You could use some work on reading comprehension.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What are White Folks Doing Wrong?
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
You could use some work on reading comprehension.
They should recognize that there are no whites.
Cooky
Veteran Member
Maybe it is for you, but in my town, whites are the minority, and my kids are the only white kids in their class, and they get no special privileges. Neither do I.
Except that it's derogatory.
Cooky
Veteran Member
Mongoloid is. I think mongrel is not.
Are you kidding?
Even for canines, it is.
Shad
Veteran Member
Depends on context and target. Mongoloid is a skull type. Saying that to a person is typically an insult. Mongrel is about dog breeds but when used at a person is about characteristics typically race or breeding stock based on social/economic class.
Last edited:
Cooky
Veteran Member
leov
Well-Known Member
you are right, man who wrote that was mix himself , mother Japanese, father a noble from Roman times very rich from times of Jesus.
Shad
Veteran Member
Yes.
No, my reading comprehension is quite fine, thank you. You said: "How is acknowledging the pervasiveness of white privilege different than racism?" To ask how one thing compares to another implies some sort of equivalence. You asked us to compare "acknowledgment of white privilege" and "racism." You asked us to compare "support for criminal justice reform efforts," and "racism." These are no more comparable, one to the other, than asking us to compare a rose to a sequoia. (Unless, of course, you don't care how nonsensical an answer you're likely to get.)
Actually you proposed solutions seem to be confusing White privilege and racism. IOW if I were asking about racism would you have different proposed solutions?
Cooky
Veteran Member
Not all white people experience white privilege, and to say they do is itself racist. Do white people living in China receive white privilege? No.
It's more appropriate to say that "majority privilege" exists, as it does all around the world.
...Singling out whites, specifically is in itself anti-white racism.
It's more appropriate to say that "majority privilege" exists, as it does all around the world.
...Singling out whites, specifically is in itself anti-white racism.
Quit misunderstanding me.
Scott C.
Just one guy
The problem with the term "white privilege" is that it sounds like white people are getting things or treatment that they should not receive. This is what inflames some white people when they hear the term. It's a RIGHT, not a PRIVILEGE, to be treated fairly without regard for race. To whatever extent this RIGHT is protected more frequently for white people, than for people of color, that's racial discrimination. Victims of discrimination are just that, innocent victims. We should drop "white privilege" from the dialog and go back to framing the problem as racial discrimination. The meaning is more clear. I have no idea how I can stop having white privilege, since white privilege is simply the absence of being discriminated against. But I do know what I can do to not discriminate against people of color and to do my part to see that they maintain the same RIGHT that I have.
Last edited:
Shad
Veteran Member
More to the point. Those that claim "white privilege" have zero evidence that various interactions are due to their little myth or not. They just assume and assert it. They can not separate fair treatment from special treatment as they have no data on the individual.
Last edited:
More and more places are becoming "majority minority"
sealchan
Well-Known Member
Singling out is not equivalent to bias. That is like saying talking about the color green is to evince a bias about green.
Saying green is typically or inherently better or worse is bias. Indicating that your bias should be true for other people is prejudice. Thinking that your bias justifies an action that is otherwise immoral is "racist" (or in this case colorist).
By confusing the categories of bias you hope to shut down the conversation about bias that one should be free to raise. Let's not be simplistic.
Cooky
Veteran Member
...Until it comes full swing into "majority minority majority".