[onethought]

I don't really agree that if you're in the social majority you can be upset about racism against your empowered majority position... it just doesn't make sense.

That said, if you're white in China/India/Kenya/etc... 100% there is a heap of racism directed at you and I feel for you

[Fogest]

I believe you 100% can. If someone's opinion based on solid facts is being dismissed by calling them a "privileged white male" I definitely believe that is very racist. They are making assumptions based on negative stereotypes to dismiss what someone is saying. Even if you don't agree that it is racist you should at least agree it is not productive at all in a conversation. The only objective with a comment like that is to be rude and dismiss them. It's not going to bring anything positive to the conversation. It's not going to help the other side understand how they feel or what they think. All it does is create more divide and more hate.

When someone calls me these names without even knowing my race, gender, or status it's pretty rude. Is it going to make me agree with them more? Is it going to make me support any of their causes more? Nope. It's going to increase my dislike for that "side". And if you get hammered with that enough it is going to create hate.

In my opinion I think the current woke landscape is actually creating more racism. I think it is counter-productive.

Does someone who is vegan yelling and screaming blocking you from getting a burger make you want to join their side? Or would it make you want further hate them and want to oppose them? Would a vegan sitting down and having a no namecalling conversation with you be more effective? I would think so. This is the exact same concept.

Also just because someone is a white male for example absolutely does not imply their status. I think that dismisses how much work someone may have put into life to get to where they are. That person doesn't know how hard they worked to get where they may or may not be, yet they are making that assumption.

[onethought]

Someone’s opinion based on solid fact? So is it a fact or an opinion?

If you view their reply as not productive and they view your statement as not productive... then maybe stop having that discussion until you can both bring more empathy to the table.

[Fogest]

If you read the conversation I did stop having discussion with them and told them to stop having a discussion with me.

Facts don't always tell a story or explain the "why". Often times you have to form an opinion based on the facts and that is what you're bringing to the table when discussing stuff. I don't see why I need to explain this concept on a site like this.

[onethought]

You’ve got a pretty hostile nature to the way you reply to people.

Facts actually always tell the story and the “why” is more facts as well.

[Fogest]

The "why" can be more facts but it is not always. Sometimes people create opinions based on facts when a causation is not known.

People also create factually incorrect opinions such as implying police are racist towards black people because they are arrested more. This is them deriving an opinion from a fact about incarcerations. Except the causation is already present, which is that lower income areas simply commit more crimes.

Now I'm not trying to argue about whether you think those facts are correct or not, but I'm using it to illustrate a point. A fact can also be wrong. Maybe the fact was derived from bad research. Opinions and facts can go hand and hand together. I don't know why you're trying to be so binary about it.

I also don't understand how this conversation is productive or is useful in anyway? It seems like we are debating meaningless semantics rather than the heart of the issue.

[onethought]

You clearly aren't out to have a productive conversation. You have an axe to grind on this issue.

I'll take your bait though, see how hard you believe these falsehoods.

Yeah, Police in the US (in some states at least) are racist, now I don't mean individuals necessarily, though I'm sure some are, but institutional (dare I say systemic) racism exists in the system. Incarceration rates are a good correlative bit of evidence, arrest rates, court dismissals for whites at a higher rate than blacks... like take your pick. No evidence (or fact) supports your position at all. Happy for your to bring the data to prove me wrong here.

You can hide behind economics if you like and try to argue "poor people commit more crime" - but then how do you explain incarceration rates of blacks given there are more poor white people than poor black people in the US?

You haven't illustrated any point. Just that you have opinions, with little fact, and seem triggered by people referencing white male privilege.

[AnthonyMouse]

> I don't really agree that if you're in the social majority you can be upset about racism against your empowered majority position... it just doesn't make sense.

It makes sense for two reasons.

The first is that a huge amount of the "anti-white racism" is directed by "white people" against others nominally in the same group, implying that they aren't actually in the same social group and correspondingly that the targets don't have a majority. As evidence of this, notice that people can be canceled over petty nonsense, e.g. Gina Carano. How could this happen if there was actually a social majority which should nominally be exerting pressure in the opposite direction and winning?

The second is that there are plenty of contexts where the majority doesn't even exist on paper, e.g. only 40% of California is "white" so a "white person" who lives in California is a minority. That state is also the place where a disproportionate amount of the attacks happen. And the same is true of many major US cities, e.g. New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston.

[onethought]

As was pointed out in another thread: I should have said elite not majority

[AnthonyMouse]

But now you're classifying redneck coal miners as "elites" which doesn't really work.

[ttt0]

The actual power is in the hands of the elites, so a minority. Just because you happen to be a part of the largest demographic group doesn't mean you hold any power. For example, would you say the same thing about Africa back when it was under white rule?

[onethought]

True, I did not mean majority, I meant elite. Thanks for that.

[zo1]

And actual, "legal", government sponsored and media-cheered systemic racism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broad-Based_Black_Economic_Emp...

That's stage-2. I.e. after the "minority" becomes the "majority". Then different excuses and "historic" racism is used to justify persecution against a minority.