Roy Scott Elder brings up a variety of points in his arguments against "white privilege" and "systemic racism", and the fact that those points are statistically backed is often enough for people to buy his arguments. My problem with that is one has to think a little deeper, and question why those statistics are the way they are, and whether or not those stats are the cause or the effect of the system, or better yet, to what extent are those statistics causes and to what extent are they effects. Imo you have some of both going on, but to what extent one can objectively obtain/deduce/induce all the facts of the matter, I don't know. I have ideas and theories, but those aren't all based on hard numbers, so they don't hold the power Larry Elders's argument has (my ideas are based framed by history, sociology, and psychology), and I totally get why people are convinced by his rhetoric, even though I think it's a cheap attempt to overgeneralize a complex problem The conversation Rubin had with Elder was very rich with data/statistics. Peter is someone who is all about the stats (which are no doubt incredibly important), so I understand why, especially if they were stats that were contradictory to his prior perception, the stats would get the wheels turning in his head. There's no problem with that at all, quite the contrary. That said, in his thinking about those things, especially given his occupation as a philosopher, I would sincerely hope that one of the questions he asked himself was, *why* are these stats the way they are, which to me is just as important, if not more important, than any other implications or questions one may draw from those statistics. Obviously, he has asked himself that question to some extent, as he's reflecting here on what degree is it systemic racism or not. The question is how deep do you go with your "why", and how many interrelated factors do you explore. For example, he mentioned poverty, which is an important factor, however, he mentioned it in the context of poverty being a potential reason many black individuals cannot properly afford to defend themselves in the criminal justice system, and while that's a valid point, I think there's probably a more relevant role(s) poverty may (imo, almost definitely does) play. What he should also ask, is what are crime rate stats among those in poverty, especially in a ghetto system/culture where the poverty has been so endemic for generations, and black folks in that position feel, often rightfully so, that they have to struggle to survive in that climate by any means necessary, and thus end up prioritizing (for various reasons, one being a lacking public education system) short sited and ultimately destructive means of escaping it (leading often times to crime, violent or not, as a "means to an end").Granted, I'm not attempting to justify that crime. I just want to get to the bottom of the various reasons why it's such a huge problem, and there are various reasons/factors that are completely left out by just focusing on crime stats. It's rather complex, and imo both "sides" of the debate oversimplify the problem to various extents. Again, to what extent are factors in this causes of the problems, and to what extent are they effects? It's responsible and respectable that Peter relies on statistics, and considering those are stats he doesn't have, I understand his not going down that path, or a similar trajectory, and repeatedly saying "it's not my area of expertise". I just hope that, considering that he is a critical thinker on social matters, that his thought process would or has led him to very critically question why black on black crime stats, or other common statistically backed talking points, are the way they are. At any rate, I completely understand why he treads so cautiously on the subject, and I don't blame him for doing so...
Rob McCune ....So every person whos been on the rubin report is wrong? lol lawrence krauss, sam harris, and micheal shermer says hi. And thats still just scratching the surface of smart, respectable guests on the rubin report.
The secret reason Rubin never does follow-ups is cos he doesn't actually understand anything that's going on and doesn't have a single original thought in his head. If he just sits there nodding "thoughtfully" people will think he's a thoughtful guy.
There's black on black violence for the same reason people argue with family members more than they argue with strangers. I'm not sure why these people keep scratching their heads about this.
Yeah, that's something that crossed my mind, as well: People, generally speaking, seem to be more likely to associate with members of their own race than of other races. So it's only natural that the crimes a member of a certain race commits are more likely to be against members of their same race.
White privilege is an important concept. It keeps black people wallowing in their victimhood and thereby nullifies any real political power they might have.
Same here bender. I'm half white and half korean but look white enough for the cops to worry about fucking with me because they think I might have a rich white father with powerful connections who can get them in trouble with their superiors if the fuck with me. As opposed to a black person who most likely doesn't have such supposed luxuries...
To a certain extent, yes. Generational poverty is a thing though, and it doesn't matter how white you currently look, if your family is poor because systemic racism in the past.
That point at 5:30 about old man privilege. 100% true. I'm 32 turning 33 in November, and I'm starting to really see people treat me differently. They want me to be their leader, yet didn't trust me in my 20s. Also check out my TH-cam channel if you're into weird wizard shit.
There has been one study done having to do with the perceived strength or danger represented by a black skin toned man versus other skin tone. When asked how big of a man, or how tall of a man, they assumed those with dark skin tones to be, they were more likely to over estimate those with black toned skin to be much bigger than their true size. The conclusion was that there is definitely something going on inside the minds of "white" people, that puts a bias on dark skin toned people, making them think they are 'bigger' men, thus creating more of a sense of being endangered. (IMO, as an aside, when it comes to the police as a whole, maybe it's not so much racism, as it is some sort of unconsciously held/biological fear imprinted in white people?)
White privilege is nebulously defined and terribly named. When a person is referred to as privileged, it brings to mind possession of wealth, so telling people who earn 35 or 40k per year before taxes that they enjoy privilege is a sure way to create resentment and alienate people who might agree with you on the underlying issues. Also, by definition, the word privilege is exclusionary ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=Privilege&submit.x=0&submit.y=0 . Privileges aren't things that we think of as needing to be extended to everyone, so calling not being discriminated against when looking for housing or a job, or being treated fairly in interactions with the police a form of privilege is counter to the ultimate goal of ensuring that everyone, regardless of race, enjoys these advantages. The terminology definitely needs to be rethought and changed.
at 10:00 I would also get professors have all three groups. They are also included among the experts that he cited earlier. Making and evaluating policy and implementing, experiencing policy are different things albeit with overlap.
"My demographic doesn't commit anywhere near as much crime as other demographics therefore I'm privileged." The racial issue is absurd enough but Boghossian believing he has old man privilege because young men are statistically far more likely to steal just shows how ridiculous this whole concept of privilege is. By his logic women are also privileged and so are black babies. People are confusing the advantageous ability of human beings to extrapolate from statistics in order to protect themselves with being cruelly and inaccurately prejudiced because of hatred. Police and anyone else with common sense cannot approach all young men as if they are babies or old women. This is just plain stupid and I'm tired of people trying to pathologize common sense and basic self-preservation. There is nothing wrong with a store owner being cautiously observant of young men in his store and if young men don't like it then they should stop robbing stores. Their behaviour should not become the psychological burden of older men/white people/police and twisted into some irrationally guilt laden idea of privilege. It is bad enough that certain demographics are far more responsible for crimes against us, now the victims are supposed to feel worse than the transgressors? Give me a fucking break.
I understand white privilege is a thing but I think we need to start talking about white disprivilege as well. The number of middle-aged white men who commit suicide is becoming too high for me to ignore now. Btw I'm a middle eastern woman before anybody starts calling me a racist.
Rubyrain Every type of person has inherent advantages and disadvantages situationally. For example there is no white privilege in a 90% black or latino neighborhood. White privilege is especially a problem only because the leadership of our country is overwhelmingly older white (christian) males. This creates three biases: a pro-white bias(white privilege), a male viewpoint bias and, most often overlooked, an anti young people bias.
I mean, I provided an article about it, but yeah, there's absolutely no correlation between wealth and privilege and suicide rates at all - numbers are all fake news right?
I think it's worth pointing out that there are some benefits that African-Americans receive by virtue of their ethnicity-because the conversation is almost invariably about the benefits that *white* people receive. On average, black men have larger penis sizes, for example, than whites or Asians. The rates of skin cancer among African-Americans is also much lower than white people, and from my understanding, they don't even need to use sun lotion (which I find terribly annoying when I'm outdoors in the summer.) While these aren't social or economic benefits, they are nonetheless benefits that they do generally receive.
I think its reasonable that there are certain privileges within certain communities that having a particular trait would make one less likely to be judged negatively. White privilege, black privilege, male privilege, female privilege, height privilege, non-disabled privilege all exist among other privileges. These are different cultural presuppositions all within different contexts and bubbles of society. Is there institutional white privilege? I'd need to see evidence of that, specific examples within the past 20 years that are directly related to a person's whiteness that are more than isolated cases of discrimination among society that is largely non-discriminatory. Calling it white privilege sounds like resentment against an entire racial group.
There is no "white privilege". Almost all examples that people think is privilege are just examples of advantages. Having an advantage is not the same as having privilege. An athlete that trains have an advantage in sport over me, but she doesn't have any privilege. Males have advantages for certain jobs over females because men are taller and have more muscle mass on average, but that is not a privilege. Rich people have advantages over poor people, but they are not privileged. White people have advantages over blacks, but they are not privileged. We have plenty of examples of real privilege. The Chinese Party is privileged over all Chinese citizens. The North Korean dictator is privileged. The African kings are privileged. Men are privileged in Islam over women.
Your analogy is not good. Athletes have a level playing field when compared to whites and blacks in general in the US, who definitely do not. It's not only policing and the system of courts and prisons that disproportionately target blacks, there are also legacies and ongoing practices of racial discrimination that prevent blacks from obtaining the same kinds of housing, education, employment, and wealth that white people have more opportunities for. The "advantage" of being white, in other words, is not earned. It is given to whites by the history of racism that has material consequences with us today, and I don't just mean slavery but Jim Crow and housing and employment discrimination too, that confer onto whites by virtue of skin color certain economic, political, and social privileges. Whites in the US have a responsibility to level the playing field. And that will take concrete measures aside from simply saying "we're not racist." Absent even a willingness or genuine effort to engage in a discussion about what areas whites have privilege in and why, whites perpetuate this injustice and then generally ignore, repress, or slander blacks who do agitate for justice.
+Quinn Malecki I'm not saying that racism doesn't exists. But I still don't get privileges. It's not that I'm privileged, it's that blacks are discriminated against. Stop the discrimination and the racism. But it has nothing to do with a supposed "white privilege". > "The "advantage" of being white, in other words, is not earned." Many advantages are not earned. Somebody who is born smart have advantages over somebody who was born stupid. A person in the USA have advantages over a person born in Africa. But there is no privilege. > " about what areas whites have privilege in and why" Where do I have any privilege?
Erwin Muller, Thanks for your response. As for where you have privilege, I can't say exactly for you because I don't know your situation, background, etc. But I can speak about the effects of certain practices of racism that have an impact on white and black people in a general way. First I just want to say that the idea that 'privileges based on race are justified because people have other privileges that are natural and socially accepted' is one that I disagree with. I do agree that some privileges are natural and ought to be socially accepted, of course, but they are not socially engineered in the way that race-based disparities are. It's the privileges that result from deliberate attempts to create racial inequities and reinforce them that I think need to be scrutinized and corrected, and I'm arguing that white privilege falls in that category. I think you'd agree based on your reply that ascribing less worth to someone on account of their race is wrong, and that if practiced by people in power who control a significant amount of resources can have a widespread effect that would be unjust. I admit focusing on the concrete effects of racial discrimination in order to find out which areas people are wrongly privileged or disadvantaged is very complex. But I have focused on employment and housing and feel that I can make a case that in those areas, white people on average have undue privilege. Imagine a trajectory of household wealth over time rising steadily for decades until the 2008-9 recession. Most Americans were devastated by the housing crisis. But black Americans have suffered the worst of it. Their wealth has dropped to lower levels and has been slower to recover than white people’s, and they lost more in retirement savings. While a wealth gap was constant between blacks and whites prior to the recession, it worsened because of it. Unemployment rates were twice as high for blacks than whites after the bubble burst ("The Racial Wealth Gap," EPI). And the amount that home values declined because of the recession was two times larger for black homes than white homes ("Home Values," EPI). Economic insecurity remains a problem that African American and Hispanic people experience to a larger extent than white people, i.e. disproportionately. “In 2013, the median white household had wealth that totaled more than $140,000; Hispanics had only about $14,000. And black Americans had $11,000” (White, “Not All Money Troubles”). A major source of disparity in wealth between ethnic or racial groups is housing equity, “which makes up more than 60 percent of the average American household’s wealth” (White, “Not All Money Troubles”). The current average wealth of white American families is seven times higher than that of black families. Zero or negative net worth is seen in less than one tenth of white households and in 25 percent of black households (“The Racial Wealth Gap”). I'd be happy to go deeper into *some* of what this wealth disparity has been caused by. The causes I have in mind are in the past century.
