Go talk to creativesoul. He may have more patience than I. — Banno

But he won't be any less wrong.

Is your self-serving misreading deliberate?

But he won't be any less wrong. — Pro Hominem

Ah, there's the brilliance of your argument in a knutshell.

I actually agree with this, as it is written. What does that have to do with white privilege? — creativesoul

It is an exact statement of the actual meaning of the concept of white privilege. That is what is has to do with it.

You've literally just agreed that it is more effectual for people to be focused on uplifting people who are being oppressed than to be focused on shaming bystanders who are not actively participating in the oppression. You should agree with this because it's obviously true. Making people aware of oppression is not helped by trying to make the case that those people are wrong because they live in a world where oppression exists but they don't happen to be the object of it.

Yes, you don't see the problem. Repeating that you don't see the problem does not help — Banno

I see the problem quite clearly. I've expressed it repeatedly in a lot of detail. You have chosen to ignore it. What else can I do?

You think that using stairs is somehow a crime against people who can't use stairs, and that able-bodied people should feel ashamed of their "ability" to do so. I think that's devoid of any merit whatsoever and I've explained why repeatedly. Why not answer the points I've raised? I mean, CAN you use chopsticks?

I mean I did already think you were a racist so it's a certainty that I'm biased against you but I am always open to being corrected.

The first statement is true. Some people experience irritation and/or are offended. However, it does not follow that all people do. However, the last statement only follows from the first, if all people did. They do not. So, it's an invalid conclusion for one, and actually false as well. — creativesoul

X -> S
S is undesirable.
X has no benefits.
Not X is more desirable than X

Yep, that's valid. You may want to argue over the degree of truth for premise 3, which is clearly where we differ, but don't even try to claim I'm being illogical.

If it is pointed out to a white person that a black person was treated badly in a situation that both experienced, say a job interview or an encounter with a police officer, the proper response for the white person is not "I feel guilty and terrible that I was treated well", it is "I feel terrible that you were treated poorly", and hopefully they could agree to work together to try to change that in the future.

It is not necessary or helpful to demonize all white people for being white in order to try to improve conditions for people who are non-white.
— Pro Hominem

I actually agree with this, as it is written. What does that have to do with white privilege? — creativesoul

It is an exact statement of the actual meaning of the concept of white privilege. That is what is has to do with it.

You've literally just agreed that it is more effectual for people to be focused on uplifting people who are being oppressed than to be focused on shaming bystanders who are not actively participating in the oppression. You should agree with this because it's obviously true. Making people aware of oppression is not helped by trying to make the case that those people are wrong because they live in a world where oppression exists but they don't happen to be the object of it. — Pro Hominem

Step back a moment and pause to reflect on this...

I use "white privilege" as it was taught to me by non whites. I draw correlations between "white privilege" and the actual negative effects/affects(personal injury) that systemic racism has had and continues to have upon non white individuals. We language users who employ "white privilege" in such a way are not saying that white people should feel guilty. We are most certainly not demonizing white people when discussing white privilege.

Discussions about white privilege can be focused upon uplifting people who are being oppressed. Discussion about white privilege do not require shaming bystanders who are not actually voluntarily participating in the oppression. Discussions of white privilege do not require trying to make the case that whites are somehow 'wrong' by virtue of benefitting from systemic racism.

What's 'wrong', if you insist upon talking like this, is not acknowledging that whites born in America are exempt from the liabilities of being non white in America.

First, it's not a 'problem with the concept' at all. It is a distinguishing feature, and a very very useful one when implemented in the 'right' ways. White privilege is best understood in terms of what white individuals do not suffer from(what they are exempt from). That is precisely what privilege is. Please allow me to elaborate a bit, for it seems necessary... — creativesoul

I completely understand what you're saying. I swear. Let me see if I can reframe this so we can get somewhere.

I say that BLM is the way to go. It highlights the problem of detrimental treatment of people of color.

You say white privilege is the way to go. It highlights the preferential treatment that people get just for being white. Hopefully nothing thus far is controversial. I'll proceed to the next step.

I would like to see everyone treated the way (you say all) white people are treated. I don't see this as a privilege, I see it as the baseline treatment for human dignity. I see focusing on the treatment of people of color as being below this standard is the best way to argue that their treatment should be brought up to it.

I want to end white privilege — creativesoul

This implies that you want to see the "preferential" treatment of whites removed. If you follow this logic, that means everyone would be exposed to the current treatment of people of color because that is the baseline against which the "privilege" is determined. Effectively, NO Lives Matter.

It comes down to your starting (or ending) point. Either "white" treatment is the baseline, and we would like to see all people receive it, or "white" treatment is a privilege, and no one should expect it. I wholeheartedly prefer the former, and oppose the latter. What I'm getting at here is there is a subtext to "white privilege" that you may not be considering.

I suppose I'm discounting the third option of radical black power, which is white people should be abused and there should be black privilege. I don't think you're advocating this, but it is not excluded by your "white privilege" narrative.

I use "white privilege" as it was taught to me by non whites. I draw correlations between "white privilege" and the actual negative effects/affects(personal injury) that systemic racism has had and continues to have upon non white individuals. We language users who employ "white privilege" in such a way are not saying that white people should feel guilty. We are most certainly not demonizing white people when discussing white privilege.

Discussions about white privilege can be focused upon uplifting people who are being oppressed. Discussion about white privilege do not require shaming bystanders who are not actually voluntarily participating in the oppression. Discussions of white privilege do not require trying to make the case that whites are somehow 'wrong' by virtue of benefitting from systemic racism.

What's 'wrong', if you insist upon talking like this, is not acknowledging that whites born in America are exempt from the liabilities of being non white in America — creativesoul

Ok, a few things.

First, I'm quite confident that about this subject we have way more in common than not.

What I see this disagreement to be about is the language used to describe certain things, and the possible effect of that language. (We have been using a lot of absolutes and broad generalizations thus far, so I will continue that way, please don't take that as part of my argument - if we want to get into the nuances, we can do that later.)

Let's say there are two groups in this conversation, whites and non-whites. We'll start with the whites. Let's say we can classify whites in one of 3 ways:
1. Aware of the plight of non-whites and sensitive to it or actively working to change it. "Woke" as the kids say, but I despise that term for the same reason I don't like "white privilege".
2. People in the middle. Clueless, uninformed, apathetic, whatever. Not hostile, but not involved.
3. Actual racists. I realize this is a broad category with divisions, but lets simplify for now.
Of the 3 groups, let's imagine how they would each respond to having the "white privilege" terminology used in reference to them personally:
1. A range from totally accepting and eager to talk about it as a badge of "wokeness" to willing to accept it as a feature of the system they are trying to change. Also, people like me who think you're going about this the wrong way, but understand why you're doing it.
2. A range from confused to irritated to angry. Very few people are going to just immediately be all, "oh my god, you're so right! I can't believe I didn't know this about myself!"
3. Enraged, because they vary from being the victims of an unfortunate cultural background to just being awful people.
If we want change, it's group 2 we need to worry about. These people are the swing voters. You are much more likely to get them to become members of group 1 by appealing to their sense of injustice or basic humanity in the vein of George Floyd-like examples that help them see how bad things are. Find common ground with them. It is a higher risk angle to come at them with, "you just don't see this because you've been privileged your whole life." It puts them on the defensive. Can even make them feel like maybe they aren't "allowed" to be upset or protest because they aren't a real part of it. You can scoff, but being told you can't understand because you're white happens all the time and turns a lot of people off.

I guess I keep coming back to the framing and the effect it has on the audience. It's like you are selling pest control door to door and you focus on how dirty the person's house is instead of how invasive the bugs are. That's not a great analogy, but hopefully you understand what I'm saying.

Ok, part 2. Let's think about how and why the non-white community uses this term. It is classic speech of the oppressed, not dissimilar from the politics of the n-word. Within the oppressed group, you turn their words and symbols back at them. It is understandable why a non-white person would characterize it as a privilege to be white - from the position of the oppressed, they have to imagine what it would be like to not be oppressed. Their language reflects that. There is a certain level of resentment encoded in the language as well. None of this actually helps them to diminish the oppression itself. To the audience in group 2 above it can sound like anything from a threat of sorts to sour grapes.

Bottom line, if I'm crafting the movement for racial equality, I'm staying away from slogans and symbols that reinforce a black vs. white paradigm and going all in on equality, solidarity, and cooperation. Thus, BLM, not "white privilege".

