- Boards
- Politics
- Let's be honest, the "check your privileges" crowd alleniate people
mercurydude posted...When the f*** have you ever had someone say "check your privilege" to you even once in real life, that was not in a joking manner? I'm tired of people acting like tumblerinas are a threat to the human race. People that give them attention are the reason why they're a "problem" in the first place.
By the way, "white privilege" was a way to get around calling it "racism" because people whined about it being called "racism" or even "racial bias" when speaking of white people having it an easier time in employment, not being targeted by cops, etc. So now we've gone from that to "you can't call it white privilege" and it's become a circle whose message is that you aren't allowed to talk about institutionalized racial disparity at all because someone will be offended.
Funny how those whose lives are affected in a negative way by it (much more so than being annoyed by just hearing it talked about) don't have a right to be offended themselves by being treated in such a way.
Because the white privilege narrative is bulls***. Every group of people faces problems and has real, valid grievances. To say "one group magically has it better than the others" rings more than a bit hollow in a diverse country of 360 million when academia, media, corporations, and one of our political parties promotes this narrative heavily. Does institutional racism still affect PoC? Of course, I don't think anyone denies that. But to single people like me out as the "benefactors" of institutional racism is palpably absurd when there's so many institutions of power that basically single me out as the bad guy because of something I had no control over.TorchOfLiberty posted...mercurydude posted...
When the f*** have you ever had someone say "check your privilege" to you even once in real life, that was not in a joking manner? I'm tired of people acting like tumblerinas are a threat to the human race. People that give them attention are the reason why they're a "problem" in the first place.
By the way, "white privilege" was a way to get around calling it "racism" because people whined about it being called "racism" or even "racial bias" when speaking of white people having it an easier time in employment, not being targeted by cops, etc. So now we've gone from that to "you can't call it white privilege" and it's become a circle whose message is that you aren't allowed to talk about institutionalized racial disparity at all because someone will be offended.
Funny how those whose lives are affected in a negative way by it (much more so than being annoyed by just hearing it talked about) don't have a right to be offended themselves by being treated in such a way.
Because the white privilege narrative is bulls***. Every group of people faces problems and has real, valid grievances. To say "one group magically has it better than the others" rings more than a bit hollow in a diverse country of 360 million when academia, media, corporations, and one of our political parties promotes this narrative heavily. Does institutional racism still affect PoC? Of course, I don't think anyone denies that. But to single people like me out as the "benefactors" of institutional racism is palpably absurd when there's so many institutions of power that basically single me out as the bad guy because of something I had no control over.
I think, for me, when I go with this line of thinking, its helpful to take a step back. Lets take male privilege, raised by mom, all bosses I've ever had have been women so of course, where is my male privilege when I've been surrounded by women in power who can fire me? Take a step back and you start to see who has power. Power in policy making (no woman president, mostly male dominated in house and congress), power in enforcement (mostly male dominated), power in judiciary (mostly male), Power in economy (mostly male CEO, gender wage gap), and on and on... and again, this does not mean I never had hardship or my life is great or women can't have prejudice against me, but the likelihood of me being in a position of power seems to be higher. So when women start to talk about male privilege, I have to understand this context and realize, that's my own s*** when I start to feel shame or even anger.
You can do the same with race, gender, etc.whobdatboi posted...epik_fail1 posted...
whobdatboi posted...
epik_fail1 posted...
It litterally feel like people are saying "you can't have problems if you are a straight white male" instead of calling out racist. If people called racism for what it is : racism instead of a white privileges, it would not alleniate so many people.For example, asians won't live what muslims live and it won't be called "asian privileges". As a gay guy, I refuse to call "straight privilege" homophobia because nobody benefits for it. How do you guys feel about that?
I would argue that you can think of different names for the thing but it'll eventually still have the same effect... I mean who likes to think that their successes in life and legit hard work they put in life is not all their doing and their privilege probably opened doors or the the s***ty place they find their current life to be at that they have privilege? Its a hard pill to swallow and that often leads to anger for some, guilt for others.
What I often find is people can't have a discourse that separates all the different identities we have. Oftentimes people counterargue white privilege by using their life experience in a disadvantage identity - I can't have white privilege (race) because I grew up a poor (economy) woman (gender). So now I you've essentially pivoted the convo. Or sometimes use examples of individual hardship with race (growing up white in black neighborhood) without overall context (Blacks get pulled over more often than whites).
Please, you know people get defensive when people talk about privileges.
I'm not denying that. What I'm saying is, you can call it racism, CYP, racial bias, implicit bias, systemic racism, you'd still have the same effect. People will get defensive, its a natural reaction. Your asking "CYP" alienates people and I say conversation about race/gender/etc can alienate people even when you're not directly talking about their s***. I mean how many times have you heard, oh why are we still talking about the LGBTQ, or why can't there be a straight parade when all people are doing is celebrating their identities that has often been shamed/disadvantaged/etc.?
When I was in high school, teachers never called it privileges and litterally nobody was defensive about it.Losing an argument? Ends it with but...but...Hillary and her emails!epik_fail1 posted...whobdatboi posted...
epik_fail1 posted...
whobdatboi posted...
epik_fail1 posted...
It litterally feel like people are saying "you can't have problems if you are a straight white male" instead of calling out racist. If people called racism for what it is : racism instead of a white privileges, it would not alleniate so many people.For example, asians won't live what muslims live and it won't be called "asian privileges". As a gay guy, I refuse to call "straight privilege" homophobia because nobody benefits for it. How do you guys feel about that?
I would argue that you can think of different names for the thing but it'll eventually still have the same effect... I mean who likes to think that their successes in life and legit hard work they put in life is not all their doing and their privilege probably opened doors or the the s***ty place they find their current life to be at that they have privilege? Its a hard pill to swallow and that often leads to anger for some, guilt for others.
What I often find is people can't have a discourse that separates all the different identities we have. Oftentimes people counterargue white privilege by using their life experience in a disadvantage identity - I can't have white privilege (race) because I grew up a poor (economy) woman (gender). So now I you've essentially pivoted the convo. Or sometimes use examples of individual hardship with race (growing up white in black neighborhood) without overall context (Blacks get pulled over more often than whites).
Please, you know people get defensive when people talk about privileges.
I'm not denying that. What I'm saying is, you can call it racism, CYP, racial bias, implicit bias, systemic racism, you'd still have the same effect. People will get defensive, its a natural reaction. Your asking "CYP" alienates people and I say conversation about race/gender/etc can alienate people even when you're not directly talking about their s***. I mean how many times have you heard, oh why are we still talking about the LGBTQ, or why can't there be a straight parade when all people are doing is celebrating their identities that has often been shamed/disadvantaged/etc.?
When I was in high school, teachers never called it privileges and litterally nobody was defensive about it.
And when I was in diversity training and topic was about systemic racism, white people in the room we're defensive about it (this was 1 year ago). I was in community meeting with residents and police chief and residents were asking about implicit bias and potentially racist hiring practices, police chief was getting defensive about it.TorchOfLiberty posted...
Not to "go there", but there's also a certain ethnic group disproportionately represented in media and finance. We tend to call people racists when they complain about that. So I don't understand how going after a much larger, more nebulously-defined group as being "too overrepresented" in society and acting like it is a bad thing isn't just as bad. Not to mention it's a self-defeating narrative, since clearly white privilege isn't worth all that much if so many people want to eradicate it.
We're trying to get to equity and white privilege is a reason we can't get there so I think the logic of wanting to eradicate something must mean its not "worth all that much" doesn't work here.
And this tactic of pivoting from talking about white privilege to then talking about other seemingly related thing is common (though usually from my experience ppl tend to bring up Asians as the model minority and counter to white privilege existence). Having examined my own privilege as male, able-bodied, straight (just to name a few), I understand the frustration of what seems to be a "no-win" arguments or "I'm one of the good ones so stop attacking me" mentality until I started to own my s***. And no, I'm not saying I'm perfect or that I don't have to be reminded to CYP from time to time.whobdatboi posted...epik_fail1 posted...
It litterally feel like people are saying "you can't have problems if you are a straight white male" instead of calling out racist. If people called racism for what it is : racism instead of a white privileges, it would not alleniate so many people.For example, asians won't live what muslims live and it won't be called "asian privileges". As a gay guy, I refuse to call "straight privilege" homophobia because nobody benefits for it. How do you guys feel about that?
I would argue that you can think of different names for the thing but it'll eventually still have the same effect... I mean who likes to think that their successes in life and legit hard work they put in life is not all their doing and their privilege probably opened doors or the the s***ty place they find their current life to be at that they have privilege? Its a hard pill to swallow and that often leads to anger for some, guilt for others.
What I often find is people can't have a discourse that separates all the different identities we have. Oftentimes people counterargue white privilege by using their life experience in a disadvantage identity - I can't have white privilege (race) because I grew up a poor (economy) woman (gender). So now I you've essentially pivoted the convo. Or sometimes use examples of individual hardship with race (growing up white in black neighborhood) without overall context (Blacks get pulled over more often than whites).
eh, this is kind of ridiculous, thought. How can you talk about "overall context" in this manner? When we are talking about an individual rejecting an idea like white privilege, it is likely that there personal experiences play a large role. I mean say you have a white dude that was born without legs, are you gonna be like "but the overall context is black people get pulled over more than whites"? When it is clear that there is "context" that is much more impactful on that man's life. And the lives of many actually, you just can't see it just by looking at someone. Who would have thought, it's almost like people game up with a saying for this or something, maybe like "don't judge a website by it's url"? hmmm do you think something like that could catch on?awww that got deleted quick i must have just missed itWarDog2016 posted...whobdatboi posted...
epik_fail1 posted...
It litterally feel like people are saying "you can't have problems if you are a straight white male" instead of calling out racist. If people called racism for what it is : racism instead of a white privileges, it would not alleniate so many people.For example, asians won't live what muslims live and it won't be called "asian privileges". As a gay guy, I refuse to call "straight privilege" homophobia because nobody benefits for it. How do you guys feel about that?
I would argue that you can think of different names for the thing but it'll eventually still have the same effect... I mean who likes to think that their successes in life and legit hard work they put in life is not all their doing and their privilege probably opened doors or the the s***ty place they find their current life to be at that they have privilege? Its a hard pill to swallow and that often leads to anger for some, guilt for others.
What I often find is people can't have a discourse that separates all the different identities we have. Oftentimes people counterargue white privilege by using their life experience in a disadvantage identity - I can't have white privilege (race) because I grew up a poor (economy) woman (gender). So now I you've essentially pivoted the convo. Or sometimes use examples of individual hardship with race (growing up white in black neighborhood) without overall context (Blacks get pulled over more often than whites).
eh, this is kind of ridiculous, thought. How can you talk about "overall context" in this manner? When we are talking about an individual rejecting an idea like white privilege, it is likely that there personal experiences play a large role. I mean say you have a white dude that was born without legs, are you gonna be like "but the overall context is black people get pulled over more than whites"? When it is clear that there is "context" that is much more impactful on that man's life. And the lives of many actually, you just can't see it just by looking at someone. Who would have thought, it's almost like people game up with a saying for this or something, maybe like "don't judge a website by it's url"? hmmm do you think something like that could catch on?
You miss the point (or I fail to clearly articulate or both). Either way, if we're arguing about white privilege existence and you bring up the discrimination you face because you have a handicap and so "where is my white privilege", then we're no longer talking about white privilege, convo has now pivoted to people with disability. Another example, I'm Black with no felony and you're White with a felony. According to some studies, you are more likely to be interviewed or get call backs than me for job interviews - White privilege. If we want to examine part of the criminal justice system, you're probably suffering some PTSD and crazy as 'prisoner's debt' along with the stigma of being a felon. So you have privilege in some areas while disadvantage in some and vice versa for me. Again, white privilege does not mean everything is perfect in your life.(edited 1 day ago)whobdatboi posted...TorchOfLiberty posted...
Not to "go there", but there's also a certain ethnic group disproportionately represented in media and finance. We tend to call people racists when they complain about that. So I don't understand how going after a much larger, more nebulously-defined group as being "too overrepresented" in society and acting like it is a bad thing isn't just as bad. Not to mention it's a self-defeating narrative, since clearly white privilege isn't worth all that much if so many people want to eradicate it.
We're trying to get to equity and white privilege is a reason we can't get there so I think the logic of wanting to eradicate something must mean its not "worth all that much" doesn't work here.
And this tactic of pivoting from talking about white privilege to then talking about other seemingly related thing is common (though usually from my experience ppl tend to bring up Asians as the model minority and counter to white privilege existence). Having examined my own privilege as male, able-bodied, straight (just to name a few), I understand the frustration of what seems to be a "no-win" arguments or "I'm one of the good ones so stop attacking me" mentality until I started to own my s***. And no, I'm not saying I'm perfect or that I don't have to be reminded to CYP from time to time.
