At what point will 'white privilege' be considered over? How many years / decades / centuries must pass? How many affirmative action programs / laws must be enacted to consider all races/ women on equal footing?
When sentencing certain individuals in our Canadian courts here, judges here are required to take their ancestry into consideration.
Here in Canada, there's also a big move afoot for governments to apologize for historical injustices -- Japanese, Chinese, Sikhs, natives, Jews, etc.
My problem is that we are looking at history through a modern lens which is crazy. How far back are we going to go? 50 years? 100 years? A millennia? Should Christians today should apologize for the Crusades?
PS. Before somebody accuses me of a hidden agenda, I have no axe to grind. I am part native but don't make a big deal of it. I certainly don't look at a white guy and think, "Hey that guy owes ME something because of what his great-great-great-grandfather did."
I think Bill is right... at some point people have to stop leaning on laws and affirmative action movements as a crutch/excuse and get on with working things out for themselves.

Your video, The Daily Show - Bill O'Reilly Interview on White Privilege, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

assume its a dupe of this one http://videosift.com/video/The-Daily-Show-Bill-OReilly-Interview-on-White-Privilege

She's the head of a legal non-profit to my recollection. She knows her rights and the handyman's rights under the law; she knows what the correct restrictions should be on the police powers. She knows that she can represent those rights and (breathlessly) exercise white privilege for good here (balancing her position as a wealthy white woman against the implicit coercive powers of the police).

I have to say I was a fan.

Just watched this:

TYT - Bill O'Reilly Exempts Himself From White Privilege

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YiGkiFrm18

curiously relevant.
I can only imagine how that stop would have gone if the driver was black.

I don't think I understood a single damn thing he said except that he dislikes white privileged people. You know, like him.

Not a CoD fan anyways, for Multiplayer or single player.

nope >> ^Bruti79:

>> ^longde:
His indignant declaration of Canadian citizenship leads me to believe he looked the part.>> ^Bruti79:
>> ^longde:
I agree with legacy, this guy got his white privilege card revoked big time, whether or not he realized he was carrying one.
A minority would have never raised such a fuss, but may have been detained anyway. Isn't that ironic?

How do you know he was white?


Clearly you've never been to Missassauga =D

>> ^longde:

His indignant declaration of Canadian citizenship leads me to believe he looked the part.>> ^Bruti79:
>> ^longde:
I agree with legacy, this guy got his white privilege card revoked big time, whether or not he realized he was carrying one.
A minority would have never raised such a fuss, but may have been detained anyway. Isn't that ironic?

How do you know he was white?



Clearly you've never been to Missassauga =D

His indignant declaration of Canadian citizenship leads me to believe he looked the part.

edit: And also the way in which the cops treat him with kid glove in the face of his blatant belligerence and taunting.>> ^Bruti79:

>> ^longde:
I agree with legacy, this guy got his white privilege card revoked big time, whether or not he realized he was carrying one.
A minority would have never raised such a fuss, but may have been detained anyway. Isn't that ironic?

How do you know he was white?

>> ^longde:

I agree with legacy, this guy got his white privilege card revoked big time, whether or not he realized he was carrying one.
A minority would have never raised such a fuss, but may have been detained anyway. Isn't that ironic?


How do you know he was white?

I agree with legacy, this guy got his white privilege card revoked big time, whether or not he realized he was carrying one.

A minority would have never raised such a fuss, but may have been detained anyway. Isn't that ironic?

@legacy0100

It's less about "being white" and more about white privilege.

George Zimmerman is a "white sounding" name. Plus his father is a former judge. Two things which definitely worked to his favor if he in fact invoked them when police arrived.

If Trayvon had been the one holding the gun when police arrived..

Best believe he'd have been sitting in cell facing 1st degree murder charges on February 27th or 28th.

@chilaxe

So what you're saying is.. you're a cowardly white privileged bigot who's too afraid to leave the safety of his software & champagne fortress and confront the real problems of the world?

Cause we all know that Silicon Valley has nothing to do with "societal decay".

I mean, sure companies like Apple deny hard-working Americans high-paying jobs/careers in the Technology Sector by exploiting cheap labor in Socialist countries like China. But that's just want any good cold and calculating capitalist would do.

OH OH! I got the perfect bumper sticker for you "I Hate Socialism.. but I Loove my Ipad. Vote Yes on Apples for Americans"

Then you could pass around a petition demanding that Apple build a new factory in Oakland.

You know, to stop all the societal decay and give those dirty niggers and spics something to do with their lives.


In reply to this comment by chilaxe:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Why don't you fuckin' move then.
Oh wait, then you couldn't complain about how shitty your life is under this oppressive Marxist regime.


I live in Silicon Valley, so I'm insulated from the societal decay.

I hardly ever interact with people who aren't techies, so the only way I know that California's been turned into the dumbest state in the country is from the news.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

This is my biggest problem with AA... it ultimately does nothing to solve the problems it's supposed to address. @Morganth alluded to it in his post. Rather than handicapping white people, we should be addressing the problems that lead to race inequality. AA is like breaking the legs of Olympic athletes so the folks in the Paralympics can keep up.

Except, that's not what it does. AA does not stop the best and the brightest, it simply corrects for preexisting bias that effects the criteria on which the decision is made. What you are describing looks a lot more like unchecked white privilege than it does AA as it exists in the real world.

Allowing people to pursue a career at what they are good at does address the problem. The problem is both material, in the sense of disproportional class disadvantage, as well as societal, in the form of the assumption that "those people aren't good at X". AA lets people work themselves out of poverty, and creates social role models of skilled and successful non-white/male people.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

It runs a few levels deep, too. Putting less qualified people in jobs means the jobs will be done to a lower standard. That ultimately hurts our general standard of living as well as our ability to compete globally.

AA does the exact opposite of this. Consider what unchecked privileged looks like in comparison to meritocracy. The clearest example is blind auditions. Non-blinded auditions disproportional favor men, who everyone "knew" were more likely to be better qualified. Once you remove the knowledge of the sex of the player, the assessment of merit massively changes.

You can't blind college admissions, for example, because they are based on a life history in a classist and racist society. Collage is probably the simplest, though not the best, place to make this adjustment, but making it is better than not.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

If you were diagnosed with a particularly dangerous form of cancer tomorrow, would you seek out the best specialist you could find or would you seek out the best minority specialist you could find?


When white men get positions, this is in no small measure a result of there white/maleness. Knowing this, given the choice of two equally regarded doctors, I would choose the one whose regard is based on their merit, not on their privileged race/sex.

Not can't. But research shows that those best qualified to discuss minority issues are the minority members -- fairly sensible, they have the most investment in the topic. So, not can't, but usually just shouldn't.
>> ^UsesProzac:

So one cannot hold opinions about racism pertaining to a specfic race unless their skin is also that color? ..that's racist.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
A group of white boys explaining to an African American what racism is? Sounds more like white privilege @campiondelblanco. >> ^campionidelmondo:
So is this what people call "white guilt"?