Flyktninger med feil farge nedprioriteres

[jjkoggan]

Crooked Cracker skrev (52 minutter siden):

Unfortunately fools like yourself has not been able to explain your position properly. It seems what you actually have is some kind of weird problem majority-privilege, something that is completely natural by the way. As such, unless you can define what innate qualities white people has as a race you people should use the term majority-privilege, less you want to measure people according to race, like the nazis did.

It is not majority privilege, it is the ethnic group that is most powerful.   White privilege exists in South Africa, for example even though they are not the majority, because they were and still are powerful

BTW - Perjoratives only serve to make you look insolent and childish. They don’t strengthen your arguments 

[Crooked Cracker]

jjkoggan skrev (8 minutter siden):

It is not majority privilege, it is the ethnic group that is most powerful.   White privilege exists in South Africa, for example even though they are not the majority, because they were and still are powerful

So why are they the most powerful then, what white superpowers did they inherit to dominate thenon-white majority? Remember, when you proclaim certain things about whites as a whole, you also proclaim certain things about non-whites as a whole.

 

jjkoggan skrev (8 minutter siden):

BTW - Perjoratives only serve to make you look insolent and childish. They don’t strengthen your arguments 

They're not intended to as it's not necessary, it's more like a little added personal flavor to the meat of my arguments.

[jjkoggan]

Crooked Cracker skrev (47 minutter siden):

So why are they the most powerful then, what white superpowers did they inherit to dominate thenon-white majority? Remember, when you proclaim certain things about whites as a whole, you also proclaim certain things about non-whites as a whole.

 

 

Superior wealth, technology, military power were the colonial superpowers that created white privilege

Sitat

They're not intended to as it's not necessary, it's more like a little added personal flavor to the meat of my arguments.

Looking insolent and childish detracts from your arguments and your credibility. 

Endret 4. oktober 2022 av jjkoggan

[knutinh]

Bastu skrev (11 timer siden):

Precis! Det handlar om sannolikhetslära, även om det är mer troligt att någon med mitt namn kan norska så är det uppenbart felaktigt. En arbetsgivare som anställer på fördommar kan gå miste om oerhört kompetent och duktig personal.

 

Det er mulig å tilstrebe seg objektive kriterier ved ansettelser. Det er vanskelig å tabulere hva som gjør deg til en god ansatt, så da risikerer man at den som har f.eks lengst utdanning har rett på jobben. Selv om de framtidige kollegene synes at han var en ubehagelig type.

Spennende unntak er fiolin-spillere som prøvespiller bak et forheng. Store arbeidsgivere kan legge ut nøtter/oppgaver som en prescreening som gir alle like muligheter til å nå fram til neste nivå i prosessen. Det funker best hvis du har et slikt renomme at jobbsøkere vil bruke 30-60 minutter på deg før de har fått snakke med en rekrutterer.

Mange større arbeidsgivere / offentlig har også en politikk om å ansette kvinner eller minoriteter hvis mulig. Hvis prosessen skjermer for slik informasjon så har man heller ikke mulighet til å ta hensyn til det.

Mennesker er generelt ikke fordomsfri, og hvis man skal ha mennesker i loopen så kommer det til å være fordommer i loopen. For en arbeidsgiver så er det normalt å foretrekke at den «beste» kandidaten får jobben, og hvis fordommer hos rekrutterer/ansettere kommer i veien for det så har arbeidsgiver interesse av å redusere den.

Ut over det så kan enkelte typer fordommer (eller reell korrelasjon) være så destruktive for samfunnet at vi uansett ønsker å demme opp for dem.

https://forskning.no/arbeid-partner-religion/norske-bedrifter-velger-bort-religiose-jobbsokere/1591665
«Det er nesten like ille å være aktiv i en kristen organisasjon som å ha et pakistansk-klingende navn.«

https://www.nrk.no/norge/_alle_-arbeidsgivere-soker-etter-utadvendte-jobbkandidater-1.14182141

«I fjor søkte 8000 bedrifter etter utadvendte jobbkandidater på FINN, mens ingen søkte etter innadvendte. – De risikerer å miste gode kandidater, sier rekrutteringsekspert.»

https://www.nrk.no/viten/_-tjukke-mennesker-er-late-og-dumme-1.11822083
«Studier fra USA viser at det er et lønnsgap mellom tykke og tynne, og at overvektige sjeldnere blir ansatt eller forfremmet.»

https://www.aftenposten.no/norge/i/5BbEX/faar-ikke-jobben

«Spørreundersøkelsen viser også at en av ti personalansvarlige ikke vil at en overvektig ansatt skal få møte en kunde.»

https://forskning.no/arbeid-arbeidsliv/negative-holdninger-til-eldre-griper-dypt-inn-i-samfunnet/2034090

«Unge, progressive mennesker mener at eldre står i veien for andre grupper i arbeidslivet og i samfunnet ellers.

Dette viste en studie to amerikanske psykologer publiserte i 2021.»

-k

Endret 4. oktober 2022 av knutinh

[Crooked Cracker]

jjkoggan skrev (1 time siden):

Superior wealth, technology, military power were the colonial superpowers that created white privilege

Wealth, technology and military power are not factors strictly reserved for white people.

If only you could have said "wealth, technology, military power creates privilege, sometimes evil people benefits from it" we'd be in full agreement. But no, you just had to define it as "white privilege" thus setting up a racially based benefit in itself, in totalt accordance with nazi-reasoning. Even after numerous attempts at trying to explain this inescapeable fact you STILL go on about defining racial standards like nothing, thus painting yourself in a swastika-shaped corner while yelling about far-right extemism. It's ridiculous and exactly the reason I use words like fools, because it's downright dangerous foolishness. The only thing you accomplish by defining by race is more seperation and hate, even if you don't understand it yourself.

Sitat

Looking insolent and childish detracts from your arguments and your credibility. 

You feeling that is okay with me, I think your arguments are unhealthy and lose credibility the more you try to explain them. Nothing personal though, I just honestly believe your going down a dark path that shoulda been closed forever since 1945. As a norwegian I'm kind of ashamed more people here haven't called you out on it. I guess oil money can't buy integrity and intellectual honesty.

Endret 4. oktober 2022 av Crooked Cracker

[Subara]

Crooked Cracker skrev (På 3.10.2022 den 2.56):

Ja, dessverre har ikke mediene som elsker å bruke slike historier vært så opptatt av å vise den andre siden, altså hvordan det har gått med ofrene i etterkant. 

Sånn skal det ikke være.

Crooked Cracker skrev (På 3.10.2022 den 2.56):

Jeg har både positive og negative personlige erfaringer, samt etterstreber jeg å se på forholdene nøytralt og balansert. Jeg vil tro at ditt udelte positive personlige inntrykk kan forvrenge synet for samfunnet som helhet, kun spekulasjon selvsagt.

Det er selvfølgelig også utfordringer med kulturforskjeller, språk og integrering. Derfor er tilrettelegging for en god start bra.

Mitt utgangspunkt er å se på mennesker som en ressurs, for det hjelper ikke å møte andre med skepsis og negativitet. Tiden man bruker på å være negativ går også utover en selv.

Vi tar ikke i mot flere flyktninger enn avtalt gjennom FNs høykomissariat for flyktninger. Det forhandles om hvor mange som får komme hit. Norge tar sin del av ansvaret for mennesker i nød i verden.

Reglene for innvandring er strenge i Norge. Familier blir hentet klokken 4 på natten og sendt hjem igjen, familier med små barn blir splittet fordi den ene av foreldrene ikke hadde papirene i orden. Kjærester som møtes på tvers av landegrenser må jobbe mot byråkratiet for å bli gift og får bare klarsignal hvis inntekten er god nok til forsørgelse.

Verden blir mindre og mindre og vi reiser mer enn før. Flerkultur og migrasjon er kommet for å bli.

[Red Frostraven]

Og formålet med asyl er at de skal få bistand mens de oppholder seg her, og først og fremst bare ha ressurser til å oppdatere seg på skole om de er unge og ha noe arbeidserfaring, om praktisk mulig, om de er arbeidsføre voksne, og rehabilitering om de sliter, og ha ressurser til å leve et anstendig liv før de kan reise hjem.

Det er først om det ikke blir trygt å flytte hjem til hjemlandet, at statsborgerskap blir aktuelt.
For å få statsborgerskap så må man ha bodd i landet i 8 år uten at det er trygt å flytte hjem, for voksne, og 5 år for de som kom til landet før de ble 18...
...og man må lære seg språket for å få statsborgerskap.
De som ikke fyller kriteriene og klarer prøvene blir sendt hjem når det regnes som trygt.

De som ikke søker statsborgerskap etter denne tiden impliserer at de har tenkt å flytte hjem så raskt det er trygt; når behovet deres for opphold ikke lengre er tilstedet.

...

Det er greit å bare minne på folk om forskjellen på asylsøkere og arbeidsinnvandrere -- de to eneste gruppen innvandrere Norge tar i mot, på denne siden av 90-tallet.

[jjkoggan]

Crooked Cracker skrev (12 timer siden):

Wealth, technology and military power are not factors strictly reserved for white people.

Of course, but we were discussing the use of wealth, technology and military power used by white people in South Africa, not other ethnic groups.

Sitat

If only you could have said "wealth, technology, military power creates privilege, sometimes evil people benefits from it" we'd be in full agreement.

Most of the people who benefit because they belong to the ethnic group in power are not evil at all, they are simply innocent benefactors who, for example, don't have to worry that their name will reduce their chances of getting a job or place to live or the bank will not give them a loan because of their skin color or that their neighbors do not want them as neighbors due to their ethnic background or that their ancestor's history won't be taught in school..... on and on and on...

 

Sitat

But no, you just had to define it as "white privilege" thus setting up a racially based benefit in itself, in totalt accordance with nazi-reasoning.

Nazi reasoning is/was that non-white races are genetically inferior and should be segregated or exterminated.  White privilege reasoning is that non-white races in societies dominated by powerful whites struggle more than white people due to environmental/structural/institutional factors, not genetics and society should attempt to reduce those factors to bring races together.  White privilege reasoning directly repudiates Nazi reasoning.

 

Sitat

You feeling that is okay with me, I think your arguments are unhealthy and lose credibility the more you try to explain them. Nothing personal though, I just honestly believe your going down a dark path that shoulda been closed forever since 1945. As a norwegian I'm kind of ashamed more people here haven't called you out on it. I guess oil money can't buy integrity and intellectual honesty.

I suggest that you present your Nazi argument in Norwegian since you are unable to articulate it well in english, at least in a logically coherent form.  Speaking about racial inequities and identifying possible reasons for them does not make one a Nazi.  There is no logical link between the two, they are completely opposite beliefs.

Endret 4. oktober 2022 av jjkoggan

[Crooked Cracker]

jjkoggan skrev (5 timer siden):

Of course, but we were discussing the use of wealth, technology and military power used by white people in South Africa, not other ethnic groups.

Why not other ethnic groups? 

jjkoggan skrev (5 timer siden):

Most of the people who benefit because they belong to the ethnic group in power are not evil at all, they are simply innocent benefactors who, for example, don't have to worry that their name will reduce their chances of getting a job or place to live or the bank will not give them a loan because of their skin color or that their neighbors do not want them as neighbors due to their ethnic background or that their ancestor's history won't be taught in school..... on and on and on...

People benefitting from conquest and subduing others happened\happens all over the world. How come you guys never speak about brown, yellow or black privilege? By not doing so you set non-whites to a lower moral standard than whites, exactly like the nazis.

jjkoggan skrev (5 timer siden):

 

Nazi reasoning is/was that non-white races are genetically inferior and should be segregated or exterminated.

Then why do you treat non-whites like inferior beings, see my point above.

jjkoggan skrev (5 timer siden):

White privilege reasoning is that non-white races in societies dominated by powerful whites struggle more than white people due to environmental/structural/institutional factors, not genetics and society should attempt to reduce those factors to bring races together. 

It's only natural that the original ethnic majority has more benefits in a country, given they had generations of history. This is not a white thing. By claiming so you're basically setting up a class system built on race shaming all whites and giving non-whites overload of victim-mentality.

jjkoggan skrev (5 timer siden):

White privilege reasoning directly repudiates Nazi reasoning.

Only on the surface, but what it implies when setting these racial standards is 100% nazi reasoning. You may deny this but it's evident that you set whites to a higher moral standard than non-whites when you only attack whites for thing thats' been done by both whites and non-whites. It's not that complicated and anyone with common sense should see this.

jjkoggan skrev (5 timer siden):

I suggest that you present your Nazi argument in Norwegian since you are unable to articulate it well in english, at least in a logically coherent form.

I've presented my arguments in a concise, clear and reasonable way, it's probably why you struggle to grasp them. You're too ideologically blind to see the errors of your racial bias, much like the nazis.

jjkoggan skrev (5 timer siden):

Speaking about racial inequities and identifying possible reasons for them does not make one a Nazi.  There is no logical link between the two, they are completely opposite beliefs.

