Things Many White People Seem To Not Understand

[ptbw forever]

If that's what you think my OP said, you too didn't understand it.

You don't understand it.

Peggy McIntosh is just as batshit crazy as Jane Elliot or Robert Jensen, and both of them very much do say that(and more).

No one ever has the guts to debate anyone on the actual validity of "white privilege".

You have the audacity to say that nobody "has the guts to debate anyone on the actual validity of "white privilege," yet look at the unsubstantiated claims you've up to this point in the thread. This is your fourth post and neither in it nor in the preceding three have you presented anything resembling content worthy of calling it a a debate.

• Where's your opening assertion that's stated in positive form and completely neutral terms?
• Where are your arguments that are not only devoid of informal and formal fallacies and that are supported by credible data and research findings that in addition to having fully disclosed methodologies, are also referenced for all to review?
• Where is is your equally well developed counter-argument?
• Where is your cogent rebuttal to the counter-argument?
• Where is your conclusion that "brings it all home" by synthesizing the argument, counter-argument and rebuttal?

The answer to every one of those questions is the same: nowhere!

So if you want to debate, post your dialectic argument. Provided you actually produce a dialectic argument, I'll respond in kind why my own dialectic argument that refutes yours. You and I each have three days to compose our argument. You and I each get one post to present our argument; neither of us sees the other's argument in advance. Deadline for posting is 8:30 pm on 28-August-2016.

Choose one of the assertions below; the one you choose will be the one we debate.:

• White Privilege exists.
  • Negative: You
  • Affirmative: I
• White people vote for anyone but Democrats because the concept of White Privilege prevents them from voting for Democrats.
  • Negative: You
  • Affirmative: I
• In the U.S., structural privileges exist that allow whites to legally maintain edge over minorities.
  • Negative: You
  • Affirmative: I

Just so you know that I am quite willing to engage in a dialectic argument, I have already posted one on USMB, although the topic was not this one.

White privilege is not just an American assertion or concept, it is, at the very least, a western encompassing one that is lodged at any white person McIntosh's fanatics think they can get away with labeling.

If I pick the 1st or 3rd choice we would have to debate the subject from a western standpoint(Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc on top of the US), not just an American one.

I am actually having a hard time choosing because I want to do all 3.

Red:
Well, then the choice is clear: #2 it is.

if it's a "western "concept no choice is necessary as it functions the same way any where their is a white majority.
is there a major difference in countries that are more homogenous like china ?
the disparity there is just as obvious as here.

Except "white privilege" is literally just a white thing.

The Chinese can have all the majority privilege they want and Tim Wise and his sycophants will leave them alone to overtly oppress minorities of every stripe at levels unheard of in the west.

 

[320 Years of History]

If that's what you think my OP said, you too didn't understand it.

You don't understand it.

Peggy McIntosh is just as batshit crazy as Jane Elliot or Robert Jensen, and both of them very much do say that(and more).

No one ever has the guts to debate anyone on the actual validity of "white privilege".

You have the audacity to say that nobody "has the guts to debate anyone on the actual validity of "white privilege," yet look at the unsubstantiated claims you've up to this point in the thread. This is your fourth post and neither in it nor in the preceding three have you presented anything resembling content worthy of calling it a a debate.

• Where's your opening assertion that's stated in positive form and completely neutral terms?
• Where are your arguments that are not only devoid of informal and formal fallacies and that are supported by credible data and research findings that in addition to having fully disclosed methodologies, are also referenced for all to review?
• Where is is your equally well developed counter-argument?
• Where is your cogent rebuttal to the counter-argument?
• Where is your conclusion that "brings it all home" by synthesizing the argument, counter-argument and rebuttal?

The answer to every one of those questions is the same: nowhere!

So if you want to debate, post your dialectic argument. Provided you actually produce a dialectic argument, I'll respond in kind why my own dialectic argument that refutes yours. You and I each have three days to compose our argument. You and I each get one post to present our argument; neither of us sees the other's argument in advance. Deadline for posting is 8:30 pm on 28-August-2016.

Choose one of the assertions below; the one you choose will be the one we debate.:

• White Privilege exists.
  • Negative: You
  • Affirmative: I
• White people vote for anyone but Democrats because the concept of White Privilege prevents them from voting for Democrats.
  • Negative: You
  • Affirmative: I
• In the U.S., structural privileges exist that allow whites to legally maintain edge over minorities.
  • Negative: You
  • Affirmative: I

Just so you know that I am quite willing to engage in a dialectic argument, I have already posted one on USMB, although the topic was not this one.

White privilege is not just an American assertion or concept, it is, at the very least, a western encompassing one that is lodged at any white person McIntosh's fanatics think they can get away with labeling.

If I pick the 1st or 3rd choice we would have to debate the subject from a western standpoint(Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc on top of the US), not just an American one.

I am actually having a hard time choosing because I want to do all 3.

Red:
Well, then the choice is clear: #2 it is.

You are already failing to properly debate because:
1. your 1st choice can easily fit my criteria.

2. Your 3rd choice is redundant when accounting for the 1st choice and merely exists as a way to pigeonhole me into a debate on white privilege in the US without proper global context, which white privilege is actually based upon.


I have chosen #1 btw.

Okay, #1 it is.

 

[daws101]

You don't understand it.

Peggy McIntosh is just as batshit crazy as Jane Elliot or Robert Jensen, and both of them very much do say that(and more).

No one ever has the guts to debate anyone on the actual validity of "white privilege".

You have the audacity to say that nobody "has the guts to debate anyone on the actual validity of "white privilege," yet look at the unsubstantiated claims you've up to this point in the thread. This is your fourth post and neither in it nor in the preceding three have you presented anything resembling content worthy of calling it a a debate.

• Where's your opening assertion that's stated in positive form and completely neutral terms?
• Where are your arguments that are not only devoid of informal and formal fallacies and that are supported by credible data and research findings that in addition to having fully disclosed methodologies, are also referenced for all to review?
• Where is is your equally well developed counter-argument?
• Where is your cogent rebuttal to the counter-argument?
• Where is your conclusion that "brings it all home" by synthesizing the argument, counter-argument and rebuttal?

The answer to every one of those questions is the same: nowhere!

So if you want to debate, post your dialectic argument. Provided you actually produce a dialectic argument, I'll respond in kind why my own dialectic argument that refutes yours. You and I each have three days to compose our argument. You and I each get one post to present our argument; neither of us sees the other's argument in advance. Deadline for posting is 8:30 pm on 28-August-2016.

Choose one of the assertions below; the one you choose will be the one we debate.:

• White Privilege exists.
  • Negative: You
  • Affirmative: I
• White people vote for anyone but Democrats because the concept of White Privilege prevents them from voting for Democrats.
  • Negative: You
  • Affirmative: I
• In the U.S., structural privileges exist that allow whites to legally maintain edge over minorities.
  • Negative: You
  • Affirmative: I

Just so you know that I am quite willing to engage in a dialectic argument, I have already posted one on USMB, although the topic was not this one.

White privilege is not just an American assertion or concept, it is, at the very least, a western encompassing one that is lodged at any white person McIntosh's fanatics think they can get away with labeling.

If I pick the 1st or 3rd choice we would have to debate the subject from a western standpoint(Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc on top of the US), not just an American one.

I am actually having a hard time choosing because I want to do all 3.

Red:
Well, then the choice is clear: #2 it is.

if it's a "western "concept no choice is necessary as it functions the same way any where their is a white majority.
is there a major difference in countries that are more homogenous like china ?
the disparity there is just as obvious as here.

Except "white privilege" is literally just a white thing.

The Chinese can have all the majority privilege they want and Tim Wise and his sycophants will leave them alone to overtly oppress minorities of every stripe at levels unheard of in the west.

privilege is not exclusive to whites , what makes white privilege different?

 

[ptbw forever]

You have the audacity to say that nobody "has the guts to debate anyone on the actual validity of "white privilege," yet look at the unsubstantiated claims you've up to this point in the thread. This is your fourth post and neither in it nor in the preceding three have you presented anything resembling content worthy of calling it a a debate.

• Where's your opening assertion that's stated in positive form and completely neutral terms?
• Where are your arguments that are not only devoid of informal and formal fallacies and that are supported by credible data and research findings that in addition to having fully disclosed methodologies, are also referenced for all to review?
• Where is is your equally well developed counter-argument?
• Where is your cogent rebuttal to the counter-argument?
• Where is your conclusion that "brings it all home" by synthesizing the argument, counter-argument and rebuttal?

The answer to every one of those questions is the same: nowhere!

So if you want to debate, post your dialectic argument. Provided you actually produce a dialectic argument, I'll respond in kind why my own dialectic argument that refutes yours. You and I each have three days to compose our argument. You and I each get one post to present our argument; neither of us sees the other's argument in advance. Deadline for posting is 8:30 pm on 28-August-2016.

