dermdoc said:

---

No, I reject the op article because they project themselves as non biased and then only call out Trump. I can say Trump is indecent and am happy to call him out for that. But for so called religious leaders to not acknowledge their bias stinks.

And only one side backs baby killing for the most part. Which is the most indecent thing to me.

---

It sounds like you agree with the author's point about Trump being indecent, but reject the author's article about Trump being indecent. Very confused. Sound like you are unwilling to agree with someone on a point that you agree with them on because of their politics. . . . . but yeah, you're right THEIR partisanship is the problem. No one is asking you to endorse the author. An argument stands on its merits. . . not the merits of the speaker.

Explain to me the point of writing the last sentence above about baby killing? What are you trying to prove or say? Does the left's position on abortion justify ignoring indecency of the right? Does it justify ignoring left leaning voices that criticize the right?

I'll help you out here. . . The reason you put that last sentence in your post is all about 'whataboutism'. You are still incapable (despite the fact that this is the 3rd time in this thread I'm pointing it out) of simply stating a criticism of anyone on the right without making it clear that the left is just as bad or worse.

The OP was a criticism of Trump. And your reaction is to say "But . . . but. . .. but . . . look at those guys over there". You keep saying you are happy to call out the right, but your criticism of the right looks more like a defense of the right.

AGC said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

For the record, can you post a few examples of signicant political figures on the left being indecent?

---

Do we consider dehumanizing language such as 'white privilege' and 'white fragility' examples too or would you contest that? It opens up the pool significantly...

---

White privilege is the idea that, in some cases, its easier being white than another race. Male privilege is the idea that its easier being a man than a woman. Class privilege is the idea that coming from money makes certain things easier.

What are ways in which these ideas are used in an indecent way? Or is the idea itself indecent?

I think most white males would think those terms are divisive. And libs have always told me that if folks think it is racist, sexist, or whatever than it is. Yet libs seem to be totally blind to the fact that their rhetoric on this is as divisive as when they claim the right is being divisive. It is very hypocritical and shows a significant lack of self awareness and arrogance. A blind spot shall we say.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Kurt, the point is that a religious leader has absolutely no place in taking a partisan political stance. You lose the ability to cry foul about partisanship the minute you single one side out. These guys are conspicuously silent on other topics, and that is suspect.

Whataboutism isn't a defense as much as to call into question the aims and sincerity of those people. The message on the surface is fine - the actual message isn't, because the actual message is political, not religious.

---

You said it much better than me. Thanks.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Kurt, the point is that a religious leader has absolutely no place in taking a partisan political stance. You lose the ability to cry foul about partisanship the minute you single one side out. These guys are conspicuously silent on other topics, and that is suspect.

---

I guess I'm fine with that. If the problem isn't the equal application of partisanship, but rather that there should be no application of partisanship, then I see your / Dermdoc's point.

I stand by my point about whataboutism. An argument still stands on its merits rather than the bias of the speaker. I can agree with an argument without agreeing with the agenda made by the speaker of the argument.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

No, I reject the op article because they project themselves as non biased and then only call out Trump. I can say Trump is indecent and am happy to call him out for that. But for so called religious leaders to not acknowledge their bias stinks.

And only one side backs baby killing for the most part. Which is the most indecent thing to me.

---

It sounds like you agree with the author's point about Trump being indecent, but reject the author's article about Trump being indecent. Very confused. Sound like you are unwilling to agree with someone on a point that you agree with them on because of their politics. . . . . but yeah, you're right THEIR partisanship is the problem. No one is asking you to endorse the author. An argument stands on its merits. . . not the merits of the speaker.

Explain to me the point of writing the last sentence above about baby killing? What are you trying to prove or say? Does the left's position on abortion justify ignoring indecency of the right? Does it justify ignoring left leaning voices that criticize the right?

I'll help you out here. . . The reason you put that last sentence in your post is all about 'whataboutism'. You are still incapable (despite the fact that this is the 3rd time in this thread I'm pointing it out) of simply stating a criticism of anyone on the right without making it clear that the left is just as bad or worse.

The OP was a criticism of Trump. And your reaction is to say "But . . . but. . .. but . . . look at those guys over there". You keep saying you are happy to call out the right, but your criticism of the right looks more like a defense of the right.

