OT: Black Missouri players threatening to strike from football activities of demands aren't met.
November 8th, 2015 at 8:48 PM ^
I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
November 8th, 2015 at 2:37 PM ^
November 8th, 2015 at 2:48 PM ^
His "confusion" is a refusal to share your "correct" definition.
November 8th, 2015 at 5:16 PM ^
The poster doesn't share my definition, but is nevertheless pretending to criticize discourse about white privilege without knowing what "white privilege" means as it functions in that discourse. It's nothing more than a straw man fallacy, unbeknownst to the poster though that may be.
The fact is that when you are trying to criticize the use of a notion in some political discourse, it matters that you get the notion you are trying to criticize right. If you criticize some random other idea that nobody is talking about and nobody believes in, you are either confused (as I believe is the case here) or being intellectually dishonest in a rhetorical attempt to gain points with your audience. Since there is no reason to be intellectually dishonest here, I assume the poster is actually as confused about what "white privilege" means in the discourse under discussion as it would appear.
November 8th, 2015 at 2:51 PM ^
November 8th, 2015 at 5:20 PM ^
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
Why doesn't it sound like I do? Any more questions?
November 8th, 2015 at 2:53 PM ^
If you really think repeating the words of flawed thinkers makes you 'informed' then you an intellectually shallow person. If you think that because people spend time "developing theories" makes them knowledgeable then you probably should learn more about other quack theories because you clearly have an affinity for them.
Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Arthur de Goubineau, and many others develop theories of racialism. Simply spending years "studying" a subject does not make you correct--particularly when it comes to the affairs of humans, which are subject to bias.
What you refer to is not real science. It cannot be proven or disproven. It's theory based on an individuals interpretation of facts. It's subjective in it's purest form.
All you are doing is repeating the words of others. Others who are biased and prone to oiverly simplistic and flawed thinking as any. To accept as truth what is really a matter of opinion speaks to your child-like level of credulity. I sincerely hope you are not in a position to teach othes because you are a woefully blinkered person.
November 8th, 2015 at 5:33 PM ^
Can you please state for me what you think "white privilege" means as these students are using it, and why you think it
ignores the reality that many blacks and non-whites benefit from the white-dominated system and other whites do not
?
November 8th, 2015 at 6:01 PM ^
is the unearned social status acquired as the result of having light skin. That is, white people have greater access to jobs, more social mobility, more freedom to speak openly, establishment of white cultural mores, etc.
I never said these students were using examples of white privilege. What I said is that people of color are able to achieve social mobility, to re-define cutlural mores, are able to speak openly, and have access to networks. What I am saying is that while blacks are obviously at a disadvantage vis a vis whites socioeconomically some members of the black community and other minority groups have privileges that poor whites do not. In other words, the story is not as nice and neat as those who propose the theory of "white privilege" say it is.
It's a theory just a Marx's views were and are theories. Theory is not truth. The people who propose these theories are biased towards a certain view that comes from personal and professional experience.
November 8th, 2015 at 6:19 PM ^
Let's agree that "white privilege" means the following:
White privileges defined by a white woman is the unearned social status acquired as the result of having light skin.
But that is not the same thing as what you follow it up with:
That is, white people have greater access to jobs, more social mobility, more freedom to speak openly, establishment of white cultural mores, etc.
You cannot generalize from the existence of white privilege to white people in general having all of these things, unless you qualify it more carefully. You could say, roughly, that white people have greater access to jobs than otherwise equivalently situated black people, that white people are freer to speak openly than otherwise equivalently situated black people, etc. But nothing about the existence of white privilege--nothing about the existence of "unearned social status acquired as the result of having light skin"--would require random white people to have more social mobility, etc., than Michael Jordan. That is just a mistake you are making about what it is for white privilege, qua "unearned social status," to exist.
Now, every single thing you say next is 100% consistent with what everyone serious who talks about "white privilege" believes.
What I said is that people of color are able to achieve social mobility, to re-define cutlural mores, are able to speak openly, and have access to networks. What I am saying is that while blacks are obviously at a disadvantage vis a vis whites socioeconomically some members of the black community and other minority groups have privileges that poor whites do not.
Literally everybody knows this. Everybody knows Michael Jordan exists. Everybody knows Honey Boo Boo exists. And we simply have no reason to believe that any part of what you say there is inconsistent with any part of what the students are talking about when they talk about white privilege.
Again, the not-so-nice, not-so-neat story you wish to tell is fully compatible with the existence of white privilege, as it is commonly understood. So when you say the following, you make it clear that you just do not know what you are talking about.
In other words, the story is not as nice and neat as those who propose the theory of "white privilege" say it is.
People who talk about white privilege, or "who propose the theory of 'white privilege'," do not have a nice and neat story. I mean, maybe the person who coined the term was some kind of Neanderthal dipshit. IDK. But that is just not how the notion of white privilege functions in the discourse you are trying to criticize.
You should read up on intersectionality, seriously. You would like it. It would probably even help you formulate your point, which I suspect is ultimately quite reasonable, in a way that does not make you come off as sounding like you just don't know what "white privilege" actually means.
November 8th, 2015 at 6:54 PM ^
If as you say the theory is as nuanced as you say it is it does not come as such to the layperson which is a very real problem.
White people who have struggled, who have had to deal with injustice or frustrations read or hear this term and see red. Preception is reality and this term is perceived as dismissing the travails of whites. Furthermore, it divides blacks and whites by placing them in adversarial roles. That is the last thing we should be doing. We need to be establishing commonalities not differences. That is why I believe the term is so destructive.
The intent is probably a good one, but the end result is harmful to race relations. It angers, infuriates, and places people on the defensive. Those who advanced the theory have made it immeasurable harder to achieve racial reconciliation by employing this term.
I hate having to argue about this term because I recognize that American society was designed to benefit those of the founding group or whites. It's like I am arguing against the statement that the earth is round. But that term is really offensive to me. It's dismissing my own experiences as well as those of others. Words matter and this term proves that.
November 8th, 2015 at 9:16 PM ^
I mostly agree with this last comment (didn't really examine your guys' argument closely). Even poor white people do benefit in a relative sense from their race in regards to how police interact with them and many other things as well, but "white privilege" I think too often generalizes being white and makes it sound like white people have it made. Like every white person gets a pass on getting cancer, having abusive parents, having a disability, etc.
Now I have to look up intersectionality.
November 9th, 2015 at 3:37 AM ^
It seems like we are now agreed that the existence of white privilege, as it is conceived of by academics and activists, is compatible with an appropriately nuanced view about the kinds of lived experiences people actually have.
Our remaining disagreement is indeed over matters of opinion, and in particular whether the chosen term is basically bad marketing for people who want to effect change. I mean, my first reaction is to think that you are basically objecting that some people are offended by a term that they haven't bothered trying to understand. Perception, after all, is not actually reality, especially not when the perceivers are not especially responsible interpreters of what is out there to be perceived. But I guess it is important to use rhetoric that your average Joe can get behind when it comes to stuff like this.
The next stage in this debate, if I were a real activist, would be to say that you are trying to police the tone of people who complain about white privilege, and that they spent many decades trying to make their points politely, and that being nice and not making white people uncomfortable didn't work. (This is typically what activists say to advice about marketing.) One might also argue that what "divides blacks and whites" is racist institutions, and not the language used to describe racist institutions.
Anyway, the objection you are now making is not confused about what "white privilege" is. Good. Go Blue.
November 8th, 2015 at 4:50 PM ^
November 8th, 2015 at 6:25 PM ^
But I do care that he doesn't mislead everybody reading this about what the issues are. What he is doing is roughly equivalent to somebody saying you shouldn't talk on the internet because you'll use up all of your monthly allotment of text messages. It just doesn't make sense, and it doesn't make sense because what he doesn't understand what is being claimed by people who talk about white privilege. See our exchange upthread for clarification of my view here. IDK how he will react to that, but as far as I can tell, what I was complaining about should now be very clear.
November 8th, 2015 at 2:41 PM ^
Bro... you have no idea what privilege means...
Someone link SQ the "Explaining White Privilege to Poor White People" youtube video.
November 8th, 2015 at 2:55 PM ^
Bro, you should learn to think for yourself rather than repeat the mantras of your intellectual masters.
November 8th, 2015 at 3:10 PM ^
I did plenty of research into this and formed my own thoughts on the matter.
I can believe that white privilege exists without going overboard like Yale students about Halloween or these Mizzou students about w/e the hell is going on in Columbia.
Privilege is inherent in whatever country has a majority ruling demographic. India, Northern Hindus, Iraq, Shia Muslims... etc etc..
There's nothing that will "change" that until demographics mix over generations. Unlike these students, I get that.
Tangible change to things like drug laws in this country can help. Non-statistical anecdotes from minorities about how they feel, no matter how real it is, is not feasible in the realm of creating change without hard evidence.
I get that.
November 8th, 2015 at 3:18 PM ^
All you and Jon have proven is that you know what others think of social problems. This entite debate is subjective.
The white experience is varied and diverse. It defies the narrow defintion that "white privilege" gives it.
November 8th, 2015 at 3:30 PM ^
The term "white" shouldn't even be a term. It became a term to wedge people by race.
That is a flaw I will concede in the privilege argument.
Polish, Irish etc all experienced different things back in the day. These days these experiences are engulfed by "white"
Irish were especially treated like shit along with Blacks. The term "white" includes the Irish and relegates the Blacks to the lowest rungs of society.
November 8th, 2015 at 5:11 PM ^
You literally do not know how "white privilege" is defined. You are making objections to a position you have imagined. The resolution of the entire debate may be subjective, whatever you mean by that, but what the positions in the debate are is not subjective. You are wrong about what the positions in the debate are.
It is very clear from your posts that you simply do not know what "white privilege" means, because you falsely imagine it to be incompatible with the existence of struggling white people. This is just a fact about your ignorance of what the term "white privilege" means, and your confusion over what the existence of white privilege entails.
November 8th, 2015 at 5:49 PM ^
You keep trying to defend an absurd theory by calling me ignorant. It's quite clear that you chose to believe in an asinine theory because you either are an idiot or a person who long ago lost the ability to critically think.
The ONLY element that is objective here are the bare facts. Everything else is indeed subjective. You refuse to believe that because you have have spent way too much time in incestuous discussions with like-minded thinkers
The flaw in it is not just the diminishing and simplification of the white experience it's the amalgating the black experience with the experiences of other minority experiences and dismissal of the impact of class in the US.
It's a terribly flawed theory that has gained traction with leftist bigots and blacks because it attacks the white power structure whilst at the same time explaining the internal issues within minority communities. It's an all-too neat explanation for what ails America.
But yeah, you keep selling your theory that has more holes it in than a block of swiss cheese.
November 8th, 2015 at 6:04 PM ^
I am not defending a theory. I merely pointed out that you do not know what "white privilege" means as it is being used by the students.
But if you want to discuss it further, to keep this manageable, please find the post where I asked you to clearly state what you think "white privilege" means and respond to that and the other question I asked there.
November 8th, 2015 at 2:04 PM ^
I wish what they would do is make a statement that several of the demands are ludicrous and infantile. I supoort their right to protest and they should be free to do so. But they should also to be free to hear rebuttals that they are in some cases (some, not all) being childish.
November 8th, 2015 at 2:06 PM ^
See that would require common sense. If academics had common sense, they would be in the private sector.
It's crazy this has gotten to this point. Wolfe or somebody will be held accountable eventually.
Alumni/donors won't like this.
November 8th, 2015 at 2:12 PM ^
no longer have the courage of their liberal convictions, and instead of robustly defending free speech on campus and pushing back when students make ludicrous demands, seem paralyzed by any protest of any group. They will definitely cave to several of the demands IMO.
Here they are in full:
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/missouri-protesters-iss…
November 8th, 2015 at 12:59 PM ^
you play football for free. you have your school paid for free. go play and study. the rest is just plain BULLSHIT!
November 8th, 2015 at 12:59 PM ^
November 8th, 2015 at 1:02 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 8th, 2015 at 1:04 PM ^
Eventually everyone will go back to their business once some sort of symbolic gesture is made to make this all go away and student 1950 realizes he or she can't push this any further.
November 8th, 2015 at 1:04 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 8th, 2015 at 1:14 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 8th, 2015 at 1:29 PM ^
November 8th, 2015 at 2:30 PM ^
Especially since, regardless of the actual number, almost all of the incidents are random loser students (or townies, we don't even know if they are students) making racist comments or drawing racist symbols anonymously.
Gather 20,000-30,000 people anywhere in the world together, and within that number you will find some racists. That is a fact and one that will never change in our lifetimes, since we can't (and shouldn't) know what is in the hearts of each person.
Therefore these incidents will never (unfortunately) stop, and it is ludicrous to expect a college president to stop them. And in fact, it is childish to expect that you will never encounter one, and to therefore demand a President resign because of them.
November 8th, 2015 at 2:55 PM ^
REALLY???
I have face many racist denigrations in my life time. Even a few while at Michigan, but those were mostly at druken frats house parties. I NEVER experienced or seen anything like described above that is happening at Michigan. I am sure there are other black students who may disagree, but something like this not something that a school as a community should just brush off as no big deal.
November 8th, 2015 at 3:11 PM ^
but they should acknowledge that short of catching someone in the act, that there is no possible way, none, to stop things like that from happening. Here's one example: the (black) head of the student body was walking home and some losers in a pickup truck drove by and called him the n-word repeatedely. What precisely would you like the College President to do about that? They don't even know if the offenders were students, and they were on a public road. What action to this would suffice for you?
So the response is "I'm sorry that happened to you, that is sad and a shame." And just like in real life, sometimes things don't have solutions we would like.
November 8th, 2015 at 3:27 PM ^
The problem is that the racists in the community feel safe enought to act as they please because there will be no repurcussions. If the community in general is against such acts, those acts don't occur because the racists do not feel comfortable enough to do so. The fact that these events are regularly happening reflects the fact that the community as a whole is tolerating them. That is the problem and that starts from the top.
This is not something that happens in every campus. In fact, it does not happen in most campus. The fact that it is happening in Missouri frequently is something that the university needs to address aggressively.
November 8th, 2015 at 4:38 PM ^
what would you like the President to do so an anonymous man in a truck doesn't drive by a black man and yell the n-word?
November 8th, 2015 at 2:57 PM ^
November 8th, 2015 at 1:04 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 8th, 2015 at 2:39 PM ^
nothing wrong with demanding more, but making what appears to be a racially motivated attack on the president by inherently stating his white privilege and demanding his retirement after making a public apology is childish and counter-productive. They could have got meaningful reform by not attacking leadership and drawing an incredibly devisive line through that demand.
November 8th, 2015 at 1:05 PM ^
Honest question here...what did the president do to justify removal? The demands seem unrealistic.
November 8th, 2015 at 1:07 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 8th, 2015 at 1:34 PM ^
November 8th, 2015 at 1:51 PM ^
If you think that a swastika showing up on campus isn't concerning and something that the university president should do something about then you are beyond help.
November 8th, 2015 at 2:46 PM ^
I appreciate the sentiment that the president should "do more". But you need a concrete example, because some of the "demands" are a bit ridiculous and it's not clear they'd actually help anything, except boost some egos.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 8th, 2015 at 3:13 PM ^
To stop that action in the future. Otherwise your criticism is childish, uninformed, and meaningless.
November 8th, 2015 at 9:03 PM ^
A swastika drawn in shit! Yeah, good luck with that. Freshman year we has a roving shitter in the dorm that would shit in a shower stall roughly every 2-3 weeks. The whole dorm was on alert to catch the guy. It took over 5 months to finally do it.
The reality is there is very little the president can do about any of the issues raised. For the most part they are protected speech by the US Constitution. They are community issues and really can only be solved by the community.
November 8th, 2015 at 2:07 PM ^
Yeah, maybe he should have done something more significant than a sensitivity class.
I have yet to be called a racial epithet or see anti-white hate speech scrawled on a bathroom wall. I'm not sure how I'd react. But I've personally seen the anti-black versions of both.