[OwlsParlay]

> Whites were 80-90% of the population during that time, assigning a vague notion of "privilege" to an entire race of people as a basis for reverse racism is not only useless, but misleading, because these "privileged" people were still in competition with other whites (and non-redlined minorities). The implication is that they collectively derived benefit from unfair rules against blacks, but frankly this is a dishonest assertion.

They absolutlely did derive a collective benefit, i'm astounded anyone can deny this. Are you just ignorant of just how badly treated black people were compared to white people in that period?

[twofornone]

How much "benefit" do you think the average white person received from segregation and redlining less than 10% of the population? How would you even quantify it? Marginally lower property prices/rents in a small subset of neighborhoods? Slightly smaller class sizes in pre-modern schools? Slightly less competition for unskilled labor?

This is rhetorical sleight of hand, sophistry which conflates mistreatment with collective benefit to justify racial wealth transfer and power mongering, all on behalf of the so called anti-racists.