White privilege is not real - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!





The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

White privilege is not real
in Politics

By funpersonfunperson 41 Pts
Some people think modern American society confers a special advantage upon white people, I don't think so. Change my mind.
with_all_humilityBaconToesEmeryPearson
About Persuade Me

Persuaded Argument

  • sadolitesadolite 38 Pts
    Winning Argument ✓
    @funperson White Privilege is a made up narrative made up by academics and people in govt to explain away why their ideas and policies are abject failures at helping poor people.
    with_all_humility
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • FascismFascism 304 Pts
    edited April 8
    If you are white you are more likely to be born into a richer family, while if you are black you are more likely to be born into poverty. 

    That is the only thing I can think of. 
    PogueVarrackEmeryPearson
  • There is no such thing as white privilege, we are all rewarded based on our own merits.  White privilege is a myth.
    PogueEmeryPearson
  • It's all white privilege until you're a white male in the bedroom with a big black stallion by your side...
    with_all_humilityBaconToesEmeryPearsonstormyboi
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • White privilege is a society concept our generation has been taught from birth. There is no debate that it doesn't exist. To believe it doesn't exist is an ignorant thought but necessarily a bad thought. Everyone has experienced a range of different cultural prejudice. Reverse racism does exist but because of the USA's history with slavery, segregation and everything in between, it is clear that white privilege is a fact not a belief. A child born in Alabama and another born in New York city will experience different white privilege in their lives. Whether one is white, hispanic, asian, etc.. everyone will encounter some type of white privilege. It could be acted towards or given to. The USA's government and many other work fields such as business and engineering are white male dominated. This is rapidly changing and hopefully will change for the better. According to the New York times, 80% of congress is male protestant. Our government does not demographically reflect its citizens. This should be considered an issue when it comes to topics such as immigration and welfare. It is always better to have many perspectives on an issue rather than one. Overall, it is clear white privilege is obviously real but you may not see it right now in your life. That may not be your fault but I guide you to open your perspective. 
  • @aortizcazarin18 so it would be considered “race privilege”. I don’t believe any if this exists. I just dont see it. At school we are all struggling and have our own problems. I dont see any one race benefited more than any other. It goes to the individual. Not the whole.
    Sovereignty for Kekistan
  • PoguePogue 504 Pts
    edited April 15
    White- belonging to or denoting a human group having light-colored skin (chiefly used of peoples of European extraction).
    Privilege- an advantage available only to a particular person or group of people.
    Real- actually existing

    Yes, it does exist. However, some white people do not experience it. The majority do, however. I say this because of United States' racist and oppressive history. Such as redlining and slavery. 

    Redlining is what I will focus on here. I will use the following sources, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining, https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/the-racist-housing-policy-that-made-your-neighborhood/371439/, http://www.blackpast.org/aah/redlining-1937, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/05/28/evidence-that-banks-still-deny-black-borrowers-just-as-they-did-50-years-ago/?utm_term=.dda090b9d92d, and https://www.youube.com/watch?v=ETR9qrVS17. ;

    Redling was a policy that lasted for decades that still affects us to this day.  During the time of FDR, and apart of the New Deal, the government created "color-coded" maps. In which green neighborhoods were good and red were bad. Because of these policies, if you lived in a green neighborhood it was very easy to get loans. In the red areas, it would be very hard and you got barely anything. These were the areas where black people and other minorities lived. The policy systematically prevented them from getting loans. 

    Even the suburb developers (where some green neighborhoods were located) said that these areas were not allowed to be occupied by anyone but the Caucasian race. The US government encouraged this. 

    The green areas got richer and richer so more industry came which made everyone richer. The result is that from 1934-1968 98% of home loans went to the green neighborhoods. The red neighborhoods got trapped and it was and is much harder for them to come out of poverty. 

    So, yes it is a real thing. Even though the policy ended, it still affects us. This means white privagle exists. 

    As @Fascism said, it is that "If you are white you are more likely to be born into a richer family, while if you are black you are more likely to be born into poverty."
    FascismBaconToes
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • @someone234 but I said "modern American society," like right now, not in the past. So tell me, what specific advantages do white people have?
  • @AmericanFurryBoy so how does that policy still affect us?
  • PoguePogue 504 Pts
    @funperson
    What about my argument? Is that going ignored? 
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • @Pogue My bad haha, the reply I sent to Americanfurryboy was supposed to go to you.
  • PoguePogue 504 Pts
    @funperson Ok.
    Ha, that's funny. Ok, I will answer that. Because of this policy, white people are much more wealthy. They can easily pass down the money and advantages. However, minority communities can't. They cannot do that because they do not have these advantages. Many of the "red" areas still face poverty to this day. 
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • Pogue said:
    @funperson Ok.
    Ha, that's funny. Ok, I will answer that. Because of this policy, white people are much more wealthy. They can easily pass down the money and advantages. However, minority communities can't. They cannot do that because they do not have these advantages. Many of the "red" areas still face poverty to this day. 
    Are people being forced to stay in blue areas?
  • PoguePogue 504 Pts
    edited April 16
    CYDdharta said:
    Pogue said:
    @funperson Ok.
    Ha, that's funny. Ok, I will answer that. Because of this policy, white people are much more wealthy. They can easily pass down the money and advantages. However, minority communities can't. They cannot do that because they do not have these advantages. Many of the "red" areas still face poverty to this day. 
    Are people being forced to stay in blue areas?
    Ah, good question. They are not forced to stay in any area now. However, suburb developers (where some green neighborhoods were located) said that these areas were not allowed to be occupied by anyone but the Caucasian race. The US government encouraged this. https://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/28/nyregion/at-50-levittown-contends-with-its-legacy-of-bias.html.