+Quinn Malecki Why do you use racism and privilege as synonyms? I agree that we have racist people in power, but how does that translates to "white privilege"? If you believe in "white privilege" you should tell me what privilege I have because I'm white. > "First I just want to say that the idea that 'privileges based on race are justified because people have other privileges that are natural and socially accepted' is one that I disagree with. " No, I disagree that that is privilege. There was "white privilege" until around 1965, during the Jim Crow laws period. But that is long gone. > "The current average wealth of white American families is seven times higher than that of black families. Zero or negative net worth is seen in less than one tenth of white households and in 25 percent of black households (“The Racial Wealth Gap”)." Please explain how that is privilege. Did somebody forced blacks to be poor? Is somebody forcing blacks to drop out of school? Whites stay at at least 70% in high school, whereas blacks go as low 48% for some states. www.governing.com/gov-data/education-data/state-high-school-graduation-rates-by-race-ethnicity.html Is that "white privilege" that white students chose to stay in school? If so, why do Asian/Pacific have a comparative drop out rate to whites? Is there a "Asian/Pacific privilege"? The same for university. Blacks have a lower graduation rate to whites and Asians. www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/04/26/college-completion-rates-vary-race-and-ethnicity-report-finds Maybe if blacks would stay in school and get higher education the “The Racial Wealth Gap” would disappear? How about single parent families and why are black families so high? datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/107-children-in-single-parent-families-by#detailed/1/any/false/573,869,36,868,867/10,11,9,12,1,185,13/432,431 65% of black families are single parent, compared to 25% of whites and just 17% to Asian. Is that "white privilege" that black parents don't stay together?
Your comment is so stupid I don't know where to begin. "Privilege" specifically connotes social or institutional BIAS. The things you're talking about are simply matter-of-fact, biological or meritocratic. It is true that tall people will be better at basketball. That's not a sign of institutional prejudice. It's also true that blacks are 4x more likely to get arrested for marijuana possession, despite using it at the same rate as whites. That shouldn't be taken for granted. that's not just something that "happens". It's an institutional bias with no basis in biological fact. How did you miss that while you were typing out that comment? How did you put those strings of sentences together and not catch yourself? How did you not realise that it DOES make perfect moral and ethical sense for athletes to be more athletic than non-athletes, but that it does NOT make perfect moral and ethical sense for rich people to have an advantage over poor people, or for white people to have an advantage over black people? "White people have advantages over blacks, but they are not privileged." Dude, how the fuck do you justify that? That is the single most bullshit I've seen in one sentence in years. How can you simultaneously acknowledge that white people have some kind of advantage over black people, purely by virtue of being white, but you don't see this as a "privilege"? Wtf do you think privilege is?
I used to think it wasn't real (or at least exaggerated) until I witnessed it first hand three times once I became good friends with a black man. You think everyone treats everyone else like you are being treated until they don't. It was quite infuriating once you see it happen to someone you know is awesome and the only difference is the color of their skin and what clothes they were wearing. What made me feel worse is that I was So Angry and all my friend said was... "Eh, I'm used to it." and told me to get over it because it was going to happen again and I needed to be able to deal with it if we were to stay friends.
I have no doubt you can have instances of people treating you differently based on race. However if the solution is to enact MORE racist by saying "White Privilege" or the new anti Asian trend that is continuing. .. Then I will fight that. Using racism against racism --- Evil against evil --- only makes it stronger
Oh, so, you're saying, "don't get into the water until you learn how to swim"; in reference to having a conversation about "the problem" as you state - it's not time yet. When is it? It needs to seriously begin. The delay thus far has not produced any positive results. In addition, those who have attempted to discuss this issue, once the conversation either gets heated or a "nerve" of the white person is touched - more likely their guilty conscious begins to show - that ends the conversation. The police were never organized to protect people even though they say they are to protect and serve. They were organized to protect property and to support the status quo. Some things have changed, but as a nation, or people in general, no progress will ever be made if one group has their foot on the neck of another group. Both are hindered from moving in any way let alone a positive way. The police brutality is because of fear of the oppressed becoming powerful enough to not need the "handouts". It's a control and fear issue. Understand, the descendants of the slaves who were brought here against their will have never got a fair chance or been compensated for the work their ancestors were forced into and the ruling majority in this country, (not to mention elsewhere in the world), has done their level best to keep these descendants suppressed, drugged, intimidated, incarcerated and even eliminated. It will be great when people stop trying to put a band aide on the butt of America's racial issues and do the difficult work of trying to resolve the issue in meaningful ways that not only get to the root of the problem but find ways to change hearts. This issue is a heart issue; and short of that nothing of true significance will be lasting. Old bigoted mindsets will either have to change or die out like some extinct animal species.
Fat chance. Like we need the data that there is child abuse in the world...oh not so much because we don't have the data. So we stick with what we know.
I don’t have the evidence but I have good ways of thinking about this????? If I was a white man in a country predominantly black could I claim that everyone else had black privilege. If so (it certainly stands to reason that would be the case) would we go out of our way to shame them because they had black privilege? Asking for a friend???
In relation to what group is the white privilege measured? In relation to Asians? If there is difference in treatment then maybe that is a result of difference in behavior. The whole concept of white privilege is muddy. On the other hand black privilege is clear. One can get into college at lower scores.
Elder brings up a variety of points in his arguments against "white privilege" and "systemic racism", and the fact that those points are statistically backed is often enough for people to buy his arguments. My problem with that is one has to think a little deeper, and question why those statistics are the way they are, and whether or not those stats are the cause or the effect of the system, or better yet, to what extent are those statistics causes and to what extent are they effects. Imo you have some of both going on, but to what extent one can objectively obtain/deduce/induce all the facts of the matter, I don't know. I have ideas and theories, but those aren't all based on hard numbers, so they don't hold the power Larry Elders's argument has (my ideas are based framed by history, sociology, and psychology), and I totally get why people are convinced by his rhetoric, even though I think it's a cheap attempt to overgeneralize a complex problem The conversation Rubin had with Elder was very rich with data/statistics. Peter is someone who is all about the stats (which are no doubt incredibly important), so I understand why, especially if they were stats that were contradictory to his prior perception, the stats would get the wheels turning in his head. There's no problem with that at all, quite the contrary. That said, in his thinking about those things, especially given his occupation as a philosopher, I would sincerely hope that one of the questions he asked himself was, *why* are these stats the way they are, which to me is just as important, if not more important, than any other implications or questions one may draw from those statistics. Obviously, he has asked himself that question to some extent, as he's reflecting here on what degree is it systemic racism or not. The question is how deep do you go with your "why", and how many interrelated factors do you explore. For example, he mentioned poverty, which is an important factor, however, he mentioned it in the context of poverty being a potential reason many black individuals cannot properly afford to defend themselves in the criminal justice system, and while that's a valid point, I think there's probably a more relevant role(s) poverty may (imo, almost definitely does) play. What he should also ask, is what are crime rate stats among those in poverty, especially in a ghetto system/culture where the poverty has been so endemic for generations, and black folks in that position feel, often rightfully so, that they have to struggle to survive in that climate by any means necessary, and thus end up prioritizing (for various reasons, one being a lacking public education system) short sited and ultimately destructive means of escaping it (leading often times to crime, violent or not, as a "means to an end").Granted, I'm not attempting to justify that crime. I just want to get to the bottom of the various reasons why it's such a huge problem, and there are various reasons/factors that are completely left out by just focusing on crime stats. It's rather complex, and imo both "sides" of the debate oversimplify the problem to various extents. Again, to what extent are factors in this causes of the problems, and to what extent are they effects? It's responsible and respectable that Peter relies on statistics, and considering those are stats he doesn't have, I understand his not going down that path, or a similar trajectory, and repeatedly saying "it's not my area of expertise". I just hope that, considering that he is a critical thinker on social matters, that his thought process would or has led him to very critically question why black on black crime stats, or other common statistically backed talking points, are the way they are. At any rate, I completely understand why he treads so cautiously on the subject, and I don't blame him for doing so...
I wish this guy was my Phil101 professor... Mine was a bitch that was only interested in showing off how "smart" she was.. (she would leave passive aggressive comments on our papers if we got something wrong, rather than explain what we did wrong.)
People who haven't done the reading should be exempt from discussions until they have. Here, do something a reactionary intellectual charlatan like Dr Jordan Peterson PhD won't do because he's tapped into a lucrative market of squealing white male faux victims previously known as conservatives, and educate yourself. code.ucsd.edu/pcosman/Backpack.pdf
This guy reminds me so much of Dave Rubin. He begins making a vague claim that no one can even tell if it's right-wing or left-wing and then he cuts himself off because of the "toxic environment that won't let him speak freely" (despite the fact that he's the only one actually preventing a free flow of ideas by not just spitting out whatever it is he believes) and then he just complains alot about how debate is not possible, but when he has the actual opportunity to discuss actual ideas and issues, as Pakman is presenting him with, he cant get away from his vapid talking points about tactics and manner.
Of course white privilege exists. Generations of systemic racism took their toll on people of color in historically white-dominated countries and that's why we see so many issues with generational poverty, a gap in quality and access to education between whites and people of color, as well as a disproportionate population of people of color in prisons. No, that said, income inequality isn't a racial issue, and it's still the greatest indicator of how successful a person is going to be in their life. But the kinds of people who have an adverse reaction to the idea of white privilege need to be honest with themselves and just admit they're wrong.
This is a disappointing conversation. I was hoping for a deep exploration of this topic with empirical evidence for at least some of the claims but instead got a wish-washy y’a it’s probably true, it feels like it’s probably true…so disappointing.
Dr. Boghossian. If you are open to reading the research, stats and data concerning the issue of white privilege there is quite a huge body of it. What I can recommend to you and all the DP fans and those in this thread is the scholarly and timely book entitled "The New Jim Crow" by Michelle Alexander newjimcrow.com/ Lots of historical, statistical and scientific facts here for those openminded that are willing to learn and want to make a change in society around racism.
Larry Elder is just as unskeptical as any gender or race studies class, and seeing as how Dave Rubin doesn't ask follow up questions I wouldn't let myself be shaken by one of their videos.
"I watched the Larry Elder and Dave Rubin interview and that really made me think."
David: "Hmm"
David's hmms say so much.
Roy Scott Elder brings up a variety of points in his arguments against "white privilege" and "systemic racism", and the fact that those points are statistically backed is often enough for people to buy his arguments. My problem with that is one has to think a little deeper, and question why those statistics are the way they are, and whether or not those stats are the cause or the effect of the system, or better yet, to what extent are those statistics causes and to what extent are they effects. Imo you have some of both going on, but to what extent one can objectively obtain/deduce/induce all the facts of the matter, I don't know. I have ideas and theories, but those aren't all based on hard numbers, so they don't hold the power Larry Elders's argument has (my ideas are based framed by history, sociology, and psychology), and I totally get why people are convinced by his rhetoric, even though I think it's a cheap attempt to overgeneralize a complex problem
The conversation Rubin had with Elder was very rich with data/statistics. Peter is someone who is all about the stats (which are no doubt incredibly important), so I understand why, especially if they were stats that were contradictory to his prior perception, the stats would get the wheels turning in his head. There's no problem with that at all, quite the contrary. That said, in his thinking about those things, especially given his occupation as a philosopher, I would sincerely hope that one of the questions he asked himself was, *why* are these stats the way they are, which to me is just as important, if not more important, than any other implications or questions one may draw from those statistics.
Obviously, he has asked himself that question to some extent, as he's reflecting here on what degree is it systemic racism or not. The question is how deep do you go with your "why", and how many interrelated factors do you explore. For example, he mentioned poverty, which is an important factor, however, he mentioned it in the context of poverty being a potential reason many black individuals cannot properly afford to defend themselves in the criminal justice system, and while that's a valid point, I think there's probably a more relevant role(s) poverty may (imo, almost definitely does) play. What he should also ask, is what are crime rate stats among those in poverty, especially in a ghetto system/culture where the poverty has been so endemic for generations, and black folks in that position feel, often rightfully so, that they have to struggle to survive in that climate by any means necessary, and thus end up prioritizing (for various reasons, one being a lacking public education system) short sited and ultimately destructive means of escaping it (leading often times to crime, violent or not, as a "means to an end").Granted, I'm not attempting to justify that crime. I just want to get to the bottom of the various reasons why it's such a huge problem, and there are various reasons/factors that are completely left out by just focusing on crime stats. It's rather complex, and imo both "sides" of the debate oversimplify the problem to various extents. Again, to what extent are factors in this causes of the problems, and to what extent are they effects?
It's responsible and respectable that Peter relies on statistics, and considering those are stats he doesn't have, I understand his not going down that path, or a similar trajectory, and repeatedly saying "it's not my area of expertise". I just hope that, considering that he is a critical thinker on social matters, that his thought process would or has led him to very critically question why black on black crime stats, or other common statistically backed talking points, are the way they are. At any rate, I completely understand why he treads so cautiously on the subject, and I don't blame him for doing so...
Nikola Demitri well said.
Frankly if a supposedly smart person is getting their info from the Rubin Report that is definitely a reason to go "Hmm."
Rob McCune ....So every person whos been on the rubin report is wrong? lol lawrence krauss, sam harris, and micheal shermer says hi. And thats still just scratching the surface of smart, respectable guests on the rubin report.
The secret reason Rubin never does follow-ups is cos he doesn't actually understand anything that's going on and doesn't have a single original thought in his head. If he just sits there nodding "thoughtfully" people will think he's a thoughtful guy.
There's black on black violence for the same reason people argue with family members more than they argue with strangers. I'm not sure why these people keep scratching their heads about this.
Yeah, that's something that crossed my mind, as well: People, generally speaking, seem to be more likely to associate with members of their own race than of other races. So it's only natural that the crimes a member of a certain race commits are more likely to be against members of their same race.
Blacks buy from and sell to blacks... resulting in black on black disputes, since all of this is illegal, and this results in black on black violence.
Citation please
White privilege is an important concept. It keeps black people wallowing in their victimhood and thereby nullifies any real political power they might have.
Lucky it only matters if you look white. I'm part Native American but look white so I benefit from white privilege.
Same here bender. I'm half white and half korean but look white enough for the cops to worry about fucking with me because they think I might have a rich white father with powerful connections who can get them in trouble with their superiors if the fuck with me. As opposed to a black person who most likely doesn't have such supposed luxuries...
To a certain extent, yes. Generational poverty is a thing though, and it doesn't matter how white you currently look, if your family is poor because systemic racism in the past.
I'm Latino with very fair skin color and it has never helped me out in my life, I am far from privileged.
Weird how I have ~3% Native with the rest being European in me but I'm darker than some quarter black people lol.
Great point. I will be doing a video on this soon, especially dealing with First Nation's issues
"OFFF COOOURSE!"
Cenk Uygur
That point at 5:30 about old man privilege. 100% true. I'm 32 turning 33 in November, and I'm starting to really see people treat me differently. They want me to be their leader, yet didn't trust me in my 20s. Also check out my TH-cam channel if you're into weird wizard shit.
There has been one study done having to do with the perceived strength or danger represented by a black skin toned man versus other skin tone. When asked how big of a man, or how tall of a man, they assumed those with dark skin tones to be, they were more likely to over estimate those with black toned skin to be much bigger than their true size. The conclusion was that there is definitely something going on inside the minds of "white" people, that puts a bias on dark skin toned people, making them think they are 'bigger' men, thus creating more of a sense of being endangered. (IMO, as an aside, when it comes to the police as a whole, maybe it's not so much racism, as it is some sort of unconsciously held/biological fear imprinted in white people?)
Interesting
Wow David, you continue to be one of the few sincere and balanced human beings on the planet looking to see actual facts about issues.
White privilege is nebulously defined and terribly named. When a person is referred to as privileged, it brings to mind possession of wealth, so telling people who earn 35 or 40k per year before taxes that they enjoy privilege is a sure way to create resentment and alienate people who might agree with you on the underlying issues. Also, by definition, the word privilege is exclusionary ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=Privilege&submit.x=0&submit.y=0 . Privileges aren't things that we think of as needing to be extended to everyone, so calling not being discriminated against when looking for housing or a job, or being treated fairly in interactions with the police a form of privilege is counter to the ultimate goal of ensuring that everyone, regardless of race, enjoys these advantages. The terminology definitely needs to be rethought and changed.
at 10:00 I would also get professors have all three groups. They are also included among the experts that he cited earlier. Making and evaluating policy and implementing, experiencing policy are different things albeit with overlap.
"My demographic doesn't commit anywhere near as much crime as other demographics therefore I'm privileged." The racial issue is absurd enough but Boghossian believing he has old man privilege because young men are statistically far more likely to steal just shows how ridiculous this whole concept of privilege is. By his logic women are also privileged and so are black babies. People are confusing the advantageous ability of human beings to extrapolate from statistics in order to protect themselves with being cruelly and inaccurately prejudiced because of hatred. Police and anyone else with common sense cannot approach all young men as if they are babies or old women. This is just plain stupid and I'm tired of people trying to pathologize common sense and basic self-preservation. There is nothing wrong with a store owner being cautiously observant of young men in his store and if young men don't like it then they should stop robbing stores. Their behaviour should not become the psychological burden of older men/white people/police and twisted into some irrationally guilt laden idea of privilege. It is bad enough that certain demographics are far more responsible for crimes against us, now the victims are supposed to feel worse than the transgressors? Give me a fucking break.
I understand white privilege is a thing but I think we need to start talking about white disprivilege as well. The number of middle-aged white men who commit suicide is becoming too high for me to ignore now. Btw I'm a middle eastern woman before anybody starts calling me a racist.
Rubyrain Every type of person has inherent advantages and disadvantages situationally. For example there is no white privilege in a 90% black or latino neighborhood. White privilege is especially a problem only because the leadership of our country is overwhelmingly older white (christian) males. This creates three biases: a pro-white bias(white privilege), a male viewpoint bias and, most often overlooked, an anti young people bias.
+Adam Russo yes I'm well aware of that. The definition of manhood really needs to change.
The definitions and stigma behind mental health need to as well.
That concern mental health. It does not concern privilege versus underprivileged.
I mean, I provided an article about it, but yeah, there's absolutely no correlation between wealth and privilege and suicide rates at all - numbers are all fake news right?
I think it's worth pointing out that there are some benefits that African-Americans receive by virtue of their ethnicity-because the conversation is almost invariably about the benefits that *white* people receive. On average, black men have larger penis sizes, for example, than whites or Asians. The rates of skin cancer among African-Americans is also much lower than white people, and from my understanding, they don't even need to use sun lotion (which I find terribly annoying when I'm outdoors in the summer.) While these aren't social or economic benefits, they are nonetheless benefits that they do generally receive.
It's pretty damn simple, no one is going to look at my degree and ever ask me what sport I played.
I think its reasonable that there are certain privileges within certain communities that having a particular trait would make one less likely to be judged negatively. White privilege, black privilege, male privilege, female privilege, height privilege, non-disabled privilege all exist among other privileges. These are different cultural presuppositions all within different contexts and bubbles of society.
Is there institutional white privilege? I'd need to see evidence of that, specific examples within the past 20 years that are directly related to a person's whiteness that are more than isolated cases of discrimination among society that is largely non-discriminatory. Calling it white privilege sounds like resentment against an entire racial group.
There is no "white privilege". Almost all examples that people think is privilege are just examples of advantages. Having an advantage is not the same as having privilege. An athlete that trains have an advantage in sport over me, but she doesn't have any privilege. Males have advantages for certain jobs over females because men are taller and have more muscle mass on average, but that is not a privilege. Rich people have advantages over poor people, but they are not privileged. White people have advantages over blacks, but they are not privileged.
We have plenty of examples of real privilege. The Chinese Party is privileged over all Chinese citizens. The North Korean dictator is privileged. The African kings are privileged. Men are privileged in Islam over women.
Your analogy is not good. Athletes have a level playing field when compared to whites and blacks in general in the US, who definitely do not.
It's not only policing and the system of courts and prisons that disproportionately target blacks, there are also legacies and ongoing practices of racial discrimination that prevent blacks from obtaining the same kinds of housing, education, employment, and wealth that white people have more opportunities for.
The "advantage" of being white, in other words, is not earned. It is given to whites by the history of racism that has material consequences with us today, and I don't just mean slavery but Jim Crow and housing and employment discrimination too, that confer onto whites by virtue of skin color certain economic, political, and social privileges.
Whites in the US have a responsibility to level the playing field. And that will take concrete measures aside from simply saying "we're not racist." Absent even a willingness or genuine effort to engage in a discussion about what areas whites have privilege in and why, whites perpetuate this injustice and then generally ignore, repress, or slander blacks who do agitate for justice.
+Quinn Malecki
I'm not saying that racism doesn't exists. But I still don't get privileges. It's not that I'm privileged, it's that blacks are discriminated against. Stop the discrimination and the racism. But it has nothing to do with a supposed "white privilege".
> "The "advantage" of being white, in other words, is not earned."
Many advantages are not earned. Somebody who is born smart have advantages over somebody who was born stupid. A person in the USA have advantages over a person born in Africa. But there is no privilege.
> " about what areas whites have privilege in and why"
Where do I have any privilege?
Erwin Muller, Thanks for your response.
As for where you have privilege, I can't say exactly for you because I don't know your situation, background, etc. But I can speak about the effects of certain practices of racism that have an impact on white and black people in a general way.
First I just want to say that the idea that 'privileges based on race are justified because people have other privileges that are natural and socially accepted' is one that I disagree with. I do agree that some privileges are natural and ought to be socially accepted, of course, but they are not socially engineered in the way that race-based disparities are. It's the privileges that result from deliberate attempts to create racial inequities and reinforce them that I think need to be scrutinized and corrected, and I'm arguing that white privilege falls in that category. I think you'd agree based on your reply that ascribing less worth to someone on account of their race is wrong, and that if practiced by people in power who control a significant amount of resources can have a widespread effect that would be unjust.
I admit focusing on the concrete effects of racial discrimination in order to find out which areas people are wrongly privileged or disadvantaged is very complex. But I have focused on employment and housing and feel that I can make a case that in those areas, white people on average have undue privilege.
Imagine a trajectory of household wealth over time rising steadily for decades until the 2008-9 recession. Most Americans were devastated by the housing crisis. But black Americans have suffered the worst of it. Their wealth has dropped to lower levels and has been slower to recover than white people’s, and they lost more in retirement savings. While a wealth gap was constant between blacks and whites prior to the recession, it worsened because of it. Unemployment rates were twice as high for blacks than whites after the bubble burst ("The Racial Wealth Gap," EPI). And the amount that home values declined because of the recession was two times larger for black homes than white homes ("Home Values," EPI).
Economic insecurity remains a problem that African American and Hispanic people experience to a larger extent than white people, i.e. disproportionately. “In 2013, the median white household had wealth that totaled more than $140,000; Hispanics had only about $14,000. And black Americans had $11,000” (White, “Not All Money Troubles”). A major source of disparity in wealth between ethnic or racial groups is housing equity, “which makes up more than 60 percent of the average American household’s wealth” (White, “Not All Money Troubles”). The current average wealth of white American families is seven times higher than that of black families. Zero or negative net worth is seen in less than one tenth of white households and in 25 percent of black households (“The Racial Wealth Gap”).
I'd be happy to go deeper into *some* of what this wealth disparity has been caused by. The causes I have in mind are in the past century.
+Quinn Malecki
Why do you use racism and privilege as synonyms? I agree that we have racist people in power, but how does that translates to "white privilege"? If you believe in "white privilege" you should tell me what privilege I have because I'm white.
> "First I just want to say that the idea that 'privileges based on race
are justified because people have other privileges that are natural and
socially accepted' is one that I disagree with. "
No, I disagree that that is privilege. There was "white privilege" until around 1965, during the Jim Crow laws period. But that is long gone.
> "The current average wealth of white American families is seven times
higher than that of black families. Zero or negative net worth is seen
in less than one tenth of white households and in 25 percent of black
households (“The Racial Wealth Gap”)."
Please explain how that is privilege. Did somebody forced blacks to be poor? Is somebody forcing blacks to drop out of school?
Whites stay at at least 70% in high school, whereas blacks go as low 48% for some states. www.governing.com/gov-data/education-data/state-high-school-graduation-rates-by-race-ethnicity.html
Is that "white privilege" that white students chose to stay in school? If so, why do Asian/Pacific have a comparative drop out rate to whites? Is there a "Asian/Pacific privilege"?
The same for university. Blacks have a lower graduation rate to whites and Asians. www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/04/26/college-completion-rates-vary-race-and-ethnicity-report-finds
Maybe if blacks would stay in school and get higher education the “The Racial Wealth Gap” would disappear?
How about single parent families and why are black families so high?
datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/107-children-in-single-parent-families-by#detailed/1/any/false/573,869,36,868,867/10,11,9,12,1,185,13/432,431
65% of black families are single parent, compared to 25% of whites and just 17% to Asian. Is that "white privilege" that black parents don't stay together?
Your comment is so stupid I don't know where to begin.
"Privilege" specifically connotes social or institutional BIAS. The things you're talking about are simply matter-of-fact, biological or meritocratic. It is true that tall people will be better at basketball. That's not a sign of institutional prejudice. It's also true that blacks are 4x more likely to get arrested for marijuana possession, despite using it at the same rate as whites. That shouldn't be taken for granted. that's not just something that "happens". It's an institutional bias with no basis in biological fact.
How did you miss that while you were typing out that comment? How did you put those strings of sentences together and not catch yourself? How did you not realise that it DOES make perfect moral and ethical sense for athletes to be more athletic than non-athletes, but that it does NOT make perfect moral and ethical sense for rich people to have an advantage over poor people, or for white people to have an advantage over black people?
"White people have advantages over blacks, but they are not privileged."
Dude, how the fuck do you justify that? That is the single most bullshit I've seen in one sentence in years.
How can you simultaneously acknowledge that white people have some kind of advantage over black people, purely by virtue of being white, but you don't see this as a "privilege"? Wtf do you think privilege is?
I used to think it wasn't real (or at least exaggerated) until I witnessed it first hand three times once I became good friends with a black man. You think everyone treats everyone else like you are being treated until they don't. It was quite infuriating once you see it happen to someone you know is awesome and the only difference is the color of their skin and what clothes they were wearing. What made me feel worse is that I was So Angry and all my friend said was... "Eh, I'm used to it." and told me to get over it because it was going to happen again and I needed to be able to deal with it if we were to stay friends.
Was this institutional though? I don't doubt there is genuine bigotry against blacks.
I have no doubt you can have instances of people treating you differently based on race. However if the solution is to enact MORE racist by saying "White Privilege" or the new anti Asian trend that is continuing. .. Then I will fight that. Using racism against racism --- Evil against evil --- only makes it stronger
Oh, so, you're saying, "don't get into the water until you learn how to swim"; in reference to having a conversation about "the problem" as you state - it's not time yet. When is it? It needs to seriously begin. The delay thus far has not produced any positive results. In addition, those who have attempted to discuss this issue, once the conversation either gets heated or a "nerve" of the white person is touched - more likely their guilty conscious begins to show - that ends the conversation.
The police were never organized to protect people even though they say they are to protect and serve. They were organized to protect property and to support the status quo. Some things have changed, but as a nation, or people in general, no progress will ever be made if one group has their foot on the neck of another group. Both are hindered from moving in any way let alone a positive way. The police brutality is because of fear of the oppressed becoming powerful enough to not need the "handouts". It's a control and fear issue.
Understand, the descendants of the slaves who were brought here against their will have never got a fair chance or been compensated for the work their ancestors were forced into and the ruling majority in this country, (not to mention elsewhere in the world), has done their level best to keep these descendants suppressed, drugged, intimidated, incarcerated and even eliminated.
It will be great when people stop trying to put a band aide on the butt of America's racial issues and do the difficult work of trying to resolve the issue in meaningful ways that not only get to the root of the problem but find ways to change hearts. This issue is a heart issue; and short of that nothing of true significance will be lasting. Old bigoted mindsets will either have to change or die out like some extinct animal species.
But like he says we need the data and evidence for white privilege.
Fat chance. Like we need the data that there is child abuse in the world...oh not so much because we don't have the data. So we stick with what we know.
I don’t have the evidence but I have good ways of thinking about this????? If I was a white man in a country predominantly black could I claim that everyone else had black privilege. If so (it certainly stands to reason that would be the case) would we go out of our way to shame them because they had black privilege? Asking for a friend???
A couple of jews talking about how white people are unfairly looked favorably upon for being white. Classic.
This dude is very naive about the police.
The "blue code of silence' is very, very real and implicates the police en masse.
White Privilege?............. or Reputation by Race?
deep thoughts.
In relation to what group is the white privilege measured? In relation to Asians? If there is difference in treatment then maybe that is a result of difference in behavior. The whole concept of white privilege is muddy. On the other hand black privilege is clear. One can get into college at lower scores.
Okaro X I get called sir too its a southern thing
Elder brings up a variety of points in his arguments against "white privilege" and "systemic racism", and the fact that those points are statistically backed is often enough for people to buy his arguments. My problem with that is one has to think a little deeper, and question why those statistics are the way they are, and whether or not those stats are the cause or the effect of the system, or better yet, to what extent are those statistics causes and to what extent are they effects. Imo you have some of both going on, but to what extent one can objectively obtain/deduce/induce all the facts of the matter, I don't know. I have ideas and theories, but those aren't all based on hard numbers, so they don't hold the power Larry Elders's argument has (my ideas are based framed by history, sociology, and psychology), and I totally get why people are convinced by his rhetoric, even though I think it's a cheap attempt to overgeneralize a complex problem
The conversation Rubin had with Elder was very rich with data/statistics. Peter is someone who is all about the stats (which are no doubt incredibly important), so I understand why, especially if they were stats that were contradictory to his prior perception, the stats would get the wheels turning in his head. There's no problem with that at all, quite the contrary. That said, in his thinking about those things, especially given his occupation as a philosopher, I would sincerely hope that one of the questions he asked himself was, *why* are these stats the way they are, which to me is just as important, if not more important, than any other implications or questions one may draw from those statistics.
Obviously, he has asked himself that question to some extent, as he's reflecting here on what degree is it systemic racism or not. The question is how deep do you go with your "why", and how many interrelated factors do you explore. For example, he mentioned poverty, which is an important factor, however, he mentioned it in the context of poverty being a potential reason many black individuals cannot properly afford to defend themselves in the criminal justice system, and while that's a valid point, I think there's probably a more relevant role(s) poverty may (imo, almost definitely does) play. What he should also ask, is what are crime rate stats among those in poverty, especially in a ghetto system/culture where the poverty has been so endemic for generations, and black folks in that position feel, often rightfully so, that they have to struggle to survive in that climate by any means necessary, and thus end up prioritizing (for various reasons, one being a lacking public education system) short sited and ultimately destructive means of escaping it (leading often times to crime, violent or not, as a "means to an end").Granted, I'm not attempting to justify that crime. I just want to get to the bottom of the various reasons why it's such a huge problem, and there are various reasons/factors that are completely left out by just focusing on crime stats. It's rather complex, and imo both "sides" of the debate oversimplify the problem to various extents. Again, to what extent are factors in this causes of the problems, and to what extent are they effects?
It's responsible and respectable that Peter relies on statistics, and considering those are stats he doesn't have, I understand his not going down that path, or a similar trajectory, and repeatedly saying "it's not my area of expertise". I just hope that, considering that he is a critical thinker on social matters, that his thought process would or has led him to very critically question why black on black crime stats, or other common statistically backed talking points, are the way they are. At any rate, I completely understand why he treads so cautiously on the subject, and I don't blame him for doing so...
I wish this guy was my Phil101 professor... Mine was a bitch that was only interested in showing off how "smart" she was.. (she would leave passive aggressive comments on our papers if we got something wrong, rather than explain what we did wrong.)
He watched the Dave Rubin and Larry Elder video.
Peters lip lol... Look closely... Ouchies
Maybe it's just hot wing sauce? lol
The Master Grief Collection He use to steal?
So to the question about white privilege he literally pulled the "but what about black on black violence?".
becase that's somehow a logical response to something like "why are black people getting profiled and brutalised by police?"
Why is healng a "goofy word"?
In the 60’s and before yes
if white privilege exists that means fit, good-looking and female privilege exists as well
sergio garcia Excellent point. We could create an endless list of privileges, it is a slippery slope.
People who haven't done the reading should be exempt from discussions until they have. Here, do something a reactionary intellectual charlatan like Dr Jordan Peterson PhD won't do because he's tapped into a lucrative market of squealing white male faux victims previously known as conservatives, and educate yourself.
code.ucsd.edu/pcosman/Backpack.pdf
They all do when the terminology is used correctly which both applicants and critics don't.
sergio garcia it literally doesn't mean that, tho all those are probably true
sergio garcia lol yes absolutely. Fit good looking women get all kinds of priviliges don't they?
End of argument: th-cam.com/video/phPXTWJhnYM/w-d-xo.html
Probably not
This guy reminds me so much of Dave Rubin. He begins making a vague claim that no one can even tell if it's right-wing or left-wing and then he cuts himself off because of the "toxic environment that won't let him speak freely" (despite the fact that he's the only one actually preventing a free flow of ideas by not just spitting out whatever it is he believes) and then he just complains alot about how debate is not possible, but when he has the actual opportunity to discuss actual ideas and issues, as Pakman is presenting him with, he cant get away from his vapid talking points about tactics and manner.
Of course white privilege exists. Generations of systemic racism took their toll on people of color in historically white-dominated countries and that's why we see so many issues with generational poverty, a gap in quality and access to education between whites and people of color, as well as a disproportionate population of people of color in prisons.
No, that said, income inequality isn't a racial issue, and it's still the greatest indicator of how successful a person is going to be in their life. But the kinds of people who have an adverse reaction to the idea of white privilege need to be honest with themselves and just admit they're wrong.
This is a disappointing conversation. I was hoping for a deep exploration of this topic with empirical evidence for at least some of the claims but instead got a wish-washy y’a it’s probably true, it feels like it’s probably true…so disappointing.
Donald Trump, enough said.
Dr. Boghossian. If you are open to reading the research, stats and data concerning the issue of white privilege there is quite a huge body of it. What I can recommend to you and all the DP fans and those in this thread is the scholarly and timely book entitled "The New Jim Crow" by Michelle Alexander newjimcrow.com/ Lots of historical, statistical and scientific facts here for those openminded that are willing to learn and want to make a change in society around racism.
Shallow, shallow thinker. Jesus Christ. Him, Lindsay, and Pluckrose are like two steps above Rubin thinking they’re Einstein.
Nice try David.
Did he see the Philandro Castille video?
answer is yes, yes its real
Larry Elder is just as unskeptical as any gender or race studies class, and seeing as how Dave Rubin doesn't ask follow up questions I wouldn't let myself be shaken by one of their videos.