Not sure what you think I'm lying about, I have always been open and upfront about my contempt for the framing. If I agreed that white privilege was necessary, if I agreed that white privilege was an important marker, then my opposition makes no sense. — Judaka

I do not necessarily think that you are lying. I do think that given the facts that - you've claimed to agree with some of my premisses, and also claimed to disagree with all of my premisses - it is the case that you've either said something that you do not believe, or you've arrived at self-contradiction by holding conflicting beliefs about the utility of "white privilege"(which speaks to the premisses I've used here).

You've claimed both that you agree with my premisses(certain statements as written), and that you disagree with all of my premisses. Those two claims are mutually exclusive. They cannot both be true. The one is the negation of the other. If the former is true, the latter is not, and vice-versa.

We do still seem to agree on much. Some of that agreement could be rendered in simple basic statements. We would both agree that they were true. Then, they could be used as premisses that we would also both agree on. But I digress...

If you earlier believed that talking about white privilege was not necessary or helpful for ending systemic racism, but have since come to believe otherwise, then continuing to maintain the broad-based opposition to "white privilege" makes no sense. Better to incorporate this new understanding regarding the previously unknown(and much better) way to talk about white privilege(use "white privilege"). That move to incorporate requires no longer believing that no use of "white privilege" is helpful andor useful for helping to end systemic racism.


Some more agreement that seemed to prove helpful could(and should) definitely be further unpacked later. It barely touches upon the offense aspects. Those effects/affects from some uses(talk) of "white privilege" are important to properly understand.

I readily agree that some people talk in terms of white privilege that includes attacking whites. I readily agree that some people use "white privilege" in ways that are counterproductive. I do not readily agree with the implicit presupposition that that's the only way to use "white privilege". Such applications of "white privilege" are to be denounced, but we ought not simply denounce all uses of "white privilege" simply because some uses fail miserably. It does not follow from the fact that some people use "white privilege" in unproductive and/or counterproductive ways that all notions and/or uses of "white privilege" are equally unproductive and/or counterproductive. They are most certainly not.

The only way for a white individual American to become aware of the extent of that which they are exempt from experiencing and/or suffering as a result of being white is to seek counsel from those who are not. If non whites use the notion of "white privilege" as a means to denigrate and/or devalue an individual simply because they are white, then they are doing an injustice to their own cause, if that cause is to end racism. Such talk further perpetuates racist beliefs. It is actually a practice thereof. The practice of devaluing another group of people based upon the color of their skin(race) alone is racism. "White privilege" can be used to do exactly that.

Good, this is certainly part of the goal here. Do you find any single sense of "white privilege" more well-grounded than any other?
— creativesoul

I would agree that it is important to demonstrate the existence of systemic racism and part of that is by pointing out how imbalanced certain statistics are between the races. In the context where you're faced with someone who is denying systemic racism, the disparities you call white privilege need to be pointed out. — Judaka

Good.

So, even here it seems to me that you, as an intellectual, are faced with a choice to make. There's a need for a refinement of your own belief system about white privilege. There are some good uses for "white privilege", as you've pointed out directly above. You are clearly aware of this since we've talked, but were not prior to. So, you were a bit mistaken earlier when you thought otherwise. Best to update your worldview, which is virtuous and honorable in and of itself, or you've arrived at facing self-contradiction(you're faced with conflicting beliefs about the utility of "white privilege").

Some uses of "white privilege" are not guilty of the things that you and I both agree are counterproductive.

There are many white people who openly say and actually believe that racism is not acceptable and it ought be removed from American society. Some of these white people come from areas in the country where there is very little ethnic and/or racial diversity, so they have had little to no personal experience and/or interactions with non whites. Rural America in particular simply does not have the degree of diversity that is common in the larger cities, particularly along the coastlines. Not everyone in these areas holds strong and clear racist belief against non whites, even if they come from a community where those remain in practice. They see racism when it's undeniably open and public, they know it's wrong, but they do not recognize the subtlety of white privilege. That takes someone else to show them in a manner that they're open and able to understand, which does not include personal attacks because they are white, as well as a white who is capable of listening to another's plight because they are not. It takes mutual respect.
— creativesoul

I am sympathetic here, you are coming from a similar position to me but with a different approach. I know that general views on racism can be a little simple, it can be frustrating. If people think that racism is just verbally insulting someone then you do need to show that it's more complicated than that. So I see the aspect of white privilege as a means to have people think more deeply about what racism is to be a stronger component of the framing. — Judaka

So, then it seems that even here, you've begun to realize that some use of "white privilege" does indeed have some utility(good use).

I completely understand what you're saying. I swear. — Pro Hominem

I believe that you believe that you completely understand what I'm saying. I, however, do not share the belief that you do, because there are some things you've written that prove otherwise.

We are close, though, it seems in our aim.

You've claimed both that you agree with my premisses(certain statements as written), and that you disagree with all of my premisses. Those two claims are mutually exclusive. They cannot both be true. The one is the negation of the other. If the former is true, the latter is not, and vice-versa. — creativesoul

Hm, well I agree with some of your criticisms of white privilege and I believe your approach to white privilege is better than say, Banno's but considering I despise that approach, it's still less than ideal to me. Obviously I prefer to see people being respectful and wanting to have a mature conversation, I prefer it if you're not being anti-white and so on.

Unfortunately, all I can say is that I understand a bit better where you're coming from, I can understand your objective and I respect your objective but I still disagree that white privilege is helpful, I think it's harmful.

I would be more sympathetic to something like "black underprivileged" for the reasons that @Pro Hominem has given. To educate people on the more complicated aspects of systemic racism. At best, white privilege is a bad version of black underprivileged and I dislike both on the basis that I want the focus to be on the perpetrators and victims as individuals, systems, laws rather than races.

I think that the best I can do here is what I've done - which is to try to show that I do understand a little bit of why you are arguing for the white privilege framing, since you seemed upset that you'd been misrepresented. I think everything pro hominem is saying is correct, on top of my objections on the basis of minimalising the importance of race. Not every debate needs to end in capitulation for it to be worthwhile, I think that you and I are not going to be able to agree on this topic.

All I can say is that it's good to be reminded that many of the people pushing white privilege are well-intentioned, I hope you will be able to convince those who do appreciate the framing to use it in the way you've described because I believe that is better than what I usually see.

Cheers.

I am a bit disappointed though, because we barely scratched the surface regarding the offense that some feel at the very mention of "white privilege". Unpacking that offense was key for me to realize that not all talk of "white privilege" warranted being offended. In other words, unpacking my own offense - by talking to those who use the term "white privilege" as I've set out here - was part and parcel to understanding my own misunderstanding...

White privilege ... is the ABSENCE of being treated unfairly because one is non-white. — Pro Hominem

Couldn't put it better myself.

It is not necessary or helpful to demonize all white people — Pro Hominem

Imagine thinking acknowledging privilege amounts to demonization.

Yes, talk about tendentious thinking!

I'm white and I acknowledge that as such I'm priveleged. I am not offended by that acknowledgement; why should I be? Being offended seems to imply some sense of being entitled to privelege.

As the Crash Test Dummies' lyric has it: "Who put whitey in the Whitehouse? You did, baby, you did..."

Being a "high performer" from very humble Scandinavian backgrounds, having with my degree and career made the "class journey" from lower middle class to the upper classes I read this thread with interest. I am not a fan of the hybris of the mediocre kids I have for neighbours. And I am probably pretty much like the father of the guy that played "Puck" in "Dead poets society".

I got absolutely mad when I married into a family of some prosperity, and found out that ALL do seek careers with money and usefulness as prio 23. "What do you want to do with your life" is the name of the game.

I've been living in this for a few decades now, but I cannot handle it. Philosophically and psychologically. What SHOULD really count as a Fair Race?. What I should want to do is to invent a truth detector really working and throw random people into it and find out if there is a thing as a true moral on this. Or if just everyone believes what is best for them in the throwness they are in.
My personal feeling - don't know if I'm true to even myself goes - OK one should not be a racist, but how about a Spiece-ist. Humanist in the true sense of the word? What makes a human valuable, as in worthy of goods like comfort, time to think, economic independence, and well Ferraris, yachts and stuff?
The thing that separates us from monkeys, parrots, trees and stones, that has given us a mean lifetime far longer than what is "natural" for us, as well as a comfortable life - is intelligence and stuff in that area. Things you get good grades for in school.

