White Privilege

[Biggles]

Poor people drug use is associated with other crimes (theft and violent crime). Rich people drug use is not. That's why it's treated differently.

If someone commits theft or violent crime then they should be charged with theft or violent crime. What we are talking about is people - African Americans being disproportionally, massively disproportionally, incarcerated for possession. That's what's racist.

"Is associated" - what does that mean? You mean where people simply assume that in a poor, urban black neighbourhood people are guilty of other crimes by association. That's racist.

So I'm confused, are you saying we should treat everyone exactly like we did in the past? Because it seems like you're actually arguing against progress.

I don't think people in general should be incarcerated for personal drug use. Mass incarceration of white opioid addicts would be wrong. It would have devastating consequences for the communities in which opioid abuse is already a serious problem. That is precisely the effect it had on poor, urban black communities.

 

[mustafur]

Easier to escape Punishment when more wealth = Less punishment.

That thing called expensive lawyers really makes a flaw in the system.

 

[Sander 001]

But can they ensure safety from lightning?

I’m sure enough resources could be directed to safeguard against it to satisfy the citizenry.

 

[TenEightyOne]

But can they ensure safety from lightning?

They greatly add to it by mandating building regulations ('codes' in the USA?) and issuing public safety advice. Can anybody ensure anything?

 

[Danoff]

If someone commits theft or violent crime then they should be charged with theft or violent crime. What we are talking about is people - African Americans being disproportionally, massively disproportionally, incarcerated for possession. That's what's racist.

"Is associated" - what does that mean? You mean where people simply assume that in a poor, urban black neighbourhood people are guilty of other crimes by association. That's racist.

What I mean is that the public sees crack differently than cocaine because of $$. They don't assume that the celebrity snorting a line (black, white, or other) will go out and steal to get their next hit. They do assume that the homeless person with a crack pipe (black, white, or other) will go out and steal (possibly at gunpoint) to get their next hit. So one is a perceived problem while the other is not.

I’m sure enough resources could be directed to safeguard against it to satisfy the citizenry.

What about sunburns, does the government protect against those? And spiders?

Can anybody ensure anything?

That was the point I was making (and stating). That @Sander 001 was wrong.

 

[Sander 001]

What I mean is that the public sees crack differently than cocaine because of $$. They don't assume that the celebrity snorting a line (black, white, or other) will go out and steal to get their next hit. They do assume that the homeless person with a crack pipe (black, white, or other) will go out and steal (possibly at gunpoint) to get their next hit. So one is a perceived problem while the other is not.



What about sunburns, does the government protect against those? And spiders?



That was the point I was making (and stating). That @Sander 001 was wrong.

You can apply my answer to those hypotheticals. If the citizenry demand a right in a democracy and there is enough resource to realize it, there’s not much else preventing its realization.

 

[Danoff]

You can apply my answer to those hypotheticals. If the citizenry demand a right in a democracy and there is enough resource to realize it, there’s not much else preventing its realization.

You don't find it absolutely insane and ridiculous that the government's job is to protect you from burning yourself outside? Interesting.

So why does one get to co-opt the resources of others to protect themselves from what is ostensibly within their own control and is based on their own choices?

 

[Sander 001]

You don't find it absolutely insane and ridiculous that the government's job is to protect you from burning yourself outside? Interesting.

So why does one get to co-opt the resources of others to protect themselves from what is ostensibly within their own control and is based on their own choices?

You’re the one who invented that hypothetical and suddenly you’re calling it “absolutely insane and ridiculous”

 

[Danoff]

You’re the one who invented that hypothetical and suddenly you’re calling it “absolutely insane and ridiculous”

I invented the hypothetical to test how far you would take your "government provides safety" bit. And you followed me to crazy land. That's on you. I'm not the one who is saying this is government responsibility.

 

[Biggles]

What I mean is that the public sees crack differently than cocaine because of $$. They don't assume that the celebrity snorting a line (black, white, or other) will go out and steal to get their next hit. They do assume that the homeless person with a crack pipe (black, white, or other) will go out and steal (possibly at gunpoint) to get their next hit. So one is a perceived problem while the other is not.

I don't know why you keep bringing "rich people" & celebrities into this. Obviously, they are statistically insignificant. On the other hand, millions of not-rich white people who are addicted to opioids ARE statistically important. Theft & violent crime - & social breakdown - certainly goes along with the illicit opioid business too, but you haven't see any move to incarcerate hundreds of thousands of white opioid addicts.

What the "public sees" & the "perceived problem" is inherently racist. The incarceration of African American men for drug possession, rather than improving the situation, makes it worse, as you now have hundreds of thousands of convicted felons hardened by prison experience & with reduced future prospects of getting legal employment.

The "white privilege" part is the way drug addiction that effects white Americans more than black Americans is treated fundamentally differently. Of course, I don't advocate treating opioid addicts the way crack addicts have been treated ... just pointing out the discrepancy.

 

[Danoff]

I don't know why you keep bringing "rich people" & celebrities into this. Obviously, they are statistically insignificant. On the other hand, millions of not-rich white people who are addicted to opioids ARE statistically important. Theft & violent crime - & social breakdown - certainly goes along with the illicit opioid business too, but you haven't see any move to incarcerate hundreds of thousands of white opioid addicts.

What the "public sees" & the "perceived problem" is inherently racist. The incarceration of African American men for drug possession, rather than improving the situation, makes it worse, as you now have hundreds of thousands of convicted felons hardened by prison experience & with reduced future prospects of getting legal employment.

The "white privilege" part is the way drug addiction that effects white Americans more than black Americans is treated fundamentally differently. Of course, I don't advocate treating opioid addicts the way crack addicts have been treated ... just pointing out the discrepancy.

The opioid epidemic is also associated with more wealthy people (although not as wealthy as cocaine). And so that too is seen as less of an issue than something like crack. You keep trying to make this a black and white issue, and it's really a rich and poor issue.

If you're poor and do drugs, the assumption is (and this may even be correct) that you'll commit other crimes, possibly violent crimes. If you're rich and do drugs, the assumption is that you're harming only yourself. Law enforcement is following this just like everyone else.

 

[Sander 001]

I invented the hypothetical to test how far you would take your "government provides safety" bit. And you followed me to crazy land. That's on you. I'm not the one who is saying this is government responsibility.

You still called your own hypothetical "absolutely insane and ridiculous" so now you’re trying to weasel your way out of it

I followed you politely to see what you’d do with home court advantage, great outcome!

 

[Biggles]

The opioid epidemic is also associated with more wealthy people (although not as wealthy as cocaine). And so that too is seen as less of an issue than something like crack. You keep trying to make this a black and white issue, and it's really a rich and poor issue.

If you're poor and do drugs, the assumption is (and this may even be correct) that you'll commit other crimes, possibly violent crimes. If you're rich and do drugs, the assumption is that you're harming only yourself. Law enforcement is following this just like everyone else.

It is a rich & poor issue certainly ... but it's also a black & white issue, which is reflected in the numbers of African Americans incarcerated for possession. Using law enforcement based on assumptions seems inherently unjust & in this case racist ... & very anti-libertarian.

 

[Danoff]

You still called your own hypothetical "absolutely insane and ridiculous" so now you’re trying to weasel your way out of it

I followed you politely to see what you’d do with home court advantage, great outcome!

Again, it's entirely on you. I wanted to see how crazy you'd go, and you went there. It was not my opinions we were discussing, it was yours. I like that you're trying to weasel out of it by claiming that I am.

If you can't follow something this basic... like explaining to you how your own views end up being absurd... then I don't know that a meaningful conversation is actually possible.

It is a rich & poor issue certainly ... but it's also a black & white issue, which is reflected in the numbers of African Americans incarcerated for possession. Using law enforcement based on assumptions seems inherently unjust & in this case racist ... & very anti-libertarian.

These are not my suggestions for what should be done. I'm just telling you why it is.

So pretend for a moment that there were a disproportionate number of black people who were poor as compared to, for example, white people. So if something affected poor people disproportionately, it would also affect black people disproportionately. However it is not inherently racist just because it affects black people disproportionately. It may be that, in our hypothetical, black people are poor because of racism and are then affected by other things which are not racist but which disproportionately affect poor people.

This is why I say the drug thing is not a black and white issue.

 

[NotThePrez]

This is why I say the drug thing is not a black and white issue.

Pun intended...?

 

[Sander 001]

Again, it's entirely on you. I wanted to see how crazy you'd go, and you went there. It was not my opinions we were discussing, it was yours. I like that you're trying to weasel out of it by claiming that I am.

If you can't follow something this basic... like explaining to you how your own views end up being absurd... then I don't know that a meaningful conversation is actually possible.



These are not my suggestions for what should be done. I'm just telling you why it is.

So pretend for a moment that there were a disproportionate number of black people who were poor as compared to, for example, white people. So if something affected poor people disproportionately, it would also affect black people disproportionately. However it is not inherently racist just because it affects black people disproportionately. It may be that, in our hypothetical, black people are poor because of racism and are then affected by other things which are not racist but which disproportionately affect poor people.

This is why I say the drug thing is not a black and white issue.

Exactly, you were the one leading and asking questions. I indulged the hypotheticals you invented to see what your point was.

You didn’t have one. So I just said “If the citizenry demand a right in a democracy and there is enough resource to realize it, there’s not much else preventing its realization.”

And that’s when you hit the panic button and started ranting about how “insane and ridiculous that is”

 

[Danoff]

Exactly, you were the one leading and asking questions. I indulged the hypotheticals you invented to see what your point was.

You didn’t have one. So I just said “If the citizenry demand a right in a democracy and there is enough resource to realize it, there’s not much else preventing its realization.”

And that’s when you hit the panic button and started ranting about how “insane and ridiculous that is”

...and now you're shifting your position, claiming I'm panicked and ranting. I'm genuinely intrigued that you don't seem to find my hypothetical outlandish. You really do think that it is the government's responsibility to protect the citizenry against lightning strikes, sunburns, spiders, and I'll add boy bands just to round the list out. This is fascinating to me. Is there anywhere you'd refuse to take this personal safety principle? If the citizenry demands safety from having to hear criticisms to their political views are you in favor? If the citizenry wishes to ban certain speech in order to remain safe from offense are you in favor?

How about if the majority demands safety from some sort of ethnic minority. Still in favor? Still the government's job to provide that? What if the only way they can feel safe is via eradication of that minority from the planet?

If there is no end to where you'll take this to, you're going to arrive at some strange places.

 

[Sander 001]

...and now you're shifting your position, claiming I'm panicked and ranting. I'm genuinely intrigued that you don't seem to find my hypothetical outlandish. You really do think that it is the government's responsibility to protect the citizenry against lightning strikes, sunburns, spiders, and I'll add boy bands just to round the list out. This is fascinating to me. Is there anywhere you'd refuse to take this personal safety principle? If the citizenry demands safety from having to hear criticisms to their political views are you in favor? If the citizenry wishes to ban certain speech in order to remain safe from offense are you in favor?

How about if the majority demands safety from some sort of ethnic minority. Still in favor? Still the government's job to provide that? What if the only way they can feel safe is via eradication of that minority from the planet?

If there is no end to where you'll take this to, you're going to arrive at some strange places.

There’s no reason I would find your hypotheticals outlandish when you regularly post whacky ideas!

Anyway, draw me hypotheticals with some context which fall within the realms of possibility if you need answers this badly.

 

[Danoff]

There’s no reason I would find your hypotheticals outlandish when you regularly post whacky ideas!

Anyway, draw me hypotheticals with some context which fall within the realms of possibility if you need answers this badly.

It's called reductio ad absurdum.

If you don't want to answer questions about your views, why are you posting them in a discussion forum?

 

[Sander 001]

It's called reductio ad absurdum.

If you don't want to answer questions about your views, why are you posting them in a discussion forum?

Sure I do but one brief visit to crazy town was enough for me. I don’t know how you like to live there!

So I’ll say again, I’ll entertain contexts which fall within realms of possibility.

 

[Danoff]

Sure I do but one brief visit to crazy town was enough for me. I don’t know how you like to live there!

So I’ll say again, I’ll entertain contexts which fall within realms of possibility.

Some of the questions I've already thrown at you are well within the realm of possibility (and have happened). So perhaps you'd start there. Reductio ad absurdum is something you should get to know and embrace, it's an important tool for evaluating arguments.

 

[Exorcet]

I really had no idea where to put this. If I posted in the original thread it would have felt like a derail. I'm also not sure if it warrants its own thread. Anyway @PocketZeven I see things like this a lot in your posts:

Chill dude. As a fellow countryman

Does it really matter than @Dennisch comes from the same place as you? Is that what surprises you the most about a dissenting opinion? There's no doubt that statically populations will vary compared to one another and individuals are shaped by their surroundings, but this isn't so strong so as to predefine how they will think surely?

 

[PocketZeven]

Does it really matter than @Dennisch comes from the same place as you? Is that what surprises you the most about a dissenting opinion? There's no doubt that statically populations will vary compared to one another and individuals are shaped by their surroundings, but this isn't so strong so as to predefine how they will think surely?

He was using profanity and reminded him we have something in common and hopefully be more respectfull towards eachother.
The Netherlands generally has a strong stance for internet privacy. That is what I also was trying to refer to.

 

[VBR]

“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire.




One of his best lectures, & greatest explanations as to what's really behind this ideology.


👍

 

[TenEightyOne]

“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire.




One of his best lectures, & greatest explanations as to what's really behind this ideology.


👍

Any chance of a summary of that 71 minute video?

 

[Rallywagon]

Any chance of a summary of that 71 minute video?

Clean your bedroom....

 

[Daniel]

Any chance of a summary of that 71 minute video?

Clean your bedroom....

 

[VBR]

Black guy gets accused of white privilege.

 

[mustafur]

Black guy gets accused of white privilege.

Soo many High level ideas, My brain is in recovery mode.

 

[ryzno]

I'm starting to wonder about if I'm privileged...
As you all know I wasn't born silver spoon in mouth and actually grew up in an apartment complex that was pretty much a drug den.
I did have the privilege of going to rather nice schoos cause of the location of said apartments...but I screwed that up...
Throughout life I was able to learn Spanish, my Spanish isn't perfect and it definitely isn't proper Spanish but it's more than enough to hold a conversation or know if I'm gonna die by some cartel if I ever went to Mexico and tell the workers what to do for my boss.
Ironically my boss is Italian/Argentine...but knows enough Spanish that he " knows if they are talking about his mom".
Well a few weeks ago my boss overheard me talking to a coworker in Spanish. Since then he has started training me on how to properly run a site, read blueprints, use his commercial accounts/connections and also offered to pay for my forklift and industrial lift certification renewals.
Now my question is, is it my "white privilege" that has taken me from a construction site grunt to being trained to be a GC for him or is it simply the fact he found out I speak Spanish and he finds me more useful to be a GC than a grunt?