White privilege is a myth, pure fiction.
Prove me wrong.
White Privilege - Fact or Fiction
Posts
Total:
275
-->
@TWS1405
White Privilege.
Is a soundbite relative to species development.
Sort of jealous mockery based upon resentment.
Things occurred as they did, do as they do and will develop as they will.
-->
@TWS1405
Well... Rosa Parks was dismissed for standing for herself by sitting down a front seat meant for White people, so obviously it did exist. After passing the "separate but equal" act in the 19th century, the water fountain drank by Black people were in stripped condition compared to the ones drank by White people. Minorities were not allowed to run in some occupations back then, or are probably strongly voted against. White privilege is not a myth. It is a part of American history at least.
so this is just a link back to your blog?
-->
@Intelligence_06
I think he said is...not was.
In fact, many lighter shade skinned people today in America identify as colored just for the de-facto color privilege....especially regarding government benefits.
There are many Rachel Dolezals and Elizabeth Warrens in America
Every group has certain privileges when contrasted against other groups.
As a white person, many crimes I may commit will net much lower prison sentences than if I were black.
As a white person, many crimes I may commit will net much lower prison sentences than if I were black.
The reverse is true with a Soros DA.
Believe it when I say if Kim Foxx were to prosecute me for a murder, the 1st thing I would tell her is that I am Black.
-->
@Intelligence_06
Your example/reference involves a period of overt racism and Jim Crow, not white privilege.
And Greyparrot is correct. I said "is," not "was."
-->
@oromagi
Of course. This forum has a 3,000 character limit. Everything I intended to say doesn't fit in this box. So, it was easier to link back to what I wanted to say to prompt a discussion on the topic.
-->
@Greyparrot
Well said!
-->
@Barney
Every group has certain privileges when contrasted against other groups.As a white person, many crimes I may commit will net much lower prison sentences than if I were black.
My virus software says that link is not safe.
Regardless, what many fail to comprehend when making that argument is the fact that the court(s) take criminal history into account when applying the sentencing guidelines. Blacks typically have longer criminal histories whereas whites do not; so even if they commit the same crime(s), the sentencing guidelines will dictate more time for blacks than whites based on their criminal histories.
-->
@TWS1405
“Minnesota lawmakers had approved mandatory prison sentences of four years for users of crack, a derivative of cocaine that's cheap and common on inner-city streets. Powdered cocaine, on the other hand, is seen by some as the suburban alternative - more popular among whites. State law prescribed probation for powder cocaine users.”
Any non-racist defense of such obviously unconstitutional laws?
This is just one of thousands of examples.
-->
@Greyparrot
Cocaine in Minnesota generally netted a mandatory 4 years prison minimum if black, and mere probation if white.
That other racists exist in the criminal justice system, does not override the majority of such racists being anti-minority to the degree that they were able to pass insane laws like that.
-->
@Barney
How do they enforce that law, DNA testing?
A calibrated spectrometer? Kind of like a breathalyzer but for skin?
Pretty sure all I have to do is send an email to Kim Foxx saying I am black and I should get out of jail free. No testing necessary.
Cocaine in Minnesota generally netted a mandatory 4 years prison minimum if black, and mere probation if white.
What's hilarious is that some dumbfuck liberal academic socioscientist in the 80's made a false correlation wrongly postulating crack cocaine being more deadly than powdered cocaine simply by looking at violent behaviors associated with the use instead of relating the violence to systemic cultural problems exactly like the ones Dr. Thomas Sowell definitively identified as Black Redneck culture. It's a nice 3 hour audiobook if you have time.
That's why the law was written differently, and it had nothing to do with skin color. Just another monumental fuckup by a misguided and misinformed liberal with government power. It's the exact kind of fuckup Sen. Moynihan(D) tried to warn us all about in the 70's.
Statistical evidence shows impoverished Black immigrants with next to no usage of crack cocaine, so it's clearly not a racial correlation and clearly a cultural problem.
I treat the belief in white privilige the same way I treat the belief in God; not something to be believed without non anecdotal evidence.
Oh, here is the 11 hour version for the hardcore enthusiast.
-->
@Barney
“Minnesota lawmakers had approved mandatory prison sentences of four years for users of crack, a derivative of cocaine that's cheap and common on inner-city streets. Powdered cocaine, on the other hand, is seen by some as the suburban alternative - more popular among whites. State law prescribed probation for powder cocaine users.”Any non-racist defense of such obviously unconstitutional laws?This is just one of thousands of examples.
"Crack cocaine is more psychologically addicting than powder cocaine and is thus more likely to result in chronic and heavy use. In addition, the drug is more commonly associated with systemic violence than its counterpart."
That is why those who get busted for crack get harsher sentences, which has nothing to do with being black or white. It's the end result of the use and addiction - the violence - that gets users busted, black or white.
-->
@TWS1405
That is why those who get busted for crack get harsher sentences, which has nothing to do with being black or white. It's the end result of the use and addiction - the violence - that gets users busted…
The most important difference though is blacks tend to use crack and whites tend to use powder. The violence results from the facts that blacks are poor and can’t afford their addiction so they use criminal behavior, including violence, to feed their addiction. The violence isn’t fueled by any chemical differences between crack and powder. And your article says that when powder cocaine is injected in the vein, it acts similar to crack.
