White Privilege - This would be a bit embarrassing

cullennz

Banned
cullennz
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
21,318
Location
NZ
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts...s-black/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d50b913c1a2a

....CNN legal analyst Areva Martin thought she was talking to a white man Tuesday while appearing as a guest on David Webb’s SiriusXM radio show.

When Webb, a frequent Fox News contributor and host on Fox Nation, said he considered his qualifications more important than his skin color when applying to jobs in journalism, Martin accused him of exercising white privilege.

But there’s a problem with that sentiment, as Webb quickly pointed out:

“Areva, I hate to break it to you, but you should’ve been better prepped,” he responded. “I’m black.”....
Click to expand...
 
Ooh, leftists don't like that. They don't like it when the black moves out of the sphere of white dependency and achieves something, at least not without a backstory of subjugation and victimisation onto which the leftist can hang their ethically-produced hat. I mean, if they all did that, who is there left to champion? A few trans people, homosexuals, neither of which seem to need much help, it can't be allowed to happen!
 
baron said:
Ooh, leftists don't like that. They don't like it when the black moves out of the sphere of white dependency and achieves something, at least not without a backstory of subjugation and victimisation onto which the leftist can hang their ethically-produced hat. I mean, if they all did that, who is there left to champion? A few trans people, homosexuals, neither of which seem to need much help, it can't be allowed to happen!
Click to expand...

No idea what you're responding to, but it's not the gaffe from the OP. Or you're claiming that not only was the CNN reporter not mistaken about the other person's race, she actively resented the fact that a black man didn't need her help (and therefore decided to make herself look stupid by calling him white?)

Or is it more of a general conspiracy theory about anyone to your political left being a secret patronising racist?
 
Porpoise of Life said:
No idea what you're responding to, but it's not the gaffe from the OP. Or you're claiming that not only was the CNN reporter not mistaken about the other person's race, she actively resented the fact that a black man didn't need her help (and therefore decided to make herself look stupid by calling him white?)

Or is it more of a general conspiracy theory about anyone to your political left being a secret patronising racist?
Click to expand...

How is the connection not obvious? It's there in black and white. On being told that the interviewer believed that he got on in life through qualifications and not skin colour, the leftist stated, "...that’s a whole other long conversation about white privilege, the things that you have the privilege of doing, that people of color don’t have the privilege of.”

So she explicitly states that 'people of colour' require privilege in order to succeed. Of course, in the mind of a leftist they will never achieve privilege and thus will always be disadvantaged, which is just how they like it.
 
Porpoise of Life said:
Or is it more of a general conspiracy theory about anyone to your political left being a secret patronising racist?
Click to expand...

"Anyone" and "Secret patronizing racist," No.

Some weird strain of some kind of effed up hybrid of social level Munchausen by Proxy and "The White Man's Burden" that does affect how some people view race relations where it makes it much easier for them to craft a victim narrative than a success narrative at least occasionally being a thing that effects both their views on race and other people's, Yeah.
 
Last edited:
cullennz said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts...s-black/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d50b913c1a2a
....CNN legal analyst Areva Martin thought she was talking to a white man Tuesday while appearing as a guest on David Webb’s SiriusXM radio show.

When Webb, a frequent Fox News contributor and host on Fox Nation, said he considered his qualifications more important than his skin color when applying to jobs in journalism, Martin accused him of exercising white privilege.

But there’s a problem with that sentiment, as Webb quickly pointed out:

“Areva, I hate to break it to you, but you should’ve been better prepped,” he responded. “I’m black.”....
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

A remarkable aside is that a supposed "legal analyst" wasn't curious or bright enough to do a bit of a background check on the person whose radio show she was due to appear on, and thus - lacking any obvious linguistics hints - misassumed he was white.
 
Last edited:
baron said:
How is the connection not obvious? It's there in black and white. On being told that the interviewer believed that he got on in life through qualifications and not skin colour, the leftist stated, "...that’s a whole other long conversation about white privilege, the things that you have the privilege of doing, that people of color don’t have the privilege of.”

So she explicitly states that 'people of colour' require privilege in order to succeed. Of course, in the mind of a leftist they will never achieve privilege and thus will always be disadvantaged, which is just how they like it.
Click to expand...

The analyst in question is black too, so if you are going to take an unfavorable view (not saying we should, of course), it seems more likely that she's got some kind of victim complex than that she secretly wants to keep black people down so she can feel like a good person.

Also, she doesn't say that black people can't succeed without being given privilege by white people, she's saying that being white confers certain privileges that non-whites don't automatically have.
She assumed that the guy she was talking to was white and also assumed that he didn't see how being white might give him an advantage when applying for a job.

She was wrong about his race, so she was also wrong in her other inferences. It's embarrassing, and she should have done her research.
But her mistake says nothing about whether white privilege exists or not.
 
baron said:
How is the connection not obvious? It's there in black and white. On being told that the interviewer believed that he got on in life through qualifications and not skin colour, the leftist stated, "...that’s a whole other long conversation about white privilege, the things that you have the privilege of doing, that people of color don’t have the privilege of.”

So she explicitly states that 'people of colour' require privilege in order to succeed. Of course, in the mind of a leftist they will never achieve privilege and thus will always be disadvantaged, which is just how they like it.
Click to expand...

Er, you do realise that Areva Martin is also black?
 
zooterkin said:
Er, you do realise that Areva Martin is also black?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what colour she is, it's her politics that's the issue, and the idea that blacks are victims who can only achieve if permitted to by whites.
 
Porpoise of Life said:
The analyst in question is black too, so if you are going to take an unfavorable view (not saying we should, of course), it seems more likely that she's got some kind of victim complex than that she secretly wants to keep black people down so she can feel like a good person.

Also, she doesn't say that black people can't succeed without being given privilege by white people, she's saying that being white confers certain privileges that non-whites don't automatically have.
She assumed that the guy she was talking to was white and also assumed that he didn't see how being white might give him an advantage when applying for a job.

She was wrong about his race, so she was also wrong in her other inferences. It's embarrassing, and she should have done her research.
But her mistake says nothing about whether white privilege exists or not.
Click to expand...
It does not.
It does seem to say something about the use of "white privilege" as an argument though.
 
Distracted1 said:
It does not.
It does seem to say something about the use of "white privilege" as an argument though.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's mostly just a cheap way of dismissing someone.

Privilege is about groups of people, not individuals. "I don't have to listen to you because group x you belong to has a certain kind of privilege group y doesn't" is a terrible argument.

But to play devil's advocate: That doesn't mean bringing up racial privilege when someone says that it's his qualifications that matter, not his skin color, is completely out of bounds. Race still turns out to be a factor in hiring practices.
 
Information Analyst said:
A remarkable aside is that a supposed "legal analyst" wasn't curious or bright enough to do a bit of a background check on the person whose radio show she was due to appear on, and thus - lacking any obvious linguistics hints - misassumed he was white.
Click to expand...

If someone is mistaken for white they can benefit from white privilege just as much as an actual white person. Just ask Margarita Carmen Cansino.
 
Porpoise of Life said:
Privilege is about groups of people, not individuals. "I don't have to listen to you because group x you belong to has a certain kind of privilege group y doesn't" is a terrible argument.
Click to expand...

But what other context is "privilege" ever really used in?

Again (hey goodie I get to fight against 'Da SJWs' instead of being accused of being one again) as far as I'm concerned "Check your Privilege" is just "Liberal White Guilt" wearing a pair of Groucho Marx Glasses.

I mean I like to think we can put on the table the simple observation that this woman sees "White Privilege" so much she basically defaulted to without knowing the dynamics of the situation and... that's a problem without it devolving into accusations that we're denying racism and societal privilege even exist.

And yea the whole "You're successful so I'm gonna assume sight unseen you have to be white and go there via 'privilege'" is... problematic even if coming from a black person. This is not an evil or racist concept to just.. talk about.
 
Last edited:
Porpoise of Life said:
"I don't have to listen to you because group x you belong to has a certain kind of privilege group y doesn't" is a terrible argument.
Click to expand...

On the other hand...

"A lot of people have to fight for things you take for granted. When those people are talking about their struggle to live in a society that makes life seem so easy to you, probably you should STFU, listen to what they have to say, and think very hard about whether you actually have anything helpful to contribute to their conversation."

... Is a pretty good argument.

And "we're not listening to group X right now, because as a group their privilege blinds them to the issues we're discussing, and they don't have anything useful to contribute" is a general policy that does not make sense in all times and places, but sure seems to make sense in America right now.
 
zooterkin said:
You think she likes being disadvantaged?
Click to expand...

I think she likes understanding how the world works, and knowing where she stands in relation to those around her. I think she likes knowing what she's up against and what she needs to do to gain advantages. I think she likes knowing that other people see what she sees, believe what she believes, and are motivated to join her in the struggle. I think she hates it when other people don't see the world the way she sees it, and undermine her own efforts with their ignorance. I think she hates being disadvantaged.

I also think that rhetorical questions and appeals to incredulity are a terrible strategy for skeptical inquiry in good faith. I think that your question was not a good-faith question. I think you probably won't be bothering to explain what you meant by it or what idea you're actually trying to develop here.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I mean I like to think we can put on the table the simple observation that this woman sees "White Privilege" so much she basically defaulted to without knowing the dynamics of the situation and... that's a problem without it devolving into accusations that we're denying racism and societal privilege even exist.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry Joe, but it's either one or the other. Get with the program.
 
theprestige said:
On the other hand...

"A lot of people have to fight for things you take for granted. When those people are talking about their struggle to live in a society that makes life seem so easy to you, probably you should STFU, listen to what they have to say, and think very hard about whether you actually have anything helpful to contribute to their conversation."

... Is a pretty good argument.

And "we're not listening to group X right now, because as a group their privilege blinds them to the issues we're discussing, and they don't have anything useful to contribute" is a general policy that does not make sense in all times and places, but sure seems to make sense in America right now.
Click to expand...
Who decides who deserves to be listened to.

Is it the ones percieved to be lowest on this privileged scale?

Or is there some democratically elected "Who deserves to be listened to" chairperson?
 
I saw this yesterday. Hilarious.

I think one of the key takeaways is that those adamantly claiming "white privilege" are often doing so for reasons other than seeing actual white privilege.
 
cullennz said:
Who decides who deserves to be listened to.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say "deserves". It's a question of what's the most productive use of our time.

I decide, as an individual, whose input is worth my attention.

If I'm invested in a group endeavor, then we as a group decide whose input is worth the group's attention.

Is it the ones percieved to be lowest on this privileged scale?
Click to expand...
I don't think either of us actually wants to get into an ersatz debate about intersectionality, etc.

A lot of black people have come to the conclusion that as a group, white people cold suck at talking about the struggles black people face, and that as a group white people aren't worth listening to on those topics. Nobody had to play Privilege Poker to figure that out. Nobody had to "decide" who "deserves" attention. It's just an emergent property of our society at the current time.

Or is there some democratically elected "Who deserves to be listened to" chairperson?
Click to expand...
You might as well ask, "who decides what movies everybody chooses to watch next summer?"
 
I fail to understand any possible meaning that could be read into any of the words between the interviewer and interviewed. No matter who misidentified whom, the basic statistics show that people of color are overwhelmingly disadvantaged compared to whites - in education, housing, employment, etc. (be it because of poverty, racism, or a combination of factors).

The fact that one person of color achieved some level of success and one other person of color made the mistake of playing the odds, doesn't change the statistical realities one bit.

It's not impossible for me to win a poker hand with four spades on the board and me holding a 9S and 2C. It's really, really unlikely. But that doesn't change the fact that it can and just did happen.
 
Loss Leader said:
I fail to understand any possible meaning that could be read into any of the words between the interviewer and interviewed. No matter who misidentified whom, the basic statistics show that people of color are overwhelmingly disadvantaged compared to whites - in education, housing, employment, etc. (be it because of poverty, racism, or a combination of factors).

The fact that one person of color achieved some level of success and one other person of color made the mistake of playing the odds, doesn't change the statistical realities one bit.

It's not impossible for me to win a poker hand with four spades on the board and me holding a 9S and 2C. It's really, really unlikely. But that doesn't change the fact that it can and just did happen.
Click to expand...

But that's not what happened.

Basically the lady's argument was "Oh you won the hand, you must have been dealt 3 aces and two kings" even though the guy hadn't.

She assumed privilege because of success. She, by assumption, denied (or at least 'jumped to the conclusion'0 that winning with a bad hand is a thing that can happen.

I get it. The racists do want to force the narrative that blacks will win if they just work harder, pull themselves up by their bootstraps, so much nonsense but that doesn't change the fact that this lady jumping from "You had a degree of success" to "Therefore you must have come from a place of privilege" is... some manner of off.

Again this isn't an either/or discussion. We don't have to deny racism exists to simply argue that the way it was used/conceptualized in this particular incident was at least a little problematic.
 
Last edited:
Loss Leader said:
I fail to understand any possible meaning that could be read into any of the words between the interviewer and interviewed. No matter who misidentified whom, the basic statistics show that people of color are overwhelmingly disadvantaged compared to whites - in education, housing, employment, etc. (be it because of poverty, racism, or a combination of factors).

The fact that one person of color achieved some level of success and one other person of color made the mistake of playing the odds, doesn't change the statistical realities one bit.

It's not impossible for me to win a poker hand with four spades on the board and me holding a 9S and 2C. It's really, really unlikely. But that doesn't change the fact that it can and just did happen.
Click to expand...

I say, steady on old chap.

:)
 
Mumbles said:
Saw this. Seriously, it's discrediting. Who doesn't know Webb is Black?
Click to expand...

Skilled knowledge workers at CNN, apparently. Makes you wonder just how much of your trust in their reporting is based on responsible people doing their homework, and how much is based on jackasses ignorantly pushing their favorite narrative.
 
JoeMorgue said:
... but that doesn't change the fact that this lady jumping from "You had a degree of success" to "Therefore you must have come from a place of privilege" is... some manner of off.

Again this isn't an either/or discussion. We don't have to deny racism exists to simply argue that the way it was used/conceptualized in this particular incident was at least a little problematic.
Click to expand...


I agree that the comment was illogical. "Most successful people started from a point of privilege" does not mean "If one is successful, then one started from a point of privilege."

I just don't see any of this being meaningful in any larger debate. "One person made an error in judgment" shouldn't mean that the underlying argument is either valid or invalid.
 
An anecdote of limited value but illustrative of why I rankle at pronouncements of white privilege even though I realize it was a thing.

In college I hung out with to distinct crowds. The radio station crowd which was mostly uppermiddle class white kids. My engineering crowd, who like me were mostly transfer students including the children of laborers of limited income(also like me) and/or the children of immigrants or immigrants themselves. Sorta like me, as my high school drop out father was raised in a foreign country despite being born in the US. Guess which crowd lectured me about white privilege?

In my current life I only hear about from by rich white cousins-in-law.

This isn't to say its not a real thing. I just think it doesn't have enough explanatory power to be of much use and its over use has help drive support for trump. Working class whites don't see much benefit from white privilege. Many versions of affirmative action have actually hurt them while the rich white elite remain untouched.

Also, its pretty remarkable the women didn't google this guy before the interview.
 
JoeMorgue said:
But that's not what happened.

Basically the lady's argument was "Oh you won the hand, you must have been dealt 3 aces and two kings" even though the guy hadn't.

She assumed privilege because of success. She, by assumption, denied (or at least 'jumped to the conclusion'0 that winning with a bad hand is a thing that can happen.

I get it. The racists do want to force the narrative that blacks will win if they just work harder, pull themselves up by their bootstraps, so much nonsense but that doesn't change the fact that this lady jumping from "You had a degree of success" to "Therefore you must have come from a place of privilege" is... some manner of off.

Again this isn't an either/or discussion. We don't have to deny racism exists to simply argue that the way it was used/conceptualized in this particular incident was at least a little problematic.
Click to expand...

That's way too nuanced. I demand that you pick one of the two sides!
 
JoeMorgue said:
But what other context is "privilege" ever really used in?

Again (hey goodie I get to fight against 'Da SJWs' instead of being accused of being one again) as far as I'm concerned "Check your Privilege" is just "Liberal White Guilt" wearing a pair of Groucho Marx Glasses.

I mean I like to think we can put on the table the simple observation that this woman sees "White Privilege" so much she basically defaulted to without knowing the dynamics of the situation and... that's a problem without it devolving into accusations that we're denying racism and societal privilege even exist.

And yea the whole "You're successful so I'm gonna assume sight unseen you have to be white and go there via 'privilege'" is... problematic even if coming from a black person. This is not an evil or racist concept to just.. talk about.
Click to expand...

Yep racism clearly has no negative effects and not being subjected to bigotry which of course does not exist in no way gives one a competitive advantage.

Like Supreme court justice Kavanaugh who got into Yale solely by hard work and his being a legacy had nothing to do with it, unlike those lazy affirmative actions types.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Yep racism clearly has no negative effects and not being subjected to bigotry which of course does not exist in no way gives one a competitive advantage.

Like Supreme court justice Kavanaugh who got into Yale solely by hard work and his being a legacy had nothing to do with it, unlike those lazy affirmative actions types.
Click to expand...

Do you even read posts or just look for code words to go off on a rant about Liberal Version of Logger?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom