Is "white privilege" a racist weapon?

No, its mostly perceived as such by white people with a persecution complex.

@PraetorianMan: Other way around actually. Victim personalities use it.

It's used as a weapon sure. Does white privilege exist? Probably, the same goes for Black, Asian etc privilege. ,

Complains the term white privilege is used as a rhetorical weapon.

Uses the term libtard in his response.

I assume this will be another thread where n64 fails to support anything he says. He has so much in common with trump, both just spew bullshit and never back anything up lol.

@Nick3306: they’re compensating for their undersized hands

Note: This is purely anecdotal.

I'm training a new hire at work. He is black. Him and I like to discuss politics. I expressed my views on white privilege and how I believe systemic racism puts minorities at a disadvantage. He replied with, " You hate your own race?".

That is a confusing response from him since you didn't say that at all....

You see, this is why a like button would be useless, because even when you say things like this I could still only give you a single thumbs up, and you deserve a million,plus one.

I’ve never heard anyone I know, black, white, or any other color actually use the term before much less use it as a “weapon”.

It's not that confusing, when you consider that some white people that constantly talk about white privilege suffer from a bad case of white guilt.

What was your response?

What don't you understand about white privilege(WP) that makes you rail against it? WP is not a racist weapon. It is a matter of fact in our country. Consider a few basic points:

1. First of all life isn't fair.

2. There is no greater narrative throughout this country's history than that of race.

3. The founding fathers incorporated systemic advantages into our country to benefit white people and deter black people.

4. Black people have been overtly and legally made to feel inferior to white people for the entire history of our country save the last 50 or so years.

5. The caucasian race is overwhelmingly the majority in the U.S.

These factors(and others) coalesce to form WP. This is a fact not worth arguing about. It is not a myth. It is not an invention of a liberal or anti Trump politician. It exists.

You can argue whether or not some people use it as an excuse for their own failures and what not. You can argue if it is a crutch used by some. But it does exist.

You could say it is racist.

But since we are talking about white people the consensus among the far-left and democrats is that racism only exists among whites against other races. Which of course is BS.

OP:

Does it matter either way? if so how?

Sure but generalizing never seems to work well and it still misses the entire point of what white privilege is. It has little to do with races hating other races or even blaming others.

@Serraph105: I was caught off guard.

Funny you should say that because the last 50 years the black family has been in decline. Single motherhood being the largest factor in generational poverty (not being black). If there were such a thing as white privilege today its not believing everyone is out to get you and adopting culture based on personal responsibility and hard work. Racism is largely gone and the only racist laws on the books directly benefit black people. But things were evened out, systems were put in place that actually give black people an unfair advantage... and they still end up committing the 50% of the murders while only being 13% of the population, and they tend to be non compliant and confrontational with police officers. Even then them committing more violent crimes statistically police feel more comfortable shooting white people because there is less fallout.

The fact is the playing field was evened out and even they were given an advantage, but they never overcame the ghetto lifestyle (slavery ghetto, not today's ghetto) and fell behind. You can either call it white privilege or black failure today. When actual African's that are black can succeed in america where native black's can't there is a problem and its not white people for once.

This is either the greatest troll post of all-time or the absolute dumbest serious post I have ever read on this forum. Racism is largely gone? The only racist laws these days benefit black people? Holy hell. No black family in the US would want to go back 20 or 30 years ago, let alone 50.

How do you feel about this?

Can you tell me what I'm wrong about?

Moore isn't suggestion we revitalize family values along with slavery... you'd have to be stupid to interpret it that way. What he's saying is in spite of slavery we had strong family families. He's not saying slavery is a good thing or anything racist.

And 50 years ago half of black families were middle class... more racism yes... but blacks had a stronger culture and more prosperous than they do today.

Literally everything you said in that post prior is garbage lol, to seriously entertain it would be a waste of my time and I'm unsure if you are genuine.

The bolded right there is why I find it hard to take what you say seriously. There is no shred of evidence you can conjure up to prove black people had it better 50 years ago. Every academic and black family in America would disagree with you.

