I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
No. What an idiotic thing to say.
1) if there is "black disadvantage" rather than "white privilege" yet white is not the norm, then what is the norm?
2) So do you prefer "male privilege" as a term to "female disadvantage", or do you deny that there is an issue?
Black people are treated differently to white people in many situations.
When I've talked to black colleagues and friends in private this is what they mention to me: they describe the looks, the nudges and the street-crossing and excessive police stopping. How their kids are tolerated less when they misbehave than white kids. They also mention that because some white people *assume* many others are racist (often the well-meaning but patronising ones who say how different they are personally) they also soft pedal their ambition too - saying they should become a technician or nurse rather than an engineer or doctor, because they'd definitely succeed at the former.
They haven't *once* talked about White Privilege or statues that need to come down. Nor has colonialism come up except in passing in one conversation where she just said "the past is the past".
This is an obsession White Liberals have - probably because it makes it all about them rather than the real racism and disadvantage black people experience.
Sure. But the only thing that ‘white privilege’ means is the other side of that coin. ie of all the shitty things that might happen to you in life, those things are not among them. I don’t know that it’s a particularly useful term, but it’s not without meaning.
I think that white privilege is a precise term that describes something real and its use contributes to fruitful debate. I struggle to understand how anyone can have a genuine problem with it.
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
No. What an idiotic thing to say.
1) if there is "black disadvantage" rather than "white privilege" yet white is not the norm, then what is the norm?
2) So do you prefer "male privilege" as a term to "female disadvantage", or do you deny that there is an issue?
Black people are treated differently to white people in many situations.
When I've talked to black colleagues and friends in private this is what they mention to me: they describe the looks, the nudges and the street-crossing and excessive police stopping. How their kids are tolerated less when they misbehave than white kids. They also mention that because some white people *assume* many others are racist (often the well-meaning but patronising ones who say how different they are personally) they also soft pedal their ambition too - saying they should become a technician or nurse rather than an engineer or doctor, because they'd definitely succeed at the former.
They haven't *once* talked about White Privilege or statues that need to come down. Nor has colonialism come up except in passing in one conversation where she just said "the past is the past".
This is an obsession White Liberals have - probably because it makes it all about them rather than the real racism and disadvantage black people experience.
Sure. But the only thing that ‘white privilege’ means is the other side of that coin. ie of all the shitty things that might happen to you in life, those things are not among them. I don’t know that it’s a particularly useful term, but it’s not without meaning.
I don't think it works in quite the same way - for one thing Chinese and Asian people don't have the same experiences as Black people do - and that's the start of all the intersectionality nonsense that ends with anti-capitalism, anti-colonialism and reparations nonsense which is why it generates such a strong reaction, particularly from poorer whites who suffer much disadvantage.
It's a convection and an entirely unhelpful one. The experience is valid and needs understanding. The Marxist language and theory needs ditching.
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
No. What an idiotic thing to say.
1) if there is "black disadvantage" rather than "white privilege" yet white is not the norm, then what is the norm?
2) So do you prefer "male privilege" as a term to "female disadvantage", or do you deny that there is an issue?
Black people are treated differently to white people in many situations.
When I've talked to black colleagues and friends in private this is what they mention to me: they describe the looks, the nudges and the street-crossing and excessive police stopping. How their kids are tolerated less when they misbehave than white kids. They also mention that because some white people *assume* many others are racist (often the well-meaning but patronising ones who say how different they are personally) they also soft pedal their ambition too - saying they should become a technician or nurse rather than an engineer or doctor, because they'd definitely succeed at the former.
They haven't *once* talked about White Privilege or statues that need to come down. Nor has colonialism come up except in passing in one conversation where she just said "the past is the past".
This is an obsession White Liberals have - probably because it makes it all about them rather than the real racism and disadvantage black people experience.
Sure. But the only thing that ‘white privilege’ means is the other side of that coin. ie of all the shitty things that might happen to you in life, those things are not among them. I don’t know that it’s a particularly useful term, but it’s not without meaning.
I think that white privilege is a precise term that describes something real and its use contributes to fruitful debate. I struggle to understand how anyone can have a genuine problem with it.
Try reading my posts. You've got this badly wrong.
Just finished watching Cornwall by Simon Reeve on BBC2. Well worth seeing on catch up. He is a great reporter and interviewer, on both the beauty and problems of the county.
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
No. What an idiotic thing to say.
1) if there is "black disadvantage" rather than "white privilege" yet white is not the norm, then what is the norm?
2) So do you prefer "male privilege" as a term to "female disadvantage", or do you deny that there is an issue?
Black people are treated differently to white people in many situations.
When I've talked to black colleagues and friends in private this is what they mention to me: they describe the looks, the nudges and the street-crossing and excessive police stopping. How their kids are tolerated less when they misbehave than white kids. They also mention that because some white people *assume* many others are racist (often the well-meaning but patronising ones who say how different they are personally) they also soft pedal their ambition too - saying they should become a technician or nurse rather than an engineer or doctor, because they'd definitely succeed at the former.
They haven't *once* talked about White Privilege or statues that need to come down. Nor has colonialism come up except in passing in one conversation where she just said "the past is the past".
This is an obsession White Liberals have - probably because it makes it all about them rather than the real racism and disadvantage black people experience.
I have had similar conversations, indeed it describes the experience of "white privilege" very well without using the term, but it was not really an answer to my question, was it?
What is the norm that these people have been disadvantaged relative to?
I have answered your question.
Like many White Liberals you are more interested in fighting a civil war amongst White people and you need to find offence and claim bigotry, where there is none, in order to do that so you can feel good about yourself.
I hold that beneath contempt. White Liberals are the absolute pits.
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
No. What an idiotic thing to say.
1) if there is "black disadvantage" rather than "white privilege" yet white is not the norm, then what is the norm?
2) So do you prefer "male privilege" as a term to "female disadvantage", or do you deny that there is an issue?
Black people are treated differently to white people in many situations.
When I've talked to black colleagues and friends in private this is what they mention to me: they describe the looks, the nudges and the street-crossing and excessive police stopping. How their kids are tolerated less when they misbehave than white kids. They also mention that because some white people *assume* many others are racist (often the well-meaning but patronising ones who say how different they are personally) they also soft pedal their ambition too - saying they should become a technician or nurse rather than an engineer or doctor, because they'd definitely succeed at the former.
They haven't *once* talked about White Privilege or statues that need to come down. Nor has colonialism come up except in passing in one conversation where she just said "the past is the past".
This is an obsession White Liberals have - probably because it makes it all about them rather than the real racism and disadvantage black people experience.
Is Betvictor down? I get a "banned in your jurisdiction" page.
Seems to be up.
ETA are you using a phone or work machine whose external IP address is geolocated somewhere funny? Try the usual stuff like clearing your browser cache as well.
Do you have a link? I get this..
"It appears you are accessing our website from a prohibited location.
Local regulations prohibit us from allowing you to log in or place bets on our website.
We cannot accept any transactions from this Jurisdiction.
If you believe you have been incorrectly transferred to this page, please contact help@betvictor.com"
Google "my ip" which should tell you your external IP address. You can then look up where that is assigned. However, it is probably easier to email the help address.
Ha! It says I'm near Belgium!
WTF? Have I been hacked?
Curiously, your IP has you in Belgium, but it is also an IP address owned by British Telecom.
My guess is they've done an internal network reorg and you have assigned one that was previously in Belgium.
Alternatively, does your home look different this morning?
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
No. What an idiotic thing to say.
1) if there is "black disadvantage" rather than "white privilege" yet white is not the norm, then what is the norm?
2) So do you prefer "male privilege" as a term to "female disadvantage", or do you deny that there is an issue?
Black people are treated differently to white people in many situations.
When I've talked to black colleagues and friends in private this is what they mention to me: they describe the looks, the nudges and the street-crossing and excessive police stopping. How their kids are tolerated less when they misbehave than white kids. They also mention that because some white people *assume* many others are racist (often the well-meaning but patronising ones who say how different they are personally) they also soft pedal their ambition too - saying they should become a technician or nurse rather than an engineer or doctor, because they'd definitely succeed at the former.
They haven't *once* talked about White Privilege or statues that need to come down. Nor has colonialism come up except in passing in one conversation where she just said "the past is the past".
This is an obsession White Liberals have - probably because it makes it all about them rather than the real racism and disadvantage black people experience.
Sure. But the only thing that ‘white privilege’ means is the other side of that coin. ie of all the shitty things that might happen to you in life, those things are not among them. I don’t know that it’s a particularly useful term, but it’s not without meaning.
I think that white privilege is a precise term that describes something real and its use contributes to fruitful debate. I struggle to understand how anyone can have a genuine problem with it.
Because there's no such thing as white privilege.
There's discrimination against blacks, but that has nothing to do with white privilege since the world isn't binary either black or white.
(East) Asians aren't discriminated against in the same way blacks are but we don't hear about Asian privilege do we?
Maybe deal with that actual problem instead of its inverse?
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
No. What an idiotic thing to say.
1) if there is "black disadvantage" rather than "white privilege" yet white is not the norm, then what is the norm?
2) So do you prefer "male privilege" as a term to "female disadvantage", or do you deny that there is an issue?
Black people are treated differently to white people in many situations.
When I've talked to black colleagues and friends in private this is what they mention to me: they describe the looks, the nudges and the street-crossing and excessive police stopping. How their kids are tolerated less when they misbehave than white kids. They also mention that because some white people *assume* many others are racist (often the well-meaning but patronising ones who say how different they are personally) they also soft pedal their ambition too - saying they should become a technician or nurse rather than an engineer or doctor, because they'd definitely succeed at the former.
They haven't *once* talked about White Privilege or statues that need to come down. Nor has colonialism come up except in passing in one conversation where she just said "the past is the past".
This is an obsession White Liberals have - probably because it makes it all about them rather than the real racism and disadvantage black people experience.
I have had similar conversations, indeed it describes the experience of "white privilege" very well without using the term, but it was not really an answer to my question, was it?
What is the norm that these people have been disadvantaged relative to?
I have answered your question.
Like many White Liberals you are more interested in fighting a civil war amongst White people and you need to find offence and claim bigotry, where there is none, in order to do that so you can feel good about yourself.
I hold that beneath contempt. White Liberals are the absolute pits.
So what is the norm that those Black people were disadvantaged to?
Perhaps you could rephase your answer as I genuinely do not understand what you mean.
I am not interested in starting any civil wars between white people, or indeed any other groups.
I cannot understand how you give such a good description of an issue of discrimination, yet become aggressive when discussing how to remedy it.
Biden to win EC by over 48.5 EC margin - Last price matched 1.22 Dems to win Georgia in Presidential Race - Last price matched 1.08
This has been driving me crazy all day. Is there any way at all this isn't the same bet?!
Sorry for people who saw my ranting on this earlier, but I've now got what I think is a giant arb that if there's a risk of threading the needle the wrong way and I realise it too late I'm going to just cry.
Although I'm on the Left, on the question of the term "white Privilege", and some others like it, I have quite a lot of sympathy for what Casino Royale is saying.
A privileged status for white people in a number of areas is a fact ; but the term reduces people morally to that privilege, which is extremely dangerous. It also has conceptual parallels with the kind of portrayals of "black suffering" that people from those communities find demeaning in western portrayals of Africa.
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
No. What an idiotic thing to say.
1) if there is "black disadvantage" rather than "white privilege" yet white is not the norm, then what is the norm?
2) So do you prefer "male privilege" as a term to "female disadvantage", or do you deny that there is an issue?
Black people are treated differently to white people in many situations.
When I've talked to black colleagues and friends in private this is what they mention to me: they describe the looks, the nudges and the street-crossing and excessive police stopping. How their kids are tolerated less when they misbehave than white kids. They also mention that because some white people *assume* many others are racist (often the well-meaning but patronising ones who say how different they are personally) they also soft pedal their ambition too - saying they should become a technician or nurse rather than an engineer or doctor, because they'd definitely succeed at the former.
They haven't *once* talked about White Privilege or statues that need to come down. Nor has colonialism come up except in passing in one conversation where she just said "the past is the past".
This is an obsession White Liberals have - probably because it makes it all about them rather than the real racism and disadvantage black people experience.
I have had similar conversations, indeed it describes the experience of "white privilege" very well without using the term, but it was not really an answer to my question, was it?
What is the norm that these people have been disadvantaged relative to?
I have answered your question.
Like many White Liberals you are more interested in fighting a civil war amongst White people and you need to find offence and claim bigotry, where there is none, in order to do that so you can feel good about yourself.
I hold that beneath contempt. White Liberals are the absolute pits.
So what is the norm that those Black people were disadvantaged to?
Perhaps you could rephase your answer as I genuinely do not understand what you mean.
I am not interested in starting any civil wars between white people, or indeed any other groups.
I cannot understand how you give such a good description of an issue of discrimination, yet become aggressive when discussing how to remedy it.
The norm is what those who aren't discriminated against face. But that's not whites alone it also includes East Asians, Indians etc. Blacks are discriminated against all of them.
So why would you talk about whites when the issue is discrimination against blacks?
Is this really just about scamming supporters for $$$ or have Trump and his family really not yet given up on the election?
And if the latter how do they seriously expect the US to be taken seriously if the election is overturned at this point?
Some people on Twitter were pointing out that the small print in these emails says 50% of donations up to $5000 can be used to pay off campaign debt for Trump2020, so maybe that's the real motivation.
I must say, I'm surprised at how little 'genuine' attempts to interfere with the election process there is. Even the lawsuits seem underwhelming.
Just finished watching Cornwall by Simon Reeve on BBC2. Well worth seeing on catch up. He is a great reporter and interviewer, on both the beauty and problems of the county.
Biden to win EC by over 48.5 EC margin - Last price matched 1.22 Dems to win Georgia in Presidential Race - Last price matched 1.08
This has been driving me crazy all day. Is there any way at all this isn't the same bet?!
Sorry for people who saw my ranting on this earlier, but I've now got what I think is a giant arb that if there's a risk of threading the needle the wrong way and I realise it too late I'm going to just cry.
For a start, the markets might be settled at different times, so be careful if you are arbing between them, or if you need the money back sooner rather than later.
THE WRATH OF CROSBY - part 1. ============================
INT. Political Betting BRIDGE. The firefighting continues.
MIKE SMITHSON: Jack W - what’s left?
JACK W (VOICE): Just the batteries, sir. I can have auxiliary power in a few minutes -
MIKE SMITHSON: We don’t have a few minutes. Can you give me phaser power?
JACK W (VOICE): A few shots, sir.
TSE: Not enough against their shields.
MIKE SMITHSON: Who the hell are they?
CHRISTINA D: Mike… The commander of the Swingback is signalling. (a pause) He wishes to discuss terms of our surrender.
There is a moment. MIKE SMITHSON looks around the battered bridge, and his eyes meet TSE’s, and PLATO’s.
MIKE SMITHSON: Visual on screen.
CHRISTINA D:(hesitating) Mike -
MIKE SMITHSON: Do it, while we still have time.
CHRISTINA D: On screen, sir.
All eyes go to the SCREEN. After momentary visual confusion, ROD CROSBY’s face appears, smiling -
MIKE SMITHSON: (dumbfounded) Crosby!
ROD CROSBY: You still remember, Mike. I cannot help but be touched. I of course, remember you.
MIKE SMITHSON: What is the meaning of this attack? Where is the crew of the Swingback?
ROD CROSBY: Surely I have made my meaning plain. I mean to avenge myself upon you, Mike. I’ve deprived your blog of power and when I swing-back I mean to deprive you of your server space -
EXT. SPACE We can see Swingback making a large arc as she prepares to come back for another round.
INT. Political Betting BRIDGE
ROD CROSBY: - But I wanted you to know first who it was who had beaten you!
MIKE SMITHSON: Rod - if it’s me you want, I’ll have myself beamed aboard. Spare my contributors!
EXT. SPACE - Swingback continues her slow arc.
INT. Political Betting BRIDGE
ROD CROSBY: (on screen) I make you a counter-proposal. I’ll agree to your terms, if.. if.. in addition to yourself, you hand over to me all data and material regarding the project called VIPA.
Reactions from TSE and MIKE SMITHSON.
MIKE SMITHSON: VIPA, what’s that?
ROD CROSBY: Don’t insult my intelligence, Smithson. Voting Intentions Predictive Analysis.
MIKE SMITHSON: Give me some time to recall the data on our computers -
ROD CROSBY: I give you sixty seconds, Mike.
MIKE SMITHSON turns from the screen -
MIKE SMITHSON: Clear the bridge.
TSE: Well, at least we know he doesn’t have VIPA.
MIKE SMITHSON: Just keep nodding as though I’m still giving orders. Mister Plato, punch up the data charts of Swingback’s command console.
PLATO: Swingback’s command -?
MIKE SMITHSON: Hurry!
ROD CROSBY: Forty-five seconds!
TSE: The prefix code?
MIKE SMITHSON: It’s all we’ve got.
PLATO: The chart’s up, sir.
ROD CROSBY: Mike!
MIKE SMITHSON: (to ROD CROSBY) We’re finding it.
ROD CROSBY: Mike!!
MIKE SMITHSON: Please, please - you’ve got to give us time - The…the blog is smashed, the computers inoperative…
ROD CROSBY: Time is a luxury you don’t have, Mike.
EXT. SPACE - Swingback, her arc completed, is coming back.
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
No. What an idiotic thing to say.
1) if there is "black disadvantage" rather than "white privilege" yet white is not the norm, then what is the norm?
2) So do you prefer "male privilege" as a term to "female disadvantage", or do you deny that there is an issue?
Black people are treated differently to white people in many situations.
When I've talked to black colleagues and friends in private this is what they mention to me: they describe the looks, the nudges and the street-crossing and excessive police stopping. How their kids are tolerated less when they misbehave than white kids. They also mention that because some white people *assume* many others are racist (often the well-meaning but patronising ones who say how different they are personally) they also soft pedal their ambition too - saying they should become a technician or nurse rather than an engineer or doctor, because they'd definitely succeed at the former.
They haven't *once* talked about White Privilege or statues that need to come down. Nor has colonialism come up except in passing in one conversation where she just said "the past is the past".
This is an obsession White Liberals have - probably because it makes it all about them rather than the real racism and disadvantage black people experience.
I have had similar conversations, indeed it describes the experience of "white privilege" very well without using the term, but it was not really an answer to my question, was it?
What is the norm that these people have been disadvantaged relative to?
I have answered your question.
Like many White Liberals you are more interested in fighting a civil war amongst White people and you need to find offence and claim bigotry, where there is none, in order to do that so you can feel good about yourself.
I hold that beneath contempt. White Liberals are the absolute pits.
"civil war"? fucking christ is there a name for what is wrong with you?
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
No. What an idiotic thing to say.
1) if there is "black disadvantage" rather than "white privilege" yet white is not the norm, then what is the norm?
2) So do you prefer "male privilege" as a term to "female disadvantage", or do you deny that there is an issue?
Black people are treated differently to white people in many situations.
When I've talked to black colleagues and friends in private this is what they mention to me: they describe the looks, the nudges and the street-crossing and excessive police stopping. How their kids are tolerated less when they misbehave than white kids. They also mention that because some white people *assume* many others are racist (often the well-meaning but patronising ones who say how different they are personally) they also soft pedal their ambition too - saying they should become a technician or nurse rather than an engineer or doctor, because they'd definitely succeed at the former.
They haven't *once* talked about White Privilege or statues that need to come down. Nor has colonialism come up except in passing in one conversation where she just said "the past is the past".
This is an obsession White Liberals have - probably because it makes it all about them rather than the real racism and disadvantage black people experience.
I have had similar conversations, indeed it describes the experience of "white privilege" very well without using the term, but it was not really an answer to my question, was it?
What is the norm that these people have been disadvantaged relative to?
I have answered your question.
Like many White Liberals you are more interested in fighting a civil war amongst White people and you need to find offence and claim bigotry, where there is none, in order to do that so you can feel good about yourself.
I hold that beneath contempt. White Liberals are the absolute pits.
So what is the norm that those Black people were disadvantaged to?
Perhaps you could rephase your answer as I genuinely do not understand what you mean.
I am not interested in starting any civil wars between white people, or indeed any other groups.
I cannot understand how you give such a good description of an issue of discrimination, yet become aggressive when discussing how to remedy it.
The norm is what those who aren't discriminated against face. But that's not whites alone it also includes East Asians, Indians etc. Blacks are discriminated against all of them.
So why would you talk about whites when the issue is discrimination against blacks?
I don't. It is Casino_Royale that keeps banging on about it.
But yes, there are plenty of other forms of privilege, such as class, gender, caste, etc. These are specific to particular societies at particular time periods. What is relevant here is not nessicarily the same as in Algeria or Nigeria.
THE WRATH OF CROSBY - part 1. ============================
INT. Political Betting BRIDGE. The firefighting continues.
MIKE SMITHSON: Jack W - what’s left?
JACK W (VOICE): Just the batteries, sir. I can have auxiliary power in a few minutes -
MIKE SMITHSON: We don’t have a few minutes. Can you give me phaser power?
JACK W (VOICE): A few shots, sir.
TSE: Not enough against their shields.
MIKE SMITHSON: Who the hell are they?
CHRISTINA D: Mike… The commander of the Swingback is signalling. (a pause) He wishes to discuss terms of our surrender.
There is a moment. MIKE SMITHSON looks around the battered bridge, and his eyes meet TSE’s, and PLATO’s.
MIKE SMITHSON: Visual on screen.
CHRISTINA D:(hesitating) Mike -
MIKE SMITHSON: Do it, while we still have time.
CHRISTINA D: On screen, sir.
All eyes go to the SCREEN. After momentary visual confusion, ROD CROSBY’s face appears, smiling -
MIKE SMITHSON: (dumbfounded) Crosby!
ROD CROSBY: You still remember, Mike. I cannot help but be touched. I of course, remember you.
MIKE SMITHSON: What is the meaning of this attack? Where is the crew of the Swingback?
ROD CROSBY: Surely I have made my meaning plain. I mean to avenge myself upon you, Mike. I’ve deprived your blog of power and when I swing-back I mean to deprive you of your server space -
EXT. SPACE We can see Swingback making a large arc as she prepares to come back for another round.
INT. Political Betting BRIDGE
ROD CROSBY: - But I wanted you to know first who it was who had beaten you!
MIKE SMITHSON: Rod - if it’s me you want, I’ll have myself beamed aboard. Spare my contributors!
EXT. SPACE - Swingback continues her slow arc.
INT. Political Betting BRIDGE
ROD CROSBY: (on screen) I make you a counter-proposal. I’ll agree to your terms, if.. if.. in addition to yourself, you hand over to me all data and material regarding the project called VIPA.
Reactions from TSE and MIKE SMITHSON.
MIKE SMITHSON: VIPA, what’s that?
ROD CROSBY: Don’t insult my intelligence, Smithson. Voting Intentions Predictive Analysis.
MIKE SMITHSON: Give me some time to recall the data on our computers -
ROD CROSBY: I give you sixty seconds, Mike.
MIKE SMITHSON turns from the screen -
MIKE SMITHSON: Clear the bridge.
TSE: Well, at least we know he doesn’t have VIPA.
MIKE SMITHSON: Just keep nodding as though I’m still giving orders. Mister Plato, punch up the data charts of Swingback’s command console.
PLATO: Swingback’s command -?
MIKE SMITHSON: Hurry!
ROD CROSBY: Forty-five seconds!
TSE: The prefix code?
MIKE SMITHSON: It’s all we’ve got.
PLATO: The chart’s up, sir.
ROD CROSBY: Mike!
MIKE SMITHSON: (to ROD CROSBY) We’re finding it.
ROD CROSBY: Mike!!
MIKE SMITHSON: Please, please - you’ve got to give us time - The…the blog is smashed, the computers inoperative…
ROD CROSBY: Time is a luxury you don’t have, Mike.
EXT. SPACE - Swingback, her arc completed, is coming back.
Crosby was a vile individual, an antisemite Holocaust denier. A very sinister figure who was rightly banned for life by Mike.
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
No. What an idiotic thing to say.
1) if there is "black disadvantage" rather than "white privilege" yet white is not the norm, then what is the norm?
2) So do you prefer "male privilege" as a term to "female disadvantage", or do you deny that there is an issue?
Black people are treated differently to white people in many situations.
When I've talked to black colleagues and friends in private this is what they mention to me: they describe the looks, the nudges and the street-crossing and excessive police stopping. How their kids are tolerated less when they misbehave than white kids. They also mention that because some white people *assume* many others are racist (often the well-meaning but patronising ones who say how different they are personally) they also soft pedal their ambition too - saying they should become a technician or nurse rather than an engineer or doctor, because they'd definitely succeed at the former.
They haven't *once* talked about White Privilege or statues that need to come down. Nor has colonialism come up except in passing in one conversation where she just said "the past is the past".
This is an obsession White Liberals have - probably because it makes it all about them rather than the real racism and disadvantage black people experience.
Sure. But the only thing that ‘white privilege’ means is the other side of that coin. ie of all the shitty things that might happen to you in life, those things are not among them. I don’t know that it’s a particularly useful term, but it’s not without meaning.
I think that white privilege is a precise term that describes something real and its use contributes to fruitful debate. I struggle to understand how anyone can have a genuine problem with it.
Because there's no such thing as white privilege.
There's discrimination against blacks, but that has nothing to do with white privilege since the world isn't binary either black or white.
(East) Asians aren't discriminated against in the same way blacks are but we don't hear about Asian privilege do we?
Maybe deal with that actual problem instead of its inverse?
There is discrimination against lots of minority groups, not only black people, which is why it is a useful and meaningful phrase.
THE WRATH OF CROSBY - part 2. ============================ INT. Political Betting BRIDGE
MIKE SMITHSON: (to himself) Damn.
ROD CROSBY: Mike?
MIKE SMITHSON: It’s coming through now, Rod.
TSE: Swingback’s prefix number is thirty-point-zero-zero.
PLATO: I don’t understand -
MIKE SMITHSON puts on his spectacles -
MIKE SMITHSON: You have got to learn WHY things work on a betting blog.
TSE: (descends) Each blog has its own combination code…
MIKE SMITHSON: …to prevent an enemy to do what we’re attempting; using our blog to order Swingback to lower her shields…
TSE: (at the weapons console) Assuming he hasn’t changed the combination. He’s quite intelligent…
ROD CROSBY: Fifteen seconds.
MIKE SMITHSON turns to the screen -
MIKE SMITHSON: Crosby, how do we know you’ll keep your word?
ROD CROSBY: (on screen) Well, I’ve given you no word to keep, Mike. In my judgement, you simply have no alternative.
MIKE SMITHSON: I see your point. Stand by to receive our transmission.
He turns from the screen again, softly:
MIKE SMITHSON: (continuing) Mister Herdson, lock the phasers on target and await my command…
DAVID HERDSON: (quietly) Phasers locked…
They’re all sweating.
ROD CROSBY: Time’s up, Mike.
MIKE SMITHSON: (dry) Here it comes. Now, TSE.
CLOSEUP - TSE’S hands punching in the prefix code followed by other signals.
INT. Swingback BRIDGE
TIM: (stares at his console) Sir - our shields are dropping!
ROD CROSBY: Raise them -
TIM punches frantically -
TIM: I can’t!
ROD CROSBY: Where’s the override?? The override!!
All monitors are haywire now that Political Betting is tapped in. They search wildly for the right switch, but…
INT. Political Betting BRIDGE
CLOSEUP - MIKE SMITHSON
MIKE SMITHSON: FIRE!
CLOSEUP – DAVID HERDSON’S hands punching.
MIKE SMITHSON: FIRE!
EXT. SPACE - Political Betting fires at Swingback inflicting heavy damage.
INT. Swingback BRIDGE - A shambles - debris flying; ROD CROSBY knocking to the deck. He struggles to his feet through wiring -
ROD CROSBY: (enraged) FIRE! FIRE!
TIM: We can’t fire, sir!
ROD CROSBY: Why can’t you?
TIM: They’ve damaged the photon control and the warp drive. We must withdraw!
ROD CROSBY: No! No!!
TIM: Sir, we must! Political Betting can wait; she’s not going anywhere.
ROD CROSBY clams as the other holds him; he breaths deeper.
EXT. SPACE - Swingback turns away.
INT. Political Betting BRIDGE - They watch ON SCREEN as Swingback hauls off.
DAVID HERDSON: (breathless) Sir, you did it!
MIKE SMITHSON: (enraged) I did nothing - except get caught with my breeches down. (continues) I must be getting senile. Mister Plato, you go right on quoting regulations. In the meantime, let’s find out how badly we’ve been hurt.
The Turbo doors whoosh open as MIKE SMITHSON reaches them. JACK W stands there, tears streaming down his face; he holds the body of Midshipman EASTERROSS. Both of them are covered in blood. He sways into MIKE SMITHSON’s arms as the others rush forward.
The polls in Georgia were probably the most accurate of the cycle.
They currently say Warnock beat Leoffler and Ossoff and Perdue are neck and neck.
With the VBM orginisation the Dems have I can easily see a 2-0 sweep.
And the Democrats will flood the state with advertising cash, Biden and Harris. They should have a decent honeymoon-effect bonus too. Will be fascinating.
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
No. What an idiotic thing to say.
1) if there is "black disadvantage" rather than "white privilege" yet white is not the norm, then what is the norm?
2) So do you prefer "male privilege" as a term to "female disadvantage", or do you deny that there is an issue?
Black people are treated differently to white people in many situations.
When I've talked to black colleagues and friends in private this is what they mention to me: they describe the looks, the nudges and the street-crossing and excessive police stopping. How their kids are tolerated less when they misbehave than white kids. They also mention that because some white people *assume* many others are racist (often the well-meaning but patronising ones who say how different they are personally) they also soft pedal their ambition too - saying they should become a technician or nurse rather than an engineer or doctor, because they'd definitely succeed at the former.
They haven't *once* talked about White Privilege or statues that need to come down. Nor has colonialism come up except in passing in one conversation where she just said "the past is the past".
This is an obsession White Liberals have - probably because it makes it all about them rather than the real racism and disadvantage black people experience.
I have had similar conversations, indeed it describes the experience of "white privilege" very well without using the term, but it was not really an answer to my question, was it?
What is the norm that these people have been disadvantaged relative to?
I have answered your question.
Like many White Liberals you are more interested in fighting a civil war amongst White people and you need to find offence and claim bigotry, where there is none, in order to do that so you can feel good about yourself.
I hold that beneath contempt. White Liberals are the absolute pits.
I believe your reading of the majority of "white Liberals" is way off target. You seem to be a more enthusiastic confectioner of culture wars than we are.
Perhaps you watch too much Fox News or read too much Breitbart and Guido.
Is Betvictor down? I get a "banned in your jurisdiction" page.
Seems to be up.
ETA are you using a phone or work machine whose external IP address is geolocated somewhere funny? Try the usual stuff like clearing your browser cache as well.
Do you have a link? I get this..
"It appears you are accessing our website from a prohibited location.
Local regulations prohibit us from allowing you to log in or place bets on our website.
We cannot accept any transactions from this Jurisdiction.
If you believe you have been incorrectly transferred to this page, please contact help@betvictor.com"
Google "my ip" which should tell you your external IP address. You can then look up where that is assigned. However, it is probably easier to email the help address.
Ha! It says I'm near Belgium!
WTF? Have I been hacked?
Curiously, your IP has you in Belgium, but it is also an IP address owned by British Telecom.
My guess is they've done an internal network reorg and you have assigned one that was previously in Belgium.
Alternatively, does your home look different this morning?
Alternatively, is there some surprising small print in the Brexit trade deal?
Biden to win EC by over 48.5 EC margin - Last price matched 1.22 Dems to win Georgia in Presidential Race - Last price matched 1.08
This has been driving me crazy all day. Is there any way at all this isn't the same bet?!
Sorry for people who saw my ranting on this earlier, but I've now got what I think is a giant arb that if there's a risk of threading the needle the wrong way and I realise it too late I'm going to just cry.
For a start, the markets might be settled at different times, so be careful if you are arbing between them, or if you need the money back sooner rather than later.
That's a fair thought, the Georgia one says it is settled on the popular vote and the EC one says it is settled on the projected EC from the popular vote of each state. So imagine the EC one could wait for Alaska or some other late state while the Georgia one pays out earlier. Doesn't seem a massive problem though, so long as they both pay out on the same basis.
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
No, it really isn't although that's what its defenders (almost always) say in its defence.
Woke is a warped Marxist theory that's transmuted from academia into the real world and views everyone through a complex hierarchical and intersectional power dynamic where we are all classified by race, gender and sexuality and bracketed (and treated) as relative oppressors or victims accordingly. It uses this as a starting point to undercut some of the established values and historical foundations of our society in the hope that by breaking it down something better (Marxist utopia) that they believe will take its place. It cleverly condemns its opponents as racists and sexists to enforce its dogma and silence dissent. It's a big reason why they say "don't expect minorities to educate you on racism" - because they fear they wouldn't be on message; just look at how they attack those who are not - and instead say, please read my favoured best-selling culturally marxist book and 'educate yourself'.
Example: an unWoke person would be concerned that some Black people still experience some racial discrimination in the UK and would want to talk to them about it to understand it and change it. They wouldn't take a knee, tear down statues, or talk about White Privilege. They would emphasis the common-bonds they have of shared Britishness, they would demonstrate empathy they would talk about fairness, and they would talk about opening up opportunities for them and increasing role models. They would try harder to think about things from their point of view in future and bring everyone of all backgrounds, races and politics along with them. They wouldn't plaster what they're doing all over social media out of insecurity narcissism.
A Woke person would say either you buy into the whole lot, or you're suspect.. or worse.
Great post CR.
I don't think it's a particularly great post to be honest and seems to contradict a lot of what he says when he just mindlessly calls others woke.
I don't think anyone here fits into that view of "wokeness" - and I am about 99% sure if you asked the average person what woke means, they would not say that.
For me what being woke is used for is just today's politically correct, it's saying something you know is offensive but you feel like this gives you cover to say it without being challenged. You have an opinion, air it and we will debate it. End of story.
Who's defending saying anything offensive?
I would challenge anyone who said something racist, but I won't go down on one knee, or label myself and others as having White Privilege.
That might get some initial attention, or make sense in an academic thesis, but, when translated into the real world, divides far more people than it unites.
It's been said before that challenging the disgraceful comments Johnson has made about Islam, or Obama, makes you "woke" and "PC". I am not saying that's you, I am saying your definition is not shared by most/many, especially and including the MSM at large who people look to for their definition.
I think that the problem is that Johnson is was journalist with a live of colourful phrases.
The comment about Muslim women in full burkas looting like “letterboxes” was in an article defending their right to do so.
But people have chosen to focus on his perceived insult to Muslim people rather than his defence of their rights.
And yet they idolise Macron who had banned the things.
Funny old world isn’t it when what people say matters more than what they do
"Colourful phrases", I wonder if you'd use the same defence about a Labour MP, I bet not.
Yes I would. You see I believe in freedom of speech
He says racist things, I'll call them out.
Of course we could go over the other racist things he's said, like attacking Obama's heritage but it doesn't matter as the Democrats haven't forgotten.
Still not a defence of your position just an attack on someone else. This is very revealing
I believe calling out racist things that people have said is often said to be "woke" when in years gone by this would have "PC crowd gone mad".
Johnson can say what he wants but calling him out for racism is not "woke" or "PC", it's doing IMHO the right thing.
We clearly have different views of what racism is, you seem to think being racist is "using colourful phrases" whereas I think it's quite simply being racist, or saying racist things, of which Johnson has undoubtedly done.
Of course you're pretending to be somehow impartial when we know full well you're just as partisan as me.
You are taking a single line in an article that was intended (although failing) to be humorous.
And ignoring the content of the article that was standing up for the rights of Muslim women to wear the burqa.
(I am actually much more troubled by the burqa than Johnson seems to be, because I suspect that - in many cases - women are forced to wear it, or conditioned to believe that it is somehow right that men can do what they want while women must be modest in order to avoid inflaming men's passions.)
No that was only one example of Johnson's racism and history of bigotry, the fact you focus on only that shows you either know and you don't care, or you have a blindspot for racism which seems to be evident.
When I called Trump's remarks racist you changed them to being bullying, you either think Trump was a racist or you don't. And if you do, you can only conclude Johnson is too as he has said similar things. So which is it?
You may not have noticed, but the comment about "bullying remarks" was a response to @kinabalu NOT you.
But enough of this conversation.
You are a self-righteous individual who likes to call other people unpleasant names when they disagree with you.
I've previously apologised for any behaviour in which I was rude to people, beyond those who bully others who I have called out repeatedly. They were deserving of such action.
I never said you were a racist, I said it seems you have a blindspot for it, it seemed to me that you redefined Trump's remarks as bullying as opposed to racist. If that was not the case then that's fine, I apologise for misunderstanding.
It's really a simple question though, do you think Trump was racist, I note you didn't answer. And I wonder if that's because if you say yes, you'll have to agree Johnson has said similarly racist things.
I'm not sure why you needed to attack me personally anyway, I get the sense you've lost the argument and you're making it personal. I recall Mrs Thatcher used to consider that victory for herself in such a case.
We can consider our conversation closed as you wish to end it, no worries - all the best.
Trump is a racist (in my view). Corbyn was an anti-semite.
I don't believe Johnson is a racist - he is a journalist in love of a colourful phrase and an equal-opportunist when it comes to offending people
Does he equally aim offensive comments at his chums who are fellow members of the undeserving plutocracy?
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
No. What an idiotic thing to say.
1) if there is "black disadvantage" rather than "white privilege" yet white is not the norm, then what is the norm?
2) So do you prefer "male privilege" as a term to "female disadvantage", or do you deny that there is an issue?
Black people are treated differently to white people in many situations.
When I've talked to black colleagues and friends in private this is what they mention to me: they describe the looks, the nudges and the street-crossing and excessive police stopping. How their kids are tolerated less when they misbehave than white kids. They also mention that because some white people *assume* many others are racist (often the well-meaning but patronising ones who say how different they are personally) they also soft pedal their ambition too - saying they should become a technician or nurse rather than an engineer or doctor, because they'd definitely succeed at the former.
They haven't *once* talked about White Privilege or statues that need to come down. Nor has colonialism come up except in passing in one conversation where she just said "the past is the past".
This is an obsession White Liberals have - probably because it makes it all about them rather than the real racism and disadvantage black people experience.
Sure. But the only thing that ‘white privilege’ means is the other side of that coin. ie of all the shitty things that might happen to you in life, those things are not among them. I don’t know that it’s a particularly useful term, but it’s not without meaning.
I think that white privilege is a precise term that describes something real and its use contributes to fruitful debate. I struggle to understand how anyone can have a genuine problem with it.
Try reading my posts. You've got this badly wrong.
No I have read them and I think you have got it wrong, to be honest. You claim to understand the problems of discrimination and disadvantage faced by minority groups, yet you take offense at a phrase that many members of those groups use to describe and analyse the situation they face. I mean, you can call it non-white non-privilege if you find that a pithier turn of phrase, but I'm not sure it's helpful.
Although I'm on the Left, on the question of the term "white Privilege", and some others like it, I have quite a lot of sympathy for what Casino Royale is saying.
A privileged status for white people in a number of areas is a fact ; but the term reduces people morally to that privilege, which is extremely dangerous. It also has conceptual parallels with the kind of portrayals of "black suffering" that people from those communities find demeaning in western portrayals of Africa.
Not all white people. The white homeless guy I saw on the street today isn't obviously privileged.
Is Betvictor down? I get a "banned in your jurisdiction" page.
Seems to be up.
ETA are you using a phone or work machine whose external IP address is geolocated somewhere funny? Try the usual stuff like clearing your browser cache as well.
Do you have a link? I get this..
"It appears you are accessing our website from a prohibited location.
Local regulations prohibit us from allowing you to log in or place bets on our website.
We cannot accept any transactions from this Jurisdiction.
If you believe you have been incorrectly transferred to this page, please contact help@betvictor.com"
Google "my ip" which should tell you your external IP address. You can then look up where that is assigned. However, it is probably easier to email the help address.
Ha! It says I'm near Belgium!
WTF? Have I been hacked?
Probably just your ISP routing you through an address nominally assigned to Belgium (unless you are tethered to your phone halfway down the North Sea and have actually connected via Belgium).
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
No, it really isn't although that's what its defenders (almost always) say in its defence.
Woke is a warped Marxist theory that's transmuted from academia into the real world and views everyone through a complex hierarchical and intersectional power dynamic where we are all classified by race, gender and sexuality and bracketed (and treated) as relative oppressors or victims accordingly. It uses this as a starting point to undercut some of the established values and historical foundations of our society in the hope that by breaking it down something better (Marxist utopia) that they believe will take its place. It cleverly condemns its opponents as racists and sexists to enforce its dogma and silence dissent. It's a big reason why they say "don't expect minorities to educate you on racism" - because they fear they wouldn't be on message; just look at how they attack those who are not - and instead say, please read my favoured best-selling culturally marxist book and 'educate yourself'.
Example: an unWoke person would be concerned that some Black people still experience some racial discrimination in the UK and would want to talk to them about it to understand it and change it. They wouldn't take a knee, tear down statues, or talk about White Privilege. They would emphasis the common-bonds they have of shared Britishness, they would demonstrate empathy they would talk about fairness, and they would talk about opening up opportunities for them and increasing role models. They would try harder to think about things from their point of view in future and bring everyone of all backgrounds, races and politics along with them. They wouldn't plaster what they're doing all over social media out of insecurity narcissism.
A Woke person would say either you buy into the whole lot, or you're suspect.. or worse.
Great post CR.
I don't think it's a particularly great post to be honest and seems to contradict a lot of what he says when he just mindlessly calls others woke.
I don't think anyone here fits into that view of "wokeness" - and I am about 99% sure if you asked the average person what woke means, they would not say that.
For me what being woke is used for is just today's politically correct, it's saying something you know is offensive but you feel like this gives you cover to say it without being challenged. You have an opinion, air it and we will debate it. End of story.
Who's defending saying anything offensive?
I would challenge anyone who said something racist, but I won't go down on one knee, or label myself and others as having White Privilege.
That might get some initial attention, or make sense in an academic thesis, but, when translated into the real world, divides far more people than it unites.
It's been said before that challenging the disgraceful comments Johnson has made about Islam, or Obama, makes you "woke" and "PC". I am not saying that's you, I am saying your definition is not shared by most/many, especially and including the MSM at large who people look to for their definition.
I think that the problem is that Johnson is was journalist with a live of colourful phrases.
The comment about Muslim women in full burkas looting like “letterboxes” was in an article defending their right to do so.
But people have chosen to focus on his perceived insult to Muslim people rather than his defence of their rights.
And yet they idolise Macron who had banned the things.
Funny old world isn’t it when what people say matters more than what they do
"Colourful phrases", I wonder if you'd use the same defence about a Labour MP, I bet not.
Yes I would. You see I believe in freedom of speech
He says racist things, I'll call them out.
Of course we could go over the other racist things he's said, like attacking Obama's heritage but it doesn't matter as the Democrats haven't forgotten.
Still not a defence of your position just an attack on someone else. This is very revealing
I believe calling out racist things that people have said is often said to be "woke" when in years gone by this would have "PC crowd gone mad".
Johnson can say what he wants but calling him out for racism is not "woke" or "PC", it's doing IMHO the right thing.
We clearly have different views of what racism is, you seem to think being racist is "using colourful phrases" whereas I think it's quite simply being racist, or saying racist things, of which Johnson has undoubtedly done.
Of course you're pretending to be somehow impartial when we know full well you're just as partisan as me.
You are taking a single line in an article that was intended (although failing) to be humorous.
And ignoring the content of the article that was standing up for the rights of Muslim women to wear the burqa.
(I am actually much more troubled by the burqa than Johnson seems to be, because I suspect that - in many cases - women are forced to wear it, or conditioned to believe that it is somehow right that men can do what they want while women must be modest in order to avoid inflaming men's passions.)
No that was only one example of Johnson's racism and history of bigotry, the fact you focus on only that shows you either know and you don't care, or you have a blindspot for racism which seems to be evident.
When I called Trump's remarks racist you changed them to being bullying, you either think Trump was a racist or you don't. And if you do, you can only conclude Johnson is too as he has said similar things. So which is it?
You may not have noticed, but the comment about "bullying remarks" was a response to @kinabalu NOT you.
But enough of this conversation.
You are a self-righteous individual who likes to call other people unpleasant names when they disagree with you.
I've previously apologised for any behaviour in which I was rude to people, beyond those who bully others who I have called out repeatedly. They were deserving of such action.
I never said you were a racist, I said it seems you have a blindspot for it, it seemed to me that you redefined Trump's remarks as bullying as opposed to racist. If that was not the case then that's fine, I apologise for misunderstanding.
It's really a simple question though, do you think Trump was racist, I note you didn't answer. And I wonder if that's because if you say yes, you'll have to agree Johnson has said similarly racist things.
I'm not sure why you needed to attack me personally anyway, I get the sense you've lost the argument and you're making it personal. I recall Mrs Thatcher used to consider that victory for herself in such a case.
We can consider our conversation closed as you wish to end it, no worries - all the best.
Trump is a racist (in my view). Corbyn was an anti-semite.
I don't believe Johnson is a racist - he is a journalist in love of a colourful phrase and an equal-opportunist when it comes to offending people
Does he equally aim offensive comments at his chums who are fellow members of the undeserving plutocracy?
I thought he got them beaten up?
I think he generally just gives them well-paid, important jobs for which they are entirely unsuited.
I always thought it described a big beaming smile, straight at the top and curved at the bottom, like a slice of melon sitting rind-side-down on a flat surface - sort of like 😄
So we aren’t allowed to use “watermelon” to describe that breed of socialism who use environmentalism as a Trojan horse?
Although I'm on the Left, on the question of the term "white Privilege", and some others like it, I have quite a lot of sympathy for what Casino Royale is saying.
A privileged status for white people in a number of areas is a fact ; but the term reduces people morally to that privilege, which is extremely dangerous. It also has conceptual parallels with the kind of portrayals of "black suffering" that people from those communities find demeaning in western portrayals of Africa.
Not all white people. The white homeless guy I saw on the street today isn't obviously privileged.
In fairness, I don't think most people who say 'White privilege' mean by it that all white people are overall privileged. It means that all white people have certain benefits from skin colour, but that doesn't mean they can't have other disadvantages which mitigate or even outweigh that.
Although I'm on the Left, on the question of the term "white Privilege", and some others like it, I have quite a lot of sympathy for what Casino Royale is saying.
A privileged status for white people in a number of areas is a fact ; but the term reduces people morally to that privilege, which is extremely dangerous. It also has conceptual parallels with the kind of portrayals of "black suffering" that people from those communities find demeaning in western portrayals of Africa.
Not all white people. The white homeless guy I saw on the street today isn't obviously privileged.
He probably gets better donations from passers by and less hassle from the police than a black homeless guy.
The polls in Georgia were probably the most accurate of the cycle.
They currently say Warnock beat Leoffler and Ossoff and Perdue are neck and neck.
With the VBM orginisation the Dems have I can easily see a 2-0 sweep.
And the Democrats will flood the state with advertising cash, Biden and Harris. They should have a decent honeymoon-effect bonus too. Will be fascinating.
Plus Covid 3rd wave already started in Georgia and Leoffler and Perdue's Insider-Covid-trading scandal.
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
No. What an idiotic thing to say.
1) if there is "black disadvantage" rather than "white privilege" yet white is not the norm, then what is the norm?
2) So do you prefer "male privilege" as a term to "female disadvantage", or do you deny that there is an issue?
Black people are treated differently to white people in many situations.
When I've talked to black colleagues and friends in private this is what they mention to me: they describe the looks, the nudges and the street-crossing and excessive police stopping. How their kids are tolerated less when they misbehave than white kids. They also mention that because some white people *assume* many others are racist (often the well-meaning but patronising ones who say how different they are personally) they also soft pedal their ambition too - saying they should become a technician or nurse rather than an engineer or doctor, because they'd definitely succeed at the former.
They haven't *once* talked about White Privilege or statues that need to come down. Nor has colonialism come up except in passing in one conversation where she just said "the past is the past".
This is an obsession White Liberals have - probably because it makes it all about them rather than the real racism and disadvantage black people experience.
Sure. But the only thing that ‘white privilege’ means is the other side of that coin. ie of all the shitty things that might happen to you in life, those things are not among them. I don’t know that it’s a particularly useful term, but it’s not without meaning.
I think that white privilege is a precise term that describes something real and its use contributes to fruitful debate. I struggle to understand how anyone can have a genuine problem with it.
Try reading my posts. You've got this badly wrong.
No I have read them and I think you have got it wrong, to be honest. You claim to understand the problems of discrimination and disadvantage faced by minority groups, yet you take offense at a phrase that many members of those groups use to describe and analyse the situation they face. I mean, you can call it non-white non-privilege if you find that a pithier turn of phrase, but I'm not sure it's helpful.
Very unusually, I don't agree with you on that last point at all, OLB. Although a convoluted and possibly painful mouthful, "non-white non-privilege" understandably refers to the circumstances and challenges particular groups face ; "white privilege" simply reduces a favoured group only to privilege.
Although I'm on the Left, on the question of the term "white Privilege", and some others like it, I have quite a lot of sympathy for what Casino Royale is saying.
A privileged status for white people in a number of areas is a fact ; but the term reduces people morally to that privilege, which is extremely dangerous. It also has conceptual parallels with the kind of portrayals of "black suffering" that people from those communities find demeaning in western portrayals of Africa.
Not all white people. The white homeless guy I saw on the street today isn't obviously privileged.
Like I said, there are many other forms of privilege, and all privilege is relative.
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
No. What an idiotic thing to say.
1) if there is "black disadvantage" rather than "white privilege" yet white is not the norm, then what is the norm?
2) So do you prefer "male privilege" as a term to "female disadvantage", or do you deny that there is an issue?
Black people are treated differently to white people in many situations.
When I've talked to black colleagues and friends in private this is what they mention to me: they describe the looks, the nudges and the street-crossing and excessive police stopping. How their kids are tolerated less when they misbehave than white kids. They also mention that because some white people *assume* many others are racist (often the well-meaning but patronising ones who say how different they are personally) they also soft pedal their ambition too - saying they should become a technician or nurse rather than an engineer or doctor, because they'd definitely succeed at the former.
They haven't *once* talked about White Privilege or statues that need to come down. Nor has colonialism come up except in passing in one conversation where she just said "the past is the past".
This is an obsession White Liberals have - probably because it makes it all about them rather than the real racism and disadvantage black people experience.
Sure. But the only thing that ‘white privilege’ means is the other side of that coin. ie of all the shitty things that might happen to you in life, those things are not among them. I don’t know that it’s a particularly useful term, but it’s not without meaning.
I think that white privilege is a precise term that describes something real and its use contributes to fruitful debate. I struggle to understand how anyone can have a genuine problem with it.
Because there's no such thing as white privilege.
There's discrimination against blacks, but that has nothing to do with white privilege since the world isn't binary either black or white.
(East) Asians aren't discriminated against in the same way blacks are but we don't hear about Asian privilege do we?
Maybe deal with that actual problem instead of its inverse?
There is discrimination against lots of minority groups, not only black people, which is why it is a useful and meaningful phrase.
No it is a useless and meaningless phrase.
If you want to talk about racism talk about racism.
If an employee would be happier to offer a job to eg an East Asian or Indian job applicant over a black or Muslim job applicant then is that racism? Or is it white privilege?
Although I'm on the Left, on the question of the term "white Privilege", and some others like it, I have quite a lot of sympathy for what Casino Royale is saying.
A privileged status for white people in a number of areas is a fact ; but the term reduces people morally to that privilege, which is extremely dangerous. It also has conceptual parallels with the kind of portrayals of "black suffering" that people from those communities find demeaning in western portrayals of Africa.
Not all white people. The white homeless guy I saw on the street today isn't obviously privileged.
In fairness, I don't think most people who say 'White privilege' mean by it that all white people are overall privileged. It means that all white people have certain benefits from skin colour, but that doesn't mean they can't have other disadvantages which mitigate or even outweigh that.
"People talk about white privilege, but I know a white guy who's really down on his luck and my neighbour is black and she drives a £40,000 car."
"People say that the earth is getting warmer, but I was in Yukon in February and it was pretty cold there."
"People say that being trapped in a collapsing building is detrimental to your heath, but there was a little girl who was pulled out of a flattened apartment block in Turkey last week. So how can it be dangerous?"
My win of £16 at 8/15 on biden v trump has seemingly finally broken the back of William Hills and I got a message saying my account is now subject to stake restrictions and no more concessions. Does this make me a pro punter!?
I always thought it described a big beaming smile, straight at the top and curved at the bottom, like a slice of melon sitting rind-side-down on a flat surface - sort of like 😄
So we aren’t allowed to use “watermelon” to describe that breed of socialism who use environmentalism as a Trojan horse?
Although I'm on the Left, on the question of the term "white Privilege", and some others like it, I have quite a lot of sympathy for what Casino Royale is saying.
A privileged status for white people in a number of areas is a fact ; but the term reduces people morally to that privilege, which is extremely dangerous. It also has conceptual parallels with the kind of portrayals of "black suffering" that people from those communities find demeaning in western portrayals of Africa.
Not all white people. The white homeless guy I saw on the street today isn't obviously privileged.
Like I said, there are many other forms of privilege, and all privilege is relative.
White privilege is just a wanky phrase that does not mean anything much when you think about it used by pretentious tossers
Although I'm on the Left, on the question of the term "white Privilege", and some others like it, I have quite a lot of sympathy for what Casino Royale is saying.
A privileged status for white people in a number of areas is a fact ; but the term reduces people morally to that privilege, which is extremely dangerous. It also has conceptual parallels with the kind of portrayals of "black suffering" that people from those communities find demeaning in western portrayals of Africa.
Not all white people. The white homeless guy I saw on the street today isn't obviously privileged.
Like I said, there are many other forms of privilege, and all privilege is relative.
My Grandfather working on the coalface at Cyneidre colliery had no white privilege, particularly as on his return home from work he was black from coal dust.
I, on the other hand had an excellent state funded education, from infants school to university. This has allowed for a very comfortable existance- white priviledge! Had I been born in Lower NorthEast Philadelphia rather than leafy Solihull I am not sure I would have been afforded the same opportunities, I would also probably not be white.
In my view the left are in a clear majority here now. That comes with 10 years of CON led government.
In the old days the right were much more in evidence!
Chance would be a fine thing, comrade. But from one wing of politics everyone else seems on the other wing. Big John and I are the only Corbynites here, I think - everyone else ranges from moderate social democrats to hardcore Tory, and the centre of gravity is probably a floating voter dubious about Johnson, considering Starmer but not yet quite convinced. (Lady G is sui generis and I wouldn't rely on her being on any particular wing.) I'm not sure that anyone is a Faragist or a BLM activist, but otherwise we have a pretty full house.The great thing about PB is that you can find civilised opponents to discuss developments with.
There is a big space between Corbynite and Social Democrat that you've jumped over there Nick. Mainstream, soft-left democratic socialism. The centre of gravity of the Labour Party.
Yes, sorry - I doin't make a strong distinction between social democracy and democratic socialism - where I grew up (Denmark) they were seen as very much the same, and despite my heart being further left I have to say it worked pretty well, and on the whole still does.
Another one to add to the crazies list and to ignore when they ever their articles get posted again.
Jesus mate. How in need of updating is your list.? Delingpole has been utter vermin for years.
He's one of these characters that started years ago from a fierce right-wing position, and delighted in trolling the libs with his contrarian hot-takes and nod-and-wink outrages. Pure bollocks of course and he knew it, but he and his type were simply there to muddy the waters and do a media job. It seems that over the last year or two they've started to believe their own bullshit. Quite odd to watch, and rather alarming.
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
No. What an idiotic thing to say.
1) if there is "black disadvantage" rather than "white privilege" yet white is not the norm, then what is the norm?
2) So do you prefer "male privilege" as a term to "female disadvantage", or do you deny that there is an issue?
Black people are treated differently to white people in many situations.
When I've talked to black colleagues and friends in private this is what they mention to me: they describe the looks, the nudges and the street-crossing and excessive police stopping. How their kids are tolerated less when they misbehave than white kids. They also mention that because some white people *assume* many others are racist (often the well-meaning but patronising ones who say how different they are personally) they also soft pedal their ambition too - saying they should become a technician or nurse rather than an engineer or doctor, because they'd definitely succeed at the former.
They haven't *once* talked about White Privilege or statues that need to come down. Nor has colonialism come up except in passing in one conversation where she just said "the past is the past".
This is an obsession White Liberals have - probably because it makes it all about them rather than the real racism and disadvantage black people experience.
Sure. But the only thing that ‘white privilege’ means is the other side of that coin. ie of all the shitty things that might happen to you in life, those things are not among them. I don’t know that it’s a particularly useful term, but it’s not without meaning.
I think that white privilege is a precise term that describes something real and its use contributes to fruitful debate. I struggle to understand how anyone can have a genuine problem with it.
Try reading my posts. You've got this badly wrong.
No I have read them and I think you have got it wrong, to be honest. You claim to understand the problems of discrimination and disadvantage faced by minority groups, yet you take offense at a phrase that many members of those groups use to describe and analyse the situation they face. I mean, you can call it non-white non-privilege if you find that a pithier turn of phrase, but I'm not sure it's helpful.
Very unusually, I don't agree with you on that last point at all, OLB. Although a convoluted and possibly painful mouthful, "non-white non-privilege" understandably refers to the situation particular groups face ; "white privilege" simply reduces a favoured group only to privilege.
But the point is that a white person doesn't face that situation, and therein lies the privilege. The purpose of the phrase is to make white people think about what it would be like to walk in someone else's shoes, to engage with situations they might never have to face themselves and to question whether they are OK with that continuing. To imagine that if you go to the police as a victim of crime they might treat you as if you were a criminal. That you might be deported from a country you are legally a citizen of. That you might be passed over for a job or a promotion because of your name or the colour of your skin. These things all happen, but if you are white they will almost certainly never happen to you. That is a privileged position to be in. And if you are not doing what you can to change that situation, then you are part of the problem. I think it is a very powerful phrase.
Richard Nabavi. The thing about racism is that you often don't realise you're saying it or thinking it until it's pointed out. Your examples are all racist. Period.
Take some time to reflect and use it as a learning experience.
No doubt Johnson is a racist, just not a very obvious one. He covers everything he ever does in smoke and mirrors that mean you have to see through the magician's sleight of hand.
LOL! Sorry, I clearly haven't fully benefitted from the relearning experience of the Re-education Camps. No doubt after a suitable period of hard labour I'll begin to appreciate that applying logic and sense is totally unacceptable, and that if the Woke says something is racist, then by definition, irrespective of the reality, it is racist. Period.
What's really striking about this nonsense is how accusations that Boris is racist totally miss the target. They are based entirely on a handful of out-of-context colourful phrases plucked out of literally hundreds of articles he wrote. And what for? For heaven's sake, if you want to attack Boris you've got plenty to go for. He is irresponsible, short-termist, congenitally dishonest, has treated every woman in his life appallingly, has treated close colleagues appallingly, has gone back on his word too often to count, never thinks through the consequences of his actions and words, and flips from U-turn to U-turn faster than a yo-yo. And yet the left insist on attacking him on the one thing which has zero justification - this is, after all, a PM who unlike any Labour leader has appointed three 'persons of colour' to the most senior positions in his team.
In my view the left are in a clear majority here now. That comes with 10 years of CON led government.
In the old days the right were much more in evidence!
Chance would be a fine thing, comrade. But from one wing of politics everyone else seems on the other wing. Big John and I are the only Corbynites here, I think - everyone else ranges from moderate social democrats to hardcore Tory, and the centre of gravity is probably a floating voter dubious about Johnson, considering Starmer but not yet quite convinced. (Lady G is sui generis and I wouldn't rely on her being on any particular wing.) I'm not sure that anyone is a Faragist or a BLM activist, but otherwise we have a pretty full house.The great thing about PB is that you can find civilised opponents to discuss developments with.
There is a big space between Corbynite and Social Democrat that you've jumped over there Nick. Mainstream, soft-left democratic socialism. The centre of gravity of the Labour Party.
Plus, of course, there are those to the Left of the Corbynites who don't ultimately think that the Parliamentary Road to Socialism will work, but you might as well walk the road while waiting for the Revolutionary lift.
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
No. What an idiotic thing to say.
1) if there is "black disadvantage" rather than "white privilege" yet white is not the norm, then what is the norm?
2) So do you prefer "male privilege" as a term to "female disadvantage", or do you deny that there is an issue?
Black people are treated differently to white people in many situations.
When I've talked to black colleagues and friends in private this is what they mention to me: they describe the looks, the nudges and the street-crossing and excessive police stopping. How their kids are tolerated less when they misbehave than white kids. They also mention that because some white people *assume* many others are racist (often the well-meaning but patronising ones who say how different they are personally) they also soft pedal their ambition too - saying they should become a technician or nurse rather than an engineer or doctor, because they'd definitely succeed at the former.
They haven't *once* talked about White Privilege or statues that need to come down. Nor has colonialism come up except in passing in one conversation where she just said "the past is the past".
This is an obsession White Liberals have - probably because it makes it all about them rather than the real racism and disadvantage black people experience.
Sure. But the only thing that ‘white privilege’ means is the other side of that coin. ie of all the shitty things that might happen to you in life, those things are not among them. I don’t know that it’s a particularly useful term, but it’s not without meaning.
I think that white privilege is a precise term that describes something real and its use contributes to fruitful debate. I struggle to understand how anyone can have a genuine problem with it.
Try reading my posts. You've got this badly wrong.
No I have read them and I think you have got it wrong, to be honest. You claim to understand the problems of discrimination and disadvantage faced by minority groups, yet you take offense at a phrase that many members of those groups use to describe and analyse the situation they face. I mean, you can call it non-white non-privilege if you find that a pithier turn of phrase, but I'm not sure it's helpful.
Very unusually, I don't agree with you on that last point at all, OLB. Although a convoluted and possibly painful mouthful, "non-white non-privilege" understandably refers to the situation particular groups face ; "white privilege" simply reduces a favoured group only to privilege.
But the point is that a white person doesn't face that situation, and therein lies the privilege. The purpose of the phrase is to make white people think about what it would be like to walk in someone else's shoes, to engage with situations they might never have to face themselves and to question whether they are OK with that continuing. To imagine that if you go to the police as a victim of crime they might treat you as if you were a criminal. That you might be deported from a country you are legally a citizen of. That you might be passed over for a job or a promotion because of your name or the colour of your skin. These things all happen, but if you are white they will almost certainly never happen to you. That is a privileged position to be in. And if you are not doing what you can to change that situation, then you are part of the problem. I think it is a very powerful phrase.
I couldn't disagree with you more.
It isn't a privileged position to be in to not be threatened with deportation from your own nation. It isn't a privileged position to not be passed over for a job because of your name. It isn't a privileged position to not be treated as a criminal because of the colour of your skin.
Those are all what should be normal and if they're not then we should call out that. Demand that for all. Not pretend it is "privilege".
Another one to add to the crazies list and to ignore when they ever their articles get posted again.
Jesus mate. How in need of updating is your list.? Delingpole has been utter vermin for years.
He's one of these characters that started years ago from a fierce right-wing position, and delighted in trolling the libs with his contrarian hot-takes and nod-and-wink outrages. Pure bollocks of course and he knew it, but he and his type were simply there to muddy the waters and do a media job. It seems that over the last year or two they've started to believe their own bullshit. Quite odd to watch, and rather alarming.
The world is going to be a "darker place" because Trump isn't reelected?
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
No. What an idiotic thing to say.
1) if there is "black disadvantage" rather than "white privilege" yet white is not the norm, then what is the norm?
2) So do you prefer "male privilege" as a term to "female disadvantage", or do you deny that there is an issue?
Black people are treated differently to white people in many situations.
When I've talked to black colleagues and friends in private this is what they mention to me: they describe the looks, the nudges and the street-crossing and excessive police stopping. How their kids are tolerated less when they misbehave than white kids. They also mention that because some white people *assume* many others are racist (often the well-meaning but patronising ones who say how different they are personally) they also soft pedal their ambition too - saying they should become a technician or nurse rather than an engineer or doctor, because they'd definitely succeed at the former.
They haven't *once* talked about White Privilege or statues that need to come down. Nor has colonialism come up except in passing in one conversation where she just said "the past is the past".
This is an obsession White Liberals have - probably because it makes it all about them rather than the real racism and disadvantage black people experience.
Sure. But the only thing that ‘white privilege’ means is the other side of that coin. ie of all the shitty things that might happen to you in life, those things are not among them. I don’t know that it’s a particularly useful term, but it’s not without meaning.
I think that white privilege is a precise term that describes something real and its use contributes to fruitful debate. I struggle to understand how anyone can have a genuine problem with it.
Try reading my posts. You've got this badly wrong.
No I have read them and I think you have got it wrong, to be honest. You claim to understand the problems of discrimination and disadvantage faced by minority groups, yet you take offense at a phrase that many members of those groups use to describe and analyse the situation they face. I mean, you can call it non-white non-privilege if you find that a pithier turn of phrase, but I'm not sure it's helpful.
Very unusually, I don't agree with you on that last point at all, OLB. Although a convoluted and possibly painful mouthful, "non-white non-privilege" understandably refers to the situation particular groups face ; "white privilege" simply reduces a favoured group only to privilege.
But the point is that a white person doesn't face that situation, and therein lies the privilege. The purpose of the phrase is to make white people think about what it would be like to walk in someone else's shoes, to engage with situations they might never have to face themselves and to question whether they are OK with that continuing. To imagine that if you go to the police as a victim of crime they might treat you as if you were a criminal. That you might be deported from a country you are legally a citizen of. That you might be passed over for a job or a promotion because of your name or the colour of your skin. These things all happen, but if you are white they will almost certainly never happen to you. That is a privileged position to be in. And if you are not doing what you can to change that situation, then you are part of the problem. I think it is a very powerful phrase.
On topic - insurance is just a bet on something you dont want to win on . For instance I bet with that well known bookie - legal and General that I would die in October - shelled out a tenner but lost the bet - pity it would have paid out £100K !!!
Biden to win EC by over 48.5 EC margin - Last price matched 1.22 Dems to win Georgia in Presidential Race - Last price matched 1.08
This has been driving me crazy all day. Is there any way at all this isn't the same bet?!
Sorry for people who saw my ranting on this earlier, but I've now got what I think is a giant arb that if there's a risk of threading the needle the wrong way and I realise it too late I'm going to just cry.
Yes, @MrEd is correct and the Supreme Court decide to overturn the Pennsylvania result and instead award it to President Trump. (Separately, I don't see how Georgia is anything like a 10% chance for President Trump._
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
No. What an idiotic thing to say.
1) if there is "black disadvantage" rather than "white privilege" yet white is not the norm, then what is the norm?
2) So do you prefer "male privilege" as a term to "female disadvantage", or do you deny that there is an issue?
Black people are treated differently to white people in many situations.
When I've talked to black colleagues and friends in private this is what they mention to me: they describe the looks, the nudges and the street-crossing and excessive police stopping. How their kids are tolerated less when they misbehave than white kids. They also mention that because some white people *assume* many others are racist (often the well-meaning but patronising ones who say how different they are personally) they also soft pedal their ambition too - saying they should become a technician or nurse rather than an engineer or doctor, because they'd definitely succeed at the former.
They haven't *once* talked about White Privilege or statues that need to come down. Nor has colonialism come up except in passing in one conversation where she just said "the past is the past".
This is an obsession White Liberals have - probably because it makes it all about them rather than the real racism and disadvantage black people experience.
Sure. But the only thing that ‘white privilege’ means is the other side of that coin. ie of all the shitty things that might happen to you in life, those things are not among them. I don’t know that it’s a particularly useful term, but it’s not without meaning.
I think that white privilege is a precise term that describes something real and its use contributes to fruitful debate. I struggle to understand how anyone can have a genuine problem with it.
Try reading my posts. You've got this badly wrong.
No I have read them and I think you have got it wrong, to be honest. You claim to understand the problems of discrimination and disadvantage faced by minority groups, yet you take offense at a phrase that many members of those groups use to describe and analyse the situation they face. I mean, you can call it non-white non-privilege if you find that a pithier turn of phrase, but I'm not sure it's helpful.
Very unusually, I don't agree with you on that last point at all, OLB. Although a convoluted and possibly painful mouthful, "non-white non-privilege" understandably refers to the situation particular groups face ; "white privilege" simply reduces a favoured group only to privilege.
But the point is that a white person doesn't face that situation, and therein lies the privilege. The purpose of the phrase is to make white people think about what it would be like to walk in someone else's shoes, to engage with situations they might never have to face themselves and to question whether they are OK with that continuing. To imagine that if you go to the police as a victim of crime they might treat you as if you were a criminal. That you might be deported from a country you are legally a citizen of. That you might be passed over for a job or a promotion because of your name or the colour of your skin. These things all happen, but if you are white they will almost certainly never happen to you. That is a privileged position to be in. And if you are not doing what you can to change that situation, then you are part of the problem. I think it is a very powerful phrase.
I couldn't disagree with you more.
It isn't a privileged position to be in to not be threatened with deportation from your own nation. It isn't a privileged position to not be passed over for a job because of your name. It isn't a privileged position to not be treated as a criminal because of the colour of your skin.
Those are all what should be normal and if they're not then we should call out that. Demand that for all. Not pretend it is "privilege".
Those should be normal but they're not. And if you never have to worry about it happening to you then you are in a privileged position. And if you enjoy that privileged position because you are white then I think the phrase white privilege is an accurate one.
Boris Johnson risks Joe Biden rift as he moves ahead with controversial Brexit legislation Prime Minister to push on with unamended Internal Markets Bill, despite peers being expected to reject half a dozen clauses
In my view the left are in a clear majority here now. That comes with 10 years of CON led government.
In the old days the right were much more in evidence!
Chance would be a fine thing, comrade. But from one wing of politics everyone else seems on the other wing. Big John and I are the only Corbynites here, I think - everyone else ranges from moderate social democrats to hardcore Tory, and the centre of gravity is probably a floating voter dubious about Johnson, considering Starmer but not yet quite convinced. (Lady G is sui generis and I wouldn't rely on her being on any particular wing.) I'm not sure that anyone is a Faragist or a BLM activist, but otherwise we have a pretty full house.The great thing about PB is that you can find civilised opponents to discuss developments with.
There is a big space between Corbynite and Social Democrat that you've jumped over there Nick. Mainstream, soft-left democratic socialism. The centre of gravity of the Labour Party.
Yes, sorry - I doin't make a strong distinction between social democracy and democratic socialism - where I grew up (Denmark) they were seen as very much the same, and despite my heart being further left I have to say it worked pretty well, and on the whole still does.
Further left than democratic socialism? Would that be undemocratic socialism? Authoritarian socialism?
Just messing. I know that support for democracy unites as all here. Well, perhaps except for Mr Ace.
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
No, it really isn't although that's what its defenders (almost always) say in its defence.
Woke is a warped Marxist theory that's transmuted from academia into the real world and views everyone through a complex hierarchical and intersectional power dynamic where we are all classified by race, gender and sexuality and bracketed (and treated) as relative oppressors or victims accordingly. It uses this as a starting point to undercut some of the established values and historical foundations of our society in the hope that by breaking it down something better (Marxist utopia) that they believe will take its place. It cleverly condemns its opponents as racists and sexists to enforce its dogma and silence dissent. It's a big reason why they say "don't expect minorities to educate you on racism" - because they fear they wouldn't be on message; just look at how they attack those who are not - and instead say, please read my favoured best-selling culturally marxist book and 'educate yourself'.
Example: an unWoke person would be concerned that some Black people still experience some racial discrimination in the UK and would want to talk to them about it to understand it and change it. They wouldn't take a knee, tear down statues, or talk about White Privilege. They would emphasis the common-bonds they have of shared Britishness, they would demonstrate empathy they would talk about fairness, and they would talk about opening up opportunities for them and increasing role models. They would try harder to think about things from their point of view in future and bring everyone of all backgrounds, races and politics along with them. They wouldn't plaster what they're doing all over social media out of insecurity narcissism.
A Woke person would say either you buy into the whole lot, or you're suspect.. or worse.
Great post CR.
I don't think it's a particularly great post to be honest and seems to contradict a lot of what he says when he just mindlessly calls others woke.
I don't think anyone here fits into that view of "wokeness" - and I am about 99% sure if you asked the average person what woke means, they would not say that.
For me what being woke is used for is just today's politically correct, it's saying something you know is offensive but you feel like this gives you cover to say it without being challenged. You have an opinion, air it and we will debate it. End of story.
Who's defending saying anything offensive?
I would challenge anyone who said something racist, but I won't go down on one knee, or label myself and others as having White Privilege.
That might get some initial attention, or make sense in an academic thesis, but, when translated into the real world, divides far more people than it unites.
It's been said before that challenging the disgraceful comments Johnson has made about Islam, or Obama, makes you "woke" and "PC". I am not saying that's you, I am saying your definition is not shared by most/many, especially and including the MSM at large who people look to for their definition.
I think that the problem is that Johnson is was journalist with a live of colourful phrases.
The comment about Muslim women in full burkas looting like “letterboxes” was in an article defending their right to do so.
But people have chosen to focus on his perceived insult to Muslim people rather than his defence of their rights.
And yet they idolise Macron who had banned the things.
Funny old world isn’t it when what people say matters more than what they do
"Colourful phrases", I wonder if you'd use the same defence about a Labour MP, I bet not.
Yes I would. You see I believe in freedom of speech
He says racist things, I'll call them out.
Of course we could go over the other racist things he's said, like attacking Obama's heritage but it doesn't matter as the Democrats haven't forgotten.
Still not a defence of your position just an attack on someone else. This is very revealing
I believe calling out racist things that people have said is often said to be "woke" when in years gone by this would have "PC crowd gone mad".
Johnson can say what he wants but calling him out for racism is not "woke" or "PC", it's doing IMHO the right thing.
We clearly have different views of what racism is, you seem to think being racist is "using colourful phrases" whereas I think it's quite simply being racist, or saying racist things, of which Johnson has undoubtedly done.
Of course you're pretending to be somehow impartial when we know full well you're just as partisan as me.
You are taking a single line in an article that was intended (although failing) to be humorous.
And ignoring the content of the article that was standing up for the rights of Muslim women to wear the burqa.
(I am actually much more troubled by the burqa than Johnson seems to be, because I suspect that - in many cases - women are forced to wear it, or conditioned to believe that it is somehow right that men can do what they want while women must be modest in order to avoid inflaming men's passions.)
No that was only one example of Johnson's racism and history of bigotry, the fact you focus on only that shows you either know and you don't care, or you have a blindspot for racism which seems to be evident.
When I called Trump's remarks racist you changed them to being bullying, you either think Trump was a racist or you don't. And if you do, you can only conclude Johnson is too as he has said similar things. So which is it?
You may not have noticed, but the comment about "bullying remarks" was a response to @kinabalu NOT you.
But enough of this conversation.
You are a self-righteous individual who likes to call other people unpleasant names when they disagree with you.
I've previously apologised for any behaviour in which I was rude to people, beyond those who bully others who I have called out repeatedly. They were deserving of such action.
I never said you were a racist, I said it seems you have a blindspot for it, it seemed to me that you redefined Trump's remarks as bullying as opposed to racist. If that was not the case then that's fine, I apologise for misunderstanding.
It's really a simple question though, do you think Trump was racist, I note you didn't answer. And I wonder if that's because if you say yes, you'll have to agree Johnson has said similarly racist things.
I'm not sure why you needed to attack me personally anyway, I get the sense you've lost the argument and you're making it personal. I recall Mrs Thatcher used to consider that victory for herself in such a case.
We can consider our conversation closed as you wish to end it, no worries - all the best.
Trump is a racist (in my view). Corbyn was an anti-semite.
I don't believe Johnson is a racist - he is a journalist in love of a colourful phrase and an equal-opportunist when it comes to offending people
Does he equally aim offensive comments at his chums who are fellow members of the undeserving plutocracy?
I thought he got them beaten up?
As a generalisation? I've got to be honest Charles I can't help but feel you're struggling with seeing such a useless OE as Prime minister and how the small government, 'freedom' loving side of politics has gone doolally.
Boris Johnson risks Joe Biden rift as he moves ahead with controversial Brexit legislation Prime Minister to push on with unamended Internal Markets Bill, despite peers being expected to reject half a dozen clauses
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
No. What an idiotic thing to say.
1) if there is "black disadvantage" rather than "white privilege" yet white is not the norm, then what is the norm?
2) So do you prefer "male privilege" as a term to "female disadvantage", or do you deny that there is an issue?
Black people are treated differently to white people in many situations.
When I've talked to black colleagues and friends in private this is what they mention to me: they describe the looks, the nudges and the street-crossing and excessive police stopping. How their kids are tolerated less when they misbehave than white kids. They also mention that because some white people *assume* many others are racist (often the well-meaning but patronising ones who say how different they are personally) they also soft pedal their ambition too - saying they should become a technician or nurse rather than an engineer or doctor, because they'd definitely succeed at the former.
They haven't *once* talked about White Privilege or statues that need to come down. Nor has colonialism come up except in passing in one conversation where she just said "the past is the past".
This is an obsession White Liberals have - probably because it makes it all about them rather than the real racism and disadvantage black people experience.
Sure. But the only thing that ‘white privilege’ means is the other side of that coin. ie of all the shitty things that might happen to you in life, those things are not among them. I don’t know that it’s a particularly useful term, but it’s not without meaning.
I think that white privilege is a precise term that describes something real and its use contributes to fruitful debate. I struggle to understand how anyone can have a genuine problem with it.
Try reading my posts. You've got this badly wrong.
No I have read them and I think you have got it wrong, to be honest. You claim to understand the problems of discrimination and disadvantage faced by minority groups, yet you take offense at a phrase that many members of those groups use to describe and analyse the situation they face. I mean, you can call it non-white non-privilege if you find that a pithier turn of phrase, but I'm not sure it's helpful.
Very unusually, I don't agree with you on that last point at all, OLB. Although a convoluted and possibly painful mouthful, "non-white non-privilege" understandably refers to the situation particular groups face ; "white privilege" simply reduces a favoured group only to privilege.
But the point is that a white person doesn't face that situation, and therein lies the privilege. The purpose of the phrase is to make white people think about what it would be like to walk in someone else's shoes, to engage with situations they might never have to face themselves and to question whether they are OK with that continuing. To imagine that if you go to the police as a victim of crime they might treat you as if you were a criminal. That you might be deported from a country you are legally a citizen of. That you might be passed over for a job or a promotion because of your name or the colour of your skin. These things all happen, but if you are white they will almost certainly never happen to you. That is a privileged position to be in. And if you are not doing what you can to change that situation, then you are part of the problem. I think it is a very powerful phrase.
I have to say I think the last part of your paragraph leads up some quite dangerous alleys, OLB, because it suggests anyone not accepting this kind of conceptual framework is not only resistant to progress, but also morally suspect.
I know that the phrase was originally developed to prompt a privileged and majority community to stop , take stock of what they normally take for granted ; to walk in another's shoes, rather than, as in the paranoid system of the alt-right, originally intended to insult and do down the majority community.
This doesn't change the fact that words and concepts have a life well beyond what is intended. This concept and starting point is not helping to achieve the goal you and I both want ; in fact, I would say it's unfortunately achieving quite the opposite.
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
No. What an idiotic thing to say.
1) if there is "black disadvantage" rather than "white privilege" yet white is not the norm, then what is the norm?
2) So do you prefer "male privilege" as a term to "female disadvantage", or do you deny that there is an issue?
Black people are treated differently to white people in many situations.
When I've talked to black colleagues and friends in private this is what they mention to me: they describe the looks, the nudges and the street-crossing and excessive police stopping. How their kids are tolerated less when they misbehave than white kids. They also mention that because some white people *assume* many others are racist (often the well-meaning but patronising ones who say how different they are personally) they also soft pedal their ambition too - saying they should become a technician or nurse rather than an engineer or doctor, because they'd definitely succeed at the former.
They haven't *once* talked about White Privilege or statues that need to come down. Nor has colonialism come up except in passing in one conversation where she just said "the past is the past".
This is an obsession White Liberals have - probably because it makes it all about them rather than the real racism and disadvantage black people experience.
Sure. But the only thing that ‘white privilege’ means is the other side of that coin. ie of all the shitty things that might happen to you in life, those things are not among them. I don’t know that it’s a particularly useful term, but it’s not without meaning.
I think that white privilege is a precise term that describes something real and its use contributes to fruitful debate. I struggle to understand how anyone can have a genuine problem with it.
Try reading my posts. You've got this badly wrong.
No I have read them and I think you have got it wrong, to be honest. You claim to understand the problems of discrimination and disadvantage faced by minority groups, yet you take offense at a phrase that many members of those groups use to describe and analyse the situation they face. I mean, you can call it non-white non-privilege if you find that a pithier turn of phrase, but I'm not sure it's helpful.
Very unusually, I don't agree with you on that last point at all, OLB. Although a convoluted and possibly painful mouthful, "non-white non-privilege" understandably refers to the situation particular groups face ; "white privilege" simply reduces a favoured group only to privilege.
But the point is that a white person doesn't face that situation, and therein lies the privilege. The purpose of the phrase is to make white people think about what it would be like to walk in someone else's shoes, to engage with situations they might never have to face themselves and to question whether they are OK with that continuing. To imagine that if you go to the police as a victim of crime they might treat you as if you were a criminal. That you might be deported from a country you are legally a citizen of. That you might be passed over for a job or a promotion because of your name or the colour of your skin. These things all happen, but if you are white they will almost certainly never happen to you. That is a privileged position to be in. And if you are not doing what you can to change that situation, then you are part of the problem. I think it is a very powerful phrase.
I couldn't disagree with you more.
It isn't a privileged position to be in to not be threatened with deportation from your own nation. It isn't a privileged position to not be passed over for a job because of your name. It isn't a privileged position to not be treated as a criminal because of the colour of your skin.
Those are all what should be normal and if they're not then we should call out that. Demand that for all. Not pretend it is "privilege".
The trouble is, every way of describing the phenomenon is objected to. People get very excited about the word "racism", and that word seems to carry with it a big sense of a brewing, conscious hatred. Some like to call it "microaggression", which is then problematic because people will say "but I wasn't being aggressive".
Personally I've concluded that this is such a difficult thing to talk about, the term itself becomes contested, because having a big old barny about semantics is easier for some people than stopping and hearing the difficult experiences of others and empathising with them.
Why is chlorine good in swimming pools but not in chicken ?
Swimming pools are phasing out chlorine because though it is cheap, it is not good for you.
Hey I am still here after a lifetime of swimming in it - Legal and General still giving me good odds to die soon with my life insurance wager with them
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
No. What an idiotic thing to say.
1) if there is "black disadvantage" rather than "white privilege" yet white is not the norm, then what is the norm?
2) So do you prefer "male privilege" as a term to "female disadvantage", or do you deny that there is an issue?
Black people are treated differently to white people in many situations.
When I've talked to black colleagues and friends in private this is what they mention to me: they describe the looks, the nudges and the street-crossing and excessive police stopping. How their kids are tolerated less when they misbehave than white kids. They also mention that because some white people *assume* many others are racist (often the well-meaning but patronising ones who say how different they are personally) they also soft pedal their ambition too - saying they should become a technician or nurse rather than an engineer or doctor, because they'd definitely succeed at the former.
They haven't *once* talked about White Privilege or statues that need to come down. Nor has colonialism come up except in passing in one conversation where she just said "the past is the past".
This is an obsession White Liberals have - probably because it makes it all about them rather than the real racism and disadvantage black people experience.
Sure. But the only thing that ‘white privilege’ means is the other side of that coin. ie of all the shitty things that might happen to you in life, those things are not among them. I don’t know that it’s a particularly useful term, but it’s not without meaning.
I think that white privilege is a precise term that describes something real and its use contributes to fruitful debate. I struggle to understand how anyone can have a genuine problem with it.
Try reading my posts. You've got this badly wrong.
No I have read them and I think you have got it wrong, to be honest. You claim to understand the problems of discrimination and disadvantage faced by minority groups, yet you take offense at a phrase that many members of those groups use to describe and analyse the situation they face. I mean, you can call it non-white non-privilege if you find that a pithier turn of phrase, but I'm not sure it's helpful.
Very unusually, I don't agree with you on that last point at all, OLB. Although a convoluted and possibly painful mouthful, "non-white non-privilege" understandably refers to the situation particular groups face ; "white privilege" simply reduces a favoured group only to privilege.
But the point is that a white person doesn't face that situation, and therein lies the privilege. The purpose of the phrase is to make white people think about what it would be like to walk in someone else's shoes, to engage with situations they might never have to face themselves and to question whether they are OK with that continuing. To imagine that if you go to the police as a victim of crime they might treat you as if you were a criminal. That you might be deported from a country you are legally a citizen of. That you might be passed over for a job or a promotion because of your name or the colour of your skin. These things all happen, but if you are white they will almost certainly never happen to you. That is a privileged position to be in. And if you are not doing what you can to change that situation, then you are part of the problem. I think it is a very powerful phrase.
I couldn't disagree with you more.
"I could not fail to disagree with you less!" . - Boris was 2004 winner of the Foot in Mouth Award from the Plain English Campaign, for his comment on the 12 December 2003 edition of Have I Got News For You.
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
No. What an idiotic thing to say.
1) if there is "black disadvantage" rather than "white privilege" yet white is not the norm, then what is the norm?
2) So do you prefer "male privilege" as a term to "female disadvantage", or do you deny that there is an issue?
Black people are treated differently to white people in many situations.
When I've talked to black colleagues and friends in private this is what they mention to me: they describe the looks, the nudges and the street-crossing and excessive police stopping. How their kids are tolerated less when they misbehave than white kids. They also mention that because some white people *assume* many others are racist (often the well-meaning but patronising ones who say how different they are personally) they also soft pedal their ambition too - saying they should become a technician or nurse rather than an engineer or doctor, because they'd definitely succeed at the former.
They haven't *once* talked about White Privilege or statues that need to come down. Nor has colonialism come up except in passing in one conversation where she just said "the past is the past".
This is an obsession White Liberals have - probably because it makes it all about them rather than the real racism and disadvantage black people experience.
Sure. But the only thing that ‘white privilege’ means is the other side of that coin. ie of all the shitty things that might happen to you in life, those things are not among them. I don’t know that it’s a particularly useful term, but it’s not without meaning.
I think that white privilege is a precise term that describes something real and its use contributes to fruitful debate. I struggle to understand how anyone can have a genuine problem with it.
Try reading my posts. You've got this badly wrong.
No I have read them and I think you have got it wrong, to be honest. You claim to understand the problems of discrimination and disadvantage faced by minority groups, yet you take offense at a phrase that many members of those groups use to describe and analyse the situation they face. I mean, you can call it non-white non-privilege if you find that a pithier turn of phrase, but I'm not sure it's helpful.
Very unusually, I don't agree with you on that last point at all, OLB. Although a convoluted and possibly painful mouthful, "non-white non-privilege" understandably refers to the situation particular groups face ; "white privilege" simply reduces a favoured group only to privilege.
But the point is that a white person doesn't face that situation, and therein lies the privilege. The purpose of the phrase is to make white people think about what it would be like to walk in someone else's shoes, to engage with situations they might never have to face themselves and to question whether they are OK with that continuing. To imagine that if you go to the police as a victim of crime they might treat you as if you were a criminal. That you might be deported from a country you are legally a citizen of. That you might be passed over for a job or a promotion because of your name or the colour of your skin. These things all happen, but if you are white they will almost certainly never happen to you. That is a privileged position to be in. And if you are not doing what you can to change that situation, then you are part of the problem. I think it is a very powerful phrase.
I couldn't disagree with you more.
It isn't a privileged position to be in to not be threatened with deportation from your own nation. It isn't a privileged position to not be passed over for a job because of your name. It isn't a privileged position to not be treated as a criminal because of the colour of your skin.
Those are all what should be normal and if they're not then we should call out that. Demand that for all. Not pretend it is "privilege".
Those should be normal but they're not. And if you never have to worry about it happening to you then you are in a privileged position. And if you enjoy that privileged position because you are white then I think the phrase white privilege is an accurate one.
No you're not in a privileged position because you don't have to put up with what nobody should ever have to put up with.
And again white is neither here nor there. I notice that you're not answering my other questions pointedly. White is neither here nor there.
If someone is prepared to employ Rahul Singh but not Mohammed Hussein ... Or if someone is going through CVs and more likely to offer an interview to Li Ying than Aaliyah Laquisha then is that wrong? I would say so. It is totally unambiguously 100% offensive and wrong. Is it white privilege? No.
Yep. With one or two exceptions they are doubling down on this. All votes against us are illegitimate. This is where decades of voter suppression, gerrymandering and minority rule logically leads.
Comments
It's a convection and an entirely unhelpful one. The experience is valid and needs understanding. The Marxist language and theory needs ditching.
Like many White Liberals you are more interested in fighting a civil war amongst White people and you need to find offence and claim bigotry, where there is none, in order to do that so you can feel good about yourself.
I hold that beneath contempt. White Liberals are the absolute pits.
There's discrimination against blacks, but that has nothing to do with white privilege since the world isn't binary either black or white.
(East) Asians aren't discriminated against in the same way blacks are but we don't hear about Asian privilege do we?
Maybe deal with that actual problem instead of its inverse?
https://twitter.com/FLOTUS/status/1325509832594616328?s=20
Is this really just about scamming supporters for $$$ or have Trump and his family really not yet given up on the election?
And if the latter how do they seriously expect the US to be taken seriously if the election is overturned at this point?
Perhaps you could rephase your answer as I genuinely do not understand what you mean.
I am not interested in starting any civil wars between white people, or indeed any other groups.
I cannot understand how you give such a good description of an issue of discrimination, yet become aggressive when discussing how to remedy it.
Dems to win Georgia in Presidential Race - Last price matched 1.08
This has been driving me crazy all day. Is there any way at all this isn't the same bet?!
Sorry for people who saw my ranting on this earlier, but I've now got what I think is a giant arb that if there's a risk of threading the needle the wrong way and I realise it too late I'm going to just cry.
A privileged status for white people in a number of areas is a fact ; but the term reduces people morally to that privilege, which is extremely dangerous. It also has conceptual parallels with the kind of portrayals of "black suffering" that people from those communities find demeaning in western portrayals of Africa.
So why would you talk about whites when the issue is discrimination against blacks?
I must say, I'm surprised at how little 'genuine' attempts to interfere with the election process there is. Even the lawsuits seem underwhelming.
https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1324085779564531712
THE WRATH OF CROSBY - part 1.
============================
INT. Political Betting BRIDGE. The firefighting continues.
MIKE SMITHSON: Jack W - what’s left?
JACK W (VOICE): Just the batteries, sir. I can have auxiliary power in a few minutes -
MIKE SMITHSON: We don’t have a few minutes. Can you give me phaser power?
JACK W (VOICE): A few shots, sir.
TSE: Not enough against their shields.
MIKE SMITHSON: Who the hell are they?
CHRISTINA D: Mike… The commander of the Swingback is signalling. (a pause) He wishes to discuss terms of our surrender.
There is a moment. MIKE SMITHSON looks around the battered
bridge, and his eyes meet TSE’s, and PLATO’s.
MIKE SMITHSON: Visual on screen.
CHRISTINA D:(hesitating) Mike -
MIKE SMITHSON: Do it, while we still have time.
CHRISTINA D: On screen, sir.
All eyes go to the SCREEN. After momentary visual confusion, ROD CROSBY’s face appears, smiling -
MIKE SMITHSON: (dumbfounded) Crosby!
ROD CROSBY: You still remember, Mike. I cannot help but be touched. I of course, remember you.
MIKE SMITHSON: What is the meaning of this attack? Where is the crew of the Swingback?
ROD CROSBY: Surely I have made my meaning plain. I mean to avenge myself upon you, Mike. I’ve deprived your blog of power and when I swing-back I mean to deprive you of your server space -
EXT. SPACE
We can see Swingback making a large arc as she prepares to come back for another round.
INT. Political Betting BRIDGE
ROD CROSBY: - But I wanted you to know first who it was who had beaten you!
MIKE SMITHSON: Rod - if it’s me you want, I’ll have myself beamed aboard. Spare my contributors!
EXT. SPACE - Swingback continues her slow arc.
INT. Political Betting BRIDGE
ROD CROSBY: (on screen) I make you a counter-proposal. I’ll agree to your terms, if.. if.. in addition to yourself, you hand over to me all data and material regarding the project called VIPA.
Reactions from TSE and MIKE SMITHSON.
MIKE SMITHSON: VIPA, what’s that?
ROD CROSBY: Don’t insult my intelligence, Smithson. Voting Intentions Predictive Analysis.
MIKE SMITHSON: Give me some time to recall the data on our computers -
ROD CROSBY: I give you sixty seconds, Mike.
MIKE SMITHSON turns from the screen -
MIKE SMITHSON: Clear the bridge.
TSE: Well, at least we know he doesn’t have VIPA.
MIKE SMITHSON: Just keep nodding as though I’m still giving orders. Mister Plato, punch up the data charts of Swingback’s command console.
PLATO: Swingback’s command -?
MIKE SMITHSON: Hurry!
ROD CROSBY: Forty-five seconds!
TSE: The prefix code?
MIKE SMITHSON: It’s all we’ve got.
PLATO: The chart’s up, sir.
ROD CROSBY: Mike!
MIKE SMITHSON: (to ROD CROSBY) We’re finding it.
ROD CROSBY: Mike!!
MIKE SMITHSON: Please, please - you’ve got to give us time - The…the blog is smashed, the computers inoperative…
ROD CROSBY: Time is a luxury you don’t have, Mike.
EXT. SPACE - Swingback, her arc completed, is coming back.
They currently say Warnock beat Leoffler and Ossoff and Perdue are neck and neck.
With the VBM orginisation the Dems have I can easily see a 2-0 sweep.
is there a name for what is wrong with you?
But yes, there are plenty of other forms of privilege, such as class, gender, caste, etc. These are specific to particular societies at particular time periods. What is relevant here is not nessicarily the same as in Algeria or Nigeria.
Parkinson's disease IIRC?
============================
INT. Political Betting BRIDGE
MIKE SMITHSON: (to himself) Damn.
ROD CROSBY: Mike?
MIKE SMITHSON: It’s coming through now, Rod.
TSE: Swingback’s prefix number is thirty-point-zero-zero.
PLATO: I don’t understand -
MIKE SMITHSON puts on his spectacles -
MIKE SMITHSON: You have got to learn WHY things work on a betting blog.
TSE: (descends) Each blog has its own combination code…
MIKE SMITHSON: …to prevent an enemy to do what we’re attempting; using our blog to order Swingback to lower her shields…
TSE: (at the weapons console) Assuming he hasn’t changed the combination. He’s quite intelligent…
ROD CROSBY: Fifteen seconds.
MIKE SMITHSON turns to the screen -
MIKE SMITHSON: Crosby, how do we know you’ll keep your word?
ROD CROSBY: (on screen) Well, I’ve given you no word to keep, Mike. In my judgement, you simply have no alternative.
MIKE SMITHSON: I see your point. Stand by to receive our transmission.
He turns from the screen again, softly:
MIKE SMITHSON: (continuing) Mister Herdson, lock the phasers on target and await my command…
DAVID HERDSON: (quietly) Phasers locked…
They’re all sweating.
ROD CROSBY: Time’s up, Mike.
MIKE SMITHSON: (dry) Here it comes. Now, TSE.
CLOSEUP - TSE’S hands punching in the prefix code followed by other signals.
INT. Swingback BRIDGE
TIM: (stares at his console) Sir - our shields are dropping!
ROD CROSBY: Raise them -
TIM punches frantically -
TIM: I can’t!
ROD CROSBY: Where’s the override?? The override!!
All monitors are haywire now that Political Betting is tapped in. They search wildly for the right switch, but…
INT. Political Betting BRIDGE
CLOSEUP - MIKE SMITHSON
MIKE SMITHSON: FIRE!
CLOSEUP – DAVID HERDSON’S hands punching.
MIKE SMITHSON: FIRE!
EXT. SPACE - Political Betting fires at Swingback inflicting heavy damage.
INT. Swingback BRIDGE - A shambles - debris flying; ROD CROSBY knocking to the deck. He struggles to his feet through wiring -
ROD CROSBY: (enraged) FIRE! FIRE!
TIM: We can’t fire, sir!
ROD CROSBY: Why can’t you?
TIM: They’ve damaged the photon control and the warp drive. We must withdraw!
ROD CROSBY: No! No!!
TIM: Sir, we must! Political Betting can wait; she’s not going anywhere.
ROD CROSBY clams as the other holds him; he breaths deeper.
EXT. SPACE - Swingback turns away.
INT. Political Betting BRIDGE - They watch ON SCREEN as Swingback hauls off.
DAVID HERDSON: (breathless) Sir, you did it!
MIKE SMITHSON: (enraged) I did nothing - except get caught with my breeches down. (continues) I must be getting senile. Mister Plato, you go right on quoting regulations. In the meantime, let’s find out how badly we’ve been hurt.
The Turbo doors whoosh open as MIKE SMITHSON reaches them. JACK W stands there, tears streaming down his face; he holds the body of Midshipman EASTERROSS. Both of them are covered in blood. He sways into MIKE SMITHSON’s arms as the others rush forward.
I am sure it all means something very significant but I for one haven't got a Scooby-Doo what.
Perhaps you watch too much Fox News or read too much Breitbart and Guido.
https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1325540827498770433
the leader of Q is revealed to be Roman P[NOPE - Ed]
Come to think of it, I may just have started the Putin's got Parkinson's rumour!
When did this happen?
I am not convinced though haven't studied recent appearances.
If you want to talk about racism talk about racism.
If an employee would be happier to offer a job to eg an East Asian or Indian job applicant over a black or Muslim job applicant then is that racism? Or is it white privilege?
"People say that the earth is getting warmer, but I was in Yukon in February and it was pretty cold there."
"People say that being trapped in a collapsing building is detrimental to your heath, but there was a little girl who was pulled out of a flattened apartment block in Turkey last week. So how can it be dangerous?"
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1325556395392069633?s=19
I, on the other hand had an excellent state funded education, from infants school to university. This has allowed for a very comfortable existance- white priviledge! Had I been born in Lower NorthEast Philadelphia rather than leafy Solihull I am not sure I would have been afforded the same opportunities, I would also probably not be white.
He's one of these characters that started years ago from a fierce right-wing position, and delighted in trolling the libs with his contrarian hot-takes and nod-and-wink outrages. Pure bollocks of course and he knew it, but he and his type were simply there to muddy the waters and do a media job. It seems that over the last year or two they've started to believe their own bullshit. Quite odd to watch, and rather alarming.
These things all happen, but if you are white they will almost certainly never happen to you. That is a privileged position to be in. And if you are not doing what you can to change that situation, then you are part of the problem. I think it is a very powerful phrase.
What's really striking about this nonsense is how accusations that Boris is racist totally miss the target. They are based entirely on a handful of out-of-context colourful phrases plucked out of literally hundreds of articles he wrote. And what for? For heaven's sake, if you want to attack Boris you've got plenty to go for. He is irresponsible, short-termist, congenitally dishonest, has treated every woman in his life appallingly, has treated close colleagues appallingly, has gone back on his word too often to count, never thinks through the consequences of his actions and words, and flips from U-turn to U-turn faster than a yo-yo. And yet the left insist on attacking him on the one thing which has zero justification - this is, after all, a PM who unlike any Labour leader has appointed three 'persons of colour' to the most senior positions in his team.
It isn't a privileged position to be in to not be threatened with deportation from your own nation.
It isn't a privileged position to not be passed over for a job because of your name.
It isn't a privileged position to not be treated as a criminal because of the colour of your skin.
Those are all what should be normal and if they're not then we should call out that. Demand that for all. Not pretend it is "privilege".
Delingpole is on acid.
Prime Minister to push on with unamended Internal Markets Bill, despite peers being expected to reject half a dozen clauses
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/11/08/boris-johnson-risks-joe-biden-rift-moves-ahead-controversial/
Just messing. I know that support for democracy unites as all here. Well, perhaps except for Mr Ace.
I think he tries 1-2 rounds of ping pong and then gives before he has no option.
I know that the phrase was originally developed to prompt a privileged and majority community to stop , take stock of what they normally take for granted ; to walk in another's shoes, rather than, as in the paranoid system of the alt-right, originally intended to insult and do down the majority community.
This doesn't change the fact that words and concepts have a life well beyond what is intended. This concept and starting point is not helping to achieve the goal you and I both want ; in fact, I would say it's unfortunately achieving quite the opposite.
Personally I've concluded that this is such a difficult thing to talk about, the term itself becomes contested, because having a big old barny about semantics is easier for some people than stopping and hearing the difficult experiences of others and empathising with them.
https://thehill.com/homenews/525063-lindsey-graham-if-trump-concedes-election-republicans-will-never-elect-another
It's not that the chicken is chlorine washed, it is that is has to be chlorine washed otherwise it would kill people.
- Boris was 2004 winner of the Foot in Mouth Award from the Plain English Campaign, for his comment on the 12 December 2003 edition of Have I Got News For You.
And again white is neither here nor there. I notice that you're not answering my other questions pointedly. White is neither here nor there.
If someone is prepared to employ Rahul Singh but not Mohammed Hussein ... Or if someone is going through CVs and more likely to offer an interview to Li Ying than Aaliyah Laquisha then is that wrong? I would say so. It is totally unambiguously 100% offensive and wrong. Is it white privilege? No.
This is where decades of voter suppression, gerrymandering and minority rule logically leads.