Mythbusting white privilege

[boost]

This is something I've pondered and discussed with others before.

If I can choose to be born in the suburbs, most rural areas, or any non-ghettoized city regions, I'd consider going with black. The question then isn't if I think I would be better off in doing so, but if I would want to deal with all the idolization that would come my way. In a lot of places it's arguably better to be black since you're not viewed through a racist lens but an "enriching the experience of white folk lens" -- which is itself also arguably not something some may want.

My overall point is that I think that if you're a black person in a middle class family and a middle class region, institutions, both governmental and cultural, are favorable to you in contrast to the typical ethnicity. This is especially true if you're Asian, but in the opposite direction. Asians tend to have to over-perform to get to the same place as other ethnic groups. A secondary argument is that the effects are marginal regardless of what/where you are, so it's pointless to talk about groups as if some are privileged and others aren't. The degree to which others affect my life is tiny compared to the degree to which I affect my life.

Are there angles you can shoot as a black person? Yeah... But I think you have a seriously delusional idea of what it is like to be non-white. Further the hypothetical was sort of rigged in favour of your argument in that people don't get to chose their background and disproportionately the average black person is going to be born into less preferable circumstances.

Also you seem to be playing both sides here which makes me confused as to whether you support the policies meant to even the playing field. You say you'd chose black because government policy and cultural (awareness of white privilege?) give black people a leg up. So are you saying these things are good, or are you under the impression that without them it would still be preferable to be black (given the circumstances you specified), or even that it would be a wash with being white? I guess what I'm saying is that in summary you seem to be arguing that there was an over correction (because you certainly don't deny there was a problem), yet you prescription is an elimination of all policies enacted to even the playing fields.

[wufwugy]

Are there angles you can shoot as a black person? Yeah... But I think you have a seriously delusional idea of what it is like to be non-white. Further the hypothetical was sort of rigged in favour of your argument in that people don't get to chose their background and disproportionately the average black person is going to be born into less preferable circumstances.

Also you seem to be playing both sides here which makes me confused as to whether you support the policies meant to even the playing field. You say you'd chose black because government policy and cultural (awareness of white privilege?) give black people a leg up. So are you saying these things are good, or are you under the impression that without them it would still be preferable to be black (given the circumstances you specified), or even that it would be a wash with being white? I guess what I'm saying is that in summary you seem to be arguing that there was an over correction (because you certainly don't deny there was a problem), yet you prescription is an elimination of all policies enacted to even the playing fields.

The effects of special treatment end up not being a net "leg up", partly because the costs aren't associated proportionately. My hypothetical was focused on the micro while policy is macro.

Another way of putting it is this: would I take special treatment if offered to me? Yes. Would it help me? Not necessarily to no.

[boost]

The effects of special treatment end up not being a net "leg up", partly because the costs aren't associated proportionately. My hypothetical was focused on the micro while policy is macro.

Another way of putting it is this: would I take special treatment if offered to me? Yes. Would it help me? Not necessarily to no.

I get why, due to imperfect information, people make decisions counter to their own interest-- but your choice to still eat the poisoned cookie while having what you believe to be all the requisite information is a laughably bad justification for your contradictions.

[wufwugy]

I get why, due to imperfect information, people make decisions counter to their own interest-- but your choice to still eat the poisoned cookie while having what you believe to be all the requisite information is a laughably bad justification for your contradictions.

I'm not sure that I understand your point.

It can be the case that you could take advantage of something individually yet the existence of the policy that incentivizes that behavior is bad for a group of which you're a part.

Like, there's a glaring contradiction in your rhetoric. Why are you prescribing solutions to a problem that does not exist? If affirmative action and similar policies are detrimental to blacks, how is it that there is no white privilege?

When we say things like "such and such is bad for blacks", we're describing observations regarding causal relationships in simple terms. "Privilege" doesn't do that. It's just, um, well, a shitty concept. It's virtually undefinable and unfalsifiable. Following the point you made, I could say that because whites don't get the unintended consequences that cause a net negative through special treatment on college admissions, whites are privileged. But how dumb would saying that be?

I don't have a full answer on this topic, which is part of why I made this thread. The concept rubs me the wrong way because one can always point to an inequality and claim a privileged/unprivileged dynamic. Historically, that has been a counterproductive tool and societies have done serious damage to themselves by using it. At least results of things like welfare. "Privilege" can't. It just hangs out in the ether or something.

[wufwugy]

Following the point you made, I could say that because whites don't get the unintended consequences that cause a net negative through special treatment on college admissions, whites are privileged. But how dumb would saying that be?

I should add that whites do get net negative unintended consequences from affirmative action. It's a negative for all groups even though some individuals within the groups can use it as a positive.

Also I should point out that when I was talking about why I could choose to be black in Boost's hypothetical, it wasn't because of affirmative action. It wouldn't be good to get poorly placed in a college. I was thinking of lots of other stuff, and it's hypothetical. The situation I described is basically one where you're the "token black guy" in a place where there isn't a meaningful level of racism. This comes with what can be considered some perks as well as drawbacks.

[JKDS]

It's just, um, well, a shitty concept. It's virtually undefinable and unfalsifiable.

Agree!

[wufwugy]

At least results of things like welfare. "Privilege" can't. It just hangs out in the ether or something.

Official worst edit ever. I meant to say something alone this line:

At least things like welfare can be assessed through quantifiable results. "Privilege" can't be.