    Also, as I previously stated, they do not have money and so can't move out of the area. Because of this policy, white people are much more wealthy. They can easily pass down the money and advantages. However, minority communities can't. They cannot do that because they do not have these advantages. Many of the "red" areas still face poverty to this day. Yes, the USA is not as racist as it was in the 30s or 40s, but by limiting the progress and mobility of black people back then, they limited the future of their children who were not given the chance to develop to their fullest potential which again means they are far less likely to succeed in life as their white counterparts

    P.S. It is red. Blue is a different group. 
    P.P.S. This is not to mention that lower-income areas get less funding from the state. Since minorities are much more likely to be in an impoverished neighborhood, this adds even more to their troubles. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/public-school-funding-and-the-role-of-race/408085/
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • VarrackVarrack 33 Pts
    Fascism said:
    If you are white you are more likely to be born into a richer family, while if you are black you are more likely to be born into poverty. 

    That is the only thing I can think of. 
    This doesn't prove that society "confers an advantage" upon white people; such a phrase implies systematic racism.

    Asian American families also have disproportionally high incomes. Asian privilege must exist as well.
  • Pogue said:
    Ah, good question. They are not forced to stay in any area now. However, suburb developers (where some green neighborhoods were located) said that these areas were not allowed to be occupied by anyone but the Caucasian race. The US government encouraged this. https://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/28/nyregion/at-50-levittown-contends-with-its-legacy-of-bias.html.

    Also, as I previously stated, they do not have money and so can't move out of the area. Because of this policy, white people are much more wealthy. They can easily pass down the money and advantages. However, minority communities can't. They cannot do that because they do not have these advantages. Many of the "red" areas still face poverty to this day. Yes, the USA is not as racist as it was in the 30s or 40s, but by limiting the progress and mobility of black people back then, they limited the future of their children who were not given the chance to develop to their fullest potential which again means they are far less likely to succeed in life as their white counterparts

    P.S. It is red. Blue is a different group. 
    P.P.S. This is not to mention that lower-income areas get less funding from the state. Since minorities are much more likely to be in an impoverished neighborhood, this adds even more to their troubles. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/public-school-funding-and-the-role-of-race/408085/
    ...so minorities living in these areas can get jobs, save their money and move away from them just like white people did.  Gotcha
  • PoguePogue 504 Pts
    CYDdharta said:
    Pogue said:
    Ah, good question. They are not forced to stay in any area now. However, suburb developers (where some green neighborhoods were located) said that these areas were not allowed to be occupied by anyone but the Caucasian race. The US government encouraged this. https://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/28/nyregion/at-50-levittown-contends-with-its-legacy-of-bias.html.

    Also, as I previously stated, they do not have money and so can't move out of the area. Because of this policy, white people are much more wealthy. They can easily pass down the money and advantages. However, minority communities can't. They cannot do that because they do not have these advantages. Many of the "red" areas still face poverty to this day. Yes, the USA is not as racist as it was in the 30s or 40s, but by limiting the progress and mobility of black people back then, they limited the future of their children who were not given the chance to develop to their fullest potential which again means they are far less likely to succeed in life as their white counterparts

    P.S. It is red. Blue is a different group. 
    P.P.S. This is not to mention that lower-income areas get less funding from the state. Since minorities are much more likely to be in an impoverished neighborhood, this adds even more to their troubles. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/public-school-funding-and-the-role-of-race/408085/
    ...so minorities living in these areas can get jobs, save their money and move away from them just like white people did.  Gotcha
    So, it seems like you ignored my point and I did not say that. Seems like a straw man. 
    1. It is harder to get jobs if it is a poorer area. There is less business because it is poorer. 
    2. If you are making just enough money to survive, how can you save?
    3. How can you find enough money to move if you are barely finding enough money to survive? 

    Overall, it seems like you ignored my response and my first argument. That is ok. You only need that for an honest debate. 
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • @pogue it's a good argument. So you're saying that the policy affects people today because it makes white people richer on average, right? But I'm wondering, is this white privilege or "rich person" privilege? Because of course there are poor white people and rich black people too. Given that, some whites would not be beneficiaries of white privilege, as they do not come from wealthy communities, right?
  • PoguePogue 504 Pts
    funperson said:
    @pogue it's a good argument. So you're saying that the policy affects people today because it makes white people richer on average, right? But I'm wondering, is this white privilege or "rich person" privilege? Because of course there are poor white people and rich black people too. Given that, some whites would not be beneficiaries of white privilege, as they do not come from wealthy communities, right?
    It is white privilege. Of course, there are poor whites and rich blacks. As I said, not all, but the majority of white people do experience this. That policy ensured this. It is a white privilege because it makes them richer on average. So they have an advantage. This means it fits the definition. The money and advantage white people had back then means it would get passed down to their descendants (which is usually the children which are white). So, white people have an advantage. You can, however, become rich/wealthy without living in a wealthy community. It is very hard though. Some not having it doesn't mean it does not exist because most do experience it. 

    Also, thank you for saying it is a good argument. 
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • Pogue said:

    So, it seems like you ignored my point and I did not say that. Seems like a straw man. 
    1. It is harder to get jobs if it is a poorer area. There is less business because it is poorer. 
    2. If you are making just enough money to survive, how can you save?
    3. How can you find enough money to move if you are barely finding enough money to survive? 

    Overall, it seems like you ignored my response and my first argument. That is ok. You only need that for an honest debate. 
    They can't get jobs???  They can't save money and move away like white people did???  You sound like a racist.  I read your post and links, they said minorities haven't been prohibited from the mentioned communities for half a century.  That is a significant amount of time for a country that's less than 250 years old.  No one is limiting anyone's progress and mobility, the people in these communities are limiting themselves.
    PogueFascismAmpersand
  • CYDdharta said:
    Pogue said:

    So, it seems like you ignored my point and I did not say that. Seems like a straw man. 
    1. It is harder to get jobs if it is a poorer area. There is less business because it is poorer. 
    2. If you are making just enough money to survive, how can you save?
    3. How can you find enough money to move if you are barely finding enough money to survive? 

    Overall, it seems like you ignored my response and my first argument. That is ok. You only need that for an honest debate. 
    They can't get jobs???  They can't save money and move away like white people did???  You sound like a racist.  I read your post and links, they said minorities haven't been prohibited from the mentioned communities for half a century.  That is a significant amount of time for a country that's less than 250 years old.  No one is limiting anyone's progress and mobility, the people in these communities are limiting themselves.
    Don't strawmen. Pogue clearly says it makes it harder for then to get jobs, so there is no reason to interpret this as it being impossible for them to get jobs.

    Then it you want to make claims of your own try backing them up in future.
    Fascism
  • Privilege- a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.

    Do they have a special right? No, the constitution said we are all equal.
    Do they have a special advantage? Depends. 
    Image result for wealth by race
    Definitely, they are "born" richer, but does society grant them that? Is it definite that white people would be born richer? Nope.
    with_all_humility
    i fart cows
  • BaconToesBaconToes 186 Pts
    edited April 16
    @Pogue said:
    White- belonging to or denoting a human group having light-colored skin (chiefly used of peoples of European extraction).
    Privilege- an advantage available only to a particular person or group of people.
    Real- actually existing

    Yes, it does exist. However, some white people do not experience it. The majority do, however. I say this because of United States' racist and oppressive history. Such as redlining and slavery. 

    Redlining is what I will focus on here. I will use the following sources, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining, https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/the-racist-housing-policy-that-made-your-neighborhood/371439/, http://www.blackpast.org/aah/redlining-1937, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/05/28/evidence-that-banks-still-deny-black-borrowers-just-as-they-did-50-years-ago/?utm_term=.dda090b9d92d, and https://www.youube.com/watch?v=ETR9qrVS17. ;

    Redling was a policy that lasted for decades that still affects us to this day.  During the time of FDR, and apart of the New Deal, the government created "color-coded" maps. In which green neighborhoods were good and red were bad. Because of these policies, if you lived in a green neighborhood it was very easy to get loans. In the red areas, it would be very hard and you got barely anything. These were the areas where black people and other minorities lived. The policy systematically prevented them from getting loans. 

    Even the suburb developers (where some green neighborhoods were located) said that these areas were not allowed to be occupied by anyone but the Caucasian race. The US government encouraged this. 

    The green areas got richer and richer so more industry came which made everyone richer. The result is that from 1934-1968 98% of home loans went to the green neighborhoods. The red neighborhoods got trapped and it was and is much harder for them to come out of poverty. 

    So, yes it is a real thing. Even though the policy ended, it still affects us. This means white privagle exists. 

    As @Fascism said, it is that "If you are white you are more likely to be born into a richer family, while if you are black you are more likely to be born into poverty."

    I'll just quote you on this: "However, some white people do not experience it"
    "Privilege- an advantage available only to a particular person or group of people."

    i fart cows
  • Ampersand said:

    Don't strawmen. Pogue clearly says it makes it harder for then to get jobs, so there is no reason to interpret this as it being impossible for them to get jobs.

    Then it you want to make claims of your own try backing them up in future.
    Don't strawman?!?  LOL, the whole notion of white privilege is a strawman. 

    Harder for then to get jobs than what?  Than for Irish immigrants during the Potato Famine?  Than for Asians who were brought to the US as slaves?
    Vaulk
  • VaulkVaulk 480 Pts
    I generally don't enjoy these subjects but I'm going to have to take sides against the idea that White Privilege exists.  If you're going to say that one race has it better or worse than another and therefor "Privilege" exists then we're going to have to establish first and foremost what race you're comparing that race to and exactly how.

    If you're going to say that it's harder for one race to obtain a job then I'm afraid I must see some sort of fair comparison as the statement is purely relative.  So let's say I buy it, ok...so they have it harder than who?
    with_all_humilityPieter
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • FascismFascism 304 Pts
    @CYDdharta How is it a straw man? 

    @BaconToes You highlight the phrase "group of people" and use that against @Pogue. "Group of people" implies a collective. When someone refers to white people as a group, they view them as one entity. The individual is not considered. If individuals are considered when judging a group, then sure: Men are not stronger than women because some women are stronger than some men. "Group of people" judges all men as one entity and all women as one entity. In this case, men are generally stronger than women. Same thing applies to white privilege. White people are more likely to be born rich than black people in general, therefore white privilege exists. 

