What is white privilege?

Status
Not open for further replies.
VincentHanna said:
You moan about it on a forum and do **** all else about it?
Click to expand...

I think the question was at least partially sarcastic/ rhetorical...

Because most white people, most of the time don't spend much time anguishing over the supposed collective suffering of people who share a similar skin hue like another group are being encouraged to do in the video.

One sure way to change this behaviour is to have them in a society that does obsess about other ethnic groups making it a supposed oppression competion.

In other news there'a been not much news coverage/ commentary of a 5 year old being shot dead by a neighbour in the US in apparent deliberate act.

Cynics might suggest that if the ethnicities of the respective parties was reversed that there would have been wall to wall coverage and commentary in the media and not just domestically in the US.

With certain media pundits and forum posters falling over themselves to tell us this was defo a result of 'Trump's amercia'.

I also imagine that the detention of a woman in Australia by police for a Covid related matter might also have attracted some more attention if the subject being detained wasn't white.


Ahleckz said:
English newspapers report on things happening in Scotland, I'm sure. However, I read Scottish ones because I believe they 'speak' to me more and I can relate to them. Is this self indulgent?
Click to expand...

If must have missed the video on the BBC of some white supposed intellectual talking about the particular struggles of white people in general.

You have seemed to at least partially conceded that the struggle and worries that black people face are often not unique to their group of ethnicities.

The question is is it healthy for a society to promote its constituent groups to view their struggles as being somewhat unique and often set against, aggravated by or caused by other groups in the said society regardless of the facts?

Theres a difference between let's say offering some general news and content for the Somalian diaspora (with the woman on the video being from the country as I understand) and pieces encouraging them to risibly view themselves as being effectively under some sort of racial siege in places like the UK.
 
Last edited:
inogen said:
His response (comparing skin tones) is the thing that caused the specific complaint, not the discussion itself. But anyway, life's too short.
Click to expand...

I’m not really sure what the complaint is tbh... someone made a claim that she’s as black as Obama, clearly she isn’t.

That’s she’s not “African American” or “ADOS” is clearly an issue for some of the anti police crowd and some African Americans, especially given the perception of her track record as a prosecutor.
 
Rotty said:
He's just making accusations of racism so I have no intentions of discussing anything with people like that
Click to expand...

They asked if the problem was that it was targeted at a black audience. You've not really mentioned what in particular about the video left you speechless or why it's an issue that the BBC are promoting it.

You mentioned it being self indulgent and you taking an issue to the BBCs left wing, PC bias, Ahleckz pointed out that it's mostly just good advice for mental health. If you don't want to counter their points, then what was it about the video that lead to the above reaction and statements?
 
Ahleckz said:
I suppose it's up to others how they view you, but you've taken a position against a video promoting healthy mental health for black people for reasons you refuse to explain.

Great discussion. 10/10.
Click to expand...

Promoting mental health, that’s great. Indulging in & perpetuating some fantasy idea that the George Floyd death was part of some larger race issue in policing is unhelpful and arguably just pandering to/exacerbating those mental health “I’m so tired...” issues in the first place. She literally earlier on in the video “your feelings are absolutely valid”, I’d dispute that, they’re frequentky misplaced with regards to this incident, especially if it is used as a supposed example of racism or some general issue of US police killing black people.

Would be better overall if we had some honest reporting for a change instead of cherry picking and race baiting by the media, hyping up these incidents and as a result mass civil unrest and some warped perceptions of the police, some black people left with the perception they should be fearful for their lives if stopped and this whole anxiety from these incidents in the first place

Do white people suffer from similar mental health issues when the news reports on tragic police shootings or deaths of suspects when they happen to be white?

It’s a largely manufactured problem in the first place, fixing it ought to include correcting the dubious perceptions that cause it instead of perpetuating and trying to cope with them.

“I’m so tired...”
 
Last edited:
Ahleckz said:
I suppose it's up to others how they view you, but you've taken a position against a video promoting healthy mental health for black people for reasons you refuse to explain.

Great discussion. 10/10.
Click to expand...

Maybe they've taken a position against one or more of these things that video is also doing:

1) Grouping all "black" people together as a single identity, i.e. the belief that "they're all the same".

2) Not giving a damn about the mental health of people who are the "wrong race".

3) Trying to ensure that the constant, extreme and extremely fashionable racist bias in almost all of the media today gets as much success as possible in promoting racism. The point of such a thing is to provoke fear and anger in the chosen group identity and provide the chosen group identity with a target group identity to focus that anger on. So anyone in the chosen group identity who has been over-exposed (for them) to the propaganda and is no longer angered by it is someone the campaign should target, to bring them back to feeling constant anger against the target group identity.

Gentile vs jew, devout vs unbeliever, catholic vs protestent, protestant vs catholic, everyone else vs witches, proletariat vs bourgeousie, capitalist vs communist, communist vs capitalist, female vs male...the list goes on. "Black vs white" is just currently the most fashionable strain of deliberately promoted irrational prejudice. It's also one of the most extreme, which makes it one of the most dangerous. They're already at the stage of proudly stating and promoting their belief that the lives of people not of the "right race" don't matter at all. That sort of extremism usually comes later, if and when such an ideology has had more success.
 
