Do all white people have white privilege? Why?

Q: Why do all white people have white privilege, even though not all white people are well-off?

A: White privilege is different from having money, and white privilege is different from class privilege. When ‘white privilege’ is discussed, whiteness is not a proxy for wealth. All white people have white privilege, not some or most white people. Saying that all white people have white privilege is not lumping all white people together. It is not denying that individual white people may have other disadvantages due to gender, sexual orientation, physical ability, or class.

Because this idea is often misunderstood when communicated through prose, a mathematical equation may be more accessible and precise for some audiences. Let a person’s total privilege be represented as:

p = Aw + Bx + Cy + Dz + …

where A, B, C, and D are some positive constants,
w is whether or not the person is white (or how much the person can pass for white),
x is whether or not the person is male (or how much the person can pass for male),
y is whether or not the person is heterosexual (or how heterosexual the person is),
z is how much the person is able-bodied.

For all white people, w = 1, and the first term (white privilege) is A.
For all non-white people, w = 0, and the first term (white privilege) is 0.

Notice that saying that all white people have white privilege is not saying that the total p for every white person is greater than the total p for every non-white person. It just means that every white person has the advantage of A. White privilege is one dimension of privilege, and it holds for all people who are white.

Of course, the above equation is just an expression or model of how white privilege fits together with other privileges, not a proof of the privileges. The purpose of expressing it in an equation is to clear up the misunderstanding that saying that all whites have white privilege is equivalent to saying that all whites are the same.

For more concrete examples of white privilege, refer to the Daily effects of white privilege section of Peggy McIntosh’s “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack”. (Update: For a 2001 version, see How I Benefit From White Privilege by Laura Douglas.)

One caveat of expressing privilege as the sum of the different dimensions of privilege is that it does not account for the intersection of race and gender, gender and sexual orientation, or multiple combinations of oppression. A person who deals with multiple levels of oppression is actually dealing with something more complex than the sum of its constituent parts.

177 Responses to “Do all white people have white privilege? Why?”

  1. jos76 Says:

    As a student of Sociolinguistics and Language Policy, I am impressed with this post. I will be passing it along to professors that I have worked with as it clearly and concretely shows in the intersection of sociological, psychological, and physical dimensions of defining one’s identity, and essential one’s degree of privilege. I must add, though, that there are cultural currencies that are useful only within particular discourse/identity groups. For example, Black vernacular English is worth more in a Black neighborhood than in a Business Office. If one’s goal (not financial of course) is to achieve status and privilege among a group in a Black neighborhood, Standard (though not inherently better) English has very little value.
    Jos76
    http://www.jos76.wordpress.com

  2. Restructure! Says:

    Thanks for the feedback. I sometimes wonder if I am confusing people even more when I get technical, so it’s good to know that it makes sense to someone else other than me.

  3. A YASP Says:

    I wouldn’t say that ALL WHITES have white privilege. Italians are “white” yet they often have to worry about Italian stereotypes, people asking them if it’s an “Italian thing” etc, etc…I’d say that about white Jews too.

  4. Restructure! Says:

    I think it depends on how much they can pass for white or pretend to be white. Ethnic background would be a different issue.

  5. souldecirce Says:

    This site is amazing. I’m grateful.

  6. JD Says:

    In every middle eastern nation their is an arab muslim priviledge, in China and Japan im sure their is an asian privilege, in Africa they fought for black dominance. But their should be no nation on earth that whites can be as white and Eurocentric as they choose, they must share all while the others may have places entirely for themselves. Not Canada, USA, France, UK, etc.. This agenda is pure evil brainwashing and nobody can see it. Always remember many “brown” people came to the white country and if it is so intolerable they can always but a ticket to a country that is filled with their kind. When you find me the German, Irish, English, French, Swedish towns in the middle east, Asia, or even Africa (minus South Africa) only then will I accept to be disciplined by brown poeple. when they have more work to do as far as tolerance and diversity goes.

  7. LLB Says:

    See my comment under Africentric education as to whether or not whites have been doing such a good job keeping to themselves. Heck, the POC would probably have been happy if all we had done was immigrated and formed minority communities that existed within the boundaries and limits of the majority.

  8. Restructure! Says:

    When you find me the German, Irish, English, French, Swedish towns in the middle east, Asia, or even Africa (minus South Africa) only then will I accept to be disciplined by brown poeple.

    In East Asia, these places are called “foreigner districts”, I believe. Just because you are ignorant about something, it doesn’t mean that it does not exist.

  9. Jaime Andres Pretell Says:

    This explanation is a bunch of hogwash.
    To put it simply, for a privilege to have an ethnic adjective, it has to be exclusive to that group. If you read Peggy McIntosh, Tim Wise, or other “White Guilt” mongers, they tend to mix fact with fancy. There is no denying that White privilege existed in this country. It was a legal fact written into federal law. But even then the law truly wasn’t directed at giving Whites a privilege, but at placing burdens on specific groups. Different exclusionary acts. This is what is called an incumbent, majority or ethnophobic/xenophobic legalization.
    That having been said, those laws were long ago repealed. Does majority/mainstream privilege still exist? Of course. It exists in ANY country where a population is the significant majority. Most media portrays them; their face is the most familiar, etc. But majority privilege can quickly be reversed by regional demographics where other groups may hold the majority, either individually or in combination. Many urban areas show this effect. Many places in the south where Hispanics are a majority can also affect this.

    But removing majority privilege such that we explore discrimination in a situation where all populations are of the same size. When we analyze Peggy McIntosh’s list you find that many of those privileges claims simply dissolve. Furthermore, those that don’t many times are not exclusive to Euro-phenotype people. In many cases, the discrimination is ethno-specific. Like cultural biases against African Americans in certain cases where just not being of that ethnic group allows for a lack of that burden. In other words, if you can point to any other group that can get away with it, then it isn’t White privilege; it is a “insert ethnic name here” burden. Example, NYC and hailing cabs. Most Whites would have no problem hailing a cab. But neither would most other ethnicities. It is actually only a few ethnicities that have been stereotyped as violent, misers, or in other racist terms such that cab drivers, many of them non white themselves will purposely avoid picking them up. Similar analysis for shadowing in department stores.
    Secondly, there are populations of Euro-phenotype people who suffer from their own burdens unique to them. Be it from multigenerational poverty, regional biases or stereotypes or many times ethno-regional biases of what American White or mainstream looks like in the first place.

    Thirdly, there are situations where being Non-White has its privileges as well. Because of the assumption of a ‘White privilege’ or worse innate White evil intent.
    It is assumed in many circles that you should not speak badly of each other, but you can speak badly of White people. It doesn’t matter if that person may happen to be a recent migrant from a third world country, war torn region, or what not where they haven’t received any advantage in their life. There is an assumption they have privilege and they can be the target of ridicule because of it.

    Finally, we must understand that there are populations that are predominantly White, who have profited from exclusionism, profiteering from exploitation, not just of non-Whites but also many other White ethno-social groups, who will have kids that may be raised to continue such exclusion, by ethno-class based doctrines and even racial ones, but rarely without the first one included. These groups do not reflect on all Euro-phenotype people. And you see their counterparts in the elite of other countries as well. Japan, China, India, etc.

    Then you have a group racialists whose only possible privilege is the illusion of privilege in itself. Many impoverished Eurodescent populations who live in abject conditions hold on to it to try to make some sense of their lives. Holding onto fantasies of past White glory.

    An ideology that was implanted by elite in this country as early as the indentured servitude period after European and non European servants and slaves rebelled together. Basically, a mental opiate to keep populations apart.

    Consider it similar to more extreme versions of religion and brainwashing that lead to feel-goodism about yourself no matter what your situation while pointing to all non-believers of your particular dogma as inferior people.

    Some articles that explore the idea of non-White privilege as well:
    http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/race/2008/07/is-there-such-a.html
    http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=5782
    http://hiphoprepublican.com/2006/04/end-black-privilege.html
    http://www.rastafarispeaks.com/repatriation/index.cgi?noframes;read=39353

  10. Lxy Says:

    “This explanation is a bunch of hogwash.
    To put it simply, for a privilege to have an ethnic adjective, it has to be exclusive to that group. If you read Peggy McIntosh, Tim Wise, or other “White Guilt” mongers, they tend to mix fact with fancy. There is no denying that White privilege existed in this country. It was a legal fact written into federal law. But even then the law truly wasn’t directed at giving Whites a privilege, but at placing burdens on specific groups. Different exclusionary acts. This is what is called an incumbent, majority or ethnophobic/xenophobic legalization.”

    America’s so-called exclusionary acts “truly wasn’t directed” at giving Whites privilege (not to mention racial supremacy)?! This guy must be living in the unreality that is Mainstream America.

    How about America’s Jim Crow Apartheid system, which is the ultimate “exclusionary” act?! Or the USA’s 19th-century Chinese Exclusion Act, which was openly promoted by its advocates at the time as “defending” the economic status of White workers or precious “White civilization”?

    These pieces of legislation were explicitly and implicitly designed to uphold an American racial/class caste system with Whites as the dominant group.

    Thus, during the recent American apartheid era, Blacks and other minorities were systematically denied access to the educational, employment, or housing opportunities that Whites enjoyed as a matter of course.

    Who benefits from this but Whites?

    Indeed, the very basis of White identity itself, as Noel Ignatiev suggests, exists for no other reason than to defend White racial privilege. That is the very moral and political raison d’etre of Whiteness.

    “The Point Is Not To Interpret Whiteness But To To Abolish It”
    http://racetraitor.org/abolishthepoint.html

    Secondly, there are populations of Euro-phenotype people who suffer from their own burdens unique to them. Be it from multigenerational poverty, regional biases or stereotypes or many times ethno-regional biases of what American White or mainstream looks like in the first place.

    This is a cunning though disingenous argument–and an example of White Victim politics in action. European Americans may be subject to “burdens” based upon class, gender, or sexual orientation–but not because of race. In fact, it is probable that if these oh-so-burdened Euro-Americans were a racial minority, they would be EVEN WORSE OFF than they are.

    Tim Wise explains how (White) racism in fact powerfully intersects and impacts class (starts at 21:00):
    http://www.africaspeaks.com/blog/?p=2650

    Moreover, you obviously don’t understand–or pretend not to understand–that one can be privileged based upon race, yet discriminated against in terms of another category like gender or class.

    Thus, middle-class White lesbians, for example, are privileged in terms of race and class but subjugated in terms of their gender and sexuality.

    The cynical tactic that this guy is using is to appropriate the real depredations that Whites may suffer as result of non-race factors (like class or gender, etc) … in order to deny and thus defend White racial privilege (and most likely White Middle-Class Male privilege in particular).

    This is essentially a weasely form of political bait and switch.

    Thirdly, there are situations where being Non-White has its privileges as well. Because of the assumption of a ‘White privilege’ or worse innate White evil intent.
    It is assumed in many circles that you should not speak badly of each other, but you can speak badly of White people. It doesn’t matter if that person may happen to be a recent migrant from a third world country, war torn region, or what not where they haven’t received any advantage in their life. There is an assumption they have privilege and they can be the target of ridicule because of it.

    Here the real agenda shows itself. “Speaking badly of White people” is doublespeak for speaking badly of White oppression and racism.

    Like most modern apologists for Whiteness, the agenda is to deny the reality of White racism, or in its more Orwellian form, proclaim that Whites are actually “oppressed” because of their race.

    Though never of course openly admitting its true colors or agenda, this is a much more Machiavellian form of White Supremacy, which seeks to perpetuate White racist dominance and power by denying its reality–and indeed hides behind the cowardly skirts of White victimhood.

    It’s no longer groups like the Ku Klux Klan that are the cutting edge of White Supremacy.

    It’s this newer mutation that speaks in the language of White victimhood that is the true threat.

    Call it White Supremacy 2.0.

  11. Nquest Says:

    Restructure, I think the fact that you referenced several non-monetary categories where few would make the same money-based argument to dispute the proposed privilege is proof enough.

    But maybe someone can show me when and where arguments against people proposing the presence of male privilege are based on an “all men aren’t rich/well off” type of logic. It’s awfully curious how saying there is white racial privilege draws these money/class-based arguments that hardly ever, if ever, come up in any the other areas of privilege/advantage vs. disadvantage you listed.

    Indeed, the very fact that discussions about white racial privilege causes deniers to make a hard-set association (privilege=money/status) that’s not only missing in other discussions of privilege but hardly the sum total of the person who says there is white racial privilege is “racist” itself (you know, we can just assume that accusations of societal racism or white privilege are all about the money since that’s all those people want) and reflects on the power of (white) privilege — the privilege of the “dominant” (i.e. group in power) to define the terms of the debate.

    Think Barack Obama’s race speech where he echoes this money-based logic:

    Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

    And he’s not the only non-white person who buys the White Victimhood argument or feels like POC should be sensitive to the plight of not-so-well-off Whites as if those very groups among Whites haven’t actively, willfully and consciously worked to maintain and perpetuate White racist dominance and White Privilege.

    The “all whites aren’t privileged” argument is a non-starter for that fact alone.

  12. Restructure! Says:

    @Nquest: That’s pretty cool that you linked this to Obama’s assessment of race relations. Do you think Obama actually “buys” the White Victimhood argument, or that he is just repeating the white conversations he has overheard?

  13. Nquest Says:

    Do you think Obama actually “buys” the White Victimhood argument…

    I guess I did make that claim, didn’t I? Well, in his race speech he was “just repeating” it. At least that’s the only objective way to read the actual speech. He did, however, make his own “POC should be sensitive to the plight of not-so-well-of Whites weeks later in a campaign pitch I highlighted on my blog.

    My point really was more about POC, whether they (or Obama) “buy” or believe the White victimhood argument or not, actually promoting the argument, presenting it as something POC “should consider” in a way that decontextualizes the issue and, as I noted, ignores the role not-so-well-off Whites play in the whole scheme of things. The point I was trying to make was that “the power of (white) privilege” is such that POC internalize or adopt the arguments, accept (and promote) the terms established by Whites attempting to preserve their privilege.

    The question to me is not whether Obama “actually” buys the White Victimhood argument (since I’ve had to decide, I’d have to guess, on some level, he does given his “White people are losing their jobs too” attitude/statement) but rather the function repeating the argument plays. What is being communicated to POC when Obama or some other POC “repeats” the White Victimhood argument (in whatever form)?

    Those statements, as did Obama’s, exists in a context. A context much like the one’s you point out when Macon acribes some ostensibly honorable trait to Whites as a group (e.g. “sit quietly in movie theatres”). Somewhere in there, we know there’s a dig at POC. Somewhere, something POC is deemed less than honorable/acceptable/desirable.

    That’s clear to see in the passage I highlighted from Obama’s speech. You know, words that came out of his mouth, “echoes” included.

  14. Nquest Says:

    Further, from what I gather, this “all whites aren’t privileged” argument is (also) part of the interracial solidarity idea(l) — i.e. that people, Black, White, Asian, etc. should work together or, as Obama has more or less expressed, “have” to work together if we’re going to make our country/world what it should be. The problem I see is in (1) irresponsibly drawing a moral equivalence between the plight of POC and not-so-well-off, middle-class and lower class Whites and (2) blaming POC in effect, as Obama did, for not-so-well-off Whites’ situation or views on things.

    The overarching idea conveyed in Obama’s race speech is that the approach to talking about race that Rev. Wright has, no matter how justified it is by what he has faced in American society, is the “wrong” approach because it stirs up feelings of resentment in Whites apparently because it (Rev. Wright’s views on race/racism) points the fingers at Whites, even innocent, not-very-privileged Whites. That’s part of what Obama identified as a cause for our “racial stalemate.” That Whites misdirect their not-so-well-off angst and blame POC (instead of “the real culprits of the middle class squeeze”) for their economic woes escapes Obama’s concern for innocent people being blamed for something they aren’t the cause of. Whiteness, even not-so-well-off Whiteness, then is privileged.

    Notice there was no reflection on Obama’s part about how innocent POC must feel being scapegoated (a superior qualified POC gets a job but is assumed to be an “affirmative action” hire) and how that shows up in feelings of cross-racial resentment POC have…

    No. Only White resentment is so privileged and I have a real problem with POC privileging White resentment or “repeating” the White Victimhood argument as a legitimate consideration (which is what Obama did).

    Oh and back to answering your question directly, here’s the quote from a clip from an Obama campaign speech that I blogged about:

    “When we’re talking about White Americans, we… can’t pretend that they don’t have problems… everybody is having tough times.”

    http://nquest2xl.wordpress.com/2008/06/01/damn-you-barack-for-playing-the-poor-white-card/

    Now tell me what you think: do you think Obama actually “buys” the White Victimhood argument, or that he is just repeating the white conversations he has overheard?

