Augustus
…
Then why in the damn hell would a woman tell a cop "I'm a thoroughbred, white, clean, woman" and even after the damn cop asked her what did she mean by that she stated: "You’re a cop, you should know what that means." If not white privilege then why in the hell would she say that?
You seem unable to distinguish between a drunk person feeling entitled on multiple accounts, and evidence that she clearly got preferential treatment based purely on her race.
Are you a researcher? I am and i'm aware of certain research subject not having enough evidence and needing replication but your immediate dismissal intrigues me and so therefore I must ask if you do research or belong to any particular peer reviewed study?
You are the first person to demand others provide sources, so practice what you preach.
In a field with around 50% error rates the prudent course of action is to assume all studies are false until you have good reason to believe otherwise, wouldn't you agree?
There are several examples of white privilege along with implicit racial bias I cannot list them all here. This woman in the video and her subsequent comment, is an example of the existence of white privilege and what I believe to be white privilege.
You can't prove trends with anecdotal examples.
If someone waved a magic wand and black people were given preferential treatment you would still be able to find countless examples of 'white privilege' and 'discrimination' against black people due to natural variance in outcomes.
If you judge every unknown situation purely on the outcome you will massively overestimate the degree and extent of privilege/prejudice, and could even create a trend where none existed.
Job applications with names clearly associated with certain ethnic groups are less likely to receive a response than those with 'neutral' names. One study showed a 'white' application might get 25/100 replies and a 'black' application might get 10/100.
There is clearly discrimination overall, but using your logic, the black applicant should assume every rejection (90/100) must necessarily be due to racism, whereas in reality 15/100 were due to racism. You have jumped from 15 racist incidents to 90.
Even if you know the trend exists, without clear and specific evidence you can't identify which rejection was caused by racism, or if you want to look at it the other way, which interview was gained by 'white privilege'. If you judge based on outcome alone though you assume every interview is 'white privilege' and every rejection 'racism', which is fallacious.