A white man was attacked by a group of black women, who kept kicking him in the head after he had fallen to the ground.
- "There were security guards standing around doing absolutely nothing. They ignored it, even though he was being attacked."
What I don't understand is, why didn't he use his privilege to defend himself? Where's the patriarchy when you need it?
I understand that you're being purposefully sarcastic, but how exactly does "white male privilege" equate to an ability to defend oneself? Race and sex had nothing to do with the story besides act as basic descriptors of both the offenders and the victims. Don't you think that instead of spinning a tragedy to serve your own agenda (which, to be honest, seems rather hateful) you could comment on the actions of the security teams of KFC and the casino? Even speculating on the reasons behind an unprovoked attack, or ways to defend yourself in that situation. You could talk about the causes and dangers of heart palpitations. Any of these things could be infinitely more useful than smugly asking "where's his white privilege?" Better yourself.
There's a huge difference between using loaded words like "rape" or "genocide" versus the buzzwords that you choose to use. One has narrow definitions that respects the reader's ability to decide whether they're appropriately used or not and the other manipulates the readers into letting themselves be trapped into a certain mindset by preying on insecurities, ignorance, and pre-concieved notions. You use the latter.
Why is it that people must automatically resort to these attempts at "gotcha" questions rather than actually addressing the point someone made? You're intentionally trying to get an emotional charge out of this while refusing to engage. I thought hubski was meant to be better than reddit.Had it been a group of white men beating a black woman while the security guards refused to help her, would you still say that race and sex had nothing to do with the story? Or would that be a hate crime?
A fair point. I would probably be more upset that a group of men is beating on a woman. The bone and muscle structure of men tends to lead to them being stronger on average and therefore they could do longer lasting damage in a shorter time to a woman. I think that hate crime gets thrown around too easily. The Ku Klux Klan lynching a black person would be a hate crime. I don't think that a seemingly random attack between two parties of differing races should be classified as a hate crime. It's tough to accurately explore a person's motivations, but even if the situation was reversed, I don't think there is enough information given to determine a racial or gender (unsure if this is the correct form of the word) motivation. Edit - I also think that I'm being influenced by the way my parents raised me. "Don't hit girls" and whatnot. I think that your hypothetical offends my ingrained sensibilities more than it logically makes a difference. I hesitate to use absolutes, but no group of people should be beating on anyone. Both situations involve repugnant acts and should be met with swift and decisive justice.
I was also taught that you should never hit a woman, or as we say in Italy "you don't touch a woman - not even with a flower". I always knew it was bullshit. Men are stronger on average, but there are plenty of big girls and small guys out there, and just because a woman is weaker and frailer than me, it doesn't mean she can't hurt me. It's ridiculous how some people say that men are the priviliged sex, when we can't even defend ourselves from violent women.
Morgan Freeman once expressed a way to stop racism: "Stop talking about it! I'm gonna stop calling you a white man, and I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man". Do you think it is important to propogate the idea of someone's superiority, even if to moke it, if it means reinforcing the barrier you're trying to crush by acerbity of thought?
Morgan Freeman would be considered racist by many black people for saying that. Why? Because by suggesting that we should stop talking about race, he's not acknowledging the problems that blacks face because of their race. It seems clear to me that people won't stop talking about race any time soon, so if you decide to stay silent all you've accomplished is to let someone else speak for you.
His words are not about staying silent one-sided: if we stop talking about racism as if race is something to consider when it comes to human rights, from both sides, and give both sides what they deserve as human beings (which isn't too much to ask anyway), then there would be no problem left to solve or even discuss. Your action, however, didn't seem to have the purpose of doing something that will replace ignorance with knowledge: you mocked something that didn't need any more mocking. What was the point of that? To raise awareness? Of what? Of that black people should be treated poorly because they're angry and evil? Of that there is apparently such a thing as "white privilege" (as if white people are really somehow better than black, brown, yellow and what-have-you people)? Who benefits from learning any of that? Black children and teenagers? White children and teenagers? Blacks will find out that they're apparently evil and supposed to be angry, so they act angry, and whites find out that they're supposed to act as if they're a higher society than people not of their skin color for some convoluted selfish reason. I'm failing to see a benefit.
Considering the fact that white and male privilege is considered a serious concept by many, including here on Hubski, I'd say that my action was completely justified. I'll gladly stop mocking their stupid ideas when their stupidity has ceased to be a matter of dispute.
That's not what I was trying to say, but I do think that there are cases where "not saying anything unless you have something nice to say" is actually detrimental to the public discourse, and that there's a time and place for both constructive and destructive input.
I think he's trying to communicate that "white privilege" and "the patriarchy" are largely made-up problems. He alluded to a double standard too. When a (white) guy was getting beaten up by (black) girls, security guards didn't give a damn. But we all know that if a bunch of white guys were beating up a black girl, the security guards would have intervened, the guys would get sentenced and there would be riots on the streets (with black people doing their typical let's-vandalize-and-loot-innocent-businesses thing).
I don't think you understand what white privilege means. It certainly has never meant "you can pick a fight and somehow win by magic, via your whiteness," as far as I've ever seen it expressed. This is perhaps the most idiotic post I've ever seen on hubski. Please, take this back to reddit where you will get a lifetime supply of upvotes. I think most users here are going to see your failure to even make use of basic definitions in crafting a logical construct. "White person injured by black people" != white privilege doesn't exist. How does that need to be explained? Find a child and have them explain it to you, if you're still struggling.
Ah yes, Reddit. That cesspool of idiocy we can all smugly look down upon from Mount Hubski. It's a good thing we're so much more civilized here that the kind of hyperbolic vitriol you just spewed would never get heavily upvoted (~shared). .. Oh wait.
he was judged on the merits of what he said, out loud, intentionally. It was factually wrong and expressing bias to boot. He has every right to say that sort of thing - but no reason to expect praise for being a moral midget. I personally do encourage such expressions. It allows me to refine my filtration.
I think you'd have an argument if I was responding to a serious post with vitriol, but I wasn't; I was responding to race-baiting with the response that it deserves. I did at the very least lay out what made it so off the mark, but even that wasn't desperately in need of explanation. If someone started a conversation by saying, "I don't get why the US needs affirmative action" or "do we really need protected classes in the US now that racism is more or less solved" I would treat it as a sincere dialogue. In this case I don't think any ceremony is called for, however.