Choose one of the assertions below; the one you choose will be the one we debate.:

• White Privilege exists.
  • Negative: You
  • Affirmative: I
• White people vote for anyone but Democrats because the concept of White Privilege prevents them from voting for Democrats.
  • Negative: You
  • Affirmative: I
• In the U.S., structural privileges exist that allow whites to legally maintain edge over minorities.
  • Negative: You
  • Affirmative: I

Just so you know that I am quite willing to engage in a dialectic argument, I have already posted one on USMB, although the topic was not this one.

White privilege is not just an American assertion or concept, it is, at the very least, a western encompassing one that is lodged at any white person McIntosh's fanatics think they can get away with labeling.

If I pick the 1st or 3rd choice we would have to debate the subject from a western standpoint(Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc on top of the US), not just an American one.

I am actually having a hard time choosing because I want to do all 3.

Red:
Well, then the choice is clear: #2 it is.

if it's a "western "concept no choice is necessary as it functions the same way any where their is a white majority.
is there a major difference in countries that are more homogenous like china ?
the disparity there is just as obvious as here.

Except "white privilege" is literally just a white thing.

The Chinese can have all the majority privilege they want and Tim Wise and his sycophants will leave them alone to overtly oppress minorities of every stripe at levels unheard of in the west.

privilege is not exclusive to whites , what makes white privilege different?

The name?

It is kind of obvious to even small children.

 

[ptbw forever]

You don't understand it.

Peggy McIntosh is just as batshit crazy as Jane Elliot or Robert Jensen, and both of them very much do say that(and more).

No one ever has the guts to debate anyone on the actual validity of "white privilege".

You have the audacity to say that nobody "has the guts to debate anyone on the actual validity of "white privilege," yet look at the unsubstantiated claims you've up to this point in the thread. This is your fourth post and neither in it nor in the preceding three have you presented anything resembling content worthy of calling it a a debate.

• Where's your opening assertion that's stated in positive form and completely neutral terms?
• Where are your arguments that are not only devoid of informal and formal fallacies and that are supported by credible data and research findings that in addition to having fully disclosed methodologies, are also referenced for all to review?
• Where is is your equally well developed counter-argument?
• Where is your cogent rebuttal to the counter-argument?
• Where is your conclusion that "brings it all home" by synthesizing the argument, counter-argument and rebuttal?

The answer to every one of those questions is the same: nowhere!

So if you want to debate, post your dialectic argument. Provided you actually produce a dialectic argument, I'll respond in kind why my own dialectic argument that refutes yours. You and I each have three days to compose our argument. You and I each get one post to present our argument; neither of us sees the other's argument in advance. Deadline for posting is 8:30 pm on 28-August-2016.

Choose one of the assertions below; the one you choose will be the one we debate.:

• White Privilege exists.
  • Negative: You
  • Affirmative: I
• White people vote for anyone but Democrats because the concept of White Privilege prevents them from voting for Democrats.
  • Negative: You
  • Affirmative: I
• In the U.S., structural privileges exist that allow whites to legally maintain edge over minorities.
  • Negative: You
  • Affirmative: I

Just so you know that I am quite willing to engage in a dialectic argument, I have already posted one on USMB, although the topic was not this one.

White privilege is not just an American assertion or concept, it is, at the very least, a western encompassing one that is lodged at any white person McIntosh's fanatics think they can get away with labeling.

If I pick the 1st or 3rd choice we would have to debate the subject from a western standpoint(Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc on top of the US), not just an American one.

I am actually having a hard time choosing because I want to do all 3.

Red:
Well, then the choice is clear: #2 it is.

You are already failing to properly debate because:
1. your 1st choice can easily fit my criteria.

2. Your 3rd choice is redundant when accounting for the 1st choice and merely exists as a way to pigeonhole me into a debate on white privilege in the US without proper global context, which white privilege is actually based upon.


I have chosen #1 btw.

Okay, #1 it is.

BTW, if I post my argument at the last minute on Sunday, does that mean I automatically win because you can't post your refutation in time?

 

[daws101]

White privilege is not just an American assertion or concept, it is, at the very least, a western encompassing one that is lodged at any white person McIntosh's fanatics think they can get away with labeling.

If I pick the 1st or 3rd choice we would have to debate the subject from a western standpoint(Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc on top of the US), not just an American one.

I am actually having a hard time choosing because I want to do all 3.

Red:
Well, then the choice is clear: #2 it is.

if it's a "western "concept no choice is necessary as it functions the same way any where their is a white majority.
is there a major difference in countries that are more homogenous like china ?
the disparity there is just as obvious as here.

Except "white privilege" is literally just a white thing.

The Chinese can have all the majority privilege they want and Tim Wise and his sycophants will leave them alone to overtly oppress minorities of every stripe at levels unheard of in the west.

privilege is not exclusive to whites , what makes white privilege different?

The name?

It is kind of obvious to even small children.

The name is meaningless
It could just as well be (place any controlling group here)

 

[ptbw forever]

Red:
Well, then the choice is clear: #2 it is.

if it's a "western "concept no choice is necessary as it functions the same way any where their is a white majority.
is there a major difference in countries that are more homogenous like china ?
the disparity there is just as obvious as here.

Except "white privilege" is literally just a white thing.

The Chinese can have all the majority privilege they want and Tim Wise and his sycophants will leave them alone to overtly oppress minorities of every stripe at levels unheard of in the west.

privilege is not exclusive to whites , what makes white privilege different?

The name?

It is kind of obvious to even small children.

The name is meaningless
It could just as well be (place any controlling group here)

Thanks for proving my argument before the debate even begins.

 

[daws101]

if it's a "western "concept no choice is necessary as it functions the same way any where their is a white majority.
is there a major difference in countries that are more homogenous like china ?
the disparity there is just as obvious as here.

Except "white privilege" is literally just a white thing.

The Chinese can have all the majority privilege they want and Tim Wise and his sycophants will leave them alone to overtly oppress minorities of every stripe at levels unheard of in the west.

privilege is not exclusive to whites , what makes white privilege different?

The name?

It is kind of obvious to even small children.

The name is meaningless
It could just as well be (place any controlling group here)

Thanks for proving my argument before the debate even begins.

as I thought, your argument is/ was going to be based on the one race theory.

 

[320 Years of History]

You have the audacity to say that nobody "has the guts to debate anyone on the actual validity of "white privilege," yet look at the unsubstantiated claims you've up to this point in the thread. This is your fourth post and neither in it nor in the preceding three have you presented anything resembling content worthy of calling it a a debate.

• Where's your opening assertion that's stated in positive form and completely neutral terms?
• Where are your arguments that are not only devoid of informal and formal fallacies and that are supported by credible data and research findings that in addition to having fully disclosed methodologies, are also referenced for all to review?
• Where is is your equally well developed counter-argument?
• Where is your cogent rebuttal to the counter-argument?
• Where is your conclusion that "brings it all home" by synthesizing the argument, counter-argument and rebuttal?

The answer to every one of those questions is the same: nowhere!

So if you want to debate, post your dialectic argument. Provided you actually produce a dialectic argument, I'll respond in kind why my own dialectic argument that refutes yours. You and I each have three days to compose our argument. You and I each get one post to present our argument; neither of us sees the other's argument in advance. Deadline for posting is 8:30 pm on 28-August-2016.

Choose one of the assertions below; the one you choose will be the one we debate.:

• White Privilege exists.
  • Negative: You
  • Affirmative: I
• White people vote for anyone but Democrats because the concept of White Privilege prevents them from voting for Democrats.
  • Negative: You
  • Affirmative: I
• In the U.S., structural privileges exist that allow whites to legally maintain edge over minorities.
  • Negative: You
  • Affirmative: I

Just so you know that I am quite willing to engage in a dialectic argument, I have already posted one on USMB, although the topic was not this one.

White privilege is not just an American assertion or concept, it is, at the very least, a western encompassing one that is lodged at any white person McIntosh's fanatics think they can get away with labeling.

If I pick the 1st or 3rd choice we would have to debate the subject from a western standpoint(Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc on top of the US), not just an American one.

I am actually having a hard time choosing because I want to do all 3.

Red:
Well, then the choice is clear: #2 it is.

You are already failing to properly debate because:
1. your 1st choice can easily fit my criteria.

2. Your 3rd choice is redundant when accounting for the 1st choice and merely exists as a way to pigeonhole me into a debate on white privilege in the US without proper global context, which white privilege is actually based upon.


I have chosen #1 btw.

Okay, #1 it is.

BTW, if I post my argument at the last minute on Sunday, does that mean I automatically win because you can't post your refutation in time?

Red:
No. That you even asked that question is disconcerting on multiple levels, the first of which being that I'm not sure you actually understand what a dialectic argument is.

Organization of a Dialogic/Dialectic Paper

Unique Title
Intro Paragraphs:

Identify what assertion you will argue
Identify the 3-4 strongest opposing arguments,
Identify the argumentative structure you'll use, who precisely your intended audience is, and provide whatever other introductory details you feel readers in your target audience must have.​

Body

Body Section 1:

An argument and supporting details​

Body Section 2:

Its opposing argument and supporting details​

Body Section 3:

Rebuttal of the counter-argument and supporting details​

Conclusion:

1 - Summarize the key points in the body
2 - Where logically valid to do so, extrapolate to something beyond the literal findings/assertions presented in the body (optional)​

Bibliography

[FWIW, I don't care if you use MLA, APA, or hyperlinking]​

We are both delivering dialectic arguments not later than 8:30 this coming Sunday. I don't need to see yours in advance any more than you need to see mine because the "counter-argument" section of the overall argument must robustly and objectively present the opposing side's argument so that it can be rebutted in the "rebuttal" section. That is the reason for choosing the dialectic structure: it requires one to identify the strongest of the opposition's potential arguments and present them, well, as rigorously as one would present one's own position.

 

[ptbw forever]

White privilege is not just an American assertion or concept, it is, at the very least, a western encompassing one that is lodged at any white person McIntosh's fanatics think they can get away with labeling.

If I pick the 1st or 3rd choice we would have to debate the subject from a western standpoint(Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc on top of the US), not just an American one.

I am actually having a hard time choosing because I want to do all 3.

Red:
Well, then the choice is clear: #2 it is.

You are already failing to properly debate because:
1. your 1st choice can easily fit my criteria.

2. Your 3rd choice is redundant when accounting for the 1st choice and merely exists as a way to pigeonhole me into a debate on white privilege in the US without proper global context, which white privilege is actually based upon.


I have chosen #1 btw.

Okay, #1 it is.

BTW, if I post my argument at the last minute on Sunday, does that mean I automatically win because you can't post your refutation in time?

Red:
No. That you even asked that question is disconcerting on multiple levels, the first of which being that I'm not sure you actually understand what a dialectic argument is.

Organization of a Dialogic/Dialectic Paper

Unique Title
Intro Paragraphs:

Identify what assertion you will argue
Identify the 3-4 strongest opposing arguments,
Identify the argumentative structure you'll use, who precisely your intended audience is, and provide whatever other introductory details you feel readers in your target audience must have.​

Body

Body Section 1:

An argument and supporting details​

Body Section 2:

Its opposing argument and supporting details​

Body Section 3:

Rebuttal of the counter-argument and supporting details​

Conclusion:

1 - Summarize the key points in the body
2 - Where logically valid to do so, extrapolate to something beyond the literal findings/assertions presented in the body (optional)​

Bibliography

[FWIW, I don't care if you use MLA, APA, or hyperlinking]​

We are both delivering dialectic arguments not later than 8:30 this coming Sunday. I don't need to see yours in advance any more than you need to see mine because the "counter-argument" section of the overall argument must robustly and objectively present the opposing side's argument so that it can be rebutted in the "rebuttal" section. That is the reason for choosing the dialectic structure: it requires one to identify the strongest of the opposition's potential arguments and present them, well, as rigorously as one would present one's own position.

You stated that you would formulate your argument as a direct counter to mine, not in the context of a dialectic argument.

 

[320 Years of History]

Red:
Well, then the choice is clear: #2 it is.

You are already failing to properly debate because:
1. your 1st choice can easily fit my criteria.

2. Your 3rd choice is redundant when accounting for the 1st choice and merely exists as a way to pigeonhole me into a debate on white privilege in the US without proper global context, which white privilege is actually based upon.


I have chosen #1 btw.

Okay, #1 it is.

BTW, if I post my argument at the last minute on Sunday, does that mean I automatically win because you can't post your refutation in time?

Red:
No. That you even asked that question is disconcerting on multiple levels, the first of which being that I'm not sure you actually understand what a dialectic argument is.