Do you not realize how incredibly racist this statement sounds?
Also, since when are we trying to get to equality of outcome? That's just full blown Communism.TorchOfLiberty posted...whobdatboi posted...
TorchOfLiberty posted...
Not to "go there", but there's also a certain ethnic group disproportionately represented in media and finance. We tend to call people racists when they complain about that. So I don't understand how going after a much larger, more nebulously-defined group as being "too overrepresented" in society and acting like it is a bad thing isn't just as bad. Not to mention it's a self-defeating narrative, since clearly white privilege isn't worth all that much if so many people want to eradicate it.
We're trying to get to equity and white privilege is a reason we can't get there so I think the logic of wanting to eradicate something must mean its not "worth all that much" doesn't work here.
And this tactic of pivoting from talking about white privilege to then talking about other seemingly related thing is common (though usually from my experience ppl tend to bring up Asians as the model minority and counter to white privilege existence). Having examined my own privilege as male, able-bodied, straight (just to name a few), I understand the frustration of what seems to be a "no-win" arguments or "I'm one of the good ones so stop attacking me" mentality until I started to own my s***. And no, I'm not saying I'm perfect or that I don't have to be reminded to CYP from time to time.
Do you not realize how incredibly racist this statement sounds?
Also, since when are we trying to get to equality of outcome? That's just full blown Communism.
Racist because I don't want white privilege?
And you seem to think equity is the same as equality. Two different things.
I wasn't exagerrating when I called equity communism.TorchOfLiberty posted...
I wasn't exagerrating when I called equity communism.
Didn't watch the video but looked more into equity communism so thanks for that. Still doesn't hit the kind of equity I'm talking about though. Why wouldn't you want a criminal justice system where its equitable in terms of punishment? Or a system where pay is equitable regardless of race? Or no redlining, or...(edited 1 day ago)whobdatboi posted...WarDog2016 posted...
whobdatboi posted...
epik_fail1 posted...
It litterally feel like people are saying "you can't have problems if you are a straight white male" instead of calling out racist. If people called racism for what it is : racism instead of a white privileges, it would not alleniate so many people.For example, asians won't live what muslims live and it won't be called "asian privileges". As a gay guy, I refuse to call "straight privilege" homophobia because nobody benefits for it. How do you guys feel about that?
I would argue that you can think of different names for the thing but it'll eventually still have the same effect... I mean who likes to think that their successes in life and legit hard work they put in life is not all their doing and their privilege probably opened doors or the the s***ty place they find their current life to be at that they have privilege? Its a hard pill to swallow and that often leads to anger for some, guilt for others.
What I often find is people can't have a discourse that separates all the different identities we have. Oftentimes people counterargue white privilege by using their life experience in a disadvantage identity - I can't have white privilege (race) because I grew up a poor (economy) woman (gender). So now I you've essentially pivoted the convo. Or sometimes use examples of individual hardship with race (growing up white in black neighborhood) without overall context (Blacks get pulled over more often than whites).
eh, this is kind of ridiculous, thought. How can you talk about "overall context" in this manner? When we are talking about an individual rejecting an idea like white privilege, it is likely that there personal experiences play a large role. I mean say you have a white dude that was born without legs, are you gonna be like "but the overall context is black people get pulled over more than whites"? When it is clear that there is "context" that is much more impactful on that man's life. And the lives of many actually, you just can't see it just by looking at someone. Who would have thought, it's almost like people game up with a saying for this or something, maybe like "don't judge a website by it's url"? hmmm do you think something like that could catch on?
You miss the point (or I fail to clearly articulate or both). Either way, if we're arguing about white privilege existence and you bring up the discrimination you face because you have a handicap and so "where is my white privilege", then we're no longer talking about white privilege, convo has now pivoted to people with disability. Another example, I'm Black with no felony and you're White with a felony. According to some studies, you are more likely to be interviewed or get call backs than me for job interviews - White privilege. If we want to examine part of the criminal justice system, you're probably suffering some PTSD and crazy as 'prisoner's debt' along with the stigma of being a felon. So you have privilege in some areas while disadvantage in some and vice versa for me. Again, white privilege does not mean everything is perfect in your life.
I suppose I have to question why you guys bring this up though, "we know that white privilege doesn't mean everything is perfect in your life". All of the SJW solutions revolve around making policy that requires sweeping generalizations based on ethnicity, color, gender, sexuality, etc. There is not going to be any kind of in depth privilege test, so you even acknowledging that there are other factors that could impact privilege, like being raised by a bi-polar mother with mental issues, comes off as disingenuous.WarDog2016 posted...I suppose I have to question why you guys bring this up though, "we know that white privilege doesn't mean everything is perfect in your life". All of the SJW solutions revolve around making policy that requires sweeping generalizations based on ethnicity, color, gender, sexuality, etc. There is not going to be any kind of in depth privilege test, so you even acknowledging that there are other factors that could impact privilege, like being raised by a bi-polar mother with mental issues, comes off as disingenuous.
This is intersectionality 101, man.Hank Pym changes superhero aliases more often than Hawkman changes origin stories.WarDog2016 posted...I suppose I have to question why you guys bring this up though, "we know that white privilege doesn't mean everything is perfect in your life". All of the SJW solutions revolve around making policy that requires sweeping generalizations based on ethnicity, color, gender, sexuality, etc. There is not going to be any kind of in depth privilege test, so you even acknowledging that there are other factors that could impact privilege, like being raised by a bi-polar mother with mental issues, comes off as disingenuous.
Disingenuous? I think its rather realistic and what I just call life. I mean there's a reason a Black man can be president because we've made some progress (and the brotha was straight, male, whose parents were college educated of course this impacted his trajectory to presidency). But there's also a reason why more Blacks have lower wealth (historical oppression from slavery to Jim Crow to red lining to ...). But that's another issue, we just want to have a Black and White thinking. If I acknowledge white privilege, I'm acknowledging I'm bad person or that everything in my life is great, etc.
And I think if we denied the existence of privileges based on race didn't exist, we'd probably still have Jim Crow laws or segregation or housing discrimination (we'll we still do but at least there's more protection now). Unless you think those were actually good things.dainkinkaide posted...WarDog2016 posted...
I suppose I have to question why you guys bring this up though, "we know that white privilege doesn't mean everything is perfect in your life". All of the SJW solutions revolve around making policy that requires sweeping generalizations based on ethnicity, color, gender, sexuality, etc. There is not going to be any kind of in depth privilege test, so you even acknowledging that there are other factors that could impact privilege, like being raised by a bi-polar mother with mental issues, comes off as disingenuous.
This is intersectionality 101, man.
My problem with intersectionality is that it categorizes average human beings into "oppressor" and "oppressed" groups, without acknowledging that so-called oppressor groups can face real problems too based on their identity.TorchOfLiberty posted...My problem with intersectionality is that it categorizes average human beings into "oppressor" and "oppressed" groups, without acknowledging that so-called oppressor groups can face real problems too based on their identity.
You can be both, that's the base of intersectionality.
Intersecionality comes when a rich black straight male starts to act as if he was legitimately representing the interests of a poor black gay female, just because they share the oppression of being black.
The rich man is maybe oppressed on a racial basis, but he is also an economic oppressor, and have male and straight privilege. Intersecionality allows to recognize that this woman may suffer from other specific forms of oppression, and that her interests are not convergent with this man's ones.
First and more important "privilege", in our society, is the economic one (something liberals are regularly forgot to mention, while they are on the dominant side). But unlike race, gender or sexual determinants, economic advantage is something you actively choose to activate. You may not choose to born rich, but you actively choose to continue to economically oppress less fortunate people to keep your capital. You could have choose to give the factory to the workers and to participate to a cooperative free enterprise. If you don't, then it is your very own choice to become an oppressor.
(i know this is a caricatural resume, but still true).
Same not occurs with race, gender or sexual orientation. No one can blame you to be male, white or hetero. You did not choose it, and you can't change it. You're not actively oppressing others. But, in a particular system, you can passively participating to the oppression of others. That's why the term "privilege" is used, instead of "oppression". It is something you did not choose, but is imposed at you by the society. If, alone, you can't remove your prvileges, you can at least be aware of them.
The privilege is a social construction, and it could be deconstructed.
I don't think the typical libs are using the good strategy for this, but that's another problem.dainkinkaide posted...This is intersectionality 101, man.
A course the people bandying about broad declarations of privilege obviously failed. Intersectionality is a great idea, but it has been repurposed to reinforce that which it is meant to refute.
It hasn't led people to a deeper, multi-faceted understanding of privilege and people's circumstances before labelling them. It has merely increased the number of people who can be labelled.
TorchOfLiberty posted...My problem with intersectionality is that it categorizes average human beings into "oppressor" and "oppressed" groups, without acknowledging that so-called oppressor groups can face real problems too based on their identity.
That's just identity politics in general. Intersectionality was an attempt to recognize those problems and break away from that paradigm. It failed because the people involved aren't interested in breaking away from that paradigm. They need an oppressor they can blame.even non whites feel alienated by the check your white privilege it feels insulting
not to say that there isn't racism there is but you cannot combat racism with more racism
in fact that line of thinking is regresssing the ideologies and are doing more damage to tolerance because that line of thinking makes an us vs them mentality
for my part i think that racism on both sides is wrongmegaman1376 posted...even non whites feel alienated by the check your white privilege it feels insulting
not to say that there isn't racism there is but you cannot combat racism with more racism
in fact that line of thinking is regresssing the ideologies and are doing more damage to tolerance because that line of thinking makes an us vs them mentality
for my part i think that racism on both sides is wrong
How is talking about white privilege more racism? And I'd add that I see white privilege conferences and caucus groups often - they'll even title the gathering/workshop as such - and its mostly white folks. So to say that saying 'Check Your Privilege' alienates people, I'd have to disagree from my experience. I'm not saying it'll never alienate people but I think that's more about race as a topic in general vs. saying CYP. We can use other terms (and we probably will) in the future and you'll still see the same effect - some people will feel alienated while others, it clicks for them.I don't get why everyone's so pissed off about white privilege. This s*** rules!Orlando City/USA Soccer
Dukat/Madred 2020. Make Cardassia Great Again!Covenant posted...dainkinkaide posted...
This is intersectionality 101, man.
A course the people bandying about broad declarations of privilege obviously failed. Intersectionality is a great idea, but it has been repurposed to reinforce that which it is meant to refute.
It hasn't led people to a deeper, multi-faceted understanding of privilege and people's circumstances before labelling them. It has merely increased the number of people who can be labelled.
TorchOfLiberty posted...My problem with intersectionality is that it categorizes average human beings into "oppressor" and "oppressed" groups, without acknowledging that so-called oppressor groups can face real problems too based on their identity.
That's just identity politics in general. Intersectionality was an attempt to recognize those problems and break away from that paradigm. It failed because the people involved aren't interested in breaking away from that paradigm. They need an oppressor they can blame.
I'd disagree. It's lead to white LGBTQ+ women to understand the oppression that can happen within their very own movement. For Black men to understand the dominance and pain they've caused to the Black women or LGBTQ+ folks in their very own movement. and so on and so on.whobdatboi posted...megaman1376 posted...
even non whites feel alienated by the check your white privilege it feels insulting
not to say that there isn't racism there is but you cannot combat racism with more racism
in fact that line of thinking is regresssing the ideologies and are doing more damage to tolerance because that line of thinking makes an us vs them mentality
for my part i think that racism on both sides is wrong
How is talking about white privilege more racism? And I'd add that I see white privilege conferences and caucus groups often - they'll even title the gathering/workshop as such - and its mostly white folks. So to say that saying 'Check Your Privilege' alienates people, I'd have to disagree from my experience. I'm not saying it'll never alienate people but I think that's more about race as a topic in general vs. saying CYP. We can use other terms (and we probably will) in the future and you'll still see the same effect - some people will feel alienated while others, it clicks for them.
because it demerits success on race basis it says that you didn't earn that job that you studied 20 years of college and masters, that you didn't sacrifice family to get that promotion you got that because you are white
also it promoves the idea is not that the other guy is more qualified is not that the other guy accept long hours is you didnt get the job/promotion because you aren't white
saying that i don't meant that it can't happen but it tend to annoy those who work hard as a dismissal of their sacrifice.That's not true. You are still competing against other, privileged white folks.Orlando City/USA Soccer
Dukat/Madred 2020. Make Cardassia Great Again!megaman1376 posted...whobdatboi posted...
megaman1376 posted...
even non whites feel alienated by the check your white privilege it feels insulting
not to say that there isn't racism there is but you cannot combat racism with more racism
in fact that line of thinking is regresssing the ideologies and are doing more damage to tolerance because that line of thinking makes an us vs them mentality
for my part i think that racism on both sides is wrong
How is talking about white privilege more racism? And I'd add that I see white privilege conferences and caucus groups often - they'll even title the gathering/workshop as such - and its mostly white folks. So to say that saying 'Check Your Privilege' alienates people, I'd have to disagree from my experience. I'm not saying it'll never alienate people but I think that's more about race as a topic in general vs. saying CYP. We can use other terms (and we probably will) in the future and you'll still see the same effect - some people will feel alienated while others, it clicks for them.
because it demerits success on race basis it says that you didn't earn that job that you studied 20 years of college and masters, that you didn't sacrifice family to get that promotion you got that because you are white
also it promoves the idea is not that the other guy is more qualified is not that the other guy accept long hours is you didnt get the job/promotion because you aren't white
saying that i don't meant that it can't happen but it tend to annoy those who work hard as a dismissal of their sacrifice.
Again, it's this either or thinking that some people have a hard time letting go of. It's both. We both could have worked hard on getting our diplomas (I coulda have sacrificed more or you could've, doesn't really matter), when we apply for jobs, if you have a "Black sounding name" and mine is "normal', the likelihood of me getting a call back is higher (studies have shown this). So yes, I earned that diploma and so did you but because of history and implicit bias, my opportunity is greater. But what you're saying does hit what white allies who are also trying to dismantle white privilege talk about, that that's one of the harm of being in privilege - you never know how much of your success is from the privilege (though the good ones will recognize that compared to being on the oppressed side, that's can be a minor complaint).whobdatboi posted...megaman1376 posted...
whobdatboi posted...
megaman1376 posted...
even non whites feel alienated by the check your white privilege it feels insulting
not to say that there isn't racism there is but you cannot combat racism with more racism
in fact that line of thinking is regresssing the ideologies and are doing more damage to tolerance because that line of thinking makes an us vs them mentality
for my part i think that racism on both sides is wrong
How is talking about white privilege more racism? And I'd add that I see white privilege conferences and caucus groups often - they'll even title the gathering/workshop as such - and its mostly white folks. So to say that saying 'Check Your Privilege' alienates people, I'd have to disagree from my experience. I'm not saying it'll never alienate people but I think that's more about race as a topic in general vs. saying CYP. We can use other terms (and we probably will) in the future and you'll still see the same effect - some people will feel alienated while others, it clicks for them.
because it demerits success on race basis it says that you didn't earn that job that you studied 20 years of college and masters, that you didn't sacrifice family to get that promotion you got that because you are white
also it promoves the idea is not that the other guy is more qualified is not that the other guy accept long hours is you didnt get the job/promotion because you aren't white
saying that i don't meant that it can't happen but it tend to annoy those who work hard as a dismissal of their sacrifice.
Again, it's this either or thinking that some people have a hard time letting go of. It's both. We both could have worked hard on getting our diplomas (I coulda have sacrificed more or you could've, doesn't really matter), when we apply for jobs, if you have a "Black sounding name" and mine is "normal', the likelihood of me getting a call back is higher (studies have shown this). So yes, I earned that diploma and so did you but because of history and implicit bias, my opportunity is greater. But what you're saying does hit what white allies who are also trying to dismantle white privilege talk about, that that's one of the harm of being in privilege - you never know how much of your success is from the privilege (though the good ones will recognize that compared to being on the oppressed side, that's can be a minor complaint).
Some of that is true (although recent studies have also shown putting a woman's name on an application gives it a higher chance of success than a mans - so much for male privilege).
Also I'm not saying it's right, but if you know this, why not just take some easy steps to combat that one example. Black people could choose white sounding names, just like the Chinese when they call there kids Bruce Lee instead is Wi Too Low or whatever. Even Trumps family changed it from Drumf to fit in more.
Would be a lot more practical than nurturing some victim complex.egged on by a pack of halfwits
https://image.ibb.co/m31n1a/IMG_1144.jpgwhobdatboi posted...megaman1376 posted...
whobdatboi posted...
megaman1376 posted...
even non whites feel alienated by the check your white privilege it feels insulting
not to say that there isn't racism there is but you cannot combat racism with more racism
in fact that line of thinking is regresssing the ideologies and are doing more damage to tolerance because that line of thinking makes an us vs them mentality
for my part i think that racism on both sides is wrong
How is talking about white privilege more racism? And I'd add that I see white privilege conferences and caucus groups often - they'll even title the gathering/workshop as such - and its mostly white folks. So to say that saying 'Check Your Privilege' alienates people, I'd have to disagree from my experience. I'm not saying it'll never alienate people but I think that's more about race as a topic in general vs. saying CYP. We can use other terms (and we probably will) in the future and you'll still see the same effect - some people will feel alienated while others, it clicks for them.
because it demerits success on race basis it says that you didn't earn that job that you studied 20 years of college and masters, that you didn't sacrifice family to get that promotion you got that because you are white
also it promoves the idea is not that the other guy is more qualified is not that the other guy accept long hours is you didnt get the job/promotion because you aren't white
saying that i don't meant that it can't happen but it tend to annoy those who work hard as a dismissal of their sacrifice.
Again, it's this either or thinking that some people have a hard time letting go of. It's both. We both could have worked hard on getting our diplomas (I coulda have sacrificed more or you could've, doesn't really matter), when we apply for jobs, if you have a "Black sounding name" and mine is "normal', the likelihood of me getting a call back is higher (studies have shown this). So yes, I earned that diploma and so did you but because of history and implicit bias, my opportunity is greater. But what you're saying does hit what white allies who are also trying to dismantle white privilege talk about, that that's one of the harm of being in privilege - you never know how much of your success is from the privilege (though the good ones will recognize that compared to being on the oppressed side, that's can be a minor complaint).
well i can understand that if every single thing is the same i would think whites people have a slight advantage, but a hard working guy will be annoyed because most of the time he got the job/promotion because he/or she was above over their competition no matter being being whites black latino or purple aliens from beyondwhobdatboi posted...if you have a "Black sounding name" and mine is "normal', the likelihood of me getting a call back is higher (studies have shown this).
Those studies exclusively use "normal" white names. You'd see the same sort of results if you ran "normal" (middle class) white names against Southern trailer trash names. Norma Jean, for instance.
It proves prejudice against names, not races, and they assume on faith that names are a perfect proxy for race.He who laughs last, thinks fastest.samxx1x posted...
Some of that is true (although recent studies have also shown putting a woman's name on an application gives it a higher chance of success than a mans - so much for male privilege).
Also I'm not saying it's right, but if you know this, why not just take some easy steps to combat that one example. Black people could choose white sounding names, just like the Chinese when they call there kids Bruce Lee instead is Wi Too Low or whatever. Even Trumps family changed it from Drumf to fit in more.
Would be a lot more practical than nurturing some victim complex.
People do and have changed names all the time. Just because people employ strategies to combat privilege doesn't mean we all good and just keep it moving or be complacent. I'm not mad for people being "practical" but I won't also be mad at people that want something more. When slavery was happening, "well Fredick Douglass was able to be a free man, so must not be that bad". Jim Crow - "at least we're no longer slave". Segregation - "at least we have our own school". And so on.
As for recent studies regarding female names, I'd have to look into it - like what jobs are they applying for because we have a biases about male and female roles. Though overall, people will often focus on the one or two outlier study/experience or one aspect changing as a proclamation that privilege does not/no longer exist. I believe we have more women attending college now too than males so no more male privilege right? But you look at policy makers from president to senate, CEOs to law enforcement, or other institutions of power. against the backdrop that overall female-male population is roughy 50%, something going on.megaman1376 posted...whobdatboi posted...
megaman1376 posted...
whobdatboi posted...
megaman1376 posted...
even non whites feel alienated by the check your white privilege it feels insulting
not to say that there isn't racism there is but you cannot combat racism with more racism
in fact that line of thinking is regresssing the ideologies and are doing more damage to tolerance because that line of thinking makes an us vs them mentality
for my part i think that racism on both sides is wrong
How is talking about white privilege more racism? And I'd add that I see white privilege conferences and caucus groups often - they'll even title the gathering/workshop as such - and its mostly white folks. So to say that saying 'Check Your Privilege' alienates people, I'd have to disagree from my experience. I'm not saying it'll never alienate people but I think that's more about race as a topic in general vs. saying CYP. We can use other terms (and we probably will) in the future and you'll still see the same effect - some people will feel alienated while others, it clicks for them.
because it demerits success on race basis it says that you didn't earn that job that you studied 20 years of college and masters, that you didn't sacrifice family to get that promotion you got that because you are white
also it promoves the idea is not that the other guy is more qualified is not that the other guy accept long hours is you didnt get the job/promotion because you aren't white
saying that i don't meant that it can't happen but it tend to annoy those who work hard as a dismissal of their sacrifice.
Again, it's this either or thinking that some people have a hard time letting go of. It's both. We both could have worked hard on getting our diplomas (I coulda have sacrificed more or you could've, doesn't really matter), when we apply for jobs, if you have a "Black sounding name" and mine is "normal', the likelihood of me getting a call back is higher (studies have shown this). So yes, I earned that diploma and so did you but because of history and implicit bias, my opportunity is greater. But what you're saying does hit what white allies who are also trying to dismantle white privilege talk about, that that's one of the harm of being in privilege - you never know how much of your success is from the privilege (though the good ones will recognize that compared to being on the oppressed side, that's can be a minor complaint).
well i can understand that if every single thing is the same i would think whites people have a slight advantage, but a hard working guy will be annoyed because most of the time he got the job/promotion because he/or she was above over their competition no matter being being whites black latino or purple aliens from beyond
Of course I can see it being annoying to that person just like its annoying (at the very least) for the Black person that got hired to be called "a diversity hiring" or "if it wasn't for affirmative action" etc. What do you propose? No longer talking about white privilege? Or use a different terms for these things that happen in our society?willythemailboy posted...whobdatboi posted...
if you have a "Black sounding name" and mine is "normal', the likelihood of me getting a call back is higher (studies have shown this).
Those studies exclusively use "normal" white names. You'd see the same sort of results if you ran "normal" (middle class) white names against Southern trailer trash names. Norma Jean, for instance.
It proves prejudice against names, not races, and they assume on faith that names are a perfect proxy for race.
And I'd argue you put those against "Southern trailer trash names like Norma or Jean" against an Ayana or Keisha, and you'd see the similar result. Also, if I grant you that "normal" middle class names vs. "Trailer Trash" names are treated differently, we're still talking about privilege - in this case, class.You're as privileged as privileged gets willy.Orlando City/USA Soccer
Dukat/Madred 2020. Make Cardassia Great Again!
Of course I can see it being annoying to that person just like its annoying (at the very least) for the Black person that got hired to be called "a diversity hiring" or "if it wasn't for affirmative action" etc. What do you propose? No longer talking about white privilege? Or use a different terms for these things that happen in our society?
the problem is that we are in a catch 22 because of stupid extremist left wing people of course they will think it is a diversity hire because the current political climate is now in a mentality us vs them so one side will think is because the white privilege and the other will think diversity hires are getting us out of jobs .
both sides must chill and think yes it sucks that hirers are biased but i must work harder to prove them and myself that i can do everything they can do and more
and the other side must see that hiring minorities can bring more talent to the table
the fact is that quotas that is what left wingers are advocating are more damaging to diversity is like this white people tend to have more qualified personal maybe they got a head start or maybe they sacrifice more never mind that the fact is that there are more qualified white people than minorities so to fill a quota they hire minorities with lower qualifications so when they understable underperform the white people who was forced to hire a minority feels validated see how minorities are no capable and reinforces their bias towards white people
white privilege, the patriarchy and more are constructs that the left wing did to make an enemy to topple is less neboulous than some white people are biased but some will accept you and some outright reject you but work hard and be yourself and you can winwhobdatboi posted...samxx1x posted...
Some of that is true (although recent studies have also shown putting a woman's name on an application gives it a higher chance of success than a mans - so much for male privilege).
Also I'm not saying it's right, but if you know this, why not just take some easy steps to combat that one example. Black people could choose white sounding names, just like the Chinese when they call there kids Bruce Lee instead is Wi Too Low or whatever. Even Trumps family changed it from Drumf to fit in more.
Would be a lot more practical than nurturing some victim complex.
People do and have changed names all the time. Just because people employ strategies to combat privilege doesn't mean we all good and just keep it moving or be complacent. I'm not mad for people being "practical" but I won't also be mad at people that want something more. When slavery was happening, "well Fredick Douglass was able to be a free man, so must not be that bad". Jim Crow - "at least we're no longer slave". Segregation - "at least we have our own school". And so on.
As for recent studies regarding female names, I'd have to look into it - like what jobs are they applying for because we have a biases about male and female roles. Though overall, people will often focus on the one or two outlier study/experience or one aspect changing as a proclamation that privilege does not/no longer exist. I believe we have more women attending college now too than males so no more male privilege right? But you look at policy makers from president to senate, CEOs to law enforcement, or other institutions of power. against the backdrop that overall female-male population is roughy 50%, something going on.
I see that women are not choosing to go into those high stress, long hours jobs as often as men. Perhaps because they would rather not sacrifice their family life. Perhaps because they are not pressured into those roles by society like men are. There are other answers than just 'male privilege'.
Those institutions also need to serve women, and elected representatives will need to offer women a good deal in order to secure a mandate if they are male or female. If they didn't we wouldn't see many laws favour women such as in the divorce courts.egged on by a pack of halfwits
https://image.ibb.co/m31n1a/IMG_1144.jpgWhite privilege is a completely bunk concept and is thrown around by people who cant prove systemic racism so they fall back on a vague, phantom racism to justify their beliefs.MAGA.TheHonorableOne posted...White privilege is a completely bunk concept and is thrown around by people who cant prove systemic racism so they fall back on a vague, phantom racism to justify their beliefs.
White privilege is very reak and WE the people are seeing to it thats its destroyed.Though the XBOX 360 is good in theory, it's hardware limitations say otherwise - Hideo Kojima
PSN - Guncrazy56SaikyoStyle posted...You're as correct as correct gets willy.
He who laughs last, thinks fastest.whobdatboi posted...willythemailboy posted...
whobdatboi posted...
if you have a "Black sounding name" and mine is "normal', the likelihood of me getting a call back is higher (studies have shown this).
Those studies exclusively use "normal" white names. You'd see the same sort of results if you ran "normal" (middle class) white names against Southern trailer trash names. Norma Jean, for instance.
It proves prejudice against names, not races, and they assume on faith that names are a perfect proxy for race.
And I'd argue you put those against "Southern trailer trash names like Norma or Jean" against an Ayana or Keisha, and you'd see the similar result. Also, if I grant you that "normal" middle class names vs. "Trailer Trash" names are treated differently, we're still talking about privilege - in this case, class.
...you totally missed the Marilyn Monroe reference. SMH
whobdatboi posted...As for recent studies regarding female names, I'd have to look into it - like what jobs are they applying for because we have a biases about male and female roles. Though overall, people will often focus on the one or two outlier study/experience or one aspect changing as a proclamation that privilege does not/no longer exist. I believe we have more women attending college now too than males so no more male privilege right? But you look at policy makers from president to senate, CEOs to law enforcement, or other institutions of power. against the backdrop that overall female-male population is roughy 50%, something going on.
Specifically, the male/female name studies look into hiring in STEM - resumes with female name get two-to-one preference over male names because people are so hard up to get qualified female candidates to meet their totally-not-socially-enforced gender quotas.
And women have outnumbered men in college for longer than you've been alive, son. 1979-80 to be precise.He who laughs last, thinks fastest.megaman1376 posted...
Of course I can see it being annoying to that person just like its annoying (at the very least) for the Black person that got hired to be called "a diversity hiring" or "if it wasn't for affirmative action" etc. What do you propose? No longer talking about white privilege? Or use a different terms for these things that happen in our society?
the problem is that we are in a catch 22 because of stupid extremist left wing people of course they will think it is a diversity hire because the current political climate is now in a mentality us vs them so one side will think is because the white privilege and the other will think diversity hires are getting us out of jobs .
both sides must chill and think yes it sucks that hirers are biased but i must work harder to prove them and myself that i can do everything they can do and more
and the other side must see that hiring minorities can bring more talent to the table
the fact is that quotas that is what left wingers are advocating are more damaging to diversity is like this white people tend to have more qualified personal maybe they got a head start or maybe they sacrifice more never mind that the fact is that there are more qualified white people than minorities so to fill a quota they hire minorities with lower qualifications so when they understable underperform the white people who was forced to hire a minority feels validated see how minorities are no capable and reinforces their bias towards white people
white privilege, the patriarchy and more are constructs that the left wing did to make an enemy to topple is less neboulous than some white people are biased but some will accept you and some outright reject you but work hard and be yourself and you can win
So forgive me as I'm trying to follow your train of thought:
First, these things were/have been happening in US and terms like white privilege are simply putting name to these occurrences. In terms of quota, that's more about strategy to even the playing field/combat privilege and you don't agree that its a sound strategy, got it. So your proposal to combat it is to just work hard and be yourself. Sure, that's another tactic someone can use. I'm doubtful it'll work to change systems though. Policies can work to change (or at very least, accelerate it). I look at US history of segregation and there were ppl who did not want it. Some ppl said, "sure we think Blacks are equal but to forcibly have Federal govt enforce it, what about state rights?" or "you're inviting violence by forcing ppl to mix". These were legit concerns but history looks kindly at the decision ruling to desegregate.samxx1x posted...whobdatboi posted...
megaman1376 posted...
whobdatboi posted...
megaman1376 posted...
even non whites feel alienated by the check your white privilege it feels insulting
not to say that there isn't racism there is but you cannot combat racism with more racism
in fact that line of thinking is regresssing the ideologies and are doing more damage to tolerance because that line of thinking makes an us vs them mentality
for my part i think that racism on both sides is wrong
How is talking about white privilege more racism? And I'd add that I see white privilege conferences and caucus groups often - they'll even title the gathering/workshop as such - and its mostly white folks. So to say that saying 'Check Your Privilege' alienates people, I'd have to disagree from my experience. I'm not saying it'll never alienate people but I think that's more about race as a topic in general vs. saying CYP. We can use other terms (and we probably will) in the future and you'll still see the same effect - some people will feel alienated while others, it clicks for them.
because it demerits success on race basis it says that you didn't earn that job that you studied 20 years of college and masters, that you didn't sacrifice family to get that promotion you got that because you are white
also it promoves the idea is not that the other guy is more qualified is not that the other guy accept long hours is you didnt get the job/promotion because you aren't white
saying that i don't meant that it can't happen but it tend to annoy those who work hard as a dismissal of their sacrifice.
Again, it's this either or thinking that some people have a hard time letting go of. It's both. We both could have worked hard on getting our diplomas (I coulda have sacrificed more or you could've, doesn't really matter), when we apply for jobs, if you have a "Black sounding name" and mine is "normal', the likelihood of me getting a call back is higher (studies have shown this). So yes, I earned that diploma and so did you but because of history and implicit bias, my opportunity is greater. But what you're saying does hit what white allies who are also trying to dismantle white privilege talk about, that that's one of the harm of being in privilege - you never know how much of your success is from the privilege (though the good ones will recognize that compared to being on the oppressed side, that's can be a minor complaint).
Some of that is true (although recent studies have also shown putting a woman's name on an application gives it a higher chance of success than a mans - so much for male privilege).
<citation needed>261 - More troll food than any other board on the net.
What the right sounds like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rYqF_BtIwAUJimayo posted...samxx1x posted...
whobdatboi posted...
megaman1376 posted...
whobdatboi posted...
megaman1376 posted...
even non whites feel alienated by the check your white privilege it feels insulting
not to say that there isn't racism there is but you cannot combat racism with more racism
in fact that line of thinking is regresssing the ideologies and are doing more damage to tolerance because that line of thinking makes an us vs them mentality
for my part i think that racism on both sides is wrong
How is talking about white privilege more racism? And I'd add that I see white privilege conferences and caucus groups often - they'll even title the gathering/workshop as such - and its mostly white folks. So to say that saying 'Check Your Privilege' alienates people, I'd have to disagree from my experience. I'm not saying it'll never alienate people but I think that's more about race as a topic in general vs. saying CYP. We can use other terms (and we probably will) in the future and you'll still see the same effect - some people will feel alienated while others, it clicks for them.
because it demerits success on race basis it says that you didn't earn that job that you studied 20 years of college and masters, that you didn't sacrifice family to get that promotion you got that because you are white
also it promoves the idea is not that the other guy is more qualified is not that the other guy accept long hours is you didnt get the job/promotion because you aren't white
saying that i don't meant that it can't happen but it tend to annoy those who work hard as a dismissal of their sacrifice.
Again, it's this either or thinking that some people have a hard time letting go of. It's both. We both could have worked hard on getting our diplomas (I coulda have sacrificed more or you could've, doesn't really matter), when we apply for jobs, if you have a "Black sounding name" and mine is "normal', the likelihood of me getting a call back is higher (studies have shown this). So yes, I earned that diploma and so did you but because of history and implicit bias, my opportunity is greater. But what you're saying does hit what white allies who are also trying to dismantle white privilege talk about, that that's one of the harm of being in privilege - you never know how much of your success is from the privilege (though the good ones will recognize that compared to being on the oppressed side, that's can be a minor complaint).
Some of that is true (although recent studies have also shown putting a woman's name on an application gives it a higher chance of success than a mans - so much for male privilege).
<citation needed>
Have a gander at this:
https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21648632-recruitment-academic-scientists-may-be-skewed-surprising-way-unfaireregged on by a pack of halfwits
https://image.ibb.co/m31n1a/IMG_1144.jpgepik_fail1 posted...It litterally feel like people are saying "you can't have problems if you are a straight white male" instead of calling out racist. If people called racism for what it is : racism instead of a white privileges, it would not alleniate so many people.For example, asians won't live what muslims live and it won't be called "asian privileges". As a gay guy, I refuse to call "straight privilege" homophobia because nobody benefits for it. How do you guys feel about that?
Martin Luther King Jr called out white moderates for being 'peaceful fence-sitters'. Why don't you criticize him for being alienating?You don't need a treaty to have free trade. M Rothbard
{Self-Hating Token Asian of the Ivory Tower's Zionist Elite}Going past white privilege, Americans in general are less able to accept chance as an important factor in where they are in life, compared to Europeans. They believe in the meritocracy, and that people get to where they are just by how hard they work. This makes them less sympathetic to welfare, and perhaps the idea of systemic racism. It's a problem when people can't acknowledge reality. Just remember the backlash to Obama's "you didn't build that," statement.I ain't trippin cause the truth is really you don't know me.samxx1x posted...Jimayo posted...
samxx1x posted...
whobdatboi posted...
megaman1376 posted...
whobdatboi posted...
megaman1376 posted...
even non whites feel alienated by the check your white privilege it feels insulting
not to say that there isn't racism there is but you cannot combat racism with more racism
in fact that line of thinking is regresssing the ideologies and are doing more damage to tolerance because that line of thinking makes an us vs them mentality
for my part i think that racism on both sides is wrong
How is talking about white privilege more racism? And I'd add that I see white privilege conferences and caucus groups often - they'll even title the gathering/workshop as such - and its mostly white folks. So to say that saying 'Check Your Privilege' alienates people, I'd have to disagree from my experience. I'm not saying it'll never alienate people but I think that's more about race as a topic in general vs. saying CYP. We can use other terms (and we probably will) in the future and you'll still see the same effect - some people will feel alienated while others, it clicks for them.
because it demerits success on race basis it says that you didn't earn that job that you studied 20 years of college and masters, that you didn't sacrifice family to get that promotion you got that because you are white
also it promoves the idea is not that the other guy is more qualified is not that the other guy accept long hours is you didnt get the job/promotion because you aren't white
saying that i don't meant that it can't happen but it tend to annoy those who work hard as a dismissal of their sacrifice.
Again, it's this either or thinking that some people have a hard time letting go of. It's both. We both could have worked hard on getting our diplomas (I coulda have sacrificed more or you could've, doesn't really matter), when we apply for jobs, if you have a "Black sounding name" and mine is "normal', the likelihood of me getting a call back is higher (studies have shown this). So yes, I earned that diploma and so did you but because of history and implicit bias, my opportunity is greater. But what you're saying does hit what white allies who are also trying to dismantle white privilege talk about, that that's one of the harm of being in privilege - you never know how much of your success is from the privilege (though the good ones will recognize that compared to being on the oppressed side, that's can be a minor complaint).
Some of that is true (although recent studies have also shown putting a woman's name on an application gives it a higher chance of success than a mans - so much for male privilege).
<citation needed>
Have a gander at this:
https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21648632-recruitment-academic-scientists-may-be-skewed-surprising-way-unfairer
Paywall. How about linking the actual study?261 - More troll food than any other board on the net.
What the right sounds like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rYqF_BtIwAU
Chronicling and keeping catalog of discussions, records, postings, and handles all pertaining to the subject of the LGBT community and other transgressions as it relates to society, internet and entertainment.
Search This Blog
Thursday, August 24, 2017
Let's be honest, the "check your privileges" crowd alleniate people
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment