I don’t like the term myself, but I think it is fair to acknowledge that plenty of people are disadvantaged due to their skin color, race, religion etc.

For instance I know I have more opportunities because I am white, belonging to western culture and culturally Christian (I am an atheist by celebrate Christmas and all that), than I would have had if I was black or muslim while living in the West.

But this is not uniform. My opportunities if I looked Asian would likely be very similar to looking white.

It isn’t a mystery that a culture favors people looking like themselves. Had I grown up in Japan I am sure I would have been at a disadvantage for not looking Japanese.

Disadvantage is due to far more than skin color, race, religion, etc... I think there are wide swaths of 'white' America that are disadvantaged as well.

Born into poverty is also a disadvantage. Having a handicap is a disadvantage. And I recognize that otherwise I would not be a social democrat.

And that is why I advocate social democratic policies such as reducing inequality. Giving everybody equal access to health care, education etc.

But the point is we should recognize the disadvantage somebody faces and seek to help rather than belittle it by saying “other people have problems too”

Stop the white adjacent bullshit. There is a substantial Asian underclass. Your opportunities if you looked Asian would only be very similar to whites if you were upper middle class Asian.

The difference is that some of those lower and lower middle class Asians who make it go up through the educational system (work hard and study culture).

That is why so many Asians defend magnet schools. How do you think many of them rose up from poverty?

The lower and lower middle class Asians don’t initially have the same networking opportunities or social access that whites do.

Also whites from disadvantaged backgrounds often face different difficulties.

Here is my vantage point of how the game is played. I went to a magnet high school.

The rich kids, irrespective of race, mostly didn’t have better grades. What they had was richer backgrounds and more opportunities (parents able and willing to pay for liberal arts colleges, willing and able to pay for them to go to medical or law school or pursue a PhD, willing and able to sacrifice the years to do so). There were some exceptions but it typically required whole family sacrifice and of course there was a gradient.

The poor kids didn’t have the knowledge or long term thinking. Decisions of what school to go to was based mostly on what was affordable. Decisions of what to do were limited to what major to take.

After school, the rich kids and to a lesser extent the middle class white kids have access to much stronger networks. These networks are the real difference maker. It lets you in on opportunities: jobs at hot startups, easier access to jobs, information on investment opportunities, getting promoted, etc...

It is these opportunities that have a huge multiplier effect.

If you are rich, you play the system. If you are poor, the system plays you. If you are white in the US, it’s easier for you to fit in but you can also fit in (speak right, dress right, think right) if you come from the same background/mindset.

One last thing, do you think that the rich and poor kids hung out together in high school?

I think this is quite a common reaction for someone white coming from low socioeconomic backgrounds and making it to a good wealth. This is quite an achievement, more than 40% of children born in the lowest wealth quartile stay there.

I believe it stems from the feeling that the talk of white privilege is taking something away from this achievement, so there is a counter reaction.

To that I say that yes breaking the circle of poverty is a great achievement, but acknowledging that others have factors that make it even more difficult does not take away from this achievement.

It's sad that you have a blind spot as to the benefits that have been afforded to you by society that others do not have. And, of course, since you cannot experience what life is like on the other side, you will continue to have this blind spot and deny that you have it.

I think one negative is that most of the debates about privilege are almost uniformly centered around gender and race. I.e., the features we can easily and quickly distinguish. (Ironically, the same reason why discrimination on those grounds is so pervasive).

I can’t look at you and tell if you grew up the child of a surgeon or a cashier. Or in a loving home or abusive one. With a trust fund or encumbered with debt. But I can make a fairly accurate guess at your gender or race.

What I think isn’t always articulated well is that people don’t feel like the totality of privilege and hurdles are taken into account in these discussions. We over simply our mental models and discussions to race and gender as if that was the totality of our life story and people naturally push back on this. (Not saying you are doing this) It doesn’t mean privilege doesn’t exist, just that it’s rarely as simple a picture as one tends to find in public dialogue and that’s why it makes some bristle

People focus on the white privileged males.... ignoring that the U.S. is full of uneducated, broke, white males with little going for them. The country is like 70% white... so of course on a numerical basis you're going to come across more well to do whites than other races.

But as a white male - the U.S. did repress the Japanese, American Indian, Muslim, Black, Jewish, Hispanic etc in large swaths, and numerous other minority races in localized areas.

and, around the world, those groups repress others. It's almost as if it's a human condition not limited to "white".

As a white male, I live in a country where I'm surrounded by successful people of all stripes - color, race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc, etc, etc.

Do we have a perfect history as a country? no... but we also provide opportunity to all - and we have POC in EVERY level of society. From cops to Presidents.

Absolutely - fully agree.

TIL that electing Barack Obama ended racism in America

TIL that I said something I never said...

(Hint: I never said Obama ended racism... in fact, I wouldn't say that because his policies and his party have made racism WORSE with their identity politics and making everything about race.)

Which Obama policies made everything about race? I totally missed that when he was president.

Undoing the damage done by the war on drugs and reevaluating the prison system would go a long way to equalize the playing field, if we really must get side-tracked by racially charged arguments.

The real problem with America is poverty. We need to help all impoverished people. All of them.

It's sad that race is being blamed by those claiming to be against racism.

My benefits, as said before, are being American - and I embrace those benefits. Nothing to be ashamed of.

"life on the other side" I refuse to treat others as less because of their skin color. You might be racist but I'm not. I'm surrounded by successful people of all color (and sexs, religions, lifestyles, etc) who don't cry victimhood.

You will continue to be either a victim or treating "POC" as victims who aren't smart enough or good enough - IE treating people different based on their skin color. (IE: Liberals talk down to POC because they look down on them. You might want to check YOUR "priviledge" and how you treat others - https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/30/white-liber...)

I refuse to treat minorities as if they aren't good enough... society shows that is a lie and, as I was raised, treating people differently based on skin color is racism.

You may be okay being a racist... I refuse to be one.

Completely agree. Most racism in the USA can be explained by poverty—of which "POC" are disproportionately represented. America's systemic racism is better described as systemic poverty combined abuse of the poor.

Yes, but the problems are interwoven. Poverty amplifies the problem of racism. But racism is what caused that poverty in the first place.

Now I do believe that more social democratic policies would benefit African-Americans a lot. But it would not completely eradicate the problems of racism and they would still be worse off than white.

The problem with only tackling racism and not inequality and poverty is that, even if you removed racism completely, African-Americans would still be stuck with being poor, simply for historical reasons.

Just like poor white people are likely to have kids which are poor.

> Poverty amplifies the problem of racism. But racism is what caused that poverty in the first place.

I partly agree, but I’d argue that it’s less complicated. I would rephrase thusly: Poverty IS the problem. And historical racism is the cause of a lot of that poverty.

> even if you removed racism completely, African-Americans would still be stuck with being poor, simply for historical reasons.

I agree in principle. The question is how you solve for systemic poverty. I think the first, most obvious step is to enact a very steep inheritance tax. That would be the most effective way to dampen generational capital inequality.

The second thing you could do is a generous UBI because that would dramatically benefit the systemically poor. The most effective way to lower income inequality is to raise the floor.

>Most racism in the USA can be explained by poverty—of which "POC" are disproportionately represented

And why do you think that is the case?

Historical racism, especially slavery.

Slavery ended 160 years ago. Other countries that practiced slavery don’t have as bad of problems as the US does now in terms of racial inequality.

You say historical racism, but what makes you think that it is only historical?

Did I say that slavery was the only reason? No.

Did I say racism is only historical? No.

Having words put in one's mouth makes conversation deeply uninteresting. Thus I shall end my contributions here.

If one group of people are at a disadvantage due to racism and discrimination, then how do you suggest one compensates for that?

Do you shrug and go "though luck! It is what it is," or do you use legislation to try to compensate and level the playing-field?

And to play the devils advocate. Say I was a racist and I was very okay with it along with 150 million other Americans. And together we make life miserable for POC. How do you suggest dealing with us?

What is your policy? What are your action points?

What's your suggestion? Reparations? Who gets them? People who were never slaves? Do descendants of union members - white people who freed the slaves - get credit and exemption from paying for it? And where you going to get the money? Taxes that hit the poor the hardest?

My action points? Stop treating minorities as victims and idiots unable to take care of themselves. Its called being a decent human being. Everyone - minorities included - already have opportunities for college and starting businesses and all that. It's called American Privilege's.

I thought I'd seen it all. Advocating for racial equity is now considered racist. You heard it here first, folks.

You must mean the privilege of being beaten by my father from the age of three after he came back from Vietnam. Or, the emotional abuse my mother handed out because she got pregnant in high school and blamed me for ruining her future? Or, could it be the privilege of being thrown out of the house after high school with the clothes on my back and $300 in my wallet. Maybe it was being taken advantage of the landlord that took my money for a room in his house, only to slip into the room at night to molest me, then throw me out after brushing off his advances. It must be all that privilege of being homeless, bathing out of a toilet bowl in a public bathroom.

But of course, I am a white male, so all misfortune in my life must be my own damn fault.

Your experience does not invalidate systemic racism.

Racism is discrimination of a different race based on the belief that your own race is superior. Systemic racism doesn't exist in the United States. There are racists in the United States, but that doesn't mean institutions are inherently racist. Also, racial stereotyping isn't necessarily based on racism and not all bigots are racists. You can make an argument for systemic discrimination, but not on racial superiority.

You are right, but many feel that casting all into overly broad categories of privilege does invalidate their personal experience whether that was the intended aim or not

made up words like "systemic racism" doesn't make those terms real.

Nor does a party voting for Biden and Harris - creators of "systemically racist" laws and corrupt DAs that used those laws to jail innocent black men - have any moral position to talk about such made up words and expect to be taken seriously.

Granting that this privilege exists, why is that seen as something to be taken away, rather than expanded and guaranteed to everyone?

Those are just two ways to describe the same thing. It is impossible to grant equal privilege to everyone else without dismantling the systems of white privilege which are designed to prevent that from happening, and doing so would by definition remove privilege from white people.

You can dismantle privilege by tearing down existing systems or by building greater inclusivity into them. "Dismantling the systems of white privilege" is too vague to disambiguate this semantic dispute.

By analogy, you can force male-only clubs to close and you can force male-only clubs to be inviting to women. Either action would dismantle the systems of male privilege.

Ironically we've already been doing this for so long that at this point there are way more female only clubs/universities/organizations than there are male only.

Even Boy Scouts is now just Scouts and accepts everyone, but Girl Scouts is still girls only.

Indeed, though in some instances that’s as it should be. There are objectively rational reasons why women should have optional access to male-free spaces. There no objectively rational reasons for the converse.

(That said, I’m all for making all such restricted spaces as rare as possible. Any structural division, no matter how well intended, has a cost to society.)

I’d be interested in hearing more elaboration on the points about the double standard, particularly in the context of a society that values individual rights

It stems from the idea that women are weak and need protecting.

Some feminists call this idea "benevolent sexism", and oppose it on the basis that it supports the patriarchy™

Other feminists call this idea "affirmative action" and support it on the basis that it opposes the patriarchy™

Men are, as a statistical average, physically stronger. Men are statistically far more likely to rape a woman than the other way around. Setting aside any legal/criminal consequences, rape has substantially higher risk of long term, life altering consequences for the woman than for the man.

Now of course the better solution for this disparity would be to empower women with physical defence skills, e.g. Brazilian jiu-jitsu. And to somehow exorcise the male erotic fantasy out of mainstream female fashion/culture. But as desirable as those solutions are, we can't rely upon top-down social engineering being effective.

It's also important to point out that men being (on average) physically stronger doesn't equate to women being "weak". And having objectively more at risk does not make one "need protecting" in any special way. Such twisting of language is political gamesplaying—and not healthy discourse.

Since you seem to like statically facts, here is one. Here in Sweden, being Muslim and an immigrant is a higher statistical risk of becoming a rapist than being male. To put it in mathematical terms, the portion of all Muslim immigrants that was found guilty of rape was higher than the portion of all males for the same period.

The question that statistician and researchers have been asking if such statistics is at all meaningful in order to reduce crime.

>It's also important to point out that men being (on average) physically stronger doesn't equate to women being "weak".

I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your overall point, but when you say “weak” are you still speaking in the physical sense? If so I can’t follow the above statement. Weak/strong are relative terms. If you’re willing to say one is statistically stronger than the other, you are implying the other is statistically weaker. To not seems to be the type of wordsmithing used to avoid precise use of language. The reason I specifically put the “individual rights” piece in my previous comment was because I was hoping there was a basis outside the aggregate “average” argument that seems oblivious to individual rights.

I think the BJJ argument can actually be dangerous. Yes, it’s good for anyone to know self defense. But the vast majority of women won’t become skillful enough to overcome the (statistical) innate size/strength disadvantage, particularly any man with training. They can if dedicated enough, but if they don’t it can lead to false confidence.

I think the real issue with the argument is that it only plays well because it’s using terms that are currently socially en vogue. Consider how it would come across instead of saying “men are statistically more likely to rape” you instead advocated for a double standard based on “people of X race are more likely to commit Y crime”. It can be statistically correct and still morally wrong to advocate for such policy because it lacks a nuanced view of the problem.

> I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your overall point, but when you say “weak” are you still speaking in the physical sense?

Obviously I was not—otherwise I would have been entertaining a direct logical contradiction.

I am speaking in the terms offered by the user klipt earlier in this conversation tree. This is how dangerous rhetoric is formed. To call someone "weak", no matter how much you qualify its meaning, inevitably leads to many other subjective connotations that I do not agree with.

> To not seems to be the type of wordsmithing used to avoid precise use of language.

On the contrary, it's the type of wordsmithing used to avoid intentional misapplication of language.

> I think the BJJ argument can actually be dangerous. Yes, it’s good for anyone to know self defense. But the vast majority of women won’t become skillful enough to overcome the (statistical) innate size/strength disadvantage, particularly any man with training. They can if dedicated enough, but if they don’t it can lead to false confidence.

I think it's borderline offensive to assume that the "vast majority of women" won't become "skillful enough".

I think it's borderline offensive to suggest that building up confidence is a dangerous idea. Even "false confidence" can increase one's actual physical power. And to say that a policy is dangerous because it won't be effective in all encounters is ridiculous.

It seems you misunderstand the purpose of having broad BJJ training. It's not just about increasing skill. It's not just about increasing confidence (which for many women might be itself sufficient to stop an attack). Rather it's about the culture that would arise among MEN in response to a society where women have more confidence—whether objectively justified or not.

> you instead advocated for a double standard...

I did no such thing and I consider it highly offensive for you to imply that I did.

>I think it's borderline offensive to assume that the "vast majority of women" won't become "skillful enough"

I think there’s some miscommunication here. The qualifier is that most wouldn’t become skilled enough to overcome the strength disadvantage. To be fair, the same would apply to men with the same strength disadvantage although that would be less likely due to the lower likelihood for the same strength disparity. Most people won’t spend enough time developing that skill. If I had to speak in broad terms, it would probably take a purple belt (maybe a strong blue belt) to overcome a large strength disadvantage with even a moderate amount of athletic ability. Most people won’t put in that time, irrespective of gender. If you disagree, join an mma/boxing gym (that actually spars) and see what percentage of people stick with it for 4-5 years. I would venture a guess that most people who flippantly advocate BJJ as a solution probably haven’t been in a real physical altercation and don’t know how it would go down. And no, sparring/rolling in the gym doesn’t generally equate to this type of altercation. I never claimed its not effective because it can’t handle every situation (because nothing can). BJJ is not worthless, it’s just pragmatically a low percentage solution.

I’m not quite sure why you’re taking so much as borderline/highly offensive but it rarely leads to providing clarity in discourse. Again, there is real danger with instilling false confidence (I.e. when confidence outstrips one’s abilities) whether you are offended or not. I’m not interested in placating someone at the expense of putting them at higher risk.

Your opinion makes a lot of sense now that you've analogised rape situations to a lucid, rules-based sparring competition. If I were to grant that rather weird analogy as valid, you would be completely right and I would most certainly be wrong.

Again, you have the wrong takeaway. I’m saying the opposite. Your logic seems to be jumping all over the place; on one hand you say BJJ will help, on the other you say it makes no sense because it’s not a good analogue.

BJJ is heavily ruled based and that’s why it doesn’t necessarily simulate real world altercations. Many people dabble in martial arts, never spar, and develop the false sense confidence im talking about: There’s a saying in BJJ, “punch a black belt in the face, they become a brown belt, punch them again they become a brown belt, punch them again...”

Sparring in a gym is absolutely not stimulating a real life scenario which is why is can easily lead to false confidence. But it can show you your skill level without endangering yourself too much.

The point of the sparring comment was to illustrate how much work it is to get competent at a martial art. Advocating that BJJ will prevent rape is ignoring how few people will spend the necessary time to get skillful as well as ignoring all the blind spots that rule-based martial arts introduce.

Advocating BJJ is fine. Making someone think it’s going to save them without also pointing out that it will take years to be effective isn’t. People who miss that second part have probably never trained or been in a real fight or are trying to drum up business for their martial arts school. Honestly, it comes across as the you regurgitated the comment about BJJ because you heard it somewhere and ran with it. Anyone who’s trained in BJJ knows the first year or so you become acutely aware of how helpless you actually are on the ground.

Even if you're right on average (this is not establishing a position on whether that's the case, but hypothetically if you are), there are exceptions. Not recognizing exceptions is an issue even in this scenario. There are places where being white isn't advantageous, not only places one may travel to, but where one calls home.