Im pretty sure there's never been a single point in American history where half blacks were middle class. Yes, i will say that during the 60s and 70s some blacks in industrial area's were doing well, but that's all gone now and nothing of value has replaced it and even worse, we've removed any kind of social safety net for them.

Everything I said, even the FBI statistics? Which say your 2x more likely to get shot by police if your white or 50% of murders are committed by blacks even though they are 13% of the population. Or how bout 70% of black children are born to single mothers? Or that the largest factor in generational poverty is single motherhood. Or that we do have laws on the books explicitly designed to help black people like affirmative action. Or black immigrants earn 30% more than native blacks. If you watch many of the videos with 'police brutality' against blacks... its not exactly coming out of no where. Like Eric Gardner.. What was he doing? Non compliance which then they have to use force. Predatory lending is considered a 'racist institution' but its so stupid. Its a government program that was intended to HELP black people get loans... but take a moment to think the logic through, they can't get loans because they are unlikely going to be able to pay them back... so lets make a policy to insure those loans! That'll make them less poor! Up until the point they can't afford to pay it back...

Can you even say what white privilege even means?

Half of blacks now are middle class. Though they are lower middle class compared to whites. Between 1960's and now they didn't keep up with white progress... and black poverty is much different than white poverty. And there is definitely prejudice against a particular black subculture, but thats not racism. Have we removed all social safety nets? Alot of woman are 'single' on purpose because they get more government subsidies. I'm not black, but i'm not white. And many of my family is poor. My sister has several children from different men and she's stuck on welfare, same with my cousin but she's been with the same guy since she was 14 but never married because more welfare. There are definitely safety nets. The problem is none of them are designed to find a way to get people to independence. They just stay dependent. Areas that are failing most is because the safety nets became overburdened and fell over. I think Detroit is the prime example of safety nets failing some schools are spending more money per kid than the national average... but you can buy a house for 4k because its in such a shit hole. At some point if your poor your just going to have to do better and not complain, and sacrifice everything for your children. That is the american dream. Safety nets aren't a catch all, or will work correctly in the long run.

I think what you're citing is the 46% yes? Which is self polling data. Its people who think they're middle class. Having been "lower class" for decades, people who break 20k a year, think theyre middle class. But that is not what middle class is.

And that is generally because of systematic racism. Or economic bigotry... economic socialism? However you want to put it, its funds going from the poor, to the already rich or well off.

You can consider this anecdotal but i live in FL, in a very diverse area. Its lower class, but its diverse. The population is split between blacks, whites, peutro ricans, cubans, hatians, etc. The city itself is a poorer region of the Tampa Bay area. Probably... five or six years back, the state decided to cut funding to our schools and some social services, because Trinity, a white picket fence area that is mostly white, needed a pond and fountain. So what do you think that does economically to people?

Most, yes we have. Not only have removed most, but weve reduced most and reduced the concept. The concept of a social safety net was not to wait until you were as poor as shit, it was to keep you from going under and maintain you as a tax paying, normal citizen. That's been entirely removed.

So, the "on purpose" thing is a bullshit argument. It is and it is not. Again, anecdotal or not, i dated a woman with 2 kids who made the decision you're referencing. She was placed in the position of keeping her 12 dollar and hour job, or losing health care for her children, food stamps for her children and housing assistance. Over 12 fucking dollars an hour. Obviously at 12 dollars an hour no one can afford health care for three people plus rent plus food. So she made that choice that kept her children alive. Are you going to blame her? Are you going to shame her? Are you really going to suggest this is the right direction our society goes in? She had no problems working, she actually loved the job, she didnt want to quit, she literally cried about it. But because we dont know what the social safety net is really about, she had to quit.

Now i have a feeling that given our unemployment rates and how they don't really seem to show a trend of people not wanting to work, that the vast majority of people who do "take advantage" of the "system", is only because they have to. Or, i wont even say "have to", because it takes their life from "shit" to "nearly shit".

No I was talking about some article I read and can't find now.

And that is generally because of systematic racism. Or economic bigotry... economic socialism? However you want to put it, its funds going from the poor, to the already rich or well off.

What systemic racism? Post 50s/60s that just isn't true. The "systems" in place legally were to help black people. Even ones that are backfiring now were intended to help.

I also don't think you know how money works. No rich person is stealing from the poor. The reason they get more money is because they are rich and have capitol to spend and make more money on it. When they spend money... other people are able to get money and it ends up being beneficial for both parties. Even immigrants are doing this, coming to america, and getting masters degrees and end up wealthy, and they are black. Where is the racism against them?

And if your talking about taxes... well.. again you don't seem to understand how taxes work. Nothing is being taken from the poor. They are poor, they have nothing for people to take. The choice is how much the government take from the rich to alleviate the poors plight. And many times the rich will leave or less wealthy fail because taxes take too much and social programs implode. (see Venezuela for a poorly implemented socialist regime).

I mean I feel like your taking the progressive Marxist look at the rich and its more of envy they have soo much and not... what value can you bring to society to get more. All I'll say is that sort of thinking leads to a lot of people dieing... several times through out history.

You can consider this anecdotal but i live in FL, in a very diverse area. Its lower class, but its diverse. The population is split between blacks, whites, peutro ricans, cubans, hatians, etc. The city itself is a poorer region of the Tampa Bay area. Probably... five or six years back, the state decided to cut funding to our schools and some social services, because Trinity, a white picket fence area that is mostly white, needed a pond and fountain. So what do you think that does economically to people?

See taxes point. The funding in poorer areas don't get funding because they don't have funding unless they requisition another communities surplus funding. And maybe the funding wasn't deemed effective and and it was lost. And thats assuming that the funding was explicitly cut for the fountain. It might just be the funding was cut because they didn't have the budget but the community with lots of money... could buy a fountain. Local communities do have their own funding.

Most, yes we have. Not only have removed most, but weve reduced most and reduced the concept. The concept of a social safety net was not to wait until you were as poor as shit, it was to keep you from going under and maintain you as a tax paying, normal citizen. That's been entirely removed.

It hasn't been removed, social nets again have no way of moving someone back into independence. And people don't fall gracefully like you think. Like the biggest problem is single motherhood. If your not already in a financially stable job with a partner your life is going to be difficult and your going to have to make sacrifices for the child.

Or if you get injured on the job and can't work, you go from financially stable to completely dependent over night. Or your skills become superseded by new tech and you can't find a job any more.

Good decision making keeps you from being poor as shit, safety nets catch you when you fall, but you got to get out and climb back up.

So, the "on purpose" thing is a bullshit argument. It is and it is not. Again, anecdotal or not, i dated a woman with 2 kids who made the decision you're referencing. She was placed in the position of keeping her 12 dollar and hour job, or losing health care for her children, food stamps for her children and housing assistance. Over 12 fucking dollars an hour. Obviously at 12 dollars an hour no one can afford health care plus rent plus food. So she made that choice that kept her children alive. Are you going to blame her? Are you going to shame her? Are you really going to suggest this is the right direction? She had no problems working, she actually loved the job, she didnt want to quit, she literally cried about it. But because we dont know what the social safety net is really about, she had to quit.

You cherry picked a statement out of context. I quoted 'single' on purpose and gave an example of what I meant. Someone like my cousin that is financially stable and with someone and refusing to marry. Or like my sister that generally has more transient men in her life. My criticism is that there is no point in committing to anyone, not for the father/mother to try to take care of their child.

What happened to the guy? Why did she have two kids? This is just poor decision making. The best safety net is better sex education and having young teens understand the consequences of their decisions and own then. You want to stop people from being in bad positions? The 2 biggest things you can do in america... is finish high school, don't have kids until your married.

I'm not saying the system is good, I've actually given two criticisms, one it has no mobility off it, two it allows for social breakdown to occur because it allows people to fail. This exacerbated the issue of single motherhood. 60+ years ago if you had a child you got married and spent your life taking care of that child. People, especially men, had a sense of duty.

I mean your acting like this money to fund safety nets is available so long as rich people don't steal it. Thats not how it works. Rich people have the money because they are making the money. If you keep taking it from them more will just move to a place like Texas which has fewer taxes and a surplus in funding. Which is probably how your funding collapsed for school... a fountain and a pond is probably cheaper.

I pointed out Venezuela already so might be a good point to also mention sweden. Sweden works as a socialist country because they still have a strong work ethic and personal responsibility. They have incredibly tight borders and their social programs are even protected from even new citizens. The difference is the social fabric between the two groups of people. We're more like Venezuela and much larger with more poor and allow illegal immigrants to access benefits. With the absence of strong social values, safety nets will fail over time.

Oh I think anti-racists (and I am anti-racist) have a tendency to become the biggest racists themselves. And of course they won't easily acknowledge that even if you show them exactly what they are doing. There are plenty of anti-racist activities that become very racist in an attempt to correct the situation. I think it's because that is sometimes the only apparent way to have a big impact. To do anything about it. That is dangerous and that should be discussed. But it's tough because you can probably imagine that showing the biggest most passionate anti-racists that they have become the problem is not going to land well.

And the same thing happens with anti-sexism or gender equality (and I am, you wouldn't have guessed it, anti sexism like probably everyone else here). There are very shocking stories and images you can find of men needing help but being laughed out the door by feminists or some beautiful quotes from important feminists about killing men being OK and white people wanting to demonstrate for the rights of black people but being chased out because of the color of their skin. Feminists organizing ladies only nights out. Or the topic of whitewashing and how according to some anti-racists only black people should be allowed to voice black characters.

It happens very easily. And I think it is very dangerous. It seems to be the natural way for human society to correct itself. The society moves too far in a wrong direction (we get racism) and then we get a push back by people who go too far themselves (they become the new racists themselves, the new problem) and then eventually they will have to be pushed back by other people who go too far, etc., etc. And hopefully, slowly, we get where we wanted to be. That irks me. Can't we see this happening and just get it right in one go this time? This is already happening with feminism where they have gone too far in some aspects and are now being pushed back by men's rights movements and statistics of school performance and suicides and life expectancy. And of course that gets ignored at first but can't we see that maybe all of this matters? All of the problems? Instead of pushing back and forth pretending that 'your problems aren't as bad as mine' and 'your group is privileged or is better off so we will treat your individuals as lesser beings'?

I don't know the idea behind white privilege so I don't know if that is one of those instances where they take it too far it may just be a term in which the designation white is a useful or accurate one. Which sounds OK, right? But it is very dangerous territory because most racism that anyone would be against was accepted under the banner of practicality or usefulness. Exceptions can be made when it concerns safety or some such but those are very rare exceptions I would say. And if we're just talking about a word I'm not too concerned about that unless many people are bullied with it or something.

Usually, when an anti-racist group focuses on the color of your skin (or when an anti-sexist group focuses on your gender) they have gone too far and have become a bigger problem themselves. True anti-racists do not care about the color of your skin. Just like feminists were not supposed to care about your gender. They are the last people on Earth to tell you who you are, what to do or what you cannot do because of your skin.

I don't think that is the case; I think people are saying that when white people do it, it carries weight.

There is racism, white privilege, then there is institutionalized racism.

When a black man doesn't like how an encounter goes, he might say "Oh, you're only saying that because I am black!" That's racism.

When a white person born into a white family of middle-class standing, goes to college with some aid from his family and a scholarship or two, get's a job at a firm that employs practically all white people, then says "People just need to work hard to get where I am at", that is white privilege. It's not bad, it's not good, it is just one person's fortune and another's lack of it.

When you're driving around San Francisco and a black man crosses the street in front of you, and you lock your car, that is institutionalized racism.

Did you know that White´s are actually not the majority in colleges and universities? So do we also talk about Hispanic privilege ? or Asian ? or African-American or what about the decades of special rules that makes it so a black person with a lower GPA will get the spot over any candidate who may be more suited. Or what about the special treatment for athletes. Not forgetting women and the constant bickering about "class ceiling"

What you are talking about is not "white privilege" it's simple how humans work. Birds of a feather flock together and it's the same when you look at the people in charge of hiring. But that does not mean they won't hire the most qualified candidate.

And racism, as said this is nothing less what this is all about. "white privilege" is a valid reason for some people to be racist against white.

If someone agrees that racism is still alive in some form (unconscious bias even), then 'white privilege' is definitely a thing. I think people tend to get worked up over the labeling as 'white'. If it were labeled as 'discriminatory advantages', or something along those lines I figure more people would be on board with it.

It's the other group of people, those that refuse to ignore some systemic racism because it may shatter their entire world. Those are the ignorant ones.

That's not white privilege, that's financial privilege. And its not there aren't white people that are born poor that end up in similar posisitons later in life saying similar things. or asians/mexican's/indians/Black immigrants...

When you're driving around San Francisco and a black man crosses the street in front of you, and you lock your car, that is institutionalized racism.

what in the holy **** .... you being in a car isn't an institution, and your making assumptions that there aren't other reasons to lock the door. FOR instance... if I saw someone that is white that looked like he was from a biker gang.. I'd lock the door. Sometimes when your in a vulnerable situation... its ok to be prejudice against an individual you don't know. Any respectful self defense class will teach you this. And I guarantee that you wouldn't react this way if it was a black man in a suite or an elderly black person. So I'd ask is the blackness the problem?

What is racist is your assumption of the scenario, and probably any one that agreed with your statement, when you said black, you and everyone else interpreted it as gang banger.

@waahahah: white privilege goes hand in hand with financial privilege. In my example, I specifically said the guy went off and got a job that employs mostly white people. There are still plenty of businesses out there that discriminate.

as for "institutionalized racism", I was referring to the cultural definition of it.

in·sti·tu·tion·al·izedˌinstəˈt(y)o͞oSH(ə)nəlˌīzd/adjective

1.established in practice or custom."the danger of discrimination becoming institutionalized"

No, because its not like white people suffer poverty or over come it, same with every other race, and its not like other races are afforded financial security.

So what your subtly saying with institutionalized racism is that all white people are racist because its built into our culture?

Someone in a car that locks the door, is not institutionalized racism. And I'm going to point out again the bigotry/racism in your own statement. Either your saying white people will lock doors because of the presence of a black person, which is racist to assume that, or that the presence of a black person represents a threat.

Interesting, I am black and I know a lot of black people who feel bringing up white privilege is being racist to white people. I think its just a matter of what you learned from society. If you would have taken a survey of blacks during slavery or jim crow and they most likely would have told you everything was fine; funny how systematic oppression works.

You're arguing with a racist. I don't know why you try. You talk about Detroit, are you from that area?

No I'm not from detroit but I've read multiple documentaries on it from different political views.

I think its a core american belief now that racism is just everywhere at this point and its really hard to let that go at this point. This is an amazing video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phPXTWJhnYM

Watch a white guy try to convince a black guy that there is racism and gets crucified. If you try to pin people down with where and how... they come up with these abstract bullshit theories like "institutional racism" or "unconscious bias".

I think its really hard to point out civil right's and feminism worked really well... and in some areas we might now be over correcting and missing the real issue. But if we are just going to use blanket statements like "institutional racism" then we won't solve anything.

put in the thread for you

Well i searched up and down for a number around 50% and the only thing i found were some polls. There's no actual data that says this, no studies and no peer review.

Things didnt reset after the civil rights movement. We still see politicians intentionally doing voter ID laws in areas to remove black voters. We still see police being instructed to arrest or harass... focus on, black males more than anyone else, about half of our prison population is 6% of the population and its mostly bullshit drug crimes, etc.

I was going to go on but i feel like you have a tenuous grasp on these topics and youll never be able to cite a single thing you say. Find the percentage thing above and maybe ill take you a bit more seriously, until then i feel its a wasted conversation.

Now that Rubin has finally come out of the closet as a conservative and the point of his show was to bring on people he disagree's with, i wonder if he will now have progressives on?? Nahhhhh, of course not, he's found a money maker.

To answer the man in the video of "examples of systematic racism", i'd have to point to a NY police chief telling his officer to stop wasting time on anyone but black males.... and this conversation was even recorded if anyone would like to hear it. This is the definition of systematic racism. We could also go with the many stop and frisk programs going on across the nation and point out how when it comes to whites, they are very successful but with blacks... not so much. And of course by their own admissions we know this is due to them actually applying real FBI profiling tactics to everyone except black people, black people the profiling is a single list long... they're black. Which again, is another definition of systematic racism. Maybe we could give the example of republicans admitting to voter ID laws to disenfranchise black voters. Again, yet another example of systematic racism. We have a very long list of "examples" we can bring up.

@N64DD I encourage you and everyone to contemplate on this.

'Racism' is a belief system. A thought if you will, we can not go around legislating, condemning and censoring peoples belief system or thoughts anymore then I can make a person stop worshiping god.

Racism is not the issue, in fact the vast majority of people even in the most 'polite' circles are racist. What matters is 'Discrimination'.

The alt-right wants to get people confused about the two (thought vs action) because they can alter the conversation to their favor.

So in short, the subject in question is not 'racism', nobody should ever care about that word. The word of the day is 'Discrimination', which is vastly different.

Where's the statistics on the BS charges? Considering 13% of the population commits 50% of the murders, and most of the "drug crime" are trafficking... These people are caught with piles of drugs and unfortunately I don't agree with it.. but mandatory minimums.

He has progressives on regularly. I think conservatives end up willing to talk more.

You know maybe the problem isn't that police are told to profile black people for no reason. That would be racist. But if they are disproportionately committing crimes...We are proportionally incarcerating them correctly. And you really can't argue with the statistics.

Also voter ID laws have nothing to do with being racist. Are your trying to say that trying to stopping potential voter fraud will hurt the black man because they are incapable of getting a license? Its not hard... or expensive... and if this is true we really should profile black people more often driving cars...

Its actually 6%, specifically black males and of course this is generally because of redistribution of taxes to richer areas and tax cuts to the rich and corporations. Its well established, a basic course in economics will teach you this. "Trafficking" is dropped most of the time for other charges, but its no different from distribution. And mandatory minimums have proven to be possibly the worst direction we have gone in. They're extremely costly and extremely destructive.

Who was his last one?

Actually, who was the last one he had on and asked them to speak on issues he now disagree's with?

Right now the only two progressives that come to mind that he has had on is Blair White, who didnt speak on anything other than anti-sjw stuff and Sargon, who say's hes a liberal but most his positions are fairly far right wing extremist. I guess he had Thunderfoot on quite a while ago but again, they spoke on science and anti-sjw stuff.

Yes, when you're told to ignore other potential threats/criminals and focus on black males, that is a very clear racism and you have to be the dumbest person in the world to attempt to skew this or pretend its not what it is. Hey, here's an idea, lets see what happens to crime numbers if they start stopping and frisking all white people.... what do you think would happen? You want me to start citing peer reviews that show blacks and whites tend to use drugs at the same rate? Lets try to get those gerbils going and figure out what would happen if either targeted policing stopped, or was expanded to everyone.

Straight from the politicians who apply them and the people who wrote them:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/north-carolina-voting-rights-law/493649/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/north-carolina-gop-brags-racist-voter-suppression-is-workingand-theyre-right

https://www.vox.com/2016/9/2/12774066/voter-id-laws-racist

http://thepoliticus.com/content/north-carolina-republican-admits-voter-id-laws-are-all-about-suppressing-black-voters

BTW, voting is a right to all US citizens. So even if these were applied, it would need to be accompanied by a law that GUARANTEES free and easy to obtain IDs to every single citizen. But we also know for a fact, an unquestionable fact, that voter fraud in terms of individual voters is not even remotely close to being a problem.

6% of the population? The FBI statistics are very clear, 50% of homicides were committed by black people.. of ALL american's.

Also I don't agree with mandatory minimums but when a black guy is caught several times carrying drugs, and the minimum kicks in... its his own fault. Same with people getting charged with distribution. And its not like they are randomly raiding black peoples homes, usually the DEA catches them by getting a low level criminal to testify or be part of a sting operation.

Like its not like they are starting in black communities, drug trails keep leading them in along with other high crime issues.

Who was his last one?

Actually, who was the last one he had on and asked them to speak on issues he now disagree's with?

Right now the only two progressives that come to mind that he has had on is Blair White, who didnt speak on anything other than anti-sjw stuff and Sargon, who say's hes a liberal but most his positions are fairly far right wing extremist. I guess he had Thunderfoot on quite a while ago but again, they spoke on science and anti-sjw stuff.

Bret Weinstein, Lindsey Shepard...

Like he has no issue with progressives. I think the problem is and you see a lot of people saying it, the left left me. Basically they are no longer liberal or carry liberal values.

Right wring extremism is anarchy. Fascism is a left wing extremism. The left has polluted the terms. Racism isn't a political stance... any political party can and has been racist.

Sargon again is a good example of someone that is more libertarian, they want the government out of their affairs. Right wing racist want the right to be racist in their own little racist community, and for people to leave them alone. If its ok for black people to want a black ethnostate and black political parties... I don't see the issue with having equal white interest groups like Richard Spencer (he's not a white supremacist, he's a white nationalist). Same with with most 'alt-right' aren't actually the same as the racist white supremacists.

A black interest group is fine but a white interest group is extreme? Even sargon isn't extreme in this sense, he like many people see that we might be over correcting and trampling on white rights now. That's the heart of the alt right's issue.

Also social justice is a completely rubbish idea.

Yes, when you're told to ignore other potential threats/criminals and focus on black males, that is a very clear racism and you have to be the dumbest person in the world to attempt to skew this or pretend its not what it is. Hey, here's an idea, lets see what happens to crime numbers if they start stopping and frisking all white people.... what do you think would happen? You want me to start citing peer reviews that show blacks and whites tend to use drugs at the same rate? Lets try to get those gerbils going and figure out what would happen if either targeted policing stopped, or was expanded to everyone.

When the vast majority of threats are black males then to catch the vast majority of threats you have to profile.

You don't understand the difference between racism, and using statistics to stop s

Also no one is stopping in frisking for drugs... they are looking for weapons. The whole idea of stop and frisk is motivated by trying to reduce violent crime... Very few people are going to jail over using drugs, they usually get a plea deal that ends up having them help catch the drug dealer which usually ends up in a black/brown neighbor hood.

Straight from the politicians who apply them and the people who wrote them:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/north-carolina-voting-rights-law/493649/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/north-carolina-gop-brags-racist-voter-suppression-is-workingand-theyre-right

https://www.vox.com/2016/9/2/12774066/voter-id-laws-racist

http://thepoliticus.com/content/north-carolina-republican-admits-voter-id-laws-are-all-about-suppressing-black-voters

BTW, voting is a right to all US citizens. So even if these were applied, it would need to be accompanied by a law that GUARANTEES free and easy to obtain IDs to every single citizen. But we also know for a fact, an unquestionable fact, that voter fraud in terms of individual voters is not even remotely close to being a problem.

https://thefederalist.com/2016/11/04/no-north-carolina-didnt-slash-early-voting-hours/

Leftest cherry picking data.

I don't see how you could accept requiring a state issued ID as a racist proposal. Even in one of your links it mentioned its super easy to claim voter fraud and requires investigation... so maybe there is more to the motivation than racism. Like most things in life, unless its an entitlement it likely is going to disproportionately effect poor people. Unfortunately you can't keep screaming racism every time it does because a particular ethnic group is poor.

And voting actually is not a right its a privilege. In fact if your a male you have to sign up for the draft as well as everyone gets jury duty for that privilege. And its not like its expensive to get an ID of some sort. I believe if your own government entitlements you shouldn't be allowed to vote, which would disproportionately ally effect black people.

So here becomes the critical thinking question and also makes this conversation a lot more honest.

Why do you think it is that 50% of homicides are committed by black people

FBI statistics that were released.

So... there is no real questioning the statistics its just a matter of understanding the problem/solution. Lefts say black people suffer due to racism and unjust police profiling, conservatives say liberal attitudes towards marriage/family and blindly distributing welfare have eroded personal responsibility and good cultural ethics.

In order to believe the left that police are unjustly profiling you'd have to believe that cops basically ignoring white crime.

1. If you're so interested in statistics, why don't you look into these? We know they generally ignore middle-middle class to rich areas, which are mostly white.

2. Charter schools. Look it up and see how bad they are.

That's about all i can say. You want to pretend like you're going by statistics and everyone else is not, but youre simply one of these people who want to use one or two stats and then ignore the rest, the thousands of peer reviews, the thousands of commissions, etc.