Privilege to me seems to be when people try to shortcut this and gets goods without the proper contribution to mean lifetime, if one pushes it a little. So parents (mothers) should avoid "trying to do the best for their kids" in ways that makes a mediocre getting hybris. Kids should enter a school that is the same for everyone and the ones inventing new energy sources and manages to cure cancers should drive the Ferraris....

Well, thats when I try to plug the lie detector into my brain but I probably lie to myself. But I think the concept of a lie detector would be an interesting ones to ge some answers to questions in this area.

It's not an analogy. It is an example. The disenfranchisement caused to non-ambulatory people is real. But thanks, by denying that this is a problem you have reinforce my view that privilege cannot be easily recognised by the privileged. — Banno

Its a very poor example. Privilege would be you getting to use the elevator while I have to use the stairs. Stairs is not a privilege. The elevator is.

Effectively ending racism requires understanding both it's motivations and it's effects/affects.
White privilege is an effect/affect of racism.
Effectively ending racism requires understanding white privilege. — creativesoul

What privilege do I have that Oprah Winfrey doesn't have? And would you agree that Oprah has privileges that I don't have?

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ny-churchgoer-punched-philadelphia-alter-20200824-wsi3hpkzcbcc7fykso2zscatja-story.html
Do I have the privilege of being able to punch Oprah in the face and get away with it?

BTW, what is privilege and is it the same for everyone? For instance, what would a Buddhist monk consider to be privilege?

What about the express lanes on an interstate highway? Those that have the resources can pay the toll to use the express lanes everyday and have a privilege, but what happens when there is an accident in the express lanes and not in the other lanes? The express lane loses its privileged status. So privilege is subjective and can no longer be a privilege under certain circumstances.

Imagine complaining about white privilege and then voting for Joe Biden. Hypocrisy.

Imagine thinking acknowledging privilege amounts to demonization. — StreetlightX

In this case is absolutely is, because the so-called "privilege" is not privilege at all. Are human rights Rights, or are they human Privileges? Because the only thing being described by the use of the term "white privilege" is simply the observance of basic human rights - rights that protect against social and physical harm, discrimination, and disenfranchisement, to name a few. Describing them as "privileges" implies that they are beyond what one should expect to receive in society instead of within what should be expected from society. For the hundredth time - THE PROBLEM IS NOT SOME PEOPLE BEING TREATED APPROPRIATELY, THE PROBLEM IS SOME PEOPLE BEING TREATED INAPPROPRIATELY.

Given that "white privilege" completely fails to describe the problem - placing focus on the things that are working correctly instead of the things that are broken - why would we use this terminology?

@creativesoul has said that (s)he is using this term in an effort to create awareness among whites (at least I think that's what (s)he's saying, (s)he maintains that I don't understand at all). I have argued that it is likely to create as much resentment among whites as it creates awareness. So why hold onto it?

If I'm being cynical, I would say the term is one of jealousy. It is the oppressed expressing anger in an unfocused way at those they perceive as not oppressed. They are certainly entitled to their anger, but adopting that anger when it's not yours by experience is not constructive and often does not feel very genuine. The fact that I perceive the original coining of this phrase to come from a (justified) sense of bitterness and anger is why I call it demonization.

Totally agree. "Privilege" is an exceptional advantage possessed by only a few. Being born into great wealth creates privilege. Having the power to influence government or legal proceedings in your favor is privilege. Being exempt from laws that others must follow because of who you or your family are is privilege.

Walking down the street (or up a flight of steps *sigh*) without being harassed is a basic right that all people should enjoy. If we start lumping that in with actual privilege then we are raising the spectre that it can be quickly taken away like any other privilege.

I believe that you believe that you completely understand what I'm saying. I, however, do not share the belief that you do, because there are some things you've written that prove otherwise.

We are close, though, it seems in our aim. — creativesoul

Lol. i think the issue here is that YOU don't seem to understand what you're saying. Words have meanings. You can't just make them whatever you want. You use the term "white privilege" but you are really referring to racist mistreatment of non-whites. You believe that explaining the racist mistreatment to uninformed white people using the term "white privilege" is effective because it somehow makes them understand it in a way that say, watching George Floyd be murdered on video doesn't.

Unfortunately, neither of the words you're using actually describes what you're talking about.

Being treated humanely and fairly is NOT a privilege. It is the baseline Right that everyone should expect to be afforded by society.

Also, being white has nothing to do with it. There are white people who experience police brutality and public suspicion. There are non-white people who do not. It is a simplistic over-generalization.

When you combine these two words together in this way, you reinforce a characterization of the issue that sees it as "white vs black". You will never convince me that is not harmful and counterproductive. BLM is MLK. White Privilege is Malcolm X. It is an issue of messaging.

THE PROBLEM IS NOT SOME PEOPLE BEING TREATED APPROPRIATELY, THE PROBLEM IS SOME PEOPLE BEING TREATED INAPPROPRIATELY. — Pro Hominem

But 'the problem' is not white privilege, but the fact of it being unacknowledged in situations where it ought to be. As far as your purely nominal disagreement, it simply seems that irony is lost on you, and that if a white person feels 'resentment' at the term, then I'd venture that's exactly when the term is the most appropriate.

White people just don't like being racially marked. They think being so is only meant for others. This kind of hysterical reaction over nomination is exemplary of that.

But 'the problem' is not white privilege, but the fact of it being unacknowledged in situations where it ought to be. As far as your purely nominal disagreement, it simply seems that irony is lost on you, and that if a white person feels 'resentment' at the term, then I'd venture that's exactly when the term is the most appropriate.

White people just don't like being racially marked. They think being so is only meant for others. This kind of hysterical reaction over nomination is exemplary of that. — StreetlightX

Wow. It took me several minutes to swallow all the words you're trying to put in my mouth. Please don't think for a minute that you have any idea what I personally think or feel about anything. In other words, your entire post is fallacious.

If you have actually read anything I've written, you would see that my objection to the term lies in its implicit and erroneous meaning. It does not describe what it purports to describe. It is a lie. @creativesoul has suggested that it is a well-intentioned lie (sometimes), but it is still a lie.

You actually wrote a sentence about what all "white people don't like", and you are lecturing me about irony?

For the record, I am not the least bit personally resentful of the term white privilege. I know what is being said and why. I argue against it because it is inaccurate and counterproductive.

I argue against it because it is inaccurate and counterproductive. — Pro Hominem

Not at all. As creative noted, the dissonance between what ought to be a state of 'normalcy' and it having count as a privilege is precisely the point of the term. It draws its critical power from precisely the uneasy collapse of the two. To not treat normality as privilege - given the current state of things - is to miss the point. Which is what you are doing.

If the term is inaccurate, it is, as it were, an ontological inaccuracy, one that ought to be remedied at the level of action, not language. The goal being to make it nonsensical, which it currently, sadly, is not.

the dissonance between what ought to be a state of 'normalcy' and it having count as a privilege is precisely the point of the term. It draws its critical power from precisely the uneasy collapse of the two. — StreetlightX

Thus is an entirely reasonable premise, but if you want that change to take place then the critical power has to be realised, not just theoretical. It's not enough that it ought to have that power, it needs to actually have it, and that's an empirical matter. It either will or will not result in the necessary change and its success will depend not on the poetic justice of a powerful literary device, but on the actual psychological effect it has on groups who need to enact change.

I don't think such evidence is yet in.

It's not enough that it ought to have that power, it needs to actually have it, and that's an empirical matter. It either will or will not result in the necessary change — Isaac

No. The phrase is a framing device. It draws attention to a feature a reality. That's all. It won't 'result' in anything unless people act with it. And I didn't say it 'ought' to have anything. It already has its critical power insofar as one can recognize how fucked up it is that normalcy can count as a privilege. Pro's only mistake is to think this is a problem with the use of language, and not with the world itself.

No. The phrase is a framing device. It draws attention to a feature a reality. That's all. — StreetlightX

That's fair enough, but I think its naïve to think the term in current public discourse is being used the same way as it came out of critical theory. Once a term gains any momentum outside of the field within which it was a technical term it gains both meaning and intent, and, more importantly consequences.

It doesn't properly or effectively address the social consequences of the term's use to just point to its origin. Unless you think it's not being used in any way other than a framing device, then you'd maybe be able to just dismiss fears about its misuse as right-wing bogeyman-making, but personally I don't think you could make that case.

I'm not referring to any definitional origin in critical theory or whathaveyou. I'm not even sure it has such a provenance. Just my understanding in its rather prosaic, everyday use. What's your underastanding of it?