Random Politics & Religion #28: The Last One

Or the Fusion Dossier issue. Again, democrats/liberals are lining up to defend it, but nobody here wants to talk about it...

I specifically said otherwise.


No. That's asinine and you're putting words in my mouth to try to make your own point easier.

Look. White privilege is a thing, but while it can have individual effects, it's not a problem of individuals.

But I am also saying the way people go about tackling it is entirely problematic and just manages to piss people off because most people don't deliberately or consciously engage in it.

If they due, it's called racism.


It is a factor. Minor to major depending on the individual. It is not the factor. But unlike some of the other factors.

Now, all that said, we're moving in the right direction anyhow, just not fast enough for some people because people think society can just change overnight, and it can't.

Damn when I went to look up his stats it didn't say his kneels/to national anthem ratio.

I can't feel sorry for a multi millionaire. If he wants to do social good. Then go do it and stop with the "poor me" status.

You don't have to be a football player to champion your causes.

"White Privilege" is an excuse Champagne Liberals use's to encourage hate towards the middle class. It's this nebulous concept that because someone is white, they get this laundry list of "unearned" special treatments. They will then say it's "invisible" to the white person, as a way of silencing dissent and dismissing the countless evidence that "white privilege" doesn't exist.

What they are really talking about is "class privilege", which has existed for thousands of years in all cultures in every nation and corner of the planet. Children born into parents who possess more material wealth are provided with better opportunities by virtue of their parents having access to more resources. This exists regardless of race, the children of wealthy black parents will have those same privileges as wealthy white children. But since progressives rely on the support of non-whites, they can't attack them this way. West Europe is white, it was an evolutionary adaptation due to the lower amounts of sunlight and thus vitamin D generation. Western Civilization spread throughout the world and ended up being the dominate civilization in the 19th, 20th and 21st century (so far). This has resulted in most wealthy Western families being, you guessed it, white.

You see the thing with crime, people try to link crime rates to race but it's really about poverty and how large the wealth disparity of an area is. But rather then tackle the root cause of these issues, Progressives will turn it into a race issue to cause division with the goal of gaining total power.

We talking about Trump?

Poverty is a ***. someone tell me a fairy tale about how this isn't my fault please.

In order for it to be a "think" it actually has to have some effect on a person's success.

You just said that this is a social issue. Yet, you cannot show any evidence of this occurring because you cannot attribute this being a practice on society, but instead believe that this happens on an individual basis.

There was, once a long time ago, where people in America was judged based on the color of their skin. This does not occur today, or at the very least, not in a fashion where a person's success/failure is determined, even on a minor scale, by a person's skin color. There are too many factors that determines a person's success, most of which involves their education and/or abilities, and less than their own skin color.

If you are going to play the racist card, then you have to play it against every single person and industry in this nation. Are sport leagues racists, since there's a disproportionate number of black athletes vs. all other races in sports compared to the population? Is the music industry racist, for the same reason? Is Hollywood racist?

And, finally, for the question that only you can answer, and nobody else: Are you racist? Should we demonize you because you treat people of a different color differently than what society dictates? Shall I get my pitchfork ready and run you out of this country for being racist?

Once upon a time, White privilege, The End.

The war on drugs, to a degree, does have an effect. You imprison generations of black men for drug offenses, and their children will have a harder time in life without a father. They're less likely to stay in school, and more likely to go to prison. saevel was right in that it's predominantly a class war, so poor whites and mexicans will be caught up in it as well, but the fact that a home without an intact family is a recipe for disaster is irrefutable.

da facts I don't like is mean to me... football is protesting the anthems.... why doesn't anymodys like Nazis anymore?

I've tried to say this before but no one wants to get on board with it.

Race has always been a scapegoat. You're right that it's more about class than race, but because of the way race was used to divide the lower class a couple centuries ago, race has been an additional component.

Racism is really a byproduct of economic disparity.

But that's a choice. It's not like society determined who will be drug dealers and who will not.

Sure, we can argue if certain recreational drugs should be illegal or not, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still a choice that a person made.

That has more to do with an individual and a whole lot less to do with society (with the exception of society wanting drugs to be off the streets, at that time). The "war on drugs" campaign pretty much ended a while back though.

Fine, but calling it "white privilege" is also creating a scapegoat.

Class is a factor in success, I'll give you that. The higher the class, the more likely you are to be successful, but that doesn't mean that you are stuck in that class for your entire life.

Hell, once you turn 18/21/25, your class is basically a blank slate, and what you choose to do with your life determines what class in society you will be in for your life.

Fine. Instead of white privilege call it "the hereditary residual racial difference between poor whites and poor blacks based on artificial stratification put into place to keep poor people bickering with each other, not rising up against those pooling all the resources."

Whatever.

It's going away anyhow, just like I said. Not as quickly as some would like. Because the other side of the coin is that like any societal shift, keeping things moving toward progress doesn't mean you yourself will be around to reap the benefits of what you have sown.

WoD was a complete waste of time and caused an entire generation of predominately black people to be blocked from the middle class. It catches white people too, but due to demographic distributions blacks are hit the hardest (seriously lookup the geographical distribution of poor blacks vs poor whites compared to police officer density).


*You* are the one adding racism to the mix by insisting that an entire population of people have some invisible advantage based purely on their race. Wealthy families in India have "privilege" without being white, I would go so far as to they have far more "privilege" then a comparably wealthy white family in the western world. Same thing applies to families in China, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, Ethiopia and every other nation on the planet. On a global scale "white people" are a minority, so attempting to equate "privilege" to race when it's a global phenomenon fails when logic is applied.

Wealthy people have privilege, in the Western world whites compromise most of the wealthy because Western Civilization is white. That last part is something progressive university teachers like to conveniently forget to add. The Romans, Greeks, Gauls, Danish, Scandinavians, Celts and other groups that contributed to and built Western civilization were white. The colonists the founded the USA were white, the immigrants who came over to better the USA were predominately white.

The source of the privilege isn't the skin color. Every time you mention "white privilege" you sound like an idiot to anyone with a modicum of knowledge of history. If the Chinese, with their extremely advanced civilization, had explored the commercialized the world first, then you would be crying about "Asian Privilege" (all while ignoring that Asians, like Whites, are actually a multitude of different ethnicities".

And that's complete *** anyway. Asians (specifically Chinese and Koreans) have pretty much completely invalidated the entire premise you presented.

Warlords of Draenor wasn't THAT bad.

It's a cop out.

Instead of explaining an ideal that goes against reality, he makes it up and tries to justify it by using examples of events in history that no longer takes place here.

Which is why I said "fine, don't call it White Privilege."

I really don't give a damn what you call it because labeling ***is meaningless in the grand scheme anyhow.

Poor people have it shitty. Poor black people tend to have it slightly shittier. Urban vs. Rural plays a big factor too and because most poor blacks are urban dwelling, it leads to further divide that can be perceived as racial even if it isn't.

Again, choices.

Why can't you understand that it's not really a matter of where you are than it is a matter of what you chose to do. Even being where you are currently is a choice that you made. You choose to be where you are currently are. Nobody else made that choice for you. Saying otherwise is the cop out.

I think we found the socialist in the group. :p

But yes socio-economic and ethnic stratification are tools meant to keep the masses complacent and blind to their real problem.

I don't disagree with you. But remember some choices carry risks. Some carry very heavy risks. And when you don't have much, the little you have is all that dearer and risking it can be dangerous, even deadly.

So it's not wrong to say there's always a choice. But saying there's always a good choice is being dishonest.

Guilty, I guess?

I'm actually on board with Saev to a point on the socialism>communism thing. You can't forcefully redistribute all of the wealth because then you just have different people being shitty.

But unfettered free markets are horrifying too.

I never said that there's always a good choice. I do understand that, sometimes, you have to choose the lessor of two evils.

But to say that there are never any good choices you can make, nor there aren't any good long-term choices to be made would be equally dishonest.

Even if it's not a viable or easy one, there's almost always the choice of getting out of the situation you are currently in. See, we are lucky in this country and have the ability to move away from most of our problems, especially if the major problems in our lives is living in a depressed, high-crime area where most of our choices would be considered bad.

Even if you have zero family, zero income, it's still possible to move away from those problems (probably the best choice, seeing how you have zero income staying where you are at anyway) than it is to stay....

Since when have we had unfettered free markets?

Since when has anyone proposed that we have unfettered free markets?

Ah yes I seem to recall saying the same thing once on the subject of regulation, at which point they realized I wasn’t a liberal but a libertarian.

I didn't say we had. On either front.

I'm also not suggesting pure socialism/communism either is all I'm saying.

Both bad. Many abuse. Much problem.