Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[DGuller]

Everyone was born to different circumstances, and thus different levels of head start in different ways.

But the thing is, as a statistician knows well, that one's very individual circumstances actually shares a lot of things in common with quite a few number of different people, including things we like to imagine to be unique to us. And all societies are organized around categories that do group people together; people are happy to belong to groups that provide invisible advantages precisely because it magnifies their own accomplishments. In a society that glorified collective accomplishments, that may be frowned upon. But in the US (and elsewhere), the myth of the self-made individual is especially strong, with considerable deleterious effects.

Bringing statistics in to justify bigotry is Pandora's box better left unopened.  Bigotry is wrong because it is morally wrong, and because it's self-perpetuating.

[The Larch]

Everyone was born to different circumstances, and thus different levels of head start in different ways.

But the thing is, as a statistician knows well, that one's very individual circumstances actually shares a lot of things in common with quite a few number of different people, including things we like to imagine to be unique to us. And all societies are organized around categories that do group people together; people are happy to belong to groups that provide invisible advantages precisely because it magnifies their own accomplishments. In a society that glorified collective accomplishments, that may be frowned upon. But in the US (and elsewhere), the myth of the self-made individual is especially strong, with considerable deleterious effects.

Bringing statistics in to justify bigotry is Pandora's box better left unopened.  Bigotry is wrong because it is morally wrong, and because it's self-perpetuating.

Where do you get a justification for bigotry from? 

[DGuller]

Everyone was born to different circumstances, and thus different levels of head start in different ways.

But the thing is, as a statistician knows well, that one's very individual circumstances actually shares a lot of things in common with quite a few number of different people, including things we like to imagine to be unique to us. And all societies are organized around categories that do group people together; people are happy to belong to groups that provide invisible advantages precisely because it magnifies their own accomplishments. In a society that glorified collective accomplishments, that may be frowned upon. But in the US (and elsewhere), the myth of the self-made individual is especially strong, with considerable deleterious effects.

Bringing statistics in to justify bigotry is Pandora's box better left unopened.  Bigotry is wrong because it is morally wrong, and because it's self-perpetuating.

Where do you get a justification for bigotry from? 

From reading his post? The bolded sentence basically reduces part of individual circumstances down to a common level (presumably race, although it's shrouded in Oex-speak).  I'm not disagreeing factually as a statistician, but I'm saying that this isn't a line of argument you want to open up.  You don't want to be deciding whether treating people differently due to their race is appropriate based on statistical arguments.

[The Larch]

I don't see how you get to bigotry from that. I don't even see how you get to what you say from that.

[DGuller]

I don't see how you get to bigotry from that. I don't even see how you get to what you say from that.

That doesn't give me much to go on, does it?

[The Larch]

I don't see how you get to bigotry from that. I don't even see how you get to what you say from that.

That doesn't give me much to go on, does it?

You could try explaining it in a different way.

[The Brain]

I used to believe that "bigotry" involved untrue or at least unfounded ideas about the groups concerned. But checking dictionaries it appears I was at least partly wrong. Learning is good.

[grumbler]

Statements that would be racist with a different racial appellation attached to them are racist, period. 

I agree that the term "white privilege" is counter-productive if the purpose of using the term is to help others understand they underlying issues, but it is marvelous when used as a crutch for one's own virtue signaling.  It's possible to use it in a fairly benign manner, to describe the situation that exists (not really meaning "privilege" but really "lack of burden"), but is seldom received in that manner even if the use is supposed to be benign.

I don't know of a better term, though, because there's evidence in front of us that tells us that, rather than whites having the expected outcomes and blacks suffering worse outcomes because of racism, it is in facts blacks that suffer the expected outcomes in the US and whites getting treated better because of positive racism.  What's the evidence?   The fact that black cops have the same ratio of violent outcomes between blacks and white as white cops do.  Lots of cops apparently feel that their first instinct should be to use force and that they should only refrain if current circumstances indicate otherwise; and that the victim being white is one (but obviously not the only one) of those current circumstances.

So, "White privilege" sucks as a term to describe a problem in a way that leads to constructive engagement over how to solve the problem, but it isn't "wrong" to think that it does exist as a privilege.

[DGuller]

I don't see how you get to bigotry from that. I don't even see how you get to what you say from that.

That doesn't give me much to go on, does it?

You could try explaining it in a different way.

It's not really easy to explain things in a different way in response to "I don't get it", but I'll try anyway.

Oex is speaking to me as a statistician, and he says that "a lot of very individual circumstances actually shares a lot of things in common with quite a few number of different people".  He's speaking to me as a statisticians, and it's very clear to me as a statistician what he's saying.  What he's saying is that there is a common denominator to people's circumstances.  It doesn't mean that this common denominator explains all of them, but it just explains a part of them greater than 0%.  If you know someone's common denominator, you can make a better than random guess as to what their circumstances are.  We're discussing "white privilege" here, so in context I think it's fair to assume that what he's saying here is that white people's circumstances are on average somewhat better than other people's.  Are you with me so far?

I don't disagree with above factually, it's pretty clear that statistically it is true.  What I am saying is that even if true, arguments of the form of "people of race X are on average different in some way" is a dangerous argument to make when justifying treating them differently in some way or holding them to different standards.  It's morally wrong, and let's just leave it at that.  Really, I think it is best to be left at that.

How do I get bigotry from that?  It comes from assuming that bigotry is defined as treating people differently because of their identity.  I guess you can make an argument that bigotry is treating people differently because of their identity in a way that's not statistically justified, but then we're back to the dangers I described in the prior paragraph.

[DGuller]

Statements that would be racist with a different racial appellation attached to them are racist, period. 

I agree that the term "white privilege" is counter-productive if the purpose of using the term is to help others understand they underlying issues, but it is marvelous when used as a crutch for one's own virtue signaling.  It's possible to use it in a fairly benign manner, to describe the situation that exists (not really meaning "privilege" but really "lack of burden"), but is seldom received in that manner even if the use is supposed to be benign.

I don't know of a better term, though, because there's evidence in front of us that tells us that, rather than whites having the expected outcomes and blacks suffering worse outcomes because of racism, it is in facts blacks that suffer the expected outcomes in the US and whites getting treated better because of positive racism.  What's the evidence?   The fact that black cops have the same ratio of violent outcomes between blacks and white as white cops do.  Lots of cops apparently feel that their first instinct should be to use force and that they should only refrain if current circumstances indicate otherwise; and that the victim being white is one (but obviously not the only one) of those current circumstances.

So, "White privilege" sucks as a term to describe a problem in a way that leads to constructive engagement over how to solve the problem, but it isn't "wrong" to think that it does exist as a privilege.

I recall Trevor Noah once arguing that "white privilege" is a bad term, because white people born to decidedly unprivileged circumstances are going to be justifiable offended.  He drew on his South African experience and argued that we should be using the term "black tax" instead.

[Malthus]

I don't see how you get to bigotry from that. I don't even see how you get to what you say from that.

A determination of collective differences between identified groups is a generalization. Generalizations may be true or not true. However, in either case, applying a generalization to a specific individual risks that generalization becoming a stereotype. Bigotry is often based on the application of negative stereotypes to identified individuals.

So basing one's individual circumstances on statistical generalities about a group creates a risk of bigotry.

To give an example: it is true that in the US, Blacks are more commonly convicted of crimes than Whites (never mind that this is likely due at least in part to the very 'white Privilege' under discussion). That can be a true statement, yet lead to bigotry, in this manner: a person assumes, based on this statistic, that an individual Black person is more likely to be a criminal, and treats them accordingly.

[Maximus]

3)  It's racist.  If making generalization about races is wrong, then it is wrong regardless of race.  If making generalizations about genders is wrong, then it is wrong regardless of gender.  If something that you say would sound horrible if you substitute "black" for "white" or "female" for "male", then it actually sounds horrible to at least some reasonable people and thus should be avoided.  If you think that history made bigotry against some okay but not against others, then stop arguing against bigotry, as it's confusing how you can be arguing against it while supporting it.  Bigotry is wrong because it strips individuality from people and reduces them to identities, and white people are just as much of individuals as others.

Is it racist to recognize that racism exists? To say someone has white privilege isn't to say they do X because they're white; it's saying they (don't) have X done to them because they're white. It's describing a passive role rather than ascribing an active one.

[Valmy]

If the phrase "white privilege" is pissing off reasonable white people, then maybe it's a sign that this phrase is counter-productive.

I agree and like I said not just white people find it confusing. But nobody consulted me. But this is not unusual when words from academia go out into the wild. Like "institutional racism" which is probably well understood and agreed upon in the ivory tower but confusing outside it.

I think there are three big problems with "white privilege":

1)  Even if there is some truth to it, the messaging is completely counter-productive.  Everyone was born to different circumstances, and thus different levels of head start in different ways.  Some people won the lottery in most of the ways that matter, and thus it's much more likely that they will go on to have a successful life.  If you want such people to empathize with the less fortunate one, hitting them in the face with the hammer of "duh, it was easy for you" is not the effective way to get them to empathize.  This is less about truth and more about effective human communication; sometimes the only way to get the point across is to gently nudge people to get them to see it your way.

2)  Even if you're born to favorable circumstances, you still have to execute on them.  Therefore, people who still executed on them well but now have those achievements dismissed might be a little miffed.  Perhaps human beings with human emotions would be more receptive to messaging of the "it's harder for people in difference circumstances" kind than they would be to "it was easier for you".  Mathematically it's identical, but unfortunately people do not evaluate statements mathematically.

3)  It's racist.  If making generalization about races is wrong, then it is wrong regardless of race.  If making generalizations about genders is wrong, then it is wrong regardless of gender.  If something that you say would sound horrible if you substitute "black" for "white" or "female" for "male", then it actually sounds horrible to at least some reasonable people and thus should be avoided.  If you think that history made bigotry against some okay but not against others, then stop arguing against bigotry, as it's confusing how you can be arguing against it while supporting it.  Bigotry is wrong because it strips individuality from people and reduces them to identities, and white people are just as much of individuals as others.

1. Again this is an academia concept not designed in a lab to be a political slogan.

2. So?

3. Is pointing out how racism is a problem racist itself? I don't see it.

I totally disagree with you except for the first part. The other two are things but have nothing to do with the phrase white privilege itself. To the extent they are problems they are just issues stemming from the first part. People do not understand the concept and instead react emotionally making it limited in its usefulness.

But again the term was not invented to be used by the wider public in a political debate so it is perhaps not unsurprising it sucks for that purpose.

[alfred russel]

What strikes me the wrong way is the term "privilege" implies a special right or benefit. As far as I can tell, it involves not being harassed by cops, not having people assume you are a criminal, generally assuming you are a decent human being rather than the worst, etc.

None of those should be a special right or benefit in a sane society - I think the Trevor Noah comment about "black tax" seems more accurate as it isn't a special benefit being given to whites but a penalty being applied to minorities.

[Admiral Yi]

A determination of collective differences between identified groups is a generalization. Generalizations may be true or not true. However, in either case, applying a generalization to a specific individual risks that generalization becoming a stereotype. Bigotry is often based on the application of negative stereotypes to identified individuals.

So basing one's individual circumstances on statistical generalities about a group creates a risk of bigotry.

To give an example: it is true that in the US, Blacks are more commonly convicted of crimes than Whites (never mind that this is likely due at least in part to the very 'white Privilege' under discussion). That can be a true statement, yet lead to bigotry, in this manner: a person assumes, based on this statistic, that an individual Black person is more likely to be a criminal, and treats them accordingly.

I have a problem with calling this pattern "bigotry" because to my mind it is a perfectly natural response to differing probabilities of wrongdoing. Take the example of shoplifting.  If we assume for the sake of argument that blacks are X% more likely to shoplift than whites, it is perfectly rational for store security to pay more attention to black shoppers than white.  In effect, people who use this definition of bigot require others to pretend that true facts are not true facts.

I've been pushing for a while now to use a different definition of bigot, one that is motivated by animus.  If I wish for bad outcomes for certain groups then I'm a bigot.  If I wish a group ill I'm a bigot.  If I want all Jews to die I'm a bigot.

I don't wish any group ill.  I want everybody to prosper, succeed, and be happy.  But that also includes altering some patterns of antisocial behavior.