Last edited:
Ahleckz said:
It's on the alt history, as in, the non-white history, section of the BBC website. You're literally getting outraged that a section that is centered towards non-whites exists. Do you hate Radio 3 because it doesn't play music that the majority of the country listens to? You are looking for things to get angry about, it's bizarre.
Click to expand...
Wth is "alt history" and "non-white history"... this is the kind of crap we're talking about btw. Self-indulgent rubbish.

By talking about "non-white history" the implication is that even history itself is racist against blacks.

As another poster said, this way of talking, this way of framing things, is designed to promote the idea that blacks are victims, and to promote the general idea that everything has to be different for blacks and whites.

When in fact we should be trying for a system where nothing is different for blacks and whites (and asians and...)
 
FoxEye said:
Wth is "alt history" and "non-white history"... this is the kind of crap we're talking about btw. Self-indulgent rubbish.

By talking about "non-white history" the implication is that even history itself is racist against blacks.

As another poster said, this way of talking, this way of framing things, is designed to promote the idea that blacks are victims, and to promote the general idea that everything has to be different for blacks and whites.

When in fact we should be trying for a system where nothing is different for blacks and whites (and asians and...)
Click to expand...

Alt History is a BBC 3 programme: "Writer and historian David Olusoga presents a series of short films exploring critical moments in Black British history from 1919 that have been forgotten or rarely discussed."

I can understand why people might feel a way about how certain things are presented, but I'm struggling to see how this is divisive in any way.
 
explicit4u said:
Alt History is a BBC 3 programme: "Writer and historian David Olusoga presents a series of short films exploring critical moments in Black British history from 1919 that have been forgotten or rarely discussed."

I can understand why people might feel a way about how certain things are presented, but I'm struggling to see how this is divisive in any way.
Click to expand...
Why call it "alt-history" then? Alt means alternative, and the use of phrases like "alt-facts" (etc) are often very divisive terms.

The very phrase implies that "white history" and "black history" are not aligned. That "white history" is a form of racism against black people. That "white history" is one set of facts and "black history" is perhaps a conflicting set of facts. That the two races cannot share a common history.

Words and the meanings of words are very important. I honestly believe the people who come up with phrases like "alt-history" know what they are doing. It's subtle, but it's a way of inciting division and, yes, inciting fear and hate between "races".
 
FoxEye said:
Why call it "alt-history" then? Alt means alternative, and the use of phrases like "alt-facts" (etc) are often very divisive terms.

The very phrase implies that "white history" and "black history" are not aligned. That "white history" is a form of racism against black people. That "white history" is one set of facts and "black history" is perhaps a conflicting set of facts. That the two races cannot share a common history.

Words and the meanings of words are very important. I honestly believe the people who come up with phrases like "alt-history" know what they are doing. It's subtle, but it's a way of inciting division and, yes, inciting fear and hate between "races".
Click to expand...

Exactly, they are seen as the racism they complain about. So what’s the logical move. ?
Use the continual woke attitude to rewrite history they find offensive. Because white history has been deemed “wrong” and racist. When it’s just history. It’s what actually took place. The danger is if they can happily rewrite history what’s the next chapter hold. ? Subliminal racism, questioning racism. It is a concerning story unfolding.
 
I noticed this Trumpian racism which seems kinda relevant when I read some of the undeniably racist responses to this thread:
Kamala Harris was this week named as Democratic candidate Joe Biden’s running mate for the 2020 election – the first woman of colour on a major party ticket. She was born in Oakland, California, and is eligible for both the vice presidency and presidency under the US constitution.

John Eastman, a conservative lawyer, wrote an op-ed in Newsweek arguing that the constitution does not grant birthright citizenship and challenging Harris’s eligibility based on her parents’ immigration status.

When Trump was asked about it at Thursday’s White House press briefing, he gave a characteristically vague answer that could sow doubt in the minds of supporters inclined to believe the worst: “So, I just heard that. I heard it today that she doesn’t meet the requirements. And, by the way, the lawyer that wrote that piece is a very highly qualified, very talented lawyer.” (LINK)
Click to expand...
 
stockhausen said:
I wouldn't even describe you as "rewriting history"; posting racist and right-wing nonsense but probably not "rewriting history".

Who exactly is "rewriting history" and in what way? Would you care to give a few examples?
Click to expand...

Are you seriously saying that you don’t see the left rewriting history. Or even attempting too. ?

What is breaking down statues then ? That is history !
The woke councils especially in London agreeing to remove the “ones they find offensive”. It’s facts and that’s what happened. You cannot take something down because a new ideological way of thinking suddenly finds them offensive.

Whatever it is the left believe they are looking for, this utopia or one world society. It doesn’t exist. It’s not real, having an ideological mind blinds people from this.

Now can you show me something I said that’s racist ?? I’m a bit offended by that slander
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom