Is "white privilege" a racist weapon?

so white institutional racism against blacks is a major factor to all those negitive attributes you mentioned but you think what should be done is for me to ask the black woman why she has multiple kids without being married but not the white woman who does as well?

why does this sound racists AND misogynistic at the same time, as if having creating a baby only takes one person

also..I want you to read this part very carefully becasue I have said it on these threads multiple times and I want to make sure everyone understands....MOST PEOPLE ARE RACIST. RACISM IS NOT THE PROBLEM....the problem is discrimination, not racism.

You failed with cops, their not being racist following statistics for profiling. They are not murdering blacks because of racial discrimination.

What else do you have to back up this wide spread racism claim?

The white woman who has multiple kids from multiple fathers isn't doing better than a black person. She like most people in this situation depends on government entitlements and lives in poverty, does unskilled work etc.

Ah! well if we want to go that way then did you know as a black you are 6x more likely to be shot at by a cop BUT blacks do not commit 6x more violent crimes adjusted for population.

awesome!

Thats not true.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2016/04/27/this-study-found-race-matters-in-police-shootings-but-the-results-may-surprise-you/?utm_term=.57770828b718

The conventional thinking about police-involved shootings, and some scientific research, has been that black suspects are more likely to be shot than white suspects because of an implicit racial bias among police officers. But now a new study has found exactly the opposite: even with white officers who do have racial biases, officers are three times less likely to shoot unarmed black suspects than unarmed white suspects.

I don't know what else to tell you. I am done.

that factoid is intentionally deceptive and insulting.

I never said anything about a racial bias. I said, stastically a black is 6x more likely to be shot at but they do not commit 6x the violent crimes.

It has nothing to do with who did it because of a so called 'racial bias'

but really regardless of the facts, if the PERCEPTION is that its happening do you think the best way to solve the problem is to be combative with the other side or do you think it makes more sense to at least pretend like you care reach out to them and show them the honest facts that you feel they are missing? Do you think something like Charlotteville protest is really the best way to educate them?

being combative on people who are willing to risk their life for a conversation about murders is worthy of treating with more respect even if they are wrong. dont you think?

Of course you are assuming bias, then what else are you suggesting with that statistic. Point is your statistics are wrong, your more likely to be shot if your white.

The entire point is your saying that there is a institutional racist bias causing black people to get shot disproportionately more... mind you without considering how black people behave when detained or if they are proportionally being detained based on the amount of crime they commit statistically.

but really regardless of the facts, if the PERCEPTION is that its happening do you think the best way to solve the problem is to be combative with the other side or do you think it makes more sense to at least pretend like you care reach out to them and show them the honest facts that you feel they are missing?

being combative on people who are willing to risk their life for a conversation about murders is worthy of treating with more respect even if they are wrong. dont you think?

Of course not thats why its not working for the black community which based on body cam footage are significantly more likely to end up in a combative encounter with police because they refuse to comply and resist arrest.

The people who are speaking up in defense of the deaths... like you... fail to understand the situation a cops faces when the incident happens. You use hindsight to analysis the situation and walk into it with the basic premise there is a bias here. The cops are doing their jobs and trying to protect black people, which have ridiculous murder rates against each other. Police are the true black lives matter movement.

no the problem with your counter is that it almost completely depends on how 'didnt have a racial bias' means.

What ? did they just ask the cop if he had a racial bias? come on how lame is that?

however....none of that really matters, if what you say is true how do YOU think is the BEST way to communicate that to the black community? how do you think is the best way to stop them from wanting to riot?

Do you think a protest like in Charlotteville is a good idea for helping out?....(careful this is another trap so cant say I didnt warn you)

I've stated it already, they need to be re-educated on white people not all being racists and that their actions have consequences when being non compliant or resisting arrest. And the entirety of america needs to stop looking on cultural rot as a real culture. People should be ashamed of poor decision making and need to know they are in control of their lives and personal responsibility as well as duty to your children should be top priorities.

@kod said:

Are you saying if someone is taught wrong there isn't an issue with what they know?

I dont think anyone is saying all white people are racists despite it being likely true.

EVERYONE is likely to be racist, racism is not the problem discrimination that is the problem. 'They' meaning BLM specifically is NOT saying 'all white people are racists' they are saying 'cops are being very unfair to blacks'. That is what (if you really care) need to 'educate' them regarding, but my biassed assumption is that you dont want to do that, my assumption is that you WANT to be combative instead and keep them away. I am open to learning how I might be wrong in that assumption

Do you know the book? If so, you should know whats being said about "re-education" coming from the already powerful and franchised.

I don't think this is remotely true and I think what you're attempting to say is that most people hold stereotypes. And i think you're trying to separate two things that are almost inseparable. Ideas generally don't stay within a persons head, they are generally acted on and the vary nature of racism is discrimination, you cannot separate these, a racist person will discriminate.

Why would I want to be combative if I'm saying they should be less combative and less presumptuous about every bad thing that happens to them.

So your using another intellectually dishonest tactict. Re-education just means someone was taught something wrong and it would behoove them to learn the right thing. Like climate change deniers. They might have been taught wrong, but when considering historical data and temperatures as well as trends of CO2 in the air, its pretty clear humans have an unquestionable impact on the environment.

To use an extreme case where the only similarity here is the word re-education is stupid, and ignore what the re-education program is composed of or the purpose... is stupid.

I absolutely think its true.

Have you noticed how people self regulate where they sit in a waiting room based on race? where they go to restaurants? where they live! who they socialize with? the bars they go to? Our system of government is still recording people based on race even.

yes...most people are racist, most people are not aware that they are but racism is not the problem, the problem is discrimination

Not everything involving race, even in a subjective negative why, is racist/racism.

What youre describing is not racism, its merely social mammals conforming to their instincts. This is something that is subconscious and created because it increases our chance for survival. This is a very basic survival trait.

Dont compare the education of facts to the education of opinion.

Climate change, but every measure, is a fact of reality.

What you want to "re-educate" people on is subjective opinions.

I think you are thinking racism as inherently bad. its not, its a believe system. What is bad are actions taken which are not always the same actions. The right wing like to divert attention away from that point by focusing on calling people racist. well..as it turns out most people are racist but again...racisim is not the problem its what you DO with your belief system that is the problem

I might think white people are better than blacks but at the same time work full time in helping black communities. Thus my believe system as crazy as it might seem to others is not the problem and my believe system certiantly should not be regulated and censored, however my ACTIONS should be in question. The problem is the guy who turns black people away because they are black (discrimination)

Having a fairly good grasp of world history i think its objectively fair to say that "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior." is bad. "inherency" is whatever, i really dont give a shit because it needs to be discussed as a real world application.

That said, there's still no definition of racism that fits what you attempted to describe.

Your assumption is race is the largest governing factor when self regulating.

And you have failed to prove any point of discrimination or unjust profiling in america's institutions of today.

Whether or not an entire group of people are racists or designed institutions to be racists are not opinions.

What you described are things that are very much dependent on a persons own life experiences and subjective views.

They are not actually your perception of the world doesn't mean its an accurate understand.

And yet its still contingent on the things i mentioned.

we really need to move on.

I do not agree with you but can we agree that DISCIMINATION is more accurate description of the problem then racism?

If I am racist but I do NO ACTIONS AT ALL...then you are trying to censor my thought. lets just focus on actions of DISCRIMINATION...can we compromise on that much?

Because if not I will have to set a trap to make it look like your supporting thought police.

And? If your stopped by a cop can you determine motive? No so someone who assumes its because they are black is wrong.

They're experience and whats factual needs to be separated. When they ascribe motive because of an incorrect world view then that will reinforce their subjective view. And not every chance encounter is related than if you can't separate the facts of each individual event from your feelings than you'll muddy your view on everything.

Your subjective view and perspective can be wrong. And if no one corrects you than... not only will you live in a fantasy world where racism is everywhere, your likely going to become a very unlikable person, and you'll attribute everyone's dislike as more racism.

No, we're not going to agree on this because you are using language in a very sloppy manner and are applying racism to things that are not racist, and are also unwilling to recognize that you cannot decouple racism from discrimination.

ok so you think its a good idea to regulate and censor a persons thought regardless of what actions they take.

that is you stance. Well I am sorry but I do not agree with that. I think DISCRIMINATION is what needs to be looked at, not racism. I dont care if your racist or not I care if you DISCRIMINATE, I am not for thought police

and also...for those on the right I am a strong advocate of racists free speech rights. I think they SHOULD speak.

They cant be wrong, otherwise we would not call them subjective or perspective views.

You can have facts surrounding them wrong, but it makes them no less subjective or a perspective.

You can't argue about subjective view without pointing out the difference between discrimination and perceived discrimination. If you have an incorrect world view, the perception of discrimination will run wild regardless of facts.

The best case of racism or discrimination people have come up with is cops profiling, and I'm suggesting that the profiling isn't coming from a racist place, its coming from statistically realities where the murder rates are excessive in black communities. And thats the truth.

They can be wrong. This isn't first grade where every one can't be wrong. If your basing your subjective view on a false premise than its a false view.

but are they really? I dont think the numbers actually show that they are. other than specfic geography in which case profiling should be based on WHERE you are, not WHO you are.

So if you're going down this road you seem to want to go down, you should be able to recognize that everyone's thoughts are censored and regulated.

I get what you're trying to do and its not something i'd like to participate in, i merely wanted to correct your use of language and definition.

If statistically there is a problem with black people in specific and surrounding communities... you know because people have cars... then no they aren't discriminating against if the vast majority of crime is a particular race. And I imagine they don't profile black men in suites so its a particular race that makes up the majority of a particular sub culture...

Maybe you should figure out some new words for these wrong subjective or perspective views.

here is the thing.

1. from my understanding the overall statistic on black violent crime is about the same as it is for white violent crime.

2. if a specific area is higher in violent crime then I dont care who you are, profile people that are in that area, not the skin color.

why is that so unreasonable?

I mean your premise is just wrong, you believe that a subjective view is never wrong? Even if its based on incorrect premise or not backed by facts at all. The subjective view would actually be called delusional then.

the reason it matters is because the Right wing is using a misunderstanding to obfuscate the issue and they do it all the time.

and no thought is not regulated, ACTION is regulated.

If we start going down this path then I am going to be all for getting rid of religious beliefs which I see as nothing other than completely and totally damaging in all aspects

Its not

1. they are 13% of the population and are responsible for 30% of violent crime and 50% of murders.

2. If a particular area is dominated by crime reports based on a particular race committing acts of violence against the same race then profiling in that area is going to be best suited using race. Again based on probability if a particular race commit 8 out of every 10 crimes in an area, then 8 members of that race should be stopped in frisked vs 2 other races in a stop and frisk like program. Basically statistical discrimination isn't racist, its just not worth the cops time to treat 2 groups of people equally in an area if the majority of crime is perpetuated by 1 of them.

I'm still waiting for my white privilege to kick in. It hasn't yet. It's almost as if it doesn't exist. I wonder.

You have white privilege. It doesn't matter if you can only afford to eat dirt, its just that you can't be held responsible for anything good that happens to you but only for all the terrible things that happen to black and brown people.

1. I honesty dont know the facts well on that mark but I heard differently. if I have the time I will look it up. what I heard is that its about the same adjusted for the population. In fact, I read that 69% of all violent crime comes from...white males.

2. I dont agree...its not necessary. its better to just profile the area itself.

FBI statistics.

2. I dont agree...its not necessary. its better to just profile the area itself.

I don't think you understand how police work.

Police are responsible for different areas. There is no point in profiling an area you have to work in any way. But making best use of your time in that area means profiling on an individual level. If the major points of overlap in criminality for that area overlap on a particular race than focusing on that race is a just good use of your time.

And even then if an area is dominated by black people.. and crime.. they throw more police into policing that area... would you complain about that area becoming militarized or discrimanatory?

It doesn’t exist.

It’s actually rich vs poor.

I am white and poor. I don’t understand how I am “priveleged”.

You say: “Well you never get pulled over because of your skin colour by cops”

I say: “I can’t even afford a car and don’t drive LOL”.

The term white privelege was created as hate speech against whites. Simple as that.

1. FBI statistics likely also say that 69% of all violent crimes are committed by white males. I read that in a highly reputable news source.

2. I flat out do not agree. I dont find it neccaary to go out of ones way to find a reason to profile. your in a bad neighboorhood, that neighboorhood is mostly black. I dont see any reason to look different because a white person is walking in that same neighboorhood. Picture that for a second, have you seen The Wire? picture in your mind, profiling blacks in that neighboorhoodin that show. a bit silly dont you think given nearly everyone in that hood is black already!

we need to profile this neighborhood!. no you dont, in fact if a white guy is walking in this neighborhood you need to watch that guy

Here is the self inflicting trap 'racists' get themselves into. They argue that blacks are in fact more crime pron, undisciplined, etc etc etc and then say its not racist. Well here is the thing, regardless of if all those items are true or not, its still racist FACTS can in fact be racist. So why have a problem saying 'yeah...I do believe this way and here are the facts to support my view'. Instead of saying 'I am not racist' and then proceed to prove how blacks are a problem..its a non-starter

Sure they are. Your thoughts are limited to your brains development, your education, societal norms, etc. Your brain is not on some broad plain of existence where you're considering everything you possibly could, its limited to mostly your surroundings and genetics. This is really just a derivative of a philosophical conversation on not actually having free will.

I don't believe anything. I understand that "subjective" means "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.".

your thought is not regulated. regulated meaning instructed by law to be a certian way...like regulations. not like 'can be manipulated' your thoughts are not regulated by law, you have the freedom to think as you please, your ACTIONS on the other hand is different.

So telling someone not to be racist is being unamerican becasuse racism is not an action, its a belief.

Yes, it is regulated by society. For most people, few are outside of this, society generally regulates what you think and how you think it. Even the language you use to think can determine which thoughts you have.

no its not! by regulation I mean THE LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

what you think is NOT AGAINST THE LAW....what you DO is.

exactly how many times do I have to say this? when I say 'regulation' I am talking about the LEGAL aspects.