Wow, this thread got amazing again.

You didn't have to imagine, you could have simply noticed all the times he's ripped people for appearing to be uneducated idiots. He's taken shots at people's (apparent) lack of education many, many times. You're either oblivious, or trying to be cute.

If I wanted a stacked deck I'd be a socialist.

It would be hilarious that idiocy like this still exists if it wasn't so dangerous

"Hey the deck is still stacked against you but its LESS stacked against you then when you were owned as property so shut the **** up about it".

Amazing.

Here DeadMoneyWalking is demonstrating another hallmark of "chain mail thinking": whenever you've talked yourself into a corner, always try to change the subject to the "socialists". But... nobody seems to be taking the bait here ITT. Where's a "chain mail thinker" to go to from here ??

No dude, the point of bringing up hold'em wasn't to segue into a rant about ezra socialists. The point was to demonstrate that your reasoning was logically flawed, regardless of the content. The point was: (a) If the reasoning is absurd when applied to hold'em, it's absurd when applied to anything else. (b) It's obviously absurd when applied to holdem. So... (c) it's also absurd when applied to white privilege.

We don't need to use hold'em, of course. How about: crossing against the lights.

OOh a clever nickname to mask a weak analogy.

Okay plate head thinker why don't you hop on over to Card Player magazine and check their player of the year standings. Then tell decide whether poker is really a matter of privilege.

It's not an analogy How you get all the way to believing "poker is a matter of privilege" is beyond me Let's try again...

1. When someone talks about dominance in hold'em, or safety crossing with the lights, or redlining, it pretty much goes without saying that typically this phenomenon can be demonstrated by statistical means. So... it's not a "gotcha" to point out such phenomenon can be demonstrated by statistical means.
   
   
2. It's not a "gotcha" to point out any particular counterexamples. Not at all. Pointing out that aces get cracked, people get run over while crossing with the lights, a Jewish folk getting a mortgage in an area that has a Jewish redline, or you getting a speeding ticket... none of that means diddly-squat.
   
   
3. It's not a "gotcha" to say 100% of everyone in some group X can't get some perk by asking the perk fairy or something. Like WTF BBQ... where did you even get this "poker should be a matter of privilege" fantasy crusade from anyways ??
   
   
4. This whole shiz about "I suppose if they called it a 'furry camshaft' the socialists couldn't yadda, yadda"... this is all flat-out conspiritardical dissembling.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0f71799289fb1

You can even stick with traffic violations in the US if other examples don't help you. When stopped, blacks are disproportionately more likely to receive a ticket than whites. Whites are more likely to receive a warning than blacks. This is taking into account the slight difference in % that wear seatbelts.

This is an example of what people call "white privilege". It's small, largely unnoticed, especially by people like you that think "hey, they ticketed me so what's the big deal?".

It's not some monster under the bed. It's not even about the more overt racism police get accused of. It could just be slight cognitive biases (for whatever reasons) showing their face when we look at the numbers across the board. But it's there. It's some small part of society where blacks get a worse deal than whites.

There are much more nefarious examples, of course, but this is a pretty straight forward one. That's all white privilege is. The accumulation of these biases society has in favour of one class over the other.

How did the ACLU know the % cited after stops? The HuffyPOS link just discusses totals, not hit rates.

Do you deny that white people enjoy statistically significant advantages in myriad ways over people of color?

Do you just eye roll and assume liberal bias when you hear one of the endless slew of examples about how white people enjoy X advantage as a group?

Here I'm going to claim you are arguing in bad faith. Your earlier quote directly rejects statistical means entirely. Your more recent quote questions the methodology of this particular example of the ACLU using statistics.

Also, seriously, are you really high on the kool-aid? You can't really believe that... what was it again, I gotta scroll down and look... "calling it the 'racial aggregate' wouldn't catch on" is what's really going on. As in the ACLU, and all the rest of the 'socialists', are just making shiz up. Blatantly and brazenly making shiz up. Like WTF, how could the ACLU possibly know about % of stops... so therefore the 'socialists' are lying again. LMFAO !!!1!

I looked at their numbers and then compared them to their conclusion. How is that bad faith? It's actually too much faith because for arguments sake I took the ACLU's stats at face value even though they have an interest in the results.

I wouldn't call what the racial hustlers are doing 'bad faith' but it is a linguistic sleight of hand to say "privilege" when you mean 'unequal result.'

OK VG.

If the MSM used the phrase "Institutionally Unequal Results", instead of the word "privilege", would your concerns be addressed?

As if redlining was called "WIUR" instead of "WP", etc., we wouldn't be having this conversation to begin with. As if we heard "WIUR" instead of "WP" when we turned on our radios... we wouldn't need to concern ourselves with what the "race hustlers", or the 'socialists', or even those LOLtastical Bernie-boys, were trying to cook up... not at all?

To you, is this all about the product branding currently being used by the MSM, so to speak ??

Let's say they don't. Let's say I made that part up because I'm a dishonest socialist.

We still know blacks are receiving far more tickets for not wearing seatbelts than whites do.

How is the situation better if the truth is they just get stopped a ton more to begin with?

Edit: I genuinely remembered reading somewhere about the number ticketed after stops, but looks like that might have been my poor memory.

I certainly would.

That would be a very enlightened world indeed. If someone demanded that I "apologize for statistically different results" I'd say Sure. Now I can help you buck the trend. It's when people talk as though there's a nation wide conspiracy of oppression that I have trouble listening.

Redlining wasn't systematic oppression?

I don't think you giving minorities speeches about bootstraps and bucking the trend is going to solve institutional racism

So it's just an accident that minorities have statistically different results for all sorts of things from getting loans to resume review to traffic stops to arrests and there's just nothing to be done about it? Calling statistically different results removes the idea that the cause behind is racism both personal and institutional. It also doesn't change the fact that white male is the lowest difficulty setting in the game of life.

It doesn't have to be some grand conspiracy. Maybe people at companies aren't overtly racist just more inclined to think the black name comes from a lower standard of education, so they gloss over them in a way they otherwise wouldn't. Maybe they think a guy like that will be from a black neighbourhood and won't fit in with the rest of the employees. Maybe any number of other possible reasons. It doesn't really matter why they do it. If the end result is that half of the CVs get tossed in the rubbish then that's a society that disadvantages black people over white people and you're left with systemic racism and white privilege.

How will race hustling, safe spaces, and accusing others of privilege fare in that regard?

Uh, that stuff would fare exactly the same.

Here's an amazing thing: when you change the name of something... it doesn't change the something itself at all. Like my chica LOLtastically calls the furniture this computer is sitting on a "mesa". But still, even with her being silly and changing the name of the furniture... when it comes to holding shiz above the floor, etc., well, it fares exactly the same in that regard.

ETA: Let's take "race hustlers" as an example. I'm sure you'd agree with me that both L.Ron (Ron Paul), when he was making $$$$millions off his racist newsletters, and Jesse Jackson Jr., who's doing time right now in federal prison for his "hustling" of $$$$thousands, are both out-of-the-closet "race hustlers". I don't see how forcing these "race hustlers" to use the phrase "IUR", instead of the P-word, cuts into their "hustling" at all.

What in the hell is "accusing others of privilege" and what does it have to do with the systematic oppression that was red lining?

Why is there a trend that needs to be bucked, DMW?

Skimming through the last few pages I can see the thread has veered a bit off topic. I did notice some references to the ACLU, and assuming it was to highlight their unwavering defense of free speech (our first guaranteed right as citizens of these US, a land the free and brave proudly call home), I'll add some more of their views as a reminder:

https://www.aclu.org/hate-speech-campus
Also, regarding safe spaces, here is a link to a interesting survey by students at American Univerisity with lots of current information on the topic.

http://www.voice-less.com/?page_id=393

Dude that is literally an undergrad group project, apparently to create the world's least usable website. I give it an A+.