White privilege is a myth

[Atlanticmike]

I've told you at least 3or4 times. Stop insulting posters and I calm right on down bro!! insult Trump, insult Republicans, insult conservatives, insult Mormons insult Christians, insult whoever you want, just don't make it personal and this board can thrive and actually grow. But you, schmo and Doc cam can't help yourself, insults have become a routine thing on this board. It's obvious to anyone reading through current and past threads that you guys are here to insult anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion.

No one cares if you "insult" anyone else. You are an idiot, with no credibility. Which is why you had to create Cult for the appearance of backup support.

Nope!! That dude is way smarter than me. And yes people/posters do care about insults!! That's why people are a little upset right now.

[canpakes]

And yes people/posters do care about insults!! That's why people are a little upset right now.

Your concern is defined by ideology as opposed to behavior. You should own that.

[Atlanticmike]

And yes people/posters do care about insults!! That's why people are a little upset right now.

Your concern is defined by ideology as opposed to behavior. You should own that.

Honest question! Would this forum be more enjoyable to read through without personal insults?

[Atlanticmike]

And yes people/posters do care about insults!! That's why people are a little upset right now.

Your concern is defined by ideology as opposed to behavior. You should own that.
[/quote

Ooops

[canpakes]

Your concern is defined by ideology as opposed to behavior. You should own that.

Honest question! Would this forum be more enjoyable to read through without personal insults?

If you believed that, you wouldn’t be freaking out over folks like Jersey Girl or Some Schmo - or even Icarus - as compared to Cultellus.

Only one of the folks that I just mentioned has spent all of their time trying to insult almost every person in this forum. ; )

[canpakes]

Atlanticmike, I’ll help get your thread back on track. We can go back to watching Cultelllus cry out for attention after a look at the fourth example from Hutcherson’s list -

4. When we started getting our college acceptances senior year, I remember some white male classmates were pissed that a black classmate had gotten into UCLA while they didn’t. They said that affirmative action had given him “their spot” and it wasn’t fair. An actual friend of theirs. Who’d worked his ass off. The point here is, if you’ve never been on the receiving end of the assumption that when you’ve achieved something it’s only because it was taken away from a white person who “deserved it,” you have white privilege.

[Chap]

Atlanticmike, I’ll help get your thread back on track. We can go back to watching Cultelllus cry out for attention after a look at the fourth example from Hutcherson’s list -

4. When we started getting our college acceptances senior year, I remember some white male classmates were pissed that a black classmate had gotten into UCLA while they didn’t. They said that affirmative action had given him “their spot” and it wasn’t fair. An actual friend of theirs. Who’d worked his ass off. The point here is, if you’ve never been on the receiving end of the assumption that when you’ve achieved something it’s only because it was taken away from a white person who “deserved it,” you have white privilege.

I have to say that this post reveals one of the problems that must inevitably follow from affirmative action programmes. I understand why the these programmes were instituted, and am not advocating their suspension. But inevitably admitting more students who fall within a given category must imply less of those outside it.

Why don't universities that have such programmes simply reduce the number of favoured entry 'legacy students' who are given entry with lower qualifications simply because they are the children of alumni? Does UCLA have such a practice?

[canpakes]

Atlanticmike, I’ll help get your thread back on track. We can go back to watching Cultelllus cry out for attention after a look at the fourth example from Hutcherson’s list -

I have to say that this post reveals one of the problems that must inevitably follow from affirmative action programmes. I understand why the these programmes were instituted, and am not advocating their suspension. But inevitably admitting more students who fall within a given category must imply less of those outside it.

Why don't universities that have such programmes simply reduce the number of favoured entry 'legacy students' who are given entry with lower qualifications simply because they are the children of alumni? Does UCLA have such a practice?

With mention of this, you shine an interesting light on another type of privilege - legacy admissions. And it doesn’t necessarily affect just students of color.

[ceeboo]

Icarus,

Just like many people on this board, I have been participating on them for years. I always try (sometimes fail) to extend the benefit of the doubt to all - One of the reasons I do this (not the only reason but a big one in my opinion) is because I recognize, understand and appreciate how valuable it is when I am extended this very same benefit of doubt by others.

After reading many of your board contributions over the last few days, I must say, You are really really really making it really really really difficult on me to extend this precious courtesy to you. Although, after I say a few short words that I feel compelled to say about your post below, I will do my best moving forward.

Shades is, if anything, a Right Winger. No help has ever come from Shades in discussions, and if people didn't know he was the board owner they'd probably think he was a troll. I was hoping he'd clean up the mess in his own yard, but he's more afraid of offending complete strangers on the internet than he is in providing a respectable environment for intelligent discourse.

This strikes me as monumentally unappreciative of what Shades has provided for all of us. As someone who has been permanently banned from every other LDS related board that I have ever been on over the years, I find myself deeply grateful to Shades for merely making this place exist.

A few more points I would like you to consider and then I will sign off.

You were "hoping he would clean up the mess in his own yard" - Really? Have you ever considered that the people who were involved in making the mess ought to be the ones doing the cleaning up? And if we are all more than welcomed (By Shades) to simply come and play in his yard - whenever we want - for as long as we want - without ever having to cut the grass - without ever having to water the grass - and without ever having to take any responsibility for making sure the grass will be there tomorrow. Have you ever considered that we should be thanking him for being able to use his grass? - And if thanking someone for getting to play on their grass all day is something that you don't feel the need to do or show some level of appreciation for - perhaps you could at least not assign negative motives to him for how he chooses to interact and/or handle ALL OF THOSE INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN INVITED BY HIM TO PLAY ON HIS GRASS.

Signing off.

[Atlanticmike]

Icarus,

Just like many people on this board, I have been participating on them for years. I always try (sometimes fail) to extend the benefit of the doubt to all - One of the reasons I do this (not the only reason but a big one in my opinion) is because I recognize, understand and appreciate how valuable it is when I am extended this very same benefit of doubt by others.

After reading many of your board contributions over the last few days, I must say, You are really really really making it really really really difficult on me to extend this precious courtesy to you. Although, after I say a few short words that I feel compelled to say about your post below, I will do my best moving forward.

Shades is, if anything, a Right Winger. No help has ever come from Shades in discussions, and if people didn't know he was the board owner they'd probably think he was a troll. I was hoping he'd clean up the mess in his own yard, but he's more afraid of offending complete strangers on the internet than he is in providing a respectable environment for intelligent discourse.

This strikes me as monumentally unappreciative of what Shades has provided for all of us. As someone who has been permanently banned from every other LDS related board that I have ever been on over the years, I find myself deeply grateful to Shades for merely making this place exist.

A few more points I would like you to consider and then I will sign off.

You were "hoping he would clean up the mess in his own yard" - Really? Have you ever considered that the people who were involved in making the mess ought to be the ones doing the cleaning up? And if we are all more than welcomed (By Shades) to simply come and play in his yard - whenever we want - for as long as we want - without ever having to cut the grass - without ever having to water the grass - and without ever having to take any responsibility for making sure the grass will be there tomorrow. Have you ever considered that we should be thanking him for being able to use his grass? - And if thanking someone for getting to play on their grass all day is something that you don't feel the need to do or show some level of appreciation for - perhaps you could at least not assign negative motives to him for how he chooses to interact and/or handle ALL OF THOSE INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN INVITED BY HIM TO PLAY ON HIS GRASS.

Signing off.

Awesome post!!