    Note: Obama’s race speech and the clip I just quoted from aren’t the only times he’s “painted” Whites as victims. Nevertheless, my larger point is how certain POC (not just Obama) feel cross-racial solidarity must be achieved by highlighting White victimhood when those same POC speak ill of POC doing anything to highlight when and where they are “victims.”

    Yes, Obama says “we can’t pretend that they don’t have problems too” but, apparently, we can pretend their problems and our problems are all the same. We can also pretend, as I alluded to earlier, that the not-so-well-off Whites have nothing to do with promoting, preserving and perpetuating White Privilege and, as a result, the very problems POC are having that Obama, for example, doesn’t want POC to dwell on so much because they aren’t the only people with problems. White people have problems too.

    Which brings me to a point I wanted to make in my first post… Maybe its me but even when people note how men don’t get a “fair” shake in society (e.g. child custody and child support issues), those statements don’t seem to function as a way to deny the entire existence of male privilege the way the money-based arguments against the existence of white privilege do.

  15. Melungian Pride Says:

    “I think it depends on how much they can pass for white or pretend to be white. Ethnic background would be a different issue.”

    So you’re saying Italians and Jews aren’t “real” white people? How many other Euro-American ethnicities aren’t “real” white people to you? Do you understand what a can of worms this “who’s white” issue opens up in regard to the “white privilege” concept? How can we take the idea serious if the concept of “white” is so loose and subjective.

  16. Restructure! Says:

    So you’re saying Italians and Jews aren’t “real” white people?

    No. If there was a dark-skinned Italian that looked Indian, and a light-skinned Italian that looked white, the white Italian has white privilege, and the dark-skinned Italian does not. Ethnicity and race are different.

  17. Melungian Pride Says:

    skin color and race aren’t the same thing either. A “dark” Italian is still European/white by any reasonable definition of the word, just like light brown skinned sub-saharan Africans are still “black” in the racial sense. How dark is to dark for you? How about dark Welsh people? I understand you’re in Canada where you have a zealous Anglo-centric concept of “white” but here in the US things are much looser and sometimes even mixed European/East Asian people like Keanu Reeves and Dean Kane are thought of as white. We also have several non-European group with a higher per capita income than Euro-Americans, for example East Indians, Japanese, Persians and Filipinos. Police studies have shown that East Asians and Indians are less likely to be searched by the police for drugs and weapons during the course of a traffic stop than whites. In the US it’s more “non-Black” privilege than white privilege at this point.

  18. Restructure! Says:

    Melungian Pride,

    skin color and race aren’t the same thing either. A “dark” Italian is still European/white by any reasonable definition of the word,

    A dark-skinned Italian who looks Indian is not white in North America. Race is not the same as ethnicity; the person would still be of European ethnicity, but such a person would not pass as white.

    just like light brown skinned sub-saharan Africans are still “black” in the racial sense.

    Not really. Some anthropologists don’t consider San people “black”.

    I understand you’re in Canada where you have a zealous Anglo-centric concept of “white”

    This is wildly incorrect. Canada was colonized by both British and French people, and most white people here are of British or French heritage. Both English and French are official languages in Canada. The United States has a much more Anglo-centric concept of whiteness.

    but here in the US things are much looser and sometimes even mixed European/East Asian people like Keanu Reeves and Dean Kane are thought of as white.

    Incorrect again. Keanu Reeves is Canadian and grew up primarily in Toronto. Dean Kane is of French Canadian descent. Keanu Reeves identifies as white. They are both considered white by society because they pass as white. What does this have to do with U.S. versus Canada or Anglocentrism?

    We also have several non-European group with a higher per capita income than Euro-Americans, for example East Indians, Japanese, Persians and Filipinos.

    See Why are Asians successful? Are Asians smarter?

    Police studies have shown that East Asians and Indians are less likely to be searched by the police for drugs and weapons during the course of a traffic stop than whites. In the US it’s more “non-Black” privilege than white privilege at this point.

    Yet Asian Americans and Native Americans still face housing discrimination because they are not white.

  19. thordaddy Says:

    The fundamental questions aren’t being asked or answered.

    Even if white privilege exists, so what? How does Restructure make a principled argument for or against its continuation? How does he conclude whether its good or evil? Can he even make an assessment based on his first principles?

    Secondly, given the existence of white privilege, how does its existence then thwart the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of Restructure in 2009?

    If White Privilege is wrong then privileging my children over the children of black parents is an example of white privilege. Such a situation would force Restructure to concede that some forms of white privilege are legitimate. Where is the dividing line between acceptable white privilege and unacceptable white privilege and on what basis do you find yourself able to draw the line?

  20. Nquest Says:

    First of all, you need to figure out what you want to argue…

    “Even if white privilege exists, so what?”
    VS.
    “given the existence of white privilege”

    Make up your mind, Thordaddy.

    If White Privilege is wrong then privileging my children over the children of black parents is an example of white privilege. Such a situation would force Restructure to concede that some forms of white privilege are legitimate.

    No, she does not. Before you can draw any conclusions about what Restructure views as an example of White Privilege you would have to get off your self-stroking circle-reasoning merry-go-round and deal with what she views as examples of White Privilege. You definitely will have to do that before you decide what she will concede. And before any of that happens, actual/further “articulation” regarding what you’re referring to when you talk about privileging your children over Black children needs to occur.

    Invoking your children alone does nothing. All you’ve done is make a circular argument that YOU think there is “acceptable” vs. unacceptable White Privilege. So if anybody has to establish a basis for where to draw the line, you do.

    You’re the one who made up this whole straw man argument. Let’s see if you can fight your way out of your own wet paper tiger sack.

  21. thordaddy Says:

    Ye Ye,

    I can posit whether “white privilege” exists and I can also take it as a given per Restructure’s perspective.

    So again, what “white privilege” is legitimate and normal and what “white privilege” is abnormal and unacceptable?

    Or, is ALL “white privilege” wrong as is implied?

    Surely you can answer these questions too, YE YE?

  22. Nquest Says:

    Or, is ALL “white privilege” wrong as is implied?

    LOL

    Thanks for the circle jerk and for proving how Restructure has NOTHING to concede because YOU are the one wanting to assert/believe that certain kinds of White Privilege is “acceptable.”

    And, really, what’s the problem? Are you having acceptance issues? lol

    Obviously the way in which “all White Privilege is wrong” is implied suggests that your idiotic questions are non-starters. You can circle jerk yourself all night long trying to deny that White Privilege exists and, since you know you can’t win that argument… Well, you think you have that base covered by trying to assert that some White Privilege is “good.”

    But that’s not going to happen here. It is incumbent on you to establish one or the other. That means your lazy, skill-less azz will have to come with an straight-forward argument instead trying to use these dumb azz rhetorical questions hoping they will do your work for you.

    Again, you’re the one who wants to assert that there is some White Privilege that’s acceptable. You’ve already concluded that some White Privilege is good (and some evil) YOUR TERMS.

    So, Thordaddy:

    What principled argument can you make for the continued existence of White Privilege? How do conclude that the White Privilege discussed here is “good”? Please make an assessment based on your first principles and let me know whether your thoughts on affirmative action — you know, the thing that tries to say we are all equal which you apparently disagree with — are related to or a part of your “first principles.”

  23. thordaddy Says:

    Ye Ye,

    If I privilege my “white” children over a black parent’s children, i.e., I do things for them that give them advantage, then I have engaged in “white privilege.”

    You imply this is wrong and so it is self-evident that you’re crazy and would never practice what you preach.

    Or, does “white privilege” only exist in relation to blacks?

    Now, if you have some other example of “white privilege” then lay it out and tell us why it is wrong?

    White privilege exists and very few whites would consider this abnormal in a majority white nation.

    You are, in turn, attempting to introduce some radical thinking without any justification for such thinking.

    Why is “white privilege” wrong and immoral…? Because it doesn’t benefit Ye Ye and Ye Ye’s people?

  24. Nquest Says:

    Or, does “white privilege” only exist in relation to blacks?

    You’re the one who insisted on placing it in relation to Blacks. Stop asking me (or anybody else) questions you should be asking yourself.

    Now, if you have some other example of “white privilege” then lay it out and tell us why it is wrong?

    No, driftwood, it’s incumbent on you to make a straightforward argument or STFU!

    White privilege exists and very few whites would consider this abnormal in a majority white nation.

    Then skip all the circle jerk, driftwood, and just state how you don’t feel White Privilege is “abnormal.” Again, you’re the one trying to assert just that. You’re just now offering “a majority White nation” as your rationale for viewing White Privilege as ‘acceptable.”

    But look at how you dribble all over yourself….

    Why is “white privilege” wrong and immoral…? Try the U.S. Constitution, *homey.* Try basic principles of human rights.

    White Privilege is also wrong and immoral because your “a majority white nation” notion doesn’t justify anything. To use your type of logic…

    Where is the dividing line….?

    In places that are so-called “majority minority”, then what?
    When Whites no longer comprise the “majority”, then what?

    Women/females are the majority in the U.S. in terms of gender. Women form a greater majority on college campuses and, while a number of colleges admit male applicants at a higher rate than females just for the sake of gender balance, we don’t hear you talking about the redistribution of wealth expropriated from women and given to men.

    Why is “white privilege” wrong and immoral…? Because it doesn’t benefit Ye Ye and Ye Ye’s people?

    Get a clue, driftwood. One day you’re posing stupid questions like, “Why do you value AA if it helps everyone…?” and today you’re posing this idiotic rhetorical question.

    All you do is expose your mindset. With all the circular reasoning you can muster, you want to argue that there is some types of White Privilege that’s acceptable and that’s because you feel it “benefits” you. When you perceive that something doesn’t benefit you and “your people”, you play the victim and claim WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION that affirmative action is wrong, etc.

  25. thordaddy Says:

    Ye Ye,

    If I say I believe there is “white” privilege and you say you believe in “white privilege” then it is not necessary that we believe white privilege to be the same thing.

    Your idea of “white privilege” is a biased and prejudicial one. It’s largely based on what others have supposedly experienced and not what you have experienced first hand. Your “white privilege” is abnormal, immoral and hence evil. You embrace an abstract theory called “white privilege” and then you seek to subsume all white/PoC interaction within this theory via your subconscious liberalism.

    My “white” privilege is much simpler. It represents the normal interaction between white people. My white privilege passes evolutionary muster with ease and the only question left is whether it abides by God’s morality.

    Of course, this is where the dividing line starts to become visible between good white privilege and immoral white privilege.

    Yet, because I know nothing of your first principles, I can only speculate as to your rational justification for implying white privilege to be all bad. Certainly, this cannot be an evolutionary take. And so one wonders what god of yours rationalizes your stance?

  26. jwbe Says:

    I think there is one white privilege never? listed: Whites can be stupid and naive as hell, white society and racial preferences will help them out.

  27. nquest2xl Says:

    it is not necessary that we believe white privilege to be the same thing.

    It’s not possible to have a discussion about White Privilege when we are not. Equivocating will get you nowhere.

    Plus White Privilege is already well-defined here. Defined before you opened your mouth here. So defined that you rushed with fallacies in hand to manufacture a new definition to fit your obfuscating purposes.

    Regardless, the questions you posed don’t make any sense and can’t even begin to be legitimate questions worthy of answers if we’re not talking about the same thing.

    There is no way for someone to answer “do you like that car?” if you’re talking about Ford when they see a Chevy.

    This is basic stuff, driftwood.

    Even if white privilege exists, so what?

    It’s clear you already entered this thread viewing White Privilege as inherently WRONG. Otherwise there would be no reason for you to try to obfuscate and say, in effect, “regardless of how bad White Privilege is [i.e. given its existence], it doesn’t negatively impact the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of POC in 2009.”

    It wouldn’t make sense for you to ask: “given the existence of GOOD White Privilege, how does its existence then thwart the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of Restructure in 2009?”

    By definition, you call yourself trying to debunk what Restructure thinks about White Privilege. You can’t do that by defining White Privilege the way you want to. You will never debunk anything Restructure thinks by doing that.

  28. thordaddy Says:

    Ye Ye,

    You haven’t said one thing of import in the multitude of responses you’ve given.

    In fact, you avoid in all possible instances saying anything worthy of response.

    “White privilege” is an abstract theory that clowns like you have adopted from other whites. How’s that for irony?

    If “white privilege” is all bad then privilege itself must be bad or do you save that just for the white part?

    Again, what part of your “black supremacy” do you doubt the most…? The “black” part or the “supremacist” part?

  29. nquest2xl Says:

    If “white privilege” is all bad then privilege itself must be bad

    No. That does not follow. You suck at logic that’s why you’re always committing fatal fallacies. First, we have no idea which “White Privilege” you’re talking about (you were the one insisting on multiple definitions) and how you’re defining privilege.

    You can make all the blanket ASSUMPTIONS you want in your effort to obfuscate but none of your assumptions will be accepted because your motivation and goal (to obfuscate and be contrarian) are clear.

    or do you save that just for the white part?

    Dude, get the f-ck up out of kindergarten with that limp-wimp bs. Again, you reveal YOUR mindset. I done told you: make your questions relevant (i.e. base them on things I’ve actually said) or STFU!!

    Again, what part of your “black supremacy” do you doubt the most…?

    AGAIN??? Again implies that the question was asked previously. It was not. Trying so hard… you fall even harder.

    You are clearly out of your league, driftwood. But since you like lobbing softballs or pitching way off the plate, go ahead. Either way I’m driving home runs on your bush league azz.

    Now, run your mouth about “it is not necessary that we believe white privilege to be the same thing” again so I can illustrate just how stupid the stuff you say is. RUN YOUR MOUTH and ask me “Why is “white privilege” wrong and immoral…?” again.

    You dropped both of those lines real quick because you are simply out of your league!

  30. nquest2xl Says:

    If “white privilege” is all bad then privilege itself must be bad

    No. That does not follow. You suck at logic that’s why you’re always committing fatal fallacies. First, we have no idea which “White Privilege” you’re talking about (you were the one insisting on multiple definitions) and how you’re defining privilege.

    You can make all the blanket ASSUMPTIONS you want in your effort to obfuscate but none of your assumptions will be accepted because your motivation and goal (to obfuscate and be contrarian) are clear.

    or do you save that just for the white part?

    Dude, get the f-ck up out of kindergarten with that limp-wimp bs. Again, you reveal YOUR mindset. I done told you: make your questions relevant (i.e. base them on things I’ve actually said) or STFU!!

    Again, what part of your “black supremacy” do you doubt the most…?

    AGAIN??? Again implies that the question was asked previously. It was not. Trying so hard… you fall even harder.

    You are clearly out of your league, driftwood. But since you like lobbing softballs or pitching way off the plate, go ahead. Either way I’m driving home runs on your bush league azz.

    Now, run your mouth about “it is not necessary that we believe white privilege to be the same thing” again so I can illustrate just how stupid the stuff you say is. RUN YOUR MOUTH and ask me “Why is “white privilege” wrong and immoral…?” again.

    You dropped both of those lines real quick because you are simply out of your league! So out of your league, so overmatched… of course, you have no response. But then again, bs never does withstand scrutiny.

  31. thordaddy Says:

    Ye Ye,

    It doesn’t matter which “white privilege” we are discussing because YOU imply ALL “white privilege” is bad. Of course, that would include my “white” privilege, too!

    If all “white privilege” is bad then “privilege” is bad or you’ve just saved the evil for the “white” part. Can’t get around that logic, homeboy!

    Almost 40 years old and this dude thinks bringing T.O. trash talk to the internet is some kind of advance in “black” intellectualism.

    This dude KNOWS Barack Obama to be a believer in the “fundamental right” of a black mother to kill her black child in utero and still claims him a “Christian brother.”

    How can anything you say be believed, Ye Ye?

    This dude gives legitimacy to “black” anti-intellectualism with his KanYe West retorts.

    And this dude seriously doubts his “black supremacy.”

    Like I said, Uncle Tom ain’t got nothing on you, Ye Ye!

  32. nquest2xl Says:

    If all “white privilege” is bad then “privilege” is bad

    Your logic is backwards, at best. What you say simply does not follow.

    or you’ve just saved the evil for the “white” part.

    Evil is your word, driftwood. Since you’ve acknowledge how there is, in your mind, “good” and “bad” White Privilege then its obvious YOU view White Privilege, at least some of it, as EVIL. That’s your problem. That’s you saving the “evil for the white part.”