Organization of a Dialogic/Dialectic Paper

Unique Title
Intro Paragraphs:

Identify what assertion you will argue
Identify the 3-4 strongest opposing arguments,
Identify the argumentative structure you'll use, who precisely your intended audience is, and provide whatever other introductory details you feel readers in your target audience must have.​

Body

Body Section 1:

An argument and supporting details​

Body Section 2:

Its opposing argument and supporting details​

Body Section 3:

Rebuttal of the counter-argument and supporting details​

Conclusion:

1 - Summarize the key points in the body
2 - Where logically valid to do so, extrapolate to something beyond the literal findings/assertions presented in the body (optional)​

Bibliography

[FWIW, I don't care if you use MLA, APA, or hyperlinking]​

We are both delivering dialectic arguments not later than 8:30 this coming Sunday. I don't need to see yours in advance any more than you need to see mine because the "counter-argument" section of the overall argument must robustly and objectively present the opposing side's argument so that it can be rebutted in the "rebuttal" section. That is the reason for choosing the dialectic structure: it requires one to identify the strongest of the opposition's potential arguments and present them, well, as rigorously as one would present one's own position.

You stated that you would formulate your argument as a direct counter to mine, not in the context of a dialectic argument.

Okay...I understand why you said what you did. I will still deliver my argument by 8:30 p.m. on Sunday.

I don't need to see your argument before presenting my own. There are only so many thematically/substantively different arguments against the existence of white privilege. The strengths and weaknesses of each of them don't change simply because you or another author presents them; what changes by author is the qualitative nature of the presentation.

 

[ptbw forever]

You are already failing to properly debate because:
1. your 1st choice can easily fit my criteria.

2. Your 3rd choice is redundant when accounting for the 1st choice and merely exists as a way to pigeonhole me into a debate on white privilege in the US without proper global context, which white privilege is actually based upon.


I have chosen #1 btw.

Okay, #1 it is.

BTW, if I post my argument at the last minute on Sunday, does that mean I automatically win because you can't post your refutation in time?

Red:
No. That you even asked that question is disconcerting on multiple levels, the first of which being that I'm not sure you actually understand what a dialectic argument is.

Organization of a Dialogic/Dialectic Paper

Unique Title
Intro Paragraphs:

Identify what assertion you will argue
Identify the 3-4 strongest opposing arguments,
Identify the argumentative structure you'll use, who precisely your intended audience is, and provide whatever other introductory details you feel readers in your target audience must have.​

Body

Body Section 1:

An argument and supporting details​

Body Section 2:

Its opposing argument and supporting details​

Body Section 3:

Rebuttal of the counter-argument and supporting details​

Conclusion:

1 - Summarize the key points in the body
2 - Where logically valid to do so, extrapolate to something beyond the literal findings/assertions presented in the body (optional)​

Bibliography

[FWIW, I don't care if you use MLA, APA, or hyperlinking]​

We are both delivering dialectic arguments not later than 8:30 this coming Sunday. I don't need to see yours in advance any more than you need to see mine because the "counter-argument" section of the overall argument must robustly and objectively present the opposing side's argument so that it can be rebutted in the "rebuttal" section. That is the reason for choosing the dialectic structure: it requires one to identify the strongest of the opposition's potential arguments and present them, well, as rigorously as one would present one's own position.

You stated that you would formulate your argument as a direct counter to mine, not in the context of a dialectic argument.

Okay...I understand why you said what you did. I will still deliver my argument by 8:30 p.m. on Sunday.

I don't need to see your argument before presenting my own. There are only so many thematically/substantively different arguments against the existence of white privilege. The strengths and weaknesses of each of them don't change simply because you or another author presents them; what changes by author is the qualitative nature of the presentation.

That makes no sense whatsoever in the context of this debate or any debate really.

Debates are supposed to be about the direct exchange of conflicting ideas and beliefs, not guessing or even strawmaning your opponent's arguments without any input from them.

 

[320 Years of History]

[white privilege] is, at the very least, a western encompassing one that is lodged at any white person

Why do you conclude that one's assertion that white privilege exists and then describing the ways in which it is manifest is necessarily an attack? Consider for instance comparable assertions:

• In Israel, Jewish privilege exists.
• In Saudi Arabia, Muslim privilege exists.
• In China, Han privilege exists.

If one were to say that to the natives of those places, almost without exception, one would get as a reply something akin to, "Yes, it does." Indeed, I had precisely that conversation with eight of my Chinese colleagues in 2009. All but two, Uyghurs, who where present are Han. None of them denied the existence of Han privilege in China. No Hans felt threatened or "lodged upon." They just know it's something that does exist and they happen to be the beneficiaries of it.