    @Varrack Privilege doesn't imply systematic racism. 
    Privilege - a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people. 
    There is a difference between higher wage and being born rich. Higher wage can be a result of privilege, but it is not absolute since higher wage can also come from hard work. So it depends how the higher wage was acquired. Being born rich isn't a result of hard work, therefore, it is a privilege. If you can prove that Asians are born richer than white people then I will agree that they have privilege. 
  • edited April 18
    Fascism said:
    @CYDdharta How is it a straw man? 

    @BaconToes You highlight the phrase "group of people" and use that against @Pogue. "Group of people" implies a collective. When someone refers to white people as a group, they view them as one entity. The individual is not considered. If individuals are considered when judging a group, then sure: Men are not stronger than women because some women are stronger than some men. "Group of people" judges all men as one entity and all women as one entity. In this case, men are generally stronger than women. Same thing applies to white privilege. White people are more likely to be born rich than black people in general, therefore white privilege exists. 

    @Varrack Privilege doesn't imply systematic racism. 
    Privilege - a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people. 
    There is a difference between higher wage and being born rich. Higher wage can be a result of privilege, but it is not absolute since higher wage can also come from hard work. So it depends how the higher wage was acquired. Being born rich isn't a result of hard work, therefore, it is a privilege. If you can prove that Asians are born richer than white people then I will agree that they have privilege. 
    Privilege - a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.

    I not following your logic in deducing white people have an inherent right, advantage, immunity that is granted to them.  How is being born into anything here in America a privilege? There is nothing in the definition "privilege" that denote just because someone is born into a particular family that it in of itself is not a privilege. Can you give some specific's on exactly how and when white privilege occurs, not hypothetical situations? But real world "privilege." I read where a flesh tone band-aide was a sign of white privilege.  That is nonsense, manufacturers usually mass produce base on statistical marketing.  Example: why are door's manufactured at 6' 8"?  It because that 95% of the population is under the height of 6' 8".  Now is that short people privilege?

    I contend that, while there is discrimination and it goes both ways.  I don't believe there to be a systemic issue of privilege in today's society.  This notion is part of selling identity politics and is going to cause more division amongst social groups. This ideology play right into fringes of left.  So, if we are going to prove or disprove the existence of "white privilege" give some real case studies and real worldwide spread evidence because you can derive a hypothetical situation for anything you want to prove.

    "White people are more likely to be born rich than black people in general, therefore white privilege exists" 
    • This is all probability, not a privilege. When particular demographic is nearly 77% of the population, yea there is going to be a higher number of that demographic having more wealth, not because of privilege, but probability. 
    • Higher wage can be a result of privilege, Negative, again it's due to the probability.  It's just like the mythical gender wage gap, it is a miss representation of statistical data. 
    Race and Hispanic Origin
    White alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a)76.9%
    Black or African American alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a)13.3%
    American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a)1.3%
    Asian alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a)5.7%
    Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a)0.2%
    Two or More Races, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)2.6%
    Hispanic or Latino, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(b)17.8%
    White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)61.3%
    • But it is not absolute since higher wage can also come from hard work. YES, this is what it is all about.  I've had a simple philosophy in my career, it's just working harder and smarter than the next guy/gal.  It's paid off, most people usually don't what to put for the effort. Employers don't get rid of assets, that get rid of dead weight.  Work hard and you will be fine.
    • Being born rich isn't a result of hard work, therefore, it is a privilege. Negative, no one controls where and how they are born. It is all happenstance. 
    So, let's talk about some real-world instance of privilege.  
    BaconToes
  • Sorry for the long response time, for everyone who cares. @pogue so you're saying that because a majority of a demographic has a certain desired quality, everyone in the demographic has the privilege, right? If a black person or other minority is wealthy, wouldn't that mean he/she has white privilege? I guess it depends on how the privilege applies to individuals: if you can find a poor white person and say he is privileged from his race b/c other members of his race, but not him, have a desired quality, would that be logical to do? Because I think the reason you say there is white privilege is that a large portion of whites are rich, right? so the wealth creates the privilege, and by that logic, can't a white person be unprivileged and a black person be privileged depending on their wealth?
  • CYDdharta said:
    Ampersand said:

    Don't strawmen. Pogue clearly says it makes it harder for then to get jobs, so there is no reason to interpret this as it being impossible for them to get jobs.

    Then it you want to make claims of your own try backing them up in future.
    Don't strawman?!?  LOL, the whole notion of white privilege is a strawman. 

    Harder for then to get jobs than what?  Than for Irish immigrants during the Potato Famine?  Than for Asians who were brought to the US as slaves?
    Seems you don't know what a strawman is, because it isn't just synonymous with "something I don't like" or a generic insult which is how you're using it.

    "straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent"

    Pogue clearly said it was harder for people of colour to get jobs. You replied that you thought it was unbelievable that it was impossible for them to get jobs. He never claimed it was impossible - he said it was harder. Therefore you rejected his argument on an obviously fallacious basis.
  • funperson said:
    Sorry for the long response time, for everyone who cares. @pogue so you're saying that because a majority of a demographic has a certain desired quality, everyone in the demographic has the privilege, right? If a black person or other minority is wealthy, wouldn't that mean he/she has white privilege? I guess it depends on how the privilege applies to individuals: if you can find a poor white person and say he is privileged from his race b/c other members of his race, but not him, have a desired quality, would that be logical to do? Because I think the reason you say there is white privilege is that a large portion of whites are rich, right? so the wealth creates the privilege, and by that logic, can't a white person be unprivileged and a black person be privileged depending on their wealth?
    The average white income being greater than the average minority income is a symptom of the issue, not the entire issue. It's just the easiest to discuss because everyone can agree that $2 > $1 while "The way people sometimes get real nervous walking past me when I'm wearing a hoodie when the same thing never happens to my white friends" is more subjective and hard to prove even if it is true and many people will have experience of it. 

