NYC Hate Crimes hit Jews harder than other groups combined in 2018

[Darth Wedgius]

I'm not going to argue over the semantics of what racism means. I'll just ignore people saying it means "bigotry + power," because they don't get to define that any more than I do.

I will say that I consider racism as I define it to be equally wrong no matter the target. I don't care about the historical context. If blacks want to get together to look for and try to redress where they are being discriminated against, that's fine. Same for whites, asians, jews, christians, muslims, men, women, left-handers, right-handers, and people who like Dr. Pepper. But the moment when a group demands something other than equality of opportunity and equal treatment under the law, they're racist / sexist / religion-supremacist / Pepperist. If you want people of different races to be treated equally, then you can't, by definition, have special treatment for some.

People can blather on about "white privilege" as much as they want, but nobody gave me anything for being white, so the only thing "white privilege" is good for is for showing me who not tot take seriously.

While I can see what you're saying as a bit of a bold statement to make (respectfully speaking as much as you're willing to tolerate), I don't feel I have an agenda to dismantle it with supporting evidence of white privilege or equality of outcome. I do understand the tenants of white privilege, and personally speaking I don't think it's set out to say that your personal condition and background was just gleaming. From there, from what I know of rational minded people that take consideration to what's being said, it's not very hard to understand at all what it's getting at (your post even can be considered to start alluding to it). And at the same time I personally do get the complication that comes out of it. I have issues with how it gets conveyed people, and to be frank I feel like its transcription among other takes of its kind come off as through a lens of postmodernism, which I disagree with in approach but am suffice just understanding what it's saying at least.

If you view all this with Texas Hold'm as a basis for analogy, then it's easy to see where Slash comes off talking about the losers of the culture war. I mean I don't think we really have to play that, but it seems to me that a lot of people do participate through it for some reason then respond in kind by flipping the table over in response. Then again, there aren't technically any stipulated rules when applying this analogy fairly, as in real life it's just people shouting at each other and galvanizing online.

I mean I personally don't feel like I have to play it knowing what I know. That can be viewed through a lense of white privilege or through defense of my personal circumstances, and honestly I'm of the mindset that those are two different things going on at the same time and aren't technically at odds with each other.

I didn't mention "gleaming" anywhere. I said nobody did me any favors for being white. AFAIK, nobody I know has been done any favors because they were white. I'm sure that happens sometimes, but I supposedly have white privilege for being white. It's a very odd kind of privilege that doesn't do anything for the people it's supposed to be privileging.

White Privilege doesn't mean you get things for free, it just means there are certain forms of bullshit you Aren't subjected to.

What about the forms of bullshit I am subjected to? Discrimination against white people is frequently overt and systematic.

[Yukaphile]

Well, what about male privilege? Take me. If I were to get raped tomorrow, or molested, I do know one very pertinent fact that cannot be overlooked. As a male, no matter what skin color I have, I will never get pregnant or be pressured by society and my family and friends to possibly carry such a mutated life conceived in pain and suffering to term out of archaic gender roles that I must nurture. I'm male. I'm not expected to nurture, but fight and defend.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I'm not going to argue over the semantics of what racism means. I'll just ignore people saying it means "bigotry + power," because they don't get to define that any more than I do.

I will say that I consider racism as I define it to be equally wrong no matter the target. I don't care about the historical context. If blacks want to get together to look for and try to redress where they are being discriminated against, that's fine. Same for whites, asians, jews, christians, muslims, men, women, left-handers, right-handers, and people who like Dr. Pepper. But the moment when a group demands something other than equality of opportunity and equal treatment under the law, they're racist / sexist / religion-supremacist / Pepperist. If you want people of different races to be treated equally, then you can't, by definition, have special treatment for some.

People can blather on about "white privilege" as much as they want, but nobody gave me anything for being white, so the only thing "white privilege" is good for is for showing me who not tot take seriously.

While I can see what you're saying as a bit of a bold statement to make (respectfully speaking as much as you're willing to tolerate), I don't feel I have an agenda to dismantle it with supporting evidence of white privilege or equality of outcome. I do understand the tenants of white privilege, and personally speaking I don't think it's set out to say that your personal condition and background was just gleaming. From there, from what I know of rational minded people that take consideration to what's being said, it's not very hard to understand at all what it's getting at (your post even can be considered to start alluding to it). And at the same time I personally do get the complication that comes out of it. I have issues with how it gets conveyed people, and to be frank I feel like its transcription among other takes of its kind come off as through a lens of postmodernism, which I disagree with in approach but am suffice just understanding what it's saying at least.

If you view all this with Texas Hold'm as a basis for analogy, then it's easy to see where Slash comes off talking about the losers of the culture war. I mean I don't think we really have to play that, but it seems to me that a lot of people do participate through it for some reason then respond in kind by flipping the table over in response. Then again, there aren't technically any stipulated rules when applying this analogy fairly, as in real life it's just people shouting at each other and galvanizing online.

I mean I personally don't feel like I have to play it knowing what I know. That can be viewed through a lense of white privilege or through defense of my personal circumstances, and honestly I'm of the mindset that those are two different things going on at the same time and aren't technically at odds with each other.

I didn't mention "gleaming" anywhere. I said nobody did me any favors for being white. AFAIK, nobody I know has been done any favors because they were white. I'm sure that happens sometimes, but I supposedly have white privilege for being white. It's a very odd kind of privilege that doesn't do anything for the people it's supposed to be privileging.

I don't think it makes too much of a difference if you did or not. It goes towards the same sentiment that white privilege tends generally to determine that white people's circumstance is relatively better. Which just to say the least is a generalization.

Though I do see that you're talking specifically in terms of someone giving you something.

What are white people being given to make their circumstances better? And why does it work better for asians or Ashkenazi Jews, both of who do better in economic, educational, and criminal statistics than white people do?

I don't see it as something being given as much as something that wasn't taken away. I'm of the mind that people that actively talk about white privilege will say that that's the same thing or it's the same difference. And to that, that's part of why I was saying I'm not particularly out to dismantle what you said (and sorry if that's an impression you get). I feel like people are pretty adamant about that narrative. I mean I guess one can talk about the irrelevance of the difference, but I just feel like it does change the running dynamic.

And I'm using past tense when I'm talking about what was taken, mind you. I know that you said you don't care about the historical context, but that is part of the overall context. Contemporarily speaking I can see how opportunity is there for people more than it was before, but I'm not going to discount the legacy of that history and its extension to today.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Well, what about male privilege? Take me. If I were to get raped tomorrow, or molested, I do know one very pertinent fact that cannot be overlooked. As a male, no matter what skin color I have, I will never get pregnant or be pressured by society and my family and friends to possibly carry such a mutated life conceived in pain and suffering to term out of archaic gender roles that I must nurture. I'm male. I'm not expected to nurture, but fight and defend.

Well I could be wrong on this, but, I feel like even as far as consensuality violation, it's not as commonly an issue for or an impact on men. So yeah, there's an aspect of privilege needless to say.

[Yukaphile]

I was thinking man-on-man.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I was thinking man-on-man.

Oh. Well yes, it potentially impacts one party worse.

[Darth Wedgius]

I don't see it as something being given as much as something that wasn't taken away. I'm of the mind that people that actively talk about white privilege will say that that's the same thing or it's the same difference. And to that, that's part of why I was saying I'm not particularly out to dismantle what you said (and sorry if that's an impression you get). I feel like people are pretty adamant about that narrative. I mean I guess one can talk about the irrelevance of the difference, but I just feel like it does change the running dynamic.

And I'm using past tense when I'm talking about what was taken, mind you. I know that you said you don't care about the historical context, but that is part of the overall context. Contemporarily speaking I can see how opportunity is there for people more than it was before, but I'm not going to discount the legacy of that history and its extension to today.

In short, you're OK with people being treated differently according to race sometimes to regress past or continuing wrongs, and I'm not. Is that a succinct summation?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Well that depends on what you mean by being treated differently. I get that it's by race, but what injustices do you see incurring from there? I mean, just that you said it's inherently racist and what not, if that's consistent with what you're saying here. As far as individual actions, I suppose yeah you can call people racist.

I think the term gets thrown around a lot and inflated personally.

[Darth Wedgius]

Well that depends on what you mean by being treated differently. I get that it's by race, but what injustices do you see incurring from there? I mean, just that you said it's inherently racist and what not, if that's consistent with what you're saying here. As far as individual actions, I suppose yeah you can call people racist.

I think the term gets thrown around a lot and inflated personally.

Sorry, going to keep the question pretty much exactly as it is, but I'll hint that I mean the question at its most literal. Treated differently = treated differently in any way except for medical purposes.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Well that depends on what you mean by being treated differently. I get that it's by race, but what injustices do you see incurring from there? I mean, just that you said it's inherently racist and what not, if that's consistent with what you're saying here. As far as individual actions, I suppose yeah you can call people racist.

I think the term gets thrown around a lot and inflated personally.

Sorry, going to keep the question pretty much exactly as it is, but I'll hint that I mean the question at its most literal. Treated differently = treated differently in any way except for medical purposes.

Yeah I'm not really sure what you mean specifically then. I personally try to treat each individual the same despite identity. That's I think pretty standard for plenty of people even on the progressive side.