 

[ptbw forever]

[white privilege] is, at the very least, a western encompassing one that is lodged at any white person

Why do you conclude that one's assertion that white privilege exists and then describing the ways in which it is manifest is necessarily an attack? Consider for instance comparable assertions:

• In Israel, Jewish privilege exists.
• In Saudi Arabia, Muslim privilege exists.
• In China, Han privilege exists.

If one were to say that to the natives of those places, almost without exception, one would get as a reply something akin to, "Yes, it does." Indeed, I had precisely that conversation with eight of my Chinese colleagues in 2009. All but two, Uyghurs, who where present are Han. None of them denied the existence of Han privilege in China. No Hans felt threatened or "lodged upon." They just know it's something that does exist and they happen to be the beneficiaries of it.

Now you are just being disingenuous.

Peggy doesn't believe in Han privilege in the same way she believes in white privilege, and white privilege is not even close to being as influential to American or Western European power structures as the Han are to China's.

 

[320 Years of History]

[white privilege] is, at the very least, a western encompassing one that is lodged at any white person

Why do you conclude that one's assertion that white privilege exists and then describing the ways in which it is manifest is necessarily an attack? Consider for instance comparable assertions:

• In Israel, Jewish privilege exists.
• In Saudi Arabia, Muslim privilege exists.
• In China, Han privilege exists.

If one were to say that to the natives of those places, almost without exception, one would get as a reply something akin to, "Yes, it does." Indeed, I had precisely that conversation with eight of my Chinese colleagues in 2009. All but two, Uyghurs, who where present are Han. None of them denied the existence of Han privilege in China. No Hans felt threatened or "lodged upon." They just know it's something that does exist and they happen to be the beneficiaries of it.

Now you are just being disingenuous.

Peggy doesn't believe in Han privilege in the same way she believes in white privilege, and white privilege is not even close to being as influential to American or Western European power structures as the Han are to China's.

Really, I don't care that much about the rest of what I wrote. If can't see the similitude between white privilege and Han privilege, fine. I really just wanted a direct answer to the question at the start of the post.

Why do you conclude that one's assertion that white privilege exists and then describing the ways in which it is manifest is necessarily an attack on white people, you, some subset of white people?
​

Truly, as goes my curiosity, it doesn't even matter whether white privilege exists or doesn't. I just want to know why you construe someone mentioning that it does exist constitutes "lodging" an assault of some sort. It doesn't even matter, as goes my question, what be the nature and extent of the assault. The heart of the question, at least as I'm asking it of you, is what makes you perceive such a statement as an attack that was lodged.

 

[320 Years of History]

Okay, #1 it is.

BTW, if I post my argument at the last minute on Sunday, does that mean I automatically win because you can't post your refutation in time?

Red:
No. That you even asked that question is disconcerting on multiple levels, the first of which being that I'm not sure you actually understand what a dialectic argument is.

Organization of a Dialogic/Dialectic Paper

Unique Title
Intro Paragraphs:

Identify what assertion you will argue
Identify the 3-4 strongest opposing arguments,
Identify the argumentative structure you'll use, who precisely your intended audience is, and provide whatever other introductory details you feel readers in your target audience must have.​

Body

Body Section 1:

An argument and supporting details​

Body Section 2:

Its opposing argument and supporting details​

Body Section 3:

Rebuttal of the counter-argument and supporting details​

Conclusion:

1 - Summarize the key points in the body
2 - Where logically valid to do so, extrapolate to something beyond the literal findings/assertions presented in the body (optional)​

Bibliography

[FWIW, I don't care if you use MLA, APA, or hyperlinking]​

We are both delivering dialectic arguments not later than 8:30 this coming Sunday. I don't need to see yours in advance any more than you need to see mine because the "counter-argument" section of the overall argument must robustly and objectively present the opposing side's argument so that it can be rebutted in the "rebuttal" section. That is the reason for choosing the dialectic structure: it requires one to identify the strongest of the opposition's potential arguments and present them, well, as rigorously as one would present one's own position.

You stated that you would formulate your argument as a direct counter to mine, not in the context of a dialectic argument.

Okay...I understand why you said what you did. I will still deliver my argument by 8:30 p.m. on Sunday.

I don't need to see your argument before presenting my own. There are only so many thematically/substantively different arguments against the existence of white privilege. The strengths and weaknesses of each of them don't change simply because you or another author presents them; what changes by author is the qualitative nature of the presentation.

That makes no sense whatsoever in the context of this debate or any debate really.

Debates are supposed to be about the direct exchange of conflicting ideas and beliefs, not guessing or even strawmaning your opponent's arguments without any input from them.

Blue:
I'm interested in engaging you via the dialectic, thus I entreated for dialectical arguments. You can call that a debate if you want, and in some sense it is, but strictly speaking it is not.

Dialectic Vs Debate
The dialectical method is a method of obtaining truth. If history is written by the winners then it contains no truth as Alex Haley proves, in a society that has advanced in dialectical truth it would not matter who the winners are, history would be the same. The truth is not something to believe in as with the corruption of truth in religions, it is something that is. Pythagoras Theorem is a2 + b2 = c2. This example of truth was that way in the beginning of time and will still be that way at the end of time, it is not a belief, it is truth. The utilization of the movement of truth in religion is a magian attack on the movement where subjectives are perfected for innocent minds. Truth is new, priest based societies pre-date truth.

The dialectical method is dialogue between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject, who wish to establish the truth of the matter by dialogue, with reasoned arguments. Dialectics is different from debate, wherein the debaters are committed to their points of view, and mean to win the debate, either by persuading the opponent, proving their argument correct, or proving the opponent's argument incorrect — thus, either a judge or a jury must decide who wins the debate. Dialectics is also different from rhetoric, wherein the speaker uses logos, pathos, or ethos to persuade listeners to take their side of the argument.

Socrates favoured truth as the highest value, proposing that it could be discovered through reason and logic in discussion: ergo, dialectic. Socrates valued rationality (appealing to logic, not emotion) as the proper means for persuasion, the discovery of truth, and the determinant for one's actions. To Socrates, truth, not arête, was the greater good, and each person should, above all else, seek truth to guide one's life. Therefore, Socrates opposed the Sophists and their teaching of rhetoric as art and as emotional oratory requiring neither logic nor proof.

The purpose of the dialectic method of reasoning is resolution of disagreement through rational discussion, and, ultimately, the search for truth. One way to proceed — the Socratic method — is to show that a given hypothesis (with other admissions) leads to a contradiction; thus, forcing the withdrawal of the hypothesis as a candidate for truth (see reductio ad absurdum). Another dialectical resolution of disagreement is by denying a presupposition of the contending thesis and antithesis; thereby, proceeding to sublation (transcendance) to synthesis, a third thesis.

Dialectics (also called logic) was one of the three liberal arts taught in medieval universities as part of the trivium. The trivium also included rhetoric and grammar. Based mainly on Aristotle, the first medieval philosopher to work on dialectics was Boethius. After him, many scholastic philosophers also made use of dialectics in their works, such as Abelard, William of Sherwood, Garlandus Compotista, Walter Burley, Roger Swyneshed and William of Ockham.
​

You chose topic #1: White privilege exists. That statement must either be true or false. I proposed dialectic arguments because I care to discuss whether the assertion is true or not true. I don't care whether either of us can win a debate about whether it exists or doesn't. Why don't I care about winning a debate?

• Because if I win the debate and in truth it doesn't exist, what of any real value is gained by my winning?
• Because if you win the debate and in truth it does exist, what of any real value is gained?

Winning a debate is nice for the winner, but does nothing to advance the state of being of the parties to the discussion and it aids no observers in determining what is the truth, in this case, the greater or lesser likelihood that white privilege exists or does not exist. I have no interest in structuring a discussion so that winners and losers result. My aim in entreating you to a dialectic discussion is to create only winners: dialectic discourse allows everyone to come one step closer, maybe more steps closer, to knowing whether white privilege exists or does not exist. Nobody loses when that is the case.

 

[The Great Goose]

 

[Meathead]

Bullshit. I'd love to be there when a family member of yours starts dating someone of a different race or someone of the same gender.

Look, because you're white trash, or black; regardless, doesn't mean everyone is.

 

[Mudda]

Just to look at the first example "White Privilege is being able to move into a new neighborhood and being fairly sure that your neighbors will be pleasant to you and treat you with respect." So maybe if black people didn't fuck up most neighborhoods that they're in they'd get the same respect. Respect is earned.

 

[rightwinger]

Just to look at the first example "White Privilege is being able to move into a new neighborhood and being fairly sure that your neighbors will be pleasant to you and treat you with respect." So maybe if black people didn't fuck up most neighborhoods that they're in they'd get the same respect. Respect is earned.

Sure it is

‘This neighborhood does not need any blacks in it’: Racist letter shocks Kansas family