Hilliary vs. Trump: The 2016 US Presidental Election

That's just it isn't it. People's circumstances are different all over. A white protestant from Northern Ireland wouldn't have his white protestant privilege were he to migrate to Japan or Korea where he would just be an oddity to the locals. The problem is just automatically tarring everyone with this one brush of x privilege doesn't do anyone any favours. It pisses the person with the supposed privilege off and undermines those who have a genuine disadvantage.

I think people get too wrapped up in internet stuff from America and start assuming things are the same in their own locale. Even in America, who has more privilege: The daughter of a wealthy blackman or a white yokel living in a trailer park with alimony for 2 ex wives.

 

Exactly. Think of privilege as the memetic societal equivalent of genetic attributes that convey a natural selective advantage in a certain environments/conditions. There are a bunch of them and they interact and have different levels of influence. And if the societal environment changes, what was a privilege before becomes a neutral attribute or even a disadvantage.

So when I talk about white male privilege I am talking about a specific societal advantage in a specific society. In Japan, being white does not convey privilege. Being male still does, however.

This is also not tarring with a brush; it is acknowledgement that we live in a society where people get stereotyped in ways that advantage and disadvantage them in different contexts (and sometimes at the same time). I have experienced discrimination for my ethnicity but am also aware of my male privilege in some situations, and definitely the privilege conveyed by my educational opportunities (even if I actually had a teacher suggest to me once that I didn't belong in her school for white middle-class kids, and twice teachers believed I cheated on my homework assignment because it was "too good"). I don't get sore about it because everybody experiences prejudice in some form or other. And everybody also experiences some advantage in some way or other because of it. It's a fact of life.

 

Indeed, as you said yourself:

High social class is really the same thing as wealth, we are on the same page:
Privilege comes from wealth.

But when people drag race or gender into it we enter the very murky waters of correlation does not imply causation.

 

Wealth is a pretty universal privilege, so it's quite unambiguous.

Here's a nice anecdote about the contextual nature of privilege. A researcher studied what happened to two social classes in London: the descendants of a group of upper middle class Victorian women (and some men) involved in charitable works for the poor, and the working class Victorian poor families that they supported.

Research found that in present day, the descendants of the upper middle class charity workers are still upper middle class families, living in affluent areas of the country, well-educated in good schools and working in high-earning jobs. The descendants of the working class poor are still working class, living in working class areas and doing unskilled jobs working in factories and call centres and the like. In 200 years there has been no social mobility.

Except: some of the Victorian poor got caught in a crime and deported to Australia. Those descendants are doing splendidly: one is a mayor. Another a judge. Many are highly qualified professionals leading affluent lives.

What gives? A change of context and hence, of privilege. When you're all a bunch of convicts sent to the new Australian colony, what matters is not so much where you came from (class privilege) as what you can do. All of a sudden social class doesn't matter, because they're all the same*. Intelligence does. Resourcefulness does. Having useful skills does. And those people thrived.

* Of course, as the Aboriginals found, being white did matter, and as women experienced, being male still mattered; those distinctions were still made.

 

Did you look at the 2 studies (and the article) I linked above? When scientists study these implicit biases they take measures avoid correlations that could influence the result. They're not stupid or incompetent.
The first study for example:

 

That's because the question's are geared towards pidgeon holing everybody into the corners where the establishment want you be.

I could re-write those questions to put verybody in the empty square.
In reality the empty square represents the place people you pay to govern you don't want you to be as a negates their purpose in your life and kills their means of earning a living off you.

Make no doubt, making political cucks trappped in idealogies are exactly what these establishments have been playing us for all along.

Divide and conquer.

 

Source?

If that's true Trump should sack him, Trump got a massive vote from the Florida gay community.
Remember the Florida nightclub terrorist attack...

 

^
Did you just use the word "cuck" in a discussion?
Unironically?

Internet protip: don't use /pol/ buzzwords outside of that containment board if you want people to take you seriously.

 

I'm glad it's not just me that thinks this.

So far everyone that I've heard use it has turned out to be a loon.

 

It's like thehippoz is back.

 

Especially when discussing the validity of tumbler buzzwords like white privilege. /Pol/ isn't very contained BTW they just elected their God emperor.

 

"White privilege" actually makes sense though.

 

The concept of privilege has been explained and discussed here in multiple posts and you just discarded all of that for "tumblr buzzword".

... At some point you have to wonder "why even bother trying to have a conversation?".

---

Now that brings back memories...

 

Well, he was more fun to listen to on occasion.

 

Is it too soon to bet on Trump winning a second term?

 

I'd like to hope that Trump's opponent will be someone whom is somewhere in the range of Likable. If Sanders could come back for Round 2 and actually get the DNC nomination this time; he'd likely give trump a damn good run for his money at that time.

 

And that response is supposed to make ME take YOU seriously, oh dear.

Think about how I have used the term, As I can see (by your er....protip) it had more effect than using "Cuckoo", you know, the bird that lays its eggs in other birds nests from which the slang "cuckold/cuck" is derived.
I think it was rather well used.
Shall we look at it again...

You come back at me telling me with an authourative "Don't" as if you occupy some kind of moral high ground with your "protip".
I guess it's easier than actually understanding why I used it....you make me chortle.

 

11-9-16

Hour 3 - Jim Marrs The View From Marrs…Aftermath