O'Reilly's point about Asian privilege was absolutely true. Asian Americans on average make more money and are better educated than White Americans. If the opposite was true it would be used by people like Stewart as an example of whites being more privileged. Stewart attempted to deflect that point by asking "which asians?" The answer is on average ALL Asians as a whole in America. Not just Japanese, etc. Including vietnamese, cambodians, even East Indians. Lump in all asians the way you lump in all whites and on average they're higher paid and better educated than whites.
And if you want to know why more black people go to prison for drug offenses than whites, go drive down any street where there is someone literally standing on the sidewalk selling drugs out in the open. It's not gonna be an asian or a white guy. If a cop wants to make a fucking simple drug bust all he has to do is walk over and buy drugs from that guy and then flash a badge and cuff him, or watch him for literally a few minutes until he sees a transaction take place, then go search the guy and cuff him. Obviously that's a lot easier than having to stake out the white college student's house who discretely sells weed. White drug dealers take precautions to prevent arrest that for some idiotic reason black dealers do not. Cops are gonna go for the easy obvious busts, and black drug dealers are the dumb antelope with a bad leg limping behind the rest of the drug dealer pack.
Black people are horrible drug dealers, that's why they are all in prison. You can literally drive around any black neighbourhood and see hand to hand transactions left and right.
I read a study once that said that blacks were more likely to buy drugs in public and from people they don't know, which could explain some of the disparity in drug arrests. From some site called Human Rights Watch.
In poor black neighborhoods, drug transactions are more likely to be conducted on the streets, in public, and between strangers, whereas in white neighborhoods -- working class through upper class -- drugs are more likely to be sold indoors, in bars, clubs, and private homes. [I]n poor urban minority neighborhoods, it is easier for undercover narcotics officers to penetrate networks of friends and acquaintances than in more stable and closely knit working-class and middle-class neighborhoods. The stranger buying drugs on the urban street corner or in an alley, or overcoming local suspicions by hanging around for a few days and then buying drugs, was commonplace. Police undercover operations can succeed [in working and middle-class neighborhoods] but they take longer, cost more, and are less likely to succeed.
That might explain not only the arrests, but also higher conviction rate. Because these black kids are getting busted directly by narcs, they might be able to maximize sentences due to overwhelming evidence. I'd loooove a comprehensive study on circumstances of arrest and its affect on conviction rate, controlled for race.
Blacks are also grossly over represented in gang populations. So sometimes when the cops bust them on smaller offenses, the judges throw the book at them harder to get thugs off of the streets.
And that's just one of many possible variables that explain disproportionate black conviction, but instead dumb fucks and every academic dumb fucks, just look at the disparity and conclude racism without doing any decent experiments or tests.
This is a great point that people in the media never make. Ive known my fair share of drug dealers. Every single white dealer ive known only deals with friends/friends of friends. A lot of the black ones ive met stand on a street and risk going to prison to sell a $10 bag to a complete stranger. Obviously more black dealers are going to get caught.
And somehow in this racist anti-semitic society the blacks are held down but the jews, asians, and hindus aren't. Do the white people who set the agenda decide to make those groups more successful than them for a reason, or is it simply that those groups understand that if you work hard and accept responsibility for your own actions instead of blaming everyone else you have a better chance of accomplishing your goals in this society than pretty much anywhere else on earth?
Reddit is virulently opposed to anything social justice related you nimrod. The entire site is for 20something white males using le nice memes to jerk over how edgy and brogressive they are.
Yeah, Stewart didn't exactly own him here, but O'Reilly using "a black guy in the white house" to discount white privilege is like using "my friend is black" to prove you're not racist.
How does a black person as president don't disprove white privilege? Isn't white privilege good or bad assumptions made about you because of your race? Obama won the election, twice.
You know the first female millionaire in America was a black woman, right?
The concept of "privilege" refers to general trends in society. There can and are huge circumstantial exceptions to it. That's what none of you bozos understand— having "white privilege" doesn't mean you're gonna be treated better than black people in every single case— it refers to general trends at the population level in society, supported by mountains of statistical data.
What statistical data? People like you are so delusional that you analyze blacks being disproportionately incarcerated as being because of racism with out looking at the fact that blacks commit disproportionate amounts of crime. What is white privilege? Is it just being good citizens and contributing to society?
How about the fact that a resume with a white sounding name with a violent felony conviction is more likely to get an interview than a resume with the same qualifications, a clean criminal history, and a "black sounding name"?
There are literally hundreds of studies like this within sociology that you retards willfully ignore, while putting up strawmen arguments like incarceration rates that I didn't even make. (Nice fucking tactic there by the way)
Is a straw man worse than ad hominem? I tease of course, the study you alluded to sounds interesting, do you have a source by chance? But to address the point, does white privilege just affect blacks? Would an individual with an Asian sounding name or a Hispanic sounding name be more likely to be rejected in favor of a white convicted felon as well? That was the main problem I saw with Stewart's argument, if white privilege is a tangible thing, it should affect all minority races (in America) equally. To me personally, it would seem more proper to use the term "black discrimination" rather than "white privilege" when referring to the phenomena if multiple races are privy to the same luxury that blacks are not afforded. "White privilege" is a divisive term that shifts the focus of the conversation away from the issues facing blacks in America onto the exoneration of their white countrymen, which seems counter-intuitive in fixing the problem.
These are totally fair points and I don't really disagree with anything you've written. I just don't like the general tone in this thread of people trying to hand-wave away the fact that blacks still face discrimination.
Here is the study. Please remember I initially paraphrased it from memory, but the findings are still very compelling I think.
I can see where you're coming from, I think O&A generally attract a certain type of listener due to the tone of the show. I'm not excluding myself from that generality, as I too am a fan of crass humor and vulgar language. You sir on the other hand appear to be an anomaly, and I doubt that your opinions will ever be well received here because of it. Thanks for the link, I wish the article would have provided actual statistics or percentages rather than just the conclusion of the study's findings, but interesting nonetheless.
That study is garbage. They didn't use Black sounding names, they used Ghetto sounding names. Ghetto names like the ones they used are shown to correlate to things like being born in the ghetto, being born of a teenage mother, and several other variables. Their failure to eliminate lurking variables makes the study inconclusive. They need to adjust for other variables the names correlate to before they can conclude race.
I've already linked the study in this thread, and it's one of many similar studies.
You just ignore all data that doesn't support your gut feeling about how the world works. Feels before reals, right?
P.S. Prescriptivism hasn't been accepted in the field of linguistics for decades. There is no such thing as "proper English," just a standardized written form. But I guess people who have dedicated their lives to the fucking scientific study of languages and how they develop are just a bunch of SJW shills, right? I can't do this anymore, you're embarrassing to even respond to. Take the last word if you need it.
And you won't link it again because there is no way there is evidence for what you said.
There is no such thing as "proper English,
Yes there is, there is such thing as proper grammar. "how ya doin boss im herez for muh interviews" isn't going to get you any job, especially when you are named after a fruit with a french suffix.
But I guess people who have dedicated their lives to the fucking scientific study of languages and how they develop are just a bunch of SJW shills, right
Are you saying grammatical rules were invented to keep the black man down form reconquering the world and rediscovering their Egyptian, israelite and moor heritage?
And you won't link it again because there is no way there is evidence for what you said.
And you won't go into my posting history and see how literally my previous comment before responding to you was linking it, lol. Talk about lazy.
Go ahead and read that so you can come up with some retarded rationalization for why its wrong that I won't bother reading because you're an idiot who doesn't know the first things about sociology (or linguistics)
Hey, shouldn't you be looting a corner store to steal weaves for your baby mamma Jamal? This is not a productive way to fight white privilege, you just aren't very good at it.
It was literally the third comment in my posting history (fourth now). How fucking retarded are you, seriously? Or is it that you did see and read the study, and now you're playing the "nah nah nah i can't hear you" game in the face of even the slightest evidence against your "feels before reals" worldview? I'm actually suspecting the latter now, because I have trouble believing that even someone like you could be this retarded.
So an experiment conduced by an agenda driven person posted on a cnn blog is now undeniable evidence of white privilege? I would also hire a white person that is presentable and fessed up to a drug charge like the blog says over a dumb nig with a retarded name that speaks like he has a 75 IQ. Any self respecting black person in the employers position also would.
People like you should go into Chi-Raq and teach the little niglets the English Language and try to assimilate them into American Culture.
