Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This topic is about white privilege and my conversation was about access to opportunity and the relative advantage that white men have over others in penetrating the types of social networks that allow them access to opportunity. You responded to me and I now respond to you. It was quite clear what I was talking about.
Some how what was about social networks became about random encounters at 2 AM. Obviously at a subconscious level something occurred, and, as I predicted, at a conscious level you are denying this.
Your name suggests that you are on Wall Street. Don't know what you do but I do know that white men are very over represented in the more lucrative areas of the financial sector.
So who might start off with better shot at success, all things being equal? The white son of a bus driver or the black one, both from the same school, with the same academic success, and similar personalities. Clearly both born outside of the walls of traditional privilege.
Don't tell me level playing field because then I will know that you are either being dishonest or you are joking.
White men have no advantages, its other races who have disadvantages and those disadvantages have nothing to do with specific white men.
White men have no advantages, its other races who have disadvantages and those disadvantages have nothing to do with specific white men.
That's inherently illogical. If there are two people running a race and one has a disadvantage (like a broken ankle) then the other one automatically comes into the race with an advantage, even if they are not trying to. They are ahead just by virtue of not having a broken ankle.
That's inherently illogical. If there are two people running a race and one has a disadvantage (like a broken ankle) then the other one automatically comes into the race with an advantage, even if they are not trying to. They are ahead just by virtue of not having a broken ankle.
Arguing otherwise is just semantics IMO.
In your example, the losing runner got slower and the winning runner stayed the same....so, its more of a disadvantage for the injured runner because he got slower....his injury didn't make the other guy faster. So, the losing runner's misfortune has no bearing on the speed of the winning runner, he didn't magically get faster.
In your example, the losing runner got slower and the winning runner stayed the same....so, its more of a disadvantage for the injured runner because he got slower....his injury didn't make the other guy faster. So, the losing runner's misfortune has no bearing on the speed of the winning runner, he didn't magically get faster.
You can't semantically twist that to make any kind of sense. If all of your competition is handicapped, you're at an advantage.
That's like saying I wouldn't be at an advantage running a race against quadraplegic women over 50 when I'm a 26 year old healthy athletic male.
In your example, the losing runner got slower and the winning runner stayed the same....so, its more of a disadvantage for the injured runner because he got slower....his injury didn't make the other guy faster. So, the losing runner's misfortune has no bearing on the speed of the winning runner, he didn't magically get faster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wall st kid
White men have no advantages, its other races who have disadvantages and those disadvantages have nothing to do with specific white men.
Yes, it is true that minorities have disadvantages but, it is also true whites have privileges.
For example:
Beauty standards: Most of the time white individuals are used to represent beauty, studies have shown that white individuals have more options romantically. This is not because society depicts minorities as ugly. It is because white images are used to represent beauty. The effects of this delves deep into minority dating pools as well.
Colorism is a major issue, it can be argued that artist like Beyonce, Drake, Alicia Keys, Queen Latifah, Mariah Carey and J. Cole had it easier establishing themselves in the industry because of their skin tones. Their lighter skin tones enabled them to appeal to White people, who serve as the record executives and the dominate consumer market. Also to serve as a standards of beauty in Black communities, when in fact, they are all mixed race. Showing how the industry favors lighter skin vs darker skin. Showing, how white heritage has value.
...is stating on obvious fact that, being male and being white brings advantages less available to those who are not, an expression of racial resentment?
Probably yes. One can only guess at the motivations of a person who claims untruths as "obvious fact". In this case, racial resentment is as good a guess as any.
Moderator cut: off topic
Last edited by Oldhag1; 03-25-2015 at 07:10 AM..
Reason: Thread is not about gender, the quote was specifically related to the topic
You can't semantically twist that to make any kind of sense. If all of your competition is handicapped, you're at an advantage.
That's like saying I wouldn't be at an advantage running a race against quadraplegic women over 50 when I'm a 26 year old healthy athletic male.
Which would be better for society out of these 2 options.
1) Everyone was treated like whites (assuming you believe whites get the best treatment)
2) Everyone was treated like they currently are treated, nothing with any other race and their current treatment changed, however, whites current treatment got worse so they were on a par with everyone else.
Which would be better for society out of these 2 options.
1) Everyone was treated like whites (assuming you believe whites get the best treatment)
2) Everyone was treated like they currently are treated, nothing with any other race and their current treatment changed, however, whites current treatment got worse so they were on a par with everyone else.
What unfathomable options.
There always will be a group of people in power, a group that has it easier than the rest. That's just how society is structured. When in history has everyone in one society been equal?
Why try to deny the existence of something that has to exist?
There always will be a group of people in power, a group that has it easier than the rest. That's just how society is structured. When in history has everyone in one society been equal?
Why try to deny the existence of something that has to exist?
Sorry, i wish i had better options for you.
My question was a hypothetical. Should whites come "back to the pack" or should humans just start treating other humans better?
My question was a hypothetical. Should whites come "back to the pack" or should humans just start treating other humans better?
Whites should not go to the "back of the pack" (whatever that means).
Humans should start treating one another with equality, but that is impossible.
What does this have to do with the existence of white privilege?
Are you finally admitting that White privilege does exist by implying Whites are at "the front of the pack"?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
