Except that's not what it means at all.
Something being EASIER does not mean it is EFFORTLESS. There is a difference between something being a relative definition ("Being homeless in America is easy compared to being homeless in a third world country." and a flat standard ("Learning how to kick a can is easy.")
The point is, we can't keep blaming the people who've done nothing wrong except not suffer as some others have. If we're going to beat WPS then we have to stop attacking the non-combatants.
I know how fond we are of analogies on hot-button topics but I can't think of a better one to explain this.
It's like the victims of the Holocaust blaming Germans for the atrocities committed. Germans didn't do shit, it was "certain" Germans, very specifically fundie Nazis and the SS, with some help from the Wermacht. When Kark, Joey, DS, DG, and other white people who not only haven't discriminated against anybody in their life, but haven't necessarily benefitted from WPS in any discernible way object, you could say that's like a Holocaust survivor berating a German and the German points out that their family immigrated to the United States in the 1800's and they had as much to do with the Holocaust as the Vulcans.
edited 16th May '12 7:16:08 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorFirst, let me say: I hear you. Most people don't like to hear they're part of a problem. As a man, it's hard to listen to a girl's complaints when she points a finger at me and yells, "Patriarchy!"
However, some of these actually ARE true. An Anecdotal Fallacy of "None of my friends/family/whatever ever put someone down" isn't the point. It doesn't change the fact that these problems exist, but because different people see things from a different normative filter, they might not see the same problems as someone else from a different walk of life.
What else should the energy be directed at? The system? Often times, it is these "non-combatants" you're referring to that argue in favor of one aspect of the system or another that is flawed because they can't see why it's flawed, or don't wish to give up the implicit privilege they receive from it and thus approach it from the disingenuous angle of "you liberals simply wish to make minorities have more advantages than us straight white males."
Affirmative action is the go-to example, for that particular scenario.
edited 18th May '12 10:49:29 PM by DerelictVessel
"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"Except the vast majority of people aren't trying to make that point. I'd reckon half of the privileged community does not support that point, the next big fraction is neither for or against, and that tiny little hardcore conservative company believes that.
I'm pretty sure the concept of Law having limits was a translation error. -WanderlustwarriorAffirmative action is the go-to example, for that particular scenario.
Both you and Zeal make excellent points Derelict. But as DDR so very well points out something we tend to overlook in these discussions and others. It seems that in most arguments there is an "under-categorization" of the 'other'. In less complicated speak, we tend to consider a group of people more monolithic and less differentiated than they are.
There are people who act precisely as you say, they are part of the problem. But like most of our awesome tropers, many of the white folks here have never pretended that non-whites don't have it tough.
It was an honorJust going to jump in here with something that occurred to me today.
I've had this particular discussion with a good many people (both here and elsewhere), and I've noticed a disturbing trend; a lot of folks tend to conflate "things are getting better" with "we can safely drop this issue". The two aren't really comparable.
Sure, things are getting better, when one takes a step back and views the larger picture. But they got better because of effort expended by previous generations, and if we want the trend to continue the effort has to keep getting expended.
As I see it, racism is a very pernicious and diffuse problem; there's no linchpin to pull, no big monster to kill. It's a bunch of little annoying issues that have to be hunted down one by one, and a big part of the problem is that there's a wide (and debatable) gray area as to what constitutes an "issue".
Basically its a bunch of individual perceptions rooted in a bunch of individual minds, forming a trend some of us don't really like. Solving that is going to take a lot of time, and I don't really think there's a way to short-circuit the process.
If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~For those continuing to argue that the "Easy Mode" or "White Privilege" labels are the best framing devices, I simply would like to remind you that even if they were accurate (which I disagree), they will continue to alienate a large portion of the people that you will probably need on your side to make any sort of real impact on a problem this large. So, if for no other reason that practicality, it should probably be labeled as a "nonwhite disadvantage" or something similar.
Yeah that's fine. I wasn't trying to give a particularly good term myself, just saying that the original ones aren't useful for any side of the debate.
edited 22nd May '12 6:15:24 PM by Vericrat
Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.I believe the term "white privilege" is used by social justice advocates rather than the sociological term "institutionalized racism" because white privilege is specifically designed, as a semantic device, to shift the discussion from "this bad thing is happening to minorities" to "this bad thing is happening to minorities, and you are directly benefiting from it." In a way, it prevents people (in theory) from absolving themselves from responsibility. You can't say, in a discussion of white privilege "well I didn't cause this, so how is it my fault?" because it isn't a question of fault, it's a question of free riders (to use an economics term). That is to say, no current white people didn't create the system, but they've benefited greatly from it, and so are obligated to fix it so that it isn't broken and rigged. The fact that they didn't directly break it to begin with is irrelevant and a red herring as far as the discussion goes.
Of course, one can argue that people wouldn't dismiss the problem because of basic decency, but that's the Just World fallacy. If we lived in a Just World, we would never have had a broken system to begin with.
Nope. See, unfortunately for you, we still have racks and everything, extra special, just for you.
...what? We had them laying around still from the Spanish Inquisition.
*
"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"
Well, yes, but there's also the problem of White Privilege being a blanket term that is a massive simplification of problems in the real world. Not all white people have White Privilege, and considering that racism is mostly prevalent amongst the the undereducated and poverty-stricken classes, generalizing white people as Privileged does more harm than good.
Those who have the educational and social class advantage are more likely to be able to recognize that institutional racism is still very prevalent in society, because it's very easy to see "hey, most of the people in my social class is white".
The problem is when you're a part of the same educational and social class as the "unprivileged" (and thus more likely to fight against things like Affirmative Action), and someone comes along and tells you that minorities still have it worse. It alienates the very people that you need to be reaching out to.
edited 22nd May '12 6:43:22 PM by DrunkGirlfriend
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -DrunkscriblerianTechnically, all white people do have white privilege, regardless of their personal situation.
As I said before, as a social experiment, try putting Jamal Jackson on your manuscripts rather than "Stanley Jacobs" or putting "Shaniqua Lewis" on a job application instead of "Wendy Franklin".
edited 22nd May '12 6:47:06 PM by KingZeal
I personally understand that, but it's one of those things that people (in general) are less inclined to believe unless they can experience it. And when putting your standard "white" name on the application consistently results in zero callbacks, you're not going to be able to comprehend that anyone can possibly consider you privileged.
Edit: Basically, I'm saying that it's easier for the lower class to grasp the notion of systemetic disadvantage than it is for them to grasp the concept of "I don't care if you're unemployed and facing eviction, you still have it better than all minorities", which is how the White Privilege argument parses.
edited 22nd May '12 6:52:18 PM by DrunkGirlfriend
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

Yeah, that isn't true at all. Tier Induced Scrappy and That Damn Ken exist for a reason.