Capitalism is a many headed beast, not directed by some shadowy room of capitalists smoking cigars and eating caviar.

Each head is a profit seeking corporation, and each will grow large and seek to accumulate as much power to itself as it can (Those corporation which do not seek to grow large and accumulate power happen to have little power and while they exist they are not interesting for discussing where power lies and how this affects people).

The many headed beast will attack in many directions at once, but if one head fails to its goals and withers and dies, this doesn't spell disaster, the beast survives. So no individual bankrupt corporation is seen as an indictment of capitalism as a system.

Each corporation, in seeking to maximise its own profit will necessarily exploit and/or oppress people/the environment. They have to take something and turn it into a profit. So they could do this by creating an idea that women need to shave under their armpits (which is a relatively modern fashion, invented by razor blade companies in an attempt to sell more product - and plays on this weird fetishisation of child-like features) thus exploiting women; or they could take a previously common resource, like the air or water, and spoil it somehow. Taking something good (but previously free) bottling it, and selling it to the public (while leaving less of that free thing for them to enjoy - whether by dumping waste into the common resource, or literally using it up) this is exploitation of the environment.

The result, a reactionary response from people. Wealthy educated (mostly white) people can worry about the environment while poorer, ill-educated people are busy worrying about simply putting food on the table (oppressed peoples - in poverty because of how our economic system distributes resources between people). Wealthy educated (mostly white) women can go fight against the exploitation of women, reacting to the attempts to exploit them.

Many many more groups are exploited or oppressed. And any one small victory against corporate greed does very little to change the underlying system which holds so much power and influence.

So powerful that when it (inevitably) came crashing down in 2008, the political establishment decided they had to save it, no matter the cost.

The corporate system is so influential that, even in the middle of collapsing, politicians ran to save it from itself.

What Occupy wallstreet, and modern feminist movements, and Black Lives Matter, and environmental activists, and No-DAPL protesters (fighting colonialism), don't see is how to fight their common enemy. They all face individual fronts. And i don't hVe any great answers, other than stating my solidarity with all these groups harmed by state-sponsored corporatism.

I don't stand in solidarity with those poor white men who feel the need to attack women, or jews, or black people or immigrants, or members of the LGBT community.

Those religious conservatives, who fear they are losing some culture war - rather than living the life their god demands of them.

Those under-educated and under-employed white men who are, understandably, angry. But who choose to focus that anger into the alt-right narrative. We saw how well nazism worked out before, and the US may be rather ripe for a Nazi revival, maybe rebranded.

There are state-corporate power that are very glad to see the under-classes divided and fighting against each other. Antifa, and occupy should be joining together in rejecting state sponsored violence/oppression, and fascist violence, while also recognise their parts in benefit from colonial violence and violence against women and racism.

If i can tell anyone what they should be doing, it is white males. I don't speak for BLM or feminists or indigenous americans or economic migrants. But i would call for solidarity with all these other groups which i can't speak for. You can go out and ask them how it is possible for your white ass to support their causes. How you can help reduce police violence, male violence against women, et al.

If you see a white man who only speaks about men's right in the context of interrupting a woman or person of colour, then you know he doesn't actually have a pro-active solution towards helping men, he just wants to react and undermine the efforts of other pro-active groups going out helping people.

If you see a fascist group, going out 'helping' white people by attacking, verbally abusing, and calling for the oppression/exploitation, or removal or anyone who isn't white - you know they don't care about helping white men, they only care about hurting others. That is not a productive solution towards addressing our collective cause - and anyone who advocates for the removal of all 'non-white' people from America... Has some basic problems with their moral compass, economic education, understanding of social geography and biology...

Ok, i think i've ranted enough...

If anyone wants to reply privately, pm me. Croak, just think about what i've said.

Am I white? Huh.

Are you privileged? Yes.

Everyone posting here is, we all have internet access, that puts us in the wealthy category. On average human wealth at least. Do you recognise that privilege? And the rest of the ways things you were born with make your life easier?

Orathaic, and others engaging, I do not understand why you are attempting to argue with Croakanddagger. It seems like a waste of your time. He already established that he would rather elect people who would exterminate the Jewish population via a holocaust than elect American democrats.

There are a couple of possibilities for this.
One, he is a troll. If that is the case, why feed him? I believe this is the most likely scenario.
Two, he is a horrible person. You might be able to change this but it seems unlikely so why try?
Three, he is profoundly ignorant. This, obviously, reflects poorly on his family, his education, and society at large. This may be a scenario where continuing to engage could work. But your milage may vary.
Four, he is an idiot. Why argue with an idiot?

I haven't seen anyone trying to engage. I've seen a few people try to beat me over the head with their own bigoted opinions, but no constructive argument.

I tried. You avoided answering questions that challenge your worldview.

I haven't followed this discussion and only read page 9, where Orathaics rant begins. He made some points I'd like to respond to, though.


''Croak, look at outcomes. White men are still the most privileged group in the world. Looking at influence, wealth, status, the continued need for positive discrimination to help offset these outcomes is not oppressive. You are not oppressed when you still retain all the privileges you white men have had for centuries.

You don't seem to understand what oppression looks like.

Gender quotas may not be perfect, but they are a step in the right direction. And you whinging about them does nothing to improve the world. What you are doing is a reactionary responce. We (the educated, wealthy, white, male, cis-hets of the world) have spent so much time on top that seeing anyone else come close generates anger.''


Orathaic, did you know that black people are highly overrepresented among athletes in world championships? In running competitions, almost all participants are black. Does this mean that black people are privileged? Should we give quotas to white people so that more of them can take part in world championships? Or should we give all white people a head start in running competitions to make them, on average, finish at the same time as black people do, thus obtaining equality of outcome?

I bet that you would answer all these questions with a 'No'. After all, we know that the overrepresentation of black people among top athletes is not due to any unfairness in the system. Rather, the difference is likely due to some biological factors that nobody can do anything about.

Now take a look at what you wrote about white men. It is somewhat true that white men have, on average, relatively much influence and wealth. I don't understand why you seem to immediately jump to the thought that something must be done about that. I would be interested in the reasons behind white people doing relatively well in these areas. If it turns out that this is due to some institutional racism and/or sexism or something, then yes, we would have to take appropriate action to make it more fair for everyone. But for all we know, it is, just like with the black athletes, due to something nobody can do anything about.

You seem to cherish the idea of 'positive discrimination'. I don't like 'positive discrimination' at all, because it is still discrimination. I am in favor of people being treated as individuals and am thus against discrimination. Everyone should have equal oppurtunities. You seem to only look at equality of outcome, but if there is equality of outcome, that does in no way mean that people have had equal oppurtunities. For example, if in the world championship running people of all races score roughly equal, then I would presume that there was some discrimination in play and that black athletes were not given the same oppurtunity as white athletes.

When you want to bring groups of people down that have it better than you, just because they have it better than you, you come across as rather envious. I associate this with what happened in the 1930's in Germany. Around that time, Jews were, on average, quite wealthy and influential. This caused some Germans to become envious and distrusting of Jews, and caused people to want to decrease the wealth and influence of Jews. We all know how this eventually ended. Of course what happened to the Jews is not likely to happen to white people, because white people form a large part of the population, but I think that other than that, the comparison is fitting.

Also - it isn't even true that white people are the 'most privileged' group in America. According to your view of what it means to be privileged, East-Asians in America are more privileged than white people, since they are (even) more wealthy than white people, on average. Should we now 'positively discriminate' against East-Asians? Or is there a natural explanation for the difference? To me, it seems reasonable to believe that the difference is due to East-Asians having a higher IQ than white people, on average, and thus we have a natural explanation for the difference, just like with the black athletes. Similarly, to me it seems reasonable to believe that the difference in wealth between white and black people is due to white people, on average, having a higher IQ than black people. (Of course, with that last statement I have outed myself as an evil white racist!) I am not too sure about all the nuances and whether there are other things that play a role, but at least it seems that there are reasonable candidates for natural explanations of the differences.


''It is worse for groups of white men who haven't been so successful, under-educated white men who have retained a huge amount of privilege, used to feel shit upon by the 'educated elites' but at least they felt they were better than the average uneducated white woman, or black man.

Seeing Barrack Obama become president felt like a kick in the teeth to many white men. And they have since been looking for a focus for their anger - anger at the system, which made them feel this way, feel insecure, like their status was lessened, like they were pathetic wastes of air in the eyes of society.

And so they blame the easiest targets, those who worked hardest to overcome the disadvantages of being born without all the cishet, white, male privilege. Racism and misogyny are the two easiest go to responses.''


I don't think that Barack Obama becoming president was really a kick in the teeth to many white men. I'd like to point out that one of the reasons for Trump winning the general election was that some lower and middle class white men who previously voted Democratic, switched to vote Republican. These people previously voted Democratic, so they have voted for Obama. So the people that caused the election to turn in favor of Trump, were former Obama voters. What many white people do not like, I think, are political correctness and so-called 'positive discrimination', because they are the main victims of it. I think the fact that Trump was able to form some 'countermovement' against these, especially political correctness, was one of the reasons for him winning the primaries. Him winning the general election was, I think, more due to his opponent, Hillary Clinton, being even more unpopular than he was. Perhaps I went a bit offtopic here, but the topic is about Trump and you mentioned Obama, so I took this time to talk about politics a bit.

With your last paragraph, you are implying that there is some institutional bias that favors cishet, white males. Have you any proof for this? I have already told you that I think that there are more natural explanations that account for the differences between groups.


''Not actually looking at the capitalist system of oppression which we all have in common. The very system which sets us up to compete and fail - so that some will succeed. The very system encouraging racism and misogyny in America because it sees solidarity of the under-classes as a threat to its power.''

I disagree that capitalism encourages racism and misogyny. In fact, I would argue that capitalism does do the exact opposite. A company is successfull if it hires the best people for the jobs, regardless of race and skin color. Therefore, capitalism works against racism and misogyny.


@ the bulk of your second post


This is some rant against capitalism. Well, you sure sound like you find capitalism rather scary. I don't see how capitalism oppresses people. I don't think a free market oppresses anyone, because it's free. I do agree that pure capitalism isn't perfect, though, because companies are not intenciviced to strive for the common good and hence, we need some form of government regulations. Other than that, I think capitalism works quite well and it has brought us quite far. I am wondering what kind of alternative you would propose.


''What Occupy wallstreet, and modern feminist movements, and Black Lives Matter, and environmental activists, and No-DAPL protesters (fighting colonialism), don't see is how to fight their common enemy. They all face individual fronts. And i don't hVe any great answers, other than stating my solidarity with all these groups harmed by state-sponsored corporatism.''


Are you stating solidarity with these groups just because they represent people that, in your eyes, are 'oppressed' or what?


@your third post


Oh, whatever. Just one thing: You mention 'state sponsored violence' here. I am curious what you mean with that. What violence against US citizens has been sponsored by the state?

I don't remember my worldview being challenged, TrPrado.

We should ban politics from the forum. It makes me hate all of you when I really don't want to do that.

Does no one fucking understand that certain groups of people have less access to resources and therefore are unable succeed as often or as well as other groups? Do they not teach anyone in the United States any history?

Mercy - since you do not understand anything about the world I will try to make it simple for you. Think of it this way, if I have to start the race a mile further back than you, and we both run at the same speed and start running at the same time - there is absolutely no way for me to catch up unless you stop or I get a boost. Do you think black people were awarded the same resources, education, opportunities etc as white people after slavery ended? During the Jim Crow era? Do you think that they are awarded the same opportunities NOW? (Because they really are not, open your eyes a little - but even if you don't buy this you need to understand that wealth accumulates over time and marginalized groups have had less time and capacity to do so) Do you think because I can not catch up that I am somehow not as smart or efficient as you are? No. Life does not work like that.

As for your stupid fucking East-Asian analogy, that is because the way the immigration system works is that most Asians that are able to leave and come to North America are already the top of the chain, established, well-off, etc - they did not come from a very recent background of slavery and discrimination for the most part.

So no Mercy, black people are not "more stupid" than white people, and white people are not "more stupid" than East-Asians. Kindly shut the fuck up and stop talking about things you clearly know nothing about you racist shit.

Today I learned that IQ, and by extension the vast majority of all of pyschological study is a load of crap.

Thanks, DemonOverlord!

Yep Croak, no matter how many IQ tests you take and no matter what the result is the fact of the matter is you're still just a dumbass.

I find it very strange that the people who require proof for institutional bias against minorities, of which there have been several peer reviewed studies for, are the same people who are content in the unfounded assumption that white males are on average wealthier because of natural reasons.

@Mercy @CroakandDagger
Do you have any evidence for this? I think you'll find that if you examine your line of reasoning, there are several gaps in logic. For example you say that white people have a higher IQ than black people, and are therefore wealthier. IQ and wealth have a relatively weak correlation, especially complaring it to variables like education. It has been shown time and time again that education and family income are the most important factors in the financial success of an individual, of which white people have the advantage.

It is also worth mentioning that there is a moderate correlation between IQ and education. This pairs with a study that education actually effects IQ quite a bit, which doesn't align with the idea that IQ is even natural means of intelligence. So with education holding a very strong correlation with wealth, and IQ having a weak correlation with wealth, education having a moderate correlation with IQ, it's fair to say that any connection that IQ has with wealth is just simple overlap with the connection it has to education.

@DemonOverlord

Let me first and foremost address your last paragraph.


''So no Mercy, black people are not "more stupid" than white people, and white people are not "more stupid" than East-Asians. Kindly shut the fuck up and stop talking about things you clearly know nothing about you racist shit.''


Never have I stated that one group of people is ''more stupid'' than another group of people. There are probably many black people smarter than I am. What I was talking about is the existence of statistical differences between groups. Also, I do not want to make policies or act on the grounds of these statistical differences - like I said, I am in favor of treating people as individuals - but sometimes others do want to treat people as part of a group; and when I see people talking about 'white privilege' and when I see people making assumptions like that the fact that whites are relatively wealthy must be due to institutional racism or something, I may feel the need to bring up suggestions for more natural explanations in order to try to bring some nuance in the conversation.


''We should ban politics from the forum. It makes me hate all of you when I really don't want to do that.''


Yes, I noticed that I was called a racist shit. I do not take that personally since you don't know me, but I am sorry that my post apparantly made you quite emotional.


@the rest of your post


Well, though I have some historical context, I am no expert on the issue. To be honest, I am not even a US citizen. If blacks are held back, that is of course an issue. But if I interpret your post correctly, then you are advocating for equality of oppurtunity. That is precisely what I was advocating for in my post, too, so I guess we agree here. I was saying that we should strive for equality of oppurtunity, not equality of outcome. This is why I am in favor of cheap or free education, so that people of all backgrounds can afford the same education, but am against so-called 'positive discrimination'. We may disagree on whether or not equality of oppurtunity will eventually lead to equality of outcome though. In my eyes it does not necessarily, and so I raise an eyebrow when people assume that there is no equality of oppurtunity only because there is no equality of outcome. I can be convinced by other arguments.

The more money you have, the easier it is to make more money. It really is that simple.

First, everything DemonOverlord said. Much more succinctly than I.

Second:

@"Now take a look at what you wrote about white men. It is somewhat true that white men have, on average, relatively much influence and wealth. I don't understand why you seem to immediately jump to the thought that something must be done about that."

The difference is between biology which we can't alter (genetic modification of children is just beyond our ability, and as a form of eugenics would be very controversial anyway) and something largely social.

Yes, there are biological differences between men's and women's brains, but that doesn't mean we should discriminate against either. Yes that are mostly physical differences between people of colour and white people. But the racial categories we have are social. There is more diversity within any given 'race' than there are outside of them.

Yes athletes from Kenya/Ethiopia tend to be very good long distance runners (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22634972) that isn't black people, that is not all Kenyans and Ethiopians. And it isn't a 'racial' advantage. It is a biological one (according to that article a benefit from chronic exposure to high altitudes).

Where we have a society which privileges some people over others (for various historic reasons) we should try to change that society. Where we have biological differences between people the diversity should be encouraged and supported (as we do with people who are born without fibula (to take another example from the world of athletics: http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45788000/jpg/_45788801_oscar006.jpg )

But entirely aside from that, athletic competitions are optional, not mandatory. People who want to compete should have an equal opportunity to enter said competitions.

@"Everyone should have equal oppurtunities. You seem to only look at equality of outcome, but if there is equality of outcome, that does in no way mean that people have had equal oppurtunities."

i'm not saying we should have equality of outcome, i'm saying you can look at the outcomes to get an idea of where the current advantages lies. Now you could claim that black people just aren't as smart or entrepreneurial or whatever features you think makes the 'white race' superior... But the fact remains, there is more diversity within the social categories of race than between them.

You will see a range of IQs within any population*, and the width of the range is wider than the difference between the averages.

*assuming you take large enough and random enough population samples, i'm sure you could select a group of ten white people from Mensa, and ten black people from an inner city gang, and they might not get the same results...

@"You seem to cherish the idea of 'positive discrimination'."

I don't cherish it. It is a very sad thing that we still need positive discrimination in 2017. That we don't have a better agreement for how we distribute power and wealth that capitalism. But where we have a history of economic and political disenfranchisement which continues to this day to affect outcomes then we must continue to correct the wrongs of the past.

@"Around that time, Jews were, on average, quite wealthy and influential. This caused some Germans to become envious and distrusting of Jews, and caused people to want to decrease the wealth and influence of Jews. We all know how this eventually ended. Of course what happened to the Jews is not likely to happen to white people, because white people form a large part of the population, but I think that other than that, the comparison is fitting."

Jews were deprived of their basic rights, racialised, and used as a scape goat for everything which was going wrong economically, and some white people in america are still doing so. While white people remain that most politically and economically powerful group in America there is little fear of their power base being eroded...

You can point out how important the black vote was for getting Obama elected, and not getting Hillary elected. But no American president has ever been elected without appealing to white voters. And i'm willing to bet that they never will.

@"To me, it seems reasonable to believe that the difference is due to East-Asians having a higher IQ than white people, on average, and thus we have a natural explanation for the difference, just like with the black athletes."

First IQ is a shit measure, which assumes certain cultural values of a person and therefore is biased. Second Kenyan/Ethiopian athletes have an advantage of working hard. The economic benefits of winning athletic competitions can be rather good for them (and often for other countries willing to pay them to run under their flag).

Similarly some East-Asians come to America have cultures which expect hard work, where their parents value academic performance highly. It is little surprise that they perform better in school than kids who grow up with parents who don't value academic performance in the same way (and school is your society's way of telling people who the society values... ) Coming from a family which has enough money to move to america, and which has a culture which places great emphasis on hard work, is an advantage. Doesn't mean you need to discriminate against people.

@"Similarly, to me it seems reasonable to believe that the difference in wealth between white and black people is due to white people, on average, having a higher IQ than black people." - except 1) IQ isn't a fair measure in the first place. 2) the cultural reasons white people perform better on average are due to historic oppression, which we have the power to undo.

If you believe we shouldn't try to undo the mistakes of our ancestors, because you don't think they were mistakes, then you are outing yourself as a racist. If you believe that the millions who have died or been enslaved were a good thing (and one could argue that some economic benefits came from enslavement, and increased populations) then you are a racist (unless you feel we should allow all people to become slaves regardless of skin colour... i guess you could get around it that way...)

@" I'd like to point out that one of the reasons for Trump winning the general election was that some lower and middle class white men who previously voted Democratic, switched to vote Republican."

Yes, that was my point. These white men who suffered under the Obama administration, didn't want to see more of that. Of course they suffered from a weak economy, which was caused by a crisis on wall street under Bush. But they suffered during the Obama administration, and even if their quality of life was reduced, there were still people worse off who should get help first.

Still, the system shit on them, and they are right to be angry. And Clinton represented a bad choice, it was clear that she represented more of the same. Unfortunately Trump represented a worse choice. He represented shitting on scapegoats who had no responsibility for causing the economic downturn, whether they are Muslim migrants, or Latino workers, or whoever Trump is scapegoating today. They typically contribute more to the economy than they take out and don't make major decisions affect wall street.

The fact that many people saw only two (shitty) choices is an artifact of a shitty 'two-party' system. But that's a whole other conversation.

@"With your last paragraph, you are implying that there is some institutional bias that favors cishet, white males. Have you any proof for this? I have already told you that I think that there are more natural explanations that account for the differences between groups."

Tonnes. and not just institutional but also cultural. You can look at sentencing in the justice system. White male teenagers tend to be given shorter sentences and more likely to be treated as juveniles compared with Black male teenagers.

Cis males tend to be more likely to be hired than trans males or non-binary folk (though eventually you get some trans men with cas-passing privilege).

There are hundreds of ways institutions privilege us. I can tell you i wear glasses, and i'm luck that that particular disability isn't seen as making me disabled. In that sense i'm privileged by the fact that i'm able-bodied (or at least i can pass for being able bodied, because people often ignore my glasses, or see them as a sign of intelligence).

I don't know any of these 'natural' explanation you seem to think exist. The most natural one i can think of is that black people were brought to America as slaves, they were freed not by society as a whole coming to the conclusion that slavery was bad (and some southern slave owners defended the practice saying it was actually better than wage slavery, because a waged worker is only renting his time to his employer, when you own property you're more likely to look after it, when you only rent it for a period of time then you don't have to worry about damaging it or wearing it out...) They were forced by violence to give up their slaves, and thus continued to think of them as lesser human beings.

To pretend that this level of racism doesn't still exist in america and it doesn't negatively affect outcomes for black people is blatantly ignorant.

@"I disagree that capitalism encourages racism and misogyny. In fact, I would argue that capitalism does do the exact opposite. A company is successfull if it hires the best people for the jobs, regardless of race and skin color. Therefore, capitalism works against racism and misogyny."

You are correct, and the corporations which support democrats tend to think that way. But they aren't the only corporations in america, and there is diversity. But if all the poor people and middle class people, if all the people who are oppressed and exploited (by renting their bodies to corporations - as described by southern democrats) - if they all got together and occupied wall street (or similar) they would represent a huge threat to the status quo, ie to the powers that be.

It doesn't matter how much money you have if everyone else decides to reject the concept of money then you lose all your power... And the wealthy and powerful know this, they have to keep people fighting with each other so they don't unite against the 1%...

When you look at American history, there was a time when the white irish catholics were massively discriminated against and started to identify with poor black workers, so the factory owners, deciding this was a threat, started treating the irish (despite being poor and catholic) slightly better than the black workers. And this managed to divide the two groups. (Catholic Irish had their first president far earlier than Obama - the 35th presidetn vs the 44th). It is an effective tactic, and while there are other forces at work, as you pointed out, capitalism wants to exploit people, it wants to make them feel weak and powerless, to have a need to consume their products, to not feel whole without them. There are many more incentives within a capitalistic system than your views appear to see.

@"You mention 'state sponsored violence' here. I am curious what you mean with that. What violence against US citizens has been sponsored by the state?"

- everything BLM opposes; when the justice system refuses to punish a police officer for murder, that is state sponsored violence. Every bit of violence against No-DAPL protesters (that is the state sponsoring violence to benefit corporations against local people).

And you can see the difference in how militarized the police attend fascist rallies contrasts the policing of protesters who object to the exploitation of the environment - again No-DAPL.

I skimmed over this page and saw some angry rambling and ridiculous statements. However, I am getting tired of arguing SJW's on this forum. They are wrong and the more you argue with SJW's the more you feed into their delusional and 100% wrong worldview. Just let them rant to themselves.. that's how I feel today anyway.

@Yoyoyozo

Do I have proof? No. To summarize myself: My initial post was a reaction on Orathaic, who seemed to argue that the fact that white men are relatively wealthy is reason enough to see them as 'privileged' and who seemed to argue that this is reason enough to implement 'positive discrimination' like gender quotas as well. I tried to argue that there could be other factors that nobody can do anything about that could explain differences between groups of people, and that therefore, for example, the fact that white people are relatively more wealthy is unsufficient reason to assume that they get better oppurtunities. I mentioned IQ as a possible other explanation, but I am no expert here and likely there are a multitude of different factors at play.

You mention several studies. If you link these, I'll look into them.

@"who seemed to argue that the fact that white men are relatively wealthy is reason enough to see them as 'privileged'"

Being born wealthy is a privilege. A wealthy person of colour is more privileged than a poor person of colour.

Being born white is a privilege. A white person is more privileged (in America) than a non-white person.

These two types of privilege do interact. If you are white and people therefore assume you are wealthy, then you benefit more than if you are black and wealthy but people assume you are poor.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=gender+bias+in+employment&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=racial+bias+in+employment&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

"Being born white is a privilege. A white person is more privileged (in America) than a non-white person."

WOW, that's a racist statement. You are just judging people based on their skin color. That's sicko stuff.

ND, do you understand the meaning of privileged? Can you define it for me please.

https://law.yale.edu/system/files/area/workshop/leo/leo16_fryer.pdf
http://ziglercenter.yale.edu/publications/Preschool%20Implicit%20Bias%20Policy%20Brief_final_9_26_276766_5379.pdf

Both peer reviewed studies that suggest racial bias and/or discrimination.

If you want more examples. You can just go to scholar.google.com and search "is there racial bias in ..."

@Mercy - No I'm about equality for both or at the very least a sufficient standard of living for all human beings despite their background, race, religion, etc etc, but if you're going to argue that only one is necessary at least argue it properly and understand the context behind certain limitations and why that equality of opportunity still does not exist in the current world. If you want true equality of opportunity, we should strip everyone of everything they've accumulated from their families from generation to generation and then enroll them all in exactly the same program with exactly the same resources. Then, if the results stay the same maybe I would let you make your point.

As it stands, you're just wrong and racist. See ya.

So take away anythig that makes anyone unique and individual. Got it. Cool.

Glad we understand the dystopia you're striving for.

The only thing that makes people unique is the property and status they hold in society?? Weird.. I thought it was my personal interest in diplomacy that has everyone captivated with me.

Anyway, pls lrn2read b4 responding 2 me w/ terrible comebacks, thx

@DO: It's absolutely a racist worldview. Anyone who advocates for it is arguing that all white people, simply for being born white, that live in the 'West' are privileged. I.E. they get societal benefits because they are white. However, this is false. It's also totally untrue, fake, and on it's own a racist theory. If you are going to argue that just because someone is white it means they are favored, you, yourself are buying into racial science "racist" theory and thus you are a racist. Sorry, but if you buy into a racist theory then you are one too.

These kind of racial science and racist theories disgust me. I find them repulsive and sickening and I can't believe that any logical or rational person living in the 21st century would ever buy into something like this.