    There are different forms of privilege - it's not all or nothing. A wealthy black person wouldn't have white privilege (Surprise: they're not white) but they would have wealth privilege. How different forms of privilege intersect is referred to as intersectionality. The minority person would have advantages poor people and be privileged, but they can still run into situations where they are disadvantaged because of their race and a white person would not be. Privilege is context dependent.
  • Vaulk said:
    I generally don't enjoy these subjects but I'm going to have to take sides against the idea that White Privilege exists.  If you're going to say that one race has it better or worse than another and therefor "Privilege" exists then we're going to have to establish first and foremost what race you're comparing that race to and exactly how.

    If you're going to say that it's harder for one race to obtain a job then I'm afraid I must see some sort of fair comparison as the statement is purely relative.  So let's say I buy it, ok...so they have it harder than who?
    That's because you're a racist. As discussed previously you've been provided with studies which you concede show that people are discriminated against due to race, but you say this is okay because people should be able to discriminate based on race if they want to.
    Pieter
  • Ampersand said:
    Seems you don't know what a strawman is, because it isn't just synonymous with "something I don't like" or a generic insult which is how you're using it.

    "straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent"

    Pogue clearly said it was harder for people of colour to get jobs. You replied that you thought it was unbelievable that it was impossible for them to get jobs. He never claimed it was impossible - he said it was harder. Therefore you rejected his argument on an obviously fallacious basis.
    Seems that since you can't refute the argument I made that undermines the whole notion of "white privilege" and shows Pogue was, in fact, using the term "strawman" generically, you would prefer to ignore it.  That being the case, I'll reiterate it;


    Harder for them to get jobs than what?  Than for Irish immigrants during the Potato Famine?  Than for Asians who were brought to the US as slaves?
  • Ampersand said:
    funperson said:
    Sorry for the long response time, for everyone who cares. @pogue so you're saying that because a majority of a demographic has a certain desired quality, everyone in the demographic has the privilege, right? If a black person or other minority is wealthy, wouldn't that mean he/she has white privilege? I guess it depends on how the privilege applies to individuals: if you can find a poor white person and say he is privileged from his race b/c other members of his race, but not him, have a desired quality, would that be logical to do? Because I think the reason you say there is white privilege is that a large portion of whites are rich, right? so the wealth creates the privilege, and by that logic, can't a white person be unprivileged and a black person be privileged depending on their wealth?
    The average white income being greater than the average minority income is a symptom of the issue, not the entire issue. It's just the easiest to discuss because everyone can agree that $2 > $1 while "The way people sometimes get real nervous walking past me when I'm wearing a hoodie when the same thing never happens to my white friends" is more subjective and hard to prove even if it is true and many people will have experience of it. 

    There are different forms of privilege - it's not all or nothing. A wealthy black person wouldn't have white privilege (Surprise: they're not white) but they would have wealth privilege. How different forms of privilege intersect is referred to as intersectionality. The minority person would have advantages poor people and be privileged, but they can still run into situations where they are disadvantaged because of their race and a white person would not be. Privilege is context dependent.
    Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF): Racism and discrimination are wrong period, all people of every race and color deserve to be treated fairly and not judged based upon one's religion, color, origin, or ethnicity.   I also believe, just because of one's color, religion, origin and/or ethnicity does not make them a racist or privileged.  

    So according to this chart, Asians make considerably more than any other ethnicity.  So should we say there is Asain privilege?  If not, why not?

    A wealthy black person wouldn't have white privilege (Surprise: they're not white) but they would have wealth privilege.  
    • How come, if it's a white person who is rich it's "white privilege" but with a black person it is not considered "black privilege" its "wealth privilege"?

    The minority person would have advantages poor people and be privileged, but they can still run into situations where they are disadvantaged because of their race and a white person would not be.  Privilege is context dependent.
    • So, is "privilege" just a word to degrade the person one feels disadvantaged too?  Because it's starting to appear that way to me, or perhaps I'm just misunderstanding.  
    • Everyone in life as some time or and other are at a disadvantage. May not have enough education, you don't live where the job market is booming, in athletics everybody experience disadvantage at some point.  Sometimes tall people are at advantage, other times a smaller person might have the advantage.  We all face disadvantages at some point.  That does not necessitate a privilege. 
    • It's kind of like when sociologist changes the meaning of racist...Using the dictionary anyone can be racist.  Listen to sociologist only a white person can be racist.  

    Oxford Dicsionary: 


    Sociologist Definition of Racism: Race, Prejudice, and Power

    Racism = Race Prejudice + Power 

    Race 

    A specious classification of human beings created by Europeans (whites) which assigns human worth and social status using ‘white’ as the model of humanity and the height of human achievement for the purpose of establishing and maintaining privilege and power. The idea of Race, is based on the ideas of white supremacy and white privilege.

    Prejudice

    A prejudice is a pre-judgment in favor of or against a person, a group, an event, an idea, or a thing. An action based on prejudgment is discrimination. A negative prejudgment is often called a stereotype. An action based on a stereotype is called bigotry.

    Power

    Power” is a relational term. It can only be understood as a relationship between human beings in a specific historical, economic and social setting. It must be exercised to be visible.

