TELL ME ABOUT YOUR CULT(URE)

Click here to see this post with pictures and replies - - [LINK]

3rutal joins Ebuc on the “no one can understand this topic” tier.

Do you have a specific question?

Yes. I would like to know what you are talking about.

I find it strange that the "far-left" and the "far-right" spend so much time pointing fingers at each other when they actually agree on core principles.

They should stop straw-manning each other and start working together.

Also, YOU'RE IN A CULT AND YOU JUST DON'T REALIZE IT.

BECAUSE NOBODY CALLS A CULT A CULT WHEN THEY'RE INSIDE IT.

Maybe you should not be calling social stereotypes “cults” when Muslim Terrorists and KKK disagree with each other despite both being in the right.

What word do you use?

Do you call it, "cult(ure)"?

And, both of the groups you mention simply want to BE LEFT THE FUCK ALONE.

Both of the groups you mention simply don't wish to be TOLD WHAT TO DO.

Ehh.... superficially they "agree", but any deeper inspection would reveal radically different A) reasonings for those opinions, and B) end goals for which to trust. Just because both the Greeks and the Native Americans both believed in polytheistic pantheon, that does not mean they "agree". 

Good point.

AND just because two or more individual's skin-tone happen to (roughly) match, doesn't mean "they agree" either.

Not all "blacks" are poor.

Not all "whites" are privileged.

Not all "israelites" own a bank.

Black people were systematically made poor, they are not all poor, all white people are defacto privlleged due to the implicit and explicit biases of society, these points are not at all equivalent. 

An absence of one specific type of exclusionary bias does not equal "privilege".

Some "whites" are also "deformed".

Some "whites" are also "differently-abled".

Some "whites" do not live in majority "white" geographical regions.

Regional and cultural bias still exists even between people with indistinguishable skin-tones (no-irish, no-jews, no-italians need apply).

I never said that the exclusion of biases was the reasoning for white privilege, simply that they were the reasons in the first place. There is a bias against people who aren't white, and a bias for white people in the system of government. They have what is the opposite of racism. People assume that white people commit less crime than they do, people assume that they are less likely to be armed (blatantly false), they assume that they are more likely educated, they are more likely accepted into education and even jobs without the right credentials, and I could go on and on. Quoting a minority of white people or something like it does not at all mean that the majority are not privileged, or that compared to other ethnicities in the same struggles, that they are not more privileged then they are.

The only bias I see FOR people is for RICH PEOPLE.

Nobody gets "bonus points" simply for their relative skin-tone.

They might avoid "point deductions" simply for their relative skin-tone.

But "not getting point deductions" (specifically for skin-tone) is not a "privilege".

There is able to be more than one discriminatory practice, asserting that there is a class divide does not necessarily mean that there is not a racial one. You are discarding other forms of discrimination simply because of classism, whenever there is very blatantly logically inaccurate. For example: While it is true that rich people in court are able to more easily escape charges than poor people, the same could be said of white people versus black people. There are multiple layers of discrimination and favor in this society, and saying otherwise really highlights either a willing ignorance, or a fundamental logical process. You simply saying: "Yeah well you're wrong" doesn't actually prove that I am, also, just a side point: Whenever everyone besides you gets deductive points, you are privileged for not getting deductive points. So... you're wrong there too, but people actually do have a favor of white people.... White privilege. 

Everyone gets some deductive points for different reasons.

Skin-tone is NOT ALWAYS A FACTOR IN JOB SELECTION.

If all the job applicants competing against me for a position have roughly the same skin-tone, then NONE of the applicants are "privileged" (specifically for their skin-tone).

Some points are deducted for physical ability.

Some points are deducted for gender identity.

Some points are deducted for age (either for being too young or too old).

Some points are deducted for height (either for being too tall or too short).

Some points are deducted for experience (either for too much or not enough).

I've worked many jobs where my skin-tone was clearly in the minority and it was even pointed out to me that people of certain skin-tones (not matching my own) were obviously favored for promotions, which seemed to be the case, since the bosses all seemed to have matching skin-tones.

Sometimes a lighter-skin-tone scores you more points.

Sometimes a darker-skin-tone scores you more points.

Skin-tone BY ITSELF is not itself a one-way-ticket to DOOM or GLORY.

Again, making a case that because it happens "sometimes' that is factors into the equation is not logically coherent, it is true that systematically this happens. That is what makes white privilege a thing, again, I find your understanding of making valid points lacking. You have argued that sometimes people are deducted points because of x, y, or z, but it the frequency and wide spread inherent nature of say, b, that makes B a thing like white privilege and also.... again, you haven't rebutted 90% of my argument, just a single statement. Also also, sometimes is not an accurate representation- in the majority of the job market, having a lighter skin tone scores you more points inherently and having a darker one looses you ones inherently. You are being racist right now, by denying that white privilege exists, just a btw, you aren't right about this. Let's look at all of your rebuttals. 

They are only ever in reference too one or two of my points made, usually not even my main point, perhaps one of my main points, but not the main point. On top of that, your rebuttals are often making some sort of assumption, not logically necessary, or you making a fundamental error in your logical process. The one you've made here is conflated each and every reason you might be discriminated against in the job market as the same. This is not true, there is more sexism and racism in the job market, then say, ableism. The frequency and inherent layer of the discrimination also matters whenever we are discussing this, and as my article points out, this is the case with race and the entire job market. So.... I'm having a hard time accepting any of your points as cogent, whenever they have this many flaws with them.

Income lines up with education which lines up (incidentally) with skin-tone.

Take the same data you think "proves" "racism" and strip out the skin-tone column.

You'll find that INCOME is a better predictor of future job prospects.

You seem obsessed with applying (apparent) statistical correlation to INDIVIDUAL CASES.

Income Inequality in the U.S. Is Rising Most Rapidly Among Asians

While Asians overall rank as the highest earning racial and ethnic group in the U.S., it is not a status shared by all Asians: From 1970 to 2016, the gains in income for lower-income Asians trailed well behind the gains for their counterparts in other groups. [LINK]

Just because SOME Asian incomes are rising does not mean that ALL Asians have some kind of magical "Asian Privilege".

AND,

U.S. Poverty Statistics by Race,

14.2 million people - White, not Hispanic

9.5 million people - Hispanic, any race

8.1 million people - Black

1.5 million people - Asian

According to this study by the federal government, THERE ARE MORE POOR "WHITE" PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES THAN POOR "BLACK" PEOPLE.

It is true that HISTORICALLY, laws and public policy have created skin-tone based INCOME DISPARITY which persists to the present day.

I agree 100% that generational wealth and the associated advantages of generational wealth has been systematically STOLEN from many people very specifically because of their skin-tone.

That is not in dispute.

What you dispute is the logical neccesity that if something is stolen from one group of people, then that lax-ness they would have gotten otherwise is given to other forms of people. There is no broad brush here, it is simple true inherently, saying, "All living things neccesarily have DNA" is not painting with a broad brush, its saying something that is neccesarily true of living creatures. This applies to white priviliage. You have never proven it doesn't exist. Your statics don't account for the fact that there are more white people than there are of any other race, so of course they have the most documented cases, readjusting for population, this isn't the case.

How u feel bout ur cult?

When a meritocracy is deemed racist, you are left with systemic mediocrity.

Rome says hello!

Check your visigoth privilege, sir.

Byzantine.

I don't know anyone who trusts global corporations.

Now you're just asking to get fact-checked.