There's nothing to address. I agree with the idea, but I'm allowed to complain about why I think it's bad terminology. Similar to how I think it's stupid when people talk about god like it's the universe. We have words to describe that already stop adding on to them and making them unclear to the broader audience. It's just muddying the water. Thanks

Majority privilege is a completely misleading term that tip toes around the idea that it's a racial topic. Pointing out that places like Japan and Africa don't have the same race relations as us does not mean that it's not racial. Yes, majorities do tend to have some kind of advantages where ever you go, but right here in America the reasons are completely out of racial bias. It's not a religious issue, it's not a political identity issue, it's not not a cultural issue, it's not an ethnicity issue it's an issue completely motivated by racial biases. So calling it white privilege is the best way to address this because there are plenty of other majorities in this country who are not affected by the same biases.

Like I said in my above post, just deal with it. If you think you have the influence to change accepted terminology then have at it, otherwise deal with it and bitch on the side. We do kind of need you at this point.

Sounds like being nitpicky to me.

Plenty of other majorities?

I don't go on facebook and stage campaigns around it. I'm having a discussion with a few forum people. Sounds to me like at least Batlord agrees with my assessment.

No it is motivated by other issues, it's just that the overriding issue is race. The Southern strategy wouldn't work if there wasn't a class issue. It's important to recognize other issues that are tied into race because the race issue has had such a far reaching influence that it's no longer JUST about race, which is why Republicans find ammo to use against blacks that they can paint as not racist. I mean immigration in any form will always be a major influence on a country's politics and slavery is the most bizarre form of immigration any country has ever seen.

Huh?

You're being intentionally obtuse by applying definitions to white privilege that aren't relevant to the concept as a way to challenge the concept. That sounds like being nitpicky instead of looking at the big picture to me.

Majority of this country is Christian, for one. While yes, that does often offer some sort of bias towards Christians there really isn't nearly as big of a bias for them as there is towards white people.

No, I'm not.

Short sentences are fun.

Well, I see and understand and to a degree agree with your point, but we're talking about prejudice here, and in effect that means we're talking about race, so you need to acknowledge the racial issue absolutely 100%.

Youre comparing apples and oranges. Christians have christian privilege over every other religion in this country.

You can't compare the majority privileges of two different things. Whatever majority thing you are associated with in a society will give you a privilege within whatever connections that thing has in society.

Can you quote me arguing this?

I'd say calling the term 'white privilege' race baiting is you arguing it. Wanting to re-frame it as 'majority privilege' is tip toeing around addressing race and implies that you don't think race should be evoked.

I don't think race should be evoked. I think race should be one of MANY things evoked, because just being white is not the only reason that white people have "white privilege" in America. Pretty sure Batlord just finished explaining that to you.

Like I said before, majority privilege + tribalism + a whole lotta history and nuance..

No, I'm simply stating that I don't see you arguing for either American or European white privilege and it's important that you do, and it's important for other people who might be agreeing with you who might be disagreeing with the concept of white privilege as a whole to understand the racial aspect, and you should be making this clear. All I see you arguing is the terminology but if you agree over the general racial aspect then you should be arguing it in the same way you might argue over man made global warming because both are important.

Idc about that. I was ranting about the terminology. Who exactly am I supposed to be arguing with? We all agree it exists, nothing left to argue about but the terminology.

You literally just contradicted yourself, more so poorly worded that statement.

What's being ignored is that lower class white people aren't facing the same discrimination as lower class black people. They are not being unfairly judged based on race, they are not being targeted by police like black people, they are not being as harshly judged over crimes as black people, etc. So while classism is a problem in this country that needs to be addressed, it's not as strong as the racial bias.

Edit: and majority of the population isn't upper class so that defeats your 'majority privilege' argument as well.

I think you're just reading what you want at this point. Good talk.

What am I skipping over?

My point, mostly.

Which one?

Edit: What exact bit of writing do you think I'm not addressing or that I'm ignoring?

I approve of this meltdown.

I think the point is that DWV doesn't disagree with white privilege, he disagrees with the term. You're all just arguing with a strawman like morons. Way to not make our side look like triggered ***gots.

You call this a meltdown? :rofl:

I guess not.

Oh wait: are you talking about the original idea of the thread? Cos I've kind of got lost now in the Batty/DWV/Lucem thing, and assumed that was what you meant.

The original idea.

Fiddly? That's a word?

^ This is still the best, humorous, description of the sorry events that led RS to open this thread imo.

I'm one of twelve people who voted that RS belongs here. To me it seems obvious: he doesn't break the rules, he gets on with most people afaik and he has over a thousand music-related posts to his credit.

If, as seems likely, RS does leave, then it's unfortunate that YD's unjustified vitriol has found a mark and that as a result MB will be a poorer place; less input, less diversity and, for me, one less poster that I considered a friend. :(

If it wasn't Yorke it would've been somebody else.

^ Yes, perhumps. :( I suspect you're right, though an "if" like that can't be 100% certain.

Good lookin' out.

He disagrees with the term because he thinks white privilege refers to a tribal majority bias which also causes classism when it's just a symptom of it. But white privilege, while it definitely has strong ties with classism and is an over all symptom of the flaws of our current state of capitalism, is not referring to classism, it's specifically referring to the biases America has based on race. Which leans towards whites. Which goes beyond classism. So renaming an issue of a certain race having a bias in their favor to something that tries to obscure the idea it's based on race is dishonest.

It's like trying to rename 'white supremacists' 'racial supremacists' because using the word 'white' makes him uncomfortable. Hell, maybe he does think the phrase 'white supremacist' is race baiting too. I don't know.

100% justified

.

Batlord and I had a baby.

Oh, also some other stuff happened.

I couldn't tell ya.

Man creates dinosaurs, dinosaurs eat man, woman inherits the earth.

WWWP was our surrogate. We tag teamed her so we wouldn't know whose it was.