Yeah, I guess every single person in the entire field of sociology is "agenda-driven." My god the world must look strange through the eyes of a racist. You remind me of conspiracy theorists— if the consensus every single educated expert in a relevant field of study goes against your "feels," they must be "agenda-driven."
And of course you'd ignore the part that says
The young black men posing as job applicants in this study were bright college kids, models of discipline and hard work
because in your bigoted worldview, it sounds like any black person is going to be a "dumb nig with a retarded name who speaks like he has a 75 IQ." You are willfully ignoring everything that doesn't conform to the view you want to hold. Fucking pathetic.
We are talking about a well spoken person being honest about a drug charge, not a serious crime. Comparing that person to someone who sounds like they are retarded and has a ''black name'' most people would pick the first to hire, because they are honest and seem more qualified. It is not a racism, there would be the same result if the black person was a redneck.
Hey hey hey, hold on buddy. I'll have you know that linguists have agreed that "Drunken Redneck Drivel" or DRD is a totally valid language. If you don't hire someone because they speak only in DRD you are a racist, good sir.
You didn't link a study you linked a blog. A blog post is useless.
I want to see the methods of the study, the scientific conclusions, and at least the fucking abstract. Instead I get second hand info from a blog and you call that proof?
Yes, AAVE is a real dialect. So is Dutch. But if I go into a job interview yelling out umlauts, I'm not getting the fucking job. Just like Tyreasha isn't going to get the job if she speaks AAVE.
When there had never been a black president people used it as an example of how racist our society is. Now that we have a black president those same people say you can't use it as an example of our society clearly becoming much less racist.
And do racists have black friends? What proof can anyone ever offer to prove they're not racist if not the fact that they choose to have black people as friends?
It works if "racism" is being framed as viewing one or more races as different than yours, so that is made to say "I see this person as equal and we have a friendship on a personal level." It works to a point. The conversation has moved away from that, though, and now it has something to do with general prejudice. "White privilege" is essentially "majority privilege," and can be seen throughout the world where the racial identity is more uniform. I've heard it describe a comfort level, because comfort is the next great frontier apparently.
But even if we want to accept that premise, these discussions are short sighted for a few reasons:
1). It discounter inter-white prejudice/racism, like inter-asian racism and inter-black racism. For an obvious example, Jewish people. Also, most Eastern Europeans hold prejudices and hatreds with the same vitriol as between people of different skin color. African people hold prejudices for different sub-cultures, I know a lot of Chinese people who hate Japanese people, there are so many dimensions to it if you take the time to actually know these cultures.
2). It's interesting how all of these talks either explicitly or implicitly center around black vs. white. Asian people are never invited to the table, same with Aboriginals, same with Arabs and Indians. From my perspective as a non-American this is just another round in the passive-aggressive bitchfest that is black and white relations in America.
3). For a far-left ideology it really stinks of segregationist bullshit. It seemed like we were working out way to an individual-focused ideology with the "I don't see race" thing. Now people are saying that is privilege, because you're trying to "erase" their culture and identity and past and whatever the fuck. Again, this comes from black vs. white because if you know anything about races and cultures, every single race and culture has a unique grievance with the other. It's just a way to say "okay, fuck it, let's just say we assume we're all equal and the same until proven otherwise." It's just another way of saying "benefit of the doubt." The true hypocrisy in going against that is these people dont want to destroy prejudice, they want to reinforce prejudices but just shuffle them around.
It really is true racism to say that an entire shade of people enjoy a privilege based on that shade, that affects all points of their lives in a positive way and that all of their accomplishments are in light of that. When a white guy achieves, it's because of his race, but when a black guy achieves it's despite his race? Simplistic nonsense that fails to account for success of many other ethnic minorities. Saying that the white race as a whole is somehow privileged is something I can tolerate as a guess, but to ever apply that to an individual and assert that they are "privileged" due to their race is horseshit. Go tell a poor white kid living in a poor black neighborhood that his race is actually giving him a leg up, while black kids torture him based on his race.
So many of these sociologists spit out these unfounded theories to explain discrepancies (see Food deserts), but fail to ask questions like "Mmm what effect will treating blackness as an official disability have on society".
It truly would be, if that's at all what "white privilege" meant, and you weren't just taking the definitions of "white" and "privilege" and smashing them together.
Did you listen to the clip? Explain how it isn't racist for Stewart to compare black people trying to make it in America to a disabled person trying to win a race.
He is comparing blacks to disabled people in his own fucking analogy. You couldn't have a more concrete example of racism. He is essentially saying that blacks are inferior to whites and need help to catch up (the root causes that he blames are irrelevant, they don't change the fact that Stewart is actually the one promoting a prejudiced view of black people).
The fact is that black people are just as capable as white people of succeeding in modern America. Inequalities have much more to do with economics and geography (factors that are COMPLETELY under the control of individuals in the modern world). I know plenty of successful black people who grew up in the suburbs and laugh at the idea of white privilege. The fact is that unless you grow up in a ghetto or act/dress a certain way, racism is not very prevalent in 2014. People are judged based on their character, and not based on their race. Liberals who obsess over "white privilege" are the ones guilty of promoting ideas of prejudice and racism.
"Explain how it isn't racist for Stewart to compare black people trying to make it in America to a disabled person trying to win a race." That's easy--he said it's like trying to win a race "on one leg". He said nothing about being disabled. Clean out your ears. He's saying that conditions have been placed on the runners ("these guys get to use two legs, and these guys only get to use one leg"). He's not saying they were born differently or are genetically inferior. "White priviledge" isn't the cause of success or failure. It's just a thing that exists. Even if it's really tiny and barely significant.
Hahahaha, you know what "on one leg" means right? It means disabled you dumb fuck. He's saying black succeeding is like a one legged person winning a race.
Fuck Jon Stewart must think that any black guy that isn't rolling in his own feces is a motherfucking super genius for overcoming his ailment of "black".
Having both legs is the natural state of a runner. If you cut off someone else's leg, they're being disadvantaged. So if you enter a race, and I cut your leg off, are you going to call the other racers "privileged"? Or are you going to be considered "disabled"?
That's why we call the normal Olympics the Privileged Olympics, and the ones with all the retarded people the Special Olympics right???
So if you enter a race, and I cut your leg off, are you going to call the other racers "privileged"?
So in your scenario,the non-white runners all get a leg cut off. The white people get to keep their legs. Strictly because they are white. And you think you're making a point? For your side of the debate?
Yes. If you cut blacks legs off, do you think the blacks are disadvantaged, or do you think the white are privileged? Being privileged is to be afforded something.
Having both legs is a normal standard state for a race. If you cut the legs off of someone you are taking away from them, and disadvantaging them in the race. This makes white people no faster. The race is no easier for white people to run.
Now, if you gave the white people cocaine and steroids, then they would be receiving a privilege. They would finish the race faster and be better at it. They would be getting something based on their race.
The big difference here is something being granted versus something being taken. Whites aren't privileged because they aren't given shit, blacks are sometimes disadvantaged if certain things are taken away.
White privilege is literally defined as not having to face the disadvantages of racism. That's it. You don't win anything, but you also don't lose anything. You don't get into college, you don't get a job, and you can still die broke in a gutter.
White privilege is literally defined as not having to face the disadvantages of racism
Well then that is even more object nonsense. I grew up in a poor white neighborhood, and went to a poor urban highschool that was 50% black. I faced racism every fucking day. Then I went to college where I faced institutionalized racism, wherein I was afforded far less resources than my black counterparts, and also had to earn higher marks to reach the same level of achievement. And compared to the poor white kids living in the black neighborhood I had it fucking easy.
The fact is people of all colors face all types of racism regularly. Look at the black on white vs white on black crime rates as proof. If White privilege is literally not having to face racism, then it's even more nonsense than the definition you started with.
And if I grew up surrounded by feral cats, and they don't share their food with me, then I didn't enjoy feral cat privilege despite my white-guilt dripping alabaster skin. I'm just trying to explain the social-science definition of the concept. It's not a blueprint for the way life works now or will work in the future.
As a side note, I'm certain there's are plenty of "closed ethnic group privilege" studies for an infinite grouping of population disparities. White privilege just happens to be the most prevalent, in America, currently.
Whether his analogy refers to a literal disability or a special set of rules is irrelevant. Either way, he is promoting the idea that blacks go through life at a disadvantage compared to their white equivalents. An intelligent person would look at the discrepancies between races, and study the factors that create them (economics, geography, history, culture, religion, upbringing, race). Race is one of these factors, but it is not the highest determinant. In fact, it isn't even close.
The real privileged groups in America are the ones that have money, education, high property values, a culture full of positive role models, etc. These are traits that can apply to blacks, whites, asians, latinos, etc. To focus on "white privilege" instead of "rich privilege" or "suburban privilege" is to suggest that skin color trumps all of these other more important factors.
To study these factors and how they relate to race is fine. But to blame them on "white privilege" and essentially leave the onus on white people to accept responsibility and fix these problems is flawed and inherently racist. These communities need to become introspective and help themselves instead of blaming "systematic oppression" in modern America, which is mostly a lie.
I didn't use the word "success" once in the above post. It doesn't matter what metric you want to use to measure privilege. Whether you judge it by happiness, income, access to resources, or any other measurement, these things are not tied to skin color or being white. They are much more closely correlated to wealth and location.
White priviledge is defined by mostly innocuous things like "the cops aren't constantly called on you when you take a job as a door-to-door salesman" or "when I hire someone who shares my race, people are less likely to assume I hired them because they share my race". It's not a magical shield that prevents bad things from happening to you, or an automatic winning lottery ticket.
That's not white privilege. That's black disadvantage. My life is not improved by a black guy having trouble selling vacuums. I am not afforded anything, nor privileged to anything because a black guy is discriminated against.
And like O'Reilly says, by your examples Asian must experience "Asian Privilege", because if what you're saying defines white privilege, it must somehow also work on Asians. Are we just calling Asians white now?
The fact you don't have the "black disadvantage" IS the white privilege. You don't get a prize or a check in the mail. Success does not define privilege, thus the entire Asian digression is just a willful misunderstanding of the issues to make black people look bad by comparison.
If not having black disadvantage IS the white privilege, then Asians, by virtue of not being black, also don't have the "black disadvantage". And by your logic therefore enjoy white privilege. Alert the Asians, they are now whitey.
And like I said elsewhere, we don't call the normal Olympics, the Privileged Olympics or the Lucky-to-Not-Be-Retarded Olympics. They are the standard Olympics. People who are disadvantaged compete in the Special Olympics.
The people in the normal Olympics aren't considered privileged by virtue of not being retarded. That's like saying I'm privileged because I did not get eaten by a rogue Turkey Vulture or struck by lightening. Same thing goes with the white privilege situation. Not being harassed as I sell vacuums isn't a privilege, it's the standard. Being harassed as I sell vacuums isn't a lack of privilege, it's a disadvantage.
If I steal all your food, I'm not privileging all Americans by stealing your food, because now they can say "I'm not that guy, so now I'm privileged". If I steal all your food I am disadvantaging you, not privileging all other 299,999,999 US citizens.
I would call it "not having certain disadvantages due to your race", not necessarily "lack of a black disadvantage"--'twas merely using the same phrase you had used previously. Asian Privilege is hard to debate, because its existence does absolutely nothing to prove/disprove white privilege (since privilege and success are not interchangeable). Even if God came down from heaven and gave Cambodian-Americans a bar of gold every Saturday, that wouldn't stop white privilege from being a thing.
If the word "privilege" is your main holdup, I'd be fine if we just called it "the white slight-lack-of-disadvantage". I'll get the t-shirts printed up.
By your screwy logic, you'd look at a room of 10 people, one of whom is in a wheelchair, and say "This is a room of 9 privileged people" instead of "This is a room with 1 disadvantaged man".
And the hypothesis of white privilege IS derived from the observation of white success. It is used as the explanatory factor as to why whites do better than blacks who are considered "comparable" (although I've yet to see one study that properly controls for variables).
And if God gave Cambodians a bar of gold every week, they would then be privileged. And although a gold bar every week wouldn't guarantee that eachindividual Cambodian is successful, the group as a whole would show disproportionate monetary success. If whites are, as you say, experiencing a racial privilege then this would reflect (as a group) in a disproportionate success rate. So even by your own standard PRIVILEGE is related to SUCCESS. Otherwise it couldn't be even called fucking privilege if it doesn't help.
So because the assertion that whites are privileged is based on their success, you must apply the same standards to the Asian and Jewish minorities who have found disproportionate success themselves. Instead you apply different standards to whites by insisting that an explanatory variable is "white privilege" while forgoing using "privilege" as an explanatory variable for the observed Asian/Jewish success. What you are doing is textbook racism.
No I wouldn't, because I never ever said that actual, run-of-the-mill handicapped people lack privilege. That's a completely false equivalency that YOU made by chiming in to agree with the idiot that claimed that Stewart was saying that blacks were inferior to whites when he made his "running a race on one leg" comment.
OTHER people are certainly misappropriating the "white privilege" term as an excuse/correlation for success. But at its birth, in the original "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" article that popularized the term, the privileges were all things you would likely find to be hoity-toity liberal mumbo jumbo like "My culture gives me little fear about ignoring the perspectives and powers of people of other races". Those kind of privileges. The kind that leave a minor psychic toll that accumulates over time, not huge systemic roadblocks to the pursuit of happiness. Nothing that prevents a black president, and nothing that stops a poor white kid from being treated unfairly.
You're so full of shit. 5 seconds ago you said white privilege is, "literally defined as not having to face the disadvantages of racism", but now white privilege is "Greeting cards have your race on them" and "Flesh colored bandaids match your skin" and totally untrue things like "I can count on going into a music shop and find whitey music". And there is zero evidence that any of the nonsense that woman studies baffoon pulled out of her hat affords anyone any privilege at all.
And the article is a total unsubstantiated hypothesis that greeting cards and banaids can even accumulate to have any effect whatsoever.
And if its not correlated to success, it isn't a fucking privilege. If it doesn't do anything to bolster positivity, it inherently is not a privilege. A privilege is a special right, advantage, or immunity. If one group has more privileges over another, they will find more success. It's inherent to the fucking word "advantage".
You keep making shit points and when you get in a corner you change your definitions. Fucking obnoxious.
Maybe if I wasn't being asked to defend the concept of Asian privileged non-cripples I could stick to a simpler message.
"A privilege is a special right, advantage, or immunity". Someone owns a dictionary! You're waaaaaay too hung up on the word "privilege". You have the PRIVILEGE to take for granted certain things that other people sometimes have to work to overcome. THAT'S the advantage you get. And when I poo-poo the correlation of white privilege and success, I'm just saying the end result of the privilege is not success. It's the level of work (in a very generalized way that doesn't discount your individual shitty unprivileged existence) required to achieve success. It's a difference. It's why just pointing to an Asian kid who got a perfect SAT score and going "Eh?" doesn't disprove inherent advantages that white people receive in everyday life.
Oh my fucking goodness, you literally said privilege and success are totally unrelated, multiple times in this thread on multiple responses. Don't tell me "what I meant was..", when you said it clearly over and over. You also said white privilege is immunity to racism. The counter points to that are so fucking abundant typing them would be impossible. I gave you a personal example as simple counter evidence that you are incorrect.
So you start off saying white privilege is black people getting abused, then you said it was immunity to racism, that success and privilege have nothing to do with each other, but now you say all those things aren't true.
Here's the fucking skinny, different people benefit from their race in different situations. White kid in black neighborhood is experiencing zero white privilege. Black kid in basketball tryouts, huge black privilege. Asian kid on bus going through Englewood at night? That mother fucker is wishing he was black.
The fact of the matter is that benefiting from your skin color is so fucking subjective and situational that asserting there is an overarching and constant entity known as "white privilege" is a gross generality that aligns best with the logic of total bigots. Assuming a white person benefits from white privilege makes as much sense as assuming a black person is a violent criminal. In fact, considering the data, it makes much less sense.
It's why just pointing to an Asian kid who got a perfect SAT score and going "Eh?"
That's called anecdote, which is useless. What I am citing is hard data showing that Asians are even more successful than whites despite the fact that they can not possibly enjoy this ethereal "white privilege" you keep asserting.
Stewart got mushroom stamped, which is odd as he typically trounces O'reilly whenever they have a debate. He completely glossed over Bill's salient point regarding Asian Americans, while they weren't enslaved or brought over to the country against their will, you still have to acknowledge the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Japanese Interment camps if you are going to cite slavery and Jim Crowe as having lingering affects on Black America, which Stewart failed to do so. Near the end, Stewart claims white privilege is not having to fear being "cat called" when walking down the street. So now it's white male privilege? The whole term is ambiguous and Stewart kept changing his argument rather than addressing Bill's points directly. I couldn't stand O'reilly for the longest time, but you have to hand it to him when it comes to this exchange. I don't know what happened to Stewart, he used to be a comedian who made a mockery of the far right, now he's a bleeding heart that champions whatever liberal cause is most trendy at the time.
I hate to sound like a Stormfronter, but I think the best point any white supremacist makes is when they compare the asian immigrant outcome to the post-slavery black outcomes. Asians absolutely trounced all other races in productivity and success.
And the difference is so widespread that it's hard to look on it as anything but genetic.
I think the Asian question and comparing their story to blaeks is based on the fact that most whites do not have a huge Asian population and rely on stereotypes and what they see on TV.
If you have ever lived in SF you will see Asians of every spectrum--and one thing you will see is pure Asian thugs and dirty old women digging in trash cans.
The Asians of SF have been there for over a century. Like all forms of racism--when you really take a look at people--you see that culture defines most aspects of our life. If Asians were inherently superior in intelligence then they would not fall into the thug trope.
Many middle class Americans see Asians who have come over and taken the well paid tech jobs that we can not land, then stick their kids in great schools and push them to excel and become a doctor.
But this is the problem of clumping groups together.
In our nation someone has to wash the dishes. And if every blaek went back to Africa soon another group would fill the void and the cycle would continue.
Very true. Lumping "Asian Americans" into a single category isn't very indicative of anything. To lump all Asian-Americans under the "Asian" category really isn't all that informative, especially for first- or second- generations. The Cambodian GDP per capita is $1,000 US. The Japanese GDP per capita is $38,000 US. The financial success of the first generation to venture to America will be drastically different, and not indicative of assimilation/acceptance.
How about instead of anecdotal evidence you look at the actual numbers? Median Asian American Income = $68,636
Median White Non-Hispanic Income = $57,009
Why does this privilege that White people supposedly have under this system rigged in White's favor only hold back certain minority groups, while other groups actually do BETTER than Whites under the same system?
There are plenty of white people in Appalachia that are actually much poorer than the average black person. That doesn't mean that as a whole in America whites aren't doing much better than blacks.
You can certainly reference things like "the bell curve" if you were to try and make that argument, but it's always a slippery slope when you try to generalize an entire group of people according to inherent traits. Some differences between race or self evident, such as generally, blacks are the best athletes, just take a look at the NFL or the NBA.
I think when it comes to the success rate it's predominantly cultural rather than a genetic or an inherent discrepancy between the two. I myself am biracial, half asian and half white, and while my parents weren't over bearing when I was growing up, I know my dad had to study at least three hours every night starting in Junior High, and all three of my Aunts attended and graduated from four year colleges back when it wasn't the norm. Asian parents for the most part, are very strict, and Asian children are taught at an early age that it isn't enough to simply succeed, but that they must excel. A lot of people are driven, but nothing that quite compares to this widespread mentality among Asian culture. This certainly isn't universally true, and Windsor_Submarine does a nice job of elaborating on this in his post, but I believe it (culture) is a more feasible explanation for Asians' monetary success rather than the notion that they are naturally more intelligent than other peoples.
Fine I'll be the first commentor to agree with Stewart. Probably because I'm the only one here who gets looked at like a thief when I jog through a nice neighborhood.
O'Reilly "won" the debate by being willfully ignorant of the definition of the term they were debating. It's like saying the winner of the "there's no such thing as gravity" debate is the guy who pointed at a flying bird and said "explain THAT" instead of the physicist.
How was this race baiting? O'Reilly has been having the "white privilege doesn't exist" discussion on his own show for months. Stewart didn't just bring it up apropos of nothing.
What a great point that will never be processed by a sub populated full of Stormfront-lite retards. I have no idea where people are getting this fucktarded "white privilege would mean a black man would never be president durrr!" idea from. It's a concept that refers to general statistical data favoring one group at the population level, it doesn't mean every single white person is getting a "privilege pass" in every single instance.
Honestly this is the most toxic sub I subscribe to. The userbase here is just the worst. But where else am I gonna get updates on how shit the new show is? =\
Except when the same general statistical data shows that Asians are actually doing better as a whole than white people are. If this system is rigged so that it's easier for whites and harder for minorities, why are certain minority groups doing better than whites? Is it "white privilege" or really "black disadvantage"?
Asian Americans can have privilege too. There is a concept in sociology called intersectionality— "white privilege" isn't the be-all end-all. For example, a rich black man still has "class privilege." Privilege isn't a bad thing at all, it's just something we should be mindful of.
What statistical data? People like you are so delusional that you analyze blacks being disproportionately incarcerated as being because of racism with out looking at the fact that blacks commit disproportionate amounts of crime. What is white privilege? Is it just being good citizens and contributing to society?
I can see where you're coming from, I think O&A generally attract a certain type of listener due to the tone of the show. I'm not excluding myself from that generality, as I too am a fan of crass humor and vulgar language. You sir on the other hand appear to be an anomaly, and I doubt that your opinions will ever be well received here because of it. Thanks for the link, I wish the article would have provided actual statistics or percentages rather than just the conclusion of the study's findings, but interesting nonetheless.
And somehow in this racist anti-semitic society the blacks are held down but the jews, asians, and hindus aren't. Do the white people who set the agenda decide to make those groups more successful than them for a reason, or is it simply that those groups understand that if you work hard and accept responsibility for your own actions instead of blaming everyone else you have a better chance of accomplishing your goals in this society than pretty much anywhere else on earth?
102 comments
18 regis69 2014-10-20
O'Reilly's point about Asian privilege was absolutely true. Asian Americans on average make more money and are better educated than White Americans. If the opposite was true it would be used by people like Stewart as an example of whites being more privileged. Stewart attempted to deflect that point by asking "which asians?" The answer is on average ALL Asians as a whole in America. Not just Japanese, etc. Including vietnamese, cambodians, even East Indians. Lump in all asians the way you lump in all whites and on average they're higher paid and better educated than whites.
And if you want to know why more black people go to prison for drug offenses than whites, go drive down any street where there is someone literally standing on the sidewalk selling drugs out in the open. It's not gonna be an asian or a white guy. If a cop wants to make a fucking simple drug bust all he has to do is walk over and buy drugs from that guy and then flash a badge and cuff him, or watch him for literally a few minutes until he sees a transaction take place, then go search the guy and cuff him. Obviously that's a lot easier than having to stake out the white college student's house who discretely sells weed. White drug dealers take precautions to prevent arrest that for some idiotic reason black dealers do not. Cops are gonna go for the easy obvious busts, and black drug dealers are the dumb antelope with a bad leg limping behind the rest of the drug dealer pack.
9 equinoxexistential 2014-10-20
Black people are horrible drug dealers, that's why they are all in prison. You can literally drive around any black neighbourhood and see hand to hand transactions left and right.
3 DianaKurlan5 2014-10-20
Got that WMD!
1 heliotropic815 2014-10-20
I hear the WMD is the bomb
2 ig0tworms 2014-10-20
I too have watched seasons 1-5 of The Wire.
3 Spokker 2014-10-20
I read a study once that said that blacks were more likely to buy drugs in public and from people they don't know, which could explain some of the disparity in drug arrests. From some site called Human Rights Watch.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa/index.htm#TopOfPage
1 [deleted] 2014-10-20
That might explain not only the arrests, but also higher conviction rate. Because these black kids are getting busted directly by narcs, they might be able to maximize sentences due to overwhelming evidence. I'd loooove a comprehensive study on circumstances of arrest and its affect on conviction rate, controlled for race.
2 [deleted] 2014-10-20
Blacks are also grossly over represented in gang populations. So sometimes when the cops bust them on smaller offenses, the judges throw the book at them harder to get thugs off of the streets.
And that's just one of many possible variables that explain disproportionate black conviction, but instead dumb fucks and every academic dumb fucks, just look at the disparity and conclude racism without doing any decent experiments or tests.
2 boofk 2014-10-20
This is a great point that people in the media never make. Ive known my fair share of drug dealers. Every single white dealer ive known only deals with friends/friends of friends. A lot of the black ones ive met stand on a street and risk going to prison to sell a $10 bag to a complete stranger. Obviously more black dealers are going to get caught.
14 Knowgusto 2014-10-20
Anthony did. Weds or Thursday of last week. Anthony doesn't agree with Stewart.
14 nickstachio 2014-10-20
SPOILER! Gawd!
2 vbfronkis 2014-10-20
Mind = BLOWN
13 lelgimps 2014-10-20
Stewart fell apart on this. He actually looked bad for the first time.
13 frostiitute 2014-10-20
The amount of attempts at gotcha's was unreal.
7 DianaKurlan5 2014-10-20
I was glad to see many people on mainstream Reddit were actually on O'Reilly's side for this one:
http://np.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/2jfnqi/jon_stewart_vs_bill_oreilly_white_privilege/
-10 samsterlicious 2014-10-20
The white majority took the white side? Big surprise.
11 [deleted] 2014-10-20
Considering this sites demographic, yeah that is a big surprise. You do realize the champions of "white privilege" aren't black people right?
-2 samsterlicious 2014-10-20
Jon Stewart isn't black?
6 regis69 2014-10-20
He's jewish. Mention "jewish privilege" and you're an anti-semite, though.
2 [deleted] 2014-10-20
Yeah, Jews are so successful because of smarts and good culture. Blacks are unsuccessful because of white people.
1 regis69 2014-10-20
And somehow in this racist anti-semitic society the blacks are held down but the jews, asians, and hindus aren't. Do the white people who set the agenda decide to make those groups more successful than them for a reason, or is it simply that those groups understand that if you work hard and accept responsibility for your own actions instead of blaming everyone else you have a better chance of accomplishing your goals in this society than pretty much anywhere else on earth?
-4 YourOldPalHoward 2014-10-20
Reddit is virulently opposed to anything social justice related you nimrod. The entire site is for 20something white males using le nice memes to jerk over how edgy and brogressive they are.
1 DianaKurlan5 2014-10-20
Shut up faggot.
2 YourOldPalHoward 2014-10-20
Lol you post to /r/AntiPOZI, /r/4chan, and /r/Anonymous. What's it like being a maladjusted neckbeard virgin?
1 DianaKurlan5 2014-10-20
Who's scruffy-looking?
4 Buttpudding 2014-10-20
Fuck off back to tumblr, sjw
-8 samsterlicious 2014-10-20
Keep shouting Buzz words there
1 DianaKurlan5 2014-10-20
Ok.
6 HLef 2014-10-20
When O'Reilly stays within the realm of common sense, he's hard to disagree with.
12 DianaKurlan5 2014-10-20
O'Reilly's incredibly intelligent, but he's a pompous blowhard. He can be his own worst enemy.
-6 Drunken_Wizard23 2014-10-20
Yeah, Stewart didn't exactly own him here, but O'Reilly using "a black guy in the white house" to discount white privilege is like using "my friend is black" to prove you're not racist.
14 TriggeredLeftist 2014-10-20
How does a black person as president don't disprove white privilege? Isn't white privilege good or bad assumptions made about you because of your race? Obama won the election, twice.
0 YourOldPalHoward 2014-10-20
You know the first female millionaire in America was a black woman, right?
The concept of "privilege" refers to general trends in society. There can and are huge circumstantial exceptions to it. That's what none of you bozos understand— having "white privilege" doesn't mean you're gonna be treated better than black people in every single case— it refers to general trends at the population level in society, supported by mountains of statistical data.
6 TriggeredLeftist 2014-10-20
What statistical data? People like you are so delusional that you analyze blacks being disproportionately incarcerated as being because of racism with out looking at the fact that blacks commit disproportionate amounts of crime. What is white privilege? Is it just being good citizens and contributing to society?
-2 YourOldPalHoward 2014-10-20
How about the fact that a resume with a white sounding name with a violent felony conviction is more likely to get an interview than a resume with the same qualifications, a clean criminal history, and a "black sounding name"?
There are literally hundreds of studies like this within sociology that you retards willfully ignore, while putting up strawmen arguments like incarceration rates that I didn't even make. (Nice fucking tactic there by the way)
2 E-rockComment 2014-10-20
Is a straw man worse than ad hominem? I tease of course, the study you alluded to sounds interesting, do you have a source by chance? But to address the point, does white privilege just affect blacks? Would an individual with an Asian sounding name or a Hispanic sounding name be more likely to be rejected in favor of a white convicted felon as well? That was the main problem I saw with Stewart's argument, if white privilege is a tangible thing, it should affect all minority races (in America) equally. To me personally, it would seem more proper to use the term "black discrimination" rather than "white privilege" when referring to the phenomena if multiple races are privy to the same luxury that blacks are not afforded. "White privilege" is a divisive term that shifts the focus of the conversation away from the issues facing blacks in America onto the exoneration of their white countrymen, which seems counter-intuitive in fixing the problem.
-1 YourOldPalHoward 2014-10-20
These are totally fair points and I don't really disagree with anything you've written. I just don't like the general tone in this thread of people trying to hand-wave away the fact that blacks still face discrimination.
Here is the study. Please remember I initially paraphrased it from memory, but the findings are still very compelling I think.
0 E-rockComment 2014-10-20
I can see where you're coming from, I think O&A generally attract a certain type of listener due to the tone of the show. I'm not excluding myself from that generality, as I too am a fan of crass humor and vulgar language. You sir on the other hand appear to be an anomaly, and I doubt that your opinions will ever be well received here because of it. Thanks for the link, I wish the article would have provided actual statistics or percentages rather than just the conclusion of the study's findings, but interesting nonetheless.
1 [deleted] 2014-10-20
That study is garbage. They didn't use Black sounding names, they used Ghetto sounding names. Ghetto names like the ones they used are shown to correlate to things like being born in the ghetto, being born of a teenage mother, and several other variables. Their failure to eliminate lurking variables makes the study inconclusive. They need to adjust for other variables the names correlate to before they can conclude race.
0 TriggeredLeftist 2014-10-20
You have statistical evidence that white felons are more likely to be hired than qualified blacks? No, you don't.
You can't blame people though for wanting to hire people that know how to speak proper english.
1 YourOldPalHoward 2014-10-20
I've already linked the study in this thread, and it's one of many similar studies.
You just ignore all data that doesn't support your gut feeling about how the world works. Feels before reals, right?
P.S. Prescriptivism hasn't been accepted in the field of linguistics for decades. There is no such thing as "proper English," just a standardized written form. But I guess people who have dedicated their lives to the fucking scientific study of languages and how they develop are just a bunch of SJW shills, right? I can't do this anymore, you're embarrassing to even respond to. Take the last word if you need it.
2 TriggeredLeftist 2014-10-20
And you won't link it again because there is no way there is evidence for what you said.
Yes there is, there is such thing as proper grammar. "how ya doin boss im herez for muh interviews" isn't going to get you any job, especially when you are named after a fruit with a french suffix.
Are you saying grammatical rules were invented to keep the black man down form reconquering the world and rediscovering their Egyptian, israelite and moor heritage?
1 YourOldPalHoward 2014-10-20
And you won't go into my posting history and see how literally my previous comment before responding to you was linking it, lol. Talk about lazy.
Go ahead and read that so you can come up with some retarded rationalization for why its wrong that I won't bother reading because you're an idiot who doesn't know the first things about sociology (or linguistics)
1 TriggeredLeftist 2014-10-20
Can't find it, it must not exist.
Hey, shouldn't you be looting a corner store to steal weaves for your baby mamma Jamal? This is not a productive way to fight white privilege, you just aren't very good at it.
1 YourOldPalHoward 2014-10-20
It was literally the third comment in my posting history (fourth now). How fucking retarded are you, seriously? Or is it that you did see and read the study, and now you're playing the "nah nah nah i can't hear you" game in the face of even the slightest evidence against your "feels before reals" worldview? I'm actually suspecting the latter now, because I have trouble believing that even someone like you could be this retarded.
1 TriggeredLeftist 2014-10-20
So an experiment conduced by an agenda driven person posted on a cnn blog is now undeniable evidence of white privilege? I would also hire a white person that is presentable and fessed up to a drug charge like the blog says over a dumb nig with a retarded name that speaks like he has a 75 IQ. Any self respecting black person in the employers position also would.
People like you should go into Chi-Raq and teach the little niglets the English Language and try to assimilate them into American Culture.
1 YourOldPalHoward 2014-10-20
Yeah, I guess every single person in the entire field of sociology is "agenda-driven." My god the world must look strange through the eyes of a racist. You remind me of conspiracy theorists— if the consensus every single educated expert in a relevant field of study goes against your "feels," they must be "agenda-driven."
And of course you'd ignore the part that says
because in your bigoted worldview, it sounds like any black person is going to be a "dumb nig with a retarded name who speaks like he has a 75 IQ." You are willfully ignoring everything that doesn't conform to the view you want to hold. Fucking pathetic.
2 TriggeredLeftist 2014-10-20
We are talking about a well spoken person being honest about a drug charge, not a serious crime. Comparing that person to someone who sounds like they are retarded and has a ''black name'' most people would pick the first to hire, because they are honest and seem more qualified. It is not a racism, there would be the same result if the black person was a redneck.
1 [deleted] 2014-10-20
Hey hey hey, hold on buddy. I'll have you know that linguists have agreed that "Drunken Redneck Drivel" or DRD is a totally valid language. If you don't hire someone because they speak only in DRD you are a racist, good sir.
1 [deleted] 2014-10-20
You didn't link a study you linked a blog. A blog post is useless.
I want to see the methods of the study, the scientific conclusions, and at least the fucking abstract. Instead I get second hand info from a blog and you call that proof?
1 [deleted] 2014-10-20
Yes, AAVE is a real dialect. So is Dutch. But if I go into a job interview yelling out umlauts, I'm not getting the fucking job. Just like Tyreasha isn't going to get the job if she speaks AAVE.
10 [deleted] 2014-10-20
[deleted]
4 regis69 2014-10-20
When there had never been a black president people used it as an example of how racist our society is. Now that we have a black president those same people say you can't use it as an example of our society clearly becoming much less racist.
And do racists have black friends? What proof can anyone ever offer to prove they're not racist if not the fact that they choose to have black people as friends?
1 TriangleDimes 2014-10-20
It works if "racism" is being framed as viewing one or more races as different than yours, so that is made to say "I see this person as equal and we have a friendship on a personal level." It works to a point. The conversation has moved away from that, though, and now it has something to do with general prejudice. "White privilege" is essentially "majority privilege," and can be seen throughout the world where the racial identity is more uniform. I've heard it describe a comfort level, because comfort is the next great frontier apparently.
But even if we want to accept that premise, these discussions are short sighted for a few reasons:
1). It discounter inter-white prejudice/racism, like inter-asian racism and inter-black racism. For an obvious example, Jewish people. Also, most Eastern Europeans hold prejudices and hatreds with the same vitriol as between people of different skin color. African people hold prejudices for different sub-cultures, I know a lot of Chinese people who hate Japanese people, there are so many dimensions to it if you take the time to actually know these cultures.
2). It's interesting how all of these talks either explicitly or implicitly center around black vs. white. Asian people are never invited to the table, same with Aboriginals, same with Arabs and Indians. From my perspective as a non-American this is just another round in the passive-aggressive bitchfest that is black and white relations in America.
3). For a far-left ideology it really stinks of segregationist bullshit. It seemed like we were working out way to an individual-focused ideology with the "I don't see race" thing. Now people are saying that is privilege, because you're trying to "erase" their culture and identity and past and whatever the fuck. Again, this comes from black vs. white because if you know anything about races and cultures, every single race and culture has a unique grievance with the other. It's just a way to say "okay, fuck it, let's just say we assume we're all equal and the same until proven otherwise." It's just another way of saying "benefit of the doubt." The true hypocrisy in going against that is these people dont want to destroy prejudice, they want to reinforce prejudices but just shuffle them around.
5 [deleted] 2014-10-20
[deleted]
1 [deleted] 2014-10-20
[deleted]
11 [deleted] 2014-10-20
It really is true racism to say that an entire shade of people enjoy a privilege based on that shade, that affects all points of their lives in a positive way and that all of their accomplishments are in light of that. When a white guy achieves, it's because of his race, but when a black guy achieves it's despite his race? Simplistic nonsense that fails to account for success of many other ethnic minorities. Saying that the white race as a whole is somehow privileged is something I can tolerate as a guess, but to ever apply that to an individual and assert that they are "privileged" due to their race is horseshit. Go tell a poor white kid living in a poor black neighborhood that his race is actually giving him a leg up, while black kids torture him based on his race.
So many of these sociologists spit out these unfounded theories to explain discrepancies (see Food deserts), but fail to ask questions like "Mmm what effect will treating blackness as an official disability have on society".
-1 DiscoInferiorityComp 2014-10-20
It truly would be, if that's at all what "white privilege" meant, and you weren't just taking the definitions of "white" and "privilege" and smashing them together.
8 schmoegreene 2014-10-20
Did you listen to the clip? Explain how it isn't racist for Stewart to compare black people trying to make it in America to a disabled person trying to win a race.
He is comparing blacks to disabled people in his own fucking analogy. You couldn't have a more concrete example of racism. He is essentially saying that blacks are inferior to whites and need help to catch up (the root causes that he blames are irrelevant, they don't change the fact that Stewart is actually the one promoting a prejudiced view of black people).
The fact is that black people are just as capable as white people of succeeding in modern America. Inequalities have much more to do with economics and geography (factors that are COMPLETELY under the control of individuals in the modern world). I know plenty of successful black people who grew up in the suburbs and laugh at the idea of white privilege. The fact is that unless you grow up in a ghetto or act/dress a certain way, racism is not very prevalent in 2014. People are judged based on their character, and not based on their race. Liberals who obsess over "white privilege" are the ones guilty of promoting ideas of prejudice and racism.
-6 DiscoInferiorityComp 2014-10-20
"Explain how it isn't racist for Stewart to compare black people trying to make it in America to a disabled person trying to win a race." That's easy--he said it's like trying to win a race "on one leg". He said nothing about being disabled. Clean out your ears. He's saying that conditions have been placed on the runners ("these guys get to use two legs, and these guys only get to use one leg"). He's not saying they were born differently or are genetically inferior. "White priviledge" isn't the cause of success or failure. It's just a thing that exists. Even if it's really tiny and barely significant.
5 [deleted] 2014-10-20
Hahahaha, you know what "on one leg" means right? It means disabled you dumb fuck. He's saying black succeeding is like a one legged person winning a race.
Fuck Jon Stewart must think that any black guy that isn't rolling in his own feces is a motherfucking super genius for overcoming his ailment of "black".
-5 DiscoInferiorityComp 2014-10-20
THE WHITE PEOPLE GOT TO USE BOTH LEGS. That's the concept, dummy.
3 [deleted] 2014-10-20
Having both legs is the natural state of a runner. If you cut off someone else's leg, they're being disadvantaged. So if you enter a race, and I cut your leg off, are you going to call the other racers "privileged"? Or are you going to be considered "disabled"?
That's why we call the normal Olympics the Privileged Olympics, and the ones with all the retarded people the Special Olympics right???
-6 DiscoInferiorityComp 2014-10-20
So if you enter a race, and I cut your leg off, are you going to call the other racers "privileged"?
So in your scenario,the non-white runners all get a leg cut off. The white people get to keep their legs. Strictly because they are white. And you think you're making a point? For your side of the debate?
2 [deleted] 2014-10-20
Yes. If you cut blacks legs off, do you think the blacks are disadvantaged, or do you think the white are privileged? Being privileged is to be afforded something.
Having both legs is a normal standard state for a race. If you cut the legs off of someone you are taking away from them, and disadvantaging them in the race. This makes white people no faster. The race is no easier for white people to run.
Now, if you gave the white people cocaine and steroids, then they would be receiving a privilege. They would finish the race faster and be better at it. They would be getting something based on their race.
The big difference here is something being granted versus something being taken. Whites aren't privileged because they aren't given shit, blacks are sometimes disadvantaged if certain things are taken away.
-1 DiscoInferiorityComp 2014-10-20
White privilege is literally defined as not having to face the disadvantages of racism. That's it. You don't win anything, but you also don't lose anything. You don't get into college, you don't get a job, and you can still die broke in a gutter.
2 [deleted] 2014-10-20
Well then that is even more object nonsense. I grew up in a poor white neighborhood, and went to a poor urban highschool that was 50% black. I faced racism every fucking day. Then I went to college where I faced institutionalized racism, wherein I was afforded far less resources than my black counterparts, and also had to earn higher marks to reach the same level of achievement. And compared to the poor white kids living in the black neighborhood I had it fucking easy.
The fact is people of all colors face all types of racism regularly. Look at the black on white vs white on black crime rates as proof. If White privilege is literally not having to face racism, then it's even more nonsense than the definition you started with.
0 DiscoInferiorityComp 2014-10-20
And if I grew up surrounded by feral cats, and they don't share their food with me, then I didn't enjoy feral cat privilege despite my white-guilt dripping alabaster skin. I'm just trying to explain the social-science definition of the concept. It's not a blueprint for the way life works now or will work in the future.
