President Biden and US politics catchall

[JM2K6]

It's more about the branding and imagery with their attraction to Punisher I think.

Wolverine kills a-plenty (or did, I'm a couple of years behind, but that seemed to be slacking off in the arcs prior to his 'death'; as if anyone believed they'd let him stay dead...), Daredevil's done some pretty serious damage on a regular basis and Moon Knight (who I'm surprised doesn't garner more attention in those circles as a white guy wearing all white with a hood/cowl) sits somewhere between them on the scale, yet none of those have been adopted by the vigilante lovers (read: Punisher lovers).

Daredevil famously refuses to kill and Wolverine is pretty popular but isn't really a traditional vigilante. Moon Knight has not had a film or TV series about him afaik - these people are not comics nerds, they're just aware of popular culture.

Punisher speaks to those people who are cops/military or wish they were cops/military as being HARD MEN willing to make HARD DECISIONS that involve killing people they think are bad even when it's against the (obviously weak and flawed) legal system, which is the core of the vigilante ethos

I suppose Wolverine has also spent most of his time as part of the X-men and the people who idolise Punisher aren't going to be down with a group that's been fairly diverse (certainly by past standards) for most of their existence, are an obvious LGBT+ and minorities allegory and whose stories have often featured criticism of the religious right...


Guess it must be the killing they get hard for. I mentioned DD ahead of some of the other street level vigilantes because he's frequently been chastised or questioned by peers (costumed or otherwise) about the extent of the violence he deals out short of killing. Probably am forgetting that non comic nerds don't know that level of detail.

Also Matt Murdoch is a laywer and there's no way that a lawyer is going to be idolised by these guys, let alone compared to a former special forces badass...

[TB63]

And there's me thinking this thread was about US politics...

Thread comiced..

[sturginho]

well back on topic, Donny is refusing to pay Rudy's fees for "not defending him enough"

[Ali Cadoo]

And Donny Dimwit becomes the only ‘billionaire’ unable to find a lawyer happy to take his money to defend him in the impeachment trial.

What. A. Loser.

[Hal Jordan]

Moon Knight is getting his TV series in 2022.

On the politics front, as fun as the thought of Rudy ratting out Big Don is, he's reached almost compulsive liar status and you would think he will say anything to try and avoid hard time. There would need to be a ton of corroborating evidence for any allegations he makes.

I also suspect the shredders have been working 24/7 at the White House both to destroy evidence and to destroy anything that might aid the transition process (if that is still a thing).

[Niegs]

I'd hope a narcissistic, megalomaniac businessman president would deal with incriminating documents in a more spectacular fashion!

[Sinkers]

Can’t find the article now - think it was the Beeb.
Seems every little thing needs to go into the presidential record. But Trump has a habit of just tearing stuff up once finished with it.
So there’s these poor sods who literally have to go through the bins and sellotape papers back together again.

Not to mention more nefarious shit to keep stuff off record also I guess

[Niegs]

[Wignu]

Probably just about the most honest thing to come out of the debacle.

[Uncle fester]

Article on that.

CNN: 'Kill him with his own gun': Police describe facing the mob at the Capitol.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/14/politics ... index.html

Some of them felt like we would be fast friends because so many of them have been vocal," Hodges said. "They say things like, 'Yeah, we've been supporting you through all this Black Lives Matter stuff, you should have our back' and they felt entitled."

He added, "They felt like they would just walk up there and tell us that they're here to take back Congress and we would agree with them and we'd walk in hand in hand and just take over the nation. But obviously that's not the case and it will never be the case."

[Uncle fester]

And now a Houston police officer has been identified as one of those that entered the Capitol building.

And Trump releases a video condemning the attack on "free speech". Apparently everyone needs to listen to each other; of course, condemning half the speech as fake news hasn't been part of the problem at all

Are there police forces the same as here in regards to not having official political allegiance?

Not worded that well but you ken what I mean.

I think you mean are the police supposed to be apolitical? Yes they are. You can have your own private mind in on political matters but you do not or should not bring those politics into the open, such as an attempt to overthrow the government and/or claim to want the Vice President hung from gallows

There's been concern for years that police and army have been "infiltrated" by white supremacist groups.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... dApp_Other

The joint chiefs of staff statement was amazing. The national guard being withheld was atrocious and those responsible need to see jail time.

[Niegs]

Are there police forces the same as here in regards to not having official political allegiance?

Not worded that well but you ken what I mean.