You speak about racial inequities in a highly unbalanced manner, labeling entire races of people just like the nazis. You have not managed to explain exactly what the reason is for privlileges that is strictly unique for whites, all your examples can also apply to non-whites. 

[jjkoggan]

Crooked Cracker skrev (31 minutter siden):

Why not other ethnic groups? 

People benefitting from conquest and subduing others happened\happens all over the world. How come you guys never speak about brown, yellow or black privilege? By not doing so you set non-whites to a lower moral standard than whites, exactly like the nazis.

Then why do you treat non-whites like inferior beings, see my point above.

I don't know who "you guys" are.  

If I don't talk about you and offer no opinion about you I am a Nazi that sees you as inferior?

I'm sure a 6 year old can see the broken logic in this assertion.

 

 

Sitat

It's only natural that the original ethnic majority has more benefits in a country, given they had generations of history. This is not a white thing. By claiming so you're basically setting up a class system built on race shaming all whites and giving non-whites overload of victim-mentality.

I have never said it is solely a white thing,  I have repeatedly asserted the opposite.  It's a white thing when europeans have the power and non-white thing when they don't.

 

Sitat

Only on the surface, but what it implies when setting these racial standards is 100% nazi reasoning. You may deny this but it's evident that you set whites to a higher moral standard than non-whites when you only attack whites for thing thats' been done by both whites and non-whites. It's not that complicated and anyone with common sense should see this.

I have not attacked whites or non-whites.  I have repeatedly said there can be non-white privilege.   Absence of criticism does not prove approval.  This thread is about refugees in the western world, not the reverse.  Chinese privilege, Korean privilege, japanese privilege is not relevant to this thread on non-white refugee issues when migrating to the west.

 

Sitat

I've presented my arguments in a concise, clear and reasonable way, it's probably why you struggle to grasp them. You're too ideologically blind to see the errors of your racial bias, much like the nazis.

If you find absence of criticism proof of approval then we can no longer have substantive debate since you can't see the fatally flawed logic.

 

Sitat

You speak about racial inequities in a highly unbalanced manner, labeling entire races of people just like the nazis. You have not managed to explain exactly what the reason is for privlileges that is strictly unique for whites, all your examples can also apply to non-whites.

As I have repeatedly said,  privilege is not exclusive to a single race, but rather the ethnicity of the powerful elite. 

[Crooked Cracker]

jjkoggan skrev (4 timer siden):

I don't know who "you guys" are. 

"You guys" are the people that categorically insists on involving race when it comes to privilege.

Sitat

If I don't talk about you and offer no opinion about you I am a Nazi that sees you as inferior?

No, if you proclaim that whites have an innate privililege simply by being white, then you're dangerously close to being in accordance with nazi-reasoning. Come on now, we're been trough this already.

Sitat

I'm sure a 6 year old can see the broken logic in this assertion.

Much like a six year old you have a rich fantasy if you think my logic is broken.

Sitat

I have never said it is solely a white thing,  I have repeatedly asserted the opposite.  It's a white thing when europeans have the power and non-white thing when they don't.

Simply by using "white" infront of privilige it's an assumption made that it is a solely white thing, if not then it would't even be there. Speaking of logic, you know. And why on Earth use the race-term in the first place If every race is prone to become privileged? It makes zero sense.

Sitat

I have not attacked whites or non-whites. 

The very moment you put a race, people or color infront of speculative terms like "privilege" you actually attack them by unfair and unsubstantiated generalization.

Sitat

I have repeatedly said there can be non-white privilege. 

If white and non-white privilege exist then just call it privilege, there is absolutely no good reason to add race upon it, for heavens sake.

Just look at the history of European countries, obviously some people were more privileged than others even when basically everyone was white. So how does that white privilege worked for the lower white classes? You can apply that to all people, no society in human history has been 100% equal, even tribes had their leaders and so on. Some people have the means to become more privileged than others, that's just human nature completely regardless of skin color. I can't fathom why this is so hard to understand. At the very least have some sense and admit that terms like "white privilege" is an unprecise desription.

Sitat

This thread is about refugees in the western world, not the reverse.  Chinese privilege, Korean privilege, japanese privilege is not relevant to this thread on non-white refugee issues when migrating to the west.

Once "you guys" starts throwing out racial terms as some kind of argument you expand the topic to race, and that includes everybody.

 

Sitat

If you find absence of criticism proof of approval then we can no longer have substantive debate since you can't see the fatally flawed logic. As I have repeatedly said,  privilege is not exclusive to a single race, but rather the ethnicity of the powerful elite. 

We can't have a substantive debate since you simply refuse to see the logical implications of your own arguments. Just like your last sentence makes zero sense, if you assert that "white privilege" exist, then obviously you talk about an entire race, not just the elite within that race. 

Endret 5. oktober 2022 av Crooked Cracker

[jjkoggan]

Crooked Cracker skrev (2 timer siden):

 

We can't have a substantive debate since you simply refuse to see the logical implications of your own arguments. Just like your last sentence makes zero sense, if you assert that "white privilege" exist, then obviously you talk about an entire race, not just the elite within that race. 

It’s clear from these statements that you don’t really know what white privilege is.  

We can discuss further when you begin to understand the concept better. 

[Crooked Cracker]

jjkoggan skrev (38 minutter siden):

It’s clear from these statements that you don’t really know what white privilege is.  

We can discuss further when you begin to understand the concept better. 

Per usual when suspect nonsense gets called out the proclaimers will resort to saying "you just don't understand the true meaning of it" in a desperate attempt to confuse their suspect nonsense with something complex and comprehensive. 

You just regurgitate mere statements, I have followed the implicatons of your words according to their meaning and clearly explained why it's just unhealthy foolishness. I have asked you for reasons to set race as premise for social inequality = no answer. I have asked what exactly are the innate white traits that made us priviliged? Then you just said all races have priviliges, making the whole concept of white privilege completely void of any meaning - so there is literally nothing about it to understand.

Endret 5. oktober 2022 av Crooked Cracker

[lada1]

15 minutes ago, Crooked Cracker said:

Per usual when suspect nonsense gets called out the proclaimers will resort to saying "you just don't understand the true meaning of it" in a desperate attempt to confuse their suspect nonsense with something complex and comprehensive. 

You just regurgitate mere statements, I have followed the implicatons of your words according to their meaning and clearly explained why it's just unhealthy foolishness. I have asked you for reasons to set race as premise for social inequality = no answer. I have asked what exactly are the innate white traits that made us priviliged? Then you just said all races have priviliges, making the whole concept of white privilege completely void of any meaning - so there is literally nothing about it to understand.

But the speak has spread like a virus. However, a plague lasts just a few years 🙂

Endret 5. oktober 2022 av lada1

[Red Frostraven]

lada1 skrev (6 timer siden):

I have asked what exactly are the innate white traits that made us priviliged?

Hvite gir hvite fordeler, og som majoritet i hvite land, så går dette på bekostning av minoriteter.
Det samme gjelder religion.
Det følger dog to mønstre:
Implisitt bias, det å underbevisst diskriminere -- og eksplisitt bias, det å med vilje diskriminere.

---


Forskning viser at minoriteter i vestlige land ikke utøver samme bias til fordel eller ulempe for andre som hvite.
Hvite lærere anser fargede barnehagebarn som mer bråkete og mer trolig å ha problematisk oppførsel, selv om de ikke er det og lærerene ikke har noen erfaringer som skulle tilsi at det var tilfellet:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/04/black-students-teachers-implicit-racial-bias-preschool-study

Hvite lærere gir fargede elever for dårlig karakter og undervurderer deres evner og prestasjoner, og overvurderer hvite elever, samtidig som at de også feilaktig slår ned på normal oppførsel hos minoriteter i den antagelse at oppførselen deres er dårligere enn den faktisk er.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272775715300959

Og det er i barnehagen og skolen -- steder lærere er generelt er lært opp til og er blant dem som er mest bevisste urett og rasisme.

...

Så kommer diskriminering i det sosiale livet, som åpenbart ikke er lett å gjøre noe med, og som ikke er verdt å diskutere fordi det er så subjektivt som det kan bli...

Og diskriminering i arbeidsmarkedet, som igjen er et problem, og som er presentert mange beviser på så langt i denne tråden.

---

Kuren som virker best er økt eksponering -- representasjon i filmer inkludert -- og det at folk faktisk lever i flerkulturelle samfunn sammen med personer med annen hudfarge, og ikke isoleres.

Som forteller noe om bakgrunnen for segregeringspolitikk før i tiden -- da folk godt visste at de som ofte nok var sammen med og i nærheten av minoriteter mistet fordommer mot dem.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2705986/
Det er også grunnen til at både Russland og nasjonalistiske kristne har en pågående felles kampanje mot "woke", et forsøk på å splitte vestlige land sine konservative fra å tolerere 'liberale', starte kunstige rasekonflikter og øke rasisme, og å få konservative til å støtte Russland og deres ideologi.
 

...

Det er et segment av befolkningen og en iboende egenskap som er vanlig og naturlig hos mennesker som gjør at vi forskjellsbehandler mennesker basert på hudfarge, religion, og annen gruppetilhørighet -- gir fordeler til oss selv og vår familie og våre grupper -- en opplevelse av rett og galt som er sterkere hos noen enn hos andre, og som i stor grad kan avlæres når man er ung.


https://ethicsdefined.org/the-problem-with-morality/conservatives-vs-liberals/

...

Og det er temmelig åpenbart at det å respektere autoritet når de går i mot rettferdighet, å prioritere gruppen sin når de har galt, eller det å verdsette idealet når det er feil, er mer skadelig og galt enn å bare prioritere hva som er rett og å ikke gjøre noe som skader andre -- spesielt i samfunnet i fredstid.

Endret 5. oktober 2022 av Red Frostraven

[jjkoggan]

Crooked Cracker skrev (9 timer siden):

Per usual when suspect nonsense gets called out the proclaimers will resort to saying "you just don't understand the true meaning of it" in a desperate attempt to confuse their suspect nonsense with something complex and comprehensive. 

You just regurgitate mere statements, I have followed the implicatons of your words according to their meaning and clearly explained why it's just unhealthy foolishness. I have asked you for reasons to set race as premise for social inequality = no answer. I have asked what exactly are the innate white traits that made us priviliged? Then you just said all races have priviliges, making the whole concept of white privilege completely void of any meaning - so there is literally nothing about it to understand.

Read about it so you understand it better and we can go further.   Racial privilege is not acquired by innate abilities, according to white privilege theory, quite the opposite .  You wouldn’t even ask that question if you had a basic understanding of white privilege 

Chinese Americans cannot obtain racial privilege in societies where white people occupy most positions of power but would automatically obtain racial privilege in China, where the Chinese occupy most positions of power.  It has nothing to do with innate abilities, it has everything to do with power and who establishes social norms and values.   Every single non-Chinese person, be they dirt poor or wealthy would likely have a better chance at reaching their goals if they were Chinese due to "chinese privilege" if they lived in China.  This is due to many different factors, including prejudice and simply that they developed their own sense of culture and what is acceptable, which is extreme by western standards.  

Endret 5. oktober 2022 av jjkoggan

[Crooked Cracker]

jjkoggan skrev (2 timer siden):

Read about it so you understand it better and we can go further.   Racial privilege is not acquired by innate abilities, according to white privilege theory, quite the opposite .  You wouldn’t even ask that question if you had a basic understanding of white privilege

Find a dictionary and look up certain words you use to learn what they actually mean, then we can go further. You would understand that "Racial privilege is not acquired by innate abilities" is contradictory gibberish. 

Racial
adjective
relating to the major groupings into which humankind is sometimes divided on the basis of physical characteristics or shared ancestry.
"a racial minority"

Innate

inborn; natural.
"her innate capacity for organization"

At this point even you should comprehend that color of skin is an innate racial characteristic, or ability according to you.

White is certainly a reference to color of skin, right? Are you with me thus far?

So, if whites as in "group of people born with light skin color" is priviliged, it's logically impossible that said privilige is not an innate trait. 

Sitat

Chinese Americans cannot obtain racial privilege in societies where white people occupy most positions of power but would automatically obtain racial privilege in China, where the Chinese occupy most positions of power.  It has nothing to do with innate abilities, it has everything to do with power and who establishes social norms and values. 

Then simply call these people at the top priviliged, rich, powerful, elite, etc whereever they are. You have not come up with a single good reason to add race upon it. 

Endret 5. oktober 2022 av Crooked Cracker

[jjkoggan]

Crooked Cracker skrev (25 minutter siden):

Find a dictionary and look up certain words you use to learn what they actually mean, then we can go further. You would understand that "Racial privilege is not acquired by innate abilities" is contradictory gibberish. 

Racial
adjective
relating to the major groupings into which humankind is sometimes divided on the basis of physical characteristics or shared ancestry.
"a racial minority"

Innate

inborn; natural.
"her innate capacity for organization"

At this point even you should comprehend that color of skin is an innate racial characteristic, or ability according to you.

White is certainly a reference to color of skin, right? Are you with me thus far?

So, if whites as in "group of people born with light skin color" is priviliged, it's logically impossible that said privilige is not an innate trait. 

 

If you understood white privilege theory you would know that race is the defining trait, you wouldn't even ask the question.  I am a native speaker, you are not and your use of "innate" is an extremely rare, though not technically incorrect use of the word.   I apologize for misunderstanding.

 

Sitat

Then simply call these people at the top Then simply call these people at the top priviliged, rich, powerful, elite, etc whereever they are. You have not come up with a single good reason to add race upon it. , rich, powerful, elite, etc whereever they are. You have not come up with a single good reason to add race upon it. 

Chinese privilege is not just obtained by the rich and powerful, but also the poor and average members of the society. At every level of society, a person who is not of Chinese descent will have barriers that people of Chinese descent  would not.   

Again, you show a lack of understanding racial privilege theory.  This is a core principle of this theory.  Privilege is not reserved only for the elite and powerful, it also is given to the poor and weak who struggle a little less and have more opportunity because of their ethnicity.   A good example is the different reactions to the poor people addicted to crack cocaine (heavily black population) compared to those addicted to opioids (heavily white population) in the USA.

Studies show we are more likely to empathize with people who look like "us,” and policy-makers are more likely to be white. When law enforcement, elected officials and others in positions of power see themselves and their family members in opioid “victims,” they are more compelled to act with some compassion.

It’s why the punitive response to the crack epidemic has shifted to focus on treatment. Instead of criminals and selfish monsters, those misusing opioids are victims who need help.

[Theo343]

On 10/4/2022 at 5:56 AM, knutinh said:

Ut over det så kan enkelte typer fordommer (eller reell korrelasjon) være så destruktive for samfunnet at vi uansett ønsker å demme opp for dem.

https://forskning.no/arbeid-partner-religion/norske-bedrifter-velger-bort-religiose-jobbsokere/1591665
«Det er nesten like ille å være aktiv i en kristen organisasjon som å ha et pakistansk-klingende navn.«

https://www.nrk.no/norge/_alle_-arbeidsgivere-soker-etter-utadvendte-jobbkandidater-1.14182141

«I fjor søkte 8000 bedrifter etter utadvendte jobbkandidater på FINN, mens ingen søkte etter innadvendte. – De risikerer å miste gode kandidater, sier rekrutteringsekspert.»

https://www.nrk.no/viten/_-tjukke-mennesker-er-late-og-dumme-1.11822083
«Studier fra USA viser at det er et lønnsgap mellom tykke og tynne, og at overvektige sjeldnere blir ansatt eller forfremmet.»

https://www.aftenposten.no/norge/i/5BbEX/faar-ikke-jobben

«Spørreundersøkelsen viser også at en av ti personalansvarlige ikke vil at en overvektig ansatt skal få møte en kunde.»

https://forskning.no/arbeid-arbeidsliv/negative-holdninger-til-eldre-griper-dypt-inn-i-samfunnet/2034090

«Unge, progressive mennesker mener at eldre står i veien for andre grupper i arbeidslivet og i samfunnet ellers.

Dette viste en studie to amerikanske psykologer publiserte i 2021.»

-k

Dette viser et godt bilde av dagens arbeidsliv. Det verste jeg ser er når "unge ambiøse" som nesten ikke kan faget rett og slett saboterer og presser eldre dyktige (og hyggelige) personer ut av arbeidsplasser. Jeg har sett mange karakterdrap basert på løgner og utpressingstaktikker siste 25 år i Norge. Gjør avtaler som man senere sier aldri ble gjort, sprer løgnaktige rykter om person, saboterer arbeid. lager falske rapporter til ledelse om vedkommedes arbeid og til syvende og sist skaper en motstandsgruppe på arbeidsplassen basert på dette. Ofte er de eldre og dyktige neddynket i ansvar og oppgaver og rekker sjelden få med seg at dette skjer før det er for sent.

Det er også på grensen til latterlig når en arbeidgiver tar med seg den ansatte som kan minst om temaet men som eks. kler seg best eller ser best ut (captain america) type når man skal møte kunder eller leverandører. Samfunnet blir bare stadig verre her.

Jeg testet alltid fagkunnskapen når slike kom inn døren og ba ofte om å få den som kan faget fra konsulentselskapet etter tidlig avbrytelse av møtet om denne taktikken ble brukt.

Jeg har også sett denne ukulturen løfte seg litt i pandemi/teams tiden. Folk som ikke nødvendigvis ar seg like godt ut på et kamera men kan faget vesentlig bedre blir ofte skjøvet til side.

En del sjefer oppfører seg også merkelig. Noen av de rareste kommentarene jeg har hørt om andres ansatte er "Du er litt rar, men ikke så rar at du ikke kan jobbe hos oss". Vedkommende trodde dette var et kompliment. Hvorfor skal en arbeidsgiver i det hele tatt fokusere på folks genetiske uttrykk når de er gode i faget og møter på jobb er for meg uforståelig.

Jeg har også sett overvektige som ikke lenger orker å spise i kantinen i "rush hour" fordi blikkene og kommentarene som kommer rundt dem blir en sterk psykisk belastning. Det var ikke like mye av slike hatbaserte holdninger i arbeidslivet som dette før, man respekterte mennesker basert på deres evne å bidra faglig og trivselsmessig, ikke hvilken frisør, klesbutikk, treningsstudio man benyttet utenfor arbeidstid. Med unntak av psykopatene som man også traff i arbeidslivet før.

Når man ansetter basert på fordommer og misforstått politisk korrekthet ender man ofte opp med ansatte som bidrar vesentlig mindre. Jeg har også sett folk bli ansatt på bakgrunn av bekjentskaper hvor man før tiltredelsen på en uoffisiell treff på Pub eller restaurant blir enig om "vi ønsker å pushe hen ut av avdelingen og viktig for oss at du stiller deg bak oss på det" - gjerne basert på aldersdiskriminering. Jeg har selv fjernet meg fra et slikt "møte". Helt i tråd med den kulten man gjerne ser i ungdomsskole mentalitet.

Slik sett er jeg veldig glad for at jeg går mot slutten av min yrkesaktivitet da nåtiden i arbeidslivet er ekstremt diskriminerende og nedbrytende.

Endret 6. oktober 2022 av Theo343 (takk for meg)

[Crooked Cracker]

jjkoggan skrev (8 timer siden):

If you understood white privilege theory you would know that race is the defining trait, you wouldn't even ask the question.

Right, if the allied forces only understood nazi theory they would know that race is the defining trait, they would't even go to war.

Sitat

I am a native speaker, you are not and your use of "innate" is an extremely rare, though not technically incorrect use of the word.   I apologize for misunderstanding.

Given my arguments on the subject it should be pretty obvious what I meant.

Sitat

 

Chinese privilege is not just obtained by the rich and powerful, but also the poor and average members of the society. At every level of society, a person who is not of Chinese descent will have barriers that people of Chinese descent would not.

I'm pretty sure that a resourceful and wealthy outsider would meet less real life barriers than a dirt-poor chinese peasant, and that would go for just about any country. Inserting racial absolutes is not just shady morally, but also a very vague way to describe reality. There are many more factors that would determine a persons potential barriers than race, some examples: Money, looks, mental health, physical health, social skills, IQ, strenght, height, weight, work position, upbringing, education, style, demeanor and so on. Are we gonna politicise every damn factor that could cause inequality?

Sitat

Again, you show a lack of understanding racial privilege theory.

Again, racial privilege theory is dubious nonsense, at best it's an unprecise measurement.

Sitat

This is a core principle of this theory.  Privilege is not reserved only for the elite and powerful, it also is given to the poor and weak who struggle a little less and have more opportunity because of their ethnicity.

Aside from dozens of other traits as I explained, people are way more than ethnicity. To narrow humans down as such is a core nazi principle, I have explained this to you many times yet you don't seem to be bothered by it.

Sitat

A good example is the different reactions to the poor people addicted to crack cocaine (heavily black population) compared to those addicted to opioids (heavily white population) in the USA.

Meanwhile here in Norway most heroin junkies are white, I bet they appreciate that privilege.

Sitat

Studies show we are more likely to empathize with people who look like "us,” and policy-makers are more likely to be white. 

That's ingroup preference, a mechanism not limited to race.

Endret 5. oktober 2022 av Crooked Cracker