    1. Power is control of, or access to, those institutions sanctioned by the state.

    2. Power is the ability to define reality and to convince other people that it is their definition.

    3. Power is ownership and control of the major resources of a state, and the capacity to make and enforce decisions based on this ownership and control;

    4. Power is the capacity of a group of people to decide what they want and to act in an organized way to get it.

    5. (In terms of an individual), power is the capacity to act.


    Sociologist Definition of White Privilege:

    A privilege is a right, favor, advantage, immunity, specially granted to one individual or group, and withheld from another. White privilege is a historically based, institutionally perpetuated system of:

    (1) Preferential prejudice for and treatment of white people based solely on their skin color and/or ancestral origin from Europe; and

    (2) Exemption from racial and/or national oppression based on skin color and/or ancestral origin from Africa, Asia, the Americas and the Arab world.


    So, what is this all saying?  Do white people today have to pay for the sins of others in the past?

  • AmpersandAmpersand 362 Pts
    edited April 20
    CYDdharta said:
    Ampersand said:
    Seems you don't know what a strawman is, because it isn't just synonymous with "something I don't like" or a generic insult which is how you're using it.

    "straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent"

    Pogue clearly said it was harder for people of colour to get jobs. You replied that you thought it was unbelievable that it was impossible for them to get jobs. He never claimed it was impossible - he said it was harder. Therefore you rejected his argument on an obviously fallacious basis.
    Seems that since you can't refute the argument I made that undermines the whole notion of "white privilege" and shows Pogue was, in fact, using the term "strawman" generically, you would prefer to ignore it.  That being the case, I'll reiterate it;


    Harder for them to get jobs than what?  Than for Irish immigrants during the Potato Famine?  Than for Asians who were brought to the US as slaves?
    So you're just going to try and ignore your strawmanning and pretend it didn't happen. As shown it did and was fallacious.

    The part you've requoted from yourself is also irrelevant.

    Just like someone who is murdered but is not murdered in the most horrible way in the world is still a murder victim and someone can be hungry without being the hungriest person to ever live; people can be disadvantaged relative to others without being the most disadvantaged people to ever live in the history of the world.

    Nothing in the definition of white privilege is effected by whether there were people in different eras even less privileged than minorities today, so this is another example of an irrelevant strawman fallacy.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 549 Pts
    edited April 21
    Ampersand said:

    So you're just going to try and ignore your strawmanning and pretend it didn't happen. As shown it did and was fallacious.

    The part you've requoted from yourself is also irrelevant.

    Just like someone who is murdered but is not murdered in the most horrible way in the world is still a murder victim and someone can be hungry without being the hungriest person to ever live; people can be disadvantaged relative to others without being the most disadvantaged people to ever live in the history of the world.

    Nothing in the definition of white privilege is effected by whether there were people in different eras even less privileged than minorities today, so this is another example of an irrelevant strawman fallacy.


    I didn't pretend anything didn't happen, I leave that up to you.  Since we're butchering  definitions (Irish aren't white, Asians aren't minorities, etc.), my comment stands.  The whole topic of "white privilege" is nothing but a strawman.  You want to dismiss out-of-hand the similar experiences of Irish and Asians because it's convenient, but if these groups could overcome the obstacles that were in their way and thrive in the US, so can the minorities of today.  "White privilege" is just an excuse.

  • @with_all_humility

    Most of your post is quotes, so I'll address your points:

    "Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF): Racism and discrimination are wrong period, all people of every race and color deserve to be treated fairly and not judged based upon one's religion, color, origin, or ethnicity.   I also believe, just because of one's color, religion, origin and/or ethnicity does not make them a racist or privileged."

    No-one is saying that having an ethnicity = having privilege. People are saying that having an ethnicity results in tangible differences in outcome (as you yourself admit in your post) and that this is classified as privilege. 

    "So according to this chart, Asians make considerably more than any other ethnicity.  So should we say there is Asain privilege?  If not, why not?"

    You can talk about Asian privilege, but that's a tricky area because it often crosses over with benevolent racism - e.g. "Look at asians, they're so clever - not very good at sports of course!". However you are missing the point. As I mentioned in my last post economic expectations are just an easily definable metric. Ethnic based privilege isn't defined by how much you earn.

    "How come, if it's a white person who is rich it's "white privilege" but with a black person it is not considered "black privilege" its "wealth privilege"?"

    Because as I explained to you in my last post privilege is not synonymous with having money, it's just an easy example some people use of how one type of privilege can have one type of effect. Privilege is related to the society and what the society judges to be normal (e.g. the majority skin colour, religion, etc) or better (More wealth = better than no wealth) as this accords advantages. Anyone with a lot of money would have wealth privilege because money affords advantages universally. Race depends on the culture and the context. A white person wouldn't be very privileged in the middle of, say, Syria right now.

    "So, is "privilege" just a word to degrade the person one feels disadvantaged too?  Because it's starting to appear that way to me, or perhaps I'm just misunderstanding." 

    No, it's related to real world differences. For instance even if you're an intelligent educated wealthy person of colour, you're far more likely to be racially profiled and stopped by the police. If you are statistically identical in every single way from wealth to education to age as a random white person but have a stereo-typically black sounding name - the otherwise identical white person is 50% more likely to get called for an interview.

    "Everyone in life as some time or and other are at a disadvantage. May not have enough education, you don't live where the job market is booming, in athletics everybody experience disadvantage at some point.  Sometimes tall people are at advantage, other times a smaller person might have the advantage.  We all face disadvantages at some point.  That does not necessitate a privilege."

    We're talking about endemic and systematic discrimination against people due to their race, gender, etc. That is not acceptable and is against not only international human rights but basic human decency.

    "It's kind of like when sociologist changes the meaning of racist...Using the dictionary anyone can be racist.  Listen to sociologist only a white person can be racist."

    You realise your quote doesn't back you up, right?

    So, what is this all saying?  Do white people today have to pay for the sins of others in the past?]

    No, that's not what I or your quoted sources are saying.
  • Ampersand said:


    First, let me say thank you for responding to my counter-arguments, I enjoy a good civil discussion.  So, my intent is not to offend, but to have hopefully meaningful discussion. If my word choice comes across as abrasive please let me know. 

    You state "No-one is saying that having an ethnicity = having privilege. People are saying that having an ethnicity results in tangible differences in outcome (as you yourself admit in your post) and that this is classified as a privilege."

    Not to be rude, but your response sounds like double talk.  How is ethnicity = privilege different to ethnicity results in a tangible difference? Is not  "tangible differences" what you and others calling "privilege"?  

    "You can talk about Asian privilege" see, I don't view the Asian population as being any more privileged than any other group of people. I believe the differential in average income is due to their work ethic that is deep-rooted in their culture. 

    "Privilege is related to the society and what the society judges to be normal (e.g. the majority skin color, religion, etc) or better (More wealth = better than no wealth) as this accords advantages." 

    If "privilege" is intrinsic to "the majority skin color" then there is nothing that can be done to remove it...because there will always be a majority.  Wheater it is religion, skin color, or any other discriminate factor.  

    "No, it's related to real world differences. For instance, even if you're an intelligent educated wealthy person of color, you're far more likely to be racially profiled and stopped by the police." 

    Maybe instead of talking about privilege, we should be asking why instances you stated happen, and what can be done to remove them.  I'm not saying racial profiling is right, but I believe it to part of human nature.  Just like at the airport, who do you think TSA  or US Customs pay more attention to when processing people through the airport? Is it people who look American or those who appear to be from an Arab Country?  When I was in downtown Qatar, Telave, Republic of Georgia or any other country I've visited I know I was being profiled.  In those situations, I expected to be profiled.  If a white man goes to Harlem do think he is going to be profiled?

    Now, unjustly acting upon someone just because they fit a profile; i.e. white cop just pulling over someone because they are black. We should be asking those individuals why they are doing feel the need to pull them over.  Especially in this day and age.  

    "If you are statistically identical in every single way from wealth to education to age as a random white person but have a stereo-typically black sounding name - the otherwise identical white person is 50% more likely to get called for an interview."

    Again, if this is the case we should be asking why this is happening not saying it is because of a particular group is "privilege". We should be educating people to not view names as a discriminating factor.  Again, I feel that things like this are happening, why is and what can be done to alleviate it. 

    "We're talking about endemic and systematic discrimination against people due to their race, gender, etc. That is not acceptable and is against not only international human rights but basic human decency."

    Are we sure discrimination is happening?  Especially on a societal scale, I have a hard time believing it.  Are there bigots and individuals who discriminate?  Absolutely, but that does not mean society as a whole discriminates?  Perhaps the reason a white person is 50% more likely to get an interview with a black person is due to probability versus discrimination.  White people account for 70% or the population, versus 11% of the population being black?  I'm just asking the question, but then I don't pre-judge people based on anything.  After serving in the military for 28 years and working with just about every ethnic group and I've discovered that people are people, not a skin tone.  I've learned to determine a person's worth based on personal knowledge, not preconceived notions.  

    "No, that's not what I or your quoted sources are saying." 

    I'm not saying you or the other person I quoted said that...However, I tend to believe that is where these notions of privilege and define racism to limit the definition to the majority of the population.  Again, the dictionary definition is defined to where anyone can be considered a racist like Louis Farrakhan and David Duke.  However according to the sociology definition being Racism = Race Prejudice + Power; only David Duke is a racist because of his ethnicity has social and economic power due to being the majority of the population.  

    The sociologist has added this notion that one must have power in order to label a racist. So in the US, that limits a racist to only being white or am I missing something in my assessment?

    Again, thanks for sharing your perspective with me and look forward to gaining further insight from your next response.   :)
  • Not to be rude, but your response sounds like double talk.  How is ethnicity = privilege different to ethnicity results in a tangible difference? Is not  "tangible differences" what you and others calling "privilege"?  

    It's like the difference between "It's fine to arrest people of colour" and "it's fine to arrest people of colour when they commit crimes". Depending on the context you might read the first example the same as the latter, but as you've been very sensitive about people being called privliged I was clarifying the rationale for the privilege is not simply that they have an ethnicity but that they benefit from it materially.

    see, I don't view the Asian population as being any more privileged than any other group of people. I believe the differential in average income is due to their work ethic that is deep-rooted in their culture.

    It's not really relevant to the conversation so I'll otherwise drop it, but I'll just point out that trying to define it as Asian culture is pretty superficial and blind. There are a mass of cultures in Asia - Asia being the most populous continent with more than half the world's population, and there is a lot of variety in how well different cultures do as well as why they do well (or poorly, quite a few Asian cultures perform below the norm).

    If "privilege" is intrinsic to "the majority skin color" then there is nothing that can be done to remove it...because there will always be a majority.  Wheater it is religion, skin color, or any other discriminate factor.  

    Read what I wrote again: "Privilege is related to the society and what the society judges to be normal (e.g. the majority skin color, religion, etc) or better (More wealth = better than no wealth) as this accords advantages." If we make the effort to have a society where people are judged by their character rather than their skin colour, the privilege which comes hand in hand with being white in a majority white country  

    Maybe instead of talking about privilege, we should be asking why instances you stated happen, and what can be done to remove them.  I'm not saying racial profiling is right, but I believe it to part of human nature.  Just like at the airport, who do you think TSA  or US Customs pay more attention to when processing people through the airport? Is it people who look American or those who appear to be from an Arab Country?  When I was in downtown Qatar, Telave, Republic of Georgia or any other country I've visited I know I was being profiled.  In those situations, I expected to be profiled.  If a white man goes to Harlem do think he is going to be profiled?

    Now, unjustly acting upon someone just because they fit a profile; i.e. white cop just pulling over someone because they are black. We should be asking those individuals why they are doing feel the need to pull them over.  Especially in this day and age.  

    Talking about privilege is talking about why it happened so your initial statement makes no sense.

    I also think the logic of the idea "I'm not saying racial profiling is right, but I believe it to part of human nature". You might as well say murder is a part of human nature - after all there has never been a human society that has stopped murder from happening. Does that mean we shouldn't bother about trying to stop it? No, even if it is some inevitable part of human nature we can still work against it and minimise the amount of murders that happen - we don't just throw up our hands and let everyone murder each other as much as they want. The same thing applies to racism and privilege - even if it is part of human nature (which you have done nothing to show) that doesn't provide a single iota of a rationale for not continuing to fight against it.

    I also find the idea that you thought you were profiled in some non-descript way while being an affluent tourist who had by choice decided to temporarily visit a country is comparable to systematic discrimination in your home country kind of galling and blind.

    Again, if this is the case we should be asking why this is happening not saying it is because of a particular group is "privilege". We should be educating people to not view names as a discriminating factor.  Again, I feel that things like this are happening, why is and what can be done to alleviate it. 

    Once again, talking about privilege and talking about the reasons something are happening are exactly the same thing. What do you even think discussing privilege is?

    Are we sure discrimination is happening?  Especially on a societal scale, I have a hard time believing it.  Are there bigots and individuals who discriminate?  Absolutely, but that does not mean society as a whole discriminates?  Perhaps the reason a white person is 50% more likely to get an interview with a black person is due to probability versus discrimination.  White people account for 70% or the population, versus 11% of the population being black?  I'm just asking the question, but then I don't pre-judge people based on anything.  After serving in the military for 28 years and working with just about every ethnic group and I've discovered that people are people, not a skin tone.  I've learned to determine a person's worth based on personal knowledge, not preconceived notions.  

    I linked you to a scientific study that - if you'd read it - you'd see cannot be explained by the difference in per capita population as the researchers sent out the same number of  applications for each race.

    You are also very much stretching for rationales to avoid the issue here. Rather than presenting rationales that are backed up by facts you are coming up with "what ifs" that have no actual supporting evidence.

    Also that you yourself think you are not prejudiced is not in and of itself an indicator that you are not prejudiced. People are not necessarily great at self-judgement and literature looking at discrimination shows that people tend to mtentally shy away from acknowledging issues that would cause cognitive dissonance - e.g. a person who views themself as supporting equality benefiting from inequality.

    I'm not saying you or the other person I quoted said that...However, I tend to believe that is where these notions of privilege and define racism to limit the definition to the majority of the population.  Again, the dictionary definition is defined to where anyone can be considered a racist like Louis Farrakhan and David Duke.  However according to the sociology definition being Racism = Race Prejudice + Power; only David Duke is a racist because of his ethnicity has social and economic power due to being the majority of the population.  

    The sociological definition you offered at no point excludes people from exercising power if they are not a majority of the population so your criticism is moot.
  • Ampersand said:

    I linked you to a scientific study that - if you'd read it - you'd see cannot be explained by the difference in per capita population as the researchers sent out the same number of  applications for each race.

    That particular study also didn't really demonstrate white privilege.  There is no way to know what color "Greg Baker" is just from his name.  There is no way to know what color "Derek Barnett" is just from reading his name.  Or Fletcher Cox, or Nelson Agholor, or Ronald Darby, or Michael Bennett, or Brandon Brooks... I could keep going down the list of Philadelphia Eagles, but I trust I've made my point.  The study also failed to use names like "Cletus","Jethro" or "Jimbo" which would likely have skewed the results.  What the study showed was that more common names got better treatment.  I did NOT show any inherent racial bias.

    with_all_humility
  • VaulkVaulk 480 Pts
    edited April 25
    There's also something to be said about the specific study that's being referenced and I've already brought up the problem before.  This study was done exclusively in Cities that top the charts in Black on Black and Black on white violent crime.  There's nothing prejudicial or biased about the fact that breakdown of all violent crime in Boston and Chicago is incredibly far leaning and identifies Black people as not only the majority victim but the majority perpetrator.  

    Now why it's that way...I don't know.  Maybe it's something in the water and maybe it's just the political party that's been running those places for as long as I've been alive...who knows?  That said, a study evaluating call-backs in places like Boston and Chicago in regards to the names used to apply and saying with any degree of certainty that the rate of call-backs was racially charged is misleading at best and irresponsible at worst.  Using cities that are in the top 30 category for highest murders and then using the two poster child cities for Black violence disproportion is just down right crooked and underhanded.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch