Schumer the Clown "I wont vote for this judge because he's white."

Originally posted by aalyasecura95
@nibedicus: not in broader society no. he still lacks power in society. however he is clearly prejudiced for singling out a white woman to attack. but this does not change the privilege of white people in society at large, who actually have the power to oppress and discriminate minorities and deny them opportunities.

Yup. Cuz the “privilege” sure helped her here. Tell me, at what time did that woman have the power to oppress that black guy in that scenario? At what time could she deny him any opportunity?

Methinks you have a very specific, very skewed and very biased view on what qualifies as racism.

Originally posted by aalyasecura95
@nibedicus: not in broader society no. he still lacks power in society. however he is clearly prejudiced for singling out a white woman to attack. but this does not change the privilege of white people in society at large, who actually have the power to oppress and discriminate minorities and deny them opportunities.

What whites? What positions of power?

White "trumpers" are generally looked down at as uneducated hicks who work at Wendy's.

Originally posted by aalyasecura95
okay it looks like a lot of white ppl are flipping out when i call out their privilege. i am not saying that people of other cultures cannot be poor or say prejudiced things, but white ppl have a special privilege and place in society due to slavery and oppression and also colonialism. in their native countries this gives white people the power to turn their prejudice into racist policy that discriminates against other people. you cannot say that policy crafted to help minorities who have no power is racist because they are simply correcting the wrongs that already exist, and actually don't have much representation or ability to escape/improve their condition as whites do.

Informing you that you are wrong is not flipping out. You talking about white privilege only makes sense if you just time traveled here from the 1950s.

And yes, a policy created to prioritize race is indeed racist. Notice the policy wasn't "if you have people from a variety of different races and they are all equally qualified, just put their names in a hat and pick one" or anything like that. It was "if everything else is equal, factor in race".

And yes, what Chuck Schumer did was also racist and anyone who doesn't see that is mentally challenged. His only concern should have been if the person was or was not qualified. If the situation was different and it was Republicans complaining about there being too many blacks chosen...the Democrats would have an utter meltdown.

Originally posted by aalyasecura95
it would come in a combination of many different forms. of course there are cash payments but also infrastructure projects with jobs reserved for black ppl. also we need more housing and give black people the same help that white people got for mortgages. then we need much more investment into the education in black areas where the schools are struggling. these are just a few of the solutions and experts could probably list many more.

Your only legitimate point there is investment in education.

Seems to me the only true reparations is to return descendants of slavery to the pre-slavery state. That was tried in Liberia and Sierra Leone and didn't exactly turn out too well despite colossal initial investment.

Some great examples of how it went were the American Liberians seizing power and preventing indigenous Liberians from voting. The American Liberian population splitting into factions based on wealth. They received hundreds of millions of dollars of investment without stipulation and squandered it all via corruption and embezzlement. Economic mismanagement caused their own currency to collapse and forced them to adopt the US Dollar. Then in 1927 it was found that the Liberian government was, ironically, using indigenous slave labour. Jog on a few years and you get 2 civil wars, genocide, child slave soldiers, general butt naked and his redemption and now the mighty AC Milan player George Weah as President so at least things are looking up if his phenomenal goal against Verona is anything to go by.

Education has problems that need more then money to correct.

Deep rooted, systemic problems.

We all went through "the system", so you probably know what I'm talking about. There's too many competing priorities, due to the very nature of a buraucracy at the public level.

And higher ed isn't much better.. At that level, it becomes about research grants, publishing in journals, the presteige of the school and the money brought into it. Education itself is literally the lowest priority.

Basically, we have a major competing interest here: The needs of the kids vs the needs of the people who work in the industries, to advance their own careers.

Originally posted by aalyasecura95
okay it looks like a lot of white ppl are flipping out when i call out their privilege.

Congratulations on derailing the thread just when it seemed like it was going to start getting productive. 👆

Originally posted by aalyasecura95
@nibedicus: no but he can be prejudiced. he doesn't have the power to oppress and discriminate in a meaningful way however and so that prejudice cannot be translated to true racism.

Originally posted by jaden101
Seems to me the only true reparations is to return descendants of slavery to the pre-slavery state.

Originally posted by Surtur
Informing you that you are wrong is not flipping out. You talking about white privilege only makes sense if you just time traveled here from the 1950s.

And yes, a policy created to prioritize race is indeed racist. Notice the policy wasn't "if you have people from a variety of different races and they are all equally qualified, just put their names in a hat and pick one" or anything like that. It was "if everything else is equal, factor in race".

And yes, what Chuck Schumer did was also racist and anyone who doesn't see that is mentally challenged. His only concern should have been if the person was or was not qualified. If the situation was different and it was Republicans complaining about there being too many blacks chosen...the Democrats would have an utter meltdown.

And when almost everyone in power is white, ideally that should be because they're all the most qualified and it's all a crazy coincidence. Unfortunately, that's not the reason. There's such a diverse pool of qualified people to choose from and yet the only nominations are for more white people, again and again.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Yup. Cuz the “privilege” sure helped her here. Tell me, at what time did that woman have the power to oppress that black guy in that scenario? At what time could she deny him any opportunity?

Methinks you have a very specific, very skewed and very biased view on what qualifies as racism.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Your thinking is on a very micro level. That person is speaking "broadly"

Irrelevant. This scenario was on a micro level. Bringing up the macro to excuse the vile racism of another just showcases his bias and racial prejudice (aka racism).

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Irrelevant. This scenario was on a micro level. Bringing up the macro to excuse the vile racism of another just showcases his bias and racial prejudice (aka racism).

For example, a white man named Bob owns a bar and a black man named John walks in.

If John is racist towards Bob, he'll just get refused service and it won't affect Bob. John has no power over Bob.

If Bob is racist towards John though, he has the power the kick him out of the bar and refuse him reentry.

The skin color alone didn't mean a thing, you see what I mean?

Originally posted by Firefly218
A white person can suffer racism just as a black person can, that is not under dispute. Skin color alone doesn't mean a thing, it's the social structures behind it that are the problem.

For example, a white man named Bob owns a bar and a black man named John walks in.

If John is racist towards Bob, he'll just get refused service and it won't affect Bob. John has no power over Bob.

If Bob is racist towards John though, he has the power the kick him out of the bar and refuse him reentry.

The skin color alone didn't mean a thing, you see what I mean?

Did you read the scenario I posted or did you just skim thru the posts? That literally has no bearing on what I just posted.

Also, you understand that there are laws preventing the Bb scenario and Bob may wll be crucified by both the media and social media, right?

Somehow I don’t see the opposite happening in this day and age if John owned the bar and kicked Bob out of it for being white...

Originally posted by Firefly218
A white person can suffer racism just as a black person can, that is not under dispute. Skin color alone doesn't mean a thing, it's the social structures behind it that are the problem.

For example, a white man named Bob owns a bar and a black man named John walks in.

If John is racist towards Bob, he'll just get refused service and it won't affect Bob. John has no power over Bob.

If Bob is racist towards John though, he has the power the kick him out of the bar and refuse him reentry.

The skin color alone didn't mean a thing, you see what I mean?

Nah I just skimmed dude.

The laws are great, but I was using that example not literally but as a kind of metaphorical allusion. In America, white people still own the bar.

If John owned the bar and kicked out Bob, that would metaphorically be an example of black privilege. And would be equally wrong to white privilege. There's no double standards here.

Originally posted by darthgoober
The person he's debating is of the opinion that minorities can't be racist, only white people can. That's actually the very thing being disputed in their discussion.

Firefly is just here to White Knight and cheerlead,

Originally posted by Firefly218
Nah I just skimmed dude.

The laws are great, but I was using that example not literally but as a kind of metaphorical allusion. In America, white people still own the bar.

If John owned the bar and kicked out Bob, that would metaphorically be an example of black privilege. And would be equally wrong to white privilege. There's no double standards here.

I know what you were trying to do and my point applies to the metaphorical as well as the literal. The media/social media would crucify anyone who would excersize said “privilege” in such a manner.

Now stop skimming and actually read what the guy I am debating with has been implying, it’s barely 1 1/2 pages back.

Originally posted by darthgoober
The person he's debating is of the opinion that minorities can't be racist, only white people can. That's actually the very thing being disputed in their discussion.

You say that any discrimination based on skin color is racism, right? He says racism can only come when those in power discriminate based on skin color.

Ultimately you can at least agree that both types of racism are wrong

Originally posted by Firefly218
Nah I just skimmed dude.

The laws are great, but I was using that example not literally but as a kind of metaphorical allusion. In America, white people still own the bar.

If John owned the bar and kicked out Bob, that would metaphorically be an example of black privilege. And would be equally wrong to white privilege. There's no double standards here.

Originally posted by Firefly218
That's just a semantics thing, you're arguing definitions. That person's definition of racism is different from yours.

You say that any discrimination based on skin color is racism, right? He says racism can only come when those in power discriminate based on skin color.

Ultimately you can at least agree that both types of racism are wrong

Power is relative (as per my example). His definition of what “ppl in power” can be is very specific to white ppl while ignoring other examples of similar nature. That is because he is racist.