# The most racist attack I've seen in politics all year (not Presidential campaign)



## Explorer

This is just bizarre.

So, there's one candidate in a debate who is a disabled war veteran, a Daughter of the American Revolution (meaning that she is descended from someone who fought in the American Revolutionary War), and who has a long history in her family of the members serving in the American military. That candidate was shot down while piloting a Black Hawk helicopter during the 2004 Iraq War, and lost both legs in the attack. 







There's another candidate who has been caught making at least 9 false claims to inflate his military record, including claims he had been awarded Naval Intelligence Officer of the Year (he hadn't), that he had been in combat in Kosovo (he wasn"t), that he served in Operation Iraqi Freedom (he didn't) and Operation Desert Storm (he didn't) during which he commanded the war room (he didn't), that he was deployed to Afghanistan (he wasn't) and that he had taken fire over Iraq (he didn't).

Mark Kirk's disproven military embellishments

And then, in a debate... this happened.



Because the disabled war veteran's father, himself a war veteran from WWII, had married a foreign woman, Kirk was happy to make a racist insult about a vet who knew more about combat firsthand than he did. 

This is probably the most openly racist thing I've witnessed in politics this year, and a huge indication of an entitlement mindset arising from white male privilege.

The Republicans just seem prone to certain blind spots regarding how offensive these attitudes are to not just minorities, but also anyone who is woke in general.

Fortunately, those such as Kirk know that minorities are treated well in this country, and have no concerns about what happens when the majority and minorities flip... which makes their rhetoric and freely spoken fears on that issue so surprising. It's like they're maintaining two completely different and mutually incompatible narratives.

Anyway, this was so blatant that I felt it worth posting.

Anyone else think this is unacceptable?

Or, does anyone think Kirk was absolutely right in his attack?


----------



## vilk

Why is it "white male privilege" and not just plain old racism? In the video he just said "I forgot that your parents came all the way from Thailand to fight for George Washington", which is just kinda stupid. Is there some other thing he said about the fact that she's a woman, or...?


----------



## Xaios

vilk said:


> Why is it "white male privilege" and not just plain old racism? In the video he just said "I forgot that your parents came all the way



When you get right down to it, they're two sides of the same coin. I'd say that racism is what makes him thinks what he does, while white male privilege is what makes him say what he thinks (in this case, although it's not universally so) under the impression that such remarks constitutes acceptable rhetoric.


----------



## Explorer

It's my opinion that someone has to be in a position where one never gets challenged to bask in that kind of position. There are those who hold similar positions who get called out constantly, and who are accustomed to arguing against documented facts (Ann Coulter, for example), but Kirk really didn't think he was doing anything other than smacking Duckworth down in an effective way.

In US cultures where these kinds of attitudes are still strong, the females are only given authority to act in these ways if a man went there first. For example, the current religious right and political right have members who have argued in the past month that someone can't really be in charge because that person is female. It's normally only because of inheriting a position that a female might be at the head of groups like, say, the WBC. 

The current comment makes it very difficult, incidentally, for Kirk to claim that his withdrawal of his endorsement of Trump to have been on the basis of anything beyond political calculation. Kirk withdrew his endorsement upon Trump's statements about the heritage of Judge Gonzalo Curiel, but it's difficult to square any of his claimed principled stand against Trump's comments with Kirk's current comment without factoring in the possibility that it was wrong (in his logic) to call out a dude regarding his family, but okay to slap at a woman for the same thing.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Wasn't this guy considered a moderate as well?

People are desperate for that Trump-esque popularity.


----------



## tacotiklah

Since he's so gung-ho about being in the military, maybe stick in ass in boot camp for a couple weeks and let him sweat off some of that racism in a damn hurry.He can only dream of her actual accomplishments, so naturally he resorts to the tried and true assholery that we call "racism". He was so outclassed and outgunned that his best rebuttal would've been to just say nothing at all. 

As a side note, her calls for prudence instead of just rushing blindly into battle made me even more proud of her. Never be too scared to fight, but make sure the fight is even needed in the first place.


----------



## possumkiller

Really "white male privilege"? That seems a pretty racist label in itself. I'm a white male and have had just as much privilege as anyone else.

But yes as someone who has been to war, I can say that guy is a douche. Is it because he's a white male? I don't know. Maybe it's because he's a privileged rich guy? That's where the real discrimination lies. All these wealthy elites have the peasants fighting each other while they steal everything we have. RISE PROLETARIAT!!!


----------



## MistaSnowman

Kirk got his come-uppance when lost to Duckworth this past Tuesday night!!!


----------



## Hollowway

possumkiller said:


> Really "white male privilege"? That seems a pretty racist label in itself. I'm a white male and have had just as much privilege as anyone else.
> 
> But yes as someone who has been to war, I can say that guy is a douche. Is it because he's a white male? I don't know. Maybe it's because he's a privileged rich guy? That's where the real discrimination lies. All these wealthy elites have the peasants fighting each other while they steal everything we have. RISE PROLETARIAT!!!



Eh, we got it pretty good. I've got a friend who is CFO with a net worth north of $30 million. He's British, and also black. He came here to take the job, and said he cannot believe the difference in the way he is treated, based on sight, by people who do not know him. Especially the police. As a white male I make more money than females, and have skated away with stuff my black friends have not. You're right, we cannot generalize, but there is something to be said for he term.


----------



## Blytheryn

I am applying for a nomination for the USAFA from both of these people as a resident of Illinois. Tammy Duckworth is such a fighter.


----------



## narad

Man, was just on FB after reading this thread and came across this...



> SO, I HAVE WHITE PRIVILEGE. NOW WHAT?
> 
> I have been receiving messages from white people who are just now recognizing that they have white privilege, but they don't know what to do with this information. So, here are a few things you can do...
> 
> 1) LISTEN - Listen to people of color (PoC). Listen to their experiences, their stories, their fears, their pain, and their anger. Do not speak over them, do not try to tell them how to feel or what to do with their feelings. Instead, share posts written by PoC. Use your privilege to amplify THEIR voices so that others may listen to them as well.
> 
> 2) EDUCATE - You need to educate yourself further on social justice issues. Terms you should gain an understanding of include "centering", "tone policing", "respectability politics", "white fragility", but are not limited to these alone. However, DO NOT ask PoC to educate you on these topics. It is not their job to teach you anything. You have a Google, so use it.
> 
> 3) SPEAK UP - Begin speaking up against white privilege and racism. Speak up for your friends who are PoC, and use your voice to educate others. PoC have been carrying the burden for far too long, and it is time for us to step up and use our privilege to amplify the truth about these issues. This is called "collecting our people", and it is our job to teach other white people about their own privilege and racism.
> 
> 4) APOLOGIZE - Apologize to those you hurt, whether intentionally or unintentionally, by your words and actions as a person of privilege. When you make mistakes, BECAUSE YOU WILL MAKE MISTAKES, apologize again. Do NOT use the phrase "I didn't intend to" because it doesn't matter. Intent does not negate impact. And do NOT say "I apologize IF I" because if you're apologizing then it's obvious you DID do it. Practice apologizing without centering the conversation back on you.
> 
> These are not steps you do just once. These are steps you should practice daily, with everyone you know. I make mistakes all the time, and find myself needing to go through the steps over again to better myself each day. But taking these steps, fighting against racism in our society, is worth the effort. It is worth the fight.
> 
> **Are you white and think this doesn't apply to you? Your privilege is showing.**



Man, maybe this resonates with someone here but this sounds bat.... crazy to me.

At any rate, yea, similarly as bat.... as that comment in the OP post. I mean, unacceptable to anyone, but to say it to her of all people... A lot of boundaries crossed on every level of politics in this election.


----------



## Steinmetzify

narad said:


> Man, was just on FB after reading this thread and came across this...
> 
> 
> 
> Man, maybe this resonates with someone here but this sounds bat.... crazy to me.



Same. I'm getting a little tired of watching it thrown around like I'm supposed to be ashamed of being born, or supposed to give a hand up to people that aren't white because they don't have my 'privilege'. Please. Everything I have, I earned. No one gave it to me because I happen to be white. 

'Some critics say that the term uses the concept of "whiteness" as a proxy for class or other social privilege or as a distraction from deeper underlying problems of inequality.'

Ya think?! How about focusing on your own problems instead of blaming someone else's skin color for your perceived lack? 

The term completely discounts anything I've ever done to better my life...like it would have happened anyway because I'm white.  

I wish I would have known this crap....I never would have bothered to study, or meet deadlines, or be a good husband or father cause it doesn't matter cause I'm white. 

Yeah, people are bat.... crazy.


----------



## Vrollin

I was playing along at home until the words "white male privilege".... Being an arsehole is not limited to white males.

Sorry on behalf of all white males for being born white and male, we should all be ashamed of having a ...... Does that make you feel better?


----------



## UnderTheSign

Man, y'all are a sensitive bunch  mention white privilege and you go all tumblr rant mode.

White privilege may not be as extreme as tumblr makes you think but I think in certain countries, it's a thing. It's just not as big a thing as it is on the Internet. It's being less likely to be pulled over by the cops. It's how you're more likely to be considered for a job interview if you have a 'normal' western name (though obviously not bound to colour, but still), it's stuff like that. I think Konfyouzd (where is he, anyway?) touched upon it in a topic a while ago. Read what Holloway said.


----------



## TedEH

UnderTheSign said:


> Man, y'all are a sensitive bunch  mention white privilege and you go all tumblr rant mode.



Nobody is saying there's no such thing as privilege that comes from being a white dude, they're saying that being a white dude and having privilege, whether you recognize it or not, doesn't make you racist. The two are entirely unrelated to eachother.

This kind of language being used paints white people as racist by default, even if that's not the intention, which IMO is damaging to race relations as a whole.


----------



## Vrollin

UnderTheSign said:


> Man, y'all are a sensitive bunch  mention white privilege and you go all tumblr rant mode.
> 
> White privilege may not be as extreme as tumblr makes you think but I think in certain countries, it's a thing. It's just not as big a thing as it is on the Internet. It's being less likely to be pulled over by the cops. It's how you're more likely to be considered for a job interview if you have a 'normal' western name (though obviously not bound to colour, but still), it's stuff like that. I think Konfyouzd (where is he, anyway?) touched upon it in a topic a while ago. Read what Holloway said.



No no, it's ok, you can stop, we apologised, you win, you can stop femsplaining to us about how undeserving we all are. What do you want us to do now? I'm handing over everything I have worked my arse off for, and destroyed my body in the process, over to you! Because I don't deserve it as I am constantly reminded around every corner that I am a horrible cis privileged white male... I reckon the leftards and feminist tumblords should be responsible for rounding up all hard working males and hanging us all...


----------



## UnderTheSign

TedEH said:


> Nobody is saying there's no such thing as privilege that comes from being a white dude, they're saying that being a white dude and having privilege, whether you recognize it or not, doesn't make you racist. The two are entirely unrelated to eachother.
> 
> This kind of language being used paints white people as racist by default, even if that's not the intention, which IMO is damaging to race relations as a whole.


Nowhere did I say that. People in this thread, however, have denied there being privilege. I point you to the post above me by Vrollin. 

Vrollin, I'd love to femsplain but I can't, I'm a dude. I also don't see how you having worked hard your whole life means you are less likely to be racially profiled or invited to job interviews based on your name/heritage. For all the accusations of tumblr behaviour (hey, I'll admit to having one! It's a great source for art and music and I've never even bumped into a feminist on there.), you sure seem to love playing the victim yourself.

I know what it's like to work hard. I'm a blue collar guy from a blue collar family. My grandpa was a farmer who got up every day at 4 to care for his cows. My other grandfather served in the military and then went on to work in the steel factories. I went on to become a woodworker. That doesn't mean I don't see how, despite all my hard work, there are people going through stuff I will never go through. Why is this such a hard thing for you to accept? There's nothing to feel guilty or bad for, if anything, I'm happy I havent had to go through that crap as well.


----------



## Vrollin

We are all in control of our own destiny. Every one has the same access to job opportunities. Just because some hood rat claiming benefits tried to tell you otherwise is not an excuse...


----------



## UnderTheSign

Yeah, my sources are totally hoodrats.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_561697a5e4b0dbb8000d687f
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ruchika...ing-name-change-it-to-get-a-job/#7933211e5f21
https://fullfact.org/economy/job-ap...ng-names-are-less-likely-be-called-interview/
http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html


----------



## narad

Yes, the perceived ethnicity does effect application call back.

I don't think anyone would argue that being white is not, on average, an advantage in the US. However, block quotes like the one I posted above (written by a white woman btw) overstate and try to make salient a racial divide that I think is in general unnatural and unhealthy. Most of these "suggestions" are things you should apply to anyone of any color, and needn't be a racial issue.

What I find funny is that white privilege comes up a lot in the tumblr circle whatnot, but privilege exists on all levels. With respect to the job call backs you posted, it's been shown that people with more attractive faces earn more money and are more likely to move faster up the corporate ladder. Should we start a handsome privilege? A list of &#8220;how to talk to your ugly friends&#8221;? &#8220;If you&#8217;re at a bar, don&#8217;t approach an attractive woman. Introduce her to your uf, mention one of their stronger characteristics, and leave the conversation to avoid further exerting your privilege." Does it make the world better to assign names and behavior guides to these biases?

Personally, and like Vrollin&#8217;s posts, I think it has a negative effect of &#8220;explaining away&#8221; reality. Some racist asshole is up there being a racist asshole and we have to say he has white privilige? He can&#8217;t just be racist in an election where acting racist has seemingly generated a lot of voting interest, he must be expressing some negative quality he was born with? Because when you say that, you actually make him less of an asshole.

On the flip side, some white person works hard to succeed and now has their successes qualified by &#8220;white privilege&#8221;? There&#8217;s lots of white people living in poverty that had just as little vertical class mobility as inner city blacks, so everyone&#8217;s starting from different places, and has their own obstacles to face.

The best summary of white privilege I've ever come across was this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf9QBnPK6Yg


----------



## maliciousteve

Mark Kirk didn't say what he said because he is a privileged white male, he said it because he is a prick.

End of.

I'm getting ....ed off with people using the term white male privilege. I'm white and male. This has not given me an advantage over some one who has a different skin colour to me. Give it a ....ing rest.


----------



## Vrollin

UnderTheSign said:


> Yeah, my sources are totally hoodrats.
> http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_561697a5e4b0dbb8000d687f
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/ruchika...ing-name-change-it-to-get-a-job/#7933211e5f21
> https://fullfact.org/economy/job-ap...ng-names-are-less-likely-be-called-interview/
> http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html



First "source" huffpost. You've got to be kidding me right? Sorry but I can't take anyone seriously if they are using huffpost as a legit source of knowledge...


----------



## UnderTheSign

I knew you'd complain about rhe huff, that's why the other links are there as well.


----------



## zappatton2

I'm not sure why acknowledging the stark reality of white privilege has to be perceived as undermining an individual's hard work and personal success. People are not vacuum sealed individuals, we all work and interact in a collective society, and while we may succeed or fail by the sweat of our brow, we are still working within conditions that favour white males. You don't owe all your success to fitting within that demographic, but how could one deny those latent conditions?

Also, lately a lot of people have been railing against "political correctness", and I agree that there are circumstances where, uncritically examined, that political narrative can go overboard, but isn't wanting a more inclusive and egalitarian society something we should all desire to some extent? Where educational quality and oppourtunities are roughly equal regardless of where you are born or how you look? It seems a lot of people are taking the attitude that "as long as I get mine and find my own success, who cares about anyone else?" I'm seeing this attitude more and more, and it strikes me as deeply depressing. I don't argue for equality of outcome, but it would be nice to see the end of the twin perversities of urban ghettos and gated communities. A little more middle ground would have social benefits for everyone involved IMO.


----------



## celticelk

steinmetzify said:


> Same. I'm getting a little tired of watching it thrown around like I'm supposed to be ashamed of being born, or supposed to give a hand up to people that aren't white because they don't have my 'privilege'. Please. Everything I have, I earned. No one gave it to me because I happen to be white.



Congratulations. No, seriously. Succeeding despite adversity is something to be proud of, and you're entirely justified to feel good about the hard work that you did.

Along the way, when you *didn't* get something - a job, a loan, an apartment - did you ever find yourself asking "I wonder if that happened because I'm white?"


----------



## narad

celticelk said:


> Along the way, when you *didn't* get something - a job, a loan, an apartment - did you ever find yourself asking "I wonder if that happened because I'm white?"



You could ask yourself that if you weren't accepted into many top universities. There's certainly more adversity facing you as a minority, but it's not like whites get preferential treatment in all cases. And I work in a tech field -- being a woman here would be a golden ticket as far as job openings go. More adversity to overcome in getting to the top, but at the top there's lots of diversifying policies in place at many universities and research labs.


----------



## extendedsolo

steinmetzify said:


> Same. I'm getting a little tired of watching it thrown around like I'm supposed to be ashamed of being born, or supposed to give a hand up to people that aren't white because they don't have my 'privilege'. Please. Everything I have, I earned. No one gave it to me because I happen to be white.
> 
> .



No one is saying you should be ashamed. Think of it as running a mile race though. Life is a mile race. Some people are born closer to to the finish line sure. Now think of life as this race where most people start from the same spot. Yes if you want to win or finish ahead of most you still have to work hard, but as a white guy the wind is at your back at 20mph. As a minority the wind is in your face at 30mph. Yes minorities still should be expected to work hard, but generally speaking they have to work harder despite everything out there to make things equal. 

What's more is that as a white guy we have to own all of our history. This country was founded and ruled by white men. It took over 200 years for a person of another color to become president. Minorities still lag way behind in most things. I'm not saying the country is consciously doing it because I don't know, but lets at least admit that it's been easier for white males generally speaking.


----------



## celticelk

@narad: All true, but unresponsive to my question. If *you personally* didn't get a job, or a loan, or an apartment, did you wonder whether it was because you were white? If you were stopped by the cops, or singled out for a more extensive search when boarding an airplane, did you wonder if it was because you were white?


----------



## tacotiklah

extendedsolo said:


> No one is saying you should be ashamed. Think of it as running a mile race though. Life is a mile race. Some people are born closer to to the finish line sure. Now think of life as this race where most people start from the same spot. Yes if you want to win or finish ahead of most you still have to work hard, but as a white guy the wind is at your back at 20mph. As a minority the wind is in your face at 30mph. Yes minorities still should be expected to work hard, but generally speaking they have to work harder despite everything out there to make things equal.
> 
> What's more is that as a white guy we have to own all of our history. This country was founded and ruled by white men. It took over 200 years for a person of another color to become president. Minorities still lag way behind in most things. I'm not saying the country is consciously doing it because I don't know, but lets at least admit that it's been easier for white males generally speaking.




And there it is right there. +1


Confession time: I didn't get the "white privilege" thing either for years. Once I had to come out of the closet to people as LGBT and experienced discrimination first-hand, then I started to get it. Once I started handing in job applications that before I would've gotten a job pretty quickly, I started getting years worth of rejection emails and bullcrap that I wouldn't have otherwise, I started to get it. When I met a beautiful half-black/half-latina woman and fell in love with her, I started to see with my own eyes her experiences. Her being attacked for being both lgbt and PoC in a grocery shopping parking lot by some local skinhead isn't anything new or unique for her or in this country at all. People tried to proclaim racism is dead now. True evils like racism never die. They simply evolve.

It took me staring prejudice and bigotry right in the face in my own life before my eyes were opened. I'm beyond guilt-ridden because of it. You have no idea how ashamed of myself I am that it took it happening to me and people I love before I finally saw it for what it was. Don't be like me. Be the person that can realize and empathize prejudice without it having to happen to them first. Be the leader, not the follower.


----------



## Steinmetzify

celticelk said:


> Congratulations. No, seriously. Succeeding despite adversity is something to be proud of, and you're entirely justified to feel good about the hard work that you did.
> 
> Along the way, when you *didn't* get something - a job, a loan, an apartment - did you ever find yourself asking "I wonder if that happened because I'm white?"



All right man first of all, thanks for the congratulations...I appreciate it.

Second of all, thanks for the loaded question, where the only answer is "of course not", so you get your aha moment of 'you have white privilege'.

I'd like to give you a little bit of background.

I grew up bouncing between Saginaw and Detroit in the 80s. I was the only white kid in my neighborhood besides my younger brother, I was one of 12 white kids in my graduating class. Everyone in my neighborhood was black, and all of the business owners were black. Most folks that didn't run their own gig worked for GM, making on average with full insurance around $50 per hour. When I got my first job, I worked for a black guy at a gas station. 2nd job, same thing. 3rd job I got passed over because someone applied directly before me, and when I went in 2 days later to pick something up the guy that had gotten the job was white. 

So my question to you is why is this a thing NOW? I guarantee you none of the black people I grew up with would ever talk about white privilege, none of the people I've worked for would ever say that I'd only ever gotten the job because I was white. You know how I know? I'm still friends with them and asked. I called up one of my old bosses and a couple friends I used to work with. They laughed. All of them, and all told me it's nothing more than whiny assholes trying to find something else to cry about and blame their lack of success on. Special snowflakes with an attitude problem about why they can't get ahead. 

I guess I just can't get down with the idea because to me it's inherently racist and I can't see myself or my friends, white or not, in that way. 

I guess you'd have to grow up in a place where pretty much everything was run by the black community to have this viewpoint though. It's pretty hard to see white privilege being a thing when every time you got a job, it was working for someone who's black. With white privilege being an actual thing that every black person knows and responds to, wouldn't every black person I ever applied to tell me to f*ck off and give the job to a black kid that was next in line?

To me it's just a new name for an old thing, racism. We could say that there's black privilege in porn, or black privilege in basketball or football.

How come there's no constant outcry about white privilege in hockey? I'll tell you why....it's because not one black guy I've ever met gives a fast f*ck about ice skating, that's why. So white privilege only counts as a thing when it's something people of color want, right? 

Again, just another way of saying "this is unfair and it's because everyone is racist", and that's the part that bothers me.


----------



## celticelk

^^^ I'm not asking you whether you were discriminated against because you were white. I'm asking whether you ever wondered, when you got turned down for something, if you didn't get it because you were white. You didn't, did you? That was a question you never had to ask yourself. It was so far outside the realm of possibility that the question didn't even occur to you. *That's* white privilege. It's the luxury of assuming that when something bad happens to you, race isn't a factor. Your black neighbors didn't have that luxury, because their experience taught them that sh!t happens to black people *because* they're black.

None of your counterexamples have anything to do with this question. Yeah, there are more black players in football, and more white players in hockey, relative to the overall population. That's disproportionate representation. We can talk about why that happens, and whether it's "fair," but it doesn't have anything to do with white privilege.


----------



## celticelk

For the gamers in the thread, maybe this explanation will make more sense:

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/


----------



## narad

celticelk said:


> @narad: All true, but unresponsive to my question. If *you personally* didn't get a job, or a loan, or an apartment, did you wonder whether it was because you were white? If you were stopped by the cops, or singled out for a more extensive search when boarding an airplane, did you wonder if it was because you were white?



Well no, but there were lots of scholarships I was not eligible for, lots of scholarships that probably went to minorities instead of me, etc. -- so yea, I could have that thought in that context. I don't mind -- it's a complete toss-up who gets them when everyone is academically at roughly the same level, and I agree with policies that tend to dole them out in higher proportions to women and minorities.

I agree that as a white male you receive less scrutiny in these things, and have to question less whether you didn't receive some offer / received additional profiling because of my race.

Yet, the whole white-male is playing life on easy is far from accurate, and there's a lot of other considerations that are just obviously much more important. For instance, being born white to a single mom in a trailer community in Louisiana is a much harder difficulty than being born black to a well-educated family in the suburbs. Socioeconomics is just so much more important when it comes to the chances and difficulties you face in life. And I don't think anyone is arguing that these biases don't exist, or that they shouldn't be eliminated. So who is really on the flip side of this argument?

But more to the point, it seems like there are more than 3 definitions of white privilege being thrown about in this thread. I only care to argue about one of them, which is why in OPs post people claim that someone acting in a stupid, racist, sexist manner, etc., is exerting white privilege, and is not simply a stupid, racist, sexist jerk?

Or to say that because you're white male you need to be spending all your free time reading up on the correct ways to act around "PoC". I don't need to be constantly in the mindset that my friends/family are "different" from me -- honestly it seems like the opposite of what they would want. Of course I would stand up for any person who is being treated poorly because of their race or gender, but I would do that regardless of my race or gender. That's simply the right thing to do. And further, the people who would treat PoC poorly don't give a damn about my race or color, so really there is no white privilege / advantage when it comes to arguing with racist/sexist people. And all of that is very, very different from simply saying that people have different obstacles in life (which should be obvious even to children).


----------



## Steinmetzify

extendedsolo said:


> as a white guy the wind is at your back at 20mph. As a minority the wind is in your face at 30mph. Yes minorities still should be expected to work hard, but generally speaking they have to work harder despite everything out there to make things equal.



See, this is where I'm stuck. I know guys that completely sailed thru life that were nowhere near white, so that analogy doesn't even hold up.

To me this is like two women arguing whose period pains are worse. There is no scale for that, nor is there a scale for 'how hard someone has to work to make it'....that's a completely subjective and individual thing and matters more about the person than any adversity they face...what's a rough thing for someone might be a cakewalk for someone else. My best friends growing up were a Mexican guy and a black guy, and my best friend and wife now is a Spanish woman, and none of them have ever spit anything to me about the unfair advantage I had over them for being born white. 



celticelk said:


> ^^^ I'm not asking you whether you were discriminated against because you were white. I'm asking whether you ever wondered, when you got turned down for something, if you didn't get it because you were white. You didn't, did you? That was a question you never had to ask yourself. It was so far outside the realm of possibility that the question didn't even occur to you. *That's* white privilege. It's the luxury of assuming that when something bad happens to you, race isn't a factor. Your black neighbors didn't have that luxury, because their experience taught them that sh!t happens to black people *because* they're black.



I answered your question in the second line of my above post, man. Of course I didn't, so there's your aha! moment. I still don't think it's a thing, at least not according to my wife, who as I stated above, isn't white. Also as I stated above, I lived in a 99.9% black neighborhood where all the businesses were black owned and so were all the cops. Why would a black man getting pulled over by a black cop ask himself if it's happening because he's black? It makes no sense. If I have numerous friends of color in life including my wife answering my questions about this honestly and saying it's not something that's ever affected them and not to worry about it, then I'm not going to bother myself about it any more. 



celticelk said:


> None of your counterexamples have anything to do with this question. Yeah, there are more black players in football, and more white players in hockey, relative to the overall population. That's disproportionate representation. We can talk about why that happens, and whether it's "fair," *but it doesn't have anything to do with white privilege*.



Why not? I seriously wanna know about the hockey thing, man. From what I understand, I would have to work less hard to succeed at being a world class hockey player than a black guy or Mexican, but no one gives a .... because for the most part it's white guys that WANT to play hockey, so even though this is a case of white privilege it's not something that the minorities in question care about so it doesn't matter?

I'm not trying to be facetious, I genuinely don't get how I'm supposed to be doing something/have something simply by virtue of the fact that I don't think of something when something else happens. Apparently I'm completely blameless in this matter, but I need to recognize it and make an effort to do something about something that I'm A: not causing, B: not doing anything to promote and C: can't fix ever anyway because no matter what happens, this exists in the mind of someone ELSE and there's no way for me to change it. 

So say 800 years from now we're all living the Star Trek dream or whatever, where it's a complete utopia dedicated to the betterment of the human race as a whole, and racism is gone. Just completely gone.....has been for centuries, no one talks about it, no one thinks of it and then BLAM....something happens to a black guy or someone green from Alpha Centauri IV and they think "this is because I'm green"...does that bring 'white privilege' back? One person thinking it makes it a thing? How many people believing in this makes it real?

EDIT: Been talking about this with my wife, because it's seriously bothering me. F*ck it, apparently I have white privilege. She started talking to me about other privileges that I never knew were things. My wife is extremely fine, so she has Pretty Girl Privilege. She also has both legs, so she's privileged over people that don't, as am I and every other member of this board that has theirs. Two Leg Privilege, acknowledge it please.

Fit Guy privilege, because I've never wondered whether I didn't get a job because I'm fat. 

Intelligent Guy privilege because I've never wondered whether I'd not gotten a loan because I was stupid.

Mechanical Guy privilege, never wondered whether I didn't get a job because I can't drive a stick.

I dunno man....she told me that in her Spanish mind, it's other peoples' perceptions and there's nothing I can do to help it...there's always going to be people that think they're treated unfairly whether they actually are or not, and that's on them, not me. What people think about themselves has pretty much nothing to do with me if I'm not directly causing it, and if they'd like to wonder and/or blame something other than their own qualifications or performance then I guess that works for them.


----------



## Señor Voorhees

steinmetzify said:


> See, this is where I'm stuck. I know guys that completely sailed thru life that were nowhere near white, so that analogy doesn't even hold up.



And here's where I come in to say that one or two people in your personal experience does not represent the country as a whole.

It doesn't make you a piece of .... for acknowledging that blacks in general have an uphill battle where things are skewed against them fairly regularly. ...., they weren't even made equal on paper THAT long ago. There's simply no denying that white people, and men in particular, have significantly much less to worry about than a black person.


----------



## celticelk

@steinmetz: I'm on my iPad, where multiple inline quotes is a PITA, so I'm going to respond to your post a little more generally with a few small quotes as appropriate.

I'm seeing a theme in your responses that your particular experience cancels out the general observations on which our arguments about white privilege are based. "I know guys that completely sailed through life that were nowhere near white," for example. If I know a rich black person, does that mean that there are no poor black people? Does it disprove the statistical observation that black incomes, *on average*, are lower than white incomes in the US? No, in both cases. To recognize white privilege is to recognize that *in general* succeeding in the US is easier for white people *because* they're white. The fact that some people of color have had easy and/or successful lives, or that some white people have had challenging lives, doesn't disprove this as a general observation.

"Why would a black man getting pulled over by a black cop ever ask himself if it's happening because he's black?" When your black friends leave their black neighborhood, are they ever stopped by white cops for no apparent reason? Have you ever had any reason to suspect that a cop stopped you because of your race anywhere? That's the difference.

Let's take your wife's suggestion of "two-leg privilege" as a thought experiment for a moment. Look at the world around you. Does it assume that the people moving through it have two functional legs? Is it harder for people born *without* two functional legs to do the same things that you do, because they have extra barriers to negotiate? Would you say that people without two functional legs are at a relative disadvantage? Doesn't that mean that you, as a person with two functional legs, are at a relative *advantage*, for reasons that have nothing to do with your character or actions? How often does it even occur to you that this is an advantage for you, relative to disabled people?

Recognizing white privilege is like that. It's recognizing that the world that we live in (in our case, the 21st century US) is set up so that, *everything else being equal*, succeeding in life is easier if you're white than if you're not. You benefit from this, and from a handful of other privileges: being male and being straight, for starters. To use John Scalzi's gaming terminology, you can still lose the game if you're white, but it's easier to win it if you're white (straight, male, etc.) than if you're not. Yes, you earned what you got. But being white made it that little bit easier to earn.


----------



## zappatton2

celticelk said:


> @steinmetz: I'm on my iPad, where multiple inline quotes is a PITA, so I'm going to respond to your post a little more generally with a few small quotes as appropriate.
> 
> I'm seeing a theme in your responses that your particular experience cancels out the general observations on which our arguments about white privilege are based. "I know guys that completely sailed through life that were nowhere near white," for example. If I know a rich black person, does that mean that there are no poor black people? Does it disprove the statistical observation that black incomes, *on average*, are lower than white incomes in the US? No, in both cases. To recognize white privilege is to recognize that *in general* succeeding in the US is easier for white people *because* they're white. The fact that some people of color have had easy and/or successful lives, or that some white people have had challenging lives, doesn't disprove this as a general observation.
> 
> "Why would a black man getting pulled over by a black cop ever ask himself if it's happening because he's black?" When your black friends leave their black neighborhood, are they ever stopped by white cops for no apparent reason? Have you ever had any reason to suspect that a cop stopped you because of your race anywhere? That's the difference.
> 
> Let's take your wife's suggestion of "two-leg privilege" as a thought experiment for a moment. Look at the world around you. Does it assume that the people moving through it have two functional legs? Is it harder for people born *without* two functional legs to do the same things that you do, because they have extra barriers to negotiate? Would you say that people without two functional legs are at a relative disadvantage? Doesn't that mean that you, as a person with two functional legs, are at a relative *advantage*, for reasons that have nothing to do with your character or actions? How often does it even occur to you that this is an advantage for you, relative to disabled people?
> 
> Recognizing white privilege is like that. It's recognizing that the world that we live in (in our case, the 21st century US) is set up so that, *everything else being equal*, succeeding in life is easier if you're white than if you're not. You benefit from this, and from a handful of other privileges: being male and being straight, for starters. To use John Scalzi's gaming terminology, you can still lose the game if you're white, but it's easier to win it if you're white (straight, male, etc.) than if you're not. Yes, you earned what you got. But being white made it that little bit easier to earn.



Couldn't have said it better!


----------



## Vrollin

Hahahahaha, oppression Olympics..... Everyone take your worst case scenarios and throw them in the ring as a representation of everyone. 

Meanwhile, back to reality where everyone has equal opportunity if they apply themselves.


----------



## Steinmetzify

.

Hoo, drunk.


----------



## extendedsolo

steinmetzify said:


> See, this is where I'm stuck. I know guys that completely sailed thru life that were nowhere near white, so that analogy doesn't even hold up.
> 
> To me this is like two women arguing whose period pains are worse. There is no scale for that, nor is there a scale for 'how hard someone has to work to make it'....that's a completely subjective and individual thing and matters more about the person than any adversity they face...what's a rough thing for someone might be a cakewalk for someone else. My best friends growing up were a Mexican guy and a black guy, and my best friend and wife now is a Spanish woman, and none of them have ever spit anything to me about the unfair advantage I had over them for being born white.



Anecdotal evidence is the lowest tier of evidence. Really all anyone needs to dispute this is finding one example saying the opposite, which really isn't too hard.

There are mountains of evidence proving your assumptions otherwise. I agree with you, my dad is from Mexico and came here when he was 16 and has a wonderful life. He's done it by being frugal and working his ass off. This doesn't change my mind though in that most minorities aren't treated fairly, because aggregate isn't 1,2 or 10 data points. It's thousands. Thousands of data points have shown otherwise. In Milwaukee about 66% of traffic stops happen to AAs while only 40% of the city is AA. Hugely disproportionate. Not to mention there are segregation problems in Milwaukee. AAs are getting pulled over for being in the wrong neighborhood. THAT WOULD ALMOST NEVER HAPPEN TO A WHITE MALE. More nationally AAs make up a disproportionate amount of the people incarcerated to the population that is currently here. It can't just be a worldview formed by one or two data points, it has to be several thousand. My my worldview everyone can afford a 300k house because that's what me and my friends can afford, but of course that isn't the case. These little things add up and make a difference. 

No one is discounting your life experiences, but the data that's available has to be considered here.


----------



## narad

Quick question: does higher traffic stops for AAs have anything to do with the OP video?


----------



## extendedsolo

narad said:


> Quick question: does higher traffic stops for AAs have anything to do with the OP video?



what?


----------



## narad

extendedsolo said:


> what?



Just trying to gauge if it's like a little off-topic, or floating completely out in space sort of off-topic.


----------



## Explorer

narad said:


> Well no, but there were lots of scholarships I was not eligible for, lots of scholarships that probably went to minorities instead of me, etc. -- so yea, I could have that thought in that context. I don't mind -- it's a complete toss-up who gets them when everyone is academically at roughly the same level, and I agree with policies that tend to dole them out in higher proportions to women and minorities.



I did a quick look up on "proportion minority college grants scholarships whites," and discovered you're wrong on this. Here's one resource with facts.

http://www.finaid.org/scholarships/20110902racescholarships.pdf



narad said:


> I agree that as a white male you receive less scrutiny in these things, and have to question less whether you didn't receive some offer / received additional profiling because of my race.
> 
> Yet, the whole white-male is playing life on easy is *far from accurate*, and there's a lot of other considerations that are just obviously much more important. For instance, being born white to a single mom in a trailer community in Louisiana is a much harder difficulty than being born black to a well-educated family in the suburbs.



When being born to a single mother in a trailer community, is it a harder difficulty to be white in addition? Or is it harder to be black? Using the job callback differential you acknowledged earlier, it certainly seems the black trailer park dweller has worse odds than the white ones. Similarly, using the scholarship / grant example you raised, it seems the black trailer park dweller has less financial support than the white one. 

Those two examples on which you've spoken, although not raised in the OP, also affect those who are born in well-educated families in the suburbs. The white candidate will get more job callbacks than the black candidate, and more college funding on average. The black candidate will get less than the white.

Since you felt it was important to correct what you viewed as inaccuracies in the discussion, it will now be interesting to see if you now correct the inaccuracies you yourself raised, now that they have been brought to your attention.



narad said:


> Quick question: does higher traffic stops for AAs have anything to do with the OP video?



Just as much as your comments on job callbacks and scholarships. Why? 

----



narad said:


> Or to say that because you're white male you need to be spending all your free time reading up on the correct ways to act around "PoC".



If one doesn't denigrate minorities, or dismiss the reality of how the current systems favor whites over minorities (like in your two examples of job opportunities and scholarships), then one can avoid investing "all your free time reading up on" avoiding being racist, whether such racism is intended or not. 

It's a small step from becoming aware that one was previously happy to make a false argument / claim (like your claim about scholarships, or your misleadingly incomplete truth table examining outcomes among the combination of being white / black and from a trailer park / a well educated family), and to correcting not just the places one went wrong (like those two examples), but in wanting to avoid doing so in the future. "Wow... I was completely off on these! I don't wanna do *that* again!" 

Out of curiosity, why did traffic stops turn into a bridge too far for discussion, as opposed to job callbacks or scholarship distributions?


----------



## narad

Explorer said:


> I did a quick look up on "proportion minority college grants scholarships whites," and discovered you're wrong on this. Here's one resource with facts.



Such strong statements. Congrats on your googling, but I was asked if I ever had to wonder if I ever missed out on a scholarship because of my race and the unequivocal answer is yes, because some of the scholarships I applied for explicitly noted something akin to ~ "Special consideration will be given to minority applicants." End of story.



Explorer said:


> Out of curiosity, why did traffic stops turn into a bridge too far for discussion, as opposed to job callbacks or scholarship distributions?



Because, as I pointed out in previous posts, it seems that there are a few definitions of white privilege floating around in this thread. 

One seems to be relevant to the OP video, but that's not the one we're talking about. One seems to be relevant more toward social justice warriors, which is the one I have qualms with. And the other deals with statistical biases at large, which I have always agreed are present, which kind of makes everything you just posted...I don't know...a bit redundant? Not sure what point you thought you were making.


----------



## extendedsolo

narad said:


> Because, as I pointed out in previous posts, it seems that there are a few definitions of white privilege floating around in this thread.



white privilege: the fact that being white makes your life easier and affords you certain advantages relative to other ethnicity groups in America. 

Not that it makes your life EASY, which is where confusion crops in sometimes. No ones life is easy unless you are born wealthy, even then there are different challenges. 

you mentioned that you got turned down for scholarships because you are white. All studies point to minorities being turned down for things based on their race FOR EVERYTHING SINCE THE DAWN OF AMERICA. I don't feel guilty about looking white (even though I'm only half) but I do acknowledge that having a white first name and looking white has given me opportunities that far exceed any affirmative action. You own all of any white males privilege, not just what has happened to you personally.

edit: I'm not going to comment on race relations in other countries because I really don't know, I didn't realize you weren't American.


----------



## narad

extendedsolo said:


> white privilege: the fact that being white makes your life easier and affords you certain advantages relative to other ethnicity groups in America.



Sure, but I think that it's often overlooked that it's not all one-sided. For instance, I can say with some faith that you'd have a greater chance at getting a job at Google if you were black, and a much greater chance at a top research lab as a woman. The problem lies in that there's a rarity in the number of minority/female applicants at this level in tech because the odds are stacked against them earlier on.

But, if you're black and born into a nice suburban family, I think you're going to be way more likely to wind up at these places than if you're white (or anything) and born into poverty. I don't think we have statistics for these, but that's pretty much hand-in-hand with most of the thread examples.

But yea, everyone has a different walk through life so I guess I don't see the usefulness in identifying white male privilege. It's important to have policies in place to reduce bias in these scenarios, but -- to be on topic -- to explain bad behavior as white privilege, or to tell white people that they are inherently racist (as was done by the poster of "I have white male privilege - now what?"), is just not helpful or appropriate.



extendedsolo said:


> you mentioned that you got turned down for scholarships because you are white.



Hey, let's not put words in my mouth. It was that I had to consider that my race played a part in getting turned down for the scholarship, which is something minorities may have to consider in a much broader variety of circumstances in their lives.



extendedsolo said:


> edit: I'm not going to comment on race relations in other countries because I really don't know, I didn't realize you weren't American.



No worries - I'm just a super international American.


----------



## HeavyMetal4Ever

extendedsolo said:


> You own all of any white males privilege, not just what has happened to you personally.



What exactly do you mean by "own"?

Are you holding white males everywhere responsible for the concept of white privilege?

I'm more than willing to agree that white privilege exists in many countries, and that it is an injustice that needs to change.

I'm much less willing to accept that as a white male I am personally responsible for the racism of other white males, specifically because I happen to share their race and sex.

No one can control the circumstances they are born into. To hold people responsible for these circumstances would be quite discriminatory, wouldn't it?


----------



## Vrollin

HeavyMetal4Ever said:


> What exactly do you mean by "own"?
> 
> Are you holding white males everywhere responsible for the concept of white privilege?
> 
> I'm more than willing to agree that white privilege exists in many countries, and that it is an injustice that needs to change.
> 
> I'm much less willing to accept that as a white male I am personally responsible for the racism of other white males, specifically because I happen to share their race and sex.
> 
> No one can control the circumstances they are born into. To hold people responsible for these circumstances would be quite discriminatory, wouldn't it?



Its one thing that feminists love to throw around, they say .... like this to get a "not all men" rise out of someone, then go on to hound them about the use of the term "not all men." Something about male tears and men being cry babies. Then they will femsplain how all males are responsible for the actions of every other male on the planet, especially the ones you have never and will never meet.

Hit them up with an all feminists are psycho, man hating, bitter sloths and the first thing you will hear is a "not all feminists are like that" and shun any responsibility for the extreme cases that have come as a part of their fad.


----------



## synrgy

I made a ton of stupid mistakes when I was a kid. Shoplifting, vandalism, truancy, etc.

I know anecdotal evidence is hardly evidence at all, but, FWIW: I grew up with plenty of minorities who made the same stupid mistakes I did. I came out unscathed; they came out with permanent records, expulsions; even prison time.

Not to get mired in unnecessary detail, but the bottom line = Same neighborhood, same socioeconomic status, same mistakes; completely different punishments. I got a lot of free passes, citing my 'potential'; they didn't.

If that's not privilege..


----------



## celticelk

Vrollin said:


> Its one thing that feminists love to throw around, they say .... like this to get a "not all men" rise out of someone, then go on to hound them about the use of the term "not all men." Something about male tears and men being cry babies. Then they will femsplain how all males are responsible for the actions of every other male on the planet, especially the ones you have never and will never meet.
> 
> Hit them up with an all feminists are psycho, man hating, bitter sloths and the first thing you will hear is a "not all feminists are like that" and shun any responsibility for the extreme cases that have come as a part of their fad.



"Not all men" is from the same tactical school as the response "all lives matter" to the Black Lives Matter movement: it's a truism that's meant to stop discussion of the actual problem.


----------



## tedtan

^

Sometimes it is, but sometimes the individual saying "not all men" is merely attempting to bring some (often much needed) perspective back to the discussion. Or even trying to disassociate himself from the negative people/behaviors/actions/characteristics he's being lumped in with.

It's sometimes a legitimate point.


----------



## TedEH

I feel like there's a context difference between those two uses. "All lives matter" is a sort of dismissal of the original point, whereas "not all men" is usually in response to a statement that paints all men in a poor light.


----------



## bostjan

Ok, so "white privilege..."

Let me start out by saying that I grew up in Detroit city, like other guys in this thread. I can guarantee that a white kid growing up in Detroit in the 1980's didn't have life half as easy as any folks in decent neighbourhoods. My parents lived below the poverty line. My grandparents were immigrants and paid for their opportunities with blood, sweat, and tears. I have been mugged, stabbed, beaten, car-jacked, ... you name it (I've never been shot or lit on fire, but unless you have, then please don't even try to argue that). I had friends and neighbours who were murdered. So, what makes me so privileged? Because I am white and stood out like a sore thumb in a neighbourhood that was 9% white?!

But here's the thing: if I am lucky enough to get some decent opportunities in life and I seize those opportunities hard, and I work my ass off to make the most of those opportunities, so that I can create a better life for my kids, then who the .... is anybody to say that my kids have unfair privilege?! Is it also unfair if a man dies and leaves his wife enough money to live her last years without having to go to work?

I am absolutely for equal opportunities. I think we shouldn't give a thought to where someone came from or what color a person's skin or hair is or whatever - can this person do the job? Yes? Ok, then.

But people are confusing equal opportunities with equal rewards, and that is hore.....

I worked my ass off in school to get good grades and to get high marks on my standardized placement tests (ACT/SAT). I graduated with high honours and placed in the top 1% on my tests. I wanted to go to University of Michigan, and, according to my grades and test scaores, I should have had no problem. The tuition was too high, and what little scholarship funds I could secure made it impossible for me to attend U of M without going deeply into debt with student loans, so I decided to go to a less prestigious University and pay my dues by working 30-40 hours a week. If I was female, I would have easily secured much more in scholarship funds, no doubt, so the point that I was never passed up for a scholarship for being a white male is nonsense - not a single scholarship I had would have excluded me from it if I was any other race or gender, and there were tons of scholarships for which I was ineligible because of my race and gender.

I continued receiving high marks at university, because, although I was working nearly full time (technically considered full time, actually), I kept up with my school work. I published papers in scholarly journals, I spent time on plenty of independent projects to get a foothold on my career. It got me a full fellowship to graduate school, but that just meant that I had to work for the school for little-to-no cash pay for two years whilst my tuition was covered. Again, if I was a woman, I would have had opportunity to apply for much better scholarships. I can't say whether I would have gotten them or not, because I didn't even have the opportunity to apply for them, being a white male.

And that's the thing - we cry about equal opportunities, but, honestly, if you are a white male, you have fewer opportunities for government programs than if you were anything else.

So you can take your apology for my white male privilege and shove it.

You know what, I'm also a human being. Human beings have way too much power in this world compared to other animals. Why should we be so special?! To make it fair, we should let another species be in control from now on - how about narwhals?!


----------



## Steinmetzify

bostjan said:


> Ok, so "white privilege..."
> 
> Let me start out by saying that I grew up in Detroit city, like other guys in this thread. I can guarantee that a white kid growing up in Detroit in the 1980's didn't have life half as easy as any folks in decent neighbourhoods. My parents lived below the poverty line. My grandparents were immigrants and paid for their opportunities with blood, sweat, and tears. I have been mugged, stabbed, beaten, car-jacked, ... you name it (I've never been shot or lit on fire, but unless you have, then please don't even try to argue that). I had friends and neighbours who were murdered. So, what makes me so privileged? Because I am white and stood out like a sore thumb in a neighbourhood that was 9% white?!
> 
> But here's the thing: if I am lucky enough to get some decent opportunities in life and I seize those opportunities hard, and I work my ass off to make the most of those opportunities, so that I can create a better life for my kids, then who the .... is anybody to say that my kids have unfair privilege?! Is it also unfair if a man dies and leaves his wife enough money to live her last years without having to go to work?
> 
> I am absolutely for equal opportunities. I think we shouldn't give a thought to where someone came from or what color a person's skin or hair is or whatever - can this person do the job? Yes? Ok, then.
> 
> But people are confusing equal opportunities with equal rewards, and that is hore.....
> 
> I worked my ass off in school to get good grades and to get high marks on my standardized placement tests (ACT/SAT). I graduated with high honours and placed in the top 1% on my tests. I wanted to go to University of Michigan, and, according to my grades and test scaores, I should have had no problem. The tuition was too high, and what little scholarship funds I could secure made it impossible for me to attend U of M without going deeply into debt with student loans, so I decided to go to a less prestigious University and pay my dues by working 30-40 hours a week. If I was female, I would have easily secured much more in scholarship funds, no doubt, so the point that I was never passed up for a scholarship for being a white male is nonsense - not a single scholarship I had would have excluded me from it if I was any other race or gender, and there were tons of scholarships for which I was ineligible because of my race and gender.
> 
> I continued receiving high marks at university, because, although I was working nearly full time (technically considered full time, actually), I kept up with my school work. I published papers in scholarly journals, I spent time on plenty of independent projects to get a foothold on my career. It got me a full fellowship to graduate school, but that just meant that I had to work for the school for little-to-no cash pay for two years whilst my tuition was covered. Again, if I was a woman, I would have had opportunity to apply for much better scholarships. I can't say whether I would have gotten them or not, because I didn't even have the opportunity to apply for them, being a white male.
> 
> And that's the thing - we cry about equal opportunities, but, honestly, if you are a white male, you have fewer opportunities for government programs than if you were anything else.
> 
> So you can take your apology for my white male privilege and shove it.
> 
> You know what, I'm also a human being. Human beings have way too much power in this world compared to other animals. Why should we be so special?! To make it fair, we should let another species be in control from now on - how about narwhals?!



*None of this matters because you're white. Any minority would have had it twice as hard so you complaining about your struggle is meaningless, man. Being that anecdotal evidence is the lowest tier of evidence, all of what you wrote doesn't mean dick. White privilege is alive and well and it's in you. Apologize now and mean it whitey. 







*I fully agree with you and the above post was completely tongue in cheek. Detroit bros unite.


----------



## narad

steinmetzify said:


> *I fully agree with you and the above post was completely tongue in cheek. Detroit bros unite.



Nuts that, as far as this thread is concerned, I couldn't tell you were joking until I hit "whitey"!


----------



## celticelk

bostjan said:


> But here's the thing: if I am lucky enough to get some decent opportunities in life and I seize those opportunities hard, and I work my ass off to make the most of those opportunities, so that I can create a better life for my kids, then who the .... is anybody to say that my kids have unfair privilege?! Is it also unfair if a man dies and leaves his wife enough money to live her last years without having to go to work?



Do your kids then turn around and deny that they ever received that inheritance, and insist that anyone should be able to do what they did, because we all have equal opportunities?



bostjan said:


> I worked my ass off in school to get good grades and to get high marks on my standardized placement tests (ACT/SAT). I graduated with high honours and placed in the top 1% on my tests. I wanted to go to University of Michigan, and, according to my grades and test scaores, I should have had no problem. The tuition was too high, and what little scholarship funds I could secure made it impossible for me to attend U of M without going deeply into debt with student loans, so I decided to go to a less prestigious University and pay my dues by working 30-40 hours a week. If I was female, I would have easily secured much more in scholarship funds, no doubt, so the point that I was never passed up for a scholarship for being a white male is nonsense - not a single scholarship I had would have excluded me from it if I was any other race or gender, and there were tons of scholarships for which I was ineligible because of my race and gender.
> 
> I continued receiving high marks at university, because, although I was working nearly full time (technically considered full time, actually), I kept up with my school work. I published papers in scholarly journals, I spent time on plenty of independent projects to get a foothold on my career. It got me a full fellowship to graduate school, but that just meant that I had to work for the school for little-to-no cash pay for two years whilst my tuition was covered. Again, if I was a woman, I would have had opportunity to apply for much better scholarships. I can't say whether I would have gotten them or not, because I didn't even have the opportunity to apply for them, being a white male.
> 
> And that's the thing - we cry about equal opportunities, but, honestly, if you are a white male, you have fewer opportunities for government programs than if you were anything else.



John Scalzi's follow-up to his "Straight White Male" piece actually addresses this:




> *5. What about affirmative action (and/or other similar programs)? It just proves SWMs don&#8217;t have it easy anymore!*
> 
> Asserting that programs designed to counteract decades of systematic discrimination are proof that Straight White Males are not operating on the lowest difficulty setting in the game of life is not the winning argument you apparently believe it is. I&#8217;ll let you try to figure out why that is on your own. Likewise, anecdotal examples of a straight white guy getting the short end of the stick in some manner do not suggest that, therefore, it&#8217;s hard out there for all straight white men all the time.



I'll also point out that this tactic that you and steinmetzify are using, where you describe how difficult your *individual* lives have been as if that were somehow a refutation of the general argument, is sufficiently predictable that I've seen *scientific studies* of it.


----------



## TedEH

Realistically, I don't think people would have the aversion to the term "white male privilege" if it wasn't used so often in a derogatory way, or as a means of painting white people in a bad light, or as a means to dismiss opinions or experiences because "white dudes just couldn't possibly understand".

It's unfortunate that not everyone has the same advantages or opportunities- I think that's a fair statement to make- but when you slide from that to a blanket statement about white guys being racist by default, then yeah, I can see why people don't like that.

White straight guys are the easiest target to blame for things, because it's still "ok" to do that. If you attributed a personal decision or character flaw to a persons race in any other scenario, you'd be torn a new one, but it's acceptable to do that to white people for some reason.

And don't get me wrong, I understand that there's cultural and historical reasons that we've ended up in that spot, but that doesn't make it a pleasant spot to be in. It's not fun to be "the man" when everyone is "sticking it to the man" so to speak.


----------



## bostjan

celticelk said:


> Do your kids then turn around and deny that they ever received that inheritance, and insist that anyone should be able to do what they did, because we all have equal opportunities?



If they do, is it my fault for giving them an inheritance? And so what if they do? Is it a crime? I think you are trying to change the subject, rather than address the point, but I don't even see what point you are trying to get at with that.




celticelk said:


> John Scalzi's follow-up to his "Straight White Male" piece actually addresses this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. What about affirmative action (and/or other similar programs)? It just proves SWMs dont have it easy anymore!
> 
> Asserting that programs designed to counteract decades of systematic discrimination are proof that Straight White Males are not operating on the lowest difficulty setting in the game of life is not the winning argument you apparently believe it is. Ill let you try to figure out why that is on your own. Likewise, anecdotal examples of a straight white guy getting the short end of the stick in some manner do not suggest that, therefore, its hard out there for all straight white men all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll also point out that this tactic that you and steinmetzify are using, where you describe how difficult your *individual* lives have been as if that were somehow a refutation of the general argument, is sufficiently predictable that I've seen *scientific studies* of it.
Click to expand...


What scientific studies? Maybe we should be discussing those.

My issue is that you (you being people attached to affirmative action) want to eliminate racial bias by applying racial bias. It's like trying to fight terrorism with terrorism - it won't work, because it 1) is visibly hypocritical 2) does not address the root of the problem, and 3) utilizes racial bias.

Your quote's argument's shortfall is that it is simply a strawman argument: no one is saying that life is hard for all straight white men. That's not true and that's nothing short of a red herring.

I don't even have a problem with scholarships for women or for different ethnicities or whatever. I really don't. Where I have a problem is when people say that because I am a white man, I have obviously been privileged. That's where I am calling horse...., because that argument is absolute generalization. Ironically, such generalizations are what we should be trying to reduce and avoid.

Your tactic of asking a question about whether anyone feels as though he was excluded from an opportunity due to being a white male is now exposed. You didn't want a discussion - you had a point to make and you were hoping someone would take the bait. When I came along, you assumed my point was close enough for your purposes and proceeded.

Is my life story the data for which you were looking? No? Well, you asked for it. Do you feel smart now?


----------



## extendedsolo

bostjan said:


> You know what, I'm also a human being. Human beings have way too much power in this world compared to other animals. Why should we be so special?! To make it fair, we should let another species be in control from now on - how about narwhals?!



I know you are being sarcastic here, but what you are saying isn't really too far off since there has been a rise in people fight against large farms, animal abuse, etc. Just look at those sad animal rescue commercials. To say there aren't people that value an animal's life, specifically their own pet, over another human's life is naive. In face that is a stereotype about white people; they let animals kiss them on the mouth and they love their dogs more than their kids


----------



## vilk

"To eliminate racism, we must evaluate every individual on the basis of race and then treat them differently"


----------



## extendedsolo

bostjan said:


> Is my life story the data for which you were looking? No? Well, you asked for it. Do you feel smart now?



But data and trends aren't defined by a single point, they are defined by thousands upon thousands of points. Your life, the other poster here that's saying similar things and my life aren't but a sentence in the grand story of life. 

Using myself as an example. My mom had two kids before she was 20 years old with a guy who was abusive and also an illegal alien at one point. Neither of my parents had college degrees. My stepdad didn't have one either. The fact that I've achieved the level of education I have is pretty miraculous if you look at trends. My parents worked hard to help me no doubt and I wouldn't be where I am without them. I also had to bust my ass to get here. It doesn't change the fact that mountains of data exist about teenage pregnancy and issues with that child's life. Throw in an abusive relationship and I'm sure the outlook is even bleaker. Just because I succeeded doesn't mean that I can take the attitude that many others won't. Conversely, just because YOU weren't privileged as much as people tell you, doesn't mean that white males on a whole aren't given a head start in life just by being male.


----------



## bostjan

extendedsolo said:


> But data and trends aren't defined by a single point, they are defined by thousands upon thousands of points. Your life, the other poster here that's saying similar things and my life aren't but a sentence in the grand story of life.



I think we all understand how data and trends work.

If someone makes a request for an anecdote, though, publicly, and receives exactly the anecdote they thought no one would offer, and responds with "anecdote =/= data," then oh well.

The entire set-up, to me, whether it was intended or not, screamed of "argument from silence."



extendedsolo said:


> Using myself as an example. My mom had two kids before she was 20 years old with a guy who was abusive and also an illegal alien at one point. Neither of my parents had college degrees. My stepdad didn't have one either. The fact that I've achieved the level of education I have is pretty miraculous if you look at trends. My parents worked hard to help me no doubt and I wouldn't be where I am without them. I also had to bust my ass to get here. It doesn't change the fact that mountains of data exist about teenage pregnancy and issues with that child's life. Throw in an abusive relationship and I'm sure the outlook is even bleaker. Just because I succeeded doesn't mean that I can take the attitude that many others won't. Conversely, just because YOU weren't privileged as much as people tell you, doesn't mean that white males on a whole aren't given a head start in life just by being male.



Ok, firstly, I am sorry to hear that you have had a rough time. Secondly, good for you for making something out of what you have and grabbing life by the horns. It is not easy to do, and there is little or no thanks in doing it.

That said, though, insinuating that white males "on a whole" are privileged, because of their ethnicity, is insulting. Some people are privileged and some are not. Kim Kardasian is privileged. Is she a white male? How many white males are more privileged than her?

Is the average white male more privileged than the average male. Sure. Is the average male more privileged than the average female. Sure. Is the average white male in the USA more privileged than the average person in the USA. Hmm, maybe I'll give you that, I don't know, but I imagine so. Are all white males more privileged than all people in other groups? Hell no.

------------------------------------



vilk said:


> "To eliminate racism, we must evaluate every individual on the basis of race and then treat them differently"



^ This guy gets it.


----------



## celticelk

bostjan said:


> Is the average white male more privileged than the average male. Sure. Is the average male more privileged than the average female. Sure. Is the average white male in the USA more privileged than the average person in the USA. Hmm, maybe I'll give you that, I don't know, but I imagine so. Are all white males more privileged than all people in other groups? Hell no.



Two thoughts on this:

1. "All white males are more privileged than all people in other groups" is an argument that no one is making, but that you and steinmetzify seem determined to aggressively counter regardless.

2. If you agree that, in the US, the average white male is more privileged than the average male, and the average male is more privileged than the average female, how is the average white male *not* more privileged than the average person in the US? That seems to follow logically from the statements you've already agreed are correct.


----------



## bostjan

celticelk said:


> Two thoughts on this:
> 
> 1. "All white males are more privileged than all people in other groups" is an argument that no one is making, but that you and steinmetzify seem determined to aggressively counter regardless.
> 
> 2. If you agree that, in the US, the average white male is more privileged than the average male, and the average male is more privileged than the average female, how is the average white male *not* more privileged than the average person in the US? That seems to follow logically from the statements you've already agreed are correct.



1. But that is essentially your argument when you ask for an anecdote of any white male who thinks he was limited in his opportunities.

2. Because that's not what I said. I do not agree that the average male in the US is more privileged than the average female in the US. Worldwide, sure - the the US, no way. I'm fairly certain that such a view will start a ....storm, but oh well. I'm sure you will counter with salaries and all sorts of data that you think proves your point, but I think a lot of people are missing the biggest, most obvious pieces of the discussion: women have opportunities to do whatever a man has opportunities to do, but the fact is that men and women, in general, have different desires and different aptitudes.


----------



## vilk

celticelk said:


> Two thoughts on this:
> 
> 1. "All white males are more privileged than all people in other groups" is an argument that no one is making



Then why do I read it every day?


----------



## extendedsolo

bostjan said:


> That said, though, insinuating that white males "on a whole" are privileged, because of their ethnicity, is insulting. Some people are privileged and some are not. Kim Kardasian is privileged. Is she a white male? How many white males are more privileged than her?
> 
> Is the average white male more privileged than the average male. Sure. Is the average male more privileged than the average female. Sure. Is the average white male in the USA more privileged than the average person in the USA. Hmm, maybe I'll give you that, I don't know, but I imagine so. Are all white males more privileged than all people in other groups? Hell no.



No I completely agree with the last paragraph. A poor white guy in Appalachia is not more privileged than Lebron James's kids. White kids on the whole are more privileged than blacks, as is backed up by incarceration rates. 

It's like saying if I get 5 numbers on a die and you get 1, that I'm going to win all of the time. No I'm not, but it's clear I have an advantage. If we roll 100000000 times there will be times where you win, even consecutively! It doesn't mean that the odds aren't stacked in my favor (Yes I know I rather simple example)



vilk said:


> Then why do I read it every day?



What would be a more appropriate thing to say? How would it engage people to acknowledge the societal problem?


----------



## TedEH

extendedsolo said:


> What would be a more appropriate thing to say? How would it engage people to acknowledge the societal problem?



I feel like just about anything other than a blanket blaming of societies problems on white straight guys in general would be a more appropriate thing to say.

Better yet, anything that doesn't point to someones race and colour as the source of their behavior without any other context to back it up. 

I mentioned it before, but I think it got lost in the arguments -
I don't feel like we lack an understanding of our place and our privilege in the world, so much as it becomes frustrating when this one generalization is used to do things like pin bad behaviors to us as a group, or discount our views and opinions because "we couldn't possibly understand these challenges since we've got it so easy".

Edit: To be fair, I suppose I can't speak for anyone else, but that's at least my own personal stance in terms of why I (or someone else) might get defensive while being told to reconsider our privilege.

We've more or less agreed that the idea of white dude = easy life is a simplification/generalization, but at what point does that become a damaging/racst stereotype in itself? What is the impact of that stereotype/generalization when it reaches our kids? When it spreads to other countries? When it continues to be used farther and farther away from anything resembling appropriate context? At some point, in my opinion, it stops being any kind of fair generalization and just becomes racism again.

How about, how do I teach my (hypothetical) kids that it's wrong to treat someone differently because of their race or appearance, when that's exactly the standard by which we're being judged?

I understand that a lot of people have it much worse off than I do, and not being a minority plays a factor in that. I really get that. But, I don't feel like that's what we're arguing about here.


----------



## Steinmetzify

Blaming black people for their lack of advantage? Racist. 

Blaming white people for black peoples' lack of advantage? Politically correct.

Most black people are gangsters? Racist. 

Most Jews are good with money? Racist. 

Most Asians are good at math? Racist. 

White people are privileged? Oh yeah, got that right brother.

It's a racist ideology, no matter what spin you put on it, no matter how many PC white people agree with you, no matter how many black authors write about it.


----------



## TedEH

Explorer said:


> but also anyone who is woke in general.



While we're all complaining and arguing, I'd like to take this moment to express my dislike for the word "woke", which I completely forgot was used in the OP. As soon as I see it, I know an argument is coming. It implies a sort of superiority in ones position that gets on my nerves even if the rest of the statement is solid. I basically read it as "if you don't share my opinion, you clearly are lacking the deep understanding that I have". I give no other extra context or argument to it, I just don't like the word. 

Also, we've strayed super far away from the article the OP was originally trying to bring up. We ended up going on about the words used to describe the topic instead of the topic itself. I'm all for dropping the white-ness discussion and just looking at the stuff that OP was trying to point out instead.

Even without all of that discussion - there's probably still an argument to be made that the current political climate might be opening the doors for more public displays of racism to happen (regardless of who it's from or against). I'm not super politically-minded, so I don't have anything really smart to say about it, but I feel like that was the intended message of the OP. (But feel free to correct or ignore me if I'm way off.)


----------



## extendedsolo

TedEH said:


> While we're all complaining and arguing, I'd like to take this moment to express my dislike for the word "woke", which I completely forgot was used in the OP. As soon as I see it, I know an argument is coming. It implies a sort of superiority in ones position that gets on my nerves even if the rest of the statement is solid. I basically read it as "if you don't share my opinion, you clearly are lacking the deep understanding that I have". I give no other extra context or argument to it, I just don't like the word.
> 
> Also, we've strayed super far away from the article the OP was originally trying to bring up. We ended up going on about the words used to describe the topic instead of the topic itself. I'm all for dropping the white-ness discussion and just looking at the stuff that OP was trying to point out instead.
> 
> Even without all of that discussion - there's probably still an argument to be made that the current political climate might be opening the doors for more public displays of racism to happen (regardless of who it's from or against). I'm not super politically-minded, so I don't have anything really smart to say about it, but I feel like that was the intended message of the OP. (But feel free to correct or ignore me if I'm way off.)



I kinda got the feeling that everyone was in agreement that it that guy is 100% wrong and that there wasn't much to discuss. I'm not sure how you argue the other side of that without looking like a complete buffoon .


----------



## Explorer

bostjan said:


> But here's the thing: if I am lucky enough to get some decent opportunities in life and I seize those opportunities hard, and I work my ass off to make the most of those opportunities, so that I can create a better life for my kids, then who the .... is anybody to say that my kids have unfair privilege?! Is it also unfair if a man dies and leaves his wife enough money to live her last years without having to go to work?





celticelk said:


> Do your kids then turn around and deny that they ever received that inheritance, and insist that anyone should be able to do what they did, because we all have equal opportunities?





bostjan said:


> If they do, is it my fault for giving them an inheritance? And so what if they do? Is it a crime? I think you are trying to change the subject, rather than address the point, but I don't even see what point you are trying to get at with that.



It's interesting that you missed the point in that exchange. I think I can give a few ideas regarding your question of "so what if they do?"

First off, it would demonstrate those children as being of dishonest character. 

But let's imagine that you had either set up some invisible trust fund which gave out bribes, without those kids being aware it was happening. They would have more opportunities with their educations and with employment, without ever knowing they had these advantages.

Further, since they saw those privileges as normal, they would rail against helping those who didn't have those advantages, and would argue against those who had pretty good proof that the secret trust fund was what had greased the wheels for your descendants. 

Now... let's imagine that instead of a cash trust fund, you left them with a connection to a nudge-wink network which gave them, and others like them, preferential treatment. 

It's okay to want one's descendants to have money or privilege. However, it's another to say, I reject all the evidence about that privilege existing. 



bostjan said:


> And that's the thing - we cry about equal opportunities, but, honestly, if you are a white male, you have fewer opportunities for government programs than if you were anything else.



Just to note, such government programs are to try to level the many more numerous opportunities for white males in the rest of society. 

----

I think the most humorous thing in this topic to read is people attempting to redefine the word "average" as meaning extremes, like a poor white kid in Appalachia compared to the kids of LeBron James. If that's how far one has to reach to make a case against the existence of disparities in the US, it's like admitting one doesn't have a case at all. 

Oh! And there goes the timer! Time to pull the preprepped stuff out of the oven for tomorrow!


----------



## narad

Explorer said:


> I think the most humorous thing in this topic to read is people attempting to redefine the word "average" as meaning extremes, like a poor white kid in Appalachia compared to the kids of LeBron James. If that's how far one has to reach to make a case against the existence of disparities in the US, it's like admitting one doesn't have a case at all.



I think you're contorting everyone's points into something it's easy for you to rage against. 

Extremes are brought up as an example of: what is more pressing here, racial bias, or socioeconomic factors? If somebody can't define clearly the degree or extent of advantages attributable to race or gender apart from actual stats like family demographic, average income on SAT, college admittance, employment, etc., then it's all conveniently unscientific. Really the fact that it's like 3 pages down the line and there's basically no mention of socioeconomic influence is mind-blowing.

So yea, was never intended to be about averages but if it makes it easier for you to argue against, sure, just change the semantics of everyone's posts.


----------



## vilk

Well, privilege is certainly relative to the goal, isn't it?

In America, we measure life in dollars and cents. So we can say there is white male privilege because generally those who have the very most dollars and cents are white males. 

But what if the goal was happiness? If you research it, you'll find that USA is actually pretty low on the list. As a person who values happiness more than money, I'm here today to talk to you about Scandinavian Privilege. Scandinavians are far happier than Americans, regardless of how many dollars and cents they do or don't have. Whenever you meet one of these tall m-f-ers, don't be surprised if they just _automatically_ expect that you don't f///ing hate your life every single day. They don't even understand what it's like to be afraid to get sick because you'd get docked pay or be unable to pay the hospital bill, and that's Scandinavian privilege. To them, getting sick is a vacation. Would you be afraid to have a vacation? 

I'm sick of Swedes telling ME to be happy, like it's something I can just readily do here in the USA.


----------



## bostjan

Explorer said:


> It's interesting that you missed the point in that exchange. I think I can give a few ideas regarding your question of "so what if they do?"
> 
> First off, it would demonstrate those children as being of dishonest character.
> 
> But let's imagine that you had either set up some invisible trust fund which gave out bribes, without those kids being aware it was happening. They would have more opportunities with their educations and with employment, without ever knowing they had these advantages.
> 
> Further, since they saw those privileges as normal, they would rail against helping those who didn't have those advantages, and would argue against those who had pretty good proof that the secret trust fund was what had greased the wheels for your descendants.
> 
> Now... let's imagine that instead of a cash trust fund, you left them with a connection to a nudge-wink network which gave them, and others like them, preferential treatment.
> 
> It's okay to want one's descendants to have money or privilege. However, it's another to say, I reject all the evidence about that privilege existing.
> 
> 
> 
> Just to note, such government programs are to try to level the many more numerous opportunities for white males in the rest of society.
> 
> ----
> 
> I think the most humorous thing in this topic to read is people attempting to redefine the word "average" as meaning extremes, like a poor white kid in Appalachia compared to the kids of LeBron James. If that's how far one has to reach to make a case against the existence of disparities in the US, it's like admitting one doesn't have a case at all.
> 
> Oh! And there goes the timer! Time to pull the preprepped stuff out of the oven for tomorrow!



I honestly have no clue what you are on about or where you are going with it. I feel like I should respond, but, since your post has seemingly nothing to do with the quote you took from me, I'll just leave it as asking for you to clarify your first point.

To your second point:

The entire idea of taking away someone's opportunities because their skin colour is the same as a rich guy's is absolutely ignorant. To eliminate racial bias by applying a racial bias as a matter of policy is counter-logical.

And again, I think the idea of having a scholarship for kids with a certain heritage is okay, but having an award or a scholarship that specifically excludes white men, due to "white privilege" is just stupid.

The entire idea of "race" is just an oversimplification of ethnic makeup. The stupid antiquated rules that an "African American" is a person with >=25% south or central African heritage is dumb. Seriously, what if a person has 25% central African heritage, 25% Native American heritage, 25% WASP heritage, and 25% Australo-Aboriginal heritage? What "race" would that person be? It gets to the point where it is arbitrary, self-contradictory, and overly-complicated, yet there is no actual meaning to "race." What people really mean by "race" is a set of genetic traits that have been generally bred together in groups of peoples over long periods of time. That's what it boils down to - 

Witness: "I saw a random guy running down the sidewalk." Police: "Can you describe him?" Witness: "He was an Asian guy."

Using a literal interpretation, how does the witness know that the man came from the continent of Asia? I mean, Armenia is in Asia, right? Could you tell the difference between an Armenian guy and a guy from southeastern Europe with typical genetic traits of most people in those areas?

But really, we all know what the witness meant. The guy who ran by has genetic traits associated with East Asia. If the guy was Persian, or Indian, or Palestinian, or Arabic, or Turkish or whatever, he probably wouldn't have those sorts of traits that people call "Asian." For that matter, I couldn't tell the difference between a North African guy and an Arabic guy, just based on typical genetic traits from those regions...

So yeah, we all come from different backgrounds and we all look very different, but honestly, at a glance, most people fit into little genetic boxes, but a lot of people also don't. The made-up guy I mentioned early with the diverse genetic makeup, would a witness describe him as "Asian?" Actually, maybe, even though there is nothing about his genetic heritage that would point that way, maybe he'd end up with the same sort of skin tone and facial features people would associate with "Asian."

At any rate, I press that my points still stand.


----------



## TedEH

vilk said:


> Scandinavian Privilege



This maybe also supports the comment bostjan made, but I thought Scandinavians were part of "white people", so wouldn't that still just be White Privilege again?

That's something I admittedly don't understand- who people are supposedly talking about when discussing "white people" or other very broad descriptors for race. I usually take it as meaning "Americans who don't have the appearance of being a minority" - but realistically the lines are super blurry. People use that same terminology when talking about Canadians (even though I'd argue our race issues are not as severe, or at least it doesn't seem like it), so you can include that I guess. I've got some friends who I would probably call "white" in the sense that I can't group them into a minority, but their skin colour is dark enough that they clearly are not of dominantly European descent.

So  I dunno. Guess that doesn't add much to the conversation.


----------



## vilk

They may be white, and I may be white (though I'm a quarter Jewish. Jews are Semites, as are Arabs. If I were a quarter Arabic would I still be called "white"?), but they are more privileged than I am for where they are born and in respect to a goal of "happiness".

The point I'm trying to make is that privilege is relative to a goal, and saying that in the USA white men are privileged assumes a goal of _monetary wealth_. 
White men are privileged compared to black men with regards to criminal justice
But white women are more privileged compared to white men with regards to criminal justice
and I don't have stats, but I'd be skeptical of whether or not whites even have privilege with regards to criminal justice as compared against East Asians. Or these days, with regards to hire-ability (but I might be biased because I work at a company with more Asians than whites). 


What if the goal isn't monetary wealth but athletic achievement? Who has privilege then? 


So I think if we're going to go around spouting about "white male privilege", it is necessary to always specify what measure you're using. On issues unrelated to money, I don't know if it's always relevant or even correct to say that there is white male privilege.


----------



## bostjan

I guess that's another way to boil the idea of "white privilege" down logically.

Forget about the fact that this is a blatant stereotype and assume there is some factor called "white privilege," which allows white people to have the following:


More base wealth inherited at birth.
A 20% bonus in income.
20% easier time getting into college or university.
50% easier time obtaining employment.

First, what defines a person as "white?" Is a guy whose parents are Lebanese and moved to the USA just before he was born, white? Where is the boarder between "white" and "non-white?" Maybe a Greek guy is only slightly white, so he gets only half a white privilege? How does that work? Does that mean a guy whose mom is white and whose dad is Nigerian gets half a white privilege, or does this benefit scale in a non-linear way? If non-linear, what is f(x,y), if x is distance from ideal white race and y is % ancestry that is white?

Putting some thought into that, yeah, guys who are from some sort of Germanic ancestry (Danes, Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Bittons, Norse, Umbrian, etc.) are evidently more "white privileged" than people of Celtic or Latin origin, who are more "white privileged" than people of Greek or Slavic Origin, who are more "white privileged" than Turks and Bosnians, etc. People who mix different origins are even lower on the proverbial totem pole, so a person who is half Greek and half Turkish is less "white privileged" than a Bosnian person.

If you don't think the above sounds horribly racist, then I think something may be wrong with you, by the way, but I'm trying to prove a point.

Now, take an example of a fellow living in eastern Kentucky, whose parents lived in eastern KY and whose granparents lived in eastern KY and whose great grandparents...etc., until, at some point in the 18th century, his ancestors came from Northern England or low Germany or whatever existed back then where the supposed ground zero is for "white privilege." And answer if you think that fellow enjoys the benefits listed above.

No.

Ok, so, I think we have thoroughly established that "white privilege" is not something do do solely on ethnic origin, but rather a combination of things.

Reducing wealth down to its most basic components, implicitly, it simply works out that, if you have more inherited wealth, your ancestors made more money.

Now, as I said, I'm not sure what Explorer was getting at, but, if he was implying that in order to have obtained more wealth, those ancestors must have done something despicable, well, no, I don't think that's fair to say one way or the other for sure.

I think the trouble is that, inherited wealth is, well, inherited. Genetics are inherited as well. So rich people have kids who, generally, grow up to become rich people, whether they are black or white or orange or whatever. Part of the allure to getting rich, actually, is that you can spoil your kids even after you die. But if someone works hard and obtains a substantial sum of money without immoral nor illegal activity, who is to tell them that they cannot pass that wealth down to their kids?!

Now, on the other hand, if you are talking merely about a wage gap, then maybe you should also look at the demographics of the work people do and how much of it they do for what they make. Then, if there is hard data that tells a story, maybe there is something to discuss here. I can tell you, though, as far as the data on salary.com, the last I checked, I made less than 99% of people with the same job title as me, and I am white, so maybe this meme does not apply to me for some mysterious reason.


----------



## TedEH

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're sort of working our way around to what was supposed to be the basis for "intersectionality" right? Before it got turned into a weird race to try to identify the least advantaged in a given situation, the whole point was supposed to be that interactions between people are heavily driven by context, I think. That would include interactions between peoples race/orientation/etc., but also should have (I would think) included the context of the particular situation, and whatever the goal/reason for the comparison was in the first place.

Somewhere it went from "look how complex interactions between people can be", to "lets rank everyone by the stereotypes of how difficult their lives should be".


----------



## narad

vilk said:


> The point I'm trying to make is that privilege is relative to a goal, and saying that in the USA white men are privileged assumes a goal of _monetary wealth_


_

I'm against the idea of white privilege in general, but I have to say that this goal is purely monetary is not true. It's about all sorts of opportunities that impact not just income, but social mobility and the the freedom to pursue the life you desire._


----------



## bostjan

TedEH said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're sort of working our way around to what was supposed to be the basis for "intersectionality" right? Before it got turned into a weird race to try to identify the least advantaged in a given situation, the whole point was supposed to be that interactions between people are heavily driven by context, I think. That would include interactions between peoples race/orientation/etc., but also should have (I would think) included the context of the particular situation, and whatever the goal/reason for the comparison was in the first place.
> 
> Somewhere it went from "look how complex interactions between people can be", to "lets rank everyone by the stereotypes of how difficult their lives should be".



I suppose I wasn't thinking my post was geared specifically toward your post, but now your topic is more interesting to me that the other off-topic (since we lost track of the thread's main topic days ago). 

Interactions between people are absolutely complex. I think (this is totally conjecture here) that most of the complexity of interactions between people is in the first impression, and, that first impression is dictated perhaps more by the context around the meeting than any behaviour exhibited at the moment of two people meeting.

If I meet someone at a technical conference, I interact with that person in a totally different way than I would if I met them at a show. For that matter, the interaction is completely different at a show if I'm playing and the other person is not, than vice-versa.

*exhale*

*inhale*

I think a lot of people also base their first impressions based on what I had pointed out about "race," in terms of how it is a perception rather than any sort of physically tangible thing. And... I think that the context around that meeting can play a large degree of influence on how a person perceives another persons "race." Maybe a person of "melting pot" ethnicity appears to have the stereotypical traits of one "race" under natural light of e.g. a football game, and appears to have different traits, which could be associated with a different "race" under different lighting e.g. at a bar.

I believe that an African immigrant faces, potentially, a greater variety of treatment during a first impression than an African American. So, maybe any sort of unusual speech ticks or traits could have a major influence on the moment of first impression.

So, to come back to the idea of differences in opportunities, if we narrow down on a job applicant, then the context ought to be the same for a "white" applicant as a "non-white" applicant. These days, it's not that unusual for a resume to have a photo attached. I believe I've heard that studies have been done where resumes were sent to companies from fake applicants with "white" sounding names and "black" sounding names, as well as "foreign" sounding names to see who benefited.

Maybe I've been doing this "white privilege" thing wrong all this time. I should change my name to "John Smith" and start collecting my benefits.

Erg...I am certainly biased. We all are, without a doubt, but I try to keep my bias as logical as possible. And we all discriminate, but I disagree with any attempt to incorporate ethnic makeup or inherited nationality into bias in any way.


----------



## Peralta

possumkiller said:


> Really "white male privilege"? That seems a pretty racist label in itself. I'm a white male and have had just as much privilege as anyone else.
> 
> But yes as someone who has been to war, I can say that guy is a douche. Is it because he's a white male? I don't know. Maybe it's because he's a privileged rich guy? That's where the real discrimination lies. All these wealthy elites have the peasants fighting each other while they steal everything we have. RISE PROLETARIAT!!!




As a white male, you do have privileges that other do not. For an example, you never have to think about if you can go into a certain neighborhood at night without running the risk of getting murdered by a cop for driving while white. You don't have to be worried about being tailed for simply walking into a store or having your resume passed up because your name "sounds black."


----------



## narad

Peralta said:


> As a white male, you do have privileges that other do not. For an example, you never have to think about if you can go into a certain neighborhood at night without running the risk of getting murdered by a cop for driving while white. You don't have to be worried about being tailed for simply walking into a store or having your resume passed up because your name "sounds black."



Yea, cop murder is super pervasive. Damn cops - someone should try to get all these cops off the street. Some sort of policing force to get rid of all these murdering cops.


----------



## sylcfh

Every ethnicity has a part of town they're less safe in. Does that make them all privileged?


----------



## Vrollin

Peralta said:


> As a white male, you do have privileges that other do not. For an example, you never have to think about if you can go into a certain neighborhood at night without running the risk of getting murdered by a cop for driving while white. You don't have to be worried about being tailed for simply walking into a store or having your resume passed up because your name "sounds black."



I bet my ....ing bottom dollar that any, ANY, white person who walked through a black neighbourhood at night would at best come out mugged if they manage to come out the other end alive... such ....ing privilege...


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

Explain the fact that black males get sentenced 20% longer for the same crimes than white males. Privilege takes place in many forms.


----------



## narad

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> Explain the fact that black males get sentenced 20% longer for the same crimes than white males. Privilege takes place in many forms.



Pretty easy to explain when you include socio-economic factors.


----------



## Vrollin

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> Explain the fact that black males get sentenced 20% longer for the same crimes than white males. Privilege takes place in many forms.



I have zero sympathy for someone complaining about their sentencing, white, black, blue, purple, male, female, there's an easy way to avoid this non issue... Don't break the law. HOLY CRAP ITS JUST THAT SIMPLE!


----------



## Petar Bogdanov

Vrollin said:


> I have zero sympathy for someone complaining about their sentencing, white, black, blue, purple, male, female, there's an easy way to avoid this non issue... Don't break the law. HOLY CRAP ITS JUST THAT SIMPLE!



That's ....ed up. 

We all break the law somehow, because it's designed that way. Every crime has a penalty. The only reason we tolerate this system is because the penalty is proportional to the crime. 

So you say it's OK that a black guy goes to jail for speeding, while a white guy is merely arrested. How are arbitrary penalties OK? Imagine you could be shot for speeding because you have long hair. How about that?


----------



## narad

Petar Bogdanov said:


> We all break the law somehow, because it's designed that way.



Well...no?



Petar Bogdanov said:


> So you say it's OK that a black guy goes to jail for speeding, while a white guy is merely arrested. How are arbitrary penalties OK? Imagine you could be shot for speeding because you have long hair. How about that?



You don't go to jail for speeding unless you're going so fast it's considered reckless endangerment. And in that case, it was your own damn fault for speeding.


----------



## Petar Bogdanov

narad said:


> Well...no?



You have never saved a copyrighted picture to your computer? Bull..... 



> You don't go to jail for speeding unless you're going so fast it's considered reckless endangerment. And in that case, it was your own damn fault for speeding.



Of course it's your own fault. It was always your fault, that's an assumption that was already implied. The guys are both guilty. One is just as guilty as the other. 

But it does not follow, logically. Why should they get different sentences, if they are equally guilty? Being guilty of a crime does not necessarily mean they should get the heaviest possible penalty, because, why do we have whole ranges of penalties in the first place? 

Maybe you are not interested in helping the people in question, and that's quite understandable, but it's not a reason for saying it isn't an issue.


----------



## narad

You have this notion of both people being equally guilty, going in front of the judge, one black, one white, and getting different sentences. The actual statistic reflects a whole cohort of other considerations. Mostly socioeconomic ones. More black people have difficulty coming up with the money for a lawyer (even court-appointed attourneys have $250+ fees), making bail, or paying a fine. So obviously racism exists, but you can't throw around that statistic like the world is this super simply thing where black people are just receiving white sentences + 20% being-black tax.


----------



## Vrollin

Petar Bogdanov said:


> That's ....ed up.
> 
> We all break the law somehow, because it's designed that way. Every crime has a penalty. The only reason we tolerate this system is because the penalty is proportional to the crime.
> 
> So you say it's OK that a black guy goes to jail for speeding, while a white guy is merely arrested. How are arbitrary penalties OK? Imagine you could be shot for speeding because you have long hair. How about that?



Sitation of this phenomenon of black people going to jail for speeding....


----------



## Vrollin

Petar Bogdanov said:


> So you say it's OK that a black guy goes to jail for speeding, while a white guy is merely arrested. How are arbitrary penalties OK? Imagine you could be shot for speeding because you have long hair. How about that?



In Australia everyone has equal opportunity for stupid people chasing stupid prizes, up to 9 months in prison for different types of speeding...

https://www.gotocourt.com.au/traffic-law/nsw/hoon-laws/


What's with all the hypotheticals? Why not put forward actual cases rather than try to move the goalposts with made up situations.... You're getting worked up over your own stories...


----------



## vilk

Vrollin said:


> Sitation of this phenomenon of black people going to jail for speeding....



citation* 

and also, don't confuse "jail" with prison. Many people go to jail for speeding. It can be for 'reckless endangerment', which though is technically not the same crime as speeding, is usually given out for speeding over 20 over the limit. It's really easy to do if there's an interstate highway that slows down to 45 (like the one I drive 70 down on the way to and from work, every day).
But also, you can be jailed for speeding if you have repeat violations.

I know it's besides the _ultimate_ point that you were attempting to make, but I thought you should know. In fact, Dr. MLK Jr. was arrested and thrown in jail for doing 30 in a 25.


----------



## Randy

narad said:


> Well...no?



Eh, shades of grey. I have known people ticketed for obstructions in their windshield, because they had a pine tree air freshener hanging on their mirror. They also *happened* to be late teens/early 20s with long hair, and the police insisted on searching the car without any further reasons.

It might be a stretch to say we're all constantly in violation of the law, but don't think something like "broken windows policing" doesn't exist to find easy things to nab any random person for, with the hopes of uncovering more significant crimes.



narad said:


> So obviously racism exists, but you can't throw around that statistic like the world is this super simply thing where black people are just receiving white sentences + 20% being-black tax.



You refute people for claiming prejudicial police practices, then you admit there's some kind of overall difference in black/white experience through the criminal justice system, then you white wash it..?

I don't know how it is on your side of the pond but few people if any in the states drive the speed limit; typically they hover between 10 and 15 mph above. If that's common practice and people drive through speed traps all day long without getting pulled over, then what do you THINK is the context for the cops deciding who they will and will not pull over? I'm not saying it's a race thing but I absolutely have been pulled over in areas for <5mph over the speed limit, where other people (and myself on other occasions) have passed a speed trap 10 to 15 mph over the limit.

Of course there's criteria for why cops choose to pull one car over vs. another one. You white wash the reasons for disproportionate outcomes on "socioeconomic reasons". While I agree those exist, is it a stretch to say that drugs are more common in socioeconomically depressed areas? Is it a stretch to say certain types of people or people who drive certain makes/models of cars or cars with certain appearances occur more frequently in areas that are socioeconomically depressed? So then is it a stretch to say a cop sees a car drive by and something about the car or it's occupant would lead them to believe there's a greater or lesser chance of finding drugs? Is that prejudice? If people from that particular socioeconomic class happen to more frequently have a particular race or ethnic background, does that then make that prejudicial screening racist? Why or why not?


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Randy said:


> Is that racism? Why or why not?



It is racism, per judicial precedent:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...sponding-minorities-who-failed-entrance-exams


&#8220;Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits not only intentional discrimination, but also employment practices that appear to be fair in form but are discriminatory in operation,&#8221; the Department states in a fact sheet on the FDNY case. &#8220;A facially neutral employment practice, such as a written examination, that disproportionately excludes individuals from employment opportunities on the basis of their membership in a protected group, such as a particular race or national origin, and cannot be shown to be related to job performance, violates Title VII.&#8221;


----------



## narad

Randy said:


> You refute people for claiming prejudicial police practices, then you admit there's some kind of overall difference in black/white experience through the criminal justice system, then you white wash it..?
> 
> I don't know how it is on your side of the pond but few people if any in the states drive the speed limit; typically they hover between 10 and 15 mph above. If that's common practice and people drive through speed traps all day long without getting pulled over, then what do you THINK is the context for the cops deciding who they will and will not pull over? I'm not saying it's a race thing but I absolutely have been pulled over in areas for <5mph over the speed limit, where other people (and myself on other occasions) have passed a speed trap 10 to 15 mph over the limit.
> 
> Of course there's criteria for why cops choose to pull one car over vs. another one. You white wash the reasons for disproportionate outcomes on "socioeconomic reasons". While I agree those exist, is it a stretch to say that drugs are more common in socioeconomically depressed areas? Is it a stretch to say certain types of people or people who drive certain makes/models of cars or cars with certain appearances occur more frequently in areas that are socioeconomically depressed? So then is it a stretch to say a cop sees a car drive by and something about the car or it's occupant would lead them to believe there's a greater or lesser chance of finding drugs? Is that prejudice? If people from that particular socioeconomic class happen to more frequently have a particular race or ethnic background, does that then make that prejudicial screening racist? Why or why not?



I should clarify -- the original statistic dropped in this thread was about _sentencing_. There's definitely some profiling going on with individual cops on the street deciding who to pull over, but I'm not talking about that. It's that once you've been charged you're part of a system where several articles I've recently have discussed how socioeconomic issues make it difficult for black/hispanic generally inner city people.

Actually I'm not from this side of the pond -- I'm from New York. I did get a speeding ticket once, again, like you describe, in a sea of cars all going about 10mph over, and I decided to pass a semi instead of trailing it like some Final Destination scene. So whatever, breaking the law, but really just going with the flow of traffic. 

Where things get weird is that I get this ticket, and my friend refers me to a lawyer, the lawyer talks to the judge and asks me to pay something like 3x the ticket price, and the whole thing vanishes. There's no record of that ticket. Naturally if I'm in a different economic situation where I have trouble even paying the speeding ticket at like $175 or something, I can't flip the much higher amount for the ticket vanishing act. And if I were to get another speeding ticket, it's like a first offense. For someone else who just pays the ticket, fines increase and things can get bad real fast. This is what I mean by socioeconomic factors. If you're poor, you do more time. If you throw out a blacks get 20% greater sentences stat, you need to condition out the economic factors or something that's quite logical can appear like a significant racial bias.

I don't have a lot of experience in the matter but I've met a lot of cops who talk "locker room talk", and people from my high school who I wouldn't want in charge of my food preparation still become cops. It doesn't surprise me that there's so much racism in the police force when the entry bar is so low. But I'd like to think, and I'm at least going to continue thinking for now, that judges aren't too racially prejudiced within their own districts, and in more serious matters you're going to get a jury of your peers, so there's yet another check for removing racial bias in the courts.


----------



## Vrollin

vilk said:


> I know it's besides the _ultimate_ point that you were attempting to make, but I thought you should know. In fact, Dr. MLK Jr. was arrested and thrown in jail for doing 30 in a 25.



Stop the press! It happened to one black guy, in 1956 for ....s sake! Gee I wonder what sort of a world black people were living in way back then and how far we've come now. Spoiler alert it's 2016.
I would guarantee you that attitude has a lot to do with which people are being thrown in lockup for a day or two due to such small issues as speeding. Again, boohoo, no ....ing sympathy for anyone making a cops life harder than it needs to be.


----------



## vilk

Vrollin said:


> You're right


 I know


----------



## Randy

narad said:


> stuff



I'd say your experience and perception matches mine, with the caveat that increased incidences with the cops based on race = increased frequency of penalties against people of said race. I'd partially agree with you that vetting of judges makes it at least somewhat less frequent that they render decisions based on race, but they still have to oversee whatever cases come across their desk, and if it's disproportionately drawn on racial lines, or people finding themselves in trouble more than once, than the racism certainly trickles on down. 

It's also worth noting the police decide the charges they're going to submit along with the arrest, so you can have situations where a cop tacks an extra couple of ancillary offenses onto a single incident (resisting arrest, giving a false statement, etc.) that are either a matter of interpretation or can be made up or ignored depending on the cop's opinion of the person they arrested. In cases like that, again, the judge decides based on what's in front of them, so you certainly could have lopsided sentencing for the same initial offenses.

FWIW, I can't find the stats now but there are numbers I've seen that suggest there are heavier sentences on minorities for identical crimes vs. whites. I'm not contending that's 100% reality without looking more into it but I'm just saying, white sentencing + 20% for being black isn't a totally made up narrative.


----------



## Vrollin

Thought I'd update the thread with the most racist thing since the election, featuring kidnapping, torture and racist chanting.
http://wearechange.org/....-white-people-....-trump-man-kidnapped-tortured-chicago/


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Petar: Where do you go if you only get "arrested" but don't end up in jail? Perhaps you meant as a result of a judge's decision in court due to the traffic infraction, which in said hypothetical, is far too simple. It doesn't discuss anything regarding priors [ie, past traffic infractions], the how far over the speed limit both were, or if they were detained after finding other stuff in their possession or on their criminal record such as a warrant, etc.


----------



## TedEH

Vrollin said:


> Thought I'd update the thread with the most racist thing since the election



The link doesn't seem to work.


----------



## USMarine75

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kim-farbota/black-crime-rates-your-st_b_8078586.html

Good article on explaining incarceration rates.


----------



## Xaios

Vrollin said:


> Thought I'd update the thread with the most racist thing since the election, featuring kidnapping, torture and racist chanting.
> http://wearechange.org/....-white-people-....-trump-man-kidnapped-tortured-chicago/



Might wanna re-paste that link, it's busted.


----------



## bostjan

Would the statement (originally "Black people are disproportionately sent to prison") sound better or worse if it read "not enough white people are in prison?"


----------



## narad

bostjan said:


> Would the statement (originally "Black people are disproportionately sent to prison") sound better or worse if it read "not enough white people are in prison?"



Ha! But given that we incarcerate more people than any other country, per capita*, I think we can rule out #2.

*Except for the Seychelles, but c'mon.


----------



## Vrollin

https://youtu.be/Qch0tZcZMOE

Here we go, but then you all know what incident I was refering to without the link working properly, it just doesn't suit left agenda to acknowledge it...


----------



## narad

Vrollin said:


> https://youtu.be/Qch0tZcZMOE
> 
> Here we go, but then you all know what incident I was refering to without the link working properly, it just doesn't suit left agenda to acknowledge it...



"Highly recommended these days to take a cranium shot"? What .... are you posting?

And if you're wondering why no one discussed it, please read the thread title. "Most racist attack I've seen IN POLITICS." Random racist attacks happen, but until these four criminals run for office, this this isn't the place to discuss them.


----------



## Vrollin

Haha hadn't actually watched the video in full before copy pasting, just grabbed the first link and slapped it in. The guy doing the video is funny, and absolutely right, when presented withe such a situation that has a knife welding attacker looking to do you harm and you have a firearm, put that ....ed in the ground, because they sure as .... do not give a .... about your well being and human rights so why should you care about theirs? Regardless of sex, race, religion...
Anyway four black kids kidnapping an autistic white kid, cutting him and shouting ".... trump", ".... white people" will no doubt remain the most racist thing that has happened during this entire election process... I guess he should have just pulled out his "white privilege" card and walked away from the situation unharmed...


----------



## vilk

Just curious V, but are you from America and living in Australia?


----------



## Randy

Vrollin said:


> when presented withe such a situation that has a knife welding attacker looking to do you harm and you have a firearm, put that ....ed in the ground, because they sure as .... do not give a .... about your well being and human rights so why should you care about theirs? Regardless of sex, race, religion...



I didn't realize anybody was arguing otherwise?


----------



## narad

Regardless, I've never heard it recommended to aim for an attacker's head, and the video guy seems to take some enjoyment in the thought of killing a "leroy". What happened to center mass?


----------



## Vrollin

narad said:


> Regardless, I've never heard it recommended to aim for an attacker's head, and the video guy seems to take some enjoyment in the thought of killing a "leroy". What happened to center mass?



Bringing a gun to a knife fight wont always mean you leave unscathed, sure it gives you one hell of an advantage but if the attacker is hell bent on doing some damage, or on some kind of drug chances are a shot to center mass may not slow them down enough to ensure no harm comes to yourself. Would that be a risk you are willing to take on your life for the sake of theirs? I hope not. Besides if it takes several rounds in the chest to slow them I doubt they are making a recovery, so its just not worth the risk IMO.

There was some really good CCTV footage demonstrating this where the attacker took on some guards, he walks straight up to them before pulling his knife and the put several round in him, he kept advancing on them, before he went down. Its scary what people can do when they are in that mind set. Cant bloody find the video...


----------



## narad

Vrollin said:


> Bringing a gun to a knife fight wont always mean you leave unscathed, sure it gives you one hell of an advantage but if the attacker is hell bent on doing some damage, or on some kind of drug chances are a shot to center mass may not slow them down enough to ensure no harm comes to yourself. Would that be a risk you are willing to take on your life for the sake of theirs? I hope not. Besides if it takes several rounds in the chest to slow them I doubt they are making a recovery, so its just not worth the risk IMO.
> 
> There was some really good CCTV footage demonstrating this where the attacker took on some guards, he walks straight up to them before pulling his knife and the put several round in him, he kept advancing on them, before he went down. Its scary what people can do when they are in that mind set. Cant bloody find the video...



I'm just confident that there's no scenario in which I find myself at the other end of some psycho killer's knife attack, who would advance on me while being shot repeatedly in the body in the hopes of landing this knife into me with their dying breath. I mean, this describes must of the pro-gun clique, right? Let me spend hours and hours and hours preparing for this incident that statistically is never going to happen to you, and would probably catch you at a disadvantage even if it were to play out.


----------



## Vrollin

narad said:


> I'm just confident that there's no scenario in which I find myself at the other end of some psycho killer's knife attack, who would advance on me while being shot repeatedly in the body in the hopes of landing this knife into me with their dying breath. I mean, this describes must of the pro-gun clique, right? Let me spend hours and hours and hours preparing for this incident that statistically is never going to happen to you, and would probably catch you at a disadvantage even if it were to play out.



I'm sure most victims of violent crime didn't plan to be attacked either.
Struggle to see what is wrong with any one who wants to prepare for the worst? Better than following the weak victim mentality that's filling the world these days...

Anyway I find it funny that his comments were enough, and they were just words, for you to change focus of a hate crime involving the actions of a group of blacks assaulting and torturing a white disabled kid to a sob about someone mentioning shooting leeroy...


----------



## narad

Was that video supposed to be about a hate crime? It was literally 70% about how to get a fast gun license and killing people. It's filled with such nice contradictions as "when seconds count" and "you can keep a lockbox in your car, or even a bag with a lock on it." So stupid. If someone really got the drop on you there's no time to run to your car to fetch your weapon, no time to undo a lock on your gun-baggy. The smartest thing to do in a violent crime situation is to run.

It changed focus because you posted a video about a wannabe George Zimmerman. There was never any content relevant to the hate crime in that video, which wasn't relevant to this topic to begin with.

By the way, I clicked one other video from that guy at random with an uninformative title -- he's talking about how to gather water from a river while watching for snipers. FFS


----------



## TedEH

Vrollin said:


> Bringing a gun to a knife fight



I didn't watch the video, so maybe this will be entirely out of context-
but I think the trick is to just not get into said knife fight in the first place.


----------



## tedtan

Vrollin said:


> Bringing a gun to a knife fight wont always mean you leave unscathed, sure it gives you one hell of an advantage but if the attacker is hell bent on doing some damage, or on some kind of drug chances are a shot to center mass may not slow them down enough to ensure no harm comes to yourself. Would that be a risk you are willing to take on your life for the sake of theirs? I hope not. Besides if it takes several rounds in the chest to slow them I doubt they are making a recovery, so its just not worth the risk IMO.



Aiming for center mass is not about leaving the attacker alive, it is about actually hitting him. If an attacker is advancing on you, his head will be moving around quite a bit, making for a difficult target to hit. Combine that with the adrenaline rush you'd have in such a situation (and the shaking hands that come along with it) and you'd be hard pressed to hit the assailant in the head.

The attacker's center mass, however, will be relatively stable as it is both much larger and will exhibit much less movement from side to side as he advances. As such, it is a shot that is both makeable under the circumstances and capable of leaving the attacker incapacitated, though not instantly (and a shot or two to the cardiopulmonary system will result in his death).

in order to instantly incapacitate your attacker, you' need something capable of transferring a massive amount of energy into the attacker causing massive shock: a powerful centerfire rifle (I'd guess at least a .270 or 30 caliber) or shotgun with large shot or slugs, or perhaps your friendly neighborhood SWAT team sniper. Handguns just don't transfer this much energy.




TedEH said:


> I think the trick is to just not get into said knife fight in the first place.



This goes a long way. A very long way, in fact.


----------



## TedEH

tedtan said:


> This goes a long way. A very long way, in fact.



I had originally written a wall of text to go with that statement, but decided it wasn't worth the cans of worms.


----------



## Vrollin

TedEH said:


> I didn't watch the video, so maybe this will be entirely out of context-
> but I think the trick is to just not get into said knife fight in the first place.



It was simply a play on the saying never bring a knife to a gun fight, you know this...


----------



## Vrollin

tedtan said:


> This goes a long way. A very long way, in fact.



I'll bet you tell rape victims the best defence is to not get raped too...


----------



## narad

Vrollin said:


> I'll bet you tell rape victims the best defence is to not get raped too...



Yep, a whole lotta dudes out there on the street trying to rape pudgy, white pickup truck drivers of ages 25-55, who are into camo and big-game hunting. Be careful.


----------



## chiliphil1




----------



## Vrollin

narad said:


> Yep, a whole lotta dudes out there on the street trying to rape pudgy, white pickup truck drivers of ages 25-55, who are into camo and big-game hunting. Be careful.



If I see anyone that fits that description I'll be sure to warn then... Have to wonder why the rapists like the drivers of white pickup trucks over any other colour though?


----------



## narad

Vrollin said:


> If I see anyone that fits that description I'll be sure to warn then... Have to wonder why the rapists like the drivers of white pickup trucks over any other colour though?



Yea, it's weird, but they're the primary gun ownership / concealed carry advocates so they must have a reason to feel so threatened by rapists.


----------



## TedEH

Vrollin said:


> [the last three or so posts]



I'm well aware of what you meant by the knife fight comment. The conversation just completely dived into nonsense after that. My point was not that you should literally avoid picking knife fights with people (which is good advice anyway), or that this is what people are actually doing, but that the majority of people who don't get themselves mixed up in sketchy situations in the first place are not at enough of a risk of random attacks to justify carrying a self-defense weapon like a gun.

In other words:


> most victims of violent crime didn't plan to be attacked either


Most violent crime I hear about (I'm talking stabbing, shooting, etc.) comes about as a result of someone putting themselves in a risky situation in the first place - drug deal gone bad, someone robbing a store, etc. If you work in a convenience store, yeah take precautions. If you're trading illegal substances, I imagine you're prepared for that too. But people don't just get randomly attacked for no reason. Maybe that's my "Canadian privilege" showing, that I assume people aren't just violent for the sake of being violent.


----------



## tedtan

Vrollin said:


> I'll bet you tell rape victims the best defence is to not get raped too...



What backwards @ss "logic" did you use to derive that gem? Where's that face-palm smiley when you need it? 

For a serious answer, see TedEH's post above (post #128).


----------



## chiliphil1

TedEH said:


> Most violent crime I hear about (I'm talking stabbing, shooting, etc.) comes about as a result of someone putting themselves in a risky situation in the first place - drug deal gone bad, someone robbing a store, etc. If you work in a convenience store, yeah take precautions. If you're trading illegal substances, I imagine you're prepared for that too. But people don't just get randomly attacked for no reason. Maybe that's my "Canadian privilege" showing, that I assume people aren't just violent for the sake of being violent.



That's not completely true in an American metropolitan area. There are many muggings, rapes, attacks on random innocent people here. You don't have to place yourself in a dangerous situation, sometimes it'll find you.


----------



## ncfiala

TedEH said:


> But people don't just get randomly attacked for no reason.



They don't? I live in a fairly small town and recently a somalian muslim "refugee" went to the mall and randomly stabbed 10 people. Recently at my alma mater Ohio State another somalian muslim "refugee" randomly injured 13 people with his vehicle and a butcher knife. We live in a different world now.


----------



## TedEH

^ These aren't examples of "random attacks" though - you're making a very specific point of highlighting a racially/politically motivated action (or series of actions) happening in one area.

I'm not saying that there's zero inherent danger to walking alone at night in a sketchy neighborhood or a downtown center populated by impoverished or disenfranchised people, but lets not pretend those attacks are random. There's motivation, and there's ways to steer clear of situations where that motivation and opportunity come together, and I think that's a much better alternative than arming people and marching into those situations anyway.

Someone mugging you is not random. That's a person with specific motivation who spotted an opportunity, and likely has no intention to actually harm you. I'm not going to make any comment about rape, cause that's a can of worms I don't want to open. Attacks are never "random". People are not random. Attacks are actions that require motivation, even if you can't see what that motivation is at a surface level.


----------



## ncfiala

TedEH said:


> there's ways to steer clear of situations where that motivation and opportunity come together


 
That is completely absurd. How were the people who were hurt in the two incidents I mentioned supposed to have steered clear? Never leave home?


----------



## TedEH

^ You're getting into a level of politics that falls outside of the point I was making.

Do I think there's a way to avoid politically-motivated attacks? Yup. I do. But that's not what I meant by avoiding marching into situations that involve known risks.

What I'm saying is don't spend your free time wandering down dark alleys, or trafficking drugs or something, and you'll have significantly lowered your risk of getting into violent confrontations. Don't pick 2am in an impoverished downtown area as the time and place to take out cash.

It's not a difficult concept, and trying to deconstruct everything I say to make an argument out of it is just walking around the point. You don't have to agree with me, but lets not put words in my mouth.


----------



## ncfiala

TedEH said:


> Do I think there's a way to avoid politically-motivated attacks? Yup. I do.


 
I'm really interested to know how these people could have reasonably avoided these attacks. If we all employed your secret method we could all be safe from terrorism. And no, never leaving one's house is not reasonable.


----------



## TedEH

ncfiala said:


> I'm really interested to know how these people could have reasonably avoided these attacks.



You're intentionally navigating away from what I said, and trying to spin it as if I was saying I have a solution for terrorism. I'm not going to engage in that line of conversation. I have no idea what point you're trying to make by arguing with me- at the end of the day, the point I'm making is simply that it is my opinion (and you're free to disagree) that unless you're doing something that incites some kind of increased level of risk, it's more often than not possible to avoid confrontations that would necessitate carrying a weapon.


----------



## ncfiala

TedEH said:


> You're intentionally navigating away from what I said


 
I am? I quoted you verbatim. You said

_Do I think there's a way to avoid politically-motivated attacks? Yup. I do._

I'm just curious as to how one goes about doing this.


----------



## narad

ncfiala said:


> I am? I quoted you verbatim. You said
> 
> _Do I think there's a way to avoid politically-motivated attacks? Yup. I do._
> 
> I'm just curious as to how one goes about doing this.



I would imagine that was more of a "treat the cause, not the symptoms" type of comment. If there was a way of avoiding these attacks, it would be implemented in airports and holiday gatherings, etc.

But what I think is funny is that your likelihood of being in a politically-motivated attack in the US over the last 10 years is...probably less than 0.000009%? Whereas the odds of you getting heart disease with a typical American diet is probably..what? 30%? It seems that the desire to have guns for self protection from terrorists and thugs is much higher than the desire for self protection from a typical American lifestyle. Why not focus on what's really likely to kill you? 

And further more, in the realm of protection, why aren't any guys carrying around tasers, or mace, or kevlar? It seems that the desire to have a killing weapon trumps any alternative, despite having less risk of self harm, hurting a bystander, or falling into the wrong hands. I mean honestly I think I heard of more incidents of toddlers killing people with guns last year than terrorists killing people (in the US).

90% of the time I see a pro-gun advocate on facebook, everything the guy posts will be pseudo macho posts, but he'll be out of shape and really mild-looking. Just comes across much more as compensating than self protection.


----------



## tedtan

I live in Houston, so violent crime is not so unfamiliar to me (I've actually seen first hand a guy stabbed and lying in a pool of blood while driving to work). I own guns, shoot guns, and have a concealed carry license, but don't carry. Why not? I don't need to carry. Why don't I need to carry? For the reasons TedEH said above.

Most violent crime is drug related, and that which is not is most often carried out as a byproduct of robbery or other criminal activity or is personal (e.g., a wife killing her husband because he had an affair, a child killing a parent for insurance money, etc.). By avoiding such situations (e.g., don't congregate in areas where drug dealers congregate, don't hang out in stores that are prone to being robbed like convenience stores and jewelry stores) you can avoid most of these situations. Most, not all.

Sometimes things happen that you can't avoid. Maybe it's someone breaking into your house, maybe its an active shooter in a school, whatever. You can't predict when and where it will happen, so you can't avoid it. So what do you do?

Your best option is to get the f_u_ck out of that situation as quickly and inconspicuously as possible. If you can't exercise option one, your next best option is to hide behind something that will stop bullets (e.g., concrete and steel) should the attacker start shooting. If neither of these options is available to you, then you can fight back. But fighting back is not a good option, so it should only be done as a last resort. When possible, get out of Dodge, so to speak.


----------



## TedEH

narad said:


> I would imagine that was more of a "treat the cause, not the symptoms" type of comment.



Thank you, that's exactly what I meant.


----------



## UnderTheSign

On the topic of refugee terrorism and statistics: what's more likely in the states, getting shot by a Muslim
or some angry upper middle class white kid who's mad about being friendzoned and fueled by r/MRA?

And who's more likely to be portrayed as actually evil minded VS "troubled" in media reports?


----------



## CapnForsaggio

UnderTheSign said:


> On the topic of refugee terrorism and statistics: what's more likely in the states, getting shot by a Muslim
> or some angry upper middle class white kid who's mad about being friendzoned and fueled by r/MRA?
> 
> And who's more likely to be portrayed as actually evil minded VS "troubled" in media reports?



Irrelevant. 

Are you more likely to be killed by a drunk driver or plane crash? 

It doesn't mean we shouldn't test pilots....


----------



## TedEH

I'm a bit sad that this is what people got out of my comment. Not at all the direction I was trying to go.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

TedEH said:


> I'm a bit sad that this is what people got out of my comment. Not at all the direction I was trying to go.



The road to hell is paved with good intentions 

Sorry man.


----------



## TedEH

To be fair, most other forums I visit with any regularity would be entirely unable to have the discussion at all, so.... you win some you lose some. It's a lot of why I appreciate this place. Not to toot our collective horn, or anything.


----------



## narad

TedEH said:


> I'm a bit sad that this is what people got out of my comment. Not at all the direction I was trying to go.



I think it's running wild off of the tangent I brought up. 

I still feel, and would agree if it's your position, that you can minimize risk of a non-political violent attack by being smart about the situations you put yourself in, minimize risk in these situations resulting in harm to you by fleeing, and minimize risk of a political violent attack by changing policy and outlook at a national level. And all of these together (or really just the first two, statistically speaking) pretty much nullifies any need for having a gun on your hip*.


----------



## zappatton2

TedEH said:


> I'm a bit sad that this is what people got out of my comment. Not at all the direction I was trying to go.



I get what you're saying. The chances of a random violent attack happening on the street, while not impossible, is statistically unlikely enough that the idea of needing to be weaponized at all times seems extremely unreasonable.

I think it's fair to note that while there are many admirable traits with regards to the distinctly American brand of individualism and self-reliance, an adversarial relationship with your community (to the point of a literal civilian arms race) creates a far less safe situation collectively than any assurances it might provide individually. Forget about American gun-free zones, or essentially demilitarized islands in a sea of weapons, I think at the national level, statistics between the U.S. and most other developed nations bears this concern out.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

zappatton2 said:


> I get what you're saying. The chances of a random violent attack happening on the street, while not impossible, is statistically unlikely enough that the idea of needing to be weaponized at all times seems extremely unreasonable.
> 
> I think it's fair to note that while there are many admirable traits with regards to the distinctly American brand of individualism and self-reliance, an adversarial relationship with your community (to the point of a literal civilian arms race) creates a far less safe situation collectively than any assurances it might provide individually. Forget about American gun-free zones, or essentially demilitarized islands in a sea of weapons, I think at the national level, statistics between the U.S. and most other developed nations bears this concern out.



We used to refer to this "American brand of individualism and self-reliance" as "the use of our personal freedoms" and considered it an advantage over other countries.... Back when we were great, and every person in the world wanted to move here for economic opportunity.

How many people move to the US (legally) for opportunity now?


----------



## narad

CapnForsaggio said:


> We used to refer to this "American brand of individualism and self-reliance" as "the use of our personal freedoms" and considered it an advantage over other countries.... Back when we were great, and every person in the world wanted to move here for economic opportunity.
> 
> How many people move to the US (legally) for opportunity now?



As we veer into a whole new tangent... the economic prosperity of America in the 1950s-1970s was largely due to all its economic competitors bombing each other's industries into oblivion. It was most certainly not tied in any way to gun ownership. In fact, when you think of America in the 1950s, I don't think carrying guns springs to anyone's mind.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

narad said:


> As we veer into a whole new tangent... the economic prosperity of America in the 1950s-1970s was largely due to all its economic competitors bombing each other's industries into oblivion. It was most certainly not tied in any way to gun ownership. In fact, when you think of America in the 1950s, I don't think carrying guns springs to anyone's mind.



You are totally wrong:

1) Cold war
2) Space race
3) High levels of manufacturing employment

It was not an era of "bombing into oblivion" ... everyone had enough of that in the 40's.


----------



## narad

CapnForsaggio said:


> You are totally wrong:
> 
> 1) Cold war
> 2) Space race
> 3) High levels of manufacturing employment
> 
> It was not an era of "bombing into oblivion" ... everyone had enough of that in the 40's.



Missed my point. Everyone's manufacturer infrastructure was laid waste, and the only industrial powers left who didn't incur a large toll both in terms of infrastructure, and the manpower to utilize it, were the US and Russia. If you have trouble grasping the scope of just how economically devastating the war was to the rest of the world, London just reached it's pre-war population in 2015. And since economics is a zero sum game, the US reaped the benefits for decades.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

narad said:


> Missed my point. Everyone's manufacturer infrastructure was laid waste, and the only industrial powers left who didn't incur a large toll both in terms of infrastructure, and the manpower to utilize it, were the US and Russia. If you have trouble grasping the scope of just how economically devastating the war was to the rest of the world, London just reached it's pre-war population in 2015. And since economics is a zero sum game, the US reaped the benefits for decades.



I hear what you are saying, I just disagree that economics is a "zero sum game."

Regardless of people would like to believe, "winning" does exist, and it feels good. Overtime, the impetus to "win" increases the quality of life for everyone.

I do not see a way past our ideological impasse, so I will resign this argument here. Have a great weekend.


----------



## TedEH

CapnForsaggio said:


> We used to refer to this "American brand of individualism and self-reliance" as "the use of our personal freedoms"



That's the beauty of language - you can spin it whatever way you want. It doesn't change the reality of what you're talking about though. At the end of the day, there's no statistical need to use said freedom, even if it's great to have that freedom. Having freedom is not always about using it. Just because you're free to do something (and I'm fully in support of people having as much freedom as they want), doesn't mean that you SHOULD exercise that freedom.

To put it in seven-string-guitars terminology, you don't buy high-wattage tube amps for the volume, you buy them for the headroom. You CAN crank it and give everyone in the room tinnitus, but you probably shouldn't.  Edit: Yeah, that was a stretch, but I tried. Failed, but tried, hah.

Or to put it in a slightly condescending way, it's kind of like when a kid asks you to do something and you say no, because they're not old enough. It's an intentional restriction of their freedom, because in most of those scenarios, they're not yet responsible enough to recognize when it's more appropriate not to exercise said freedom even if they want to.


----------



## bostjan

narad said:


> Missed my point. Everyone's manufacturer infrastructure was laid waste, and the only industrial powers left who didn't incur a large toll both in terms of infrastructure, and the manpower to utilize it, were the US and Russia. If you have trouble grasping the scope of just how economically devastating the war was to the rest of the world, London just reached it's pre-war population in 2015. And since economics is a zero sum game, the US reaped the benefits for decades.



Well, economics is not a zero-sum game. Economics is a multifaceted matrix of games, some of which are zero sum, some of which are positive sum, and some of which are negative sum. World War II was a negative sum game, though.

I guess what I'm saying is that your point is somewhat understated. Lots of folks in the right-wing in the USA seem to repeat the mantra that "World War II lead to economic prosperity," but those folks are confused. Ten years ago, I would say, "Well, ask a handfull of the folks who lived through the ordeal and ask them if they concur with that," but, sadly, the generation of people who were adults during the war is waning. It does not take a economics professor to figure out that a military conflict that completely obliterated several countries, killed millions of people, displaced millions more, and ended with the total vaporization of two densely populated (civilian) cities, was, in no way, beneficial to the human race.

The USSR played both sides in the war, and made the most out of many opportunities presented them during the war, yet, still, ask anybody who survived the war there if it was worth it, or, hell, if they were any better off after the war than before, and then see how annoyed they get at your question.

The USA, we were on the opposite side of the globe from the devastation. A lot of the best scientists in the world came to the USA to be as far away from Europe and Asia and Africa as they could be, and the Manhattan Project succeeded because of those people. The US's establishment as the first nuclear superpower meant that we went from being the cool eccentric cousin who rarely came to visit to being the cousin of whom everyone else was afraid. Establishing Japan and West Germany as protectorate minions was a move that made Europe and the Pacific safer for our friends, but also allowed us to exploit resources.

So yeah, WWII might have been some benefit for the USA (and surely would have been bad for us, if not for the Manhattan Project), but, overall, was a terrible thing for the world as a whole.


----------



## narad

^^ Dude, you're all over the place. In other words, no one said, "It does not take a economics professor to figure out that a military conflict that completely obliterated several countries, killed millions of people, displaced millions more, and ended with the total vaporization of two densely populated (civilian) cities, was, in no way, beneficial to the human race." Human race? This is a discussion about America, and it was extremely economically beneficial for the American economy and quality of life for decades afterwards. This was both by improving domestic infrastructure, talent, and workforce, as well as destroying these same aspects in countries that previously would have competed in the global markets.

That is to say, it certainly wasn't due to being able to own guns.

And the Manhattan project wasn't important for winning the war or economic success afterwards.


----------



## Andromalia

I think you're too far reaching. The USA economic success comes from the fact that they are a nation with a huge population, bigger than any EU country. That'w why the EU countries made the EU. (Gross oversimplification but that's the gist of it)
Who's today's rising power ? China. Human rights issues aside, they went from an agrarian country to an industrial superpower because they have the manpower to do so.
I believe at some point it's the economies of scale and political stability that make the difference.


----------



## bostjan

narad said:


> ^^ Dude, you're all over the place. In other words, no one said, "It does not take a economics professor to figure out that a military conflict that completely obliterated several countries, killed millions of people, displaced millions more, and ended with the total vaporization of two densely populated (civilian) cities, was, in no way, beneficial to the human race." Human race? This is a discussion about America, and it was extremely economically beneficial for the American economy and quality of life for decades afterwards. This was both by improving domestic infrastructure, talent, and workforce, as well as destroying these same aspects in countries that previously would have competed in the global markets.
> 
> That is to say, it certainly wasn't due to being able to own guns.



Actually, this is a discussion about a political candidate's off colour remarks. So, what's your point?



narad said:


> And the Manhattan project wasn't important for winning the war or economic success afterwards.



Are you serious? You can't possibly believe that.



Andromalia said:


> I think you're too far reaching. The USA economic success comes from the fact that they are a nation with a huge population, bigger than any EU country. That'w why the EU countries made the EU. (Gross oversimplification but that's the gist of it)
> Who's today's rising power ? China. Human rights issues aside, they went from an agrarian country to an industrial superpower because they have the manpower to do so.
> I believe at some point it's the economies of scale and political stability that make the difference.



Ok, population is correlated to economic prosperity, but assuming that it is a major cause, and not an effect, is naive. The baby boom coincided with the golden age of USA prosperity. Is your model based off of babies somehow bringing in more economic prosperity? 

What even are you guys disagreeing with? That WWII was a negative sum game? That the Manhattan Project was not crucial in ending the war to maximum benefit of the USA? I'm not clear.

If you think the Manhattan Project had nothing to do with the end of the military conflict in WWII, or that WWII was not a negative sum game, economically, then I really question which history books and economics books you are studying.


----------



## narad

bostjan said:


> Actually, this is a discussion about a political candidate's off colour remarks. So, what's your point?



Well I'm arguing that America's values had next to nothing to do with their rise as a world power in the postwar era, so yea, I'm kind of on point with respect to the guy arguing otherwise. By talking about whether WWII was good for humanity, you've completely fabricated some point to argue against -- no one is saying that.



bostjan said:


> Are you serious? You can't possibly believe that.



Yea, me and most history professors? Japan was done for by then -- already exhausted and soon facing a Russian approach. In fact, they were already willing to surrender but wanted to negotiate terms like they still had some leverage. The bombs were really just payback.



bostjan said:


> Ok, population is correlated to economic prosperity, but assuming that it is a major cause, and not an effect, is naive. The baby boom coincided with the golden age of USA prosperity. Is your model based off of babies somehow bringing in more economic prosperity?



"For the United States, World War II and the Great Depression constituted the most important economic event of the twentieth century. The wars effects were varied and far-reaching. The war decisively ended the depression itself. The federal government emerged from the war as a potent economic actor, able to regulate economic activity and to partially control the economy through spending and consumption. American industry was revitalized by the war, and many sectors were by 1945 either sharply oriented to defense production (for example, aerospace and electronics) or completely dependent on it (atomic energy). The organized labor movement, strengthened by the war beyond even its depression-era height, became a major counterbalance to both the government and private industry. The wars rapid scientific and technological changes continued and intensified trends begun during the Great Depression and created a permanent expectation of continued innovation on the part of many scientists, engineers, government officials and citizens. Similarly, the substantial increases in personal income and frequently, if not always, in quality of life during the war led many Americans to foresee permanent improvements to their material circumstances, even as others feared a postwar return of the depression. Finally, the wars global scale severely damaged every major economy in the world except for the United States, which thus enjoyed unprecedented economic and political power after 1945."



bostjan said:


> If you think the Manhattan Project had nothing to do with the end of the military conflict in WWII, or that WWII was not a negative sum game, economically, then I really question which history books and economics books you are studying.



Too strong a point ("nothing to do"), but was it important or necessary to do so? No. That is the American romanticized WWII story.


----------



## bostjan

narad said:


> Well I'm arguing that America's values had next to nothing to do with their rise as a world power in the postwar era, so yea, I'm kind of on point with respect to the guy arguing otherwise. By talking about whether WWII was good for humanity, you've completely fabricated some point to argue against -- no one is saying that.
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, me and most history professors? Japan was done for by then -- already exhausted and soon facing a Russian approach. In fact, they were already willing to surrender but wanted to negotiate terms like they still had some leverage. The bombs were really just payback.
> 
> 
> 
> "For the United States, World War II and the Great Depression constituted the most important economic event of the twentieth century. The wars effects were varied and far-reaching. The war decisively ended the depression itself. The federal government emerged from the war as a potent economic actor, able to regulate economic activity and to partially control the economy through spending and consumption. American industry was revitalized by the war, and many sectors were by 1945 either sharply oriented to defense production (for example, aerospace and electronics) or completely dependent on it (atomic energy). The organized labor movement, strengthened by the war beyond even its depression-era height, became a major counterbalance to both the government and private industry. The wars rapid scientific and technological changes continued and intensified trends begun during the Great Depression and created a permanent expectation of continued innovation on the part of many scientists, engineers, government officials and citizens. Similarly, the substantial increases in personal income and frequently, if not always, in quality of life during the war led many Americans to foresee permanent improvements to their material circumstances, even as others feared a postwar return of the depression. Finally, the wars global scale severely damaged every major economy in the world except for the United States, which thus enjoyed unprecedented economic and political power after 1945."
> 
> 
> 
> Too strong a point ("nothing to do"), but was it important or necessary to do so? No. That is the American romanticized WWII story.



Dude, I'm all for intelligent discourse about all things historical, but, regarding the dropping of the atomic bomb ending the war, you are flat-out wrong. Quoting an unnamed source, stating without qualification that "most history professors" agree with you is just lazy discussion tactics.

Hirohito is the ultimate source for why Japan surrendered, and his surrender claimed it was because of the bomb:



Hirohito's Surrender said:


> Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.



That's it, discussion over, unless you have some secret weapon regarding this discussion, otherwise, don't even go there, because the matter is already buttoned up.

I don't disagree that the tides of war had already changed, obviously, they had, but the war was not over; the Japanese were not surrendering until after the second bomb dropped. And if the actual surrender says it's because of the bomb, then that's the end of the matter.

Regarding WWII ending the Great Depression, the Great Depression was over before the USA's entry in WWII:







The graph (source: https://measuringworth.com/usgdp/ ) shows how the Great Depression GDP compared with normalized growth over the period. Note that the slope of the recovery in the GDP was steep enough to approach recover before the war started, and that the USA had returned to normalized growth about the same time it entered the war.

So, the war did not end the depression, but, that does not address the point that the war may have further accelerated growth - what it does mean is that the USA was already in a state of rapid growth, which may have easily influenced the decision to go to war.

Anyway, this is all digression, but, I could not allow your assertions to go unanswered. I'm an arrogant bastard, so I just can't let someone tell me I'm wrong over and over again on different threads without making my case for why I'm not just some ignorant idiot spouting off about history that happened before he was born.


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> That's it, discussion over, unless you have some secret weapon regarding this discussion, otherwise, don't even go there, because the matter is already buttoned up.
> 
> I don't disagree that the tides of war had already changed, obviously, they had, but the war was not over; the Japanese were not surrendering until after the second bomb dropped. And if the actual surrender says it's because of the bomb, then that's the end of the matter.



Surrender is a very politicized situation, plus, the victor tends to write the history books, often slanting them in his own favor (especially if he's an arrogant bastard ), so I doubt that it's quite that cut and dried.


----------



## vilk

Also consider that the Emperor was a political figurehead of an oligarchy which was running Japan. It wouldn't have even been his personal decision to surrender. 

_Interesting factoid: The Emperor of Japan speaks a special "royal dialect" of Japanese. When he announced Japan's surrender over the radio, most people who heard it actually had no idea what he said._


----------



## bostjan

tedtan said:


> Surrender is a very politicized situation, plus, the victor tends to write the history books, often slanting them in his own favor (especially if he's an arrogant bastard ), so I doubt that it's quite that cut and dried.



So the allies got to choose Hirohito's words?!

You post-modern "thinkers" really want me to be wrong. The thing is, in most cases, there is plenty of room for discussion, but in the case of the statement:



narad said:


> And the Manhattan project wasn't important for winning the war or economic success afterwards.



it's simply a matter of historical facts. Yes, it's a cause and effect, which is usually difficult to prove, but if two nations are at war, and one nation drops an a bomb on the the other, then, just a few days later, does it again, and then the leader of the bombed nation says he is surrendering because of the new bomb, then the cause and effect is pretty darn well established. If some part of that story is regarded as a hoax, I'd like to hear some good reasons why.


----------



## tedtan

I never claimed it was a hoax, I'm merely pointing out that there is a lot of room between saying that the atomic bomb played a significant causal role in Japan's surrender, though perhaps not the only causal role, and saying:



bostjan said:


> Hirohito... claimed it was because of the bomb... That's it, discussion over... that's the end of the matter.


----------



## bostjan

tedtan said:


> I never claimed it was a hoax, I'm merely pointing out that there is a lot of room between saying that the atomic bomb played a significant causal role in Japan's surrender, though perhaps not the only causal role, and saying:



Well, I guess you and I don't really disagree, then. If you believe the bomb had a significant causal role in Japan's surrender, and I'm not claiming anything beyond that it was the most significant cause, it sounds like we are on the same page.

If another user says that the bomb wasn't important in the end of the war, then my beef is with him, or, more specifically, his point. It doesn't help that said user, in 9/10 discussions here, takes a contrary role to just about everything I say, regardless of the topic.

You can parse together the fact that Hirohito said, in his surrender address, which ended the last military conflict of the war, that the bomb was the reason why Japan could not continue fighting, and that the bomb was important in the end of the war. The thought that the bombs were insignificant in the end of the war, "just a payback" to exact revenge on an already-surrendering Japan, is just based outside of facts.


----------



## narad

Eh, the problem with the narrative taught in the US is that it lacks subtlety and an appreciation for some of the big-picture aspects of the war. 

Let's say we're walking to a store together, but along the way you see a bike by the side of the road. You hop on and beat me to the store by 5 minutes. Was the bike an important factor for arriving at the store _quickly_? Yes. But was it an important factor for arriving at the store? No. We all get there anyway.

Japan's role in this latter part of WWII is like this. The nice thing about having the war so far behind us is that we now have access to all these conversations between high-ranking US officials, and between high-ranking Japanese officials, private interviews, diaries, etc., that can inform of us what people really thought regarding their strategies and outcomes in the war, and this is true of the bomb too. And let's just say that as a guy who used to live in Japan dating a girl from Hiroshima, I've heard a lot of divided opinions on the matter of whether the bombing was necessary, and I've had to do a lot of extra curricular reading about it. 

But in all angles of this debate, I don't think I've ever once heard an opinion that there was any doubt regarding Japan's inevitable surrender. The bomb may have pushed the timetable, but infrastructure on Honshu was already heavily laid waste, Tokyo was fire bombed severely the month before, and the Soviets began advancing into Japan-occupied territory the same day. It was over. It was well-understood in Japan that it was over. The only domestic issue at that point was bringing about an end-of-conflict that gave a favorable outcome to Japan. But the US would have preferred the war end as quickly as possible to avoid further Soviet advancement and a divided German-esque postwar situation, and also used the bomb to basically establish total control over the terms of the surrender.

So getting back to the main point -- the point I contest is this:



bostjan said:


> ve been some benefit for the USA (and surely would have been bad for us, if not for the Manhattan Project), but, overall, was a terrible thing for the world as a whole.



Well, depends on "bad for us." I took that to mean we would actually suffer losses comparable to other countries that participated heavily in WWII. But the reality is a projected ~500k or so US casualties at the time as part of operation downfall -- the US land invasion of Japan, but probably much less. Projections were based on foreign assessments of Japanese power and probably an over-estimation of civilian involvement.

So if that's the point -- the Manhattan Project saved us ~500k soldiers in a march to Tokyo, eh, I can't say it's not a possibility. But given the Japanese were already discussing surrendering prior to the bomb drop, I'd say it's unlikely, and anything Japanese military involvement outside of Japan from that point on would be a pipe dream. And to the real, major point -- losing 500k people sucks, but it seems unlikely to make a major economic impact on a country with a then-population of 130M.


----------



## bostjan

narad said:


> Eh, the problem with the narrative taught in the US is that it lacks subtlety and an appreciation for some of the big-picture aspects of the war.
> 
> Let's say we're walking to a store together, but along the way you see a bike by the side of the road. You hop on and beat me to the store by 5 minutes. Was the bike an important factor for arriving at the store _quickly_? Yes. But was it an important factor for arriving at the store? No. We all get there anyway.
> 
> Japan's role in this latter part of WWII is like this. The nice thing about having the war so far behind us is that we now have access to all these conversations between high-ranking US officials, and between high-ranking Japanese officials, private interviews, diaries, etc., that can inform of us what people really thought regarding their strategies and outcomes in the war, and this is true of the bomb too. And let's just say that as a guy who used to live in Japan dating a girl from Hiroshima, I've heard a lot of divided opinions on the matter of whether the bombing was necessary, and I've had to do a lot of extra curricular reading about it.
> 
> But in all angles of this debate, I don't think I've ever once heard an opinion that there was any doubt regarding Japan's inevitable surrender. The bomb may have pushed the timetable, but infrastructure on Honshu was already heavily laid waste, Tokyo was fire bombed severely the month before, and the Soviets began advancing into Japan-occupied territory the same day. It was over. It was well-understood in Japan that it was over. The only domestic issue at that point was bringing about an end-of-conflict that gave a favorable outcome to Japan. But the US would have preferred the war end as quickly as possible to avoid further Soviet advancement and a divided German-esque postwar situation, and also used the bomb to basically establish total control over the terms of the surrender.
> 
> So getting back to the main point -- the point I contest is this:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, depends on "bad for us." I took that to mean we would actually suffer losses comparable to other countries that participated heavily in WWII. But the reality is a projected ~500k or so US casualties at the time as part of operation downfall -- the US land invasion of Japan, but probably much less. Projections were based on foreign assessments of Japanese power and probably an over-estimation of civilian involvement.
> 
> So if that's the point -- the Manhattan Project saved us ~500k soldiers in a march to Tokyo, eh, I can't say it's not a possibility. But given the Japanese were already discussing surrendering prior to the bomb drop, I'd say it's unlikely, and anything Japanese military involvement outside of Japan from that point on would be a pipe dream. And to the real, major point -- losing 500k people sucks, but it seems unlikely to make a major economic impact on a country with a then-population of 130M.



Addressing your analogy, in that case, in hindsight, the bike was an important factor in me getting to the store, and it's ridiculous to argue otherwise, since it already happened. We are not talking about how I could get to the store in the future, but, rather, how I got to the store. One is concrete and the other is abstract: what happened/what could have happened.

In the case of Japan: Japan was not winning the war, but, then again, they had not been in a winning position for a long time. There is no doubt that their surrender was precipitated by the nuclear bomb, not just because of the coincidence of their surrender coming immediately after the bombings, but because they said so. How long they would have kept fighting had it not been for the bomb is an interesting topic, but it does not supplant what actually happened.

The thought that a ground invasion on the Japanese homeland would have not had any major economic impact on the USA is just another one with which I would have to disagree.

If you want to explore the what if's, that could be an entire message board.

The Soviets were already having diplomatic problems with the USA before the Germans surrendered, and the USSR had faced the economic difficulties of bearing the entire brunt of the last push on the Eastern Front at the end of the war, not to mention war with Finland. Between the economic problems and the strained relationship with the USA, there was no guarantee the Soviets would have helped in the Pacific.


----------



## narad

bostjan said:


> If you want to explore the what if's, that could be an entire message board.



But as soon as you said this:



bostjan said:


> and surely would have been bad for us, if not for the Manhattan Project



We were in what-if land.


----------



## bostjan

And I'm not opposed to what-if's. I merely said that there are a lot of them.


----------



## Tortellini

Jesus Christ it's like a ....ing buzzfeed article in here. 

There is no wage gap. If you think there is, show me the proof. After all the burden of proof lies on those who make the claim. Women make less IN GENERAL because they are more likely to work part time and work in lower paying fields. There is no proof women make less for working the same jobs. If they did, companies would hire more women to save money.

White privilege is complete garbage. You ever been in a ....ing trailer park? You seen these PRIVELEGED white kids eating ....ing dog food because it's cheaper for their (I hate to call them this) 'parents' to buy than actual food? Ever seen infants left alone outside in the cold because mommy got sick of hearing them cry? I have. Every race of people struggles. Every race of human is equally disgusting and pathetic. None is more privileged than an other.


----------



## narad

If you pop in to bump a thread this old, I'd at least expect to see a less stupid, head-in-the-sand reply.


----------



## Tortellini

narad said:


> If you pop in to bump a thread this old, I'd at least expect to see a less stupid, head-in-the-sand reply.


Tell me exactly what was wrong about what I said.


----------



## narad

The fact that your suggested counterexample would only fit if the working definition of "white privilege" is that of "white people can't fail at life." Of course there are trailer homes filled with white people. You think that proves _anything_? That white privilege means anyone caucasian child gets a condo with his birth certificate?? That's not what is meant by white privilege, something I won't try to define again as it's been discussed ad nauseam in this thread. It makes me think you either didn't actually read the thread, or weren't capable of processing the information.

Regarding the gender pay gap, let's focus on one particular field (thus completely sidestepping your argument that women tend to work in less lucrative fields). How then would you explain the findings of this article, which control for a number of other factors you're not even mentioning?

http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-0323-pay-gap-20160323-story.html

Like damn dude, tell me something that _wasn't _ wrong about what you said.


----------



## UnderTheSign

"the burden of proof lies on he who makes the claims"
*makes a bunch of claims, no proof to be found*

Uh, yeah, man. It's super edgy to compare opinions that don't suit yours as buzzfeed level sh!t 
Really, if you've read the whole thread and all you could muster was "privilege doesn't exist because there's poor white folks", maybe try reading it again. You might even find proof.


----------



## Tortellini

UnderTheSign said:


> "the burden of proof lies on he who makes the claims"
> *makes a bunch of claims, no proof to be found*
> 
> Uh, yeah, man. It's super edgy to compare opinions that don't suit yours as buzzfeed level sh!t
> Really, if you've read the whole thread and all you could muster was "privilege doesn't exist because there's poor white folks", maybe try reading it again. You might even find proof.


I refuted claims. Saying there is no wage gap is not a claim, it is refuting a claim. I never said there was a wage gap. Someone else did. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sJScg78Rlc


Look, honestly we should just respectfully agree to disagree because you obviously are set in your beliefs as I am in mine.


----------



## narad

Tortellini said:


> I refuted claims. Saying there is no wage gap is not a claim, it is refuting a claim. I never said there was a wage gap. Someone else did.



This is some dense @#$%. I say there's a wage gap. You say there isn't. That's 2 claims. There's not a de facto state of the world in which there is equality for everyone, and then someone "makes a claim" by suggesting that there isn't.

And to refute a study you usually have to provide more than just your opinion.


----------



## Tortellini

narad said:


> This is some dense @#$%. I say there's a wage gap. You say there isn't. That's 2 claims. There's not a de facto state of the world in which there is equality for everyone, and then someone "makes a claim" by suggesting that there isn't.
> 
> And to refute a study you usually have to provide more than just your opinion.


Like I said, let's agree to disagree. I don't see this going anywhere positive.


----------



## narad

I only agree to disagree with people who do their due diligence in bringing researched, empirically supported perspectives to the table. To you sir, I say goodbye.


----------



## JSanta

narad said:


> I only agree to disagree with people who do their due diligence in bringing researched, empirically supported perspectives to the table. To you sir, I say goodbye.



Seems to be a common problem, opinions trumping facts that is.


----------



## HerbalDude420

JSanta said:


> Seems to be a common problem, opinions trumping facts that is.



That is exactly what got trump elected. 


Whether or not there was inequality in the work place was not up for debate. Is it as prevalent as it once was no but that does not mean it still doesn't exist. It is scary to think how prevalent in America right now that opinions and religion are trumping facts and common decency to your fellow man.


----------



## Tortellini

> I only agree to disagree with people who do their due diligence in bringing researched, empirically supported perspectives to the table. To you sir, I say goodbye.


----------



## Tortellini

AIDS SKRILLEX STANDS WITH YOU


----------



## USMarine75

narad said:


> Everyone's manufacturer infrastructure was laid waste, and the only industrial powers left who didn't incur a large toll both in terms of infrastructure, and the manpower to utilize it, were the US and Russia. If you have trouble grasping the scope of just how economically devastating the war was to the rest of the world, London just reached it's pre-war population in 2015.



"Although the Soviet Union was victorious in World War II, its economy had been devastated in the struggle. Roughly a quarter of the country's capital resources had been destroyed, and industrial and agricultural output in 1945 fell far short of prewar levels."

Also, the war cost Russia 20-27M (some even say up to 40M) men of reproductive and working age, out of a total pre-war male population of ~85M. By comparison, the US lost about 400,000 troops (and very few civilian casualties).

http://www.euronews.com/2015/05/04/how-world-war-ii-shaped-modern-russia
https://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Soviet2.html



narad said:


> And since economics is a zero sum game, the US reaped the benefits for decades.



http://www.asktheharvardmba.com/2008/05/03/is-global-economics-a-zero-sum-game/
http://political-economy.com/zero-sum-economy/


----------



## narad

narad said:


> I only agree to disagree with people who do their due diligence in bringing* researched, empirically supported perspectives to the table*. To you sir, I say goodbye.





Tortellini said:


> BAD MEMES


----------



## narad

USMarine75 said:


> "Although the Soviet Union was victorious in World War II, its economy had been devastated in the struggle. Roughly a quarter of the country's capital resources had been destroyed, and industrial and agricultural output in 1945 fell far short of prewar levels."
> 
> Also, the war cost Russia 20-27M (some even say up to 40M) men of reproductive and working age, out of a total pre-war male population of ~85M. By comparison, the US lost about 400,000 troops (and very few civilian casualties).
> 
> http://www.euronews.com/2015/05/04/how-world-war-ii-shaped-modern-russia
> https://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Soviet2.html
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.asktheharvardmba.com/2008/05/03/is-global-economics-a-zero-sum-game/
> http://political-economy.com/zero-sum-economy/



Yes and no. 

A zero-sum game is a simple economic model that I bring up because it fits the discussion really well. A positive-sum game is probably a better economic model in a postwar world, since complex non-competitive dynamics arise between countries -- so economic experts would sometimes pop in to say the simple zero-sum game is not appropriate. They're right - there are more issues at play.

However, ultimately, there are (we believe) finite resources in the universe and so at the most macro scale, in the grandest view of economics, it is a zero-sum game: someone utilizing a resource does so at the cost of your potential use of that resource. So any expert that says economics isn't a zero-sum game is technically going to be wrong, though they're only because they were trying to be useful (and there's nothing useful about talking about winners in the heat death of the universe).

Buuuut I'm talking about the simplest model and applying it in a limited fashion, and it should be obvious why. At its coarsest level, there are producers and consumers. When you take half of the world's producers and turn them into consumers, the remaining producers are in a better position to prosper. WWII was a lot like this. 

I really don't know why people like to pick against this claim unless they just want to argue. To be clear, arguing against this point is basically saying that Geramny, Japan, China, Ukraine, or any of the other totally ravaged countries had a comparatively greater competitive advantage in postwar WWII in comparison to the US. This is true of the USSR in terms of manpower (but not infrastructure) -- maybe that's why it was US policy to push them into a war of economics they were destined to lose.


----------



## ElRay

Tortellini said:


> I refuted claims. Saying there is no wage gap is not a claim, it is refuting a claim. I never said there was a wage gap. Someone else did.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sJScg78Rlc
> 
> 
> Look, honestly we should just respectfully agree to disagree because you obviously are set in your beliefs as I am in mine.



Yeah, yet another teenage low-post count arrogantly ignorant newbie. Time to get off mommy's computer, put on your jammies, brush your teeth and go to bed. You're obviously up past your bedtime and cranky.


----------



## Tortellini

ElRay said:


> Yeah, yet another teenage low-post count arrogantly ignorant newbie. Time to get off mommy's computer, put on your jammies, brush your teeth and go to bed. You're obviously up past your bedtime and cranky.


Oh God. That hurt. You're saying.. I'm bad at the online message board?
Man. I don't know how I'm gonna recover from that one babe.


----------



## narad

Tortellini said:


> Oh God. That hurt. You're saying.. I'm bad at the online message board?
> Man. I don't know how I'm gonna recover from that one babe.



We get it, man. Sarcasm is super cool. The wittiest person I know? Daria.

However, this is the discussion subforum, so if you're not here to discuss you're wasting everyone's time. And people who are purposely wasting people's time here tend not to last very long in this 
"Strictly moderated forum, so use your better judgement when posting."


----------



## Tortellini

narad said:


> We get it, man. Sarcasm is super cool. The wittiest person I know? Daria.
> 
> However, this is the discussion subforum, so if you're not here to discuss you're wasting everyone's time. And people who are purposely wasting people's time here tend not to last very long in this
> "Strictly moderated forum, so use your better judgement when posting."


Really. What ElRay said is cool, but what I said isn't? 

Why are you wasting time warning me? Go get me kicked off!

I'll keep being a dick if you don't.


----------



## narad

Tortellini said:


> Why are you wasting time warning me? Go get me kicked off!
> I'm gonna keep being a dick if you don't!



That's not my bag. If you keep (intentionally...maybe unintentionally) being a dick, you'll be dealt with and I couldn't really care less.


----------



## Tortellini

narad said:


> That's not my bag. If you keep (intentionally...maybe unintentionally) being a dick, you'll be dealt with and I couldn't really care less.


You seem to be pretty offended. You keep replying to me babe.


----------



## narad

If you're not expecting a reply, maybe don't ask a question.


----------



## USMarine75

narad said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> A zero-sum game is a simple economic model that I bring up because it fits the discussion really well. A positive-sum game is probably a better economic model in a postwar world, since complex non-competitive dynamics arise between countries -- so economic experts would sometimes pop in to say the simple zero-sum game is not appropriate. They're right - there are more issues at play.
> 
> However, ultimately, there are (we believe) finite resources in the universe and so at the most macro scale, in the grandest view of economics, it is a zero-sum game: someone utilizing a resource does so at the cost of your potential use of that resource. So any expert that says economics isn't a zero-sum game is technically going to be wrong, though they're only because they were trying to be useful (and there's nothing useful about talking about winners in the heat death of the universe).
> 
> Buuuut I'm talking about the simplest model and applying it in a limited fashion, and it should be obvious why. At its coarsest level, there are producers and consumers. When you take half of the world's producers and turn them into consumers, the remaining producers are in a better position to prosper. WWII was a lot like this.
> 
> I really don't know why people like to pick against this claim unless they just want to argue. To be clear, arguing against this point is basically saying that Geramny, Japan, China, Ukraine, or any of the other totally ravaged countries had a comparatively greater competitive advantage in postwar WWII in comparison to the US. This is true of the USSR in terms of manpower (but not infrastructure) -- maybe that's why it was US policy to push them into a war of economics they were destined to lose.



There is a reason why most economics 101 classes are complete BS (ask any economist) and that's essentially illuminated by your argument above. You're playing reductio ad minimum here, trying to remove all but one (albeit essential) factor, from worldwide, highly complex, macro-economics. In it's most very basic form, yes, economics is a zero sum model:

Take bartering as an example. If I give you my goat, I no longer have a goat. If you give me clothing in return, you no longer have clothing, but you have a goat, and I have clothing. Thus, zero sum. 

But this is so completely not how modern macro-economics works. The very fact that most major economies are not on the precious metals (gold/silver/platinum/etc) standard anymore should suffice to prove this point. Nor does it really relate to how post WWII economics worked: 

Russia lost between 1/4 to 1/3 of its male working population. 20-40M people. And it lost at least 25% of it's net economic worth. The reason it was able to "recover" so quickly involves so many complex issues, such as massive cooking of the books by Stalin, communism where the wealth of the state superseded the wealth of the population, something like 80% of the GDP spent on the gov't and military, alcoholism driving a negative population growth, the age of modern medicine (antibiotics; many communicable diseases that caused lost population productivity were considered eliminated; see central Africa for this effect), complex driving forces such as the Marshall and Truman Plans, etc. What it does not involve is a transfer of wealth through zero sum processes.

Let me tell you one fun fact that serves as a microcosm, and is just plain hilarious IMO: The communist state paid workers to build lamps. You had to build something like 4 an hour (I forget actual # and its irrelevant) and there was no incentivization to build more or with respect to quality. So workers built lamps that fell apart, had electrical shorts, and where the glass was so weak it would shatter if you looked at it wrong. Years later after the collapse of the soviet union, it was found that there were warehouses on top of warehouses filled with these shotty lamps. Why? Because they couldn't sell them they were so defective. Guess what? The communist gov't didnt care. Why? Because they were NOT playing a zero sum game with their economy. Workers got paid even though no one was buying.

Money isn't like conservation of matter and energy, which is zero sum, because it can neither be created nor destroyed (Information Theory). Modern paper money, and much of what makes up "wealth", isn't a tangible physical thing. Money can be easily created or destroyed... the 2008 US housing bubble was estimated to have "lost" around $13T worldwide. The Zero Sum economic model doesn't hold for confounds that large lol. The US Federal Reserve acts as a choke, driving inflation, determining the value of your unit of currency (non zero sum). Heck, just the devaluation of a national currency can change your net worth without physical currency changing hands (i.e. contrary to zero sum modeling). There was a point where the Euro was so devalued against the US dollar, I almost could have bought a Blackmachine for fair value haha.

https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/centres/eri/bulletin/2008-09-2/harrison/


----------



## narad

^^ We don't need a sophisticated model of economics for this discussion, and btw this is the post that seems to have started this detour:



narad said:


> Missed my point. Everyone's manufacturer infrastructure was laid waste, and the only industrial powers left who didn't incur a large toll both in terms of infrastructure, and the manpower to utilize it, were the US and Russia. If you have trouble grasping the scope of just how economically devastating the war was to the rest of the world, London just reached it's pre-war population in 2015. And since economics is a zero sum game, the US reaped the benefits for decades.



_America_ prospered because it benefitted from a zero-sum type of dynamic. In a global postwar economies market, the USA was poised to deliver new technology exports, most of Europe was not. Russia just wasn't subject to the same heavy infrastructure loss of being a small country hosting two invasion battles -- but I never said they benefitted strongly from this.


----------



## USMarine75

I really don't understand your argument, nor the usage of game theory, so I guess we'll just agree to disagree. I'll just leave this here instead:

https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...america-became-an-economic-superpower/384034/


----------



## narad

USMarine75 said:


> I really don't understand your argument, nor the usage of game theory, so I guess we'll just agree to disagree. I'll just leave this here instead:
> 
> https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...america-became-an-economic-superpower/384034/



It's a super simple point so I'm a bit baffled how it incites long replies about Russia. The point is this: casualties and damages from WWII left the US with few economic competitors, which significantly helped the US prosper in the decades following WWII.

Honestly I don't know anyone who would argue against that, but welcome to SSO.


----------



## bostjan

If you keep repeating "economics is a zero sum game," it doesn't make it true. The statement itself is too big a blanket.

One instance of economics not being a zero sum game is value added by manufacture. You take raw material worth x, and labour worth y, and sum them together and get something larger than x+ y.

War is a negative sum game. If you red team blows up blue team's base, and blue team responds by blowing up red team's supply cache, and then red team kills blue team off in a battle, losing half of their own troops, who comes out ahead?

...and war is part of economics, for sure, so no, economics is not a zero sum game.

But we've already had several pages of this discussion in another thread. 

To come back to the actual topic of this thread, I think that there are too many people who do not understand the difference between fairness and equal treatment.

If a county has more black people arrested in a week than white people, it gets reported on the news as unfair. The news won't look into how many of those arrests were legitimate, though. I have a big problem with that. If there was no foul play, then why does anyone give a .... what colour skin the people wore who were arrested? Maybe there are more black people living in that county, or maybe the black people who live there commit more crimes.

Now, if the police station released a memo that said "arrest black people" then we have a huge problem. If there is so much as one instance of a person being arrested for being black and not having done anything wrong, then we have a huge problem (I think we've seen instances of this too often over the last couple years even), but you pull up statistics and get offended by them without looking deeper into the facts, and you make a hasty conclusion, and that's all. Maybe something is wrong, but the statistical data do not show what is wrong, they only show a trend.

Same for the pay of women versus men, but in that case, companies have done a good job keeping things secret enough that it's difficult to find clear single cases of wrongdoing. However, I have seen magazine articles that stretch even that too far. I've seen enough to believe that women get paid less than men. I think equal pay for equal work is the way to go, but I think equal benefits need to go along with that, as well as equal responsibilities. I have yet to see any employers really embrace any of those ideas in the USA, as even restaurant chains that pay minimum wage seem to pay women less for the same job (even if it's a couple pennies).

But, on the other hand, at least in my field, women have it a lot easier to get hired. If you are a physicist and you are female, there are hundreds of scholarship opportunities that you would not have as a male; and there are a lot of government incentives for hiring women in high tech jobs, meaning that employers are more motivated to hire females than males. Truth be told, though, women, on average, just are not as interested as men in jobs like mine. I'm sure there are women out there who would be thrilled and do a great job, but they are honestly not that easy to find. So employers look to hire women for jobs like mine, to qualify for diversity assistance, and to pay someone less salary, but they don't hire these women simply because those women do not apply for the job.


----------



## narad

bostjan said:


> If you keep repeating "economics is a zero sum game," it doesn't make it true. The statement itself is too big a blanket.



I have never repeated it without contextualizing it. The fact of the matter is, as a statement, it is true. The universe is a closed system, we have finite resources, and resources utilized by one person come at the cost of their use by another person, in a limiting case. That's too abstract to be useful to anyone, but I hope it highlights the fact that the usefulness of whatever game theoretic model someone applies to economics must be assessed with respect to whatever phenomenon they are discussing. 

Sure, if you're talking about some purely war-time phenomenon with heavy losses incurred on both sides where both parties suffered production losses with respect to their prewar state, that's negative sum. But...that's not the phenomenon I'm discussing. 

There are also instances of positive sum economics I could throw out there. This doesn't make positive sum the correct model. It merely means that if I narrow my scope to a particular time, and a particular relationship between sets of people, I find behaviors that fit this model. It should be obvious that no coarse-grained game theoretic model is going to be a good fit for all of humanity's economic behavior. When I brought up zero sum I was discuss a particular time in which one nation's ascendence to an economic superpower was paved with the handicapping of essentially ever major economic competitor.

Or was it?


----------



## bostjan

narad said:


> I have never repeated it without contextualizing it. The fact of the matter is, as a statement, it is true. The universe is a closed system, we have finite resources, and resources utilized by one person come at the cost of their use by another person, in a limiting case. That's too abstract to be useful to anyone, but I hope it highlights the fact that the usefulness of whatever game theoretic model someone applies to economics must be assessed with respect to whatever phenomenon they are discussing.



Actually, the laws of thermodynamics (entropy, third law) means that the resources in the universe are depreciating over time. Universal resource economics is a negative sum game, as well. 



narad said:


> Sure, if you're talking about some purely war-time phenomenon with heavy losses incurred on both sides where both parties suffered production losses with respect to their prewar state, that's negative sum. But...that's not the phenomenon I'm discussing.



That was only one of two counter examples I gave. If you make an absolute statement, though, you kind of open yourself up to any counterexamples. 



narad said:


> There are also instances of positive sum economics I could throw out there. This doesn't make positive sum the correct model.



Exactly. So it's not zero-sum, like I said, it's more complex than that. See my original post from weeks ago where you started arguing with me back then.



narad said:


> It merely means that if I narrow my scope to a particular time, and a particular relationship between sets of people, I find behaviors that fit this model. It should be obvious that no coarse-grained game theoretic model is going to be a good fit for all of humanity's economic behavior. When I brought up zero sum I was discuss a particular time in which one nation's ascendence to an economic superpower was paved with the handicapping of essentially ever major economic competitor.
> 
> Or was it?



The USA took a hold of a lot of opportunities after WWII, for sure. But, in this thread, what was your point in bringing that up? Someone said that having weapons was what made the USA great in the first place. I'm failing to see how your arguments since you took issue with his statement have been consistent (even though you've accused me of being all over the place with my point).



If you want to believe that the development of nuclear technology in the USA had nothing to do with US economic prosperity nor anything to do with the end of WWII, you just go right ahead. And if you want to believe that the only reason the USA came out ahead in the war was because all of the other countries were too focused on bombing each other, and that the USA benefited solely from that and not from developing our own economy through hard work and invention during that time period, go right ahead. In fact, if you want to believe that WWII never happened, and it was all made up, and that Hitler is still alive, hanging out in Argentina with a bunch of supercentegenarian Nazis, go right ahead. But denying what's in the history books without some sort of profound point or some evidence of some sort, and repeating a lot of the catchphrases, and just kind of generally telling people they are wrong without a half-solid reason, then I don't really know that it's worth discussing stuff with you.


----------



## narad

^^ Complete contortion of my original point, which was only to say that the US's economic prosperity had little/nothing to do with the notion of individual freedom (in particular as it pertains to gun ownership). Where you're going off to in that last passage, I don't know, but if you're going to restate what my argument is then do it using quotes and not your own imagination.


----------



## USMarine75

narad said:


> It's a super simple point so I'm a bit baffled how it incites long replies about Russia. The point is this: casualties and damages from WWII left the US with few economic competitors, which significantly helped the US prosper in the decades following WWII.
> 
> Honestly I don't know anyone who would argue against that, but welcome to SSO.



It's just that you're coming across as a non math major co-opting a term that isn't applicable here. The fact is, I can emphatically tell you that zero sum game theory simply does _not _describe worldwide macro-economics, nor does it describe politics and global diplomacy. The equilibrium is unknown, the values are unknown, and every positive move does not have an equally correlated negative move by another player. 

According to the Nobel prize winning economist Stiglitz: "Whenever there are "externalities"  where the actions of an individual have impacts on others for which they do not pay or for which they are not compensated  markets will not work well. But recent research has shown that these externalities are pervasive, whenever there is imperfect information or imperfect risk markets  that is always." Imperfect information, imperfect risk, nonzero equilibrium literally means NOT zero sum. So you are correct... it is a super simple point. And yes, welcome to SSO, where people without degrees in a subject correct people with degrees in a subject. 

You brought up Russia and you're point there is also completely contradictory to historical fact. I already tried to explain why. But it is 180 degrees different from why the US became a superpower.

And the economic vacuum left by WWII is just one of many multi-factorial reasons why the US became the dominant economic superpower. Which again, is so not due to zero sum game theory.

So, whatevers... I've tried to explain it... I've linked articles to help... but in the world of SSO game theory, if you want to be correct this badly, then congratulations... you win!!! 



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GameTheory.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz#Information_asymmetry


----------



## narad

USMarine75 said:


> It's just that you're coming across as a non math major co-opting a term that isn't applicable here. The fact is, I can emphatically tell you that zero sum game theory simply does _not _describe worldwide macro-economics, nor does it describe politics and global diplomacy. The equilibrium is unknown, the values are unknown, and every positive move does not have an equally correlated negative move by another player.



Yea, but I'm not in the math discussion subforum and these game-theoretic terms quickly describe dynamics that ..jeez, probably would have taken all of three sentences to write out and qualify. Certainly now that I've spent 10 minutes qualifying my usage, I really regret trying to save 10 seconds by not writing it out in the first place.



USMarine75 said:


> And yes, welcome to SSO, where people without degrees in a subject correct people with degrees in a subject.



Oh, I don't? Yea... I guess I technically don't have a degree in math, but only because I never filed the paperwork for it. If I fill out the form can we argue toe-to-toe?

Like look, people use game-theoretic labels outside of board games and card games all the time, even though in perhaps none of these instances do these labels accurately capture the entirety of the system without exception. Am I wrong to label a competitive win-lose scenario as zero-sum? I don't think so. We're having a discussion not writing an academic paper. But sure, if you're going to grab onto that like some rabid-autistic dog and shake at every exception, sure, it's a label that does not describe the entirety of economics and it does not even wholly the economic dynamic of the world at that time, sure, you are correct.

We can all do this nit-picking. For instance,



USMarine75 said:


> Imperfect information, imperfect risk, nonzero equilibrium literally means NOT zero sum.



Imperfect information? Imperfect information has nothing to do with classification as zero-sum. Do you even know math!?

So let's strike that from your statement. "Imperfect risk" - I don't know what is meant there. So are you saying "nonzero equilibrium literally means not zero sum?" because frankly if you have a degree in it I thought we could move a bit further away from tautologies.

Is doing that helpful? No. I'm not a compiler - I get your point. You got my point (I think) before trying to drudge down a lesson in game theory that wasn't at all important to the point I was making and had to restate over and over.

If you have anything to say to refute that postwar vacuums in the marketplace (and the US's less-affected status positioned it advantageously to fill that role) didn't significantly assist in the US's rise to an economic superpower, then totally post that. But anyone quibbling over game theory definitions -- that's the dead horse. And that horse shouldn't even be in this thread. Very little has been said to directly address / explain the US's postwar economic progress (don't care about Russia's - thanks though).


----------



## USMarine75

narad said:


> Am I wrong to label a competitive win-lose scenario as zero-sum?


Yes. 100%. Completely. 



narad said:


> we're having a discussion not writing an academic paper. But sure, if you're going to grab onto that like some rabid-autistic dog and shake at every exception, sure, it's a label that does not describe the entirety of economics and it does not even wholly the economic dynamic of the world at that time, sure, you are correct.


Yup. Me. And everyone else in economics. 



narad said:


> we can all do this nit-picking. For instance, Do you even know math!?


Nope. You win at math and life. Please teach me. I should take notes. Would you rather write on the back of my Harvard masters in physics with a minor in math? Or my medical doctorate? 



narad said:


> so let's strike that from your statement. "Imperfect risk" - I don't know what is meant there. So are you saying "nonzero equilibrium literally means not zero sum?" because frankly if you have a degree in it I thought we could move a bit further away from tautologies.
> 
> If you have anything to say to refute that postwar vacuums in the marketplace (and the US's less-affected status positioned it advantageously to fill that role) didn't significantly assist in the US's rise to an economic superpower, then totally post that.


I did. And I posted links to back me up. 

Tl;Dr "The Zero-Sum Fallacy. ... A logical fallacy often occurs when this particular game theory is applied to economic or political discussions amongst non-economists  leading to false beliefs that the amount of wealth or jobs in the economy is fixed."

Oh well not coming back to this thread, because your lack of understanding and usage of complex terms you obviously dont understand is giving me a headache. 
So, congratulations on your superior knowledge and winning.


----------



## narad

USMarine75 said:


> Would you rather write on the back of my Harvard masters in physics with a minor in math? Or my medical doctorate?



Hey - not bad!



USMarine75 said:


> I did. And I posted links to back me up.



You posted links about Russian WWII losses, blog posts about the general inapplicability of zero-sum to general economics, and some game theory wikipedia pages. Was that what I was asking for or is that relevant to my point about the US? No.



USMarine75 said:


> Oh well not coming back to this thread, because your lack of understanding and usage of complex terms you obviously dont understand is giving me a headache.
> So, congratulations on your superior knowledge and winning.



Fine by me, man. If you're going to refer to zero-sum/non-zero-sum as a complex term, I think you were mis-judging everyone's intelligence to begin with. I'm sure most people who (regrettably) wander into this thread can understand the concept 100%.


----------



## narad

I'm living in Japan at the moment and this thread led to some in person discussion about Japan postwar, which led to a couple (in retrospect, very obvious) links that I've found very enlightening and mostly contradictory to my own point of view:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_economic_miracle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post–World_War_II_economic_expansion


----------



## bostjan

narad said:


> Like look, people use game-theoretic labels outside of board games and card games all the time, even though in perhaps none of these instances do these labels accurately capture the entirety of the system without exception.



The people that study game theory don't study board games! 

Game theory is a branch of mathematics that applies to economics.

The name "game theory" can easily mislead people into thinking it has something to do with the study of video games or board games or card games or whatnot, but that's not accurate.

It'd be like if the people who studied physics spent their time studying the physics of 3D game engines, instead of the laws of nature.

As for the average SS.O user not knowing mathematics, I think you might be a little off. There are plenty of guys on here with advanced degrees in economics, mathematics, engineering, and physics. Maybe if you _fill out the paperwork_, you can join the club. You'll save money on insurance in the US. I'm not sure about Japan or the UK, though, but possibly the same. But, on the other hand, you might take offense when folks try to argue with you about mathematics, and you try to explain a term or a concept to them and they throw it back in your face whilst bringing up that your advanced degree and all of the training and stressful exams that it took to achieve it is just a meaningless piece of paper.


----------



## narad

bostjan said:


> The people that study game theory don't study board games!
> 
> Game theory is a branch of mathematics that applies to economics.
> 
> The name "game theory" can easily mislead people into thinking it has something to do with the study of video games or board games or card games or whatnot, but that's not accurate.



Ha, I mean that game theory comes up a lot in artificial intelligence, and traditional AI where people were concerned with the notion of optimal play, relates closely to nash equilibrium. These were often studied in the domain of board games, namely chess and go. 




bostjan said:


> As for the average SS.O user not knowing mathematics, I think you might be a little off. There are plenty of guys on here with advanced degrees in economics, mathematics, engineering, and physics.



On the contrary -- I was saying that a lot of SSO users know a good amount of mathematics, and could easily grasp the concepts being bounced around in this thread, even if maybe the terminology was initially unfamiliar to them.



bostjan said:


> Maybe if you _fill out the paperwork_, you can join the club. You'll save money on insurance in the US. I'm not sure about Japan or the UK, though, but possibly the same. But, on the other hand, you might take offense when folks try to argue with you about mathematics, and you try to explain a term or a concept to them and they throw it back in your face whilst bringing up that your advanced degree and all of the training and stressful exams that it took to achieve it is just a meaningless piece of paper.



Hey, I'm the last guy to have anything against higher education. I just think that sometimes in life you use a term and you want all the baggage that goes with it. Science and formal pursuits are like that. You would never expect a term to mean anything less that its complete and exact definition when writing a proof or program. However, sometimes in less formal domains -- like chatting on a guitar forum -- you just want to use it to convey some core chunk of meaning. In doing the latter in this thread, well, it was not taken that way.


----------

