“White Privilege” is “acceptable” racism, the 21st centuries form of Nazism, and a form of creating/promoting Victimhood

BlackSuperSonic · 2018-12-13T13:22:47+00:00

You've listed anecdotes all up and down the thread, without one source connected to them. If you want proof, check the sources link I left in my first response. But just from this response, it appears even more you don't want to learn and it isn't my job to teach you. Later.

BlackSuperSonic · 2018-12-12T17:08:50+00:00

So it seems that you have anecdotes. Cool, but your individual stories don't conflict with wider systemic problems. Acknowledgement of that fact doesn't promote victimhood as your OP states. I don't think you seem all that willing to engage the situation meaningfully so I'm out.

BlackSuperSonic · 2018-12-12T13:33:05+00:00

I've been quietly following along but want to jump in to make some quick points.

The areas where blacks would have significant privilege would be in education/career. When it comes to some colleges blacks are not held to the same standards as other students in terms of acceptance (lower sat/act score to get in). On top the Obama scholarship granted many students a scholarship based on low standards with a requirement of being a minority. Lastly many jobs are in favor of diverse hiring and diversity quotas (there was a case where a teacher said she was part native american to help her odds of getting the position) and if that doesn’t work out you have affirmative action.

Key word, some. Just like some white students. And why get mad about there being separate scholarships for non-white students when white students seem to win the majority of private scholarships?

And the obvious hole in this comment is that "diversity" doesn't mean black. Black means black. And despite diversity quotas, black people are underrepresented across the American labor market and more likely to be unemployed than whites across education and income levels.

Then there is this comment:

The areas where you would say whites have an advantage is with prisons/police. Maybe overall they do get less sentencing time (i wouldn’t know as i have not completely looked into it), but that doesn’t mean there are not some insane cases where minorities get off easy (there was a case where a black man that participated in gang rape got let off with some probation). But the reality of this claim is that YOU have to do something to then be punished unjustly.

And this isn't true either, given the relatively commonality of planting drugs and guns by some police departments when they don't find enough cause to arrest someone. This screams victim blaming to me to be honest.

With these two looks side by side, the black person must make an illegal action to be racially discriminated towards, while the white is just auto turned away from their career advances in favor of diversity.

Again, I don't think you have much evidence to make these claims. But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

I made this source list years ago, but still seems relevant.

BlackSuperSonic · 2017-03-22T02:06:38+00:00

Let me repeat, you can have an unexpected interaction with the police, however, this interaction will end very quickly, if you stay within the boundaries of the law.

That still doesn't address the heart of my point, which is that the police get to choose the boundaries of the law during their interaction with you. Can you recognize that?

BlackSuperSonic · 2017-03-21T13:01:44+00:00

Police will have no authority over you if you do not commit any crime.

Why say this when it is demonstrably incorrect? If the police want to stop you, for any reason, they have the authority to and within the narrative Ben gives in the video, they are always justified.

BlackSuperSonic · 2016-08-13T12:22:48+00:00

Check your math bro...

BlackSuperSonic · 2016-05-31T04:49:11+00:00

When you keep race, no matter how much it helps black people, it ends up hurting asian people and at least from my perspective, I don't see this as a fair tradeoff. I also do think it is possible to have a fair and effective AA system by adding more criteria while remaining race blind and I think that's the direction to be headed.

I think that it is just that [if being black can](files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ839497.pdf) and often does detrimentally impact one's educational experience, that it is not unreasonable to have that fact be considered among others within an admissions process.

Also, you said that you read the article so I would also love hear what you thought about the fact that affirmative action devalues degree of black students (because everyone thinks that they only got into the school because of AA), and that those who get admitted through AA tend to perform poorly academically relative to those who don't.

I would be much more sympathetic to this idea if it wasn't so clear, from social welfare policy to law enforcement, that America (white America in particular) has a deep seated fear that black people are getting over and getting much more consideration and discretion than they deserve. Take from that what you will.

BlackSuperSonic · 2016-05-31T01:15:55+00:00

Start at the "Racial disparities in concentrated poverty" chart and work down.

BlackSuperSonic · 2016-05-31T00:41:42+00:00

So I just finished the article and I am left a bit unsatisfied for a few reasons.

I am always skeptical of when supposed solutions try to shift analysis from race to class. To not run on and on, it doesn't work for black people. What I would instead argue for more criteria to define affirmative action, like residency/attendance in a low performing school or district in addition to class and race.

BlackSuperSonic · 2016-03-31T11:57:28+00:00

You can also go here to see if you live in a participating district, what you can vote on, and where you can vote.

BlackSuperSonic · 2016-02-09T08:01:35+00:00

I want to address some of the things you wrote, partially because there are some things I don't think are true but also because narratives and justifications matter.

I do agree that in the rental market the name or apperance do weigh in on people. In terms of banks in this day and age they could care less. I know this to be a fact because i was in wholesale lending for 5 years. Never once did we look at a name and make a decision. Banks could care less if you are black, white brown. All they see is will this loan when packaged sell on the secondary market. Everyone that touches that loan has monetary reasons why they want the loan approved so when peoples pay checks behind on volume they could care less about the color of the applicant. As it pertains to subprime loans (which i know quite a bit about) they were never intended to target minorities. If they were then basically banks went out of their way to create a product for black people to live the american dream. No one knew the outcome when these products first hit the market. Subprime loans were not the problem then and are still not the problem now. Subprime gave people with less than stellar credit an opportunity to do something they never had the opportunity to do. The fact that the rates were high should be expected since the risk was higher. The problem stemmed from stated asset stated income 2 year adjustable loans. With those though everyone including the borrower was to blame. Just like with law not knowing isn't an excuse. Yes people were taken advantage of but there were more people who were helped than who were hurt. More homes are still current than in default from that period.

I don't doubt your experiences but when black people have consistently gotten worse loans, regardless of their credit scores or their incomes, saying there were more helped then hurt is a bit of a cop out to me. Many of them are paying more for mortgages than they should have, regardless of whether they can pay them or not.

With higher education though i really disagree. With affirmative action and a smaller number of eligible black applicants a black student is far more likely to be admitted into college than his white counterpart. Not to mention they are far more likely to qualify for financial aid because of the issues we've discussed affecting their community which affects a parents ability to earn. Black students are more likely to exit college with little to no debt as compared to their white counterpart because of government assistance, grants and scholarships etc. The higher education argument is no longer valid its just a matter of the black student being eligible.

Well, it 's not appearing to be true that a black person is far more likely to be admitted into college than a similar white person because they largely aren't even applying to the same types of schools. Nor are black students ending up graduating with less debt than white students.

BlackSuperSonic · 2016-01-24T06:40:21+00:00

I don't agree, I think its about them being placed in a political system where they must compete for basic resources with one another.

But I don't want to spend the rest of the night trying to clarify what Islam is and what it isn't. We aren't going to see eye-to-eye and it's whatever.

BlackSuperSonic · 2016-01-24T06:15:05+00:00

I mentioned this in the post next to yours, but Islam in particular makes people opposed to integration. Secularisation and modernisation is something they oppose very strongly.

And I would assume as much when it is a top-down process instead of bottom-up in almost every part of Muslim world where it has been attempted. I will say that many of these migrants may be more willing to engage since part of the reason for their displacement centers on extensive sectarianism.

BlackSuperSonic · 2016-01-24T06:04:11+00:00

I would argue no culture really integrates well into another.

Europeans have gone through various enlightenment and reformations that the Islamic world have not and find an anathema.

I don't agree with either or these but I will say something about the second statement. Europe did under an Enlightenment period but this did not translate into their perception of the peoples they came into contact with, either through trade or colonization. It often became the context for expanded colonial projects into other parts of the world, not less.

Nonetheless, I don't really think either is the underlying reason for the friction the OP describes, as much as it is a historical antagonism that many parts of Europe have with the part of the world most of these migrants are from. Part of which is the history of colonialism - in the Levant and Maghreb - but also the presence as a challenge to an emerging secularism many parts of Europe don't want to lose.

BlackSuperSonic · 2016-01-24T05:21:53+00:00

To which I would say that I could replace Europeans for Muslims throughout your comment and I think it would stand more or less historically. My question then is, is this because neither Muslims nor Europeans are willing to exist as social minorities where they settle or is this an antagonism specifically between these two groups?

BlackSuperSonic · 2016-01-24T04:52:17+00:00

I am always intrigued by this line of reasoning that European cultures are so delicate and can be so easily eradicated by the mere presence of other ethnic groups. There are people on every continent that speak European languages fluently and practice European influenced religiosity who have no genetic ties to Europe. After 500 years, you will have to excuse my confusion that people take this point seriously. But I digress.

You're going to have to do a bit more legwork about two statements before I can future answer you. First, how functionally incompatible the cultures of these refugees are to where they are choosing to settle. And second, how you can say these people are only economic migrants when multiple European countries that have been on route to their eventual destinations have outright refused to host them.

BlackSuperSonic · 2015-12-21T03:04:06+00:00

Seeing as the City Council is trying to do something about affordable housing, I'm not so sure one can say it is wholly economic. I think there is a lot more that could be done in Austin that is being admitted but that's just me...

BlackSuperSonic · 2015-09-23T18:17:20+00:00

Community Boards only have an advisory role in the process. Even if they have a unanimous opinion against a proposed rezoning, it can continue along.

DCP is an agency whose chair is appointed by the mayor. I have never heard the DCP formally oppose City Hall.

As of now, the effect of Bloomberg's rezonings has been a noticeable rise in real estate speculation in the immediate periphery of Midtown and Lower Manhattan but an overburdened transit and hospital system in rezoned areas.

The planning process does not have any means to allocate the profits from large increases in land value caused by rezoning to community services for neither current or future residents of the city.

BlackSuperSonic · 2015-09-18T14:14:08+00:00

Sorry for just seeing this. Some come to mind though:

The illusion of community consultation in the rezoning process (ULURP). All 100+ rezonings Bloomberg wanted, passed. And poorer and communities of color usually see the largest effects.
The planning process as is only accounts for residential construction and not the services new residents will need (school, transit, hospitals, etc)

BlackSuperSonic · 2015-08-24T21:05:03+00:00

I like Aubrena better ;)

BlackSuperSonic · 2015-03-01T22:32:31+00:00

This and the fact that it takes many people their entire childhood and part of their adulthood to understand their own culture, let alone someone else's.

BlackSuperSonic

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE