General

[quote=Sezbeth]@WontPostMuch :
I'll just drop the fallacy deal right there, because any going any further with it wouldn't really contribute to the discussion. Evidently, there was a misunderstanding involved, perhaps due to me not going enough into detail. However, I never do intend to go into full detail with one post, unless asked to do otherwise. Just make note of that.

I am aware that there has been numerous attempts at peaceful protests about systematic injustices and the like, as well as other gatherings aiming to discuss the matter. I am also aware that most of these have been met with little change. This is largely due to there not being enough focus on discussing this sort of thing. I recognize the frequency of such conferences, however there isn't enough attention being directed toward them as well as equal and necessary amount of participation from both sides. That said, resorting to more violent methods are highly unlikely to produce any better results; if anything, it's likely to be more detrimental to the current situation. I can easily understand the emotional charge and as I mentioned before, I do actively discourage this sort of thing.

In any case, I am aware that this course of events that I describe as a solution is highly unlikely to happen. You'd do best to understand that this is merely me describing a situation in which a real solution could theoretically be effectively reached. Also, I'd like to note that I've already made mention of this issue being around, long before what we would consider modern times.

Outside of the realm of theory, I am well aware of the unlikelihood of these events, as emotional consideration is something that is part of how societies communicate information amongst themselves. Objectivity in its own right is a deviation from natural tendencies (which are often cognitive fallacies in their own right). Our cognition isn't evolved to innately work to understand situations from that sort of stance.

My expectations are realistic; this isn't some blind hope that I rave on about on a daily basis. It's merely an observation derived from the exploration of the issue as a whole.[/quote]

I think you need to chill out with the bloats
You use a lot of paragraphs to say simple things

Could you also not condemn only what appear to be the most uninformed and emotionally charged people on either side and say whether or not you think white privilege is a thing
and back it up too
Even with biases, I'm sure there are many educated people who could defend very, very well their positions. That might be because they're right.
You keep telling people to observe it objectively; observe it objectively then
Not [i]completely[/i] sure but I think that's what the whole point of the thread is

@WontPostMuch :
I'll just drop the fallacy deal right there, because any going any further with it wouldn't really contribute to the discussion. Evidently, there was a misunderstanding involved, perhaps due to me not going enough into detail. However, I never do intend to go into full detail with one post, unless asked to do otherwise. Just make note of that.

I am aware that there has been numerous attempts at peaceful protests about systematic injustices and the like, as well as other gatherings aiming to discuss the matter. I am also aware that most of these have been met with little change. This is largely due to there not being enough focus on discussing this sort of thing. I recognize the frequency of such conferences, however there isn't enough attention being directed toward them as well as equal and necessary amount of participation from both sides. That said, resorting to more violent methods are highly unlikely to produce any better results; if anything, it's likely to be more detrimental to the current situation. I can easily understand the emotional charge and as I mentioned before, I do actively discourage this sort of thing.

In any case, I am aware that this course of events that I describe as a solution is highly unlikely to happen. You'd do best to understand that this is merely me describing a situation in which a real solution could theoretically be effectively reached. Also, I'd like to note that I've already made mention of this issue being around, long before what we would consider modern times.

Outside of the realm of theory, I am well aware of the unlikelihood of these events, as emotional consideration is something that is part of how societies communicate information amongst themselves. Objectivity in its own right is a deviation from natural tendencies (which are often cognitive fallacies in their own right). Our cognition isn't evolved to innately work to understand situations from that sort of stance.

My expectations are realistic; this isn't some blind hope that I rave on about on a daily basis. It's merely an observation derived from the exploration of the issue as a whole.

[quote=Sezbeth]@WontPostMuch: I'm not using the objective stance to "dip out" of an argument, so much as using it as a way to break down the issue and find a way to solve it efficiently. What Catch-22 was referring to was a cop-out often associated with an objective stance that basically ended any argument by stating "everyone has their own opinion" and subsequently forcing a stalemate because of the technical validity of the statement. That said, there is more "substance" to the stance than you seem to be recognizing.[/quote]

Nah, if you read the book you'd see that by objective he didn't just mean that everyone has their own opinion--his character is marked by pretentiousness and futile verbosity. But that's besides the point

[quote=Sezbeth]
There are other objective stances in multiple fields that offer better solutions to issues, which also, of course operate in the realm of theory, but could serve as a decent example on how things could be solved with a bit of diplomacy rather than cycling arguments that produce circular results. In essence, it's promoting the establishment of a mutual understanding of the situation and starting from that point to solve the issue at hand. An example of this sort of effort would be what I stated in the previous post about members of the community promoting peaceful protesting and diplomacy, rather than dysfunctional rioting (noted that the rioting is caused for multiple reasons).

Also, I don't repeat the word "fallacies" to strengthen an argument, so much as refer to a specific phenom in which an argument contradicts known logic. Notice how I always point to a specific situation in which a specific fallacy is occurring rather than inserting the term wherever it may be interchangeable. I'm not some Facebook atheist activist or whatever.

Back to the point; what you're describing is the systematic set of occurrences that often lead to the vents we visually observe. I understand that some events are often so atrocious that they warrant immediate emotionally-charged backlash. I'm not condemning this occurrence, I'm simply discouraging the continuous presence of it over eventual judicial and political compromise, much like the individuals who openly call for peaceful protest over the violence. That said, the occurrence of these types of events as notably horrific as they may be, isn't exclusive to one side. The reasoning formed by way of multiple offenses or measured negativity also often results in backlash that can be easily compared to the initial events that caused the backlash, which in turn, reinforces the conditions which may have caused that egregious event(s). This, again, describes that self-perpetuating cycle, which is why things like this keep happening. You'll notice a pattern of that sort of thing when I refer to these events.

When I call for an objective stance on something, I'm essentially calling for a more scientific approach that isn't as emotionally fueled. Keep in mind that I don't wish to completely dismiss emotion, but rather call for people exercise control for once, so the issue can actually recognized be and solved.

So please, if you don't think my responses have enough "substance" for you to have a "real" discussion with me, then please do feel free to ask about the specifics. I'll happily go into detail about those too.

@SaneleeBoring : I already stated that it was the cause of it. However, causation doesn't mean exact being. Cause and effect are two different things; that is why I separate them from being the same.[/quote]

Right, let me explain why your use of fallacies in this case wasn't warranted: I pointed out that the reason behind these rally causes can be more than just generalizations. Your original response to me merely said to be more objective about this issue (which says nothing) and then you repeated the fallacies you had said earlier...when my original point was why those fallacies don't really apply in these instances. You'll understand my mocking you for just using the word fallacies.

Now, I would like to note that there has been so much peaceful protest about police brutality, about the systematic injustices in our system, whole conferences and dialogues planned out about these various issues. How often have they been met with any form of serious change? How many times has there been national, inspired and enthusiastic coverage about all of these peaceful dialogues and literally [b]decades[/b] of these complaints of racial and classist inequality? The point being, it's so, so easy to tell poor and marginalized groups to resort to peaceful protest and the like, but the fact remains that by and large it has been ignored and not forced any changes. That's the sad reality of the situation and I'm afraid your hope for peaceful negotiations amounts to the naivety of a toddler asking "what if we just all get along?" It's such platitudes that stagnate our growth.

Yes, I understand that more violent uprisings perpetuate certain stereotypes and fuel both sides of the equation, but at the same time, it's disingenuous to tell people who are routinely disenfranchised and ignored to continue down the path that not only is ineffective, but where ineffectiveness means literally more deaths and more brutality. This isn't a new issue that just surfaced. This has been a major issue since the times of slavery.

Thanks for expanding beyond just saying "look at this objectively." Do that next time since the latter means jack.

@WontPostMuch: I'm not using the objective stance to "dip out" of an argument, so much as using it as a way to break down the issue and find a way to solve it efficiently. What Catch-22 was referring to was a cop-out often associated with an objective stance that basically ended any argument by stating "everyone has their own opinion" and subsequently forcing a stalemate because of the technical validity of the statement. That said, there is more "substance" to the stance than you seem to be recognizing.

There are other objective stances in multiple fields that offer better solutions to issues, which also, of course operate in the realm of theory, but could serve as a decent example on how things could be solved with a bit of diplomacy rather than cycling arguments that produce circular results. In essence, it's promoting the establishment of a mutual understanding of the situation and starting from that point to solve the issue at hand. An example of this sort of effort would be what I stated in the previous post about members of the community promoting peaceful protesting and diplomacy, rather than dysfunctional rioting (noted that the rioting is caused for multiple reasons).

Also, I don't repeat the word "fallacies" to strengthen an argument, so much as refer to a specific phenom in which an argument contradicts known logic. Notice how I always point to a specific situation in which a specific fallacy is occurring rather than inserting the term wherever it may be interchangeable. I'm not some Facebook atheist activist or whatever.

Back to the point; what you're describing is the systematic set of occurrences that often lead to the vents we visually observe. I understand that some events are often so atrocious that they warrant immediate emotionally-charged backlash. I'm not condemning this occurrence, I'm simply discouraging the continuous presence of it over eventual judicial and political compromise, much like the individuals who openly call for peaceful protest over the violence. That said, the occurrence of these types of events as notably horrific as they may be, isn't exclusive to one side. The reasoning formed by way of multiple offenses or measured negativity also often results in backlash that can be easily compared to the initial events that caused the backlash, which in turn, reinforces the conditions which may have caused that egregious event(s). This, again, describes that self-perpetuating cycle, which is why things like this keep happening. You'll notice a pattern of that sort of thing when I refer to these events.

When I call for an objective stance on something, I'm essentially calling for a more scientific approach that isn't as emotionally fueled. Keep in mind that I don't wish to completely dismiss emotion, but rather call for people exercise control for once, so the issue can actually recognized be and solved.

So please, if you don't think my responses have enough "substance" for you to have a "real" discussion with me, then please do feel free to ask about the specifics. I'll happily go into detail about those too.

@SaneleeBoring : I already stated that it was the cause of it. However, causation doesn't mean exact being. Cause and effect are two different things; that is why I separate them from being the same.

Different races have different kinds of privilege.

[quote=Sezbeth]One is a general term, while the other identifies a specific phenomena caused by the aforementioned general term. I don't identify it as necessarily being racism because the two terms operate on different levels of specifics, which take into account more varying factors as the said level of specification covers a smaller range.[/quote]

But you do agree that racism is the cause of it?

[quote=SaneleeBoring]Racism is discrimination against a specific race.
White privilege is discrimination against every other race except whites.

I don't understand how the two can be different concepts since they're both basically about discrimination.[/quote]

One is a general term, while the other identifies a specific phenomena caused by the aforementioned general term. I don't identify it as necessarily being racism because the two terms operate on different levels of specifics, which take into account more varying factors as the said level of specification covers a smaller range.

[quote=Sezbeth]Doing that would establish a bias. No matter how "right" one stance may seem, having a course of action influenced by a bias is only going to produce more bias by the other side, thus forming that perpetuating cycle I mentioned before. Yes, these instances can represent ongoing issues, but that's not the point. The only real solution that would be fair for both sides while maintaining a sense of functionality is to first objectify the situation.

Yes, there are injustices and in some cases, acting on them can lead to solutions. However, in the case of the United States and the whole whites and blacks issue, this is not one of those cases.

Asking me to form a "deeper understanding" of the issue is the same as asking me to immerse myself into a selected bias. That, I will not do. I do understand the plight of the African American demographic because I experienced something extremely similar when growing up. If I were to emotionally dedicate myself solely to their side of the story, then I would just fall into the cycle. The people who break the cycle, like the people who gather and prevent the angered members of their society from acting out in this manner, are the ones who know this. They understand that feeding into this cycle, despite the injustices, is only going to stagnate the situation.

So no, I will not cease to objectively view the situation and pick people's arguments apart by use of existing fallacies.[/quote]

All you said is to view the situation "objectively." That means and says nothing. You know, Catch-22 parodied arguments like this really well. The quote goes something like this: "General Peckem would always argue and whenever someone disagreed with him, he would tell them to look at it objectively." What he's making fun of is how easy it is to just dip out of an argument while saying nothing by pleading with people to treat things objectively. Say something with more substance and maybe then we can actually have a discussion. Further, I hate to break it to you, but just repeating the word "fallacies" doesn't make your argument stronger.

I said that there is more to racial issues in the U.S. than generalizations and argued that just because people group around certain instances doesn't necessarily mean that people are generalizing anything; in fact, it can just mean that it's either an issue so egregious that it's bound to polarize people [b]or[/b] that it exemplifies multiple offenses perfectly well, thus making it a good case from which to branch out and address ongoing injustices. Your response of "view things objectively"--you'll notice--does not address anything I said. Like, at all.

[quote=Sezbeth]This is a common interpretation amongst those who take the identity politics stance.

In short, it covers the idea that only those within political power can be "racist". This, of course is actually a specific type of racism known as industrialized racism, but this isn't necessarily exclusive to those in political power. This is where the idea that white privilege is somehow the exact same as racism, aside from being the result of thereof.

The interpretation of the identity politics' definition of general racism fails to take into account the existence of smaller, specific societies in which another race may be within systematic power, thus able to exhibit racism similar to much of the patterns in which identity politics derives its definition of industrialized racism.

Anyway, you don't have to argue semantics with me, but just remember the specifics of a definition. There's a difference between a phenomena and a subsequent phenomena caused by the first.
e.g.) Fire causes burns, but the burns are not the fire.

Stating that white privilege is racism is a horrid oversimplification of the actual relation between the two concepts.[/quote]

Racism is discrimination against a specific race.
White privilege is discrimination against every other race except whites.

I don't understand how the two can be different concepts since they're both basically about discrimination.

[quote=WontPostMuch]If you truly believe this, I believe that you are unqualified to talk about race politics (srs)

@Sezbeth:

Brah, I think you need to quit using fallacies to neatly disprove people's points. People rally around certain instances because they are either blatant examples of systematic wrongs or because it is a grievous infraction that has to be acted upon. Yes, it may make it seem like it's generalizing it but a deeper understanding of the issues would lead you to comprehend that these aren't so much generalizations as specific instances that represent ongoing incidents.[/quote]

Doing that would establish a bias. No matter how "right" one stance may seem, having a course of action influenced by a bias is only going to produce more bias by the other side, thus forming that perpetuating cycle I mentioned before. Yes, these instances can represent ongoing issues, but that's not the point. The only real solution that would be fair for both sides while maintaining a sense of functionality is to first objectify the situation.

Yes, there are injustices and in some cases, acting on them can lead to solutions. However, in the case of the United States and the whole whites and blacks issue, this is not one of those cases.

Asking me to form a "deeper understanding" of the issue is the same as asking me to immerse myself into a selected bias. That, I will not do. I do understand the plight of the African American demographic because I experienced something extremely similar when growing up. If I were to emotionally dedicate myself solely to their side of the story, then I would just fall into the cycle. The people who break the cycle, like the people who gather and prevent the angered members of their society from acting out in this manner, are the ones who know this. They understand that feeding into this cycle, despite the injustices, is only going to stagnate the situation.

So no, I will not cease to objectively view the situation and pick people's arguments apart by use of existing fallacies.

i can genuinely say i've never met a white american who has been particularly humble or nice, they've all been condescending, only concerned for themselves, and on some high horse of race.

[quote=SirKibbleX2]which is long gone in 1st world countries.[/quote]

If you truly believe this, I believe that you are unqualified to talk about race politics (srs)

@Sezbeth:

Brah, I think you need to quit using fallacies to neatly disprove people's points. People rally around certain instances because they are either blatant examples of systematic wrongs or because it is a grievous infraction that has to be acted upon. Yes, it may make it seem like it's generalizing it but a deeper understanding of the issues would lead you to comprehend that these aren't so much generalizations as specific instances that represent ongoing incidents.

[quote=SaneleeBoring]I hate arguing about semantics but the idea of white privilege comes from racism towards every other group of people besides whites. So literally racism.[/quote]

This is a common interpretation amongst those who take the identity politics stance.

In short, it covers the idea that only those within political power can be "racist". This, of course is actually a specific type of racism known as industrialized racism, but this isn't necessarily exclusive to those in political power. This is where the idea that white privilege is somehow the exact same as racism, aside from being the result of thereof.

The interpretation of the identity politics' definition of general racism fails to take into account the existence of smaller, specific societies in which another race may be within systematic power, thus able to exhibit racism similar to much of the patterns in which identity politics derives its definition of industrialized racism.

Anyway, you don't have to argue semantics with me, but just remember the specifics of a definition. There's a difference between a phenomena and a subsequent phenomena caused by the first.
e.g.) Fire causes burns, but the burns are not the fire.

Stating that white privilege is racism is a horrid oversimplification of the actual relation between the two concepts.

[quote=goldyboi]I don't get it. Then why are all doctors I met asian?[/quote]

Bruh it cause of this [url=http://www.china-mike.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/confucius2.jpg]guy[/url] not that i dislike him or anything

[quote=Wanton]@xoqtprincessxo: thanks boo boo ur a real qtprincess <3 <3 <3[/quote]

ty bae i try

[quote=Sezbeth]That has to do with history itself. This is where I acknowledge the existence of white privilege. That said, we've time and again proven that we can overwrite history for the sake of a sufficiently functioning society. This cycle is a dysfunction and it needs to be fixed. Focusing on history and acting as if the people (in this case, the white demographic) are somehow going to act in the same way as the past (say, mid-20th century to the beginning of the American slave trade) is a case of generalization; that of which, produces the conceptual understanding of "white privilege".

The point is that playing the "it's the white male's fault because history" card isn't the right way of going about solving the issue. The entire idea of fault and responsibility will get this nowhere. People have to be educated about the general idea of environmental influences and work towards fixing said environment in such a way that causes this cycle to stop.

Edit: The definition of "white privilege" isn't racism, so much as the effects caused by the racism phenomena. Two different concepts.

@Wanton : I'd probably need to construct a visual aid to do that (which I might do). Otherwise, you'd have a read a short essay in order for me to simplify it sufficiently. Just understand that simplifying this sort of thing is going to take time, given that I even have any at all to dedicate to it. In the mean time, feel free to ask any specific questions and I'll try my best to simplify the answers as much as possible.[/quote]

I hate arguing about semantics but the idea of white privilege comes from racism towards every other group of people besides whites. So literally racism.

@xoqtprincessxo: thanks boo boo ur a real qtprincess <3 <3 <3

I don't get it. Then why are all doctors I met asian?

[quote=Wanton]yo can u like dumb it down for the rest of us over at the back here plis i want to be able to understand u too [/quote]

white privilege is a thing
but
that's not because team white is super evil and trying to keep team black down
but more because of social/environmental patterns that have gotten sticky over time
and at the same time
both team white and team black aren't doing anything to help the situation
because they only see the issue in terms of their own existing biases
so any time the sides engage w/ this issue, it becomes an us vs them thing
and then both sides just sling chit at each other, which only reinforces the other side's biases
instead of just talking about the actual pattern, what causes it, what to do about it
and the pattern just keeps getting stickier

[quote=SaneleeBoring]Do you think the fact that at least in states, more black people live in poverty than white people is because of decades of discrimination between the 2 groups is a confirmation bias?[/quote]

That has to do with history itself. This is where I acknowledge the existence of white privilege. That said, we've time and again proven that we can overwrite history for the sake of a sufficiently functioning society. This cycle is a dysfunction and it needs to be fixed. Focusing on history and acting as if the people (in this case, the white demographic) are somehow going to act in the same way as the past (say, mid-20th century to the beginning of the American slave trade) is a case of generalization; that of which, produces the conceptual understanding of "white privilege".

The point is that playing the "it's the white male's fault because history" card isn't the right way of going about solving the issue. The entire idea of fault and responsibility will get this nowhere. People have to be educated about the general idea of environmental influences and work towards fixing said environment in such a way that causes this cycle to stop.

Edit: The definition of "white privilege" isn't racism, so much as the effects caused by the racism phenomena. Two different concepts.

@Wanton : I'd probably need to construct a visual aid to do that (which I might do). Otherwise, you'd have a read a short essay in order for me to simplify it sufficiently. Just understand that simplifying this sort of thing is going to take time, given that I even have any at all to dedicate to it. In the mean time, feel free to ask any specific questions and I'll try my best to simplify the answers as much as possible.

[quote=Squeezy]The example about whites being more likely to land a job than a black peer with similar credentials is straight racism. Minorities being accepted into universities is affirmative action at best and almost logical when understanding the political aspect of diversity initiative. A school doesn't deny white people just because they hate them, there is a benefit from accepting diversity into their university.

When you talk about white privilege, you want to focus on basically the benefits of being white. White privilege is getting "the talk" from your parents about sex. Whereas "the talk" to a black kid is about how to deal with the police appropriately.

Yes white privilege exists. Just like black privilege, asian privilege, etc.Not to be racist but black privilege is being able to like rap music without being considered a poser or wannabe gangster.[/quote]

The definition of white privilege is literally racism.

The example about whites being more likely to land a job than a black peer with similar credentials is straight racism. Minorities being accepted into universities is affirmative action at best and almost logical when understanding the political aspect of diversity initiative. A school doesn't deny white people just because they hate them, there is a benefit from accepting diversity into their university.

When you talk about white privilege, you want to focus on basically the benefits of being white. White privilege is getting "the talk" from your parents about sex. Whereas "the talk" to a black kid is about how to deal with the police appropriately.

Yes white privilege exists. Just like black privilege, asian privilege, etc.Not to be racist but black privilege is being able to like rap music without being considered a poser or wannabe gangster.

[quote=Sezbeth]On some level it is, but that's not necessarily the entire fault of what people who relentlessly use this concept call the "white male".

The whole whites and blacks squabble is, as I mentioned in another thread, a self-perpetuating cycle through confirmation bias and generalization fallacy.

Both sides keep generalizing specific events associated with the opposite skin color and continue to act on those generalizations. When these actions occur, they are subsequently viewed and applied through generalization to the entire associated demographic, which again causes them to act on those generalizations. Confirmation bias comes into the mix due to the existence of this cycle. Both sides will continue to find examples that specifically fit their generalizations while simultaneously ignoring anything that refutes said generalizations, thus reinforcing the cycle.

The only solution would for both sides to first become aware of the confirmation bias, then proceed to cease any events that act on the generalizations. Only then, can they begin to solve the issue through objective observation.[/quote]

yo can u like dumb it down for the rest of us over at the back here plis i want to be able to understand u too

lmao so is basilmarket tumblr now?

[quote=Sezbeth]On some level it is, but that's not necessarily the entire fault of what people who relentlessly use this concept call the "white male".

The whole whites and blacks squabble is, as I mentioned in another thread, a self-perpetuating cycle through confirmation bias and generalization fallacy.

Both sides keep generalizing specific events associated with the opposite skin color and continue to act on those generalizations. When these actions occur, they are subsequently viewed and applied through generalization to the entire associated demographic, which again causes them to act on those generalizations. Confirmation bias comes into the mix due to the existence of this cycle. Both sides will continue to find examples that specifically fit their generalizations while simultaneously ignoring anything that refutes said generalizations, thus reinforcing the cycle.

The only solution would for both sides to first become aware of the confirmation bias, then proceed to cease any events that act on the generalizations. Only then, can they begin to solve the issue through objective observation.[/quote]

Do you think the fact that at least in states, more black people live in poverty than white people is because of decades of discrimination between the 2 groups is a confirmation bias?

i think white priviledge has to do soemthing with white people benefiting off history.

On some level it is, but that's not necessarily the entire fault of what people who relentlessly use this concept call the "white male".

The whole whites and blacks squabble is, as I mentioned in another thread, a self-perpetuating cycle through confirmation bias and generalization fallacy.

Both sides keep generalizing specific events associated with the opposite skin color and continue to act on those generalizations. When these actions occur, they are subsequently viewed and applied through generalization to the entire associated demographic, which again causes them to act on those generalizations. Confirmation bias comes into the mix due to the existence of this cycle. Both sides will continue to find examples that specifically fit their generalizations while simultaneously ignoring anything that refutes said generalizations, thus reinforcing the cycle.

The only solution would for both sides to first become aware of the confirmation bias, then proceed to cease any events that act on the generalizations. Only then, can they begin to solve the issue through objective observation.

[quote=SirKibbleX2]Well bias can totally screw up a statistic, it is best to have similar results from numerous different sources, mainly ones that show no bias. Perhaps the statistic is due to the police checking in poor areas more often where crime is more common and where pretty much only minorities of the last generation end up at.[/quote]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jun/12/police-stop-and-search-black-people

This was done in London.

inb4 a white dude says " No white privilege is not a thing cause i'm not happy and i still have to pay for stuff!"

Yes white privilege is real. Its small and big.
White people have the privilege to see other white people on television shows, magazines, model posters, etc. This is a privilege.
White people also have the privilege to not be treated as foreigners in north america and are assumed that they can speak english perfectly fine.
etc.
They are also almost never asked, "where are you from?" (this is important because based on where you're from, people will judge you cause stereotypes. Plus its not even important so why u asking anyways)
[url=http://occupywallstreet.net/story/explaining-white-privilege-broke-white-person]some more here[/url]

[quote=SirKibbleX2]Nope, people here want diversity and so look for minorities. This goes for jobs, education, etc. I base this on how I see minorities get into things with lower grades than whites.
This racist thought is used by liberal extremists who are no better than racists in the past, to think a color of one's skin greatly opens up new opportunities for them, which is long gone in 1st world countries. White privilege is not only racist towards whites, but also racist towards the others due to the term basically meaning "being white gives advantages because they are superior and evil". White privilege is a curse that apparently makes it okay to discriminate against them.[/quote]

There was a study done showing that black people were more likely to be stopped by a police than white people. How much of this was taken out of context I don't know but it is a quantified statistic.

Hurts us with college applications