Dumb Political Correctness

I ask the question; what is the point of the white privilege campaign? I say it's to layer the guilt on so thick that white people will roll over and allow more wealth redistribution. That is why the tax cuts were met with such scorn. They can't redistribute what they don't have. To say you worked 40 years, showed up every day, maintained a credit rating of 750-800 the entire time and went to night school means nothing; they can wipe out all of that in one sentence: "You benefited from white privilege so you owe us."

Otherwise, it's a meaningless and inflammatory statement. Does it make people feel good about themselves; maybe. They now have someone to blame.
 
Horn6721 said:
To think some white people feel good about flaying themselves for being white is :facepalm::idk::confused2:.
Click to expand...

I think it's more white people who voted for Trump. They have completely divorced themselves from history on the basis of the 2016 vote. It's mental. It's mental to feel guilty, assign guilt or demand that we "pay them back." But in their mind, if you vote Republican then to them you would have killed the Freedom Riders.

I'm white. My Dad was from Cuba. He had nothing to do with any of that. My Mom is white. She is from Oklahoma. She has some Indian blood (more than Pocahontas Warren). She had nothing to do with any of that either. But my whiteness gives me advantages I guess just like when Obama said "You didn't build that." We know what it's all about; power. They use guilt and PCness as tools.
 
Last edited:
bystander said:
I ask the question; what is the point of the white privilege campaign? I say it's to layer the guilt on so thick that white people will roll over and allow more wealth redistribution. That is why the tax cuts were met with such scorn. They can't redistribute what they don't have. To say you worked 40 years, showed up every day, maintained a credit rating of 750-800 the entire time and went to night school means nothing; they can wipe out all of that in one sentence: "You benefited from white privilege so you owe us."

Otherwise, it's a meaningless and inflammatory statement. Does it make people feel good about themselves; maybe. They now have someone to blame.
Click to expand...
Stealing money from the productive and giving it to the unproductive is a recipe for disaster.
 
by,
At first I misunderstood your point. I thought you meant that white people who voted for Trump feel guilty for being white.
Then I read the last post and I get it
and agree
 
Horn6721 said:
by,
At first I misunderstood your point. I thought you meant that white people who voted for Trump feel guilty for being white.
Then I read the last post and I get it
and agree
Click to expand...

I may come across to strong on these things but it's a damn knife-fight and these people mean it.
 
I don't feel guilty for being "white". I also don't ignore that I had advantages that others may not have historically had whether due to my "white" name on a resume, living in a primarily white community (and school) or a family structure that helped me navigate the transition into adult life. To be clear, I grew up in rural Nebraska in a single-parent household since age 7 and was the first person to graduate with a bachelors degree in my supporting parents side.

As someone that started my career as a corporate recruiter, it's my experience that ethnicity and ethnic influences do have have ramifications in who gets hired and gets to move up the corporate ladder. That influence is diminishing but still present, especially higher up in the echelons of the corporate world. This plays out as leaders look to people who they've worked with or "liked" in the past which happens to be more of an unintentional "old boys club". Ensuring leaders look more broadly at candidates is essential to ensuring the problem is perpetuated unimpeded.

I struggle with the idea that white males are suddenly the aggrieved party in the conversations when "equality" is the goal.
 
I don't know what it means to either acknowledge or ignore, "advantages." I'm white as I said. My Father was Cuban and broke. So was my mother. I don't look at that as an advantageous position. There is no point in me saying, well I feel so blessed because if I were black we'd still be broke. Or worse. Why is all this happening now?

I believe there is an agenda that is building because otherwise it is a daily drumbeat to what purpose?
 
To think some white people feel good about flaying themselves for being white is :facepalm::idk::confused2:.
Click to expand...

Humans have always been willing to assume guilt if it means they are the "good, moral, or holy". In the past, that meant characters like the Church Lady. Assume guilt but even more so accuse others of more guilt. Today, Political Correctness is the new church with its own new morality of victimhood.
 
Seattle Husker said:
I don't feel guilty for being "white". I also don't ignore that I had advantages that others may not have historically had whether due to my "white" name on a resume, living in a primarily white community (and school) or a family structure that helped me navigate the transition into adult life. To be clear, I grew up in rural Nebraska in a single-parent household since age 7 and was the first person to graduate with a bachelors degree in my supporting parents side.

