Bernie Sanders is a White Supremacist

[Michchamp]

I heard Shannon Sharpe on the XM radio today saying that Tom Brady had the benefit of White Privilege because he didn't get ripped for wearing (or having) a MAGA hat 5 years ago. He said that a black player would get questioned for having a Louis Farrakhan hat.
His argument was so far out there that even Skip Bayless was confused.

even Skip Bayless was confused? dang

 

[Michchamp]

LOL, I see you're still trying to blame me for your almost impossibly stupid misreading of my OP. At least Gulo is reliably trying to bail your dumbass out (shocker). can you point me to the post where I said original sin was real? did you miss the part where I quoted Wikipedia saying it could be based on a mistranslation of Paul's writings?

No, it's not a joke or sarcasm and I'm not at all surprised you don't get it - after all, you're dumb enough to think white privilege is real and not racist garbage.

Basing a concept on a history of racist policies doesn't make that concept real, or justify it's application particularly if it is itself racist in nature, which "white privilege" undeniably is.

it makes it... MORE real that original sin. which is admittedly a low bar, since original sin is not real at all.

 

[Spartanmack]

it makes it... MORE real that original sin. which is admittedly a low bar, since original sin is not real at all.

I'm not the one who compared it to original sin, nor have I said anywhere that original sin is real or not. That's a presumption you've made to discredit my position on white privilege which isn't a real thing, regardless of what anyone thinks of original sin.

 

[Spartanmack]

Don?t apologize for that!

That?s just how I remember it being taught in catechism. Original sin goes back to Eve and Adam in the garden of Eden, and at that point became inherent in human nature.

As far as what baptism does do and doesn?t do, I am the last person who is or would claim to be an expert in the Catholic sacraments.

apology retracted, go fuck yourself - two times.

let's see if mc and gulo can tell I said that in jest.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I heard Shannon Sharpe on the XM radio today saying that Tom Brady had the benefit of White Privilege because he didn't get ripped for wearing (or having) a MAGA hat 5 years ago. He said that a black player would get questioned for having a Louis Farrakhan hat.
His argument was so far out there that even Skip Bayless was confused.

Right.

It is confusing.

The MAGA hat has been around for a short period of time, it has a very specific meaning and it may engender strong either positive or negative emotions in some people.

The kufi been around a much longer time, it?s been being worn across much of Africa and Asia, and it pretty much is worn by old guys to signify wisdom.

So why would anybody give a black guy shit for wearing one of those?

It?s confusing.

 

[zyxt9]

white privilege, a concept based on the well-documented history of slavery and state oppression of black Americans which continued under law through the late 60's, and through the present day, by statutes and policies that are textually not racist but have demonstrably biased results, is nonsense... but original sin is a real thing?

Is this another joke? Sarcasm? I don't get it.

does that "history of slavery" include the fact that whites learned slavery from africans? how about that there were black slave owners in the US?

does white privilege take into account the many white homeless people? the less affluent like hillbillies or rednecks living in trailer parks which are the equivalent of black ghettos in some parts?

oh, i know...as a white male under 60 my privilege is demonstrated in getting to be in the last group eligible for the COVID vaccine!!! yeah, that must be it! that will be especially great if/when i get denied by TSA or other entities from traveling, shopping, or whatever else because i have yet to get the vaccine...yeah, looking forward to my white privilege being on full display at THAT point.

the entire notion of "white" privilege is a snow job. individuals either have privilege or they do not, skin color is not a prerequisite.

 

[Spartanmack]

I heard Shannon Sharpe on the XM radio today saying that Tom Brady had the benefit of White Privilege because he didn't get ripped for wearing (or having) a MAGA hat 5 years ago. He said that a black player would get questioned for having a Louis Farrakhan hat.
His argument was so far out there that even Skip Bayless was confused.

someone needs to explain to Shannon Sharp that Louis Farrakhan is an unapologetic racist and anti-semite who regularly makes overtly bigoted statements while Trump is just a narcissist with a fragile ego who actually did more for minorities in America than most of his predecessors, including Barack Obama and it's just easier for his opposition to falsely label him as racist than making a case based on his actual actions and accomplishments.

 

[Spartanmack]

does that "history of slavery" include the fact that whites learned slavery from africans? how about that there were black slave owners in the US?

does white privilege take into account the many white homeless people? the less affluent like hillbillies or rednecks living in trailer parks which are the equivalent of black ghettos in some parts?

oh, i know...as a white male under 60 my privilege is demonstrated in getting to be in the last group eligible for the COVID vaccine!!! yeah, that must be it! that will be especially great if/when i get denied by TSA or other entities from traveling, shopping, or whatever else because i have yet to get the vaccine...yeah, looking forward to my white privilege being on full display at THAT point.

the entire notion of "white" privilege is a snow job. individuals either have privilege or they do not, skin color is not a prerequisite.

it takes all of that into account - it takes into account the tragedies suffered by all privileged groups, particularly the jews in escaping horrible circumstances elsewhere in the world prior to coming to America with nothing and building up from there as well as the discrimination those groups faced once they came to America at various times throughout our history. Apparently it even takes into account that whites rank 15th in median household income by ethnicity in the US (15-40% below the top 5 groups). Whites sure were clever to not put themselves in the top 10 when they decided to oppress black and brown people - except Indian Americans who have the highest median income of any group @ $102k vs. $60k.

 

[Gulo Blue]

White privilege is all of this not happening to you:
http://www.detroitsportsforum.com/showthread.php?t=23899

 

[Spartanmack]

White privilege is all of this not happening to you:
http://www.detroitsportsforum.com/showthread.php?t=23899

as a white man, how can we trust anything you post here? check your privilege bro.

 

[zyxt9]

White privilege is all of this not happening to you:
http://www.detroitsportsforum.com/showthread.php?t=23899

all of those are percentages...so you cannot say it is not happening to me as an individual. you can say the chance of it happening is less, but that does not mean it does not happen to me...or some other white individual.

all of society needs to stop grouping people. just treat everyone as individuals...you know, according to the content of their character.

 

[Gulo Blue]

all of those are percentages...so you cannot say it is not happening to me as an individual. you can say the chance of it happening is less, but that does not mean it does not happen to me...or some other white individual.

all of society needs to stop grouping people. just treat everyone as individuals...you know, according to the content of their character.

That logic could be used to defend all sorts of unfairness, as long as there's a counterexample somewhere.

 

[zyxt9]

That logic could be used to defend all sorts of unfairness, as long as there's a counterexample somewhere.

All the more reason to focus on individuals as opposed to lumping together people from extremely different backgrounds and experiences and joining them together claiming they are the same when they are not.

A white homeless person has nothing in common with Elon Musk.

A black homeless person has nothing in common with Oprah Winfrey.

A legal Hispanic immigrant has nothing in common with an illegal immigrant.

A Japanese Asian has nothing in common with a Chinese Asian.

A Moderate Muslim has nothing in common with an Islamic Jihadist Terrorist.

Yet how often do these individuals get grouped together in all of these statistical analysis that result in the percentages you referenced or other similar scenarios?

We need to stop that type of bogus analysis and focus on helping those who are less fortunate and assist the ones in those situations who are willing and wanting to improve their lives be provided that opportunity because they, as their individual self regardless of race, are wanting and willing to improve themselves.

A homeless person who actually has a mental condition that is perpetuating their homelessness is needing different assistance than a homeless person who made some bad decisions and just needs a little assistance for a few months to get back on solid ground and get their life back on course as they have a job but through a string of bad luck ended up homeless. Each of these individuals needs and deserves help, but their individual circumstances should not be simply lumped together with a singular solution.

This is a prevalent sickness throughout our society. It starts in school where we are treating children as identical robots as opposed to tailoring their education to fit their specific talents and challenges. Yes, that requires more time, money, and resources...but it is the more correct way to help each individual child.

Or we can continue grouping every racial group and expecting different results by throwing together a new program designed to help the group...which has proven time and again to produce few positive results.

 

[Gulo Blue]

All the more reason to focus on individuals as opposed to lumping together people from extremely different backgrounds and experiences and joining them together claiming they are the same when they are not.

A white homeless person has nothing in common with Elon Musk.

A black homeless person has nothing in common with Oprah Winfrey.

A legal Hispanic immigrant has nothing in common with an illegal immigrant.

A Japanese Asian has nothing in common with a Chinese Asian.

A Moderate Muslim has nothing in common with an Islamic Jihadist Terrorist.

Yet how often do these individuals get grouped together in all of these statistical analysis that result in the percentages you referenced or other similar scenarios?

We need to stop that type of bogus analysis and focus on helping those who are less fortunate and assist the ones in those situations who are willing and wanting to improve their lives be provided that opportunity because they, as their individual self regardless of race, are wanting and willing to improve themselves.

A homeless person who actually has a mental condition that is perpetuating their homelessness is needing different assistance than a homeless person who made some bad decisions and just needs a little assistance for a few months to get back on solid ground and get their life back on course as they have a job but through a string of bad luck ended up homeless. Each of these individuals needs and deserves help, but their individual circumstances should not be simply lumped together with a singular solution.

This is a prevalent sickness throughout our society. It starts in school where we are treating children as identical robots as opposed to tailoring their education to fit their specific talents and challenges. Yes, that requires more time, money, and resources...but it is the more correct way to help each individual child.

Or we can continue grouping every racial group and expecting different results by throwing together a new program designed to help the group...which has proven time and again to produce few positive results.

How though? That all sounds fine, but you have to do something. This is letting perfect get in the way of better.

...and in my opinion, while that can be fine if you're talking about developing a product on your own dime/your own time, but using principle to stand in the way of trying to lessen unfairness to others has something rotten about it. Principles are more reliable when they cost you something than when they cost someone else something.

 

[tinselwolverine]

White privilege is all of this not happening to you:
http://www.detroitsportsforum.com/showthread.php?t=23899

So I looked at the first link...and the resumes were all fictitious.

In other words, there was no “white privilege” because neither the benefactors of the white privilege nor the victims of the white privilege were real human beings who actually exist.

Decided it wouldn’t be worth my time to continue.

EDIT: Since you love Wikipedia so much, and I actually substantiated the validity of a Wikipedia “article you posted a bit ago by linking to the original source, I thought I would provide a Wikipedia reference of my own.

These are the most common names for black guys according to Wikipedia - Daniel, Christopher, Jaimes, Michael, David, Joseph, and Matthew.

Now this is just my opinion, and it could be my opinion rooted in my white privilege, but those names sound to me a lot like names that are also common with white dudes.

I would say that in fact, using stereotypical “black names” that the people who ran the study subjectively viewed as black names is itself kind of bigoted.

EDIT 2: My bad. Wikipedia doesn’t call them “most common.”. It just refers to them as “common.”

 

[Gulo Blue]

So I looked at the first link...and the resumes were all fictitious.

In other words, there was no ?white privilege? because neither the benefactors of the white privilege nor the victims of the white privilege were real human beings who actually exist.

Decided it wouldn?t be worth my time to continue.

Never thought of that. Ok. You've changed my mind.

 

[Gulo Blue]

So I looked at the first link...and the resumes were all fictitious.

In other words, there was no ?white privilege? because neither the benefactors of the white privilege nor the victims of the white privilege were real human beings who actually exist.

Decided it wouldn?t be worth my time to continue.

EDIT: Since you love Wikipedia so much, and I actually substantiated the validity of a Wikipedia ?article you posted a bit ago by linking to the original source, I thought I would provide a Wikipedia reference of my own.

These are the most common names for black guys according to Wikipedia - Daniel, Christopher, Jaimes, Michael, David, Joseph, and Matthew.

Now this is just my opinion, and it could be my opinion rooted in my white privilege, but those names sound to me a lot like names that are also common with white dudes.

I would say that in fact, using stereotypical ?black names? that the people who ran the study subjectively viewed as black names is itself kind of bigoted.

EDIT 2: My bad. Wikipedia doesn?t call them ?most common.?. It just refers to them as ?common.?

You're losing me with the edit.

 

[Spartanmack]

How though? That all sounds fine, but you have to do something. This is letting perfect get in the way of better.

...and in my opinion, while that can be fine if you're talking about developing a product on your own dime/your own time, but using principle to stand in the way of trying to lessen unfairness to others has something rotten about it. Principles are more reliable when they cost you something than when they cost someone else something.

But this is exactly what race/gender/religion/orientation based policies do. No one pushing affirmative action is ever willing to give up their seat or their kid's seat at a University for a member of a minority group - but they're more than happy to push aside some other student with better grades, test scores, extracurriculars, etc. in the name of equality. And the process is totally arbitrary - there's no means testing so that seat could end up going to a minority student who grew up in a 2 parent household in an affluent neighborhood with good schools and all the other advantages that come with it. It may even be more likely to go to those kids than to a kid raised by a single mom in a poor neighborhood with shitty schools. Then those kids aren't prepared to compete with the higher caliber, more qualified students. It's just setting a lot of them up for failure. Racism to solve/cure racism doesn't work, it just makes the people who support it feel better about themselves.

 

[Gulo Blue]

But this is exactly what race/gender/religion/orientation based policies do. No one pushing affirmative action is ever willing to give up their seat or their kid's seat at a University for a member of a minority group - but they're more than happy to push aside some other student with better grades, test scores, extracurriculars, etc. in the name of equality. And the process is totally arbitrary - there's no means testing so that seat could end up going to a minority student who grew up in a 2 parent household in an affluent neighborhood with good schools and all the other advantages that come with it. It may even be more likely to go to those kids than to a kid raised by a single mom in a poor neighborhood with shitty schools. Then those kids aren't prepared to compete with the higher caliber, more qualified students. It's just setting a lot of them up for failure. Racism to solve/cure racism doesn't work, it just makes the people who support it feel better about themselves.

So keep working on it. First efforts or efforts framed by detractors always look bad. Don't set people up for failure with a big pile of affirmative action and nothing else. Look in the newly available masses of data to find places where the inequality starts and go after that. As time goes one, what came before looks bad and newer methods are better targeted. And the goal is, of course, to ultimately not have race be a part of it outside of eliminating sources of discrimination.

 

[Spartanmack]

So keep working on it. First efforts or efforts framed by detractors always look bad. Don't set people up for failure with a big pile of affirmative action and nothing else. Look in the newly available masses of data to find places where the inequality starts and go after that. As time goes one, what came before looks bad and newer methods are better targeted. And the goal is, of course, to ultimately not have race be a part of it outside of eliminating sources of discrimination.

no one is saying don't keep working on it - literally everyone wants a fair and just society. It's not the rear view mirror that makes policies like affirmative action look bad - there's been opposition from the beginning (and not because of racism). If people reject racist policies as a way to atone for past discrimination, that doesn't mean they don't want what you want, it just means they disagree with the way to achieve it.