---

Follow me very closely as I try to explain this for the umpteenth time. I have no problem with the authors pointing out Trump's indecency. I have a real problem with anyone who purports to say they are seeking decency from both sides yet only talk about one side because of political bias which they do not seem to be self aware enough to even realize their bias. And then to top it off, they use the pulpit to advance their agenda. Those are the things I have problems with. And it would be the same if a righty pastor did the same. It is disingenious in the least, and maybe even evil.

dermdoc said:

---

I think most white makes would think those terms are divisive. And libs have always told me that if folks think it is racist, sexist, or whatever than it is. Yet libs seem to be totally blind to the fact that their rhetoric on this is as divisive as when they claim the right is being divisive. It is very hypocritical and shows a significant lack of self awareness and arrogance. A blind spot shall we say.

---

I agree that those terms are divisive, but I doubt we agree on why. I think that many people are vexed by those terms because they fear admitting to having advantages in life. We want to think that what we accomplish is based on who we are and not in any way owed to our race, gender, class, family, etc. Suggesting that its easier to be white in America than it is to be black is seen as a personal attack or a way of saying 'you don't deserve what you have - you made it as far as you did because you are white.'

If we can agree that certain factors beyond our control do affect likelihood of success, how can we talk about it without being indecent? Is there another term that's better? Is there a better characterization of 'white privilege'?

I think K2 is making a distinction between two elements of an argument, the what and the why. The what of an argument (or any statement or question for that matter) is simply what it says, and this indeed can be evaluated on it's own. The why of an argument though, recognizes that no argument springs forth from the mind or man without a motivated source. Why are these people saying this? Both the what and why are important, for even the demons can speak the truth, but they do not do so to help us, but to harm and manipulate us.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I think most white makes would think those terms are divisive. And libs have always told me that if folks think it is racist, sexist, or whatever than it is. Yet libs seem to be totally blind to the fact that their rhetoric on this is as divisive as when they claim the right is being divisive. It is very hypocritical and shows a significant lack of self awareness and arrogance. A blind spot shall we say.

---

I agree that those terms are divisive, but I doubt we agree on why. I think that many people are vexed by those terms because they fear admitting to having advantages in life. We want to think that what we accomplish is based on who we are and not in any way owed to our race, gender, class, family, etc. Suggesting that its easier to be white in America than it is to be black is seen as a personal attack or a way of saying 'you don't deserve what you have - you made it as far as you did because you are white.'

If we can agree that certain factors beyond our control do affect likelihood of success, how can we talk about it without being indecent? Is there another term that's better? Is there a better characterization of 'white privilege'?

---

Sure. But the left just uses it as a club. And realizing that both sides are divisive is a huge step for you.

And I think most white males understand what you are saying. But being falsely called bigots, xenophobes, and racists just because you say wear a Make America Great Again cap is not helpful. And actually that attitude is why Trump got elected. Most of the right are good people and not bigots, racists, or xenophobes. And get tired of being called that. Over and over and over and over again/

Quote:

---

But being falsely called bigots, xenophobes, and racists just because you say wear a Make America Great Again cap

---

I don't wear a MAGA cap but I often get classified as this simply for being a white conservative male. I am the public enemy of pretty much every SJW movement.

Quote:

---

I agree that those terms are divisive, but I doubt we agree on why. I think that many people are vexed by those terms because they fear admitting to having advantages in life. We want to think that what we accomplish is based on who we are and not in any way owed to our race, gender, class, family, etc. Suggesting that its easier to be white in America than it is to be black is seen as a personal attack or a way of saying 'you don't deserve what you have - you made it as far as you did because you are white.'

If we can agree that certain factors beyond our control do affect likelihood of success, how can we talk about it without being indecent? Is there another term that's better? Is there a better characterization of 'white privilege'?

---

I remember my sister getting really mad at me once when I was a kid. I griped that she got a bunch of scholarships "because she was a girl." It upset her because it diminished her feeling that she got scholarships on merit. Was I wrong? Probably not...it was probably an advantage to be female in some of them. Was she wrong? Also probably not, it's unfair to her. She can't help being a girl any more than I can help being a guy.

I don't think the terms are vexing because it forces us to admit to advantage. The terms are vexing because there's not a single thing anyone can do about it. It's just racism / sexism / whatever-ism in another form.

And it's just stupid anyway. What's the difference between white privilege, male privilege and something like intellectual privilege or physical privilege or beauty privilege? Can't do anything about your looks, and it indisputable that being attractive has advantages. Being intelligent is basically the single best predictor of success. Your namesake tells you where this leads - someone with your handle ought to recognize the basic form of the concepts in Harrison Burgeron.

Exactly.

It seems so oxymoronic to me that those who are supposedly "woke" are so blind to their own racism and projection.

Quote:

---

I guess I'm fine with that. If the problem isn't the equal application of partisanship, but rather that there should be no application of partisanship, then I see your / Dermdoc's point.

I stand by my point about whataboutism. An argument still stands on its merits rather than the bias of the speaker. I can agree with an argument without agreeing with the agenda made by the speaker of the argument.

---

Their argument is a poor application of Christian teaching for political effect. That's upsetting to me. There are a lot of people - Christians - who are simply not so sophisticated in how they read the bible, how they understand their faith, and people with fancy titles like this command some degree of respect. People listen to them.

Christ never, ever said - reflect on the log in your eye, then denounce logs in eyes everywhere. He never said, examine your conscience for how you enable or tolerate Caesar. They're twisting a fundamental component of the faith - personal humility and repentance - in a very underhanded way.

Read it carefully. The argument is not, in fact, one against indecency. Their argument is one against inaction, it is a call to action (specifically political action) on alleged Christian principles. That's wrong, that's simply not the gospel.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

I agree that those terms are divisive, but I doubt we agree on why. I think that many people are vexed by those terms because they fear admitting to having advantages in life. We want to think that what we accomplish is based on who we are and not in any way owed to our race, gender, class, family, etc. Suggesting that its easier to be white in America than it is to be black is seen as a personal attack or a way of saying 'you don't deserve what you have - you made it as far as you did because you are white.'

If we can agree that certain factors beyond our control do affect likelihood of success, how can we talk about it without being indecent? Is there another term that's better? Is there a better characterization of 'white privilege'?

---

I remember my sister getting really mad at me once when I was a kid. I griped that she got a bunch of scholarships "because she was a girl." It upset her because it diminished her feeling that she got scholarships on merit. Was I wrong? Probably not...it was probably an advantage to be female in some of them. Was she wrong? Also probably not, it's unfair to her. She can't help being a girl any more than I can help being a guy.

I don't think the terms are vexing because it forces us to admit to advantage. The terms are vexing because there's not a single thing anyone can do about it. It's just racism / sexism / whatever-ism in another form.

And it's just stupid anyway. What's the difference between white privilege, male privilege and something like intellectual privilege or physical privilege or beauty privilege? Can't do anything about your looks, and it indisputable that being attractive has advantages. Being intelligent is basically the single best predictor of success. Your namesake tells you where this leads - someone with your handle ought to recognize the basic form of the concepts in Harrison Burgeron.

---

I think it comes down to the liberal obsession with "fairness" and "equality". Everybody has the same rights but life, environment, God given ability, genetics, make everybody uniquely unequal. And the left is obsessed with trying to make people "equal", which is impossible, and means punishing certain groups for supposed advantages they have zero control over. And the only way they can achieve that is with government control to punish groups so that outcomes are more "equal". I frankly think it is evil and abhor Christian leaders from either side getting involved in it. But that is just me.

I care more about freedom than equality or fairness which are impossible in this life to obtain.

Sure. In philosophical terms it is a fundamental misconception about what is proper to the person and what is proper to the nature. Rights are derived from our humanity, and aren't based on personhood. Our equality is that of our nature. Inequalities exist at the personal level and always will. Conflating the two - probably to some extent intentionally - is a path to all sorts of confusion, error, and mischief.

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I think most white makes would think those terms are divisive. And libs have always told me that if folks think it is racist, sexist, or whatever than it is. Yet libs seem to be totally blind to the fact that their rhetoric on this is as divisive as when they claim the right is being divisive. It is very hypocritical and shows a significant lack of self awareness and arrogance. A blind spot shall we say.

---

I agree that those terms are divisive, but I doubt we agree on why. I think that many people are vexed by those terms because they fear admitting to having advantages in life. We want to think that what we accomplish is based on who we are and not in any way owed to our race, gender, class, family, etc. Suggesting that its easier to be white in America than it is to be black is seen as a personal attack or a way of saying 'you don't deserve what you have - you made it as far as you did because you are white.'

If we can agree that certain factors beyond our control do affect likelihood of success, how can we talk about it without being indecent? Is there another term that's better? Is there a better characterization of 'white privilege'?

---

Sure. But the left just uses it as a club. And realizing that both sides are divisive is a huge step for you.

And I think most white males understand what you are saying. But being falsely called bigots, xenophobes, and racists just because you say wear a Make America Great Again cap is not helpful. And actually that attitude is why Trump got elected. Most of the right are good people and not bigots, racists, or xenophobes. And get tired of being called that. Over and over and over and over again/

---

And the right uses the way in which they thing the left uses it to deny its existence. Why do you mean that realizing both sides are divisive is a huge step for me?

No, calling everyone with a MAGA hate a racist is not helpful. Calling everyone who thinks that some advantages exist in our country based on race equally racist is not helpful either. As soon as racism gets brought up, we all back into our corners, dig in and stop listening.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

I agree that those terms are divisive, but I doubt we agree on why. I think that many people are vexed by those terms because they fear admitting to having advantages in life. We want to think that what we accomplish is based on who we are and not in any way owed to our race, gender, class, family, etc. Suggesting that its easier to be white in America than it is to be black is seen as a personal attack or a way of saying 'you don't deserve what you have - you made it as far as you did because you are white.'

If we can agree that certain factors beyond our control do affect likelihood of success, how can we talk about it without being indecent? Is there another term that's better? Is there a better characterization of 'white privilege'?

---

I remember my sister getting really mad at me once when I was a kid. I griped that she got a bunch of scholarships "because she was a girl." It upset her because it diminished her feeling that she got scholarships on merit. Was I wrong? Probably not...it was probably an advantage to be female in some of them. Was she wrong? Also probably not, it's unfair to her. She can't help being a girl any more than I can help being a guy.

I don't think the terms are vexing because it forces us to admit to advantage. The terms are vexing because there's not a single thing anyone can do about it. It's just racism / sexism / whatever-ism in another form.

And it's just stupid anyway. What's the difference between white privilege, male privilege and something like intellectual privilege or physical privilege or beauty privilege? Can't do anything about your looks, and it indisputable that being attractive has advantages. Being intelligent is basically the single best predictor of success. Your namesake tells you where this leads - someone with your handle ought to recognize the basic form of the concepts in Harrison Burgeron.

---

What do you mean that there is nothing anyone can do about it? We can't change our race. But we can make a change is people are treated differently based on their race.

Being intelligent is the best predictor of success? We're going way off course with here, but I would wholeheartedly reject that.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I think most white makes would think those terms are divisive. And libs have always told me that if folks think it is racist, sexist, or whatever than it is. Yet libs seem to be totally blind to the fact that their rhetoric on this is as divisive as when they claim the right is being divisive. It is very hypocritical and shows a significant lack of self awareness and arrogance. A blind spot shall we say.

---

I agree that those terms are divisive, but I doubt we agree on why. I think that many people are vexed by those terms because they fear admitting to having advantages in life. We want to think that what we accomplish is based on who we are and not in any way owed to our race, gender, class, family, etc. Suggesting that its easier to be white in America than it is to be black is seen as a personal attack or a way of saying 'you don't deserve what you have - you made it as far as you did because you are white.'

If we can agree that certain factors beyond our control do affect likelihood of success, how can we talk about it without being indecent? Is there another term that's better? Is there a better characterization of 'white privilege'?

---

Sure. But the left just uses it as a club. And realizing that both sides are divisive is a huge step for you.

And I think most white males understand what you are saying. But being falsely called bigots, xenophobes, and racists just because you say wear a Make America Great Again cap is not helpful. And actually that attitude is why Trump got elected. Most of the right are good people and not bigots, racists, or xenophobes. And get tired of being called that. Over and over and over and over again/

---

And the right uses the way in which they thing the left uses it to deny its existence. Why do you mean that realizing both sides are divisive is a huge step for me?

No, calling everyone with a MAGA hate a racist is not helpful. Calling everyone who thinks that some advantages exist in our country based on race equally racist is not helpful either. As soon as racism gets brought up, we all back into our corners, dig in and stop listening.

---

Disagree. I listen to it all and come to my own conclusions. As do most people. And most people are not racist. I have several indisputable truths of life. #1 is only libs can define racism and/or sexism. And the "rules" keep changing.Like Frok said above, being a white conservative, Christian make you are just assumed to be racist.

Which is okay with most of that group I know because they are not seeking victimhood, But it is definitely divisive and maybe even indecent.

Quote:

---

people are treated differently based on their race.

---

I wholeheartedly reject that.

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I think most white makes would think those terms are divisive. And libs have always told me that if folks think it is racist, sexist, or whatever than it is. Yet libs seem to be totally blind to the fact that their rhetoric on this is as divisive as when they claim the right is being divisive. It is very hypocritical and shows a significant lack of self awareness and arrogance. A blind spot shall we say.

---

I agree that those terms are divisive, but I doubt we agree on why. I think that many people are vexed by those terms because they fear admitting to having advantages in life. We want to think that what we accomplish is based on who we are and not in any way owed to our race, gender, class, family, etc. Suggesting that its easier to be white in America than it is to be black is seen as a personal attack or a way of saying 'you don't deserve what you have - you made it as far as you did because you are white.'

If we can agree that certain factors beyond our control do affect likelihood of success, how can we talk about it without being indecent? Is there another term that's better? Is there a better characterization of 'white privilege'?

---

Sure. But the left just uses it as a club. And realizing that both sides are divisive is a huge step for you.

And I think most white males understand what you are saying. But being falsely called bigots, xenophobes, and racists just because you say wear a Make America Great Again cap is not helpful. And actually that attitude is why Trump got elected. Most of the right are good people and not bigots, racists, or xenophobes. And get tired of being called that. Over and over and over and over again/

---

And the right uses the way in which they thing the left uses it to deny its existence. Why do you mean that realizing both sides are divisive is a huge step for me?

No, calling everyone with a MAGA hate a racist is not helpful. Calling everyone who thinks that some advantages exist in our country based on race equally racist is not helpful either. As soon as racism gets brought up, we all back into our corners, dig in and stop listening.

---

Disagree. I listen to it all and come to my own conclusions. As do most people. And most people are not racist. I have several indisputable truths of life. #1 is only libs can define racism and/or sexism. And the "rules" keep changing.Like Frok said above, being a white conservative, Christian make you are just assumed to be racist.

Which is okay with most of that group I know because they are not seeking victimhood, But it is definitely divisive and maybe even indecent.

---

This victim mentality by white Christians is one of the more annoying things I see day to day. It strikes me as incredibly tone deaf of history and the role race has played in that history.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Quote:

---

people are treated differently based on their race.

---

I wholeheartedly reject that.

---

And you could not be more wrong.

Macarthur said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I think most white makes would think those terms are divisive. And libs have always told me that if folks think it is racist, sexist, or whatever than it is. Yet libs seem to be totally blind to the fact that their rhetoric on this is as divisive as when they claim the right is being divisive. It is very hypocritical and shows a significant lack of self awareness and arrogance. A blind spot shall we say.

---

I agree that those terms are divisive, but I doubt we agree on why. I think that many people are vexed by those terms because they fear admitting to having advantages in life. We want to think that what we accomplish is based on who we are and not in any way owed to our race, gender, class, family, etc. Suggesting that its easier to be white in America than it is to be black is seen as a personal attack or a way of saying 'you don't deserve what you have - you made it as far as you did because you are white.'

If we can agree that certain factors beyond our control do affect likelihood of success, how can we talk about it without being indecent? Is there another term that's better? Is there a better characterization of 'white privilege'?

---

Sure. But the left just uses it as a club. And realizing that both sides are divisive is a huge step for you.

And I think most white males understand what you are saying. But being falsely called bigots, xenophobes, and racists just because you say wear a Make America Great Again cap is not helpful. And actually that attitude is why Trump got elected. Most of the right are good people and not bigots, racists, or xenophobes. And get tired of being called that. Over and over and over and over again/

---

And the right uses the way in which they thing the left uses it to deny its existence. Why do you mean that realizing both sides are divisive is a huge step for me?

No, calling everyone with a MAGA hate a racist is not helpful. Calling everyone who thinks that some advantages exist in our country based on race equally racist is not helpful either. As soon as racism gets brought up, we all back into our corners, dig in and stop listening.

---

Disagree. I listen to it all and come to my own conclusions. As do most people. And most people are not racist. I have several indisputable truths of life. #1 is only libs can define racism and/or sexism. And the "rules" keep changing.Like Frok said above, being a white conservative, Christian make you are just assumed to be racist.

Which is okay with most of that group I know because they are not seeking victimhood, But it is definitely divisive and maybe even indecent.

---

This victim mentality by white Christians is one of the more annoying things I see day to day. It strikes me as incredibly tone deaf of history and the role race has played in that history.

---

Disagree. I think it is a reaction to the constant branding and projection by the left. "Racism" has almost become meaningless because as mentioned above only libs can define it. It is very divisive.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

I agree that those terms are divisive, but I doubt we agree on why. I think that many people are vexed by those terms because they fear admitting to having advantages in life. We want to think that what we accomplish is based on who we are and not in any way owed to our race, gender, class, family, etc. Suggesting that its easier to be white in America than it is to be black is seen as a personal attack or a way of saying 'you don't deserve what you have - you made it as far as you did because you are white.'

If we can agree that certain factors beyond our control do affect likelihood of success, how can we talk about it without being indecent? Is there another term that's better? Is there a better characterization of 'white privilege'?

---

I remember my sister getting really mad at me once when I was a kid. I griped that she got a bunch of scholarships "because she was a girl." It upset her because it diminished her feeling that she got scholarships on merit. Was I wrong? Probably not...it was probably an advantage to be female in some of them. Was she wrong? Also probably not, it's unfair to her. She can't help being a girl any more than I can help being a guy.

I don't think the terms are vexing because it forces us to admit to advantage. The terms are vexing because there's not a single thing anyone can do about it. It's just racism / sexism / whatever-ism in another form.

And it's just stupid anyway. What's the difference between white privilege, male privilege and something like intellectual privilege or physical privilege or beauty privilege? Can't do anything about your looks, and it indisputable that being attractive has advantages. Being intelligent is basically the single best predictor of success. Your namesake tells you where this leads - someone with your handle ought to recognize the basic form of the concepts in Harrison Burgeron.

---

This is the correct response. Attaching guilt and punishment to immutable characteristics is not higher level thinking, it's base level emotion. It also degrades things that are rightly ordered and widely beneficial by attaching guilt and punishment, such as having parents who are still married or affirmed you positively in regards to intelligence and looks while you were growing up.

Looks like we are at an impasse.

Single best predictor in a sea of predictors. Think of it statistically. When computing the (linear) regression equation you enter in all the predictors you decided to and see how strongly each is associated with the predicted variable.

Another way to think of it is like a pie in the shape of a circle. The whole pie is all the variation possible (in your data at least) in the predicted variable. Each predictor you enter into the regression tells you how much of the pie that predictor makes up.

In the case of something like lifetime income, some of that whole pie is your parent's income. Some is your education level. Some is personality factors. Some is your intelligence score. The single biggest piece of the pie is intelligence. That's statistically different from saying how big each individual piece is. It's not a huge piece, much less than even half the pie, it's just the single largest piece.

Macarthur said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I think most white makes would think those terms are divisive. And libs have always told me that if folks think it is racist, sexist, or whatever than it is. Yet libs seem to be totally blind to the fact that their rhetoric on this is as divisive as when they claim the right is being divisive. It is very hypocritical and shows a significant lack of self awareness and arrogance. A blind spot shall we say.

---

I agree that those terms are divisive, but I doubt we agree on why. I think that many people are vexed by those terms because they fear admitting to having advantages in life. We want to think that what we accomplish is based on who we are and not in any way owed to our race, gender, class, family, etc. Suggesting that its easier to be white in America than it is to be black is seen as a personal attack or a way of saying 'you don't deserve what you have - you made it as far as you did because you are white.'

If we can agree that certain factors beyond our control do affect likelihood of success, how can we talk about it without being indecent? Is there another term that's better? Is there a better characterization of 'white privilege'?

---

Sure. But the left just uses it as a club. And realizing that both sides are divisive is a huge step for you.

And I think most white males understand what you are saying. But being falsely called bigots, xenophobes, and racists just because you say wear a Make America Great Again cap is not helpful. And actually that attitude is why Trump got elected. Most of the right are good people and not bigots, racists, or xenophobes. And get tired of being called that. Over and over and over and over again/

---

And the right uses the way in which they thing the left uses it to deny its existence. Why do you mean that realizing both sides are divisive is a huge step for me?

No, calling everyone with a MAGA hate a racist is not helpful. Calling everyone who thinks that some advantages exist in our country based on race equally racist is not helpful either. As soon as racism gets brought up, we all back into our corners, dig in and stop listening.

---

Disagree. I listen to it all and come to my own conclusions. As do most people. And most people are not racist. I have several indisputable truths of life. #1 is only libs can define racism and/or sexism. And the "rules" keep changing.Like Frok said above, being a white conservative, Christian make you are just assumed to be racist.

Which is okay with most of that group I know because they are not seeking victimhood, But it is definitely divisive and maybe even indecent.

---

This victim mentality by white Christians is one of the more annoying things I see day to day. It strikes me as incredibly tone deaf of history and the role race has played in that history.

---

I had a bunch of crap typed out but I think there's a more salient point. Your response to people that feel (and are, btw) singled out due to immutable characteristics like race and sex isn't one of sympathy or concern. It should be if that's something you truly believe to be wrong. Instead its indifference to justify revenge and retaliation for a set time period in human history that you arbitrarily determined is most relevant. You've created a composite race caricature that seeks to represent each individual you meet or engage in discussion and you bludgeon the straw man appropriately or simply write them off if they disagree (hence the tie in with white fragility and how whites are blind to privilege). You just wish they'd accept your decision regarding who they are without objecting to it because you, not they, determine who they are.

americathegreat1492 said:

---

Single best predictor in a sea of predictors. Think of it statistically. When computing the (linear) regression equation you enter in all the predictors you decided to and see how strongly each is associated with the predicted variable.

Another way to think of it is like a pie in the shape of a circle. The whole pie is all the variation possible (in your data at least) in the predicted variable. Each predictor you enter into the regression tells you how much of the pie that predictor makes up.

In the case of something like lifetime income, some of that whole pie is your parent's income. Some is your education level. Some is personality factors. Some is your intelligence score. The single biggest piece of the pie is intelligence. That's statistically different from saying how big each individual piece is. It's not a huge piece, much less than even half the pie, it's just the single largest piece.

---

True but does not fit the lib template of most "unfairness"comes from racism/sexism or a combo of both.

And government can not fix a lot of those factors unless you go to straight socialism and/or communism to assure equally bad outcomes.

AGC said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I think most white makes would think those terms are divisive. And libs have always told me that if folks think it is racist, sexist, or whatever than it is. Yet libs seem to be totally blind to the fact that their rhetoric on this is as divisive as when they claim the right is being divisive. It is very hypocritical and shows a significant lack of self awareness and arrogance. A blind spot shall we say.

---

I agree that those terms are divisive, but I doubt we agree on why. I think that many people are vexed by those terms because they fear admitting to having advantages in life. We want to think that what we accomplish is based on who we are and not in any way owed to our race, gender, class, family, etc. Suggesting that its easier to be white in America than it is to be black is seen as a personal attack or a way of saying 'you don't deserve what you have - you made it as far as you did because you are white.'

If we can agree that certain factors beyond our control do affect likelihood of success, how can we talk about it without being indecent? Is there another term that's better? Is there a better characterization of 'white privilege'?

---

Sure. But the left just uses it as a club. And realizing that both sides are divisive is a huge step for you.

And I think most white males understand what you are saying. But being falsely called bigots, xenophobes, and racists just because you say wear a Make America Great Again cap is not helpful. And actually that attitude is why Trump got elected. Most of the right are good people and not bigots, racists, or xenophobes. And get tired of being called that. Over and over and over and over again/

---

And the right uses the way in which they thing the left uses it to deny its existence. Why do you mean that realizing both sides are divisive is a huge step for me?

No, calling everyone with a MAGA hate a racist is not helpful. Calling everyone who thinks that some advantages exist in our country based on race equally racist is not helpful either. As soon as racism gets brought up, we all back into our corners, dig in and stop listening.

---

Disagree. I listen to it all and come to my own conclusions. As do most people. And most people are not racist. I have several indisputable truths of life. #1 is only libs can define racism and/or sexism. And the "rules" keep changing.Like Frok said above, being a white conservative, Christian make you are just assumed to be racist.