Like former AG Jeff Sessions said - “there are two kinds of crime, regular and black”
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The most important difference though is blacks tend to use crack and whites tend to use powder.
So, what you're saying is whites choose A while blacks choose B, and the latter causes more violence while A does not.
That's like whites choose a black car to race around in while blacks choose a red car to race around in, and we all know red gets the attention of police more than black.
How about this: blacks choose to drink Absinthe while whites choose Jack Daniels. Absinthe causes violence and a little madness; Jack Daniels just results in drunken stupor passed out in bed.
All examples are about choice, which includes the consequences of said choice.
So what if blacks choose crack and whites powder! Whites clearly knew that crack causes violence and hard addiction, so they took the less addictive route. Shows some sense of intelligence and responsibility on their part vs their black counterpart choosing crack despite knowing the addiction and harm it causes. Again, choice.
Choose the harder road, you get the harder punishment.
-->
@TWS1405
crack causes violence
Crack doesn’t cause violence, being poor with an addiction causes violence. (as a result of committing crimes to feed the addiction)
If powder cocaine was cheaper than crack, then blacks would choose powder and the authorities would stiffen penalties for powder because it caused more violence.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Crack doesn’t cause violence
"Crack cocaine is more psychologically addicting than powder cocaine and is thus more likely to result in chronic and heavy use. In addition, the drug is more commonly associated with systemic violence than its counterpart."
-->
@TWS1405
Crack cocaine is more psychologically addicting than powder cocaine and is thus more likely to result in chronic and heavy use. In addition, the drug is more commonly associated with systemic violence than its counterpart
Ya genius, I read your little pamphlet, but you failed to ask or understand why the drug is more commonly associated with violence.
That’s why I was an officer in the Marines and you were a Corporal in the Army.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Without the crack, no addiction.
Without the addiction, no violence.
Crack causes addiction to crack.
Addiction to crack causes violence.
Therefore, Crack causes violence.
Why cocaine use leads to violence
Cocaine interferes with mood from the first use. In the longer-term, cocaine abuse can cause frequent mood swings due to its interference with the brain. So why do people use cocaine? Many people don’t realise the full extent of what cocaine does to their bodies and brains, taking it only for its perceived pleasurable effects. In fact, cocaine stimulates the central nervous system and creates a wide range of symptoms:
- A feeling of intense euphoria
- A sensation of invincibility
- Increased confidence
- A feeling of superior intellect
- Appetite suppression
- Reduced fatigue
- Reduced inhibitions
- Higher pain threshold
Numerous combinations of these effects can result in cocaine users becoming erratic and reckless in their behaviour. Alongside these symptoms, many cocaine users are prone to becoming anxious, agitated, aggressive, paranoid (known as ‘cocaine paranoia’) or carrying out violent behaviour. Significantly, studies show that crack cocaine can make you more angry and violent than powder cocaine.
Research indicates that the rage and violence associated with cocaine use is down to its effect on neurotransmitters in the pleasure centres of the brain. Studies also show that cocaine abuse causes changes in levels of norepinephrine and serotonin. This interference with organic bodily chemicals, which act as neurotransmitters to the brain, leads to aggressive behaviour, hyperactivity, impaired judgement and paranoia.
-->
@TWS1405
Without the crack, no addiction.
Without the addiction, no violence.
Crack causes addiction to crack.
Addiction to crack causes violence.
Therefore, Crack causes violence.
This is faulty reasoning, LCpl. The reason crack causes violence is because it’s used by poor black people. If it were used by rich black people, or rich white people, there wouldn’t be any violence associated with its use. Get it? The key isn’t the drug, it’s the financial status of the people using the drug.
-->
@TWS1405
"Crack cocaine is more psychologically addicting than powder cocaine and is thus more likely to result in chronic and heavy use. In addition, the drug is more commonly associated with systemic violence than its counterpart."That is why those who get busted for crack get harsher sentences, which has nothing to do with being black or white. It's the end result of the use and addiction - the violence - that gets users busted, black or white.
That was the justification for the law in the 80's, but it has been thoroughly debunked with what we know today.
I don’t support legalizing any form of cocaine. The drug destroys lives and causes criminal activity. But to make the penalty for using crack higher than for using powder was all about getting poor blacks off the street and giving wealthier people a slap on the wrist for participating in the same criminal activity.
It’s good though. You are learning here by getting away from the influence of your white supremacist friends.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
it’s the financial status of the people using the drug.
Categorically false. Poor Black immigrants show less crack cocaine usage than poor white Americans. It's not an issue of poverty. It's an issue of culture.
-->
@Greyparrot
That was the justification for the law in the 80's, but it has been thoroughly debunked with what we know today.
Please cite sources that establish that debunking, cause links I've provided prove it true, not debunked.
-->
@Greyparrot
immigrants
Immigrants, who are the black immigrants?
Poor people have to steal to support an addiction. People of means are able to pay to feed their addiction. Correct?