Does white or male privilege exist?

Author: Alec ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 138
  • Alec
    Alec avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 2,474
    5
    7
    11
    Alec avatar
    Alec
    I'm unsure and have heard good arguments from both sides.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,963
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    Whites from shithole countries still have a really hard time migrating here legally.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Alec
    I'm unsure and have heard good arguments from both sides.
    The whole white or male privilege is mostly just about assumptions. When people look at someone white, or a man vs a woman, they have different initial assumptions. 

    The stop and frisk program in new york is a good example. The policy didn't say to target black people. It said to stop and frisk people you thought looked suspicious. No white stock brokers were getting stopped by that. It was overwhelmingly poor people and people of color being harassed by cops. 

    When the cops saw a white teenager on the street they were much less likely to think they looked "suspicious" than if they saw a black teenager. That is white privilege. The assumption of innocence vs the assumption of guilt. But that isn't that white people are getting "extra" rights. All people should be treated the way those cops treated white people. 
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,963
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @HistoryBuff
    All people should be treated the way those cops treated white people. 
    Stop and frisk controversy was a classic example of ignoring rates of criminality based on skin color.

    The suspicious people were far more likely to happen to have brown skin because they simply committed crimes at a higher rate. Period.

    Skin color was used as a tool by defense lawyers to defend criminals from stop and frisk, not to protect the general public from "racist" police, or to protect the public from criminals. Stop and frisk was the most effective gun elimination program in the history of the country, so NRA probably didn't shed too many tears when the policy was destroyed by their own.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Greyparrot
    The suspicious people were far more likely to happen to have brown skin because they simply committed crimes at a higher rate. Period.
    It is this kind of thinking that caused the policy to be racist, thank you for the example. The black and latino population of new york was 54%. But blacks and latinos made up 90% of the stops done under stop and frisk. Police assumed that black people were more likely to commit a crime and therefore would stop them for little to no reason at all. Being black and in public was enough grounds for them to determine they were "suspicious".

    The frisks were only supposed to be done when they had reasonable grounds to suspect they might be armed. But in the vast majority of cases (93%) no weapons were found. The only way for that stat to be so high is that they were doing checks at random for little to no reason. And since 90% of the people being stopped were black or latino, they were doing this almost exclusively to black and latino people. 

    If you asked those cops a direct question like "are you a racist" they would certainly say no. But if you checked their records you would find most of them had almost elusively targeted black people for their stop and frisks. 

    Stop and frisk was the most effective gun elimination program in the history of the country
    lol you're kidding right? The policy was a massive failure. The violent crime rate in new york went down, but at pretty much the same rate as other cities did at the same time. And they weren't doing stop and frisk. 
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,635
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    Black privilege exists. It is called affirmative action.
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,635
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @HistoryBuff
    So you think there is a problem with 90% of stops being blacks and Latinos, eh? Well, let us look up specific arrest statistics for NYC.

    Murder and non-negligent manslaughter:
    Black: 60.1%
    Latino: 33.4%

    That is 93.5%, so the fact that only 90% stopped were of those races is actually lower than it should be. They were looking for weapons, and weapons are used in this type of crime, after all.


  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,963
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @HistoryBuff
    lol you're kidding right? The policy was a massive failure. The violent crime rate in new york went down, but at pretty much the same rate as other cities did at the same time. And they weren't doing stop and frisk. 
    You don't even comprehend what you read. more guns were confiscated under stop and frisk than any other gun regulation in the history of the USA.
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,635
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @Greyparrot
    Whites from shithole countries still have a really hard time migrating here legally.

    But our policies are racist because whites have lower rates of sh*thole countries.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,963
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    Police assumed that black people were more likely to commit a crime and therefore would stop them for little to no reason at all. Being black and in public was enough grounds for them to determine they were "suspicious".

    Nah, you assumed that we could simply ignore higher rates of criminality from brown-skinned cultures and "more logically" assume all police are racist.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @bmdrocks21
    So you think there is a problem with 90% of stops being blacks and Latinos, eh? Well, let us look up specific arrest statistics for NYC.
    ok so we know for a fact that they targeted ethnic minorities. You are arguing that because those groups have a higher crime rate, it is totally fine to discriminate against them. But we know that 93% of the stops found no weapons and the vast majority found no crimes at all. So we also know that they were abusing this by targetting people that showed no signs of being guilty of anything. 

    so to summarize, we know they were targeting based on ethnicity and we know they were not waiting for any reasonably reason to search them, they were doing it at random. Do you want to argue that isnt a racist policy?

    and again, white people were presumed innocent, black people were presumed guilty. That is an excellent example of white privilege. 
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,635
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @HistoryBuff
    ok so we know for a fact that they targeted ethnic minorities. You are arguing that because those groups have a higher crime rate, it is totally fine to discriminate against them. But we know that 93% of the stops found no weapons and the vast majority found no crimes at all. So we also know that they were abusing this by targetting people that showed no signs of being guilty of anything. 

    so to summarize, we know they were targeting based on ethnicity and we know they were not waiting for any reasonably reason to search them, they were doing it at random. Do you want to argue that isnt a racist policy?

    and again, white people were presumed innocent, black people were presumed guilty. That is an excellent example of white privilege. 

    We don't even know that they were necessarily target minorities because:

    Neighborhoods are essentially segregated by race
    Blacks and Hispanics commit more crime
    Therefore, they are in high crime neighborhoods
    Cops then patrol high crime neighborhoods and search more people in said neighborhoods.

    But, assuming they did target by race, it was a judgement that nearly perfectly aligned with statistics. I wasn't one of those cops, so I don't know if anything prompted them to search those people. 
  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,323
    2
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @Alec
    nope, people have preferences, that's normal and natural, it's not privilege in the context as the leftist make it sound.  We have bias, we just do.  The bais is generally based on our experiences and things or people we can relate to or have some negative reason towards.  A black female judge imo would be more likely to hand a lighter sentence to a black female defendant than an equal crime etc of a white male defendant.

    I don't relate well to guys who can't pull their pants up and walk about looking like they have a very old and full diaper.  Skin color isn't relevant having things in common is.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,963
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
     A black female judge imo would be more likely to hand a lighter sentence to a black female defendant than an equal crime etc of a white male defendant.
    This is actually statistically not true. In fact, it's well documented as being the opposite case for different reasons.

    White judges are commonly indoctrinated as looking down on brown-skinned people as being a lesser person in need of assistance.
    The illegal alien that was rushed out of the courthouse before ICE could detain him was done by a white judge.

    Most Colored Judges have no such pretensions at all, as many come from areas where they personally experienced the higher crime rates from brown-skinned people. In many cases, Brown-skinned judges hand down significantly harsher sentences.


  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @bmdrocks21
    Neighborhoods are essentially segregated by race
    Blacks and Hispanics commit more crime
    Therefore, they are in high crime neighborhoods
    Cops then patrol high crime neighborhoods and search more people in said neighborhoods.
    That doesn't really make it any better. They created a policy to harass innocent people without cause and then only applied it in black or Hispanic neighborhoods while ignoring white neighborhoods. That might actually make it more racist honestly. 

    But, assuming they did target by race, it was a judgement that nearly perfectly aligned with statistics. I wasn't one of those cops, so I don't know if anything prompted them to search those people. 
    I think if the policy had been used only when they actually had reasonable grounds to suspect they were armed, it wouldn't have been an issue. And the policy says that is what they were going to do. But since the policy had a massive fail rate, we know they didn't do that. They used it indiscriminately whenever they felt like it. That, mixed with the fact that police command didn't care that this was being done created an environment where minority groups actively saw the police as enemies even if they weren't criminals. I'm not criminal but if i was constantly being hassled by cops for no reason I would see them as an enemy too. This actually undermines the effectiveness of the police. 

    But all of that to loop back around. Police thought black people were more suspicious, so they used their tool to target black people. White people didn't have to suffer at the hands of this policy, that is white privilege.
  • Alec
    Alec avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 2,474
    5
    7
    11
    Alec avatar
    Alec
    --> @bmdrocks21
     They were looking for weapons, and weapons are used in this type of crime, after all.

    Our 2nd amendment allows for people to have weapons.
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,635
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @Alec
    I am aware, but they were looking for illegally obtained weapons/weapons that violated New York laws.

  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,635
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @HistoryBuff
    That doesn't really make it any better. They created a policy to harass innocent people without cause and then only applied it in black or Hispanic neighborhoods while ignoring white neighborhoods. That might actually make it more racist honestly. 

    They went to high crime neighborhoods, which just so happen to be mainly non-Asian minority neighborhoods. Unless you are saying they should go to low crime neighborhoods, I don't see why you have a problem with this.

    I think if the policy had been used only when they actually had reasonable grounds to suspect they were armed, it wouldn't have been an issue. And the policy says that is what they were going to do. But since the policy had a massive fail rate, we know they didn't do that. They used it indiscriminately whenever they felt like it. That, mixed with the fact that police command didn't care that this was being done created an environment where minority groups actively saw the police as enemies even if they weren't criminals. I'm not criminal but if i was constantly being hassled by cops for no reason I would see them as an enemy too. This actually undermines the effectiveness of the police. 

    But all of that to loop back around. Police thought black people were more suspicious, so they used their tool to target black people. White people didn't have to suffer at the hands of this policy, that is white privilege.
    If they indeed did not have reasonable grounds, which for many cases they likely didn't, I agree. But I don't think they should have to wait until someone brandishes a firearm in order to stop and frisk, either. 

    If you want to consider this a minor form of white privilege, you may have a point. But think what that means. Of most interracial crime, white people suffer at the hands of black people much more often than the reverse. Since this is the case, they are more suspicious. So, if you look at it from the perspective of why that "privilege" exists, it is because we aren't the ones killing and robbing them. We are the victims of their crimes, so of course stay in neighborhoods high in crime! Not so much of a privilege when you literally pay in blood for it.
  • triangle.128k
    triangle.128k avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 372
    1
    1
    6
    triangle.128k avatar
    triangle.128k
    There's a significant amount of socio-economic disadvantages that comes with being a black person from the hood. That being said, the whole notion pushed by liberals of "systemic racism" is nothing more than a boogeyman. Blacks in the same socioeconomic status as whites generally have more privileges afforded to them from affirmative action. 
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @triangle.128k
    . Blacks in the same socioeconomic status as whites generally have more privileges afforded to them from affirmative action. 
    but it is extremely hard for black people to get into the same socioeconomic status due to the systemic discrimination. 


  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @bmdrocks21
    They went to high crime neighborhoods, which just so happen to be mainly non-Asian minority neighborhoods. Unless you are saying they should go to low crime neighborhoods, I don't see why you have a problem with this.
    What a huge coincidence that the very poor neighborhoods happen to be black hispanic right? There are a number of reasons why those groups are proportionately poor and therefore disproportionately likely to turn to crime. Many of them also have to do with systemic racism. 

    But I don't think they should have to wait until someone brandishes a firearm in order to stop and frisk, either. 
    The underlying principle was flawed. Stop and frisk didn't work. They essentially stopped and frisked every black man in new york. But the crime rate went down at the same rate as most other cities. The policy was a failure. And it seriously undermined the credibility of the police. They weren't there to protect and serve if you were black and hispanic. 

    Of most interracial crime, white people suffer at the hands of black people much more often than the reverse.
    Because black communities are disproportionately poorer than white communities. And the reasons for that, while complicated, also include racism. So white people are helping keep them poor, they turn to crime as a result, then white people blame them for being violent and start harassing them taking away their rights. 

    So, if you look at it from the perspective of why that "privilege" exists, it is because we aren't the ones killing and robbing them.
    we are the ones robbing them. White people just found a way to do it legally. Black people had to turn to an illegal method since they didn't get to design the system. 
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,635
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @HistoryBuff
    What a huge coincidence that the very poor neighborhoods happen to be black hispanic right? There are a number of reasons why those groups are proportionately poor and therefore disproportionately likely to turn to crime. Many of them also have to do with systemic racism. 


    No, I said high crime, not poor. While some crimes do rise in likelihood with poverty that you could blame it on, that isn't always the case. Burglary could be one. However, they also commit rape at higher rates. How does it make sense that, because you are poor, you rape people? It could be a culture thing, but I'd rather not get into that speculation.

    The underlying principle was flawed. Stop and frisk didn't work. They essentially stopped and frisked every black man in new york. But the crime rate went down at the same rate as most other cities. The policy was a failure. And it seriously undermined the credibility of the police. They weren't there to protect and serve if you were black and hispanic. 

    I am not defending the practice of stop and frisk. I am saying that, if implemented, the cops should have some liberty to check someone even if they didn't see a firearm. Perhaps they should report why they searched someone for each case. I also don't think it was a very effective policy as it was done.

    Because black communities are disproportionately poorer than white communities. And the reasons for that, while complicated, also include racism. So white people are helping keep them poor, they turn to crime as a result, then white people blame them for being violent and start harassing them taking away their rights. 

    We aren't forcing them to drop out of high school and have children out of wedlock. Those two things lead directly to poverty and are things that are up to them. I highly doubt that today, America is so racist that black people cannot get ahead. They have the highest drop out rates and levels of children out of wedlock. Again, cultural issues.

    Taking away their rights.... when they kill and rob us, they are taking away our rights. I would much rather be stopped by police officers when I am walking around at midnight than mugged and dying from a stab wound.

    we are the ones robbing them. White people just found a way to do it legally. Black people had to turn to an illegal method since they didn't get to design the system. 

    If you look at who pays taxes and who takes them through welfare benefits, I'd say that we are the ones getting legally robbed.
  • Swagnarok
    Swagnarok avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 687
    2
    2
    5
    Swagnarok avatar
    Swagnarok
    --> @Alec
    Whites: Yes. Nature does not provide automatic advantages to compensate for the socioeconomic disadvantages of being born black, so it's a clear disadvantage in almost every respect. One could justify this by saying "White privilege only exists because this is a majority white country and elsewhere other groups are privileged whereas we are not" but Africa's such a crappy place to live anyway that this logic sort of rings hollow.

    Men: Yes and no. Masculinity comes with clear advantages and clear drawbacks. It's obviously a very complicated package and it's not objectively clear whether it's "better" to be born one gender or the other.

    Women have ENORMOUS social privilege from possessing physical beauty. The average guy knows little to nothing of this privilege. On the other hand, women have to pay a price for this by way of monthly pains and unwanted sexual harassment.
    While women do have the physical ability to *ahem* derive carnal pleasure from stimulating materials, men have a way easier go at this. They do it much more frequently and there's probably a lot more "material" for them to choose from. On the other hand, women are usually more sociable and have more and deeper friendships than men, who are an increasingly friendless demographic. In the long run the latter thing is far, far more important in determining quality of life, especially when you consider that a fair number of men do for personal and religious reasons choose to abstain from self-stimulation. In addition, it's more socially acceptable for women to be emotionally expressive and receive emotional support during rough seasons of their lives. Most men lived somewhat repressed existences in this regard.
    Men have to risk the humiliation and emotional pain of rejection, since they're the ones who have to ask women out lest they be forever alone. On the other hand, women have significantly more to lose if they get paired up with a "bad" partner.
    Women are the ones who have to put up with the perils of unwanted pregnancy and childbirth. This one's obviously quite substantial. But on the other hand, if a man wants to one day be the father to his unborn son or daughter, it's not his choice. The mother, even if she's his wife, can simply abort the pregnancy and there's nothing he can do about it. Because as far as the law's concerned he's nothing more than a sperm donor.
    Men live shorter lives on average, even accounting for differences in lifestyle. They're more likely to be treated roughly by the police and the justice system as compared to a woman who is equally guilty. They are on occasion subjected to false rape accusations, which have the potentially to utterly destroy a man's life and deny him due process. On the other hand, a woman's more likely to be molested/raped at any age than men/boys are. Rape is a life-altering and potentially life-shattering event which is all too common.


    Both feminists and MGTOW/Incel types suffer from extreme myopia as each perceives their own gender to be uniquely and unequivocally oppressed and that the problems faced by "the other side" don't matter.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,963
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    to compensate for the socioeconomic disadvantages of being born black...
    There's no better place on the planet to be born colored than in the USA today, assuming you have 2 parents.

    American wealth and opportunity is insane comparatively.
  • Alec
    Alec avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 2,474
    5
    7
    11
    Alec avatar
    Alec
    --> @bmdrocks21
    I thought they only had a pistol on them or were searching for a pistol, which I don't think even NY banned.  It's certainly not worth getting shot over.