    What I’ve “saved” is this simple illustration:

    Citizenship is a privilege, driftwood, and it exists in a completely different context than White Privilege. To make a statement about White Privilege can, in no wise, be interpreted as a statement that applies equally to citizenship just because it is a “privilege.”

    Your logic sucks and is completely absurd.

    There is a particular socio-historical context that makes White Privilege WRONG. That same context does not apply to each and every other privilege. YOUR LOGIC SUCKS.

    Whenever you’re ready to leave kindergarten, let me know.

    YOU imply ALL “white privilege” is bad

    I’ve implied nothing. But in case I wasn’t clear for the rhetorically inane (and yet to graduate kindergarten — i.e. Thordaddy), ALL WHITE PRIVILEGE IS “BAD” and you got the country’s past and present to thank for it.

    Your logic is like saying “all dogs are bad” based on a person’s comments about pitbulls. IT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE. It simply fails all kinds of logical tests.

    So what you’re saying is equivalent to saying:

    If all [pitbulls] are bad then [all dogs] are bad

  33. nquest2xl Says:

    White Privilege is bad.
    Citizenship is a privilege.
    Therefore citizenship is bad.

    That’s some Thordaddy logic for you…. ROFLMAO!!

  34. nquest2xl Says:

    Thordaddy? What happened to you asking:

    “Why is “white privilege” wrong and immoral…?”

    I see your non-response, non-comeback as evidence that you are overmatched and out of your league.

  35. thordaddy Says:

    Ye Ye,

    I have no problem conceding that both good white privilege and bad white privilege exists. This concession represents nothing but an embrace of the truth.

    You on the other hand are selling something quite radical and you play this passive/aggressive role on how willing you are to admit to such thinking.

    You, like Restructure, are selling the idea that ALL “white privilege” is wrong/bad/immoral/evil or however else you wish to categorize it.

    This notion is as certainly false as one can be certain about such things. I’ve already provided you one such example of good white privilege and your retort is WHAT?

    GOOD WHITE PRIVILEGE DOESN’T EXIST!!!

    This is your radical theory and it is manifestly self-evident that your oppression and suffering racist injustice is in many regards a self-fulfilling prophecy necessitated by your belief system.

    If you believe there is NO GOOD “white privilege” then you must know that you will engender nothing but suspicion and hatred from those that KNOW good white privilege when they practice it. In fact, you are, along with your liberal white friends, helping whites to recognize what white privilege actually built and why you are so radically opposed to it.

    Again, with “black” friends like you, who needs white enemies like thordaddy?

  36. nquest2xl Says:

    I’ve already provided you one such example of good white privilege and your retort is WHAT?

    My response was: yours is THE FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION.

    “Again, it’s not possible to have a discussion about White Privilege when we are not [talking about the same thing]. Equivocating will get you nowhere.”

    you must know that you will engender nothing but suspicion and hatred

    Like I give a f-ck. Your kindergarten FALLACIES don’t impress or stress me.

    Like your questions: make your responses RELEVANT. You have read nothing I’ve said/written where I’ve appealed to White people, any White people, to “trust” (vs. suspicion) or “like/love” (vs. “hate”) me. So why you ever think this paper tiger rhetorical scare tactic of yours was going to work or was worth trying, I have no idea. I know you’re desperate, defeated and just plain driftwood but damn… I didn’t hit you that hard.

    you are… helping whites to recognize what white privilege actually built

    Driftwood, White DENIAL exists because no one needs to “help Whites recognize” anything. You wouldn’t be making a fool out of yourself if I had to “help” you recognize how you feel you benefit from a White majority society with a history of racism that continues to grant you [White] PRIVILEGE. You didn’t do a damn thing to make this a White majority society but you damn sure want to partake in “what white privilege actually built.”

    And you’re so pathetic as to want to project that kind of bs onto me.

    Why is “white privilege” wrong and immoral…? Because it doesn’t benefit Ye Ye and Ye Ye’s people?

    Such PROJECTION on your part stands in stark contradiction of your bs equivocating trying to manufacture, completely fabricate, this idea of “GOOD” White Privilege. Obviously you recognize ALL WHITE PRIVILEGE IS WRONG. Otherwise you would have no need to try to cast aspersions and color my motivation for against White Privilege as selfish and therefore bad. Again, you show YOUR mentality, not mine.

    And, again, your kindergarten FALLACIES don’t impress me, my dear desperate little piece of driftwood. Neither does you pathetic attempt to use the terms “radical” and “liberal” as curse words.

    Again, with “black” friends like you, who needs white enemies like thordaddy?

    I’m sure anyone you deem an enemy would celebrate such an announcement of assured victory for them. So, really, with enemies like Thordaddy? Who needs friends?

  37. nquest2xl Says:

    I’ve already provided you one such example of good white privilege…

    CORRECTION: You merely referred to some non-descript, vague bs about “privileging” your children.

    You said nothing specific about it that made it “good.” You merely invoked your children as if you were saying something self-evident. As if the White Privilege you were talking about was RELEVANT to this context. Certainly, it was not.

    NEXT!!!!!!!!!

  38. nquest2xl Says:

    If White Privilege is wrong then privileging my children over the children of black parents is an example of white privilege.

    This doesn’t even make sense, driftwood. You’re an equivocating fool with the lamest of word plays.

    Your kids are “white”, so when you “privilege” them that’s an example of white privilege. RE-fvckin-TARDED. That’s what that’s an example of.

    First of all, no one knows what the hell you’re referring to when you mention “privileging your children.” Second and more importantly… no one has made a statement about what constitutes White Privilege that would classify you “privileging” your children as an example of White Privilege.

    Your idea doesn’t fit the mold of what has been referred to here (samples from the source of the broken link in the OP):

    12. I can swear, or dress in second-hand clothes or not answer letters without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty, or the illiteracy of my race.

    17. I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider.

    19. If a traffic cop pulls me over, or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven’t been singled out because of my race.

    22. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having coworkers on the job suspect that I got it because of race.

    That’s more of that “corky” stuff and it’s clear the situational context is society at-large and not your individual family or how you treat or regard your children in relation to other people’s children.

    “Again, it’s not possible to have a discussion about White Privilege when we are not [talking about the same thing]. Equivocating will get you nowhere.”

  39. thordaddy Says:

    Ye Ye,

    It matters NOT ONE WIT what my definition of “white privilege” is if your definition is ALL-ENCOMPASSING.

    Your assertion that ALL “white privilege” is bad includes any and all definitions I could have put forth.

    No need for your fallacies and equivocations.

    I say there is good white privilege and bad white privilege.

    You say that there is only bad “white privilege” and concede that you’re a radical thinker.

    The only question is who has better grasp of the truth.

    It’s laughable that you’re so cocksure about your radically absolutist “white privilege” theory. So laughable that you are virtually conceding that black success must be an effect of this all-pervasive system.

  40. jwbe Says:

    >I say there is good white privilege and bad white privilege.

    Examples?

  41. thordaddy Says:

    It all depends on your perspective.

    Keeping one’s white child from all the negative consequences of diversity, i.e., racial strife, ambiguous identity, radical and hateful thinking, etc. is good white privilege.

    At the same time, shielding them from the all the negative consequences of diversity can lead to a bad white privilege if the negative aspects of diversity is all one can see and all a parent can teach his child.

    The lesson is a fine one that must distinguish between PoC with radical and hateful thinking like Ye Ye and other PoC that don’t undertake demand politics and walk around with a sense of entitlement and chip on their shoulder.

    Then again, this lesson to teach one’s child about the negatives of diversity includes teaching about the radical white liberals who push this totalitarian forced integration.

    So that’s why I say “white privilege” is a broadly defined term used to ENCOMPASS all white interaction. It’s meant to blur the difference between what is good and bad in whites interacting amongst each other and others. It’s also used to shield white liberals and black radicals from the scrutiny they so justly deserve with their radical thinking.

  42. jwbe Says:

    this what you are talking about isn’t white privilege but the abuse of your child/children (if you have any) for your own ideals and fears.

  43. thordaddy Says:

    jwbe,

    I guess we can add you to the list of radical thinkers that have no business dictating the course of our civilization.

    Does racial and ethnic diversity bring nothing but goodness? Is this your perverse claim?

    And… How does PoC “success” fit into your ALL-ENCOMPASSING model of “white privilege?”

    jwbe, don’t be a little intellectual nitwit like Ye Ye and not take account of the consequences of YOUR belief system.

  44. jwbe Says:

    >I guess we can add you to the list of radical thinkers that have no business dictating the course of our civilization.

    What is “our civilization”? Only your worldview? That of whites who are so afraid of others that they prefer bullsh+tting around?

    >Does racial and ethnic diversity bring nothing but goodness?  Is this your perverse claim?

    I am not looking for goodness, but justice.

    >And…  How does PoC “success” fit into your ALL-ENCOMPASSING model of “white privilege?”

    you mean what?

  45. thordaddy Says:

    jwbe says,

    What is “our civilization”? Only your worldview? That of whites who are so afraid of others that they prefer bullsh+tting around?

    If you see yourself outside “our” civilization then why do you lament being treated as an outsider? Once again, and just like Ye Ye, you believe you need not be responsible for the consequences of your own beliefs.

    I am not looking for goodness, but justice.

    If justice is not fundamentally good then what is it? If you’re not looking for the good and true then you are NOT looking for justice.

    you mean what?

    If “white privilege” is an ALL-EMCOMPASSING and thoroughly pervasive paradigm then your very life, liberty to spew and pursuit of hatredness is a result of “white privilege” bestowed upon you.

    Unless, of course, you want to concede that “white privilege” is limited and avoidable? Meaning, YOU are free to dodge its oppression and be indifferent to its racism. Meaning that the bad white privilege neither ensures your success nor guarantees your failure.

    Likewise, you can recognize the good aspects of white privilege and how deep inside you envy the community it has built. A community that you now seek to build bestowing “PoC privilege.” Am I wrong?

  46. Nquest Says:

    ((())) Likewise, you can recognize the good aspects of white privilege and how deep inside you envy the community it has built. A community that you now seek to build bestowing “PoC privilege.” Am I wrong?

    ROFLMAO!!!

    JWBE, I guess you will have to turn in your White card since Thordaddy has you pegged as someone who is not White. You know, since “you are free to dodge its [White Privilege’s] oppression and be indifferent to its [White Privilege’s] racism.” You know, since you are the target of said oppression and racism.

    HIL-freakin-LARIOUS!!!

    ((())) If “white privilege” is an ALL-EMCOMPASSING and thoroughly pervasive paradigm then your very life, liberty to spew and pursuit of hatredness is a result of “white privilege” bestowed upon you.

    The definition of driftwood. Even you don’t know what the f-ck you mean by a “thoroughly pervasive paradigm.” This is just more of your standard bs where you throw any random set of words together hoping people who read them will be dazzled by your uncanny ability to bs. When will you learn that nobody is or has ever been impressed by your bs but your 1st grade teacher…

    Also, no one has presented White Privilege as a “thoroughly pervasive paradigm” if it was ever presented as a paradigm at all. So your “if” is full of sh*t and just got its butt kicked. As a result, your “then” is just like you… just DRIFTING in the water/wind…

    And, really? How can White Privilege bestow something on someone? especially someone you obviously believed to be a POC? Likewise, how can White Privilege be “avoidable” for someone you obviously believed to be a POC when White Privilege isn’t something they possess or something that does something to them that they would want to avoid?

    Gibberish is not accepted/acceptable. STFU until you know what the hell you’re talking about.

    White Privilege is a description of a reality (examples #12, #17, #19 and #22 above). The term is used to describe a quality/property that a certain group in our society possesses that other group(s) don’t. For someone who doesn’t possess White Privilege, even if White Privilege did anything but EXISTS… White Privilege can’t “bestow” a damn thing on them because they don’t have it.

  47. Nquest Says:

    When one line of bs doesn’t work…

    ((())) you must know that you will engender nothing but suspicion and hatred

    Leave it to a piss-his-pants incompetent like Thordaddy to come up with another line of bs:

    ((())) PoC with radical and hateful thinking

    Oh, those LIONS, TIGERS and BLACK BEARS!!! Oh, my!!

    ROFLMAO!!!

    Thordaddy, don’t blame me for your f-ck ups. I can’t help if you EXPOSED yourself a long time ago when you decried affirmative action because, according to you, it was/is “the attempt to claim we’re all really equal.”

    “Afterall, no one says thordaddy believes in equality.”

    Don’t try to project your mindset onto me. You EXPOSE you when you make these unfounded remarks about me (who/what the hell is “Ye Ye”, driftwood?) being a “black supremacists” and someone with “hateful” thinking ALL BECAUSE you want to distract from your own way of thinking that you’re obviously half embarrassed to articulate/claim.

    Don’t be scared… Be proud of the f-ck up you are.

  48. Restructure! Says:

    Wow. Maybe it’s a good thing that I’m having internet connection problems.

    thordaddy,

    I don’t know what the heck you’re talking about. I think you’re trying to say that since privilege benefits somebody, then that privilege is “good”. But that’s like saying that since carrion benefits vultures, then carrion itself is “good”.

    This reminds me of Plato’s Republic, in which Socrates mockingly asks:

    if Polydamas is stronger than we are, and if it is in his interest as an athlete to take only red meat at his meals, then taking only red meat at our meals would be the just thing for us to do?

    Like Socrates to Thrasymachus, I don’t know WTF thordaddy is trying to say.

  49. Nquest Says:

    ((())) thordaddy, I don’t know what the heck you’re talking about.((()))

    And you never will until you realize that you’re dealing with somebody (Thordaddy) who comprehends things on a sub-1st grade, kindergarten grade level.

    ((())) I think you’re trying to say that since privilege benefits somebody, then that privilege is “good”. ((()))

    All you need to know is his lame word-play M.O.

    From the Instant Classic files:

    When one talks of AA it is best to think clearly what it means. Affirmative Actions are acts of affirmation.

    What do these acts of affirmation tell us? They tell us there are those that act to affirm and those that are affirmed. Seen in this light, modern liberalism and black radicalism form a nexus . . .

    And so what you have is a three-card monte where the mark is getting played by the affirmers and the affirmed. The mark is badgered to become an affirmer by those that claim belief in liberty while simultaneously he is demonized by those that demand his affirmation in the name of securing their freedom.

    Simply put, he just learned the meaning of the word “privilege” but doesn’t have the intellectual depth or knowledge to know how the word is used in non pre-K literature (i.e. every time he tries to pull one of these lame word-plays he dumbs himself down even lower than the low aptitude level he previously achieved).

  50. Nquest Says:

    Hmmm….

    So that’s why I say “white privilege” is a broadly defined term used to ENCOMPASS all white interaction. It’s meant to blur the difference between what is good and bad in whites interacting amongst each other and others. It’s also used to shield white liberals and black radicals from the scrutiny they so justly deserve with their radical thinking.

    Evidence that driftwood (Thordaddy) doesn’t know WTF he’s talking about. White Privilege is not about “all white interaction” (see my 8:22 pm post above).

    Also, you just got caught in your own crossfire:

    “white privilege” is a broadly defined term… meant to blur the difference between what is good and bad in whites…”

    Never mind the curious “good and bad IN WHITES” rhetoric…

    “You embrace an abstract theory called “white privilege” and then you seek to subsume all white/PoC interaction within this theory”

    Never mind how he attributed/confused his faux “white privilege” concept to me… (Note: Earlier, he explicitly stated that his “white” privilege concept “represents the normal interaction between white people.”)

    Never mind that stuff… Just take note of how he was calling my/our definition and understanding of White Privilege anything but “broad”:

    I say there is good white privilege and bad white privilege.

    You say that there is only bad “white privilege”…

    It’s laughable that you’re so cocksure about your radically absolutist “white privilege” theory…

    This whole time driftwood has been pleading with me to BROADEN the definition/understanding of White Privilege so there will be enough wiggle room for him to say, “it’s not all bad.”

    Now you can reflect on the never mind’s listed above and ask why that might be. Well, with the lame way he and other Whites like to personalize things referred to in a social/sociological context, we know how a White person making the argument that “it’s not all bad” is really a statement saying “I’m not all bad.” Hence, Thordaddy’s statement alleging that “White Privilege” as a concept is “meant to blur the difference between what is good and bad IN WHITES.”

  51. jwbe Says:

    @Thordaddy,

    you wrote:
    >Does racial and ethnic diversity bring nothing but goodness? Is this your perverse claim?

    and
    >If justice is not fundamentally good then what is it? If you’re not looking for the good and true then you are NOT looking for justice.

    Therefore, for you justice is perverse.

  52. Nquest Says:

    Since JWBE’s post made me look at this mess again…

    you can recognize the good aspects of white privilege and . . . the community it has built.”

    White Privilege hasn’t “built” anything, fool!! White Privilege is what has been “built” — built into the fabric of a society with long-standing “diversity” issues. Like centuries long diversity issues.

    Hey, I hear there’s a lot of GOOD liberals/liberalism in American history and in contemporary times. Since Thordaddy is an expert on that, I’ll let him expound on it.

  53. jwbe Says:

    >If you see yourself outside “our” civilization

    define “our civilization”

    >Once again, and just like Ye Ye, you believe you need not be responsible for the consequences of your own beliefs.

    Once again you talk just trash, fighting with your own hallucinations. The world you create around you does not exist.

  54. thordaddy Says:

    Ye Ye, Restructure, jwbe…

    I guess we have to take it one step at a time…

    Is ALL “white privilege” bad/immoral/wrong/evil?

    Yes or no?

    Is “white privilege” an ALL-ENCOMPASSING and ALL-PERVASIVE PARADIGM?

    Yes or no?

    These are basic, straightforward questions that can easily be answered so as to understand your fundamental worldviews.

    P.S. I won’t hold my breath waiting for Ye Ye to finally answer a question that he can actually be challenged on.

  55. Nquest Says:

    ((())) Is ALL “white privilege” bad/immoral/wrong/evil?

    Your question has already been answered. You can ask the same question over and over and the answer will still be the same. YOU CAN READ:

    I’ve implied nothing. But in case I wasn’t clear… ALL WHITE PRIVILEGE IS “BAD”

    I did not stutter. Why are you st-st-st-stuttering? You’re still st-st-st-stuck in 1st gear. Also…

    Obviously you recognize ALL WHITE PRIVILEGE IS WRONG.

    I know you read that. I know you EXPOSED that. Now STFU until you have an intelligent comeback — i.e. a response to advance the conversation instead of begging for a Mulligan.

    ((())) Is “white privilege” an ALL-ENCOMPASSING and ALL-PERVASIVE PARADIGM?

    READ and REACT, driftwood.

    Even you don’t know what the f-ck you mean by a “thoroughly pervasive paradigm.”

    … no one has presented White Privilege as a “thoroughly pervasive paradigm” if it was ever presented as a paradigm at all.

    … White Privilege is a description of a reality (examples #12, #17, #19 and #22 above). The term is used to describe a quality/property that a certain group in our society possesses that other group(s) don’t.

    Easy to understand. Easily dismantling the whatever argument you tried to advance with all that gibberish.

    Seriously, go get your big brother or whoever put you up to this. All you’re doing is embarrassing yourself and making a mockery out of whatever you think your argument/beliefs are. Surely people who think like you can’t be this sorry.

    I’m f-ckin’ pissed off because they sent the dumbest mf out the whole damn bunch.

  56. Restructure! Says:

    Is ALL “white privilege” bad/immoral/wrong/evil?

    It doesn’t make sense. White privilege itself isn’t “bad”. What is bad is inequity and privilege inequality.

    Is “white privilege” an ALL-ENCOMPASSING and ALL-PERVASIVE PARADIGM?

    I don’t understand the question, and the term “paradigm” has been overly abused. It used to refer to Kuhn’s philosophy of science, but I don’t know why “paradigm” is used to refer to white privilege.

  57. thordaddy Says:

    Ye Ye says,

    ALL WHITE PRIVILEGE IS “BAD”. Once again Ye Ye exposes his radical, i.e. FALSE, belief system.

    And Restructure says,

    White privilege itself isn’t “bad”.

    So it is clear that two individuals who profess the belief in the notion of “white privilege” AREN’T actually talking about the same thing.

    Can you two clear up what “white privilege” means over and beyond the self-evident meaning of the phrase?

    Restructure,

    Is “white privilege” something YOU can avoid and step outside of? If not, then you are claiming “white privilege” to be an ALL-ENCOMPASSING and ALL-PERVASIVE PARADIGM, no?

  58. Restructure! Says:

    Sorry about the broken link to the seminal article on white privilege. Here is another link to the same thing: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html

    Restructure,

    Is “white privilege” something YOU can avoid and step outside of? If not, then you are claiming “white privilege” to be an ALL-ENCOMPASSING and ALL-PERVASIVE PARADIGM, no?

    Again, what you are saying here doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t have white privilege, because I am not white. Talk of stepping outside of white privilege doesn’t make sense, because I am not “in” it.

    You know what? The whole white-privilege-as-an-environment doesn’t even make sense. It is more accurate to say that white privilege is something that whites have, not something that they are “in”.

  59. Nquest Says:

    Once again Ye Ye exposes his radical, i.e. FALSE, belief system.

    That’s even sad for you, driftwood. Radical = false. LOL
    You can mouth the words but you can’t make the argument. FALLACIES don’t count. Stop st-st-st-stuttering and go get your big brother.

    Re: “Belief system”… NOT. Again, White Privilege is an observation and description of a reality. According to Deacon Blue, you have acknowledged that reality:

    “whites give special privileges to other whites over any other race”

  60. Nquest Says:

    RESTRUCTURE: It is more accurate to say that white privilege is something that whites ***have****

    NQUEST: The term is used to describe a quality/property that a certain group in our society ***possesses***

    Thordaddy, that’s your SHUT THE F-CK UP with a dash of “clear up” for the day. Now go get your big brother or another one of the idiots like you…. get somebody without a stuttering problem (and someone with some skills).

  61. thordaddy Says:

    Restructure,

    Are you free to avoid or be indifferent to “bad” white privilege? If so, why do discussions of “white privilege” interest you?

    Do you believe there is good “white privilege” contrary to what Ye Ye and jwbe believe?

  62. thordaddy Says:

    Ye Ye,

    If “white privilege” is something “white” people possess and ALL “white privilege” is BAD, then even a knucklehead like you can draw the false logical consequence of YOUR OWN BELIEF SYSTEM.

  63. thordaddy Says:

    Ye Ye,

    It’s poor habit to quote Deacon Blue and then attribute the quote to me. Maybe that’s “Black man’s privilege?”

  64. Restructure! Says:

    I refuse to ascribe normative values to descriptive facts about the world. I do not and will not rate “white privilege” in terms of good versus bad (I’m not a conservative and I don’t need to think in terms of good versus bad to make sense of things). White privilege is “bad” in the sense that it is unfair that whites have an unearned advantage over non-white people. It is not “bad” in a universal sense, as it can be argued that maintaining white privilege is “good” for whites in the short term, at least. But asking me if white privilege is universally good or bad is like asking me if “unfair advantage” is good or bad. It may be “good” for those who have the unfair advantage and “bad” for those do not have the unfair advantage. What of it? Trying to assign value to “white privilege” or “unfair advantage” abstracted away from the privileged and unprivileged, the advantaged and disadvantaged, is meaningless, irrelevant, and completely misses the point.

  65. Nquest Says:

    even a knucklehead like you can draw the false logical consequence of YOUR OWN BELIEF SYSTEM

    Another example of how you can mouth the words (this time, words that are semi-coherent) but can’t make the argument.

    Like I said…

    Even you don’t know what the f-ck you mean by a “thoroughly pervasive paradigm.”

    And you were on Deacon Blue’s blog abusin’ the hell out of the word “paradigm” knowing you just learned the words a few days before you posted it. Seriously… WHERE IS YOUR BROTHER??

    What? He’s sitting in the corner with you? All damn…
    http://theblacksentinel.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/idiot.gif?w=400&h=300

    Will the real NORSE men please stand up?

  66. Nquest Says:

    Dude, seriously…

    http://theblacksentinel.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/thordaddy-white-privilege-at-its-worst/

  67. thordaddy Says:

    Restructure,

    If I imitated the junevile profanity-laden rants of Ye Ye, would we be witness to an example of “black privilege?”

    How can such a blatantly anti-intellectual blemish go unremarked on your blog? Is this, again, an example of “black privilege?”

    When you say,

    I refuse to ascribe normative values to descriptive facts about the world.

    You mean you attempt to make no judgment about the ubiquitous nature of “white privilege?”

    For instance, that ALL white people have “white privilege.” Why would this self-evident fact (every bit as self-evident as black people having “black privilege”) interest you to the point of making no value judgments?

    When Ye Ye claims the following:

    ALL WHITE PRIVILEGE IS “BAD”

    The term [white privilege] is used to describe a quality/property that a certain group in our society ***possesses***

    He is spreading falsehood on your blog and in your name. Because both of you have virtually conceded that “white privilege” is woven into the very fabric of “white” society (all white people have/possess “it”), then any attempts to eradicate it (what one does to “bad” things) would require the eradication of privilege, whites or both. Since the eradication of “privilege” would be self-defeating then the logical necessity appears. That’s why I caution more moderately-minded individuals like yourself against quitely assenting to the raving lunacy of a Ye Ye. His radical extermination ideology is nearly suicidal. Afterall, this dude claims Barack Obama to be his “Christian brother.” Do Christian brothers profess the “fundamental right” of a black mother to kill her child in utero? I guess we could add charlatan to the Ye Ye resume.

  68. thordaddy Says:

    Ye Ye,

    If you walk in a store and catch me staring at you, did I actually look at you, first?

    In reality, YOU looked at me FIRST and then PERCEIVED me staring at you. The best you can claim is that we looked at each other simultaneously. You could never claim with certainty that I looked upon you first.

    Consequently, your “perception” often deludes you into thinking that the white boy was looking at you when you were really looking at the white boy. This is the “paradigm” in which you reside.

    P.S. Why are you not answering my queries on your blog?

  69. jwbe Says:

    thordaddy, another example of white privilege is that people like you understand nothing and know nothing and nonetheless it is people like you who get in many cases high paid leading jobs. Judge on your own whether you consider the fact that idiots can lead companies, just because they are white and male.
    With your question if wp is “bad” or “good” you ask if injustice is “bad” or “good” and somebody like you who considers justice as perverse also the end of white privilege would be perverse. It is perverse for you because that would mean that you finally had to take responsibility for your own sick life and you know that you then would be nobody, somewhere at the bottom, nobody supporting you any longer just because of your skin-color but actually judged by your skills, which don’t exist. Your poor life would explode in your face.

  70. thordaddy Says:

    jwbe,

    Yet another “white privilege” = injustice ideologue…

    So I ask, are you looking to eradicate “privilege,” whites or both?

    And just because you don’t take your beliefs to their radically logical conclusion doesn’t mean I don’t either. In fact, it would be awful “racist” of me to think that you really didn’t in your private spare time. You’re wolf in sheep’s clothing, my “friend.” And that’s why you and Ye Ye rage!

  71. Lxy Says:

    So I ask, are you looking to eradicate “privilege,” whites or both?

    This boy keeps on asking this question like he’s afraid of something.

    Sounds like a guilty White conscience to me.

    Deep down, he knows Whites have committed crimes on a grand scale against non-Whites (e.g. chattel slavery, Native Indian genocide, the current Western wars of aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan, etc).

    Personally, I think that White people should be treated as they have treated others.

    But that what you fear, isn’t it?

    Reap as you have sown.

  72. Nquest Says:

    He is spreading falsehood on your blog and in your name.

    Once again, the definition of DRIFTWOOD.

    Gimmicks without substance NEVER work, Thordaddy. But this is the END of your NEGATIVE ATTENTION. When you try that pre-K con-artist bs and try to indict/persuade somebody, Restructure in this case, by referring to something I said that they/she already has been demonstrated to agree with… why, you’re like a bee without a stinger — i.e. too stupid to realize that you will never have an effect no matter how many times you try to take a stab at it.

    ((())) Since the eradication of “privilege” would be self-defeating then the logical necessity appears.

    More driftwood logic — i.e. unfounded bs.

    But thanks for EXPOSING yourself, once again. White Supremacy is a sickness, Thordaddy. All your rationalizations (White Privilege is “good” and “normal”) are manifestation of your sickness — evidence of your self-conscious inadequacy. And you’re so sick that you feel you can’t live without White Privilege.

    Such is your No White Privilege = No White People logic which is more like Kill White Privilege = Kill White People cause everybody knows White people can’t live without White Privilege = your mindset EXPOSED.

    Apparently, your whole self-concept (and self-worth) is predicated on a lie and you would choose death if you couldn’t live without that lie.

  73. jwbe Says:

    Thordaddy,

    >So I ask, are you looking to eradicate “privilege,” whites or both?

    And this is projecting your white mindset. The little spoiled child which can’t deal with reality and has to build a fictional world full of lies. Thank your parents what they did to you, you are unable to have the balls to look inside your own wasted life.
    You are afraid because already the word ‘justice’ is a nightmare for you because you know that whites have always used the term ‘justice’ to justify white cruelty.
    And while you believe that there is something like “good” white privilege and while you are confused by Eurocentrism and are afraid of the extermination of whites by PoC you probably celebrate white inventions as progress while in reality these inventions are the ones which truly threaten not only your life but all of us on this world. Racist whites appear like cows in a stampede running away from an assumed threat directly into the abyss created on their own. And this you call intelligence and individualism.

  74. thordaddy Says:

    Restructure,

    Are you going to allow these radical exterminationist ideologues to soil your blog?

    Ironically, it’s almost certain that Lyx, Ye Ye, jwbe and perhaps you all support the single, most powerful black man as the new face for the legitimization of the “fundamental right” of a black woman to kill her child in utero. Ye Ye calls him his “Christian brother.” What a charlatan!

    What’s more interesting is they all do this while claiming my desire to do such things. Such things that THEY AGREE FUNDAMENTALLY AGREE WITH. Although, even a cursory glance at my writings on the internet will show I am thoroughly against such “fundamental right” even for black women.

    But this leads to something else quite interesting. If I were to support the killing of future black progeny like The President, Ye Ye, Lyx and jwbe while opposing the killing of white progeny, and I called myself a Christian, not only would you guys accuse me of “white privilege,” but you would accuse me of the worst kind of racism. I would be “racist” for agreeing that black woman had a “fundamental right” to kill her child in utero. I would be racist for agreeing with the collective black mentality and their new president.

    That’s the twisted nature of the collective black intellect in 2009.

  75. thordaddy Says:

    Restructure,

    (needed editing)

    Are you going to allow these radical exterminationist ideologues to soil your blog?

    Ironically, it’s almost certain that Lyx, Ye Ye, jwbe and perhaps you all support the single, most powerful black man as the new face for the legitimization of the “fundamental right” of a black woman to kill her child in utero. Ye Ye calls him his “Christian brother.” What a charlatan!

    What’s more interesting is they all do this while claiming my desire to do such things. Such things that THEY FUNDAMENTALLY AGREE WITH. Although, even a cursory glance at my writings on the internet will show I am thoroughly against such “fundamental right” even for black women.

    But this leads to something else quite interesting. If I were to support the killing of future black progeny like The President, Ye Ye, Lyx and jwbe while opposing the killing of white progeny, and I called myself a Christian, not only would you guys accuse me of “white privilege,” but you would accuse me of the worst kind of racism. I would be “racist” for agreeing that black woman had a “fundamental right” to kill her child in utero. I would be racist for agreeing with the collective black mentality and their new president.

    That’s the twisted nature of the collective black intellect in 2009.

  76. jwbe Says:

    Thordaddy,
    men being against abortion is in reality men being against the self-determination of women and the belief that men would have any right over a women’s body.

    The rest of your blahblah, you are nothing else than a psycho.

  77. thordaddy Says:

    jwbe,

    Don’t confuse yourself… You support the “fundamental right” of a M[other]oC to kill her child in utero. This aligns you with the new president and has you standing side by side with the new and most powerful face for black/PoC culling.

    So everything else you say HAS to be seen in this context. I’m sure it makes you sick to your stomach to know that you’re in such a state of twisted thinking. You know, blaming others for their supposed “genocidal” intentions while you openly support the real killing of your “own” people.

  78. jwbe Says:

    >Don’t confuse yourself… You support the “fundamental right” of a M[other]oC to kill her child in utero. This aligns you with the new president and has you standing side by side with the new and most powerful face for black/PoC culling.

    I don’t confuse myself, I support the right of all women to their own body. Why do you only talk about PoC as if whites don’t abort? But I don’t only support a woman’s right to her own body but I am also for the independence of women from men and don’t support marriage. You know, there are so many studies why there are so high divorce rates and declining marriage rates etc., but nobody has the courage to say the one fact of it directly: Women today in the Western world can lead their own lifes and don’t have to marry idiots. Women today can make choices and this hits some men quite hard.

    >You know, blaming others for their supposed “genocidal” intentions while you openly support the real killing of your “own” people.

    Do you even read the answers you get? Or do you just enjoy your psycho-rants on different blogs throughout the internet?

  79. thordaddy Says:

    jwbe,

    I don’t care if you support the right of women to “own” their bodies. You still support the “fundamental right” of a Mother of Color to kill HER child in utero.

    If this isn’t support for the genocide of PoC then what is it???

    Like I told Ye Ye… With friends like you, who needs “enemies” like thordaddy?

    So not only do you have nefarious intentions for white people, but you also explicitly support the culling of PoC and dress it up nicely with the notion that such killing is really women owning their bodies. You seem to be another supremacist of the colored kind just like Ye Ye.

  80. jwbe Says:

    Thordaddy, tell me something about white America’s schools. Explain why so many whites suffer so severly from basic comprehension and reading skills. What do you learn at school?

  81. thordaddy Says:

    jwbe says,

    Explain why so many whites suffer so severly from basic comprehension and reading skills.

    LOL! How does one suffer from “basic comprehension and reading skills?”

    Do you support Mothers of Color that kill their children in utero?

    Yes or no?

    If yes, then do you support the genocide of PoC?

  82. jwbe Says:

    should be suffer from the lack of basic…, means that most whites I came across on internet can’t comprehend what they read.

    explain what white Americans learn at their schools and why this kind of non-intelligence is so wide-spread among white Americans?

    Your phantasies about an alleged genocide indicates that you understand exactly nothing and I won’t waste my time to explain it to a psycho like you

  83. thordaddy Says:

    jwbe,

    Most whites in the American public school system are learning “equality” and “non-discrimination.” Is it therefore any surprise that they know little and comprehend less?

    Meaning, kids are learning to be liberal and they’re all the dumber for it. They learn that abortion is a woman owning her body as opposed to the reality that it is a mother killing her child. In fact, the kids are learning “white privilege” is ALL bad, too!

    Seems like you’ve received a public education, no?

  84. jwbe Says:

    >Is it therefore any surprise that they know little and comprehend less?

    you mean, that most white Americans don’t understand equality and non-discrimination despite the fact that they learn it at school? What’s the problem with you?
    But nonetheless, what does this have to do with your non-existent comprehension skills? It seems to be endemic in white America.

    >kids are learning to be liberal

    define liberal. But as we all already know, you can’t because you don’t understand the words you use.

    >They learn that abortion is a woman owning her body as opposed to the reality that it is a mother killing her child.

    Men should educate their male friends that they leave their penis were it belongs. Men are so eager to forget this necessary part which is needed to make little babies. Oh but wait, this wouldn’t be fun for you.

  85. Restructure! Says:

    thordaddy,

    I am not a moderate. I am of far left, which simply means that my political views are far left from the political center or the status quo. I may even fit into the radical left category, since I think that society should be radically restructured.

    Nquest was quite right when he noted that your comment, “Once again Ye Ye exposes his radical, i.e. FALSE, belief system” contains yet another (laughable) fallacy. The fallacy is the Fallacy of Moderation.

    You use ‘radical’ like it’s a pejorative, as if the fallacy of moderation was not a fallacy.

    A pregnant WoC is not necessarily a MoC, because her fetus is not a child.

  86. thordaddy Says:

    Restructure says,

    …because her fetus is not a child.

    Nothing like witnessing another black woman adopting radical white liberal orthodoxy to go along with other white liberal theories like “white privilege.”

    Can a black mother really define HER child in utero out of existence?

    And on the definition of radical, if one espouses false beliefs and does so knowingly, he isn’t crazy, but radical.

    You’ve already conceded that Ye Ye espouses a false belief (ALL white privilege is bad) and I give him the benefit of the doubt in that he does so knowingly. Hence, he is a radical. Again, no need for your fallacies of moderation because those that seek truth don’t do so in moderate fashion.

  87. thordaddy Says:

    jwbe,

    You’re clearly out of tune with America and its details and so I’ll only respond when you say something substantial.

    But as a short lesson, modern liberalism can best be understood by its first principles. Those principles are “equality” and “nondiscrimination.” And it’s not hard to see its imprint all over your writing. Problem is, it doesn’t really say anything. And how could it…? It’s beholden to “equality” and “nondiscrimination.” But then it’s not… Such is the nature of the pure liberal.

  88. Restructure! Says:

    thordaddy,

    Here is the definition of radical:

    In politics, someone who demands substantial or extreme changes in the existing system.

    Here is a more detailed explanation:

    In politics, one who desires extreme change of part or all of the social order. The term (which derives from the Latin word for “root,” and thus implies change beginning at a system’s roots) was given this sense by Charles James Fox in 1797 when he demanded “radical reform” consisting of universal manhood suffrage. In France before 1848, republicans and advocates of universal male suffrage were called radicals. The term was later applied to Marxists (see Marxism) who called for fundamental social change to eradicate divisions among social classes. In popular usage, it is applied to political extremism, not necessarily violent, of both the left and the right.

    In other words, that word doesn’t mean what you think it means.

    Hey, I am a radical after all.

  89. jwbe Says:

    >You’re clearly out of tune with America and its details and so I’ll only respond when you say something substantial.

    thats also a way to avoid answering questions.
    You are the one out of touch with reality

    >Can a black mother really define HER child in utero out of existence?

    why are you so obsessed with black? White mothers don’t exist for you when it comes to abortion? Why not?

  90. thordaddy Says:

    jwbe,

    If blacks are going to wax eloquent about a revisionist “genocide” then clearly their collective assent to self-annihilation and overwhelming support for the new, most powerful face for the legitimization of black mothers killing their child in utero is a potent topic for discussion. You CAN’T see this???

    Plus, why would I talk about white abortion when I already oppose it on the very same grounds, but without the extra history involved?

  91. thordaddy Says:

    Restructure,

    I’ll just chalk your answers up to “black privilege” in action. But I won’t claim this is an evil thing in need of eradication.

  92. Lxy Says:

    I am not a moderate. I am of far left, which simply means that my political views are far left from the political center or the status quo. I may even fit into the radical left category, since I think that society should be radically restructured.

    Nquest was quite right when he noted that your comment, “Once again Ye Ye exposes his radical, i.e. FALSE, belief system” contains yet another (laughable) fallacy. The fallacy is the Fallacy of Moderation.

    You use ‘radical’ like it’s a pejorative, as if the fallacy of moderation was not a fallacy.

    Good point about the fallacy of moderation. Many people believe that so-called politcal moderation is intrinsically correct or good, and that radicalism is a perjorative.

    By this logic, if one group said that the earth is flat and another group said that the earth is round, then the moderate position between these two “radical” extremes would be the right one. The Earth is … um … a flat sphere?!

    The fallacy of moderation also does not question WHO has the power to define what counts as politically “moderate” or “radical” to begin with.

    And Thorboy has a strange obsession with the idea of “eradication.” Could this be a case of psychological projection?

  93. thordaddy Says:

    Lyx,

    When one is talking about the embracing of truth then moderation has no relevance. Furthermore, if one is not committed to embracing the truth then he is either crazy or radical. The difference being that the crazy man embraces falsehoods unknowingly while the radical promotes falsehoods knowingly.

    If one claims BO to be a “Christian brother” or one claims that “her fetus is not a child” or one asserts that “all white privilege is bad” then the one who makes such false claims is either crazy or radical. I give those that make the above claims the benefit of the doubt in that they knew exactly what they were propagating. That’s why they and perhaps you are so radical.

  94. thordaddy Says:

    Lyx,

    Clearly you can’t follow the logical outcome of claiming “all white privilege is bad.” You seem unable to grasp that people usually seek to eradicate “bad” things when they’re not embracing them. And in this case, no one is concerned about embracing “white privilege.” And so some of us can’t assume that everyone who thinks like ye ye would be so spineless as to refuse to take their belief system to its logical conclusion.

    What do you believe and what do you plan to do about it?

  95. Nquest Says:

    one asserts that “all white privilege is bad” then the one who makes such false claims

    There is nothing false about the statement that “ALL White Privilege Is Bad.” You can’t even maintain your FALSE PRETENSE that some White Privilege is “good” in an argument you initiated here by asking us:

    is ALL “white privilege” wrong as is implied?

    You can’t refer to what somebody else says then insert your own self-serving definition. YOUR QUESTION was about the White Privilege ALREADY REFERENCED. As such, the ONLY definition for White Privilege up for discussion was the one alluded to in the OP — the one your question referenced and questioned regarding what was IMPLIED… in the OP (i.e. not whatever FALLACY you were prepared to use to OBFUSCATE).

  96. jwbe Says:

    Thordaddy,

    >White privilege exists and very few whites would consider this abnormal in a majority white nation.

    Why do you think it should be normal to privilege a majority group?

    >My “white” privilege is much simpler. It represents the normal interaction between white people.

    What are ‘normal interactions’ between white people?

  97. thordaddy Says:

    jwbe,

    If you could stand outside your subconscious liberalism for a minute, can you tell me what a “majority group” within a nation means?

    And again, if you could stand outside your subconscious liberalism, could you tell us of certain privileges you’ve bestowed upon and had bestowed upon you within your network of family, friends and acquaintances?

    I think this will help further you along in your new understandings.

  98. Nquest Says:

    My, my… If it isn’t the gutless, skill-less wonder (Thordaddy) DUCKING, DODGING, cowering and running away from answering questions about THINGS HE HAS SAID.

    ROFLMAO!!

    This is the same person who was whining to me, asking me why I hadn’t answered his “queries” on my blog. You know, my blog, where the last entry was like several months ago. LOL

    Some people will do anything for NEGATIVE ATTENTION.

  99. thordaddy Says:

    ye ye,

    If you live within a liberal bubble then answering jwbe’s questions would only lead you to incredible doubts in comprehension. If your ideology tells you that all people are equal (a self-evident falsehood) and your first principle is nondiscrimination/absolute tolerance (impossible to attain absolutely) then meaning becomes elusive.

    First, it’s not even clear if jwbe accepts or rejects the nation-state and the natural privilege that is organically embedded in such a “community.” So what you see is jwbe using the language of liberalism and showing that she/he has no deeper understanding of what a “majority group” actually is within a well-defined nation-state like America. To jwbe, all life consists of is a geographic area with majority/minority groups asserting and relinquishing power.

    jwbe’s second question implies that she/he either knows nothing of “normal interactions” (which bestowing or having bestowed upon a certain privilege is included) or she/he thinks whites cannot normally interact in such a manner that the act of bestowing or having bestowed upon a certain privilege is an entirely normal part of the natural fabric of a community, state or nation?

  100. Restructure! Says:

    thordaddy,

    When one is talking about the embracing of truth then moderation has no relevance.

    True.

    Furthermore, if one is not committed to embracing the truth then he is either crazy or radical. The difference being that the crazy man embraces falsehoods unknowingly while the radical promotes falsehoods knowingly.

    False. That’s not what radical means.

    The second definition of ‘radical’ that I quoted was from the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Here the definition of radical again, with emphasis:

    Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: radical

    In politics, one who desires extreme change of part or all of the social order. The term (which derives from the Latin word for “root,” and thus implies change beginning at a system’s roots) was given this sense by Charles James Fox in 1797 when he demanded “radical reform” consisting of universal manhood suffrage. In France before 1848, republicans and advocates of universal male suffrage were called radicals. The term was later applied to Marxists (see Marxism) who called for fundamental social change to eradicate divisions among social classes. In popular usage, it is applied to political extremism, not necessarily violent, of both the left and the right.

    You said:

    I give those that make the above claims the benefit of the doubt in that they knew exactly what they were propagating.

    Then perhaps I should give you the “benefit of the doubt” and assume that you know that what you are saying is false and nonsensical, which means that you are actually trolling on my blog and others.

  101. thordaddy Says:

    Restructure,

    It should be obvious that those that knowingly spread falsehoods in the context we are speaking do so with the intent to foment extreme change in the social order and do so at the “root” (truth).

    You stand corrected.

  102. Restructure! Says:

    thordaddy,

    No, it is not obvious.

    I don’t know what context you are speaking of, because your worldview is very much detached from reality. (An example of your inability to track reality is the fact that you came in here assuming that I am a black man, when in fact, I am an Asian woman.)

    I call those who knowingly spread falsehoods ‘liars’.

    It’s interesting that you are so deluded that your views on radicalism are inconsistent. Your definition of ‘radical’ is radically different from the standard/mainstream definition of radicalism from the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, yet you have no problem with you having a radically different personal definition.

  103. thordaddy Says:

    Restructure,

    If you claim someone is a radical because they “desires extreme change of part or all of the social order” then clearly some will act to see this extreme change. If they don’t act then they can’t possibly be considered radical in any real essence.

    And so when they act to see this extreme change they either act truthfully or with deceit. If they act truthfully then it would be silly to label such a person “radical.” This leaves you with only one other option and it becomes clear that a radical seeks extreme change via deceit, i.e., through the wilful spread of falsehoods.

    This is why ye ye is radical and apparently you are too?

  104. Nquest Says:

    If your ideology tells you that all people are equal (a self-evident falsehood) and your first principle is nondiscrimination/absolute tolerance (impossible to attain absolutely) then meaning becomes elusive.

    That “all people are equal” are part of the “first principles” of this nation-state (i.e. the so-called United States of America). Your disconnect couldn’t be more blatant.

    My ideology tells me that it doesn’t matter what you or anyone else thing in terms of whether “all people are equal.” My conception of democracy, a representative republic, etc. tells me that such beliefs are irrelevant and a nation-state/society must be governed in such a manner that the same rules apply to everyone within it.

    So your references to non-discrimination/tolerance are beside the point. But let’s explore your previously EXPOSED racial supremacy philosophy.

    If all people are not equal or, for the purposes of the nation-state, shouldn’t be considered “equal”… how should the nation-state deal with this?

    A. Provide the less fortunate/less endowed with more privileges to equalize their situation with the more fortunate/better endowed?

    B. Treat the nation’s “unequals” as equals granting them all equal privileges regardless of who is less fortunate/lesser endowed or who is more fortunate/better endowed?

    C. Provide the more fortunate/better endowed with more privileges because their aggregate numbers or aggregate history in the nation-state justifies granting them more privileges?

    I just want to understand what you’re saying and why you think what you think is justified.

  105. Nquest Says:

    If they act truthfully then it would be silly to label such a person “radical.”

    Why? You’ve used the term profusely without pointing out any “deceit.” Plus you highlighted the portion of the definition of “radical” that indicates that a “radical” wants to get to the ROOT of the matter — i.e. the fundamental essence — which suggests that said “radicals” embark on an unwavering pursuit of the OBJECTIVE TRUTH which can only be obtained by dealing with or understanding ROOT causes, etc.

    If anything, your indiscriminate and compulsive desire to label people “liberals” DECEIVED you. Now you’re trying to wear “radical” out like we’re supposed to consider it a bad name because that’s what you do or what you want us to do.

    FYI… (actually for Restructure, if we haven’t talked about this before) I “fell in love” with the word “radical” after reading/reflecting on one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    “White Americans must recognize that justice for black people cannot be achieved without radical changes in the structure of our society…”

  106. jwbe Says:

    Thordaddy, you wrote:

    >White privilege exists and very few whites would consider this abnormal in a majority white nation.

    and you also wrote:

    >My “white” privilege is much simpler. It represents the normal interaction between white people.

    I asked questions, which aren’t so difficult to understand

    it is irrelevant what you assume I would think to answer these questions. Answer the questions, it can’t be so difficult

    you also wrote:
    >If your ideology tells you that all people are equal (a self-evident falsehood) and your first principle is nondiscrimination/absolute tolerance (impossible to attain absolutely) then meaning becomes elusive.

    You may consider equality as a self-evident falsehood, nonetheless it’s not only a part of your American constitution but also a basic human right. Explain why you are against the American constitution and also against basic human rights for all people

  107. thordaddy Says:

    ye ye and jwbe,

    Neither of you seems to have any coherent idea as to what you are saying.

    When the old “racist” dead white men said:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    Are you telling me that this should be interpreted as a statement of objective reality at the time of its writing…? That these “racist” dead white men actually believed in an objective equality between man?

    I think the more accurate interpretation was that ALL men would be judged equally in the eyes of the Creator. This Creator did not make us equal. Such a design would designate “free will” obsolete. Instead, in the eyes of God we were equally judged.

    In fact, those famous words were an implicit acknowledgment that man must accede to a higher authority than himself. This acknowledgement led to the abolition of slavery, but it never altered the fundamental inequality of the human condition.

    As for how the nation-state should treat inequality, it must first recognize immutable truths. First, it must recognize that enforcing “equality” into all aspects of life would not only be impossible, but the attempt to undertake such a task would be totalitarian. So the question then becomes which inequality must be erased and which must be recognized as part of the human condition.

    Both of you have shown a propensity to seek out ALL evidence of “inequality” and then socially engineer an “equal” outcome. This is the nature of your radical liberalism. You are unable to make distinctions and differentiate between those inequalities that justify action and those “inequalities” that make life worth living.

    So until either one of you concedes that total equality is a destructive ideology then it must be assumed that you will total destruction on our society. This is your radical nature.

  108. thordaddy Says:

    jwbe,

    It’s like I’m talking to a computer. An entity that knows nothing about the essence of human privilege.

    If a mother had two sons- one who sassed and never did his homework and one who was a little gentleman that received straight A’s- who every Saturday were rewarded with a $20.00 allowance, would you call this normal because she gave no privilege?

    Do you think privilege a legitimate aspect of human interaction or not? Until you answer, there is no point in elaborating further on your questions because it’s not clear that you could grasp an opposing viewpoint.

  109. Nquest Says:

    ((())) Are you telling me…?

    I told you:
    That “all people are equal” are part of the “first principles” of this nation-state

    Nothing more, nothing less. Deal with that or STFU!!!

  110. Restructure! Says:

    thordaddy,

    And so when they act to see this extreme change they either act truthfully or with deceit. If they act truthfully then it would be silly to label such a person “radical.”

    Why would it be silly? In France before 1848, republicans and advocates of universal male suffrage were called radicals. Are you suggesting that French advocates of universal male suffrage were acting with deceit?

  111. Nquest Says:

    ((())) As for how the nation-state should treat inequality, it must first recognize immutable truths.

    Put up or STFU. What are the “immutable truths”, Thordaddy? Stop trying to be DECEITFUL and have the intestinal fortitude and the intellectual integrity to come right out and stand by your racial supremacy ideology.

    ((())) First, it must recognize that enforcing “equality”… would be totalitarian.

    You referenced those dead “racist” white men. History tells us that they enforced, perhaps, the same “immutable truths” you’re too chickenshit to stipulate to explicitly AND such enforcement represented a brutal, totalitarian regime (actually, more than one brutal, totalitarian regime) that dwarfs anything you could be talking about today in terms of social engineering.

    But then this idea of yours that totalitarianism exists today or at any time in recent history (in the last 50 or 60 years) seems farcical. Your idea also directly contradicts your references to a “majority white nation.”

    Exactly how White Privilege can not only exist but be considered “normal” (by all but a few White people, according to you) EXPOSES your rhetoric about “totalitarianism” as a bold-faced LIE.

    So the question then becomes which inequality must be erased and which must be recognized as part of the human condition.

    YOUR ANSWER THEN….? Present your Inequality Triage…

    Both of you have shown a propensity to seek out ALL evidence of “inequality” and then socially engineer an “equal” outcome.

    YOU LIE. Quote where I showed such “propensity” or STFU!

    “inequalities” that make life worth living.

    No DECEIT accepted. List the inequalities “that make [your] life worth living.” We already know White Privilege is one given how you insisted all but a few White people would consider White Privilege in a White majority nation “abnormal.”

    So until either one of you concedes that total equality is a destructive ideology then it must be assumed that you will total destruction on our society.

    I, for one, don’t have to concede anything. First, you have to PROVE that “total equality” (whatever you’re referring to) is a “destructive ideology.” Again, history shows us via the dead “racist” white men you referred to how destructive and totalitarian the professed belief in racial supremacy is when the ideology dictates how the nation-state operates. Think Civil War destructive…

    So, again, if all people are not equal or, for the purposes of the nation-state, shouldn’t be considered “equal”… how should the nation-state deal with this?

    A. Provide the less fortunate/less endowed with more privileges to equalize their situation with the more fortunate/better endowed?

    B. Treat the nation’s “unequals” as equals granting them all equal privileges regardless of who is less fortunate/lesser endowed or who is more fortunate/better endowed?

    C. Provide the more fortunate/better endowed with more privileges because their aggregate numbers or aggregate history in the nation-state justifies granting them more privileges?

    What is your answer, Thordaddy? Before you seem to assert your belief in ideas like C. Now, I have no idea what you’re saying other than you a deathly afraid of B which is rather, rather interesting. It tells me that you really can’t believe in any “immutable truths” in terms of inequality and fear such a situation would prove those so-called “truths” false.

    It’s simple math and you just flunked the test.

  112. Nquest Says:

    Thank you, Restructure…

    Thordaddy referenced the dead “racist” white men who not only didn’t intend to include non-whites in the “all men/people are created equal” but didn’t include ALL WHITE MEN but only propertied/elite White men.

    But it’s clear certain “social engineering” is okay with Thordaddy.

  113. Nquest Says:

    Restructure, let me know if I got this right… I’m going to convert the three options into equations where “X” is a value less than “Y” (or Y = more fortunate/better endowed while X = less fortunate/less endowed) and “e” is the equality process that enhances or adds to any other value:

    A. Provide the less fortunate/less endowed with more privileges to equalize their situation with the more fortunate/better endowed?

    X + e = Y
    ______________________________________

    B. Treat the nation’s “unequals” as equals granting them all equal privileges regardless of who is less fortunate/lesser endowed or who is more fortunate/better endowed?

    X + e = Y + e

    ______________________________________

    C. Provide the more fortunate/better endowed with more privileges because their aggregate numbers or aggregate history in the nation-state justifies granting them more privileges?

    X = Y + e

    ______________________________________

    Thordaddy, what part of B has you calling it “destructive” when it’s mathematically impossible for it to undo the “immutable truths” you refer to? If anything, those “immutable truths” about the human condition would be undisturbed by the process B and may remain intact or obvious even in situation A.

    So really? What’s the problem?

  114. thordaddy Says:

    Restructure,

    Universal male suffrage is as radical and destructive idea now as it was then. In fact, its counterintuitive to imply that the bad son should be treated “equally” to the good son. Clearly, over time, there will be no rationale to be good.

  115. jwbe Says:

    Thordaddy,
    your pain with equality…
    Equality is nothing else than protecting human rights to all people regardless race, gender, religion, health.

    “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,[…]
    Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. ”
    http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

    >First, it must recognize that enforcing “equality” into all aspects of life would not only be impossible, but the attempt to undertake such a task would be totalitarian.

    Explain how a real democracy would be totalitarian. How is it totalitarian to protect every citizen of a nation also against abuse committed by institutions of such nations.

    >If a mother had two sons- one who sassed and never did his homework and one who was a little gentleman that received straight A’s- who every Saturday were rewarded with a $20.00 allowance, would you call this normal because she gave no privilege?

    Your question doesn’t make any sense

    >Do you think privilege a legitimate aspect of human interaction or not? Until you answer, there is no point in elaborating further on your questions because it’s not clear that you could grasp an opposing viewpoint.

    Privilege is no legitimate aspect of human interaction.
    Again:
    it is irrelevant what you assume I would think to answer these questions. Answer the questions, it can’t be so difficult

    >White privilege exists and very few whites would consider this abnormal in a majority white nation.

    Why do you think it should be normal to privilege a majority group=whites?

    >My “white” privilege is much simpler. It represents the normal interaction between white people.

    What are ‘normal interactions’ between white people?

  116. Restructure! Says:

    thordaddy,

    Restructure,

    Universal male suffrage is as radical and destructive idea now as it was then. In fact, its counterintuitive to imply that the bad son should be treated “equally” to the good son. Clearly, over time, there will be no rationale to be good.

    Since you think universal male suffrage is a radical and destructive idea, do you think universal suffrage should be removed from the United States?

  117. Lxy Says:

    @ThorBoy

    You seem unable–or unwilling–to grasp the fact that I reject the underlying premises of your arguments, such as they are.

    Essentially, your arguments are just another example of that cynical political tactic that is increasingly used by White apologists everywhere: White Victimology.

    In particular, you attempt to defend White privilege, power, and oppression by insinuating that the end of this system will lead to the physical “eradication” of White people!

    This would be analogous to a defender of America’s slave system claiming that the end of chattel slavery would mean the “eradication” of Whites in the American South.

    This formulation is not only contrived but also paranoid in the extreme. And it reveals how White apologists project their own violent and predatory instincts onto others.

    In their reality, the White Victimizer is now the potential victim.

    The oppressor becomes the oppressed.

    Up is Down.

    White is Black.

    Their line of argumentation is clearly in bad political faith and is merely the latest tactic in deflecting blame from and defending White Supremacy.

  118. thordaddy Says:

    jwbe says,

    Privilege is no legitimate aspect of human interaction.

    Then what you seek is anarchy and your incredulous posture at being attacked for such a desire is clearly tactical.

    Restructure,

    There is no such thing as “universal suffrage” in America. What we do have is an ideology that is pushing towards all-inclusive suffrage. The inevitable outcome being a less and less meaningful vote for ALL (equality).

    Mankind has it not within him to create something with a universal and ALL-inclusive character. He may try, but then he must ENFORCE his universal and ALL-inclusive desires. But such force is the first evidence that some do not want inclusion and that forced inclusion is the antithesis of real freedom. Such as it is, this force has no “moral” authority outside itself to restraint it from totalitarian actions. Such a force is one to be opposed and not embraced.

    Lyx,

    You didn’t really say anything of substance… What premise did you disagree with and WHY?

  119. Nquest Says:

    There is no such thing as “universal suffrage” in America.

    Says DUCK DODGERS

    Who doesn’t have THE RIGHT TO VOTE in the U.S. of America, Thordaddy?

  120. ghost Says:

    @thordaddy,
    With regard to your good/bad boy analogy, are you trying to say that non-whites are bad and thus deserve no help?
    I can’t see how else to read this comment as the topic supposedly being discussed is white privilege. Are you saying that whites got this privilege because they are and have been good? What about the poor and not-so-good whites? They get white privilege, also. Or is there no such thing as a bad white person?

    Aside from that, it sounds like you are now also saying that any push to equality is immoral because it leads to totalitarianism? Do you have any example of this ever happening?

  121. jwbe Says:

    Thordaddy,
    according to you I am a radical liberal totalitarian anarchist.
    lol
    and you still didn’t answer my questions.

  122. jwbe Says:

    Thordaddy you wrote,
    >Mankind has it not within him to create something with a universal and ALL-inclusive character. He may try, but then he must ENFORCE his universal and ALL-inclusive desires. But such force is the first evidence that some do not want inclusion and that forced inclusion is the antithesis of real freedom. Such as it is, this force has no “moral” authority outside itself to restraint it from totalitarian actions. Such a force is one to be opposed and not embraced.

    this translates into this:
    White males want to remain on the top. You see nothing wrong that white male dominance enforce their desires. Such force is the evidence that white males do not want inclusion and forcing them to accept inclusion limits their freedom. White male dominance must not be opposed.
    This is what you are saying.

  123. thordaddy Says:

    ghost,

    The claim was that “ALL white privilege is bad.”

    Before I answer your paranoia, can you tell us whether you agree or disagree?

    jwbe,

    When you are a liberal, you can be anything you want at any time you want. This is both the allure and illusion of modern liberalism. But liberalism also has consequences in the real world. For instance, it tells you that privilege is discriminatory and therefore illegitimate. But where did you receive the privilege of telling us “privilege” is illegitimate? Meaning, your assertion of the illegitimacy of privilege deserves no privilege over others that vehemently disagree.

    But is this really true???

  124. thordaddy Says:

    ye ye,

    So far only you and jwbe have asserted all white privilege to be bad.

    Restructure, Lyx and ghost have abstained from asserting anything more than white privilege exists and it disadvantages non-whites.

    Is your statement TRUE and what would make it a falsifiable hypothesis?

    This is the only question in need of resolution. All the other stuff simply serves as a distraction to the fact that you’ve made a false claim and wilfully propogate it.

  125. Nquest Says:

    Is your statement TRUE and what would make it a falsifiable hypothesis?

    Dumb-azz-dude… It’s not my job to show the falsifiability of my position. What Restructure, Lyx and ghost have “abstained from” is IRRELEVANT. They have clearly NOT supported your FALLACY-laden position that there is “good” White Privilege (WP) that exists along with “bad” WP. (Note: RESTRUCTURE noted how WP could be considered “good” or “bad” because the idea is relative to WHO is advantaged vs. disadvantaged — a totally different perspective than yours which, as she noted, attempted to make a “universal”, absolute statement about WP.)

    Your position is FALLACY laden because of your skill-less attempt to CHANGE THE DEFINITION of White Privilege which was a transparent and DISHONEST attempt to change the very idea under discussion. The very concept introduced in the OP essentially defined White Privilege as the advantages society grants Whites that, consequently, disadvantage non-whites.

    So trying to say “SOME OF the advantages society grants Whites that, consequently, disadvantage non-whites” ARE “GOOD” is absurd because it fails all kinds of falsibility tests including the smell test and the MATH TEST you’re trying to avoid.

    Dumbazz… BY DEFINITION, Restructure, Lyx and ghost saying “white privilege… disadvantages non-whites” indicates that ALL White Privilege has negative baggage, a negative impact, given how it “disadvantages non-whites.” That makes it ALL “bad.”

    Now that’s RESOLUTION in a nutshell. But since you’re slow…

    THORDADDY: is ALL “white privilege” wrong as is implied?

    NQUEST: You can’t refer to what somebody else says then insert your own self-serving definition. YOUR QUESTION was about the White Privilege ALREADY REFERENCED. As such, the ONLY definition for White Privilege up for discussion was the one alluded to in the OP…

  126. Nquest Says:

    Now answer the question, Thordaddy…

    Who doesn’t have THE RIGHT TO VOTE in the U.S. of America, Thordaddy?

    Answer the question or explain why you’re willing to LIE just to avoid the problems you get yourself into when you open your cyber-mouth before you think.

    When RESTRUCTURE noted how advocates of universal [WHITE] male suffrage in the 1800’s were called “radicals”, you claimed “Universal male suffrage is as radical and destructive idea now as it was then.” Naturally, she questioned whether you advocate revoking suffrage rights/privileges that exist today which would necessarily include denying the vast majority of White men and women the right to vote.

    Being the intellectual fly-weight and coward you are, you took a pass and spazzed out with some bs you don’t want to touch any more. TYPICAL.

  127. jwbe Says:

    Thordaddy,
    >When you are a liberal […]

    stop your boring blahblah and answer my questions

  128. jwbe Says:

    Thordaddy,
    >But where did you receive the privilege of telling us “privilege” is illegitimate?

    for the idiot in you: This is called free speech, the same way free speech allows you to say your undigested bullsh*t

  129. thordaddy Says:

    ye ye,

    Felons, minors, illegals and non-citizens are all groups of individuals that are not partaking in “universal suffrage” within America. Although, various radical liberals are attempting to restore or expand suffrage to all these groups. Clearly, such a successful attempt would make all our votes less valuable and significant. Even black Americans can see that you’re selling some kind of snake oil.

    Besides, you can’t provide one example of a man-made universal and yet you attempt to sell this fantasy to the unwashed masses.

    Who would enforce this “universal suffrage” and how would they be the “equal” to the rest of us in any way?

  130. thordaddy Says:

    ye ye,

    I don’t need to assert my definition for “white privilege.” That is something YOU DO because your liberalism both demands it and allows it.

    The defintion of white privilege is easy to understand. It is the privilege that whites bestow upon or have bestowed upon them by other whites. Now, we could go even further and define “whites” and “privilege,” but most people can understand what we are speaking of when we say white and privilege.

    What your slimy definition says is that the privileges whites bestow upon or have bestowed upon them by other whites is ALWAYS BAD because is disadvantages blacks/PoC

    This is false. First, because it implies that blacks are entitled to privileges from whites. Second, not all white privilege could possibly be “disadvantageous” to blacks.

    You are a minoirty. In fact, you are part of the richest black minority in the world… The African American… Did this happen only through “white privilege?”

  131. jwbe Says:

    @Thor
    discrimination against one group leads to privileging another group, therefore white privilege is negative because it violates basic human rights of non-whites.

  132. Nquest Says:

    (()) Felons, minors, illegals and non-citizens…are not partaking in “universal suffrage”

    Hmmm… UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE which is defined as “suffrage for all persons over a certain age, usually 18 or 21, who in other respects satisfy the requirements established by law” or “suffrage for all adults who are not disqualified by the laws of the country” is something of which you’ve said “no such thing” exists in America.

    YOU LIE.