As someone that started my career as a corporate recruiter, it's my experience that ethnicity and ethnic influences do have have ramifications in who gets hired and gets to move up the corporate ladder. That influence is diminishing but still present, especially higher up in the echelons of the corporate world. This plays out as leaders look to people who they've worked with or "liked" in the past which happens to be more of an unintentional "old boys club". Ensuring leaders look more broadly at candidates is essential to ensuring the problem is perpetuated unimpeded.

I struggle with the idea that white males are suddenly the aggrieved party in the conversations when "equality" is the goal.
Click to expand...
Equality of what?
 
Monahorns said:
Equality is a mirage. Much like fairness.
Click to expand...

There are too many self proclaimed victims in the world who use "it's not fair" and "inequality" as simple excuses to underachieve while blaming someone else. Nothing in life is fair or equal and it's up to your own self motivation to overcome the obstacles presented. In my opinion most obstacles are in the way because of poor decision making, but some are not. Some have bigger obstacles than others, but I just don't understand quitting and using those excuses.
 
Seattle Husker said:
I don't feel guilty for being "white". I also don't ignore that I had advantages that others may not have historically had whether due to my "white" name on a resume, living in a primarily white community (and school) or a family structure that helped me navigate the transition into adult life. To be clear, I grew up in rural Nebraska in a single-parent household since age 7 and was the first person to graduate with a bachelors degree in my supporting parents side.

As someone that started my career as a corporate recruiter, it's my experience that ethnicity and ethnic influences do have have ramifications in who gets hired and gets to move up the corporate ladder. That influence is diminishing but still present, especially higher up in the echelons of the corporate world. This plays out as leaders look to people who they've worked with or "liked" in the past which happens to be more of an unintentional "old boys club". Ensuring leaders look more broadly at candidates is essential to ensuring the problem is perpetuated unimpeded.

I struggle with the idea that white males are suddenly the aggrieved party in the conversations when "equality" is the goal.
Click to expand...

What you're saying here isn't really wrong, but here's where I think the breakdown happens in this sort of discussion. The reason many white people have a problem with your logic (and a significant reason why a bunch of Democrats in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan had enough and decided to vote for Trump) is that to the political Left, "white" has become synonymous with "advantage." They make a ton of assumptions about people and their background and experiences based solely on the fact that their skin is white, and that is carried into the the Democratic Party's rhetoric and policy agenda.

I don't think your average white conservative denies having advantages that are specific to them. If your parents have money and can bankroll your college education so you don't have to borrow, of course that's an advantage. If your dad is buddies with the boss of the company you want to work for, of course that's an advantage. Here's the problem though. Those aren't inherent to whiteness, and plenty of white people don't have those advantages but are presumed to.

At the same time, since the late 1960s, we've set up vast legal, social, and economic structures to overcome the presumed advantages of being white. We've rigged college admissions, financial aid, government employment, and government contracting to disfavor white applicants (and especially Asian applicants) and done so largely with white people's money. Here's the other thing - ever single one of these things is illegal because our laws (including our Constitution) are race neutral. We wrote those laws based on the political compromises that were made and expected them to be enforced as written. However, we've elevated the agenda even over the rule of law. Well, if you're a white person who isn't advantaged and have to navigate that system, it sucks to be you.

Do people make assumptions about people based on ethnicity? Absolutely. We make assumptions about arbitrary things every single day. I do it too. When I was doing God's Work, if there was a white dude in his late 50s with his arms crossed (which his how I picture iatrogenic), do you think I wanted him on my jury? Hell no. If I was a prosecutor and there was a big black dude with a strange apostrophe in his first name, do you think I'd want him on my jury? Hell no. Is that because I wouldn't like those people? No, it's because I don't have time to get to know them well enough to know if the stereotypes are applicable to them or not. Furthermore, I have a client to serve, and that's more important than being politically correct. We can make every effort to stop this sort of thing, but we should do so by looking at the individual, not the collective group. And we'll never get rid of it fully, because there isn't always time to give every human being a fair shake in every situation in life. The answer to that isn't judging white people's situation by their race any more than judging others by their race. It's simply doing our best and accepting that no system is going to be perfect. And of course, when the discrimination laws are violated (which does happen), enforce them as they're written.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Deez said:
We can make every effort to stop this sort of thing, but we should do so by looking at the individual, not the collective group. And we'll never get rid of it fully, because there isn't always time to give every human being a fair shake in every situation in life. The answer to that isn't judging white people's situation by their race any more than judging others by their race.
Click to expand...

In economics, this is known as "sorting". There is a cost involved with sorting and it is often a cost that is not undertaken because it is usually too high. Unfortunately, whole groups can suffer because of the actions of a few members of the group.

Also, a huge amount of suffering can be imposed on groups by the legal system trying to unsort groups. Brown v Board of Education is a good example. Racially segregated schools were not inherently inferior, and desegregation did not generally improve the education of blacks.

By the way, typing with my arms crossed is extremely difficult.
 
For the first time in my life I have hired a "plaintiff's lawyer", and it took a huge product liability f***-up to do so. Admittedly, my perspective has changed, but only a little. I don't even like my own lawyers.
 
Seattle Husker said:
while I watch it and think "doesn't apply to me, hopefully others hear the message"
Click to expand...

And that speaks to your background and perspective, and to some extent how you see other men. If you really believe that "boys will be boys" means white men standing around a barbecue watching two kids pound on each other, or watching a pack of boys bully a weaker kid and saying "oh well!" then I would say that says more about you than it does about men in general. If you really believe that a substantial percentage of men are out there catcalling, egging on bullies, denigrating women, etc..., then it's going to be reflected in trying to rein in "men" - not just problem men, but men. And that's the progressive goal: to make people believe this is a widespread problem that can only be fixed if we start putting policies in place that will for men to "behave" in the acceptable manner.

Once I create broad policy decisions that apply to all men based on the actions of a few, then yes, in fact, the message does apply to you.

We talk about the problems with toxic masculinity (how you define that's pretty subjective), but ultimately the rise in so many of these issues has happened as fathers have become more and more removed from the picture. Maybe... just maybe... when there isn't a strong (and masculine) father in the picture every day, doing fatherly things, then the child has no model that's going to really impact his choices and show him how real men act, and maybe that's been one of the reasons why (if the allegations are true) there has been an increase in "toxic" behavior.

But we aren't going to push that narrative because it offends single mothers and feminists. So we're left with "why are men behaving like this? It must be because no one told them not to sexually harass women."

You know what would have been a fantastic ad? "The best dad a man can get." Talking about how when you're a dad, you're the one who's going to train your boys to be good men. Men who aren't engaged in all these toxic behaviors. Men who are treating women with respect. Men who aren't embarrassing the rest of us by their behavior.

That would have been positive. It would have addressed the real issues out there. And it would have acknowledged that while this is a real problem, we get that it's not all men, and not even most men. But we still have work to do.

The difference there is that the add is men speaking with men, not a company lecturing men as a third party.

Seattle Husker said:
I don't feel guilty for being "white". I also don't ignore that I had advantages that others may not have historically had whether due to my "white" name on a resume, living in a primarily white community (and school) or a family structure that helped me navigate the transition into adult life.
Click to expand...

Seattle Husker said:
I struggle with the idea that white males are suddenly the aggrieved party in the conversations when "equality" is the goal.
Click to expand...

Only when "equality of outcome" is the goal. The idea is that if you have succeeded and someone who is not white has not, the only difference in the equation that matters is race. You can deny that all you want, but no one's doing campaigns about staying married, making sure your kid has an active, engaged, employed, and in-home father.

it reminds me of that video that came out a while back that everyone shared on Facebook and said was "so powereful" - where they had the kids run a race, and the moderator had people take steps up and back depending on their race, or whether someone had ever done something to them in life, and he set it up so that the white boys were at the front and only had a few steps to go in order to succeed. I remember one of the women in the group being interviewed as saying "I had no idea I was at such a disadvantage until today!" Mission accomplished: it's about creating victims. It's about telling them that they have no chance to succeed on their own.

Because that's the message. When I line people up so that it's impossible for anyone but these two or three white kids to win, I teach the following:
1. It's a zero sum game. If they succeed in life, you lose.
2. You can't catch up. It's physically impossible no matter how hard you try.
3. The system is rigged. Look at those people up there. They don't have to do anything at all because life has put them in a place where they can't lose.

Whether that was the intent or not, that's how we structure sloppy allegories in such a way that they create victimhood and hopelessness.
 
ProdigalHorn said:
And that speaks to your background and perspective, and to some extent how you see other men. If you really believe that "boys will be boys" means white men standing around a barbecue watching two kids pound on each other, or watching a pack of boys bully a weaker kid and saying "oh well!" then I would say that says more about you than it does about men in general. If you really believe that a substantial percentage of men are out there catcalling, egging on bullies, denigrating women, etc..., then it's going to be reflected in trying to rein in "men" - not just problem men, but men. And that's the progressive goal: to make people believe this is a widespread problem that can only be fixed if we start putting policies in place that will for men to "behave" in the acceptable manner.

Once I create broad policy decisions that apply to all men based on the actions of a few, then yes, in fact, the message does apply to you.

We talk about the problems with toxic masculinity (how you define that's pretty subjective), but ultimately the rise in so many of these issues has happened as fathers have become more and more removed from the picture. Maybe... just maybe... when there isn't a strong (and masculine) father in the picture every day, doing fatherly things, then the child has no model that's going to really impact his choices and show him how real men act, and maybe that's been one of the reasons why (if the allegations are true) there has been an increase in "toxic" behavior.

But we aren't going to push that narrative because it offends single mothers and feminists. So we're left with "why are men behaving like this? It must be because no one told them not to sexually harass women."

You know what would have been a fantastic ad? "The best dad a man can get." Talking about how when you're a dad, you're the one who's going to train your boys to be good men. Men who aren't engaged in all these toxic behaviors. Men who are treating women with respect. Men who aren't embarrassing the rest of us by their behavior.

That would have been positive. It would have addressed the real issues out there. And it would have acknowledged that while this is a real problem, we get that it's not all men, and not even most men. But we still have work to do.

The difference there is that the add is men speaking with men, not a company lecturing men as a third party.





Only when "equality of outcome" is the goal. The idea is that if you have succeeded and someone who is not white has not, the only difference in the equation that matters is race. You can deny that all you want, but no one's doing campaigns about staying married, making sure your kid has an active, engaged, employed, and in-home father.

it reminds me of that video that came out a while back that everyone shared on Facebook and said was "so powereful" - where they had the kids run a race, and the moderator had people take steps up and back depending on their race, or whether someone had ever done something to them in life, and he set it up so that the white boys were at the front and only had a few steps to go in order to succeed. I remember one of the women in the group being interviewed as saying "I had no idea I was at such a disadvantage until today!" Mission accomplished: it's about creating victims. It's about telling them that they have no chance to succeed on their own.

Because that's the message. When I line people up so that it's impossible for anyone but these two or three white kids to win, I teach the following:
1. It's a zero sum game. If they succeed in life, you lose.
2. You can't catch up. It's physically impossible no matter how hard you try.
3. The system is rigged. Look at those people up there. They don't have to do anything at all because life has put them in a place where they can't lose.

Whether that was the intent or not, that's how we structure sloppy allegories in such a way that they create victimhood and hopelessness.
Click to expand...
I remember that video. I commented that it was a perfect example of how bad/absent parenting can screw up a kid's life. That's not how the film makers wanted it to be interpreted, but that was the truth.
 
iatrogenic said:
For the first time in my life I have hired a "plaintiff's lawyer", and it took a huge product liability f***-up to do so. Admittedly, my perspective has changed, but only a little. I don't even like my own lawyers.
Click to expand...

I hope you weren't hurt too badly, and though products cases are never fun, I hope yours goes as well as it can. Hopefully you at least won't detest your lawyer when it's over, and hopefully he won't give you a reason to detest him. Lol.
 
"I remember one of the women in the group being interviewed as saying "I had no idea I was at such a disadvantage until today!" Mission accomplished: it's about creating victims. It's about telling them that they have no chance to succeed on their own.

I remember that too. And you are right, Mission accomplished. We see it every day.
 
Just curious, but is there a such thing as Asian Privilege too? Maybe Asian Advantage sounds better. If there is racism (both institutionalized and social) against any group, its Asians. How does the Left explain how Asians are kicking everyone's butt even to the point that affirmative action works against them?
 
I would also like to see a study on how Blacks from Africa or other countries do versus Blacks born here.
Anecdotally :smile1: it seems that black immigrants and their children do better than those born here. Which kinda shoots down racists
 
UTChE96 said:
Just curious, but is there a such thing as Asian Privilege too? Maybe Asian Advantage sounds better. If there is racism (both institutionalized and social) against any group, its Asians. How does the Left explain how Asians are kicking everyone's butt even to the point that affirmative action works against them?
Click to expand...

Tiger Mom's. They are as tough as they come when it comes to academics. This is where I favor universities looking more for wholistic students. Social skills matter. Leadership skills matter. Grades and Test taking skills also matter but shouldn't be the sum total of a schools evaluation.

My son's attend a public school that is 60% Asian. 1800 kids and the school can barely field competitive sports teams. The first time I encountered a parent who's "gifted" student was attending some high priced tutoring center for "fun" I was shocked. I later became immune to the discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top