I think you mean are the police supposed to be apolitical? Yes they are. You can have your own private mind in on political matters but you do not or should not bring those politics into the open, such as an attempt to overthrow the government and/or claim to want the Vice President hung from gallows

There's been concern for years that police and army have been "infiltrated" by white supremacist groups.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... dApp_Other

The joint chiefs of staff statement was amazing. The national guard being withheld was atrocious and those responsible need to see jail time.

I remember this from the book I pitched on the related thread called "Hateland: A long hard look at America's extremist heart" written by a former Homeland Security analyst. I forget the numbers he cited, but the cuts meant x number of agents looking at these groups went to a drastically reduced y. I thought about that as the type of people who'd be watched were storming the Capitol.

From the Guardian article:

Soon after taking office, Trump cut the Department of Homeland Security’s budget for terrorism prevention, which includes domestic terrorism, from $24m in 2017 to $3m today, according to the former Obama administration counterterrorism official Nate Snyder.

[sockwithaticket]

I seem to recall reading that prior to 9/11 domestic right wing extremists were the FBI's main concern and have continued to be, with periodic public warnings being made, but it's been incredibly hard for them to focus resources and public opinion on the issue after some brown people pulled off such an attention grabbing and horrific incident.

[fishfoodie]

I seem to recall reading that prior to 9/11 domestic right wing extremists were the FBI's main concern and have continued to be, with periodic public warnings being made, but it's been incredibly hard for them to focus resources and public opinion on the issue after some brown people pulled off such an attention grabbing and horrific incident.

It's not really surprising; the FBI can only operate internally; & the CIA is explicitly forbidden from operating internally; but the realities of international terrorism are that the training will happen outside the target countries; so if the FBI is to know what the hell is happening, they need to have excellent teamwork with the CIA & the NSA & thru them, the rest of the worlds intelligence agencies.

When they were dealing with local nutters, & white supremacists, the Feds were in their comfort zone; identifying an English muslim, radicalized in a Madrassah in Pakistan, & then trained in Syria; is a bit more of a challenge than staking out the local KKK chapter, & talking photos. It takes a huge increase in people & skills to even get started, & defunding the Feds was as shortsighted as you'd expect from this moron.

The problem is you have to do both; as the people who can blend in with white supremacists, are a little different than the ones who can make help you understanding islamic terrorism

[Random1]

Powerful stuff that - that’s the sort of thing that could really resonate.

The thing that struck me was the variety amongst the crowd. I think it’s a really big mistake to think this was a white nationalist coup - trump’s supporters have a lot of invisible diversity.

This ain’t gonna be easy to resolve.

Good luck to Biden.

[Niegs]

More from that cop in this as well as a statement from the cop we saw being crushed in the epic tunnel struggle.

[Random1]

More from that cop in this as well as a statement from the cop we saw being crushed in the epic tunnel struggle.

Cannot stand that sort of reporting.

CNN is just as bad as Fox for their partisan approach.

They fuel this shit through their hypocrisy.

[Jockaline]

Yip, re: CNN reporting. I actually agree with the general sentiment, but still felt quite repulsed by it. More a sermon/ political broadcast than a news report. Even if they have a political bias you'd think it would do their cause more good by hiding it a bit. They are themselves part of the problem fermenting more division.

What scares me a little is the hostility the BBC gets these days, I worry we're being led down the same road, I really hope not. The BBC maybe don't always get it right, but I believe they generally try, and it can't be easy. In polarised times it's inevitable they piss off both sides. If people in the UK get caught up with undermining them, because they can't bare to hear the other side of an argument, others in the news market may feel more emboldened to take a a political line, and then where will we be.

Was there not a saying that what happens in the USA happens in the UK 10 years later

[Random1]

Yip, re: CNN reporting. I actually agree with the general sentiment, but still felt quite repulsed by it. More a sermon/ political broadcast than a news report. Even if they have a political bias you'd think it would do their cause more good by hiding it a bit. They are themselves part of the problem fermenting more division.

What scares me a little is the hostility the BBC gets these days, I worry we're being led down the same road, I really hope not. The BBC maybe don't always get it right, but I believe they generally try, and it can't be easy. In polarised times it's inevitable they piss off both sides. If people in the UK get caught up with undermining them, because they can't bare to hear the other side of an argument, others in the news market may feel more emboldened to take a a political line, and then where will we be.

Was there not a saying that what happens in the USA happens in the UK 10 years later

I still trust the BBC to be pretty impartial on old school political lines eg on labour vs conservatives or even brexit at a push, albeit they do have a remain slant on a fair bit.

The stuff they are complete off beam, for me, are the identity political issues. They champion a lot of race and gender privilege ideas that just vilify straight white men.

I actually consider some of the racial stuff they have to be racist under the classical definition of racism.

[Jockaline]

Not sure I understand. Why does giving a voice, and some visibility, to those that are not white males impinge on white males. As a women, maybe I'm just missing your point / concern.

I don't see the anti-Brexit lean either, Farage was never of the telly. I think this is what I mean when I say neither side is happy when so polarised, a bit like opinions on officials after a controversial rugby match. I also think it was a difficult to manage because Brexit was largely an emotional argument around a sense of sovereignty - the anti-immigration element another minefield given some of the unsavoury aspects to it.

[JM2K6]

Yip, re: CNN reporting. I actually agree with the general sentiment, but still felt quite repulsed by it. More a sermon/ political broadcast than a news report. Even if they have a political bias you'd think it would do their cause more good by hiding it a bit. They are themselves part of the problem fermenting more division.

What scares me a little is the hostility the BBC gets these days, I worry we're being led down the same road, I really hope not. The BBC maybe don't always get it right, but I believe they generally try, and it can't be easy. In polarised times it's inevitable they piss off both sides. If people in the UK get caught up with undermining them, because they can't bare to hear the other side of an argument, others in the news market may feel more emboldened to take a a political line, and then where will we be.

Was there not a saying that what happens in the USA happens in the UK 10 years later

I still trust the BBC to be pretty impartial on old school political lines eg on labour vs conservatives or even brexit at a push, albeit they do have a remain slant on a fair bit.

The stuff they are complete off beam, for me, are the identity political issues. They champion a lot of race and gender privilege ideas that just vilify straight white men.

I actually consider some of the racial stuff they have to be racist under the classical definition of racism.

Jesus fucking Christ

[Random1]

Not sure I understand. Why does giving a voice, and some visibility, to those that are not white males impinge on white males. As a women, maybe I'm just missing your point / concern.

I don't see the anti-Brexit lean either, Farage was never of the telly. I think this is what I mean when I say neither side is happy when so polarised, a bit like opinions on officials after a controversial rugby match. I also think it was a difficult to manage because Brexit was largely an emotional argument around a sense of sovereignty - the anti-immigration element another minefield given some of the unsavoury aspects to it.

I’ve no problem with minorities being given a voice - I love different perspectives and enjoy learning about different philosophies and ideas.

The parts I am referring to are where the bbc do features on things like white privilege as being fact.

I consider the concept of white privilege as being racist in and of itself. And it’s that sort of thing that has people seeing the bbc as biased.

[Uncle fester]

Yip, re: CNN reporting. I actually agree with the general sentiment, but still felt quite repulsed by it. More a sermon/ political broadcast than a news report. Even if they have a political bias you'd think it would do their cause more good by hiding it a bit. They are themselves part of the problem fermenting more division.

What scares me a little is the hostility the BBC gets these days, I worry we're being led down the same road, I really hope not. The BBC maybe don't always get it right, but I believe they generally try, and it can't be easy. In polarised times it's inevitable they piss off both sides. If people in the UK get caught up with undermining them, because they can't bare to hear the other side of an argument, others in the news market may feel more emboldened to take a a political line, and then where will we be.

Was there not a saying that what happens in the USA happens in the UK 10 years later

I still trust the BBC to be pretty impartial on old school political lines eg on labour vs conservatives or even brexit at a push, albeit they do have a remain slant on a fair bit.

The stuff they are complete off beam, for me, are the identity political issues. They champion a lot of race and gender privilege ideas that just vilify straight white men.

I actually consider some of the racial stuff they have to be racist under the classical definition of racism.

No signs of intelligent life here.

[Jockaline]

Not sure I understand. Why does giving a voice, and some visibility, to those that are not white males impinge on white males. As a women, maybe I'm just missing your point / concern.

I don't see the anti-Brexit lean either, Farage was never of the telly. I think this is what I mean when I say neither side is happy when so polarised, a bit like opinions on officials after a controversial rugby match. I also think it was a difficult to manage because Brexit was largely an emotional argument around a sense of sovereignty - the anti-immigration element another minefield given some of the unsavoury aspects to it.

I’ve no problem with minorities being given a voice - I love different perspectives and enjoy learning about different philosophies and ideas.

The parts I am referring to are where the bbc do features on things like white privilege as being fact.

I consider the concept of white privilege as being racist in and of itself. And it’s that sort of thing that has people seeing the bbc as biased.

It is a fact though. Racial discrimination exists, and will continue to exist until white people acknowledge it, and make a stand against said discrimination. The BBC are no different from any corporate trying to clean up their act, and should be commended for it. Anyway getting off topic, other than white privilege/racism being a significant factor in the current troubles of the USA.

[Kiwias]

More from that cop in this as well as a statement from the cop we saw being crushed in the epic tunnel struggle.

I can't listen to Don Lemon. He is totally cringeworthy. Give me Chris Wallace any day.

[mat the expat]

I consider the concept of white privilege as being racist in and of itself. And it’s that sort of thing that has people seeing the bbc as biased.

[Kiwias]

Not sure I understand. Why does giving a voice, and some visibility, to those that are not white males impinge on white males. As a women, maybe I'm just missing your point / concern.

I don't see the anti-Brexit lean either, Farage was never of the telly. I think this is what I mean when I say neither side is happy when so polarised, a bit like opinions on officials after a controversial rugby match. I also think it was a difficult to manage because Brexit was largely an emotional argument around a sense of sovereignty - the anti-immigration element another minefield given some of the unsavoury aspects to it.

I’ve no problem with minorities being given a voice - I love different perspectives and enjoy learning about different philosophies and ideas.

The parts I am referring to are where the bbc do features on things like white privilege as being fact.

I consider the concept of white privilege as being racist in and of itself. And it’s that sort of thing that has people seeing the bbc as biased.

This is how I imagine Random1 looks as he spouts his garbage.

[Biffer]

Yip, re: CNN reporting. I actually agree with the general sentiment, but still felt quite repulsed by it. More a sermon/ political broadcast than a news report. Even if they have a political bias you'd think it would do their cause more good by hiding it a bit. They are themselves part of the problem fermenting more division.

What scares me a little is the hostility the BBC gets these days, I worry we're being led down the same road, I really hope not. The BBC maybe don't always get it right, but I believe they generally try, and it can't be easy. In polarised times it's inevitable they piss off both sides. If people in the UK get caught up with undermining them, because they can't bare to hear the other side of an argument, others in the news market may feel more emboldened to take a a political line, and then where will we be.

Was there not a saying that what happens in the USA happens in the UK 10 years later

I still trust the BBC to be pretty impartial on old school political lines eg on labour vs conservatives or even brexit at a push, albeit they do have a remain slant on a fair bit.

The stuff they are complete off beam, for me, are the identity political issues. They champion a lot of race and gender privilege ideas that just vilify straight white men.

I actually consider some of the racial stuff they have to be racist under the classical definition of racism.

The BBC were severely damaged in Scotland by an editorial decision in 2012/2013. They took a news decision that impartial discussion of the independence referendum meant giving each party equal airtime. Whilst that could have been a reasonable position in theory, it turned out it wasn’t (they should have given each argument the same coverage), and they ended up, in a referendum that roughly split the populace in two, repeatedly giving three arguments against and one for in each political programme and news section.

Whilst it’s understandable that they took that view, it was a mistake. It did not reflect, in an even handed way, public opinion.

The worst mistake they made, is that they dug in to that position and did not acknowledge that they made that mistake.

[Rinkals]

Yip, re: CNN reporting. I actually agree with the general sentiment, but still felt quite repulsed by it. More a sermon/ political broadcast than a news report. Even if they have a political bias you'd think it would do their cause more good by hiding it a bit. They are themselves part of the problem fermenting more division.

What scares me a little is the hostility the BBC gets these days, I worry we're being led down the same road, I really hope not. The BBC maybe don't always get it right, but I believe they generally try, and it can't be easy. In polarised times it's inevitable they piss off both sides. If people in the UK get caught up with undermining them, because they can't bare to hear the other side of an argument, others in the news market may feel more emboldened to take a a political line, and then where will we be.

Was there not a saying that what happens in the USA happens in the UK 10 years later

I still trust the BBC to be pretty impartial on old school political lines eg on labour vs conservatives or even brexit at a push, albeit they do have a remain slant on a fair bit.

The stuff they are complete off beam, for me, are the identity political issues. They champion a lot of race and gender privilege ideas that just vilify straight white men.

I actually consider some of the racial stuff they have to be racist under the classical definition of racism.

Jesus fucking Christ

Absolutely zero self-awareness.

[Raggs]

The parts I am referring to are where the bbc do features on things like white privilege as being fact.

I consider the concept of white privilege as being racist in and of itself. And it’s that sort of thing that has people seeing the bbc as biased.

It really is simple. Presuming you live in the UK (not unfair if it's the BBC you're upset with), ask yourself one simple question. Would your life be harder or easier if you were black?

It's not saying that every white person was born with a silver spoon up their arse, or that they cannot have been through hardships, or that they're racist, but that for the majority, had they been black instead of white, or white instead of black, life would have been easier as a white person than as a black.

This is born out in the data too. Although switching to the US for a moment, the single most convincing point for me was the incidents of cars being stopped for being "suspicious" in the USA. Blacks are stopped significantly more than Whites. Except when it's night time, and you cannot see the driver's skin colour. Then the rates are effectively equal.

[Random1]

The parts I am referring to are where the bbc do features on things like white privilege as being fact.

I consider the concept of white privilege as being racist in and of itself. And it’s that sort of thing that has people seeing the bbc as biased.

It really is simple. Presuming you live in the UK (not unfair if it's the BBC you're upset with), ask yourself one simple question. Would your life be harder or easier if you were black?

It's not saying that every white person was born with a silver spoon up their arse, or that they cannot have been through hardships, or that they're racist, but that for the majority, had they been black instead of white, or white instead of black, life would have been easier as a white person than as a black.

This is born out in the data too. Although switching to the US for a moment, the single most convincing point for me was the incidents of cars being stopped for being "suspicious" in the USA. Blacks are stopped significantly more than Whites. Except when it's night time, and you cannot see the driver's skin colour. Then the rates are effectively equal.

Interesting set of replies from everyone.

I know my views on this aren’t mainstream, but they aren’t I’ll informed - I’ve done a lot of reading and research into this topic, as I find it fascinating from a philosophical point of view.

‘Unpacking the knapsack’ is a classic piece of post modernist writing and is a genuine piece of new thinking - I just don’t agree with it and there is no scientific evidence at all that the central theme is true.

At the heart of my objection to the white privilege concept is that I have a fundamental dislike of applying collective guilt to an entire cohort (be that race, politics, gender etc etc).

In this instance, the premise of all white people being racist is repugnant to me. It’s like original sin; I was born white, and therefore I am racist to my core. That belief is racist in my book ie ascribing an attribute to an individual based upon their skin colour. I don’t get how people can argue, on a more than superficial level, that that isn’t the very definition of racism.

There are mixed race families. White privilege teaches mixed heritage kids that half their family is racist to them. I don’t like that connotation at all.

On the last point you raised rags, I get the police issue, and I think it’s a really good parallel - because cops disproportionately pull over black drivers, do you therefore believe that that is evidence that all white cops are racist? As that is what white privilege dictates.

It’s overly simplistic deductive rather than abductive reasoning that is utterly wrong IMO

On one of the points further up, on this being slightly off topic; I don’t agree with that either. I think the treating of trump supporters as some homogenous monolith by the media and the democrats is part of the reason that trumpism is a movement that has caused so much grief and will likely survive trump’s deserved downfall.

Ultimately it’s fucking lazy to treat all people of one demographic or another as having certain attributes - ascribing something as abhorrent as racism to a set of people, from birth, is classic tribalism and is at the core of hateful identity politics.

[Biffer]

Interesting that you quoted the post and then didn't answer the question in it.

[Tichtheid]

David Olusoga on his experience in the tv industry

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53889437

[notfatcat]

I find the idea of white privilege quite fascinating, and also quite repugnant and not helpful to society in any way. I appreciate that people may call me a nazi or whatever but I'd be interested to hear individuals views on what white privilege means to them personally, how (precisely) it benefits society to popularise the concept and where other races fit into the picture. I'd also be interested to know if people in non-white countries benefit from a similar ethnic privilege and whether their societies force it down people's throats on a daily basis.

[Uncle fester]

I find the idea of white privilege quite fascinating, and also quite repugnant and not helpful to society in any way. I appreciate that people may call me a nazi or whatever but I'd be interested to hear individuals views on what white privilege means to them personally, how (precisely) it benefits society to popularise the concept and where other races fit into the picture. I'd also be interested to know if people in non-white countries benefit from a similar ethnic privilege and whether their societies force it down people's throats on a daily basis.

If you genuinely feel it's being forced down your throat, then I don't think we're off to a great start on an exchange of views.

[notfatcat]

I find the idea of white privilege quite fascinating, and also quite repugnant and not helpful to society in any way. I appreciate that people may call me a nazi or whatever but I'd be interested to hear individuals views on what white privilege means to them personally, how (precisely) it benefits society to popularise the concept and where other races fit into the picture. I'd also be interested to know if people in non-white countries benefit from a similar ethnic privilege and whether their societies force it down people's throats on a daily basis.

If you genuinely feel it's being forced down your throat, then I don't think we're off to a great start on an exchange of views.

Okay well let's put that to one side for the moment. How would you answer my other points, or would you choose not to?

[Raggs]

The parts I am referring to are where the bbc do features on things like white privilege as being fact.

I consider the concept of white privilege as being racist in and of itself. And it’s that sort of thing that has people seeing the bbc as biased.

It really is simple. Presuming you live in the UK (not unfair if it's the BBC you're upset with), ask yourself one simple question. Would your life be harder or easier if you were black?

It's not saying that every white person was born with a silver spoon up their arse, or that they cannot have been through hardships, or that they're racist, but that for the majority, had they been black instead of white, or white instead of black, life would have been easier as a white person than as a black.

This is born out in the data too. Although switching to the US for a moment, the single most convincing point for me was the incidents of cars being stopped for being "suspicious" in the USA. Blacks are stopped significantly more than Whites. Except when it's night time, and you cannot see the driver's skin colour. Then the rates are effectively equal.

Interesting set of replies from everyone.

I know my views on this aren’t mainstream, but they aren’t I’ll informed - I’ve done a lot of reading and research into this topic, as I find it fascinating from a philosophical point of view.

‘Unpacking the knapsack’ is a classic piece of post modernist writing and is a genuine piece of new thinking - I just don’t agree with it and there is no scientific evidence at all that the central theme is true.

At the heart of my objection to the white privilege concept is that I have a fundamental dislike of applying collective guilt to an entire cohort (be that race, politics, gender etc etc).

In this instance, the premise of all white people being racist is repugnant to me. It’s like original sin; I was born white, and therefore I am racist to my core. That belief is racist in my book ie ascribing an attribute to an individual based upon their skin colour. I don’t get how people can argue, on a more than superficial level, that that isn’t the very definition of racism.

There are mixed race families. White privilege teaches mixed heritage kids that half their family is racist to them. I don’t like that connotation at all.

On the last point you raised rags, I get the police issue, and I think it’s a really good parallel - because cops disproportionately pull over black drivers, do you therefore believe that that is evidence that all white cops are racist? As that is what white privilege dictates.

It’s overly simplistic deductive rather than abductive reasoning that is utterly wrong IMO

On one of the points further up, on this being slightly off topic; I don’t agree with that either. I think the treating of trump supporters as some homogenous monolith by the media and the democrats is part of the reason that trumpism is a movement that has caused so much grief and will likely survive trump’s deserved downfall.

Ultimately it’s fucking lazy to treat all people of one demographic or another as having certain attributes - ascribing something as abhorrent as racism to a set of people, from birth, is classic tribalism and is at the core of hateful identity politics.

OK, from the top then.

Central theme is that life is harder for someone who is black, than white, given all other things are equal (in the UK/USA for starters). There is plenty of scientific evidence for this, I've given you some. White privilege is not calling all white people racist.

I feel no guilt for my white privilege. You shouldn't really tell people their emotions are wrong, but in this instance I feel it's due to a misunderstanding. White privilege doesn't mean that you personally have taken advantage of a black person, or that you are racist, just that your life has been easier. Just as the child of a billionaire should feel no guilt for being the child of a billionaire, their life is going to be significantly easier than the child of a destitute family. It's not about guilt, it's about recognising that you had advantages, there's nothing wrong with recognising that. I was privileged as a child to have a reasonably stable home life, live in a nice area, be blessed with some intelligence, enough to get a scholarship at the local private school etc. I feel no guilt about these facts, but I can recognise that such things are advantages over many others. White privilege is the same thing. My life was made better by the colour of my skin.

Systemic racism, such as cops, is more insidious than calling white cops racists, because all cops, regardless of colour, pull over black drivers more during the day. Imagine the thought that black people in general are more likely to be criminals, being so ingrained, that even blacks believe it when they're on the force? I'm not saying they're racist individuals either, but that the system they are part of imparts this. To bring it to another similar example, but one that has nothing to do with race again. When asked, young children are more likely to point to an image of a fat child, instead of a thin one, and say they're more likely to be a liar out of the two. All they see is numerous images of children of various sizes (line drawings, not photos etc), and inevitably, when asked who they think lies the most, they point to the fat kid. This is systemic. It's not saying that they are mean to every individual fat kid, or hate every one, but somewhere the idea has been planted that they are the most likely to be lying.

I'll be honest here. I felt exactly the same way as you when I first started hearing "White privilege." I have a few friends on facebook, one of whom I think takes the social justice warrior thing too far, but i learn a lot from them, and whilst I may disagree on some of what I consider their more niche views, at the same time, I come to understand these phrases better. I had the same reaction to when BLM first became a common phrase (before Flloyd), thinking All lives matter. Now I have come to understand that blm doesn't say ONLY blm, or BLM more than anyone else, but rather point out the fact that in the USA (and UK), that black lives, according to verifiable stats, seem to matter less than everyone else. All lives do indeed matter, and right now, it's the black lives that don't seem to be included in all lives matter in many situations.

No, white privilege probably doesn't apply in many countries. I've lived in countries where the colour of my skin has meant I was targeted by scams, pickpockets, abuse and rip off merchants, there the colour of my skin was not a privilege (though I had a great many other privileges over those people). However, we're primarily talking about the western world here, especially UK/USA.

A few questions for you to answer, please.

If I told you that you were privileged by being born the child of a billionaire, would you instantly assume that I'm saying you hate all poor people?

Do you think that underprivileged children that are raised in the poorest environments, have access only to the worst schools etc, are misnomered compared to those who are raised with access to far better facilities?

And a repeat of my earlier question. Assuming you were raised in the UK. If you were black (let's a melanin genetic mutation that simply led to your skin colour being far darker, all other things are the same), do you believe your life would have been harder, easier or the same?

[Random1]

Interesting that you quoted the post and then didn't answer the question in it.

Sorry, I did mean to answer it, but forgot.

I don’t know how my life would have been if I were black.

There are thousands of variables to consider and control in answering that question.

What goes through my head is; Would I have been brought up in the same area? Had the same (but black) parents, gone to the same school? Etc etc.

Or are you looking at me living in a different area, having different parents and schooling etc?

Also, what ethnicity/race are you giving me?

Am I religious? If so, which religion?

What’s my family’s socio economic position?

[Random1]

It really is simple. Presuming you live in the UK (not unfair if it's the BBC you're upset with), ask yourself one simple question. Would your life be harder or easier if you were black?

It's not saying that every white person was born with a silver spoon up their arse, or that they cannot have been through hardships, or that they're racist, but that for the majority, had they been black instead of white, or white instead of black, life would have been easier as a white person than as a black.

This is born out in the data too. Although switching to the US for a moment, the single most convincing point for me was the incidents of cars being stopped for being "suspicious" in the USA. Blacks are stopped significantly more than Whites. Except when it's night time, and you cannot see the driver's skin colour. Then the rates are effectively equal.

Interesting set of replies from everyone.

I know my views on this aren’t mainstream, but they aren’t I’ll informed - I’ve done a lot of reading and research into this topic, as I find it fascinating from a philosophical point of view.

‘Unpacking the knapsack’ is a classic piece of post modernist writing and is a genuine piece of new thinking - I just don’t agree with it and there is no scientific evidence at all that the central theme is true.

At the heart of my objection to the white privilege concept is that I have a fundamental dislike of applying collective guilt to an entire cohort (be that race, politics, gender etc etc).

In this instance, the premise of all white people being racist is repugnant to me. It’s like original sin; I was born white, and therefore I am racist to my core. That belief is racist in my book ie ascribing an attribute to an individual based upon their skin colour. I don’t get how people can argue, on a more than superficial level, that that isn’t the very definition of racism.

There are mixed race families. White privilege teaches mixed heritage kids that half their family is racist to them. I don’t like that connotation at all.

On the last point you raised rags, I get the police issue, and I think it’s a really good parallel - because cops disproportionately pull over black drivers, do you therefore believe that that is evidence that all white cops are racist? As that is what white privilege dictates.

It’s overly simplistic deductive rather than abductive reasoning that is utterly wrong IMO

On one of the points further up, on this being slightly off topic; I don’t agree with that either. I think the treating of trump supporters as some homogenous monolith by the media and the democrats is part of the reason that trumpism is a movement that has caused so much grief and will likely survive trump’s deserved downfall.

Ultimately it’s fucking lazy to treat all people of one demographic or another as having certain attributes - ascribing something as abhorrent as racism to a set of people, from birth, is classic tribalism and is at the core of hateful identity politics.

OK, from the top then.

Central theme is that life is harder for someone who is black, than white, given all other things are equal (in the UK/USA for starters). There is plenty of scientific evidence for this, I've given you some. White privilege is not calling all white people racist.

I feel no guilt for my white privilege. You shouldn't really tell people their emotions are wrong, but in this instance I feel it's due to a misunderstanding. White privilege doesn't mean that you personally have taken advantage of a black person, or that you are racist, just that your life has been easier. Just as the child of a billionaire should feel no guilt for being the child of a billionaire, their life is going to be significantly easier than the child of a destitute family. It's not about guilt, it's about recognising that you had advantages, there's nothing wrong with recognising that. I was privileged as a child to have a reasonably stable home life, live in a nice area, be blessed with some intelligence, enough to get a scholarship at the local private school etc. I feel no guilt about these facts, but I can recognise that such things are advantages over many others. White privilege is the same thing. My life was made better by the colour of my skin.

Systemic racism, such as cops, is more insidious than calling white cops racists, because all cops, regardless of colour, pull over black drivers more during the day. Imagine the thought that black people in general are more likely to be criminals, being so ingrained, that even blacks believe it when they're on the force? I'm not saying they're racist individuals either, but that the system they are part of imparts this. To bring it to another similar example, but one that has nothing to do with race again. When asked, young children are more likely to point to an image of a fat child, instead of a thin one, and say they're more likely to be a liar out of the two. All they see is numerous images of children of various sizes (line drawings, not photos etc), and inevitably, when asked who they think lies the most, they point to the fat kid. This is systemic. It's not saying that they are mean to every individual fat kid, or hate every one, but somewhere the idea has been planted that they are the most likely to be lying.

I'll be honest here. I felt exactly the same way as you when I first started hearing "White privilege." I have a few friends on facebook, one of whom I think takes the social justice warrior thing too far, but i learn a lot from them, and whilst I may disagree on some of what I consider their more niche views, at the same time, I come to understand these phrases better. I had the same reaction to when BLM first became a common phrase (before Flloyd), thinking All lives matter. Now I have come to understand that blm doesn't say ONLY blm, or BLM more than anyone else, but rather point out the fact that in the USA (and UK), that black lives, according to verifiable stats, seem to matter less than everyone else. All lives do indeed matter, and right now, it's the black lives that don't seem to be included in all lives matter in many situations.

No, white privilege probably doesn't apply in many countries. I've lived in countries where the colour of my skin has meant I was targeted by scams, pickpockets, abuse and rip off merchants, there the colour of my skin was not a privilege (though I had a great many other privileges over those people). However, we're primarily talking about the western world here, especially UK/USA.

A few questions for you to answer, please.

If I told you that you were privileged by being born the child of a billionaire, would you instantly assume that I'm saying you hate all poor people?

Do you think that underprivileged children that are raised in the poorest environments, have access only to the worst schools etc, are misnomered compared to those who are raised with access to far better facilities?

And a repeat of my earlier question. Assuming you were raised in the UK. If you were black (let's a melanin genetic mutation that simply led to your skin colour being far darker, all other things are the same), do you believe your life would have been harder, easier or the same?

Thanks for this Raggs, I really appreciate you spending time writing it, I’m sure you have better things to do on a Saturday than natter on about this stuff

I will respond, but I just want to think about what you’ve said for a bit, as I don’t want to waste your time.

[notfatcat]

Interesting that you quoted the post and then didn't answer the question in it.

Sorry, I did mean to answer it, but forgot.

I don’t know how my life would have been if I were black.

There are thousands of variables to consider and control in answering that question.

What goes through my head is; Would I have been brought up in the same area? Had the same (but black) parents, gone to the same school? Etc etc.

Or are you looking at me living in a different area, having different parents and schooling etc?

Also, what ethnicity/race are you giving me?

Am I religious? If so, which religion?

What’s my family’s socio economic position?

It would also be helpful if you knew what sort of environment you grew up in, in terms of attitudes towards family, education, careers and white people.