White privilege and 12 Years A Slave

[ingemann]

It doesn't matter whether Chauncey DeVega are right or not. The moment she decided to use the term "White Privilege", the discussion are over and the name calling have begun.

[ingemann]

It doesn't matter whether Chauncey DeVega are right or not. The moment she decided to use the term "White Privilege", the discussion are over and the name calling have begun.

White Privilege is a really useful concept, IMO- it represents a phenomenon which definitely exists in our culture. I'm not quite sure how it functions as name-calling- explain?

Whether the concept are useful as theorectic construction are a lot different than whether it's a good idea calling people out for it.

It's always a good idea to ask yourself whether the thing you believe are a result of social advantage. Do I not care about abortion because I'm a man as example are a good idea to ask yourself.

But when you say other people only believe the things they believe because of a social advantage, it's pure name calling, no different than calling people racist, volvo driving latte drinking liberal, unpatriotic etc. It's the argument of people who are not willing to back up their argument, but try to silence their opposition by belittle them.

[ingemann]

It doesn't matter whether Chauncey DeVega are right or not. The moment she decided to use the term "White Privilege", the discussion are over and the name calling have begun.

White Privilege is a really useful concept, IMO- it represents a phenomenon which definitely exists in our culture. I'm not quite sure how it functions as name-calling- explain?

Whether the concept are useful as theorectic construction are a lot different than whether it's a good idea calling people out for it.

It's always a good idea to ask yourself whether the thing you believe are a result of social advantage. Do I not care about abortion because I'm a man as example are a good idea to ask yourself.

But when you say other people only believe the things they believe because of a social advantage, it's pure name calling, no different than calling people racist, volvo driving latte drinking liberal, unpatriotic etc. It's the argument of people who are not willing to back up their argument, but try to silence their opposition by belittle them.

On the Atlas, we talk about how cultural cleavages like social class or gender affect people's perceptions (usually in the context of voting). What makes race any different from that?

There are no difference, the question is what you want with the debate, if you just want to "win" a discussion on the internet or insult a person in a way which don't get you banned or kicked, it's a quite useful argument. The difference here is that I tend to expect pundits (even bloggers) to have a higher quality in their argument than people who bicker on discussion boards. In the same way I expect an essay in paper to be of higher quality than LTE's.

[ingemann]

I don't know- the article was pretty well though out- it wasn't just "lol white people are racists!!1!!

But what was exactly what I said in my first post, it doesn't whether she has a good point, a lot of people simply stop reading a text when the word "White Privilege" are used. It's rather common that people simply stop reading when a term are used. As example if I read a text about immigration I stop reading if the word Eurabia or Aztlan are used, or if I read a text about Muslims, I stop reading if I read "religion of peace" both if it's used sarcastic and if it's not. You just know in 99% of the times you can more or less guess the rest of the text.