Sexism, or in general, any derogatory forms of discrimination based on genetic stereotypes associated to one's genetic roots that LINK to some presumed ancestral environmental behaviors, are due to ALL those who hold them 'positively' about their own and their 'friends' associatively similar OR 'negatively' towards others or 'enemies' most associatively unsimilar to them. Often the apparent 'innocent' complainers that get heard all around are almost all certainly racists and sexists because they get heard the loudest for their nature to clearly define (discriminate) people of racial or sexual universals that FIT to those most popular stereotypes. Most of them all claim to be merely speaking of strong percentages versus the 'some' that often get unquantified in their wording all too conveniently.

Real problems of life that EVERYONE relate to deals with necessities of life and relative successes they have due to both the capacity (opportunity) AND to actuality (outcome) or their circumstances.

The power of the extremes and the middle who have vested interest in both simultaneously ALWAYS steal the political power AND do so at the expense of the vast majority of individuals of this Earth who are fucked by these arrogant fold. The racism and sexism problems are only AFTER-effects of the real conditions, not 'cultural' ones, because we live in a world that believes in some form of INHERENT protections for relatively limited resources. 

EXTREME 1: the ultimate suffers impoverished of powers to survive and who get exploited

These people demand 'democratic' appeal of compassion in order to get what they need and not get exploited. But they get ignored UNLESS they either DO something more extreme or have someone voluntary notice in more powerful positions with appropriate compassion and knowledge of the conditions. They are often ignored even with the best of intents of others. Yet these are NOT the people we witness actually succeeding to claim these with acceptance. Rather these are the ones who actually appear to society 'outside' of these sufferers as the extreme terrorists because they tend to have to behave this way, like a starving pet dog of a large family trying to go from person to person in the family not feeding them but gets interpreted as initially being unnecessarily annoying to increasingly troubled by the time they start to bark loud or bite members of the family. This is because all the others think the complaining sufferers (actual ones that is) are in fact being fed by at least someone else even if it is not them directly. They only see their own circumstances and so presume that their own peace is distributed fairly. If this is challenged though, they want to look away and hope that others get concerned. 

While this is very well known, often the MORE empowered people based in GROUPS use this excuse inappropriately, especially when they charge some part of the whole as uniquely based upon some 'culture' of X affecting them uniquely with purpose but their associating 'group' is itself created out of their own stereotypes.

This DOES occur in this actual class, the sufferers, but only the subset of them who DO associate with a distinctive defining identity AND who believe that their own identity across others in the same impoverishment class are similarly linked. An accident of their own 'demographic' relative majority within the class of sufferers gets used as both a means to strengthen their power to outsiders who tend to actually think these people ARE the representing factors of that class. So if this subset of the impoverished, say, are females with non-white colored skin who are single moms going to a common church group together, they may draw in other females and 'colored' single churchgoing mothers together who share a common strength by that association. Who other than the ones IN NUMBERS based upon some emotionally powerful group exist to get noticed as representing the reality of the poverty and suffering  within that subclass? [The particular group here is only an arbitrary example that may be true somewhere, but only used as an example here.]

This is the beginning on one end of the spectrum of the cause of racism and sexism. On the impoverished side of society people are naturally divided into INDIVIDUALS the greater the suffering is. This is because 'abuses' by reality, whether by natural cause or real hate, succeed from the better empowered peoples successfully divide the less empowered people into independent isolated members, the least of which is one individual. But this forces the ones who can and do have the power to associate better among the impoverished classes to override the concerns of the actual individual's say within the impoverished classes. AND, further more, the ones that USE emotionally driven reasons of associations, such as culture, ethnicity, religion, sexual stereotypers of themselves, etc, take the lead of getting noticed above all others. If we use the above example, say, the community of those impoverished may only have the group above as its largest plurality but may be only truly representative of 10% of them. But even should they make up 50% by coincidence of the tendency of evolution to favor mothers giving births to offspring who will tend to have women there who grow up impoverished more, etc, the actual reality of the problem is still POVERTY, not race, sex, or culture. Yet given outsiders ALSO have group associations based on emotional definitions with priority, this group of non-white mothers going to that church get the notice and is thus a function of outsiders being informed about the whole of that group when they TOO believe these culturally defined groups ARE the cause. 

That is, the outsiders see the extremes of the sufferers defined by those most locally MORE empowered within the impoverished groups by some mean. On top of that, should they be seen to get angry and turn to more desperate measures, even if this subgroup's behavior is non-representative, the outsiders will treat these as true. Add to this the counter internal enemies of these non-white mothers church-going group. Should they receive tension in their community, they will also assign some subclass of them most 'anti-' THEM, say the fathers of these single mothers who lack religion and won't provide for them...something many church-going types MAY think IS a 'should' naturally. The outsiders believing them will look at the most empowered organ and trust them! Thus, it is the actual members of the suffering classes who ARE most discriminatory and racist that tend to get noticed as representing the evident truth of what they say is the problems within. We then see them from outside as also defining either a cultural subclass discriminated with prejudice by outsiders or extremist terrorists or occultists by others, still a 'culturally' defining interpretation of their class.

EXTREME 2: the ultimately favored and loved and wealthy. (Unearned favor to an extreme by both genetics AND environmental inheritance, including gaining wealth from poverty based solely upon the genetic factors!)

This real class may or may not happen to have some majority of distinct cultural identity. But if this is the case, it will certainly appear suspicious given they are actually the ones EMPOWERED to alter things. This too though is still often only defended most by those WITH cultural beliefs based upon their conditions. 

The extremes within this class are those who inherit wealth, often have some relative beauty and are loved by some most inherent capacities, such as having a beautiful voice, etc. This subset here is often without any actual EARNED power by definition. As such, the default, BY NATURE, is to be most efficient: stay 'dumb' to reality. This is only reality IF you don't question things because doing so leads to often dire consequences! Even those potentially declaring mere luck (a welcomed reflection) risk BECOMING overwhelmingly guilt-ridden and try to compensate for it in potential difficulty. Being too reflective of your intellect here risks suicide (think Marilyn Monroe) or feigning stupidity by becoming cruel with no compassion. 

What this class of extreme often DOES do is to use the power of fortune to sell the idea that Nature itself has favored them uniquely, particularly some 'God'. If not, they deem some power of internal wisdom to have succeeded from some relative place of challenging state of childhood where they had bootstrapped themselves into power regardless of nature. Either way, the 'culturally' associated parts of this class who DO happen to be fortunate through common ancestral heritage along with whatever traditions or religions they have, FAVOR their own as 'superior' as well as try to stupify society into thinking they have validity. Those on the bottom are just not trying hard enough, etc. 

The worst case is again to the extremes who, in relative 'safety', can  and do speak out in power of their numbers within that wealthy and most beautiful class. But here culture is again the excuse by these people. Those most stupid of the class though become the apparent representatives there when the actual intellectuals merely hide safely within other unassociated cults or cultures but know better to LET them represent the 'wealth and beauty' extremes. It takes the target off them. 

 

EXTREME 3: those who have discrete partial links to both  the impoverished and the wealth to some extent. 

This class is neither suffering nor succeeding but represent an extreme of the middle because their is still no blur of distinction to their perception and reality. You could, say, be accidentally inheriting fortune by coincidental favor but are still utterly dependent upon that in a form of impoverishment. This might be one who is of Royalty but may lack good looks or skill, who might get ignored and so has some of the native abuses of the poor but don't get appreciated by them....without certain adjustments....

Example of the extremes within this real extreme that lead to cultural identity problems?: Osama bin Laden, is one possibly. But so may be someone who opts to adjust to provide sacrificial duty, like to become a nun, say. These too are 'cultural' preferentially because they have the problems associated with both extremes. As such, they both justify being favored of God and yet wise to some association to a cult of association, which does NOT require coming from the same class here. Bin Laden, for instance, lead by appealing to those who suffer the most. 

 

Summary: The racial and sexual charges being accused against others from above or below are REACTIVE means to real underlying issues but get trusted as THE defining factors by some, ....not necessarily a majority, but ALWAYS get the power to steal social alertness to the reality. "White Power" groups are often made up of leaders who may intentionally BE racist but could have its own majority of supporters as non-racist reactionaries by accidental association. They get ignored for their problems because all that gets noticed is the ADVOCACY of a group defining itself as based upon not merely a genetic accident but to some cultural association they think IS directly linked. This is why I would not support this but understand that some (often indeterminate) are innocent sufferers merely siding with the groups that least harm them. Feminism today, not necessarily the original 'equal rights advocates' who also suffer, is predominantly run by the extremes who literally DO believe that women and men have distinct cultural behaviors linked essentially to their genetic factors. Your doomed if you are a male who doesn't 'agree' with them as part of the enemy and when in this climate 'cultural' interpretations is deemed more real than reality itself by a present rise in popularity overall. Men who disagree may be actual suffers and those men who do, are often some actual fortunate benefactor of some woman FOR agreeing,...its own kind of deceptive hypocrisy: if you agree you're a sinner, then sacrifice yourself for all of us. You are a fraud if you attempt to demand the suffering masses that include all males to be your sacrificial lamb (==scapegoat). 

I'm guessing most here won't even read this. For those who do   But the tech concern I raised elsewhere is a contributing factor today given we are isolating by mere accident of technology through the Internet and those Smart phones. This just adds fuel to the fire and why I believe that the Cultural War(rier)s will take the next era into potential doom if we can't intellectually invest into the details as I have here. If you complain I am too deep on this, then this is why: "Tweeting" soundbites (or 'soundboarding') is the kind of accidental factor adding force to what I say here because it is TOO easy to invest in anything quick when five people right now are all trying to determine what the color of toilette paper you are using at the moment you are texting them. Take a snapshot and uploaded it to Facebook. 

 

The End...

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

I'm guessing most here won't even read this.

Well, you have thought about it a lot but to be fair it's hard for people to invest reading long posts, and even harder when sentence after sentence is unclear.  There's no payoff for the reader to either disagree or agree.

Example: "Your doomed if you are a male who doesn't 'agree' with them as part of the enemy and when in this climate 'cultural' interpretations is deemed more real than reality itself by a present rise in popularity overall. "

Doomed how ? What is a climate of cultural interpretations ?  When *what* is deemed more real than reality ?  Rise in popularity of what ?

Keep it short and succinct.  If you have a new idea, you can maybe get more people to read if you build it little by little.

[Argus]

19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

White Privilege is the same thing as the existence of racism.  Racism has impacted different races in different ways.

Saying Chinese people make more than whites doesn't falsify racism's existence

But the idea of white privilege supposes some sort of systemic, culture-wide discrimination which impacts all Black people simply because of white racism and behaviour. But that same white racism and behaviour apparently has no impact on Asians - for some reason.

You can have individual acts of racism, bigotry and prejudice back and forth across various social groups without this being evidence of a blanket set of privileges to one group. Maybe instead of 'white privilege' what we're seeing is 'black handicap' born of cultural issues within the Black community which cause them to have more single-parent families and more crime.

[GostHacked]

19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

White Privilege is the same thing as the existence of racism.  Racism has impacted different races in different ways.

Saying Chinese people make more than whites doesn't falsify racism's existence

 

So you ARE conflating white pride with racism and further with white privilege. . Through this thread, it has been very hard to determine what your stance really is.

Now the other thing is that if Chinese make more it is NOT falsifying racism, but it is falsifying the notion of white privilege.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, GostHacked said:

So you ARE conflating white pride with racism and further with white privilege. . Through this thread, it has been very hard to determine what your stance really is.

Now the other thing is that if Chinese make more it is NOT falsifying racism, but it is falsifying the notion of white privilege.

It's hard to determine, yet in your last paragraph you clearly misstated what I wrote.  I don't know how to make it more clear to you.

[Michael Hardner]

13 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

So you ARE conflating white pride with racism and further with white privilege.   

Also you keep mentioning White Pride, which I haven't talked about.

[Michael Hardner]

27 minutes ago, Argus said:

1) But the idea of white privilege supposes some sort of systemic, culture-wide discrimination which impacts all Black people simply because of white racism and behaviour.

2) But that same white racism and behaviour apparently has no impact on Asians - for some reason.

3) You can have individual acts of racism, bigotry and prejudice back and forth across various social groups without this being evidence of a blanket set of privileges to one group. Maybe instead of 'white privilege' what we're seeing is 'black handicap' born of cultural issues within the Black community which cause them to have more single-parent families and more crime.

1) The term 'systemic' is vague, and only services to cloud what is being discussed and prevent the discussion moving forward.  It means 'related to a system'.  Is racism related to a system ?  Well, yes... on some level.  What people often term it to mean is 'systematic', meaning methodical.  That's an entirely different level of relationship.  'Culture-wide' ... again what does it mean ?  Racism exists so... yes, but I have steadfastly stopped short of blaming conspiracies, or saying every single person of a culture is involved or significantly impacted.

2) 'No impact' is clearly not true.  This implies racism against Asians doesn't exist in North America.

3) While I prefer to talk about WP as a restatement of the fact of racism, and its macro impacts on cultures, you want to make it about blame I believe.  If it helps, how much of the situation of single-parent families comes from the social situation of black families in North America ?  If your answer is at least "some of it" then you acknowledge a level of WP, in my opinion.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3) While I prefer to talk about WP as a restatement of the fact of racism, and its macro impacts on cultures, you want to make it about blame I believe.  If it helps, how much of the situation of single-parent families comes from the social situation of black families in North America ?  If your answer is at least "some of it" then you acknowledge a level of WP, in my opinion.

Pretending the term 'white privilege' is not about blame is silly. Of course it's about blame. It's an accusation that white people are doing economically better than black people due to unfairness on their part.

And I'm a conservative. Personal responsibility and merit are at the core of my belief system. If you get pregnant at sixteen and drop out of high school, it's not white privilege that keeps you on welfare.

As to why Blacks tend to marry less, to have single parent family, there at a lot of possible reasons. But I note that the rates are higher in sub Saharan Africa, too, among people who have never known slavery. 

http://worldfamilymap.ifstudies.org/2014/articles/world-family-indicators/family-structure