Hacker News Reader

Comment by JohnBooty | Hacker News Reader

    I'm from an Eastern Europe and my family never was 
    rich, I had to put in a tremendous effort to even get
    into the industry. Assuming I got an easy ride simply
    because I'm white is a pretty racist statement

I was about to patiently type out another "hey, you did work hard and you did earn your success - 'white privilege' doesn't mean things were handed to you easily; it means that even though your life has been hard you still got to avoid certain challenges that non-whites face" response.

But you know what? This just isn't working.

We need better language.

I'm a firm believer in the existence of this thing we currently call "white privilege." I understand the meaning and intent of this concept and it's 100% correct; it's absolutely vital that we understand that basic rights we take for granted (for example, walking into a store and not being treated as a potential thief, or having prospective interviewers assume we're professional/literate/presentable) are actually privileges that many people or color don't have.

But if the people we're trying to reach hear the term "white privilege" and immediately misunderstand the term in such spectacular ways... you know what? We're doing it wrong.

View on HN

> misunderstand the term in such spectacular ways

Who could have guessed that identifying and singling out a particular race for correction and self-abasement would entail some push-back? [1]

> This just isn't working.

Actually, I think it is working as intended. A thriving industry has arisen around the elimination of "white privilege". The term has served that industry well as marketing.

> I'm a firm believer in the existence of this thing we currently call "white privilege."

Are you a firm believer of "Han privilege" in China? Are you a firm believer of "Japanese privilege" in Japan? Are you a firm believer in "Jewish privilege" in Israel? If so, that might assist you in your search for better language.

> basic rights we take for granted

We have hundreds of years of high-quality race-neutral rights language to pick from. Why was that language eschewed?

[1] I'm trying to cut down on snark in my diet but failed. Mea culpa.

    We have hundreds of years of high-quality race-neutral rights language to pick from. Why was that language eschewed?

Do we have equality today in America? The answer to that might assist you in your search for understanding.

    Who could have guessed that identifying and singling out a particular race for correction and self-abasement would entail some push-back?

As a white male in America, I just don't feel that recognizing my privileges makes me feel abased or persecuted or anything like that. I don't feel the need to push back.

Why does it make you feel that way?

    Are you a firm believer of "Han privilege" in China? Are you a firm believer of "Japanese privilege" in Japan? Are you a firm believer in "Jewish privilege" in Israel?

Yeah absolutely! There are privileged groups everywhere. It's not always white people.

If your understanding of "white privilege" is that it's a belief that white people magically have it easy all of the time, everywhere on planet Earth, I'm happy to let you know that literally nobody is saying that.

If your point is that we should be simply talking about "privilege" and not "white privilege" or other privilege, I understand the sentiment. I think that would be a naive and ineffective approach because on any practical level we can't discuss privilege without also discussing the source of that privilege.

> Do we have equality today in America?

You're being parochial. This is an international forum. Do "we" have equality in Israel? In China? In Saudi Arabia?

> I don't feel the need to push back.

You've stated that the phrase "white privilege" is resulting in "spectacular" misunderstanding. I'm agreeing that it is a fatally fraught phrase. I wish you luck in replacing it (if that's what you meant by "we need better language").

> Why does it make you feel that way?

Signaling that _you_ are thinking while _they_ are emoting is a bad-faith tell.

> I think that would be a naive and ineffective approach [simply talking about "privilege" and not "white privilege" or other privilege]

So where does that leave your search for better language?

    You're being parochial. This is an international forum. Do "we" have equality in Israel? In China? In Saudi Arabia?

If you wanted to talk about those things, I wouldn't chide you for being parochial. I would just see that you are... discussing those specific things, particularly if you were being as clear about it as I was. "Oh," I'd think. "There's a discussion that doesn't involve me. Perhaps I shouldn't attempt to be clever in it."

I'm not sure if English is your native language but you should understand that "we" does not necessarily mean "every human." It can have different meanings depending on context.

For example, if I say "My family enjoys dinner together. Tonight, we enjoyed spaghetti" then in this case it's clear from context that "we" means "my family."

Similar, if I say "In America [...] we" then it is also very clear that I'm talking about America.

I hope this makes your future encounters with English more comprehendable for you.

    Signaling that _you_ are thinking while _they_ are emoting is a bad-faith tell.

I specifically said I "don't feel" the need to push back, and that you apparently do "feel" it. To hell with signaling: you're ignoring the thing I literally said in direct and unambiguous language. Now that's bad faith.

    I wish you luck in replacing it

Hey thanks!

Did you have anything constructive to say here? I don't see anything of the sort, just a bunch of misguided attempts at pedantry that don't hold any water whatsoever.

I mean, I get it: you think that talking about particular kinds of privilege is bad. I'm not going to intentionally misstate what you said, or be ineffectively pedantic, because that's neither clever nor helpful.

    So where does that leave your search for better language?

Discouraged, because there are an awful lot of people like you who want to turn things into a pedantic debate (dispute being hilariously underequipped to do so; I suggest you stay in your lane) instead of working towards any kind of awareness or solution whatsoever.

Agreed. The term is just too loaded, designed to irritate. For instance the 'privilege' part. A word loaded to mean 'undeserved advantage'. The advantages are supposed to accrue to everyone; being white means being a whole person. Being black means having less than that. But the differences aren't undeserved; they are owed to everybody.

So the term seems to call out white people for stealing stuff they aren't entitled to. Instead of just having what everybody should have.

I detest the term; I bridle every time I hear it. And annoying the hell out of the people apparently in power, people able to do something about the problem, is a very crappy start to a conversation about race.

Designed to irritate?

Good. Maybe it's a start of a conversation. What white people have SHOULD not be an undeserved advantage, but that's not the reality we live in.

Imagine being black with a black sounding name, or latino with a latino sounding name, and having to deal with people making fun of the name you didn't choose while growing up, and then having to deal with the consequences of discrimination when it comes to just getting your foot in the door.

You only have to deal with the annoyance when you hear the term. Other races and ethnicities don't get that luxury. Seems to me that the term is perfectly, and ironically, apt.

Using loaded terms to begin the conversation, is going to put the dialog into a different place. Someplace that might not be productive.

Hey, I'm not some fragile guy that can't hear about what inequalities are present in society. But I may listen only so far and just say "screw you" and walk away. So no dialog occurs. How is that helping?

> A word loaded to mean 'undeserved advantage'.