    ALL ADULTS in the “America” WHO ARE NOT DISQUALIFIED BY THE LAWS of this country do, indeed, have the RIGHT TO VOTE. Now it’s time for you to stop being a blithering idiot and olympic coward and explain why you’ve called universal male suffrage is “as radical and destructive idea now as it was then [in the 1800’s]” when ONLY elite White males had suffrage rights AND if you support having said “radical and destructive” all suffrage rights added since the early forms INCLUDING suffrage extended to ALL White males vs. just elite White males REMOVED.

    Yes, it’s time for you to deal with the consequences of the things you’ve stated.

    Also….
    (()) Not all white privilege could possibly be “disadvantageous” to blacks.

    WHY? Because this poor little baby (Thordaddy) doesn’t want it to be? You keep crying that “it’s not all bad” but that doesn’t make it so. And your ONLY defense, the ONLY way you’ve gone about trying to argue that ALL White Privilege isn’t bad has been to embrace a KNOWN LOGICAL FALLACY with a death grip — i.e. you have NOTHING that supports your WISH that All White Privilege isn’t “bad” and doesn’t disadvantage non-whites.

    That’s RESOLUTION in a nutshell, driftwood. And I would be remiss if I didn’t mention how the three people you mentioned (Restructure, LXY, Ghost) all appear to define White Privilege as something that inherently disadvantages non-whites — i.e. White Privilege, BY DEFINITION, is the process or result of society granting privileges to Whites that are not granted to non-whites which, consequently, creates a situation where Whites are advantaged by such privileging and non-whites are disadvantaged.

    So, the only thing that’s FALSE is your sophomoric attempt to situate White Privilege outside the actual situational, historic context which the concept/terminology sought to address.

    This is false. First, because it implies that blacks are entitled to privileges from whites

    No. Your definition implies that. Back away from the FALLACY and DO THE MATH.

    Only in YOUR definition is society/nation-state CONFLATED to “whites.”

    White privilege is a term that has historically been used to identify the privileges, opportunities, and gratuities offered by the American society to anyone who is Caucasian and not a member of an ethnic group.

    DO THE MATH and stop being a DECEITFUL COWARD. Come out and say what you really believe since it obviously you support White Privilege and WHITE SUPREMACY up to and including racial supremacy theories.

  133. Nquest Says:

    You know, Thordaddy… What your position “implies” is that you either firmly believe in BLACK SUPREMACY or are thoroughly convinced that White INFERIORITY exists with relation to non-whites. I can think of nothing else that will explain why you’re afraid to DO THE MATH and why have problems and views you have about equality.

    Again, from what you’ve been saying, you seem to prefer a society/nation-state that:

    C. Provides the more fortunate group with more privileges than the less fortunate group because their aggregate numbers or aggregate history in the nation-state justifies granting them, the historically more fortunate, more privileges

    That tells me that you think Whites are inferior and are, ironically, “entitled” to White Privilege so that policies that attempt to ensure equality won’t expose White inferiority. That’s the only thing explains why you would have a problem with a society/nation-state that:

    B. Treats the nation’s “unequals” as equals granting them all equal privileges regardless of who is less fortunate/lesser endowed or who is more fortunate/better endowed

    Simple math says that since you say “all people ARE NOT equal” but have a problem with society treating “unequals” as equals which can’t possibly change the equation if, in fact, “all people ARE NOT equal”… the simple math says that what you really believe, behind all your DECEIT, is that Whites are inferior.

    Anyway… One thing you need to do while you’re DUCKING and DODGING the math is to get the rest of your sh*t together. On April 2, 2009, on SWPD in the “ignore or stand up to racism” thread you wanted to tell me:

    You’re not a minority. That’s an objective truth.

    And here you are telling me today that:

    You are a minoirty. In fact, you are part of the richest black minority in the world…

    Make up your mind, driftwood, and stop showing your perpetual weakness with them lame azz rhetorical questions. Just come out and say what you started to say on Macon’s blog about “intolerant, insulated folks” like yourself.

    I considered your unprovoked revelation there to be TMI (TOO MUCH INFORMATION) there because it was beside the point being discussed in the thread and most definitely was not what I thought. Now, such information is necessary so we can understand fully what the f*ck your problem is and why you so desperately need to believe that there is “good” White Privilege and can’t seem to cope with the idea that ALL White Privilege is “bad” because that’s the whole idea behind making observations about and criticizing White Privilege.

  134. thordaddy Says:

    jwbe,

    You’re prime example of why “universal suffrage” is a ridiculous idea. You are also a prime example of one who puts non-discrimination as society’s highest principle and therefore seeks to destroy anything that could possibly be called a civilized community.

    If privilege is nothing more than discrimination against others, then it is clear that you wish to eradicate “privilege.” How does a little totalitarian do this other than enlist the force of the state to coerce a free people into submission?

    ye ye,

    Your responses get longer and longer without you actually saying anything.

    I told you who doesn’t get to vote and all you do is revise the definition of “universal” to mean something a little bit less than universal. How liberal of you.

    I say that you’re not a minority in the racial sense because in actuality you are part of a large majority of African descendants. But, you are also part of a small minority of very rich African descendants of the American type. There is no contradiction there.

    Next you claim that “white privilege” is all bad, but you still haven’t said which part is bad…? Is it the “white” part or the “privilege” part that is bad and how are you going to get rid of this “badness” my little totalitarian friend?

  135. jwbe Says:

    You are probably somebody dreaming of a white nation in white racial solidarity for the survival of the white race. Are you?

    Your inability to think about humans when it comes to all people regardless race.
    You don’t talk about the tyranny or dictationships and wars necessary to keep an injust system in place.

    You call discrimination civilized. Tell me what’s so civilized with discriminating against somebody else. What do you call civilized in two WW’s and dropping nuclear weapons? Is it this you want to preserve by keeping discrimination alive? You also have to deal with the consequences of your own actions and desires.

    >How does a little totalitarian do this other than enlist the force of the state to coerce a free people into submission?

    I assume you cry because the South lost the CW. A free white people coerced into submission. Is it this what you think?

    Why should people accept your anti-democratic values? You believe that some people are ‘more equal than others’ and that this should be some ‘natural’ order.

  136. Nquest Says:

    (()) I told you who doesn’t get to vote and all you do is revise the definition of “universal”

    I “revised” nothing. The definitions I posted came straight from DICTIONARY.COM.

    Stop DUCKING, driftwood… Do you want suffrage rights of ALL white males except elite white males REMOVED or not?

    (()) Next you claim that “white privilege” is all bad, but you still haven’t said which part is bad…?

    There are no separate “parts”, dip-wad. This isn’t kindergarten. When you made the following BOGUS claim:

    (()) Not all white privilege could possibly be “disadvantageous” to blacks.

    You didn’t separate WHITE and PRIVILEGE into two separate parts. You didn’t say “Not all privilege could possibly be “disadvantageous” to blacks” and you know you didn’t say “Not all white could possibly be “disadvantageous” to blacks”, so STOP RUNNING SCARED!

    Again, the only thing you’ve done to support your BOGUS claim that “not all White Privilege is bad” was to employ (in a skill-less manner, I might add) a KNOWN LOGICAL FALLACY — i.e. your argument/position was always built on bs.

    What I’ve done is make this all clear and undisputable:

    White Privilege, BY DEFINITION, is the process or result of society granting privileges to Whites that are not granted to non-whites which, consequently, creates a situation where Whites are advantaged by such privileging and non-whites are disadvantaged.

    That’s the RESOLUTION. That’s me showing how ALL WHITE PRIVILEGE IS BAD, by definition.

    GAME.SET.MATCH.

  137. thordaddy Says:

    jwbe,

    If you are unable to discriminate then how are you carrying on as you do? How would you tell, absent taking a civilized society for granted, the difference between a civilized nation and an uncivilized nation as you cannot discriminate between the two?

    Yours is a contradiction. Liberalism tells you to be non-discriminatory and you discriminate by choosing liberalism as your first principle. Liberalism tells you not to discriminate, but you CAN’T and DON’T actually practice what you preach.

    ye ye,

    “Universal suffrage” means just that… Voting rights extended to ALL. Such a thing has never existed and never will. It’s impossible as certainly those with enough foresight will understand that the closer one gets to “universal suffrage” the less valuable and actual meaning that vote has because the real power lie with those that can enforce such a scenario.

    As for white privilege, I’ll reference Peggy McIntosh to give us a example of what that means.

    1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.

    This doesn’t apply to blacks? And how exactly does that fact that Peggy can hang with white people “disadvantage” blacks?

    2. I can avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to mistrust and who have learned to mistrust my kind or me.

    Again, how does this not appply to blacks? And how exactly would blacks be “disadvantaged” if Peggy could avoid spending time with ye ye?

    3. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.

    Does this not apply to blacks? There aren’t affordable black communities that enjoy “black privilege?” And again, how does this “fact” disadvantage” blacks?

    These are but a few silly examples of “white privilege.” How would ye ye go about correcting this “badness?” Force… Force… And more force, as there is no other way to rid our society of this horrible thing called “white privilege.”

    ye ye, will you stand up and tell us what you plan to do to rid us of “white privilege” other than getting white liberal senile grannys to do your bidding?

  138. Lxy Says:

    Lyx,

    You didn’t really say anything of substance… What premise did you disagree with and WHY?

    ThorBoy: Are you playing dumb now? I disagree with the premise of your repetitious argument about poor virtuous White people being exterminated with the end of White oppression, power, and privilege.

    I’ve noticed that this is a growing paranoid delusion of White males in particular: getting a taste of their own medicine.

    Such are the wages of Whiteness, eh?

  139. jwbe Says:

    Trolldaddy I guess I hit a nail, yes? You cannot defend your position but sound like somebody who can’t look through his own thoughts.
    For you it is civilized and normal to discriminate against others and it is also normal in your mindset that these others are PoC.

  140. thordaddy Says:

    Lyx and jwbe,

    Neither of you seem to have any command of the English language.

    If one believes that “ALL white privilege is bad” then how does one get rid of this “badness?”

    Does he get rid of “privilege?”

    Or, does he get rid of “whiteness?”

    Or maybe, he gets rid of both “whiteness” and “privilege?”

    This is what one does to bad things, right…? He gets rid of it?

    Oh wait, you can’t do that because that would be discriminatory… You can’t even say “white privilege” is bad because that would discriminatory, too.

    So what do two clowns do in a world where they are banished from taking any discriminatory actions or thinking any discriminatory thoughts?

    Have no fear, they just engage in liberal ideology where hypocrisy is par for the course. They claim some discrimination is actually good… That’s what you’re claiming when it comes to pinpointing “white privilege,” right?

    Both of you seem to be charlatans of the highest order. And neither of you seem to recognize that some of us need to distinguish and therefore discriminate between civilized and uncivilized society. This duty is one that both of you have voluntarily relenquished any responsibility in partaking in.

  141. jwbe Says:

    Trolldaddy, I said ‘discrimination against one group leads to privileging another group, therefore white privilege is negative because it violates basic human rights of non-whites.’

    telling you that white privilege is bad doesn’t discriminate against you. Trying to stop discrimination doesn’t discriminate against the perpetrators.
    To get rid of white privilege appears only discriminatory to you because you believe you have a right to be privileged. Being in a certain privileged position only because of your skin-color and also gender group.

    >And neither of you seem to recognize that some of us need to distinguish and therefore discriminate between civilized and uncivilized society. This duty is one that both of you have voluntarily relenquished any responsibility in partaking in.

    there is no such thing as the white man’s burden, this is what you seem to try to tell.

  142. thordaddy Says:

    jwbe,

    Why do you constantly attempt to dodge the consequences of your liberal beliefs? Do your beliefs have any effect in the real world or do you merely spout for no purpose?

    How does privileging my kids- an example of “white privilege” – “disadvantage” blacks?

    You have two possible answers…

    1. Because blacks are ALSO entitled to my equal privileges. So if I privilege MY “white” kids then I MUST privilege black kids, too.

    2. This is not an example of “white privilege.” Meaning, I don’t recognize good and normal white privilege exercised amongst whites.

    If you can’t see that you are entirely beholden to a radical ideology then perhaps you could provide a coherent third option?

    You want to keep strong in the head the idea that my freedom to act is in fact oppressing you. What a mental prison you inhabit!

  143. jwbe Says:

    >You have two possible answers…

    third: go to a therapist, the racism in you actually made you sick. You are a good example what this system can do to white people and actually, it’s a tragedy.

    >You want to keep strong in the head the idea that my freedom to act is in fact oppressing you. What a mental prison you inhabit!

    You imprison yourself and you even celebrate this. btw, why do you think I am a Person of Color?

  144. thordaddy Says:

    jwbe,

    This passes for rebuttal? Racism…? That word has no meaning in this context. Why are you so scared to face your own beliefs? Are you scared that they are fundamentally irrational?

    I made a very non-controversial assertion.

    I asserted that white privilege exists and it, as ALL privilege is bound to manifest itself, is to be found in both good and bad forms.

    You on the other hand assert that ALL white privilege is “bad” because it “disadvantages” blacks.

    This is FALSE… Unless you simply ASSERT that “white privilege” is ALL bad. But what authority does your assertion rest on other than modern liberal ideology?

    If you can’t see that you’re driven by radical liberal ideology and that I’m simply making a truthful observation then there should be little wonder why I believe that persons such as yourself should have no legitimate political voice in my society.

  145. jwbe Says:

    you are so scared of people when they don’t share your worldview that you call for my disenfranchisement. How would you enforce that?

    > But what authority does your assertion rest on other than modern liberal ideology?

    The Declaration of Human Rights. Makes perfect sense to me.

  146. jwbe Says:

    and as usual, you didn’t answer my question: Why do you think I am a Person of Color?

  147. thordaddy Says:

    jwbe,

    What worldview would that be? Is embracing and excepting the truth a “world-view” or just commonsense?

    Privilege exists because humans and all their diversity recognize that discriminating is a valuable survival tool and survival is a good and necessary thing unless you’re bent on suicide or genocide?

    Are you bent on suicide or is genocide on your mind? Do you think all Japanese privilege is “bad” because it disadvantages Chinese? Do you think all Jew privilege is “bad” because it disadvantages Palestinians? Do you think all liberal privilege is “bad” because it disadvantages conservatives? If you say “yes” to all then your target is “privilege” itself. If you say “yes” to some and “no” to others then “whites” become your target. You CAN’T avoid this logical outcome UNLESS you retract and disavow your beliefs.

    As for your color, it is only really relevant in the matter of motivating factors in adopting radical liberal ideology?

    If you’re a white liberal then I could surmise that you are subconsciously bent on suicide as the burden of discriminating between what is civilized and good and what is uncivilized and bad has become too much for you to bear.

    If you’re a PoC then it is clear that you see “white privilege” as oppressing you and hence it becomes plausible that you will take steps to eradicate “white privilege.” You start by disguising the fact that the “white” in “white privilege” is your main target. And now you are left with the incredulous argument that ALL “privilege” must cease because it is an act of discrimination and ALL discrimination is “bad.” Meaning, you simply adopt and assert the “truthfullness” of radical liberal ideology.

    You adopt and espouse falsehoods!

    ALL discrimination IS NOT “bad.”

    This is TRUE.

    SOME discrimination is GOOD.

    This is TRUE.

    GOOD discrimination can manifest itself into GOOD privilege.

    This is TRUE.

    White people can engage in GOOD privileging.

    This is TRUE.

    Now you stand at a crossroads and your intellectual prowess is needed like never before.

  148. Nquest Says:

    (()) White people can engage in GOOD privileging.

    Thordaddy engages in THE FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION.

    This is TRUE.

  149. Nquest Says:

    (()) As for white privilege, I’ll reference Peggy McIntosh to give us a example of what that means.

    Nice. Thanks for admitting to your FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION.

    As for her “corky” example #1… The fact that you have to ask shows that you simply cannot make the argument that it does “apply to blacks” — that “arranging to be in the company of my race most of the time” is not a form/example of White Privilege in the USA.

    Suddenly your “majority white nation” idea comes back to slap you in the face. Somehow, this “majority white nation” idea suddenly has no bearing. So when Black/POC go to work, school or travel in this “majority white nation” they can do all those things while “arranging to be in the company of [their own] race most of the time” with the same ease, same frequency, etc., etc. as Whites.

    Even you don’t believe that. Again, your “majority white nation” idea comes back to slap you in the face.

    So, yes, thanks for admitting your FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION. When I referenced examples #12, #17, #19, #22 from McIntosh’s list OVER A WEEK AGO (precisely because they were not as “corky” as entries like #1, etc.), you were CHURCH MOUSE QUIET because it EXPOSED how you were purposely trying to CHANGE THE TOPIC by referencing your children — i.e. things on an interpersonal level — when the topic is about SOCIETY AT-LARGE.

    Back to #1…

    how exactly does that fact that Peggy can hang with white people “disadvantage” blacks?

    Presumably she cites that “corky” idea as an example of White Privilege because Blacks/POC cannot “arrange to be in the company of [their own] race most of the time” with the same ease, same frequency, etc., etc. as Whites. It’s a “majority white nation”, remember!? Your initial question, showing a huge lack of confidence in your argument via denial, was, “This doesn’t apply to blacks?” Remember?

    So it’s the fact that such things don’t apply to Blacks/POC with the same ease, frequency, etc. that “disadvantages” Blacks/POC. (Also, this country became (and remained) a “majority white nation” BY FORCE. A “good” neighborhood/housing, etc. became WHITE neighborhoods, etc. BY FORCE and/or social engineering.)

    We know that from the amount of DISCRIMINATION that takes place in the employment and in schools… Your DENIAL is futile and as stupid as your argument that there is no “universal suffrage” because your fellow kindergarteners, actual 5 year olds, don’t have the right to vote.

    The fact that you called the definition I cited from DICTIONARY.COM a “revised” definition shows how BANKRUPT and pathetic you are as a debater. And notice how you failed to answer the question:

    Do you want suffrage rights of ALL white males except elite white males REMOVED or not?

    (Also notice how I don’t attempt to answer for you.)

  150. thordaddy Says:

    ye ye,

    Now in addition to claiming that ALL “white privilege” somehow doesn’t include “interpersonal” white privilege, you are now claiming that an unequalness in results is actually “white privilege.”

    So although you CAN certainly arrange to be with blacks if you desire or be indifferent to other cultures and not be penalized, it is because you can’t do it with the ease and frequency of whites that “white privilege” is ALL bad.

    In fact, all the examples cited from the white liberal senile granny fit the same pattern. You CAN actually do what whites can do, but because you can’t do it with the ease and frequency that “white privilege” allows then it becomes a “bad” thing.

    The question then becomes if you were able to do such things with the ease and frequency of whites, would “white privilege” be good or nonexistent?

    As for your fallacy of this or that, it is not I who manipulates the meaning of “white privilege.” How could asserting that “white privilege” is the act of whites bestowing upon or having bestowed upon them certain privileges be a “fallacy of equivocation?” It’s more like you’re suffering from the “fallacy of intellect.”

  151. thordaddy Says:

    ye ye,

    I think there are certainly males that don’t deserve to vote. If there are certain males that pine for the destruction of civilized society such as yourself, what would be rational about allowing you to vote…? Because your black and its “equal?” That’s all you need to substantiate a person’s “right” to vote? It doesn’t matter that YOU vote to overthrow a civilized society?

  152. Lxy Says:

    @ ThorBoy:

    You are truly obsessed with your increasingly paranoid delusions of White victimhood.

    I call this ThorBoy’s “OMG! White people will be exterminated if we end White privilege” pseudo-argument. LOL.

    And the issue is not merely White privilege, as you seem fixated on. It’s about oppression and subjugation.

    So to answer the question how does one end White oppression, you should ask yourself how were related oppressive systems like American chattel slavery, Jim Crow Apartheid, or Western colonialism ended–at least formally.

    It’s called revolution.

  153. jwbe Says:

    >Privilege exists because humans and all their diversity recognize that discriminating is a valuable survival tool and survival is a good and necessary thing unless you’re bent on suicide or genocide?

    When you believe it is about survival, tell me, why then are whites/Europeans the one who are destroying planet earth by believing that they are somehow something like a “god”. In addition your allegedly valuable “survival tool” discrimination has led to millions of dead people, including whites. Killed by other whites.

    >If you’re a white liberal then I could surmise that you are subconsciously bent on suicide as the burden of discriminating between what is civilized and good and what is uncivilized and bad has become too much for you to bear.

    People like you are the biggest threat, history demonstrates this. You also demonstrate how important education is, there is nothing more dangerous than stupidity in action

    >ALL discrimination IS NOT “bad.”
    This is TRUE.
    SOME discrimination is GOOD.
    This is TRUE.
    GOOD discrimination can manifest itself into GOOD privilege.
    This is TRUE.
    White people can engage in GOOD privileging.
    This is TRUE.

    don’t become hysterical, regardless how hard you try, I assume that you won’t find empathy here for your mental suffering

  154. thordaddy Says:

    Lyx and jwbe,

    Once again, neither of you say anything of import.

    And neither one of you is willing to accept that you’ve both ADOPTED a WHITE liberal belief system.

    How’s that for irony? LOL!

    You both wax eloquent about nonexistent oppression and subjugation as you spew your FREE CONSCIOUS to a global audience using the “LOGIC” of WHITE liberals.

    And so you you seek to force WHITE liberal ideology on ALL OF US. That sounds really intelligent.

  155. jwbe Says:

    @Trolldaddy,

    how would you disenfranchise me?

  156. Anonymous Says:

    jwbe,

    I don’t need to disenfranchise you as you are working to disenfranchise yourself. If you vote for an uncivilized society then you have naturally opted out of civilized society.

  157. Nquest Says:

    I think there are certainly males that don’t deserve to vote.

    My specific question was:
    Do you want suffrage rights of ALL white males except elite white males REMOVED or not?

    Make your response RELEVANT or STFU!!

  158. Nquest Says:

    it is because you can’t do it with the ease and frequency of whites

    Beyond the fact that you failed to address:

    We know that from the amount of DISCRIMINATION that takes place in the employment and in schools… [i.e. places where Blacks/POC [cannot] “arrange to be in the company of my race most of the time” with the ease and frequency of whites

    Beside the fact that “YOU simply cannot make the argument that it does “apply to blacks” (all you’ve done was claim that it does with no support or semblance thereof)…

    All you’ve done is look White Privilege in the face and decided to close your eyes. When Blacks/POC can’t exercise any right or privilege with the same ease, frequency, etc. as Whites that’s WHITE PRIVILEGE, driftwood.

    Plus there this crucial phrase you’re feigning blindness to:

    1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.

    MOST OF THE TIME, driftwood. MOST OF THE TIME directly implicates just what I said regarding “FREQUENCY” and implicit in the “senile granny’s” corky is the ease at which the “arranging” can be done.

    YOU LOSE AGAIN!

    Whenever you’re ready to make a substantive argument and have a substantive conversation, LET ME KNOW. I highlighted areas where MOST OF THE TIME Blacks/POC *cannot* “arrange to be in the company of [their own] race.” Again, that was in the workplace and in schools. MOST OF THE TIME when it comes to contact with the criminal justice system Blacks/POC *cannot* “arrange to be in the company of people of [their own] race.”

    Again, your “majority white nation” idea comes back to slap you in the face.

  159. thordaddy Says:

    ye ye,

    Can you or can you not arrange to be in the company of blacks most of the time? If not, WHAT IS STOPPING YOU…? “White privilege?” Nonsense!

    As for your silly suffrage question, the fundamental premise is what needs to be argued.

    Do you support ALL-inclusive, i.e. universal, suffrage? Do you support an impossible scenario that does nothing but completely empower those that MUST be the ones to make suffrage ALL-inclusive?

    I support limited franchise because such a situation is the only way to lead to a meaningful and valuable vote. But I certainly wouldn’t limit that vote to elite white males as most in this country are rabid liberals.

  160. Nquest Says:

    Restructure,

    Here is a White Privilege list that I find less “corky” and less problematic than McIntosh’s knapsack list:

    http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/privilege.htm

  161. Restructure! Says:

    Thanks, Nquest!

    What do you think about #14 and #32?

  162. Nquest Says:

    My first thought before you asked about #14 was: I use the “this country.” Now that you’ve asked about #14, I think about the way the trumped up controversy over Michelle Obama’s statement during the primaries (even when she said “my country”) highlighted the whole back-story and showed why “my country” and “this country” exists.

    Re: #32… First, it’s a surprising confession which I believe took some soul searching… Second, even with the way Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is esteemed among White liberals/anti-racists, never has there been anything close to an expression of gratitude for his sacrifice which was just as much for/about them than it was about/for Black people, at least nothing approaching this Great White Benefactor, Great Emancipator-Savior complex that seems to draw heavily on the “Lincoln freed the slaves” narrative — i.e. Black people owe their very freedom from White oppression to Whites.

    The problem with this is something that was highlighted on AA.org on a different topic: Black people are not considered to have agency. And that’s the real issue behind Macon’s “summarizer” mentality.

    Back to Lincoln and Emancipation… the standard line is to try to guilt trip Blacks by talking about the White soldiers who died in the Civil War yet no one [White] talks about Blacks who fought and died in all those wars prior to 1970 “for the good of the country.” Nobody [White] treats all the lives lost in the Middle Passage, during slavery for those who did or did not overtly resist… nobody [White] frames that as a reason pretense for why White people owe Black people a tremendous debt of gratitude.

    White women don’t go around trying to make sure they don’t offend Black people because of how White women benefited from Black people’s civil rights struggle.

    Further, #32 promotes the notion that White people were/are doing some great, self-less favor for Black people re: “the white people who came down South and fought along side them during the civil rights movement.” And when we consider how Jews made up a large/disproportionate number among the Whites who participated in civil rights demonstrations AND how those numbers, by all appearances, were small considering the vast majority of Whites who either were actively attacking civil rights workers or sympathizing with the White attackers/racists/segregationists… Then there’s that myth of the non-racist North vs. the South which had all the race problems which doesn’t comport with the historical reality.

  163. Restructure! Says:

    Re: #14: I am always bothered by fellow white citizens who say things along the lines of, “How do they do it in your country?”, implying that my own country is not the country of my birth and citizenship, since I am not white.

    Re: #32: I found it really weird that she wants to take credit for white people supporting the Civil Rights movement, but when it comes to taking responsibility for slavery and segregation, she may claim that she is not responsible for what other white people do. I don’t know if she personally was involved in the Civil Rights movement, as I wasn’t alive back then. Even if she was personally involved, she still identifies with white people over black people.

  164. steve Says:

    My Great Great Grandfather was wounded four times fighting against slavery.
    When I came back from Iraq I applied for a job that I had to test for, I scored 100%, yet the job was given to a black man who failed the test.
    Slavery must be so evil that people whose ansesters apposed it are put in the same category as those who profited from it because they happen to be of the same race.
    What is racism?

  165. Nquest Says:

    Sure Steve. We believe everything you said… 100%

    Yep! We’re all so ready to believe employers are hiring people who fail their tests left and right. And it our belief in bs like that wasn’t enough… Well, we wholeheartedly believe that there’s nothing funny about you decrying being put in the same category as those [Whites] who profited from slavery while at the same time trying to live off your great great granddaddy’s “fight against slavery.”

    We believe you so much we’re going to do just like you and disregard the Black man’s plight both today and in his great great grandfather’s day. We’ll do just like you and act like only Whites who supposedly “fought against slavery” are remarkable.

  166. Nquest Says:

    Steve, we’ll also be sure to turn a blind eye to the way Whites who were not slave-owners or otherwise in the business(es) of profiting from slavery up to and including perhaps Whites like your great great grandfather… we’ll turn a blind eye to the they still supported WHITE SUPREMACY and still profited from White Privilege. You know, that thing that makes you think your bs story is believable… like employers are in the business of hiring people who fail their test.

    So… What is racism? In this case, its the idea reinforced in American society, e.g., that makes Whites like you believe there is something to be gained by pretending to be victims of racism. What is racism? It’s the idea that allows White “victimhood” to carry considerably less stigma even when its more inflated (i.e. more false) than any amount of the supposed “victim mentality” African-Americans/Blacks have (i.e. something that’s heavily stigmatized).

    See how racism works? When Whites do it, even when they make the most ridiculous “I’m a victim” claims, American society acts as an enabler, pretending there is something worth considering even when the claims are clearly bogus. That, my fried, is the definition of White Privilege.

  167. Nquest Says:

    Notice how the kind of White victimization Steve posted about has never been labeled “isolated incidents.”

  168. Kathy Says:

    hmm Steve, excuse me, but it’s opposed ,not Apossed, you failed spell check, how did that happen, I mean, that is supposed to be impossible? LOL,.
    Nquest, I really do love you.

  169. jwbe Says:

    >My Great Great Grandfather was wounded four times fighting against slavery.
    […] Slavery must be so evil that people whose ansesters apposed it are put in the same category as those who profited from it because they happen to be of the same race.

    Let’s assume your great great grandfather actually had human ideals and fought against slavery, his ideals were betrayed by his own white people.

    and you cannot have just the heritage you want to have, a story of an individual, you inherit the entire history of a nation and system and therefore you also inherit the debt.

    >When I came back from Iraq I applied for a job that I had to test for, I scored 100%, yet the job was given to a black man who failed the test.

    With all these stories that a white male allegedly didn’t get a job because a less educated or intelligent Black person allegedly got it, what do you truly want to say? Funny how that works, white women who benefit most from AA, are never mentioned. Spoiled white men acting like children who believe that the world only belongs to them and that all other people should be thankful for the mess you have created.

  170. space Says:

    To Restructure re: “How do they do it in your country?” I’m surprised that more white people don’t guess where people are from based on accent instead of looks. If I meet an Asian-descended person, and they say “Hi, nice to meet you, my name is X” in a North American accent, I will assume they’re either from the US or Canada, probably born here but possibly living here from early childhood. Although, even that assumption can be wrong: I once had a roommate who was from Bangladesh, but, since her parents were involved with some kind of international relations, she spoke with a North American accent. If someone hadn’t told me she was from Bangladesh beforehand I would have taken her to be a South-Asian-American or a South-Asian-Canadian.

  171. Restructure! Says:

    space,

    I know! I think they are much more interested making me become their “Asian friend” to show off to other whites, that they think I am what they wish me to be. That is, exotic.

  172. space Says:

    Ah, I see. And “Asian” is tied up with “foreign” and “exotic” in the popular White conception of the races. I remember when my boyfriend talked about a store that sells “Chinese products,” I told him, “Every store sells Chinese products.” And even a “Chinese product” used in a certain way, usually out of context as room decor, is very much part of White affluent North American culture, so in its usage it is not foreign at all, any more than a piece of classic kitschy Americana made in China, or your Japanese- or Korean-made cell phone or automobile.

    In my environment, even a good portion of the white people are foreign, yet I also used to know a lot of Asian Americans, generally 1.5-2nd generation, some of whom couldn’t even speak their parents’ native language, never mind tell you how people did things “in their (parents’) country.” So I’ve learned that you really can’t tell where someone is from unless you’ve talked to them and heard their accent. And even then, there can be a wide variety of accents among 1.5-generationers, from a moderately thick accent of their parents’ home country to a nearly perfect local accent.

  173. Lxy Says:

    My Great Great Grandfather was wounded four times fighting against slavery.
    When I came back from Iraq I applied for a job that I had to test for, I scored 100%, yet the job was given to a black man who failed the test.

    So, in other words, you are owed a job after your heroic service murdering “sand niggers” “camel jockeys,” and “haji girls” in Iraq?

    USA military stormtroopers should be very thankful that they haven’t been prosecuted in war crime trials for America’s aggression against Iraq.

    At least not yet.

    BTW, the Civil War was not about ending slavery. It was about keeping the American Empire (i.e. the Union) together.

  174. Kammeroper Köln: Afroperücke für Bösewicht in Mozart-Kinderoper angeblich “am Original geblieben” | DER SCHWARZE BLOG Says:

    […] Do all white people have white privilege? Why? https://restructure.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/do-all-white-people-have-white-privilege-why/ […]

  175. jewamongyou Says:

    In this article, you state an opinion, then express it as a mathematical equation. Sorry, but expressing it this way does not make it true. All else being equal, blacks and Hispanics have the advantage. However, things are usually not equal. As a group, whites behave differently than blacks or Hispanics. This behavior, and the choices they tend to make, gives whites an advantage. Whites have higher average I.Q.’s as well and this is an advantage. If you control for these two things (and I’m not sure how you can do that), then your “white privilege” falls apart.

  176. Restructure! Says:

    In this article, you state an opinion, then express it as a mathematical equation. Sorry, but expressing it this way does not make it true.

    RTFA: “Of course, the above equation is just an expression or model of how white privilege fits together with other privileges, not a proof of the privileges.”

  177. Restructure! Says:

    As for IQ, have you read Stephen Jay Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man? I find any racist talk of IQ boring, because I take these ideas to be debunked already in Gould’s book.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: