Current Events > white privilege does not mean all white people are better off than everyone else

(+) Yeah! (+)

Balrog0 posted...

In that other topic (I think) I shared a study that showed bus drivers are discriminatory towards black people in a relatively trivial setting. Does that make the bus driving institution explicitly racist? Or is that only implicit racism, which is somehow better?

Out of curiosity, how did they discriminate against black people? Did they not let them on the bus?
---

s0nicfan posted...

Out of curiosity, how did they discriminate against black people? Did they not let them on the bus?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/25/riding-buses-while-white-drivers-are-more-likely-to-let-white-passengers-skip-fares/?utm_term=.d49b1a483c3f

a research team in Australia found that white people asking for free rides were much more likely than black people to receive one, unless they were wearing a military uniform, in which case they were about as likely to get a free ride as a white person in everyday attire (though much less likely than a white guy in a business suit or military uniform)
---

I mean, I can link to housing discrimination on the part of landlords in terms of residential sorting and school administrators for punishment in schools BUT like I said, the common counter to these studies is that black people are doing something different and/or wrong that makes them deserve these differential punishments or whatever

I like this study because it is experimental and there is really no reason to believe the black subjects were in any way 'acting up' such that they would 'deserve' not to get a free ride (which kind of doesn't make sense anyway, that you could deserve to not have to pay something, but anyway)
---

Balrog0 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Out of curiosity, how did they discriminate against black people? Did they not let them on the bus?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/25/riding-buses-while-white-drivers-are-more-likely-to-let-white-passengers-skip-fares/?utm_term=.d49b1a483c3f

a research team in Australia found that white people asking for free rides were much more likely than black people to receive one, unless they were wearing a military uniform, in which case they were about as likely to get a free ride as a white person in everyday attire (though much less likely than a white guy in a business suit or military uniform)

So I looked it up, and for what it's worth the full study is more than just white versus black:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/feb/27/university-suppressed-study-into-racism-on-buses-and-victimised-its-co-author

It found that drivers allowed white and east Asian passengers to ride free about 72% of the time, but only 50% for Indian and 36% for black passengers.

That doesn't change the results, but it DOES mean this isn't an instance of "white privilege" unless we're extending the definition to include Asians as well.
---

s0nicfan posted...

That doesn't change the results, but it DOES mean this isn't an instance of "white privilege" unless we're extending the definition to include Asians as well.

well, white people were still the most likely to have an advantage, as you can see in the graph in the washington post article

and I'm happy to have a conversation about how white privilege has been extended, partially, to asians that look light enough at least; it's not the first time it's happened
edit: actually, separating east indians from "asian" is itself kind of muddying the waters since both are asian and you're kind of selecting out one group of asians that perform poorly on this metric, but its AUS and idk if that's valid in their society over there. It could be
---

Balrog0 posted...

the common counter to these studies is that black people are doing something different and/or wrong that makes them deserve these differential punishments or whatever

The data will show that black people at equal income and education levels will be more likely rejected for housing, but the data also show that those same black people have significantly lower credit scores than whites and Asians, all else being equal. There is almost no case where the disparity is simply linked to race and not at least fully/partially explained by other factors.

And this complication gets back to the original Ben Shapiro comments. If there are other factors causing the disparity, simply badgering people about being racist or having white privilege is useless in correcting the problem.
---

The Admiral posted...

The data will show that black people at equal income and education levels will be more likely rejected for housing, but the data also show that those same black people have significantly lower credit scores than whites and Asians, all else being equal. There is almost no case where the disparity is simply linked to race and not at least fully/partially explained by other factors.

it's not just about being accepted or rejected; the study I'm thinking of didn't show that there was a disparity between acceptance to housing vouchers, just a huge disparity in the quality of the location due to landlord steering potential clients to different areas.

The Admiral posted...

And this complication gets back to the original Ben Shapiro comments. If there are other factors causing the disparity, simply badgering people about being racist or having white privilege is useless in correcting the problem.

and this kind of gets me back to the "you can't just say communism is bad," part of my rejoinder.

You're now asking for an incredibly high bar with respect to how we think about public policies -- which I'm okay with. But do you have this standard for every public policy? When people ask for a minimum wage increase, do you carefully study the literature to see what the impact would be? When you see something that might show it's bad, do you carefully consider the limitations of the study?

If not, that's a bit hypocritical. If so, that sounds exhausting.
---

Balrog0 posted...

You're now asking for an incredibly high bar with respect to how we think about public policies -- which I'm okay with. But do you have this standard for every public policy? When people ask for a minimum wage increase, do you carefully study the literature to see what the impact would be? When you see something that might show it's bad, do you carefully consider the limitations of the study?

I'm asking for a high bar before accepting claims of institutional racism. And so should everyone. Blaming a disparity on racism when it's not the true cause is not simply useless, it's counter-productive.

Also, there is nothing wrong with expecting a high bar and detailed analysis for public policies. I'm not expecting you or me to do that, but there are thousands of well-educated 20-somethings on the government payroll who should be doing these kinds of analyses before we make sweeping policy changes that could have unforeseen consequences. In fact, a lack of this kind of pre-analysis has been a major contributor to racial disparities in policy outcomes in some cases (stop-and-frisk probably being the most heated example).
---

I'm trying to be on my best behavior so I'm not gonna go into detail but just lol that white people are more likely to receive rides while hitch hiking. So are people who don't dress like thugs, white, black, or purple. You'd pick up a guy in a suit before the guy wearing his pants around his knees.

Also why isn't Asian privilege a thing? For fuck's sake, band-aids match their skin closer than whites. Yes, this is actually listed as a white privilege and in the invisible knapsack, despite just how fucking stupid it is and the fact everyone knows you have a bandaid on regardless of skin color. They also tend to have good educations and make good money, perhaps it is because their cultures value education and honorable behavior.

Coming from a white guy who rode the bus and sold drugs to pay his own way through college. Fun fact: despite my skin color, several decades back I wouldn't have been considered white.
---

EdgeMaster posted...

I'm trying to be on my best behavior so I'm not gonna go into detail but just lol that white people are more likely to receive rides while hitch hiking.

...Was there a post about hitchhiking? I thought that was a study about bus rides.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

White privilege is only brought up to attack, dismiss, de-legitimize and create an us vs them mentality against whites.

White people were created for this very reason. wtf are you talking about? "White" people weren't always a thing.

Europeans came from various countries and BECAME White to willingly conform to the social construct. the social construct offered privilege. hell, Jim Crow is something that actually had to be ABOLISHED, lol.
---

The Admiral posted...

I'm asking for a high bar before accepting claims of institutional racism. And so should everyone. Blaming a disparity on racism when it's not the true cause is not simply useless, it's counter-productive.

I agree with this statement, but apparently disagree about the strength of the evidence for systemic racism

The Admiral posted...

Also, there is nothing wrong with expecting a high bar and detailed analysis for public policies. I'm not expecting you or me to do that, but there are thousands of well-educated 20-somethings on the government payroll who should be doing these kinds of analyses before we make sweeping policy changes that could have unforeseen consequences. In fact, a lack of this kind of pre-analysis has been a major contributor to racial disparities in policy outcomes in some cases (stop-and-frisk probably being the most heated example).

I agree with that, too.

BUT it doesn't really answer my question. As a matter of fact, we don't live in a world where the majority of people demand this kind of scrutiny for public policies, generally. And when we actually enact policies that demand scrutiny through legislation, I don't think the result we get is anything like consensus.

The most recent and easy example of this is the kerfuffle over the minimum wage debate in Seattle, which is why I mentioned it. Now, to your credit, I don't think you were one of the people who entered one of my many topics about that, saw a result they liked (the higher minimum wage was bad), and then said something along the lines of, "obviously a higher minimum wage had that impact!" But there are people on "your side" who did do that, even though the preponderance of research should tell you to take that result much more skeptically (and to be generally supportive of a gradually increasing minimum wage).

So it's a legitimate question; where do you draw the line? I DO think I've seen you argue something along the lines that the disparity between whites and blacks with respect to things like arrest rates and sentencing is due to the different behaviors of blacks and whites when interacting with the police, for instance, when presented with potential evidence of discrimination based on outcomes there. Is that really a realistic thing to study? And if we did find that was true, wouldn't we just continue to argue about whether the response by the criminal justice system was justified, or still discriminatory?

just as a caveat, many people have a broader view of racism than I do, I'm only arguing for myself
---

That_Happened posted...

EdgeMaster posted...

I'm trying to be on my best behavior so I'm not gonna go into detail but just lol that white people are more likely to receive rides while hitch hiking.

...Was there a post about hitchhiking? I thought that was a study about bus rides.

Just skimmed the topic, but correction yes, it's was white people asking for free rides were more likely than blacks, exception being blacks in military uniforms have same success rate for a free ride as whites.

Regardless, it's basic psychology that people give free stuff or help people who are better put together.

It's not really a race thing as much as a class thing.

I worked at as a bouncer and we sometimes did not let black people in... before everyone loses their shit, we did indeed let blacks in who took a shower and dressed nice. We did not let in blacks with red dickies around their knees who try and wander in off the streets.

Is this racism? Fuck no.
Is this discrimination against social class? Debatable, but no.

It's to prevent trouble, just like we wouldn't let you in if you had a face tattoo. Dgaf if you're black white or purple, never seen someone who is the life of the party, spends good money, and doesn't start fights who has a face tattoo.

Point is it isn't racist, it's just bad for business and we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.
---

EdgeMaster posted...

That_Happened posted...

EdgeMaster posted...

I'm trying to be on my best behavior so I'm not gonna go into detail but just lol that white people are more likely to receive rides while hitch hiking.

...Was there a post about hitchhiking? I thought that was a study about bus rides.

Just skimmed the topic, but correction yes, it's was white people asking for free rides were more likely than blacks, exception being blacks in military uniforms have same success rate for a free ride as whites.

Regardless, it's basic psychology that people give free stuff or help people who are better put together.

They controlled for that. A black guy in a military uniform is only as likely to get a free ride as a white guy in regular clothes. Meaning, the black people have to overdress in order to get the same level of respect as the average white guy.

But that's twice that you've tried to handwave the results without actually reading the study. It's pretty clear what your motive is.
---

Balrog0 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

That doesn't change the results, but it DOES mean this isn't an instance of "white privilege" unless we're extending the definition to include Asians as well.

well, white people were still the most likely to have an advantage, as you can see in the graph in the washington post article

and I'm happy to have a conversation about how white privilege has been extended, partially, to asians that look light enough at least; it's not the first time it's happened
edit: actually, separating east indians from "asian" is itself kind of muddying the waters since both are asian and you're kind of selecting out one group of asians that perform poorly on this metric, but its AUS and idk if that's valid in their society over there. It could be

It stops being white privilege though the moment you start including other races. You can't "extend" Asians into "white" simply because it ruins the narrative. It means the narrative is fundamentally flawed and needs to be re-evaluated.
---

s0nicfan posted...

It stops being white privilege though the moment you start including other races. You can't "extend" Asians into "white" simply because it ruins the narrative. It means the narrative is fundamentally flawed and needs to be re-evaluated.

But whiteness has been extended to people who didn't previously qualify for basically our entire history. I'm not a race realist, so this wouldn't hurt my argument at all if I did accept it, which I'm not sure that I do.

I don't know how fatal it would be even if you were a race realist, though. Let's say we talked about the caste system in India this way. Would Brahmin privilege stop being real once you noticed Kshatriya are also treated better than Dalits or Shudras? Seems like a pretty thin analysis
---

Balrog0 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

It stops being white privilege though the moment you start including other races. You can't "extend" Asians into "white" simply because it ruins the narrative. It means the narrative is fundamentally flawed and needs to be re-evaluated.

But whiteness has been extended to people who didn't previously qualify for basically our entire history. I'm not a race realist, so this wouldn't hurt my argument at all if I did accept it, which I'm not sure that I do.

I don't know how fatal it would be even if you were a race realist, though. Let's say we talked about the caste system in India this way. Would Brahmin privilege stop being real once you noticed Kshatriya are also treated better than Dalits or Shudras? Seems like a pretty thin analysis

It matters in 2 critical ways:
1. It forces an entire side of the argument to stop slandering an entire race of people based purely on their skin color (and let's not pretend the phrase "white privilege" isn't used like a slander or a cudgel). Instead, it changes the argument to a class-based one, or a more general "majority privilege" that can be applied to many different nations without singling one out. With some nuance added to the discussion, both sides can be more productive since neither is perceived as the "enemy".

2. It brings to light the recognition that different groups get different bonuses in different ways, and that there isn't one dominant group that controls everything for their own gain. There are lots of places where being a minority grants you more benefits than being a majority, but the whole of society is being bundled into this oppressor/oppressed role which has no correlation with reality.
---

The Admiral posted...

Balrog0 posted...

You're now asking for an incredibly high bar with respect to how we think about public policies -- which I'm okay with. But do you have this standard for every public policy? When people ask for a minimum wage increase, do you carefully study the literature to see what the impact would be? When you see something that might show it's bad, do you carefully consider the limitations of the study?

I'm asking for a high bar before accepting claims of institutional racism. And so should everyone. Blaming a disparity on racism when it's not the true cause is not simply useless, it's counter-productive.

Also, there is nothing wrong with expecting a high bar and detailed analysis for public policies. I'm not expecting you or me to do that, but there are thousands of well-educated 20-somethings on the government payroll who should be doing these kinds of analyses before we make sweeping policy changes that could have unforeseen consequences. In fact, a lack of this kind of pre-analysis has been a major contributor to racial disparities in policy outcomes in some cases (stop-and-frisk probably being the most heated example).

A more national example would be the Great Recession - caused ultimately by policy enacted under Clinton to increase minority home ownership, because racizms.
---

darkjedilink posted...

The Admiral posted...

Balrog0 posted...

You're now asking for an incredibly high bar with respect to how we think about public policies -- which I'm okay with. But do you have this standard for every public policy? When people ask for a minimum wage increase, do you carefully study the literature to see what the impact would be? When you see something that might show it's bad, do you carefully consider the limitations of the study?

I'm asking for a high bar before accepting claims of institutional racism. And so should everyone. Blaming a disparity on racism when it's not the true cause is not simply useless, it's counter-productive.

Also, there is nothing wrong with expecting a high bar and detailed analysis for public policies. I'm not expecting you or me to do that, but there are thousands of well-educated 20-somethings on the government payroll who should be doing these kinds of analyses before we make sweeping policy changes that could have unforeseen consequences. In fact, a lack of this kind of pre-analysis has been a major contributor to racial disparities in policy outcomes in some cases (stop-and-frisk probably being the most heated example).

A more national example would be the Great Recession - caused ultimately by policy enacted under Clinton to increase minority home ownership, because racizms.

See, this. is what I'm talking about. This position is not necessarily ridiculous, but it had less evidence for it then the idea that our housing or criminal Justice systems are discriminatory. You can't talk out of both sides of your mouth.

Sonicfan, sorry man, I'll respond when I'm not on mobile
---

Balrog0 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

The Admiral posted...

Balrog0 posted...

You're now asking for an incredibly high bar with respect to how we think about public policies -- which I'm okay with. But do you have this standard for every public policy? When people ask for a minimum wage increase, do you carefully study the literature to see what the impact would be? When you see something that might show it's bad, do you carefully consider the limitations of the study?

I'm asking for a high bar before accepting claims of institutional racism. And so should everyone. Blaming a disparity on racism when it's not the true cause is not simply useless, it's counter-productive.

Also, there is nothing wrong with expecting a high bar and detailed analysis for public policies. I'm not expecting you or me to do that, but there are thousands of well-educated 20-somethings on the government payroll who should be doing these kinds of analyses before we make sweeping policy changes that could have unforeseen consequences. In fact, a lack of this kind of pre-analysis has been a major contributor to racial disparities in policy outcomes in some cases (stop-and-frisk probably being the most heated example).

A more national example would be the Great Recession - caused ultimately by policy enacted under Clinton to increase minority home ownership, because racizms.

See, this. is what I'm talking about. This position is not necessarily ridiculous, but it had less evidence for it then the idea that our housing or criminal Justice systems are discriminatory. You can't talk out of both sides of your mouth.

Sonicfan, sorry man, I'll respond when I'm not on mobile

Literally the truth, dude.
---

It simply doesn't exist
---

darkjedilink posted...

A more national example would be the Great Recession - caused ultimately by policy enacted under Clinton to increase minority home ownership, because racizms.

Weren't the banks handing out shady loans they knew were bad ideas to minorities, though? Was it the fault of the policy or the banks?
---

The much bigger disparity is between the rich and the poor.

I can tell you I haven't benefited much from being white. Has it made my life easier? Probably I dunno.

But if you are rich you can fucking kill people and get away with it.
---

This is not what SJWs imply when they abuse the term
---

Set em straight cuckboi.
---

Kolibri X posted...

Set em straight cuckboi.

Thanks

That_Happened posted...

EdgeMaster posted...

That_Happened posted...

EdgeMaster posted...

I'm trying to be on my best behavior so I'm not gonna go into detail but just lol that white people are more likely to receive rides while hitch hiking.

...Was there a post about hitchhiking? I thought that was a study about bus rides.

Just skimmed the topic, but correction yes, it's was white people asking for free rides were more likely than blacks, exception being blacks in military uniforms have same success rate for a free ride as whites.

Regardless, it's basic psychology that people give free stuff or help people who are better put together.

They controlled for that. A black guy in a military uniform is only as likely to get a free ride as a white guy in regular clothes. Meaning, the black people have to overdress in order to get the same level of respect as the average white guy.

But that's twice that you've tried to handwave the results without actually reading the study. It's pretty clear what your motive is.

Doesn't that same study show black people have the same bias as white people, though? It's less
pronounced, but clearly a similar disparity - why? I'm still confused how we're lumping in bias present in
all races with actual institutionalized racism that results in inequity and not just individual interactions.
---

mattnd2007 posted...

The much bigger disparity is between the rich and the poor.

I can tell you I haven't benefited much from being white. Has it made my life easier? Probably I dunno.

But if you are rich you can fucking kill people and get away with it.

Trouble is there isn't much disagreement on this point. Yet people claim up and down that being white has given them NO benefit, and the more idiotic people suggest that being white is a detriment overall. Imagine if a rich person said it was easier to be poor.
---

darkjedilink posted...

A more national example would be the Great Recession - caused ultimately by policy enacted under Clinton to increase minority home ownership, because racizms.

Wrong
https://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2012/2012-005.pdf
https://thinkprogress.org/fed-study-debunks-conservative-myth-that-affordable-housing-policies-caused-subprime-crisis-c4081d48b88f/

The study analyzed loan- and neighborhood-level data in California and Florida. It found no statistical relationship between the two federal housing policies — which have been the central focus of conservative attacks in recent years — and the price or availability of subprime loans, even after controlling for the loan size, loan type, borrower characteristics, and other factors.

These findings shouldn’t come as a surprise. Indeed, CAP’s housing team has been making this point for years.

Here’s what really happened. During the housing bubble of the mid-2000s, over-leveraged shadow banks packaged risky subprime mortgage loans into securities and passed them along to consumers that were often unaware or misinformed of the underlying risks. It was the poor performance of these private-label securities — not those issued by Fannie and Freddie — that led to the financial meltdown, according to the bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.

http://www.ncrc.org/media-center/press-releases/item/240-cra-myth-and-fact

. In fact, only about 25 percent of sub-prime loans were made by institutions covered by CRA.¹

CRA was passed in 1977. The explosive growth in subprime lending occurred more than two decades later, nearly doubling from 2001-2006 alone. No major changes to CRA were enacted during this time.

---

That_Happened posted...

Imagine if a rich person said it was easier to be poor.

We've been down this road recently!
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/07/democratic-councilman-fernando-cabrera-explains-it.html

That was a fun topic.
---

Antifar, if evidence that proves him wrong didn't stop him from defending the white nationalists in Charlottesville, it's certainly not going to work here.
---

That_Happened posted...

Trouble is there isn't much disagreement on this point. Yet people claim up and down that being white has given them NO benefit, and the more idiotic people suggest that being white is a detriment overall. Imagine if a rich person said it was easier to be poor.

Could you elucidate on what those benefits are, particularly?

In the institutional, inequality of opportunity sense. I sincerely want to understand this.
---

Antifar posted...

That_Happened posted...

Imagine if a rich person said it was easier to be poor.

We've been down this road recently!
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/07/democratic-councilman-fernando-cabrera-explains-it.html

That was a fun topic.

Wow, are we certain that isn't Ben Shapiro?
---

s0nicfan posted...

(and let's not pretend the phrase "white privilege" isn't used like a slander or a cudgel)

I just wanted to comment on this line of thought a little bit. A lot of terms are misused as slander or cudgels. Liberal, conservative, politically correct, feminist, etc. That doesn't disqualify something from being a useful tool in a constructive discussion.
---