"Undeserving" is not part of any definition of privilege I've ever seen, not even the dictionary definition. I think that's just your personal bias against a meaning that isn't the same that others are intending.

A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste. See Synonyms at right.

Such an advantage, immunity, or right held as a prerogative of status or rank, and exercised to the exclusion or detriment of others

Like I said, whether they were deserving of those benefits does not feature in any of of those definitions.

Lets reverse it. How does "minority disadvantage" sound?

For years we've talked about "disadvantaged" people. Which is fine, but focusing on disadvantaged people allows whites like me to conveniently ignore the fact that we have advantages.

It's an uncomfortable term, and to be honest, confronting your privileges should be uncomfortable. Darn right it's not fun to look at your life situation and think: "Well, I truly worked my ass off and tried to treat everybody well. But, in addition to my merits and hard work, what other things did I benefit from?"

A point mentioned above, which I agree with, is that this need not be a zero-sum game. I'm not ashamed of my opportunities; I want everyone to have them.

In my opinion that's the correct view.

>We need better language.

No, 'we' don't need that. You want better language so that you can better advocate for your pet cause. There is a big difference between need and want, and also between "everyone" and "this interest group that I identify with".

By "we" he meant "this interest group that I identify with", and you know it. No need to heat up the fire under a topic that's already so prone to flamewars.

He was responding to someone who was offering a disagreeing POV, on a public web forum that anyone can read or participate in.

In that context, typing "we need better language" implies identification with the whole audience, i.e. all readers. 'We' does not mean 'my group of political activists' when used in that way.

Hence why the correction is important. Especially given that he was advocating for the redefinition of language in service of a political ideology. If you are going to suggest that 'we need' to clarify and standardize the words we use to refer to things, then you should probably be extremely precise with your own language, no? Otherwise you are just being a patronizing e-tyrant.

What a strange stance to take.

"I don't agree with this concept, so I want it to have an ineffective or misleading name!"

If icepick lobotomies were called "happy sunshine treatments," or if breaking into peoples' homes and killing their pets was called "saying hello to your neighbors" I'm sure we could agree that those are wildly misleading terms and that we should find more accurate ones, even if we didn't agree with those practices.

> you know what? We're doing it wrong.

How about you just call it "privilege" and leave it at that? This skin color labelling is pointless in the context of real privilege.

A "woman of color" who grew up with servants in her birth country, went to private schools, top colleges, etc has a better chance at the C-suite than a Eastern European "white guy" who grew up poor and went to state schools etc.

Just like a white man can suffer from socio-economic disadvantages, a woman of color can benefit from class privilege. Who do you think it's going to have an easier life? Obama's daughters or some boys from the Appalachia region?

It's unfair to discuss gender and race without considering class. It is also unfair to claim disadvantage in one without acknowledging benefits from the other two.

This is also the biggest criticism against mainstream feminism. It doesn't address class issues as most of the popular causes are upper-middle class issues.

>It's unfair to discuss gender and race without considering class.

Or other issues. Is someone cis or trans. Or maybe even non-binary. Are they nuero typical. What about the types of parents they had; were the parents verbally abusive (or perhaps worse). How tall are they. How attractive are they (especially with regards to factors that one cannot control, at least without extreme cost of resources). Were they medicated as a child, especially using off label prescriptions of medications show long term effects are not well studied in young children. How much of an introvert/extrovert are they?

The thing that polarizes this discussion is that a very small number of the potential factors which result in privilege are discussed repeatedly, and so people who may have benefited from those select factors but who lost out with regards to the factors not discussed tend to become very agitated of the selective focus being given during discussions.

Agree on the class aspect, but it is a bit more nuanced:

It really is a question of your family's values, not finances. I know a few affluent families who don't really value education, and there is enough money for the kids to live off of the family fortune (aka "trust fund kids").

Kids born into white trash families and black-ghetto families are equally fucked, not because they are poor (though it does not help), but because they don't have the values and successful role models to follow/ motivate them.

It is not an easy problem to solve - but that's a whole other discussion.

How the heck is that a valid criticism of feminism? Feminism is intended to remedy the injustices of the hierarchical arrangement of men and women. That's literally all it is for. One may as well criticize La Raza for not addressing the oppression of Tibetans in China.

We already have isms that address class issues; they're called Marxism and socialism. Feminism isn't the mommy ideology that has to welcome all into its tent.

Are you familiar with the history of feminism?

First wave and second wave of feminism were both coopted by upper middle class white women. Third wave, the current one, pays some attention to intersectionality, but mainstream feminism doesn't challenge the status quo enough. That's why there is backlash against Sheryl Sandberg's Lean In.

A quote from the wiki page: "Black feminism is a school of thought which argues that sexism, class oppression, gender identity and racism are inextricably bound together"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_feminism

However, people on HN bring up class to derail conversation about race and gender, but that's a different can of worms.

Seems like you're not familiar with the history, yourself.

First and second wave feminism weren't coopted by upper middle class white women, they were founded by upper middle class white women. You can't get more white middle class than Anthony, Friedan, de Beauvoir et al.

Not that Wikipedia is a particularly good source, but your own link includes the sentence "Feminism at its core is a movement to abolish the inequalities women face" which is exactly what I said. A poor boy with troubles in Appalachia is tragic, to be sure, but is not any sort of feminist concern.

Intersectionality isn't a just way to garble up different justice concerns and call it "feminism." Intersectionality comes from the intersection of the axes of oppression on e.g. a black woman. The axes of oppression on a poor white man exist, but have little to do with feminism. This person lives in the privileged position under patriarchy, full stop.

I'm confused. Am I being trolled? You are using words that I agree with but you sound like you want an argument.

Of course poor white men benefit from the racist patriarchy, but HN gets upset if you say that bluntly.

You seem to disagree that feminism needs to be intersectional? That's fine. A lot of people participate in white feminism, but many feminist leaders believe capitalism, racism, and sexism have to be tackled together.

https://www.quora.com/Does-Gloria-Steinem-think-that-capital...

https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-feel-about-the-rise-of-inte...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_Theory:_From_Margin_t...

You claimed (or insinuated, anyway) that the fact that feminism is more concerned with the Obama daughters than with an anonymous poor white man is a criticism of feminism.

I claim that is not a valid criticism because speaking for poor white men is not a concern of feminism except where it is obvious that patriarchy is the source of their problems.

Okay got it, you think I'm derailing.

Poor white men example was trying to connect to HNers who think privilege is a myth. Privileged tech workers are more likely to acknowledge class advantages. So I hope they could eventually make the leap to gender and race.

The criticism of mainstream feminism is that they don't do enough for working class women or women of color. Which is probably not a concept that HN is ready for.

All right, everything turned out better than expected, then. :)

   > It's unfair to discuss gender and race without considering class.

Think about the practical consequences of what you're saying.

Having a discussion about gender, race, class, etc. alone is challenging enough. Do you really want to say that we shouldn't discuss any of these issues unless we agree to simultaneously discuss all of them? What about all of the other factors that can also lead to inequality?

Does that seem realistic?

Class is an extremely pervasive factor, yes, but I don't believe that talking about other issues amounts to ignoring class divides, any more than discussing diabetes amounts to ignoring cancer.

You have to keep in mind where we are. HN isn't a group of people who read bell hooks and Gloria Steinem. HN is a group of men who boycotts Github for hurting their fee fees.

If I don't concede on class issues then my comment would have been flagged and downvoted into oblivion. I hope at least it got a couple of people do think about gender and race.

Anyway, I upvoted every one of your comments. Thank you for fighting the good fight. I really don't have the energy to argue with ignorant people anymore.

Because that would be trying to muddy the waters.

White privilege refers to the privilege people have for the accident of being born white. Economic privilege refers to (in some instances) the privilege people have for the accident of being born rich.

Donald Trump is a mediocre businessman, but he's a billionaire pain in the ass because of the power and influence he gained by having a rich, white father.... but if you took his kid and Russell Simmons' kid and threw them both in a nice car and drove them down various roads, one of them is gonna get profiled by cops a lot more than the other, and it's not going to be Trump's.

But the discussion is trying to be about a different topic, which is why the earlier poster is asking for different language. It's not about having any privileges in terms of money or education, at all. It's about what people say about generic people who look like you when money and education are taken out of the picture -- when actual privileges are subtracted.

Your example is correct of course.

However, please understand: whether it needs a new name or not (I suspect it does) the concept of "white privilege" does not mean "all white people automatically have it easier than all black people." No conflict there.

Actually yes it does mean when you ask the vast majority of people.

If a lot of people think the moon is made from green cheese, that doesn't make it true -- although it does mean that maybe somebody's not doing a very good job teaching them science.

It's not working because this phenomenon is not the privilege of a race of people. Go to China and you will find a "privileged class" (urbanites), go to Nigeria and you will find privileged people, Go to Japan and you will find privileged people (those lucky enough to go to the right universities) same with France and go to India and you find "privileged" people. So the problem people have is that it's framed as a "white disease" when most countries which have economies which cause a "sorting out" i.e. Not everyone is in the same subsistence mode, have this phenomenon, but it's used as a tool in an attempt to bring other people up by making other people feel (in this case whites) as if they are uniquely and artificially in a position where they are automatically parasitic. Basically it treats success as a zero-sum issue. It pits one class against another and both can feel aggrieved. Which probably is not the best way to engage people and get them onboard with ideas.

Yeah, absolutely. Being white is not an advantage everywhere.

There are some places where beig white is a distinct disadvantage. Like the examples you named. Or, try being a European male in ISIS-controlled territory! That'll get you killed pretty quick, right? No "white privilege" there. In Sunni-dominated regions, in fact, Sunni privilege is a thing. I mean, obviously, right? Sunnis in those regions have a lot of rights that Shia, Jews, Christians, and atheists don't.

So the good news for you here is that the concept of "white privilege" does not involve the notion that white people have magical force fields that render them immune to problems everywhere in the world.

In places like America where whites control nearly all of the wealth as well as the political establishment? For places like this, yeah, it's probably worth taking a look at things and asking ourselves if white people literally controlling almost everything in America might have some effect on equality in America.

Right but you're skirting right by. The thing is it is a pretty common phenomenon. It's something that isn't intrinsic to white people or any single class of people. It happens to be that in the US whites on average can experience advantage. But if the US had a different history and were colonized by other people there would be other people experiencing this "privilege". I mean, we don't go around calling the issue Sunny privilege to describe it, or urban Han privilege, Sciences-po privilege, yet it is the same phenomenon.

Look at it this way, how would people X feel if we called crime instead of crime "people X" behavior as if only that group engaged in crime? And go around saying, well, true many peoples engage in crime but we wanted to highlight that people X engage in lots of crime too so that the people will be conscious of it and then kerb crime.

    I mean, we don't go around calling the issue Sunny privilege to describe it

We certainly would (or could) if we were discussing privilege in a Sunni-dominated area where other groups were oppressed! That would be completely correct, right?

    how would people X feel if we called crime instead of crime "people X" behavior as if only that group engaged in crime?

That's an awesome question actually. Let's say there was a city where nearly all of the muggings involved black people mugging white people. There are one million whites in this city, and one million blacks. There were also 10,000 muggings last year and most of them were black on white muggings.

First of all, that would suck, and in this hypothetical city it'd be hard to argue that there wasn't a racial component to those 10,000 muggings. It is, essentially, a black crime in this example.

But! In this hypothetical city, that also means there are 990,000 black people who didn't mug anybody and -- this is the key concept -- didn't profit from those muggings.

White privilege is a little different. As a white person I actually do profit from white privilege. My life hasn't always been easy, and I have generally worked my ass off. But I have also never had to deal with any of the big and small disadvantages that blacks face in America. Nearly every single day of my life -- and this includes some really shitty, tough, fucked up days -- my whiteness has either helped me or at least not been a disadvantage. I profit from white privilege all the time.

It doesn't mean I'm a bad person or that things are always easy, but I do want to recognize it.

Ok, I thought we were speaking "privilege" however now you're bringing up or conflating oppression, which to my understanding is different.

Never the less, even in Sunni areas, I dont think it would be helpful to describe the issue suffered by say Shias as Sunni privilege. This representation is apt to create a greater wedge between the groups.

Now, as it pertains people in general, within neighborhoods with a majority class there are oftentimes a classification of people who while may suffer disadvantage outside their neighborhood will most likely experience advantage in their neighborhoods. So let's say a recent poor immigrant from Bolivia going to a south Asian neighborhood, or a Bangladeshi going into a Mexican neighborhood. These two may experience privilege in one area and lack of privilege in another.

Or, see how easy it might be for you to get a stock boy job at a Mexican supermarket in for example LA, versus how easy it might be for a Mexican national to get the job.

So privilege can be found among the many groups within the US itself, not just among whites, as might be portrayed. It's something for which we can find expression, if we look enough.

I don't think you can have privilege without oppression of some sort, whether it's an extreme level of oppression like legalized slavery in America, or a more subdued kind like the economic inequality we have in America today.

   Never the less, even in Sunni areas, I dont think it
   would be helpful to describe the issue suffered by say
   Shias as Sunni privilege.

I'd tentatively agree. The value, if any, of "_____ privilege" terminology is get ______ to examine their own privileges, consider how they might benefit from and/or contribute to inequality, and consider how other groups don't share those same privileges.

So in an area where, say, Shia are openly and brutally oppressed by Sunnis there's probably no value to talking about "Sunni privilege" because (I'm assuming) the Sunnis in power are not in denial about the situation.

Contrast w/ America where the inequality is present but typically not as severe nor brutal, but a lot of whites are completely in denial of the fact that there is any systemic inequality at all.

Consider the urban/rural dichotomy that exists in many places. In such places, even in very homogenous places, you will find a pronounced "privilege". An Osakan in Tokyo, East Londoner in London proper, a farmboy from Högsby vs someone in Stockholm. A mestizo from the country side vs a mestizo MDFer. It's more than race or religious and it's something beside "oppression". Alike people tend to help people like themselves. Sometimes that breaks along class, color, accent, political leanings, ethnicity, physique, etc. You can find someone disadvantaged and someone else privileged by being considered part of a given group.

It seems to me the better way is to empower those groups. Give them resources --be it educational facilities with an emphasis on overcoming a different framework etc. If we want people from East end London to be able to compete with people from London proper, while not building "posers" we'd want to have them understand how one can better fit into that structure (attempting to modify that structure may not be the best approach. For a look at changing an entrenched structure refer to the many revolutions which failed in their grand ambitions at changing their societies (even homogenous ones).

Further, let's say I wanted to do well in China. Do I keep on insisting on being a Yank? Or do I try to adapt to the mainstream culture, learn their "language" -which is more than just knowing Mandarin but other aspects of friendship and interpersonal relationships? It may depend if I want to work for a foreign (non_Chinese company) or local.

I agree with you. Unequal opportunity is morally and practically bad. We do not want to prevent the next Einstein or Newton from becoming the next Einstein or Newton because of their gender, birthplace, or anything else.

Again, though: I don't feel that addressing one particular facet of inequality is bad for the struggle against inequality as a whole any more than focusing on colon cancer is some kind of insult to say, breast cancer survivors.

So, it's a pretty common problem. I think everyone knows that. Does that mean we shouldn't address the problems in front of us?

Yes, the problem is presenting it as a zero-sum issue where what one has is at the expense of someone else and in addition posing something as intrinsic and inextricable from a class of people. It's their disease it's a bad disease and really they should be ashamed, rather than addressing the system we're addressing it as a people issue.

Just call it "tribal privilege". That pretty much covers all the "soft" prejudicial discrimination that happens everywhere around the world.

If the tribe currently in power in your locale believes you are a member, your life is easier than it otherwise would be. If it believes you are a xeno, or even an enemy of the tribe, then it will be more difficult, whether it is by intentional impediment or by withholding assistance.

This is why Jews are privileged in modern Israel, but unprivileged in Tsarist Russia. It is why Mexico had a disgustingly detailed race hierarchy imposed by Spain. It is why Rwandans massacred each other after Germany and Belgium explicitly favored one subtribe over another. It is why Shi'ite Muslims find it easier to live in Iran than in Saudi Arabia. It is why Chicago city government is corrupt to the core. Skin color is not the only possible tribal indicator.

I would guess that the ruling tribe in the U.S. has not imputed membership to strangers based on their skin color for a long, long time--at least since Irish, Italians, Greeks, Iberians, Ashkenazi Jews, and Eastern Europeans were not considered members. Non-whites may see it as "white privilege", but that is only because the tribe in power is so incredibly bigoted that they have multiple, ranked categories of xeno, such that if you were on fire, they would have to ask you what you looked like before ignition in order to decide whether they would spit on you, piss on you, or just let you burn.

I recall entering a Walgreens in New Orleans. As I watched, someone walked in with a backpack, indiscriminately shoveled several items from a shelf into it, and walked right back out. I glanced to the checkout, where an employee who had also seen the same thing shrugged at me. Tribal privilege. The clerk chose to favor the people of her city/neighborhood over her corporate employer. And you know what? Neither Walgreens nor the NOPD are in my tribe, either, so I shrugged right back. I wouldn't exactly let that guy into my house, but I'm not about to flip him to the cops over one measly bag of deodorant sticks, either. I am too well aware of how certain cities treat their poor people to wish one of them into a jail cell.

Sorry, but try being Romani (colloquially: gypsy) anywhere in the UK and tell me it is "white" that makes the difference.

That's a totally different issue. Gypsies lead totally different lifestyles that rub people the wrong way, and I'd be careful to dismiss their negative perception by the rest of the UK population as "racism".

Most people couldn't care less what their race is, but it sure is an easy card to play.

The idea of white privilege doesn't mean there can't be groups that are white who are discriminated against. Gender discrimination is another possible dimension of discrimination. Talking about the notion of white privilege doesn't implicitly dismiss their plights.

As the person who started this chain of discussion about white privilege, I feel responsible to say: I absolutely understand that being "white" is not an automatic advantage everywhere.

Lots of people don't really think the Romani are white, frankly.

But as generations of "white" Americans have learned, if you dress from the JC Penney or Sears catalogue, forbid your children from learning their ancestral language, and forget your cultural traditions, you can be white too! It works!

I was astonished when I first learned that in the United States, it wasn't until partway through the 20th Century that people of Italian or Jewish ancestry were considered "white."

Isn't that a myth? Like pink and blue supposedly previously having been associated with the reverse genders.

not a myth, although popularly touted as a myth by people to whom this fact is inconvenient. it's very easy to google examples of racism towards irish and italian immigrants.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=irish+need+not+apply&sour...

here's where the "myth myth" started and was easily debunked by a high school student

http://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/High-school-studen...

But that just confirms it as a a myth - "I really hate the Irish, so I'll pretend they aren't white"

Was he privileged when he was in Eastern Europe or only when he arrived in the US?

I agree. I support most, if not all, the racial justice initiatives of the last 10 years, but the left is in need of better intellectuals and leaders. The language and tenor of much of the discussion is unhelpful in gaining supporters. I rant all the time that it's really a shame that BLM never seems to protest or take issue with police shooting of non-black folks. If the goal was to win, and not just to make a point, we should come up with better language and strategy.

I don't like the term privilege either. Switching to a more digestible word will help. For example, corporations now refer to sensitivity training as unconscious bias training. On the other hand, some people will be offended no matter what we call it.

> basic rights we take for granted (for example, walking into a store and not being treated as a potential thief, or having prospective interviewers assume we're professional/literate/presentable) are actually privileges that many people or color don't have.

You are aware that Irish and Eastern Europeans, and on and off through history Greek and Italian, have had all those same problems right? You know that 'White Privilege' you talk about is really just for those of Germanic origin, right?

Because I'd hate for you to look like an idiot telling someone who could have faced all those issues when they moved to Western Europe, the US or Canada that it's all wine and roses for them.

White Privilege should just be called White Devil. It jsut paints such a simplistic view of the world, not a real one, but one that is useful for rhetoric.

> It jsut paints such a simplistic view of the world, not a real one, but one that is useful for rhetoric.

Bingo. Race is just one facet anyway. We're all born with various advantages and disadvantages, none of which we have any control over. Just as an example, some people are better looking than others ... and those people tend to have an advantage, because they're better looking. They can get better jobs, better pay, etc. all because of the way they look.

So what?

The rest of us just have to work a bit harder. That's how life works. Stop whining. No, life isn't fair. Deal with it.

> That's how life works. Stop whining. No, life isn't fair. Deal with it.

I realize that the context is different in the U.S. vs the rest of the world, but would you say "life isn't fair, deal with it" to slaves in the South in the 1800s? Or to segregated blacks in the 1900s? Or to women who couldn't vote?

Or, to use a more modern example, to Muslims who are facing prejudice and persecution because of the actions of extremists?

Throughout history, "stop whining, deal with it" has tended to be the refrain of the privileged.

Dealing with it can include working toward change. Screaming 'White Privilege' is just complaining without action.

Making people aware of the problem and recommending they help with it is part of working towards change. Which is all the OP really did.

> but would you say "life isn't fair, deal with it" to slaves in the South in the 1800s?

Yes, I would say exactly that.

I would tell them to accept their situation, not whine about it, then break free and run to the north. Many did just that.

When they got to the north, I would encourage them to work hard and make a better life for themselves through hard work. Many did just that.

Yes, they would need to work harder than insert privileged example here to have a good life. Because they're starting from zero. And that's fine. Because that's life.

Many of us start from zero or worse. Many of us were hurt or are being hurt by someone's unjust actions. That doesn't mean you try to rig the system.

We are born with thousands of disadvantages and thousands of advantages. You simply can't engineer a system that will compensate for all of that to create some sort of utopia. We tried that before. It didn't go so well.

Recognizing privilege and inequality is not "rigging the system."

In your examples, nobody would break free and run to the north if they didn't recognize the inequality in the first place.

Also, is that really what you want to say on a public forum? You want to say that ending slavery was the slaves' responsibility? Interesting.

> Also, is that really what you want to say on a public forum? You want to say that ending slavery was the slaves' responsibility? Interesting.

Not what I said, you need to buy new reading glasses.

Doing anything starts with the individual. If you're a slave, that means resisting and running away. If you're a white dude in the north, that means supporting abolition. You get the idea. That's the only way to get anything done.

> Recognizing privilege and inequality is not "rigging the system."

Recognizing? You're not interested in recognizing.

You're interested in discriminating against those you recognized as privileged to benefit those you recognized as disadvantaged. Which is bad enough, but really much worse because of the you part ... and the you part is always the privileged.

This isn't the minorities standing up for themselves ... it's just the privileged stacking the deck again. The only way to make sure absolute justice and fairness is to make sure the deck is never stacked. Ever. For any reason.

The first three are examples of government regulations explicitly favoring some groups over others.

That is fundamentally different from a society with legal equality for all individuals. Yes, some groups will be more popular than others. It's hard to see how that can ever be avoided.

Of course, if you are a slave, you do really need to deal with that situation as best as you can. Does anyone dispute that?

> Deal with it.

Just like the other arbitrary things that can needlessly hold a person or group of people back, if it can be fixed why not fix it? What's wrong with dealing with it that way?

You seem to suggest to that people keep quiet, keep their head down and not rock the boat.

That's a defeatist attitude and suggests that you don't think any effort should be spent trying to correct something that's broken in the world.

"if it can be fixed why not fix it?"

If the fix is "lay guilt upon and attempt to disadvantage all people of a certain skin color because some of that skin color have had an easier time in life", then it doesn't seem like much of a fix, does it?

Racism and bigotry need to be wrong in all cases or the moral authority against them is diminished.

Except no one is talking about disadvantaging people of a certain skin color (white). We're talking about trying to help bring everyone else up to the same level.

As someone with white children applying for college, I can say without question that skin color is used to disadvantage certain people.

No, it isn't. You're not getting the advantage you used to have. That's different.

> if it can be fixed why not fix it?

Because your cure is worse than the disease.

> you don't think any effort should be spent trying to correct something that's broken in the world.

I think racism is bad. I think it's bad in all circumstances because it corrupts our meritocratic society.

Using racism to fix racism is dumb. Because racism is bad in all circumstances.

Our meritocratic society? Which planet are you from? Here on earth, we have no meritocratic society, but we do have a lot of people who confuse the advantages of their birth + not dropping the ball with pure merit.

80% of humanity lives on less than $10 per day. Do you not believe that among those billions of people, there could be many who are just as smart and hardworking as you, but have no access to the physical, social, and cultural capital they need to rise above subsistence living?

If your so-called meritocracy only applies to 10% of the earth's population, it isn't much of one.

It's interesting to note that increasing inequality within the US has been a byproduct of decreasing inequality world wide, as formerly impoverished frontier economies were allowed to compete against the American lower and lower middle working classes. This point always seems to get lost in the discussion.

Anyone who thinks society is actually meritocratic is deluding themselves.

And no one is using racism to fix racism. Only someone who is desperately clinging to that advantage they have for being white would say that.

This is an abhorrent view to take. "I got mine, so fuck all of you."

> Bingo. Race is just one facet anyway.

There's no part of examining privilege that says race is the only facet of one's existence soooooo at least you don't disagree with it there.

To even make a statement like that is like getting mad at "breast cancer awareness" because "it's not the only kind of cancer."

I can't emphasize enough that literally nobody is claiming that race is the only facet of one's existence.

The only facet that matters, then? Or, combined with gender the only facets that matter or let you be a part of the discussion?

I've been told off + blocked on twitter for chiming in about something I have intimate personal experience with, because white male.

Or the semi-famous video "you're a WHITE MALE!" (language warning) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0diJNybk0Mw

While white privilege and male privilege are important realities, I don't think they are the only things that matter.

If it helps to hear this from a white male who is a believer in recognizing white privilege and male privilege: being white and/or being male are sometimes disadvantages too!

In most of America, you can't be male and teach young kids these days. People (parents) will wonder if you're a child molester, and get weirded out by the prospect of you helping kids go to the bathroom even though they'd be fine with a female teacher doing the same thing.

Recognizing something like that isn't incompatible with recognizing male privilege.

I don't disagree with any of that; every gender/race/etc has SOME kind of privilege attached to it.

The point that you're [ missing | skirting ] though is many folks use the existence of privilege to ignore/bully/hate (eg, my YT link above, the white professor who got berated on campus, etc etc).

Yes. Things can flow the other way as well.

Did black kids pick some fights with me in school because I was white? Yes. It's a real thing that happens.

It's a fallacy, of course, to dismiss a belief just because some of its believers are assholes, even if they're being assholes in the name of that cause. I mean really, no group or belief on this Earth could ever pass that criteria.

Of course it's not the only facet that matters. And I think that minorities want white males to be a part of the discussion about race.

However, oftentimes white males say the same exact things. You can kind of enumerate them, "Not all white males," "White people can be poor," "Hey, you're black, can you explain...?" etc.

Many answers to these questions can be found here: http://theteej.tumblr.com/post/122334039549/hi-white-friends...

I don't expect you to read it. But if you want to understand why people get frustrated when you chime in about something it's probably because they've heard the thing that you're saying a gazillion times already and are tired of responding to it. They don't owe you a response.

Finally, I'll reference John Green and say that if you're doing something that multiple people tell you is offensive or bothersome: Stop doing it.

> Finally, I'll reference John Green and say that if you're doing something that multiple people tell you is offensive or bothersome: Stop doing it.

Does that include people telling you Social Justice rhetoric is offensive or bothersome?

Of course. If I were told by a reasonable threshold of people that promoting my causes [whatever they are] is bothersome, I would certainly stop around those people. [depending on how important they are, I might stop altogether]

To be honest, I don't normally try to defend this sort of thing on the internet because it's hard to establish a connection. I can't listen to your experiences, BurningFrog, and empathize. I'd like to. Because I think that that's the only way to change your opinion, and I think this is important.

That said, since I fully expect you to tell me that championing social justice is bothersome I'll let you know that you'll be the first person to tell me that [which I find surprising, although I suppose it's because I truly don't discuss it much].

seeing this upvoted gives me back a bit of hope in HN crowd

I'll keep this polite and assume you're intelligent and informed, a courtesy you did not extend to me.

     You are aware that Irish and Eastern Europeans, and on and off through history Greek and Italian, have had all those same problems right?

I'm very, very aware of that fact. Hey, for the record, I'm partly Welsh. The Welsh have been oppressed by everybody! They're pretty damn white.

Literally nobody is denying that Italians, Irish, Eastern Europeans, or people from unfashionable parts of Brussels, or your mother's uncle's cousin from Estonia, have faced discrimination at various points in time, and perhaps still do today.

     White Privilege should just be called White Devil.

I won't try and change your opinion, but you should at least understand what the concept of "white privilege" means.

It absolutely does not imply that white people are bad, or that white people are devils, or anything of the sort.

The concept of white privilege is a way of viewing things that challenges us to observe freedoms that we as white people have that others don't always enjoy.

For example: as a white person, if a cop pulls me over, I may be treated unfairly. But whatever happens, I generally know that I won't be treated badly because of my race. He certainly didn't pull me over because I'm fucking part Welsh, I can tell you that! Black people don't have that privilege. Now, 99% of the time, maybe their race doesn't have anything to do with their interactions with the police. Most cops are good people. But wouldn't it suck to be black and never really know if a cop was going to treat you badly simply because you're black? And that at least once or twice in your life, it probably will happen? That's some bullshit I don't really ever have to deal with in my life. A privilege I have, if you will.

Now, like I said above, I can't help but wonder if we do need some new terminology here.

I am certain that I have not changed your mind. Again, I'm just defining the concept for you. You can agree with it or disagree with it at this point. That's cool. But your post made it very clear that you had no understanding of the concept. Probably because the term "white privilege" itself was a turn-off. You probably thought it was an attack on white people. It's not.

The privilege you enjoy you do not enjoy because of being a white male, but rather because you're part of one of the dominant social groups. If you go to another country you'll see that people do treat you differently and might discriminate against you depending on your sex/looks/ancestry/etc.

Those that are different always have some disadvantages. We should be working towards fair societies, not replacing one type of discrimination with another.

I don't understand how recognizing my privilege as a white male in America equates to discrimination.

Can you explain in detail?

It's simply intractable to add up everyone's advantages and disadvantages; it's the wrong path to focus on group attributes/trends when you start talking about individuals.

I could clamor for tall rich sportsmen to "send the elevator down for me". That it's their responsibility and so on. What you should do is reflect on exactly why you'd think I should feel silly for saying that, and the other guy to not. Would you tell Michael Jordan to check his privilege if he told a group of average white male nerds to reflect on theirs?

    It's simply intractable to add up everyone's advantages and disadvantages

Sure.

    it's the wrong path to focus on group attributes/trends when you start talking about individuals.

Absolute nonsense. If a particular school had a 30% graduation rate while every other school in the state averaged 80%, would you say, "Wait a minute! It's the wrong path to talk about this school in particular. These are individual kids..."

As you say, every individual human being certainly is more than the some of their labels. But when gross inequalities between groups emerge, it's lunacy to suggest there are no greater group-wide forces at work on scales greater than the individual.

    Would you tell Michael Jordan to check his privilege if he told a group of average white male nerds to reflect on theirs?

Is Michael Jordan a group of people? Unless there's a clone army of Michael Jordans out there that I don't know about, this theoretical question is bizarre and irrelevant to anything anybody is talking about.

I'm not even sure what you're getting at here. He is a part of some privileged groups (rich people, people with one-in-a-million athletic ability, men) and not others.

    I could clamor for tall rich sportsmen to "send the
    elevator down for me". That it's their responsibility
    and so on.

Michael Jordan can't make you a rich, tall sportsman. That's not... physically possible. However, the author of the original article suggested that we help others achieve careers in our industry. Now that certainly does seem possible, doesn't it? Hardly even seems controversial, if you ask me.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with your school example. 20% of students from school B aren't graduating; 70% of students from school A aren't graduating. If you institute some program that leads to one new kid graduating, who cares if it's in school A or B?

Gross inequalities between groups _can_ exist, but that tells us _nothing_ about any particular individual within the group, only that individual's chances _when no other information is available_. But other information _is_ available when looking at an individual.

You seem to be suggesting we somehow theoretically add up all one's advantages and disadvantages- But that means... Considering the individual. Great, I agree. Since we are doing that, phrases such as "recognize your male privilege" mean nothing to an individual male, because it is very possible that individual male has severe disadvantages that make singling out the maleness aspect ridiculous- It would be like telling a minority male shot by a cop to reflect on his privilege of not generally facing sexism like a woman does (setting aside that a "male" privilege here is actually a disadvantage, but you get the idea).

In general people have an obligation to help the less fortunate, I agree.

    I'm not sure what you are getting at with your school example.

It's quite simple. Clearly there are times to consider the individual and clearly there are times when we should consider larger groups.

If Town A had a cancer rate 5 times higher than the national average surely you wouldn't say, "Well, look, those people are individuals, and an individual's cancer risk is affected by lots of things -- diet, exercise, genetic predisposition... to heck with looking for differences between Town A and Town B."

Clearly you'd want to start investigating things that affect Town A on a town-wide basis.

> because you're part of one of the dominant social groups.

I wish this comment would be at the top instead of the ones talking about skin color. I just don't understand the United States obsession with looking at discrimination in a black vs. white way. Discrimination against minorities is what it really should be termed.

All over the world, politically dominant segments of population discriminate against the politically weaker. Sunni vs. Shite, Catholics vs. Protestants, Hindu vs. Muslim, Brahmins vs. Dalits, Western Europeans vs. Eastern, Chinese vs. Taiwanese, the list is endless. You can interchange the phrase "white privilege" or "is it because i'm black" with any of the above minorities, and the effect would be the same (in the relevant country of course).

Shifting the conversation from discrimination of minorities in general, towards discrimination specifically based on skin color is a very narrow minded view, and in my opinion, more likely to cause harm than trigger solutions.

And see this is the part that I never got past. In your example, it's the cop that's committing the infraction. And yet, I'm the one that is expected to improve the situation, despite the fact that I've never been racist.

I'm all for helping people that have been disadvantaged in life. What I'm not okay with is the fact that society expects me to do anything on the basis of my skin color or gender. I will do something if I think it's the right and moral thing to do, not because a bunch of people on the internet told me it was the right thing to do.

I think the disconnect lies in that many people (such as yourself) believe that it's such a clear cut thing when in reality it's much grayer, like everything else in life. Essentially, stop telling other people how to live their lives.

    In your example, it's the cop that's committing the infraction. And yet, I'm the one that is expected to improve the situation, despite the fact that I've never been racist.

You're not expected to fix it, or even feel guilt about it! Honestly. Seriously.

I don't feel "guilty" if a white cop murders a black person, just like I don't feel guilty if I see somebody in a wheelchair. I do hate it, and I do try to consider how lucky I am, and maybe hopefully think about how I can make that situation better, or at least not make it worse.

The idea is literally just to recognize that the inequality exists.

Obviously the hope is that once we recognize that inequalities exist, we might want to address them somehow. Maybe as a society, maybe just as individuals being more mindful of how we treat others.

Like if I get resumes from "Edmund Smith" and "Jamal Brown." Should I automatically hire "Jamal Brown" because he "sounds black?" Hell no. Should I take an honest look at myself and make sure I'm not making assumptions based on what I assume to be Jamal's race and what I assume people of his race are like? Yes. If I work at a large company, should I maybe even look at the data and see if we as a company are rejecting "black sounding" candidates more often than "white sounding" candidates of equal qualifications? Probably, yeah, because it's the right thing to do and our company is only hurting itself if our hiring process is being compromised by inequal hiring practices.

Anyway, even if you hate those examples I just gave, know that the goal of recognizing privilege is awareness.

> You probably thought it was an attack on white people.

Prima facie, the use of the term leads people to believe that an identifiable group of people (white people) has obtained things which they do not deserve (privilege). A typical human response to being told that another group has things which were unjustly obtained is resentment and hostility. This is inevitable and obvious. The term is by its construction divisive.

> It's not.

That's merely an assertion. The term is a tool. Some people use it to try to effect positive change for certain groups of people (I'm assuming this includes you). Some people very much can and do use it as a weapon to enact their idea of retribution.

Is it more important to you to use that specific term, or to get your point across? Because the one seems to be getting in the way of the other, is the point that's under discussion here.

The point is way more important. Like I said, I do suspect that the term is actually hindering the effort at this point.

Kept your dignity. I like it.

I smell cheese coming out from your window. You been driving under the influence tonight? Maybe chasing the red dragon?

Out of the car and put your hands on the hood, Taffy.

Am I going to find any sheep or coal in your vehicle, sir? Maybe some really bland food?

I was going to say something about how I occasionally use the phrase "white privilege" and I agree with you, but I think I actually just tend to use "privilege". You're right, in different times and places there's a lot of change in who is privileged. And it's definitely not a two-level system. I don't think the word "privilege" necessarily implies it, but it's used like that a lot, and I think that's unfortunate, and it's definitely a simplistic view of the world.

For instance, Irish-Americans did not have a particularly great time in the US in the mid-19th century by any means, but they had a much better time than African-Americans. They faced serious discrimination, but they rarely were assumed to be runaway slaves.

I think it's useful to acknowledge that even today, some groups of people have basic privileges like being assumed not to be a thief that everyone ought to have, and we can acknowledge that without reducing it to a simple white-nonwhite line.

I think I agree. Ultimately it's all about recognizing one's privileges, whatever they are.

No, the poster you are responding to is absolutely right -- we need a better language for this thing we are talking about today. You again are getting all hung up on wine and roses (things being good) when that's not what is being discussed by your partner in this discussion.

It's worth going back to the original essay discussing "white privilege" -- the text can be found at http://ted.coe.wayne.edu/ele3600/mcintosh.html. A few highlights:

4. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed. 5. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented. 6. When I am told about our national heritage or about civilization, I am shown that people of my color made it what it is. 12. I can swear, or dress in second-hand clothes or not answer letters without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty, or the illiteracy of my race. 13. I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial. 14. I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race. 15. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.

Irish people in American get to do all those things today, as do Italian-Americans! When's the last time you were called a credit to your race? Me, never -- even though once in the past, the US government tried to deport a Finn under the Oriental Exclusion Act (John Swan, 1909) and Finns were regarded as backward and slow. Times change and that hasn't been a problem lately.

> I can swear, or dress in second-hand clothes or not answer letters without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty, or the illiteracy of my race.

You've never heard of "White Trash" or "Rednecks" (a.k.a Bogans in Australia) or how "uneducated" the South is in America (nevermind that Alabama outranks California in graduation ranks)?

> I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.

And yet, here you are. Speaking for all of us.

As you are happy to point out, no one asked me to :)

And yet you avoided answering my analogy with "White Trash", "Rednecks" and "Bogans". Why is that?

Indeed, various groups of white people have suffered varying levels of prejudice, but 1- it doesn't compare to what, for example, black or chinese people or native americans suffered historically and 2- most of the prejudice against these groups has been forgotten, whereas prejudice against "people of color" is still very much alive.

> but 1- it doesn't compare to what, for example, black or chinese people or native americans suffered historically

And that doesn't compare to what Jews went through 50 years ago. What's your point? There's always a bigger sob story around the corner. You deal with it and move on. The moving on part is important.

> whereas prejudice against "people of color" is still very much alive.

And that prejudice will amplify if you continue treating people of color differently. By providing special privileges to make up for the sins of the past, you are fomenting racism today. Every white guy who didn't get a job because of the color of his skin is now a newly minted racist. And while he really should direct his ire toward misguided leftists, in the end, he'll blame the person of color instead ... which is sad.

    And that prejudice will amplify if you continue treating people of color differently.

Recognizing unjust treatment and inequality is not "treating people differently."

Equality is the goal; recognizing inequality is part of how we get there.

> Equality is the goal

That's your goal. I don't share it.

I want equal opportunity, not equal outcome. We will never have equal outcome because we're all different and that's a good thing.

And I don't care if you're disadvantaged because of a thousand different reasons. None of us are born equal. We have no control over that.

What we can do is make sure that the bar is the same for everyone. That's the only equality I'm interested in.

> recognizing inequality is part of how we get there

That is a terrible approach because you have no idea if the inequality arose out of unjustified discrimination, innate differences in talent, effort invested, or a thousand other things.

I would much rather focus on making sure that the bar is set to the same height for everyone, regardless of color, sex, age, ethnicity, religion, or any other damned thing people decide to group themselves or others by.

> I want equal opportunity, not equal outcome

I should have been more specific, but if it makes you feel any better: I did mean "equal opportunity" and not "equal outcome."

Why did you write something so vitriolic based on an ambiguity? But ultimately, yes, my fault for being ambiguous.

The point is that he was saying that groups of white people had the same as people of color, and that's not true. They had it bad, but it's not remotely comparable.

Ever heard of a thing called the Holocaust? Or the purges in the Soviet Union or any other ex-communist country?

We pretended that institutional racism wasn't sown into the fabric of our society for decades and did nothing about it. The net effect is that nothing changed for minorities, because we've proven that we won't change our behavior without incentives.

> And that prejudice will amplify if you continue treating people of color differently.

Do you have a source for this? Such policy has real concrete effects with statistics you can point to. You can see the real positive effect it has on certain groups of people.

The only effect on white people I've seen documented is that racists have another bullet point on their long list of talking points to stir up their voter base. It doesn't bother normal people.

As a potential candidate, if you're going home and blaming affirmative action for the reason you didn't get hired, it says a lot about the way you think. Mainly, that you blame other people for your problems, specifically minorities, which is an odd conclusion to come to.

> Do you have a source for this?

Yeah. It's called deductive reasoning.

You scream about the evils of racism and what harm it's done to our society ... and your solution is more racism, just in the opposite direction? Smart.

How about no racism at all? I think that's better.

> Mainly, that you blame other people for your problems, specifically minorities, which is an odd conclusion to come to.

It is an absolutely odd conclusion to come to. It would make more sense to blame people like you. Unfortunately, human beings aren't purely logical and when they see another person at the job they should have had ... they blame that person, rather than the policy that put them there.

What's worse, nobody knows if that policy is at fault or not ... so people assume that they got fucked over, because it's always easier to blame someone else than yourself. So you've now created a society that resents success, because it's assumed that success only comes to the privileged classes like minorities, etc, rather than to those who earned it.

Congrats on making a full circle.

I've never personally experienced something like affirmative action holding me back, and I'm not advocating people blame that system. I am all for taking personal responsibility for _everything_ you have to deal with in life (not just race or finances, every potential setback that prevents you from living the happy life you want).

I will say, though, that it doesn't seem completely crazy to be angry at a system that is purposely favoring people with a race other than yours. I'm not asian, but I have heard that asians get the most points "docked" from them automatically when applying to colleges because asians study harder/do better on tests in general. It's not just that certain racists think that, it's that it's literally built into the system. If you study really hard despite a poor upbringing and get an A- on a test, and then know that it really only counts for a "B" for other races (even those that grew up in rich families with personal tutors), that wouldn't bother you even a little?

And the sentiment you mention in your last sentence goes both ways. Lots of non-white people complain about not getting a job or otherwise not getting opportunities because of their race. And that's when there isn't an actual documented system in place that enforces it! I am sure some of them are absolutely right, but it's unlikely all of them are.

Yeah, like 50-100 years ago. Are you saying because some whites were discriminated against in the past, non-whites should be discriminated against today? Sort of like, 'everybody has their turn'?

Except of course during all those times where some whites were discriminated against, people of color always had it worse.

>We need better language.

No, you need better arguments, you can start with the ones where there's no assumption that racism towards certain groups is okay.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com