Whitehouse Visit

[Undrafted]

Just now, ForsbergTheGreat said:

in 2016, approx 29 unarmed black men were shot and killed, 

In 2016, approx 76 unarmed white men were killed.

 

It's a bit shady since some sites determine a guy having a rock in his hand as being armed where others don't.  It's also hard to determine what was happening during that altercation, if the guy had a warrant for the arrest of was resisting.  

 

The point is, and you understand it, context matters.  

http://time.com/4404987/police-violence/

 

Thanks for the attempt to answer (genuinely, no sarcasm intended).  I'm a little disappointed that there wasn't any info about the followups to those cases (that is, whether the cops responsible were brought up on charges).  The fact that info *isn't* quickly available (unlike some of the other stats) tells me this is an angle that HASN'T been discussed enough

[ForsbergTheGreat]

9 minutes ago, Undrafted said:

Thanks for the attempt to answer (genuinely, no sarcasm intended).  I'm a little disappointed that there wasn't any info about the followups to those cases (that is, whether the cops responsible were brought up on charges).  The fact that info *isn't* quickly available (unlike some of the other stats) tells me this is an angle that HASN'T been discussed enough

The Washington post is a pretty good source but it's still some missing info, like only 25% of the shootings listed the police involved.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2016/

[Alflives]

21 minutes ago, Undrafted said:

HUH???  What does that have to do with my questions?

The point is most light skin toned people don't care about skin colour except they want to be darker.  Explain why there is a tanning business.  

[Undrafted]

2 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

The Washington post is a pretty good source but it's still some missing info, like only 25% of the shootings listed the police involved.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2016/

Ooooof, clicked on the page and TBH, that's a lot more data than I can handle.  I find it somewhat disturbing that they can only find the names of 25% of the officers involved.  Race aside, there is a SERIOUS issue with policing in the US.  Why isn't there more outrage from the general population about this as a whole?

[Undrafted]

8 minutes ago, Alflives said:

The point is most light skin toned people don't care about skin colour except they want to be darker.  Explain why there is a tanning business.  

Ummmm, because being fashionable is a silly thing that people with more money than sense can indulge in?

 

There's actually a real answer to all that, and it relates to culture, but it's boring, pointless and has no relevance to the topic at hand.

[Alflives]

Just now, Undrafted said:

Ummmm, because being fashionable is a silly thing that people with more money than sense can indulge in?

 

There's actually a real answer to all that, and it relates to culture, but it's boring, pointless and has no relevance to the topic at hand.

You think the concept of light skin toned people trying to get darker has no relevance, but I say it's completely relevant, and very important.  My point is the police issues over skin colour is not about darker skin being disliked or hated.  It's about people with darker skin tones committing a disproportionate number of crimes to those with lighter skin tones, so police are justifiably making judgments.  If these police issues were about hatred (racism) why would so many lighter skin toned people be trying to get darker skin by tanning?  (Some people even spray on darker skin!). 

My apologies.  I'm not great at conveying my ideas:(  

[Undrafted]

Just now, Alflives said:

You think the concept of light skin toned people trying to get darker has no relevance, but I say it's completely relevant, and very important.  My point is the police issues over skin colour is not about darker skin being disliked or hated.  It's about people with darker skin tones committing a disproportionate number of crimes to those with lighter skin tones, so police are justifiably making judgments.  If these police issues were about hatred (racism) why would so many lighter skin toned people be trying to get darker skin by tanning?  (Some people even spray on darker skin!). 

My apologies.  I'm not great at conveying my ideas:(  

So what you're saying is that people who spend more time in tanning salons are more likely to commit crimes than those who don't?

[Alflives]

3 minutes ago, Undrafted said:

So what you're saying is that people who spend more time in tanning salons are more likely to commit crimes than those who don't?

Haha.  No.  If whites are racist towards blacks, why are so many whites trying to get darker?   I guess your point is possible.  Maybe a white person, who tans to be dark, would be considered to be (potentially) by police more of a criminal than before?  To extend the idea further...if more people were darker skinned then there would be less crime committed (proportionally) by darks, so police would no longer suspect those with darker skin.  Interesting.  Maybe we should just all be one skin tone?  

[Undrafted]

58 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Do you not see what you are doing?  You pulling the "i'm victimized more than you" card, therefor my opinion is more justified.    You met a guy who was a dick to you based on appearance, it sucks, but is that any different than a obese kid constantly getting picked on because of his/her weight and body shamed.  Just because one situation involves skin colour and the other doesn't, doesn't mean it was more or less traumatizing to the person.  You don't get to judge the effects of the barrier a individual has to face, no one does, it sucks, but plenty of white kids are born into a family where the father is an alcoholic and abusive, to bad right, you're still more oppressed than he is.  You made the quote earlier that white people have an easier  A societal privilege isn't based on skin colour, it's a biased subjective opinion individuals (like you) make for others.

It's not about victimization or traumatization from petty insults.  That's not the point.

 

The key difference from the examples you're talking about is this:

 

The obese can exercise and lose weight; a poor white person can work their way up (as you say, everyone's got the same opportunities), an alcoholic can sober up, a tanned white person mistaken for a minority can lose the tan.  But how does a non-white become a white?  We can't--that's why we're called VISIBLE minorities.

 

1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

We weren't testing the theory based on race, my friend just happened to be filipino, the purpose was to show how something a simple as clothing attire will result in different reactions.  Honestly, i'm shocked that people don't see how racist it is say the term white privilege (to stereotype people based on their skin colour).  You didn't like the guy in the elevator coming to a conclusion of you based on your skin colour, yet you feel it's completely justified for you to do it do someone else.

You missed what I was trying to say: it was about scientific methodology only; nothing more, nothing less.  If you were trying to test attire as variable, then scientifically, you needed to isolate that variable.  I don't see how pointing out you introduced a second variable into the experiment (the fact you weren't the same race) as being racist on my part. 

 

[Undrafted]

27 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Haha.  No.  If whites are racist towards blacks, why are so many whites trying to get darker?   I guess your point is possible.  Maybe a white person, who tans to be dark, would be considered to be (potentially) by police more of a criminal than before?  To extend the idea further...if more people were darker skinned then there would be less crime committed (proportionally) by darks, so police would no longer suspect those with darker skin.  Interesting.  Maybe we should just all be one skin tone?  

OK, I think(?) I see what you're getting at.  Race is about more than just skin colour itself, it's about origin; where people were descended from, where their ancestry is from.  For example, Michael Jackson was paler than a lot of white people, but he's still considered to be black.  Does that help?

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, Undrafted said:

It's not about victimization or traumatization from petty insults.  That's not the point.

 

The key difference from the examples you're talking about is this:

 

The obese can exercise and lose weight; a poor white person can work their way up (as you say, everyone's got the same opportunities), an alcoholic can sober up, a tanned white person mistaken for a minority can lose the tan.  But how does a non-white become a white?  We can't--that's why we're called VISIBLE minorities.

 

You missed what I was trying to say: it was about scientific methodology only; nothing more, nothing less.  If you were trying to test attire as variable, then scientifically, you needed to isolate that variable.  I don't see how pointing out you introduced a second variable into the experiment (the fact you weren't the same race) as being racist on my part. 

 

Why do dark people think it's better to be lighter, when lighter toned people want to be darker?  

[Alflives]

3 minutes ago, Undrafted said:

OK, I think(?) I see what you're getting at.  Race is about more than just skin colour itself, it's about origin; where people were descended from, where their ancestry is from.  For example, Michael Jackson was paler than a lot of white people, but he's still considered to be black.  Does that help?

Yes, that does help.  Thank you:)

[Undrafted]

2 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Why do dark people think it's better to be lighter, when lighter toned people want to be darker?  

Cultural thing:

 

For Asian cultures: being pale-skinned is a sign of status that goes back to long before they came to North America; the lower-classes worked in the fields in the sun and therefore would get tanned, so a tan meant you were a commoner, but being pale meant you were wealthy enough to NOT have to work the fields.

 

For whites wanting a tan: it's similar but in reverse: it's a relatively new concept (only started in the mid-20th century) but tanning grew in popularity with the California surf lifestyle.  Tans are associated with not just California (and Hollywood, etc.) but also the notion that you were wealthy enough NOT to have to work and could bum in the sun all day.

 

Michael Jackson: he was just crazy

[ForsbergTheGreat]

50 minutes ago, Undrafted said:

It's not about victimization or traumatization from petty insults.  That's not the point.

 

The key difference from the examples you're talking about is this:

 

The obese can exercise and lose weight; a poor white person can work their way up (as you say, everyone's got the same opportunities), an alcoholic can sober up, a tanned white person mistaken for a minority can lose the tan.  But how does a non-white become a white?  We can't--that's why we're called VISIBLE minorities.

You're crying that you are a bigger victim and you don't even realize that you are doing it.  The goal shouldn't be to try and change peoples appearances, the goal is to except that people are different.  Why should a non-white want to become a white?...they shouldn't....  Not a single person deserves to be judged based on their appearance, white/black, rich/poor, fat/skinny, but at the same time no one has the place to determine which person has it the worst off.  It's all unexceptable.  

 

You say you have it hard because you get judge by white people simply being black but what do you know about the gay white kid in small religious community, according to you head white, and has that special privilege, so life should be a cake walk for him.

 

50 minutes ago, Undrafted said:

You missed what I was trying to say: it was about scientific methodology only; nothing more, nothing less.  If you were trying to test attire as variable, then scientifically, you needed to isolate that variable.  I don't see how pointing out you introduced a second variable into the experiment (the fact you weren't the same race) as being racist on my part. 

 

Uggh you're just not understanding, stating a term "white privilege" is a racism, you are making an assumption about a person based on there skin tone.  It's a stereotype that paints a broad brush on all white people.  If I did that same thing about another POC we'd have a major issue, you feel it's justifiable to come to a conclusion on someone purely based on a persons (white) skin colour.  You are doing the exact same thing to white people that, the guy in the elevator did to you.  Him automatically assuming you're not a Canadian citizen is no different that you assuming all white people have this privilege in life. You are being extremely ignorant, and I honestly take offence to that comment.  

[Rob_Zepp]

[Undrafted]

1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

You're crying that you are a bigger victim and you don't even realize that you are doing it.  The goal shouldn't be to try and change peoples appearances, the goal is to except that people are different.  Why should a non-white want to become a white?...they shouldn't....  Not a single person deserves to be judged based on their appearance, white/black, rich/poor, fat/skinny, but at the same time no one has the place to determine which person has it the worst off.  It's all unexceptable.  

 

You say you have it hard because you get judge by white people simply being black but what do you know about the gay white kid in small religious community, according to you head white, and has that special privilege, so life should be a cake walk for him.

 

Uggh you're just not understanding, stating a term "white privilege" is a racism, you are making an assumption about a person based on there skin tone.  It's a stereotype that paints a broad brush on all white people.  If I did that same thing about another POC we'd have a major issue, you feel it's justifiable to come to a conclusion on someone purely based on a persons (white) skin colour.  You are doing the exact same thing to white people that, the guy in the elevator did to you.  Him automatically assuming you're not a Canadian citizen is no different that you assuming all white people have this privilege in life. You are being extremely ignorant, and I honestly take offence to that comment.  

OK, first off, I wasn't being deliberately obtuse.  What happened was that you tacked on that comment about racism in the same paragraph as your clarification about your experiment and therefore, I thought they were connected.  Not trying pick on your grammar, but that does demonstrates why proper paragraph separation is important.

 

Second, I agree that "white privilege" is an extremely poor term but I've said that already.  And I think that's the basis of this misunderstanding.  I've tried to ameliorate that by remembering to put the term in quotation marks, but clearly that's not effective. 

 

There are multiples reason why "white privilege" is a poor term but there are also multiple reasons why it's used:  In the case of the latter, it's largely because society has devolved communication to not just the brevity of Twitter and social media, but also the news media's need for sound bites.  If I read you correctly, you actually don't disagree with the actual problem "white privilege" tries to describe.  But because you (and many others) have taken the term too literally, you've misinterpreted it's intent.  It's not meant to apply the entire white population, nor is the word "privilege" meant to be interpreted in the same context of the wealthy (as in "the privileged elite").

 

My interpretation of what "white privilege" actually means is simply colonial racist attitudes and social values from the 19th and most of the 20th century that still persists among a significant proportion of the white population.  ("Male privilege" is basically the same thing, except along gender lines.)  Unfortunately, that doesn't exactly trip off the tongue; nor is it easy to type, even with a full keyboard, never mind a smartphone.  IIRC, the term "white privilege" was originally coined in an academic paper on the subject I describe in the bolded part above--I have no idea how it came to be part of the current lexicon, but now that is what the term "white privilege" means.

 

I have no issue with the term "male privilege" because I don't hold the values or attitudes that it describes; I don't take it personally just because I'm male.  I understand it's a simplification of a larger idea that can't be summed up easily.

 

And yes, there are still a LOT of whites who do hold those racist and sexist attitudes from "the old days", most notably 45 and most of his cronies in his cabinet.  Those views are held by a large section of the 'base' of so-called conservatives in the US and Canada.  And I think hardline conservatives, especially in the US, have deliberately tried to frame "white privilege" in the more literal sense to obfuscate genuine discussions of equality for political reasons.  They know that their 'base' believe in those outdated racist/sexist values to varying degrees.  And by conflating what "white privilege" actually means, they make people like you, who DO genuinely believe in equality, help perpetuate the values you're actually against.

 

Does that makes sense?

[189lb enforcers?]

On 2017-09-30 at 9:45 PM, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Being born into a situation isn't simply a factor of race. It's a factor of decision making, is it your fault that your parents stayed married and both got a post secondary education?  Should disadvantages be giving to you to level the playing field?

Apparently, yes.

Hold down one to raise another.

"He" will not divide us? People believe what they want. 

[189lb enforcers?]

13 hours ago, Undrafted said:

Ooooof, clicked on the page and TBH, that's a lot more data than I can handle.  I find it somewhat disturbing that they can only find the names of 25% of the officers involved.  Race aside, there is a SERIOUS issue with policing in the US.  Why isn't there more outrage from the general population about this as a whole?

Because for every brutality, there are a hundred hero moves. 

The juice is worth the squeeze.

Also, and repetitively in here, it comes to the actions of individuals, even with the police force. You will never produce a hive mentality with humans.

 

I am relieved and somewhat happy for you because you are looking at data sets from both sides and making some admissions about your original stance and message in here, shifting from race to policing issues. There are still further demographic adjustment factors I see undisclosed in here as of yet. This is how discussions are had, like directing a critique of a scientific hypothesis where parties are genuinely non biased and looking to advance the science, not the party.

 

Whether you've realized it or not, you've been in the good company of asylum seekers from bias, prejudice and racist race-baiting in here.

 

#harmony is honesty. 

[CeeBee51]

3 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Apparently, yes.

Hold down one to raise another.

"He" will not divide us? People believe what they want. 

[189lb enforcers?]