Which is okay with most of that group I know because they are not seeking victimhood, But it is definitely divisive and maybe even indecent.

---

This victim mentality by white Christians is one of the more annoying things I see day to day. It strikes me as incredibly tone deaf of history and the role race has played in that history.

---

Since you're a student of history now, how do you see crit theory playing out? We have plenty of examples of those marginalized and neglected by power structures getting control. How does it end? Are you annoyed more by the fact that we see it coming or that we complain about what's coming unless we stop it?

---

Not 100% sure what you are getting at, but I do not believe that having an equal opportunity mindset and our capitalist system are mutually exclusive, if that's where you are going.

Macarthur said:

---

AGC said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I think most white makes would think those terms are divisive. And libs have always told me that if folks think it is racist, sexist, or whatever than it is. Yet libs seem to be totally blind to the fact that their rhetoric on this is as divisive as when they claim the right is being divisive. It is very hypocritical and shows a significant lack of self awareness and arrogance. A blind spot shall we say.

---

I agree that those terms are divisive, but I doubt we agree on why. I think that many people are vexed by those terms because they fear admitting to having advantages in life. We want to think that what we accomplish is based on who we are and not in any way owed to our race, gender, class, family, etc. Suggesting that its easier to be white in America than it is to be black is seen as a personal attack or a way of saying 'you don't deserve what you have - you made it as far as you did because you are white.'

If we can agree that certain factors beyond our control do affect likelihood of success, how can we talk about it without being indecent? Is there another term that's better? Is there a better characterization of 'white privilege'?

---

Sure. But the left just uses it as a club. And realizing that both sides are divisive is a huge step for you.

And I think most white males understand what you are saying. But being falsely called bigots, xenophobes, and racists just because you say wear a Make America Great Again cap is not helpful. And actually that attitude is why Trump got elected. Most of the right are good people and not bigots, racists, or xenophobes. And get tired of being called that. Over and over and over and over again/

---

And the right uses the way in which they thing the left uses it to deny its existence. Why do you mean that realizing both sides are divisive is a huge step for me?

No, calling everyone with a MAGA hate a racist is not helpful. Calling everyone who thinks that some advantages exist in our country based on race equally racist is not helpful either. As soon as racism gets brought up, we all back into our corners, dig in and stop listening.

---

Disagree. I listen to it all and come to my own conclusions. As do most people. And most people are not racist. I have several indisputable truths of life. #1 is only libs can define racism and/or sexism. And the "rules" keep changing.Like Frok said above, being a white conservative, Christian make you are just assumed to be racist.

Which is okay with most of that group I know because they are not seeking victimhood, But it is definitely divisive and maybe even indecent.

---

This victim mentality by white Christians is one of the more annoying things I see day to day. It strikes me as incredibly tone deaf of history and the role race has played in that history.

---

Since you're a student of history now, how do you see crit theory playing out? We have plenty of examples of those marginalized and neglected by power structures getting control. How does it end? Are you annoyed more by the fact that we see it coming or that we complain about what's coming unless we stop it?

---

Not 100% sure what you are getting at, but I do not believe that having an equal opportunity mindset and our capitalist system are mutually exclusive, if that's where you are going.

---

Not remotely where I was going but I'm curious how you'd define equal opportunity.

There would not be a problem if it were an equal opportunity mindset. The problem is the equal outcome mindset.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

There would not be a problem if it were an equal opportunity mindset. The problem is the equal outcome mindset.

---

This is the issue with so many of the problems in our country. It's become so poloarized that neither side wants to come to the middle. No doubt there are those on the left that want equal outcomes, but the correct response isn't to deny the issue exists.

Where were you going?

Macarthur said:

---

Where were you going?

---

Groups singled out as being in control of resources or opportunity (real or imagined) have not been well treated historically when another group seizes power. They usually wind up dead and often enough at the government's hands or with its blessing. If it's not immediate then it happens gradually as more and more control is wrested. It's happened across religious and ethnic lines worldwide. That's why it's highly irresponsible to ignore concerns about treatment due to immutable characteristics like race or sex, or be dismissive and demeaning with such terms as privilege and fragility. History bears these out as legitimate.