0 DiscoInferiorityComp 2014-10-20
As a side note, I'm certain there's are plenty of "closed ethnic group privilege" studies for an infinite grouping of population disparities. White privilege just happens to be the most prevalent, in America, currently.
2 schmoegreene 2014-10-20
Whether his analogy refers to a literal disability or a special set of rules is irrelevant. Either way, he is promoting the idea that blacks go through life at a disadvantage compared to their white equivalents. An intelligent person would look at the discrepancies between races, and study the factors that create them (economics, geography, history, culture, religion, upbringing, race). Race is one of these factors, but it is not the highest determinant. In fact, it isn't even close.
The real privileged groups in America are the ones that have money, education, high property values, a culture full of positive role models, etc. These are traits that can apply to blacks, whites, asians, latinos, etc. To focus on "white privilege" instead of "rich privilege" or "suburban privilege" is to suggest that skin color trumps all of these other more important factors.
To study these factors and how they relate to race is fine. But to blame them on "white privilege" and essentially leave the onus on white people to accept responsibility and fix these problems is flawed and inherently racist. These communities need to become introspective and help themselves instead of blaming "systematic oppression" in modern America, which is mostly a lie.
-3 DiscoInferiorityComp 2014-10-20
You're correlating privilege and success again. That's not what white privilege is.
2 schmoegreene 2014-10-20
I didn't use the word "success" once in the above post. It doesn't matter what metric you want to use to measure privilege. Whether you judge it by happiness, income, access to resources, or any other measurement, these things are not tied to skin color or being white. They are much more closely correlated to wealth and location.
-3 DiscoInferiorityComp 2014-10-20
White priviledge is defined by mostly innocuous things like "the cops aren't constantly called on you when you take a job as a door-to-door salesman" or "when I hire someone who shares my race, people are less likely to assume I hired them because they share my race". It's not a magical shield that prevents bad things from happening to you, or an automatic winning lottery ticket.
2 [deleted] 2014-10-20
That's not white privilege. That's black disadvantage. My life is not improved by a black guy having trouble selling vacuums. I am not afforded anything, nor privileged to anything because a black guy is discriminated against.
And like O'Reilly says, by your examples Asian must experience "Asian Privilege", because if what you're saying defines white privilege, it must somehow also work on Asians. Are we just calling Asians white now?
-2 DiscoInferiorityComp 2014-10-20
The fact you don't have the "black disadvantage" IS the white privilege. You don't get a prize or a check in the mail. Success does not define privilege, thus the entire Asian digression is just a willful misunderstanding of the issues to make black people look bad by comparison.
5 [deleted] 2014-10-20
If not having black disadvantage IS the white privilege, then Asians, by virtue of not being black, also don't have the "black disadvantage". And by your logic therefore enjoy white privilege. Alert the Asians, they are now whitey.
And like I said elsewhere, we don't call the normal Olympics, the Privileged Olympics or the Lucky-to-Not-Be-Retarded Olympics. They are the standard Olympics. People who are disadvantaged compete in the Special Olympics.
The people in the normal Olympics aren't considered privileged by virtue of not being retarded. That's like saying I'm privileged because I did not get eaten by a rogue Turkey Vulture or struck by lightening. Same thing goes with the white privilege situation. Not being harassed as I sell vacuums isn't a privilege, it's the standard. Being harassed as I sell vacuums isn't a lack of privilege, it's a disadvantage.
If I steal all your food, I'm not privileging all Americans by stealing your food, because now they can say "I'm not that guy, so now I'm privileged". If I steal all your food I am disadvantaging you, not privileging all other 299,999,999 US citizens.
-1 DiscoInferiorityComp 2014-10-20
I would call it "not having certain disadvantages due to your race", not necessarily "lack of a black disadvantage"--'twas merely using the same phrase you had used previously. Asian Privilege is hard to debate, because its existence does absolutely nothing to prove/disprove white privilege (since privilege and success are not interchangeable). Even if God came down from heaven and gave Cambodian-Americans a bar of gold every Saturday, that wouldn't stop white privilege from being a thing.
If the word "privilege" is your main holdup, I'd be fine if we just called it "the white slight-lack-of-disadvantage". I'll get the t-shirts printed up.
1 [deleted] 2014-10-20
By your screwy logic, you'd look at a room of 10 people, one of whom is in a wheelchair, and say "This is a room of 9 privileged people" instead of "This is a room with 1 disadvantaged man".
And the hypothesis of white privilege IS derived from the observation of white success. It is used as the explanatory factor as to why whites do better than blacks who are considered "comparable" (although I've yet to see one study that properly controls for variables).
And if God gave Cambodians a bar of gold every week, they would then be privileged. And although a gold bar every week wouldn't guarantee that each individual Cambodian is successful, the group as a whole would show disproportionate monetary success. If whites are, as you say, experiencing a racial privilege then this would reflect (as a group) in a disproportionate success rate. So even by your own standard PRIVILEGE is related to SUCCESS. Otherwise it couldn't be even called fucking privilege if it doesn't help.
So because the assertion that whites are privileged is based on their success, you must apply the same standards to the Asian and Jewish minorities who have found disproportionate success themselves. Instead you apply different standards to whites by insisting that an explanatory variable is "white privilege" while forgoing using "privilege" as an explanatory variable for the observed Asian/Jewish success. What you are doing is textbook racism.
-1 DiscoInferiorityComp 2014-10-20
No I wouldn't, because I never ever said that actual, run-of-the-mill handicapped people lack privilege. That's a completely false equivalency that YOU made by chiming in to agree with the idiot that claimed that Stewart was saying that blacks were inferior to whites when he made his "running a race on one leg" comment.
OTHER people are certainly misappropriating the "white privilege" term as an excuse/correlation for success. But at its birth, in the original "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" article that popularized the term, the privileges were all things you would likely find to be hoity-toity liberal mumbo jumbo like "My culture gives me little fear about ignoring the perspectives and powers of people of other races". Those kind of privileges. The kind that leave a minor psychic toll that accumulates over time, not huge systemic roadblocks to the pursuit of happiness. Nothing that prevents a black president, and nothing that stops a poor white kid from being treated unfairly.
2 [deleted] 2014-10-20
You're so full of shit. 5 seconds ago you said white privilege is, "literally defined as not having to face the disadvantages of racism", but now white privilege is "Greeting cards have your race on them" and "Flesh colored bandaids match your skin" and totally untrue things like "I can count on going into a music shop and find whitey music". And there is zero evidence that any of the nonsense that woman studies baffoon pulled out of her hat affords anyone any privilege at all.
And the article is a total unsubstantiated hypothesis that greeting cards and banaids can even accumulate to have any effect whatsoever.
And if its not correlated to success, it isn't a fucking privilege. If it doesn't do anything to bolster positivity, it inherently is not a privilege. A privilege is a special right, advantage, or immunity. If one group has more privileges over another, they will find more success. It's inherent to the fucking word "advantage".
You keep making shit points and when you get in a corner you change your definitions. Fucking obnoxious.
0 DiscoInferiorityComp 2014-10-20
Maybe if I wasn't being asked to defend the concept of Asian privileged non-cripples I could stick to a simpler message.
"A privilege is a special right, advantage, or immunity". Someone owns a dictionary! You're waaaaaay too hung up on the word "privilege". You have the PRIVILEGE to take for granted certain things that other people sometimes have to work to overcome. THAT'S the advantage you get. And when I poo-poo the correlation of white privilege and success, I'm just saying the end result of the privilege is not success. It's the level of work (in a very generalized way that doesn't discount your individual shitty unprivileged existence) required to achieve success. It's a difference. It's why just pointing to an Asian kid who got a perfect SAT score and going "Eh?" doesn't disprove inherent advantages that white people receive in everyday life.
1 [deleted] 2014-10-20
Oh my fucking goodness, you literally said privilege and success are totally unrelated, multiple times in this thread on multiple responses. Don't tell me "what I meant was..", when you said it clearly over and over. You also said white privilege is immunity to racism. The counter points to that are so fucking abundant typing them would be impossible. I gave you a personal example as simple counter evidence that you are incorrect.
So you start off saying white privilege is black people getting abused, then you said it was immunity to racism, that success and privilege have nothing to do with each other, but now you say all those things aren't true.
Here's the fucking skinny, different people benefit from their race in different situations. White kid in black neighborhood is experiencing zero white privilege. Black kid in basketball tryouts, huge black privilege. Asian kid on bus going through Englewood at night? That mother fucker is wishing he was black.
The fact of the matter is that benefiting from your skin color is so fucking subjective and situational that asserting there is an overarching and constant entity known as "white privilege" is a gross generality that aligns best with the logic of total bigots. Assuming a white person benefits from white privilege makes as much sense as assuming a black person is a violent criminal. In fact, considering the data, it makes much less sense.
That's called anecdote, which is useless. What I am citing is hard data showing that Asians are even more successful than whites despite the fact that they can not possibly enjoy this ethereal "white privilege" you keep asserting.
9 E-rockComment 2014-10-20
Stewart got mushroom stamped, which is odd as he typically trounces O'reilly whenever they have a debate. He completely glossed over Bill's salient point regarding Asian Americans, while they weren't enslaved or brought over to the country against their will, you still have to acknowledge the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Japanese Interment camps if you are going to cite slavery and Jim Crowe as having lingering affects on Black America, which Stewart failed to do so. Near the end, Stewart claims white privilege is not having to fear being "cat called" when walking down the street. So now it's white male privilege? The whole term is ambiguous and Stewart kept changing his argument rather than addressing Bill's points directly. I couldn't stand O'reilly for the longest time, but you have to hand it to him when it comes to this exchange. I don't know what happened to Stewart, he used to be a comedian who made a mockery of the far right, now he's a bleeding heart that champions whatever liberal cause is most trendy at the time.
10 [deleted] 2014-10-20
[deleted]
2 DianaKurlan5 2014-10-20
I hate to sound like a Stormfronter, but I think the best point any white supremacist makes is when they compare the asian immigrant outcome to the post-slavery black outcomes. Asians absolutely trounced all other races in productivity and success.
And the difference is so widespread that it's hard to look on it as anything but genetic.
2 Windsor_Submarine 2014-10-20
I think the Asian question and comparing their story to blaeks is based on the fact that most whites do not have a huge Asian population and rely on stereotypes and what they see on TV.
If you have ever lived in SF you will see Asians of every spectrum--and one thing you will see is pure Asian thugs and dirty old women digging in trash cans.
The Asians of SF have been there for over a century. Like all forms of racism--when you really take a look at people--you see that culture defines most aspects of our life. If Asians were inherently superior in intelligence then they would not fall into the thug trope.
Many middle class Americans see Asians who have come over and taken the well paid tech jobs that we can not land, then stick their kids in great schools and push them to excel and become a doctor.
But this is the problem of clumping groups together.
In our nation someone has to wash the dishes. And if every blaek went back to Africa soon another group would fill the void and the cycle would continue.
2 DiscoInferiorityComp 2014-10-20
Very true. Lumping "Asian Americans" into a single category isn't very indicative of anything. To lump all Asian-Americans under the "Asian" category really isn't all that informative, especially for first- or second- generations. The Cambodian GDP per capita is $1,000 US. The Japanese GDP per capita is $38,000 US. The financial success of the first generation to venture to America will be drastically different, and not indicative of assimilation/acceptance.
0 regis69 2014-10-20
How about instead of anecdotal evidence you look at the actual numbers? Median Asian American Income = $68,636 Median White Non-Hispanic Income = $57,009
Why does this privilege that White people supposedly have under this system rigged in White's favor only hold back certain minority groups, while other groups actually do BETTER than Whites under the same system?
There are plenty of white people in Appalachia that are actually much poorer than the average black person. That doesn't mean that as a whole in America whites aren't doing much better than blacks.
1 E-rockComment 2014-10-20
You can certainly reference things like "the bell curve" if you were to try and make that argument, but it's always a slippery slope when you try to generalize an entire group of people according to inherent traits. Some differences between race or self evident, such as generally, blacks are the best athletes, just take a look at the NFL or the NBA.
I think when it comes to the success rate it's predominantly cultural rather than a genetic or an inherent discrepancy between the two. I myself am biracial, half asian and half white, and while my parents weren't over bearing when I was growing up, I know my dad had to study at least three hours every night starting in Junior High, and all three of my Aunts attended and graduated from four year colleges back when it wasn't the norm. Asian parents for the most part, are very strict, and Asian children are taught at an early age that it isn't enough to simply succeed, but that they must excel. A lot of people are driven, but nothing that quite compares to this widespread mentality among Asian culture. This certainly isn't universally true, and Windsor_Submarine does a nice job of elaborating on this in his post, but I believe it (culture) is a more feasible explanation for Asians' monetary success rather than the notion that they are naturally more intelligent than other peoples.
7 BrogueTrader40k 2014-10-20
Used to be a Stewart fan but i'm done.
11 liharts 2014-10-20
Yeah he's horrible
6 [deleted] 2014-10-20
[deleted]
2 TheRadicalMan 2014-10-20
Yes, Ant did. Go to the archives and it's either on Wednesday or Thursday. Each episode has a show synopsis under the link.
-2 Epithemus 2014-10-20
Fine I'll be the first commentor to agree with Stewart. Probably because I'm the only one here who gets looked at like a thief when I jog through a nice neighborhood.
6 Z-Tay 2014-10-20
Stop stealing shit
1 [deleted] 2014-10-20
Dude, that's because you look like a thief.
1 Epithemus 2014-10-20
K. If I was white would I look like a thief in the same clothes? Checkmate Atheist.
5 [deleted] 2014-10-20
I would suggest you not take the TV with you while you jog.
5 Epithemus 2014-10-20
Adds good resistance though. Dem gainz.
2 telemecanique 2014-10-20
you'd look like a pedo, be happy you're just a thief.
-6 DiscoInferiorityComp 2014-10-20
O'Reilly "won" the debate by being willfully ignorant of the definition of the term they were debating. It's like saying the winner of the "there's no such thing as gravity" debate is the guy who pointed at a flying bird and said "explain THAT" instead of the physicist.
9 [deleted] 2014-10-20
[deleted]
-1 DiscoInferiorityComp 2014-10-20
How was this race baiting? O'Reilly has been having the "white privilege doesn't exist" discussion on his own show for months. Stewart didn't just bring it up apropos of nothing.
1 [deleted] 2014-10-20
[deleted]
-3 YourOldPalHoward 2014-10-20
What a great point that will never be processed by a sub populated full of Stormfront-lite retards. I have no idea where people are getting this fucktarded "white privilege would mean a black man would never be president durrr!" idea from. It's a concept that refers to general statistical data favoring one group at the population level, it doesn't mean every single white person is getting a "privilege pass" in every single instance.
Honestly this is the most toxic sub I subscribe to. The userbase here is just the worst. But where else am I gonna get updates on how shit the new show is? =\
1 regis69 2014-10-20
Except when the same general statistical data shows that Asians are actually doing better as a whole than white people are. If this system is rigged so that it's easier for whites and harder for minorities, why are certain minority groups doing better than whites? Is it "white privilege" or really "black disadvantage"?
2 citation-is-needed 2014-10-20
[Citation Needed]
I am a bot. For questions or comments, please contact /u/slickytail
1 YourOldPalHoward 2014-10-20
Asian Americans can have privilege too. There is a concept in sociology called intersectionality— "white privilege" isn't the be-all end-all. For example, a rich black man still has "class privilege." Privilege isn't a bad thing at all, it's just something we should be mindful of.
-8 samsterlicious 2014-10-20
Keep shouting Buzz words there
6 TriggeredLeftist 2014-10-20
What statistical data? People like you are so delusional that you analyze blacks being disproportionately incarcerated as being because of racism with out looking at the fact that blacks commit disproportionate amounts of crime. What is white privilege? Is it just being good citizens and contributing to society?
0 E-rockComment 2014-10-20
I can see where you're coming from, I think O&A generally attract a certain type of listener due to the tone of the show. I'm not excluding myself from that generality, as I too am a fan of crass humor and vulgar language. You sir on the other hand appear to be an anomaly, and I doubt that your opinions will ever be well received here because of it. Thanks for the link, I wish the article would have provided actual statistics or percentages rather than just the conclusion of the study's findings, but interesting nonetheless.
1 regis69 2014-10-20
And somehow in this racist anti-semitic society the blacks are held down but the jews, asians, and hindus aren't. Do the white people who set the agenda decide to make those groups more successful than them for a reason, or is it simply that those groups understand that if you work hard and accept responsibility for your own actions instead of blaming everyone else you have a better chance of accomplishing your goals in this society than pretty much anywhere else on earth?