A taste of Prager U

[_honorentheos]

This thread is great. It's built on short, dumbed down videos meant to distill non-conservative thought into caricatures that appeal to conservative stereotypes...by being a liberal stereotype of conservative thinking. Ceebs is basically the guy on the sidewalk. Good times.

Example -

Belief: Conservatives are anti-intellectual.
This thread: Promotes an online kids program for adults that has a "U" in the title implying it's educational. The level of information it provides amounts to, "Liberals think they are so tolerant. But they aren't! How do you know? Because here are some examples of liberals being intolerant! You know who is tolerant? Right wing conservatives! I'll bet you, the viewer, are a tolerant person. YOU ARE!??? And you are on the right? SEE!!!! That proves it. People on the right are more tolerant than people on the left. And I should know, because I identify as someone on the left."

Belief: Conservatives underestimate the role birth circumstance plays in one's success.
This thread: Promotes what is usually recognized as a comedy bit from late night television to contrast white people talking about white privilege with black people saying such talk is just an excuse for someone of color to not strive to become the next President of the US. And HEY! The viewer, a person in another thread who openly pooh poohed the idea that one's ancestry and poverty level at birth played a significant role in one's life-long access to high achievement AGREES! Man on the street thinks this video is a 5 out of 5!

Seriously, I'm interested in seeing ceebs provide a legit example that demonstrates how conservatives support diversity of thought.

[_EAllusion]

White privilege is the idea that there are societal advantages people enjoy, on average, for being what people generally would consider white. This ranges from the trivial, for example, that hotels are more likely to stock shampoo that works with your hair, to the serious, that you are less likely to be harassed by security or law enforcement due to general suspicion of your race.

The idea is that because white privilege is so pervasive and unacknowledged, people who enjoy those privileges can start think of it as a default state they are entitled to. This in turn can breed defensiveness about those entitlements.

[_honorentheos]

White privilege is the idea that there are societal advantages people enjoy, on average, for being what people generally would consider white. This ranges from the trivial, for example, that hotels are more likely to stock shampoo that works with your hair, to the serious, that you are less likely to be harassed by security or law enforcement due to general suspicion of your race.

Ceebs is on record, well was until he deleted it, as being mystified that anyone thought a person's ethnic identity could negatively influence their ability to reach their potential. He's the man on the street saying, "It's so stupid anyone would complain about flesh colored crayons! Liberals are such sensitive snowflakes."

[_Ceeboo]

Wait, what? Why do you think the video was utter fallacy - a deceptive or a misleading/false notion.

I gave you an example of the flawed logic in my post.

It doesn't follow that because Hillary said we should talk to blacks, and we talk to blacks who say it's up to them to make it on their own, that there isn't a such thing as white privilege or that the "libertard" position is inconsistent. That was the overall story arch, and that is fallacious.

Fair enough.

What do you think the point of the video was? (by the way, my right-wing friend can't summarize the point of the stuff he sends me -- just saying in advance.)

My personal opinion is that video attempted to show how ridiculous (at least in the selected cases on the video) white privilege is and it also attempted to show how white privilege has seriously impacted and influenced some folks (Again, at least as it relates to the folks, selected as they surely may have been, shown in the video)

How did I do? Am I like your right-wing friend who can't summarize the point either?

(again, the notion of exactly what "white privilege" is, is foggy to me, but we'll never know unless we're given the best articulation not the worst)

I agree! And as I stated, I wish I could have seen the content given at the white privilege conference.

[Guest]

^ Man on the sidewalk.

Audience:

[_Ceeboo]

White privilege is the idea that there are societal advantages people enjoy, on average, for being what people generally would consider white. This ranges from the trivial, for example, that hotels are more likely to stock shampoo that works with your hair

Or the color of bandaids?

In my mind, these examples (silly as I find them) have everything to do with marketing and business decisions based on targeting the majority of their potential customers. The reason that hotels provide the kind of shampoo that they do is based on the majority of people who use the shampoo in their hotels. The decision rests on marketing and bottom line costs to run a business - They have nothing to do with "white privilege."

to the serious, that you are less likely to be harassed by security or law enforcement due to general suspicion of your race.

This I can agree with (at least to a large degree.) I recognize that this happens and I support changes (whatever they may be) to treat all Americans equally nd on an individual basis.

The idea is that because white privilege is so pervasive and unacknowledged, people who enjoy those privileges can start think of it as a default state they are entitled to. This in turn can breed defensiveness about those entitlements.

This, in my opinion, goes way too far.

[_honorentheos]

Ceebs is on record, well was until he deleted it, as being mystified that anyone thought a person's ethnic identity could negatively influence their ability to reach their potential. He's the man on the street saying, "It's so stupid anyone would complain about flesh colored crayons! Liberals are such sensitive snowflakes."

White privilege is the idea that there are societal advantages people enjoy, on average, for being what people generally would consider white. This ranges from the trivial, for example, that hotels are more likely to stock shampoo that works with your hair

Or the color of bandaids?

In my mind, these examples (silly as I find them) have everything to do with marketing and business decisions based on targeting the majority of their potential customers. The reason that hotels provide the kind of shampoo that they do is based on the majority of people who use the shampoo in their hotels. The decision rests on marketing and bottom line costs to run a business - They have nothing to do with "white privilege."

^ Man on the sidewalk.

Audience:

[_EAllusion]

here’s a short vid of Rubin giving some opinions that don’t really sound like anything I’ve heard from the liberal camp. And he’s coming across as someone who isn’t a very strong thinker.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpg_YivoKso

*sigh*

From what I've seen, Rubin frequently devolves into walking strawman of libertarians. I'm not following him day to day, though. I just know enough because he shows up in sources I like from time to time. Recently, he seems to be right at the intersection point of where libertarians go alt-rightish on you. You kind of hope that people who tune in to him get turned on to better libertarian sources he intersects with, but I kinda suspect he's more of a gateway to the alt-right.

Again, Rubin calls himself a classic liberal. He has plenty of material to make that seem accurate enough. That's not liberal in any sense the average person or a political scientist would recognize. This is a popular thing for libertarianish people to say. I sometimes say it, though I worry about it either being thought of as pretentious or literal agreement with figures like Smith and Mill when there's obvious progress in philosophy and social science since then. In any case, he's only a liberal when that's needed to give credibility to his criticisms of actual liberals for conservative sources.

[_Ceeboo]

So, let's say I go to China...........

The hotel provided Asian-specific hair shampoo - because the majority of people in China are Asian.

What are Asian-specific hair needs?
Just as Asian skin types have their particular traits, Asian hair, too has its own kind of needs.

Broadly speaking, Asian hair strands are round and thick. Although it’s generally quite straight, the texture can vary from fine to coarse, soft to hard. Compared to Caucasian hair, it’s less dense but relatively stronger and more resistant to breakage. However, Asians tend to have oilier scalps, which is why daily washing is needed to prevent tresses from looking flat and greasy.

So what should people think if they are staying in a hotel in China and they aren't Asian? What if they are staying in the hotel but they are Mexican - or white - or black - etc. Is this an example of "Asian privilege?"

[_EAllusion]

In my mind, these examples (silly as I find them) have everything to do with marketing and business decisions based on targeting the majority of their potential customers. The reason that hotels provide the kind of shampoo that they do is based on the majority of people who use the shampoo in their hotels. The decision rests on marketing and bottom line costs to run a business - They have nothing to do with "white privilege."

It *is* white privilege. While on the trivial side of examples, that's literally what white privilege is. It's a perk of being white. Explaining why that privilege exists doesn't make it not a privilege. It just tells you why the privilege exists. But it's not all band-aids Ceeboo. It also extends to serious things like how others are likely to perceive your fitness for being a parent. That in turn creates differences in how much, for example, white and black people have to worry about their children being taken away by the government for the same behavior. There are vast differences in how likely certain behaviors will result in losing child custody if you are white vs. if you are black as a result of racial biases in government decision-making.

It seems like you've mistakenly taken white privilege to mean, "Things in society that are the product of overt hatred or bigotry." Some white privilege is the result of that, but not all of it is. Since band-aid makers probably aren't overt racists, hopefully, it follows in your mind that this isn't white privilege. But that's not what white privilege is. It's just social advantages that are enjoyed by being what would be perceived as white. If it's a sound business decision to create a white privilege, it's still a white privilege.