CDZ What is White Privilege?

[ricechickie]

It is both, thank you for getting it.

Going by "reputation," over the behavior of an individual actually in front of you, is part and parcel of white privilege, and of course, racism. See, racism and white privilege are two sides of the same coin.

I have, through my own experience and the experience of others, learned that fire will generally burn when touched. Perhaps this fire in front of me now will be different though. Shall I test it out?

In all seriousness though, I get what you are saying. But you have to understand too that you would be a fool to put your life in jeopardy by ignoring real averages, or even commonly held stereotypes that might be wrong. When it comes to personal safety or the safety of those you feel obligated to protect, you err on the side of caution. If there is no threat to your well being you can luxuriate in the freedom to cast aside stereotypes and critically examine the individual you are dealing with, and in those situations you would be a fool to rely on stereotypes to inform your decisions.

I object to your thought that "Going by 'reputation,' over the behavior of an individual actually in front of you, is[...] racism."

It can be racism if race is what you are basing your decisions on, but if the general appearance of the individual is what you are examining, race doesn't have to play a role at all. The "thug" look is intimidating no matter the race of the individual employing it. It is intended to be so. When a person dresses or acts in a manner that is intended to intimidate, you are altogether justified in exercising caution in dealing with that person without even considering the race of the person in question.

It's really cute how you compare certain groups of people to fire. I think there must be many more variants of people than there are of fire.

I don't put my life in jeopardy, but then again, I don't assume that I'm safe with a strange white man in a dark alley, while a strange black man in a dark alley would terrify me.

THAT would be stupid.

 

[Mathbud1]

It is both, thank you for getting it.

Going by "reputation," over the behavior of an individual actually in front of you, is part and parcel of white privilege, and of course, racism. See, racism and white privilege are two sides of the same coin.

I have, through my own experience and the experience of others, learned that fire will generally burn when touched. Perhaps this fire in front of me now will be different though. Shall I test it out?

In all seriousness though, I get what you are saying. But you have to understand too that you would be a fool to put your life in jeopardy by ignoring real averages, or even commonly held stereotypes that might be wrong. When it comes to personal safety or the safety of those you feel obligated to protect, you err on the side of caution. If there is no threat to your well being you can luxuriate in the freedom to cast aside stereotypes and critically examine the individual you are dealing with, and in those situations you would be a fool to rely on stereotypes to inform your decisions.

I object to your thought that "Going by 'reputation,' over the behavior of an individual actually in front of you, is[...] racism."

It can be racism if race is what you are basing your decisions on, but if the general appearance of the individual is what you are examining, race doesn't have to play a role at all. The "thug" look is intimidating no matter the race of the individual employing it. It is intended to be so. When a person dresses or acts in a manner that is intended to intimidate, you are altogether justified in exercising caution in dealing with that person without even considering the race of the person in question.

It's really cute how you compare certain groups of people to fire. I think there must be many more variants of people than there are of fire.

I don't put my life in jeopardy, but then again, I don't assume that I'm safe with a strange white man in a dark alley, while a strange black man in a dark alley would terrify me.

THAT would be stupid.

The analogy was flawed. I threw it together quickly. Sue me?

The point was simply that if you have learned the some group of things can or will hurt you, when you encounter some thing that looks like it could belong to that group, you should act with caution.

For a black person who has learned that white southern racists can or will harm them, seeing someone who looks like they could be a white southern racist will elicit some trepidation.

For you, a woman who has heard that men in dark alleys can hurt you (even if you've never experienced it yourself), running into a man in a dark alley is cause for some caution, no?

Are all men rapists deserving of your fear? No. Does that mean you should feel relaxed and safe in that situation? I don't think so.

 

[ricechickie]

It is both, thank you for getting it.

Going by "reputation," over the behavior of an individual actually in front of you, is part and parcel of white privilege, and of course, racism. See, racism and white privilege are two sides of the same coin.

I have, through my own experience and the experience of others, learned that fire will generally burn when touched. Perhaps this fire in front of me now will be different though. Shall I test it out?

In all seriousness though, I get what you are saying. But you have to understand too that you would be a fool to put your life in jeopardy by ignoring real averages, or even commonly held stereotypes that might be wrong. When it comes to personal safety or the safety of those you feel obligated to protect, you err on the side of caution. If there is no threat to your well being you can luxuriate in the freedom to cast aside stereotypes and critically examine the individual you are dealing with, and in those situations you would be a fool to rely on stereotypes to inform your decisions.

I object to your thought that "Going by 'reputation,' over the behavior of an individual actually in front of you, is[...] racism."

It can be racism if race is what you are basing your decisions on, but if the general appearance of the individual is what you are examining, race doesn't have to play a role at all. The "thug" look is intimidating no matter the race of the individual employing it. It is intended to be so. When a person dresses or acts in a manner that is intended to intimidate, you are altogether justified in exercising caution in dealing with that person without even considering the race of the person in question.

It's really cute how you compare certain groups of people to fire. I think there must be many more variants of people than there are of fire.

I don't put my life in jeopardy, but then again, I don't assume that I'm safe with a strange white man in a dark alley, while a strange black man in a dark alley would terrify me.

THAT would be stupid.

The analogy was flawed. I threw it together quickly. Sue me?

The point was simply that if you have learned the some group of things can or will hurt you, when you encounter some thing that looks like it could belong to that group, you should act with caution.

For a black person who has learned that white southern racists can or will harm them, seeing someone who looks like they could be a white southern racist will elicit some trepidation.

For you, a woman who has heard that men in dark alleys can hurt you (even if you've never experienced it yourself), running into a man in a dark alley is cause for some caution, no?

Are all men rapists deserving of your fear? No. Does that mean you should feel relaxed and safe in that situation? I don't think so.

So we agree. But I don't decide those things based on race alone. See?

 

[Asclepias]

It is both, thank you for getting it.

Going by "reputation," over the behavior of an individual actually in front of you, is part and parcel of white privilege, and of course, racism. See, racism and white privilege are two sides of the same coin.

I have, through my own experience and the experience of others, learned that fire will generally burn when touched. Perhaps this fire in front of me now will be different though. Shall I test it out?

In all seriousness though, I get what you are saying. But you have to understand too that you would be a fool to put your life in jeopardy by ignoring real averages, or even commonly held stereotypes that might be wrong. When it comes to personal safety or the safety of those you feel obligated to protect, you err on the side of caution. If there is no threat to your well being you can luxuriate in the freedom to cast aside stereotypes and critically examine the individual you are dealing with, and in those situations you would be a fool to rely on stereotypes to inform your decisions.

I object to your thought that "Going by 'reputation,' over the behavior of an individual actually in front of you, is[...] racism."

It can be racism if race is what you are basing your decisions on, but if the general appearance of the individual is what you are examining, race doesn't have to play a role at all. The "thug" look is intimidating no matter the race of the individual employing it. It is intended to be so. When a person dresses or acts in a manner that is intended to intimidate, you are altogether justified in exercising caution in dealing with that person without even considering the race of the person in question.

I cant imagine the fear you live in. Its hard for me to comprehend going through life thinking I am in danger because someone read some stats off to me about a group of people. Did you even check the variables contributing to their interpretation to the statistics?

 

[Mathbud1]

It is both, thank you for getting it.

Going by "reputation," over the behavior of an individual actually in front of you, is part and parcel of white privilege, and of course, racism. See, racism and white privilege are two sides of the same coin.

I have, through my own experience and the experience of others, learned that fire will generally burn when touched. Perhaps this fire in front of me now will be different though. Shall I test it out?

In all seriousness though, I get what you are saying. But you have to understand too that you would be a fool to put your life in jeopardy by ignoring real averages, or even commonly held stereotypes that might be wrong. When it comes to personal safety or the safety of those you feel obligated to protect, you err on the side of caution. If there is no threat to your well being you can luxuriate in the freedom to cast aside stereotypes and critically examine the individual you are dealing with, and in those situations you would be a fool to rely on stereotypes to inform your decisions.

I object to your thought that "Going by 'reputation,' over the behavior of an individual actually in front of you, is[...] racism."

It can be racism if race is what you are basing your decisions on, but if the general appearance of the individual is what you are examining, race doesn't have to play a role at all. The "thug" look is intimidating no matter the race of the individual employing it. It is intended to be so. When a person dresses or acts in a manner that is intended to intimidate, you are altogether justified in exercising caution in dealing with that person without even considering the race of the person in question.

It's really cute how you compare certain groups of people to fire. I think there must be many more variants of people than there are of fire.

I don't put my life in jeopardy, but then again, I don't assume that I'm safe with a strange white man in a dark alley, while a strange black man in a dark alley would terrify me.

THAT would be stupid.

The analogy was flawed. I threw it together quickly. Sue me?

The point was simply that if you have learned the some group of things can or will hurt you, when you encounter some thing that looks like it could belong to that group, you should act with caution.

For a black person who has learned that white southern racists can or will harm them, seeing someone who looks like they could be a white southern racist will elicit some trepidation.

For you, a woman who has heard that men in dark alleys can hurt you (even if you've never experienced it yourself), running into a man in a dark alley is cause for some caution, no?

Are all men rapists deserving of your fear? No. Does that mean you should feel relaxed and safe in that situation? I don't think so.

So we agree. But I don't decide those things based on race alone. See?

Neither do I.

 

[Mathbud1]

It is both, thank you for getting it.

Going by "reputation," over the behavior of an individual actually in front of you, is part and parcel of white privilege, and of course, racism. See, racism and white privilege are two sides of the same coin.

I have, through my own experience and the experience of others, learned that fire will generally burn when touched. Perhaps this fire in front of me now will be different though. Shall I test it out?

In all seriousness though, I get what you are saying. But you have to understand too that you would be a fool to put your life in jeopardy by ignoring real averages, or even commonly held stereotypes that might be wrong. When it comes to personal safety or the safety of those you feel obligated to protect, you err on the side of caution. If there is no threat to your well being you can luxuriate in the freedom to cast aside stereotypes and critically examine the individual you are dealing with, and in those situations you would be a fool to rely on stereotypes to inform your decisions.

I object to your thought that "Going by 'reputation,' over the behavior of an individual actually in front of you, is[...] racism."

It can be racism if race is what you are basing your decisions on, but if the general appearance of the individual is what you are examining, race doesn't have to play a role at all. The "thug" look is intimidating no matter the race of the individual employing it. It is intended to be so. When a person dresses or acts in a manner that is intended to intimidate, you are altogether justified in exercising caution in dealing with that person without even considering the race of the person in question.

I cant imagine the fear you live in. Its hard for me to comprehend going through life thinking I am in danger because someone read some stats off to me about a group of people. Did you even check the variables contributing to their interpretation to the statistics?

Caution is not fear.

I'm certainly no dare devil, but I don't walk around shaking in my boots either.

I can't imagine throwing caution to the wind and ignoring any potential source of danger just because I might be wrong and it might not actually be dangerous at all.

If it makes you feel strong to portray your rhetorical opponents as weak and fearful for exercising reasonable caution, by all means continue.

 

[Asclepias]

It is both, thank you for getting it.

Going by "reputation," over the behavior of an individual actually in front of you, is part and parcel of white privilege, and of course, racism. See, racism and white privilege are two sides of the same coin.

I have, through my own experience and the experience of others, learned that fire will generally burn when touched. Perhaps this fire in front of me now will be different though. Shall I test it out?

In all seriousness though, I get what you are saying. But you have to understand too that you would be a fool to put your life in jeopardy by ignoring real averages, or even commonly held stereotypes that might be wrong. When it comes to personal safety or the safety of those you feel obligated to protect, you err on the side of caution. If there is no threat to your well being you can luxuriate in the freedom to cast aside stereotypes and critically examine the individual you are dealing with, and in those situations you would be a fool to rely on stereotypes to inform your decisions.

I object to your thought that "Going by 'reputation,' over the behavior of an individual actually in front of you, is[...] racism."

It can be racism if race is what you are basing your decisions on, but if the general appearance of the individual is what you are examining, race doesn't have to play a role at all. The "thug" look is intimidating no matter the race of the individual employing it. It is intended to be so. When a person dresses or acts in a manner that is intended to intimidate, you are altogether justified in exercising caution in dealing with that person without even considering the race of the person in question.

I cant imagine the fear you live in. Its hard for me to comprehend going through life thinking I am in danger because someone read some stats off to me about a group of people. Did you even check the variables contributing to their interpretation to the statistics?

Caution is not fear.

I'm certainly no dare devil, but I don't walk around shaking in my boots either.

I can't imagine throwing caution to the wind and ignoring any potential source of danger just because I might be wrong and it might not actually be dangerous at all.

If it makes you feel strong to portray your rhetorical opponents as weak and fearful for exercising reasonable caution, by all means continue.

Caution is for the wimpy. Caution keeps you on the couch and unable to enjoy life. You can call it caution but lets be real. Its fear. When you live a life free of caution you tend to be successful to the nth degree. Just think about in Nascar running the entire race under the caution flag. Kinda sucks dont it?

 

[Mathbud1]

It is both, thank you for getting it.

Going by "reputation," over the behavior of an individual actually in front of you, is part and parcel of white privilege, and of course, racism. See, racism and white privilege are two sides of the same coin.

I have, through my own experience and the experience of others, learned that fire will generally burn when touched. Perhaps this fire in front of me now will be different though. Shall I test it out?

In all seriousness though, I get what you are saying. But you have to understand too that you would be a fool to put your life in jeopardy by ignoring real averages, or even commonly held stereotypes that might be wrong. When it comes to personal safety or the safety of those you feel obligated to protect, you err on the side of caution. If there is no threat to your well being you can luxuriate in the freedom to cast aside stereotypes and critically examine the individual you are dealing with, and in those situations you would be a fool to rely on stereotypes to inform your decisions.

I object to your thought that "Going by 'reputation,' over the behavior of an individual actually in front of you, is[...] racism."

It can be racism if race is what you are basing your decisions on, but if the general appearance of the individual is what you are examining, race doesn't have to play a role at all. The "thug" look is intimidating no matter the race of the individual employing it. It is intended to be so. When a person dresses or acts in a manner that is intended to intimidate, you are altogether justified in exercising caution in dealing with that person without even considering the race of the person in question.

I cant imagine the fear you live in. Its hard for me to comprehend going through life thinking I am in danger because someone read some stats off to me about a group of people. Did you even check the variables contributing to their interpretation to the statistics?

Caution is not fear.

I'm certainly no dare devil, but I don't walk around shaking in my boots either.

I can't imagine throwing caution to the wind and ignoring any potential source of danger just because I might be wrong and it might not actually be dangerous at all.

If it makes you feel strong to portray your rhetorical opponents as weak and fearful for exercising reasonable caution, by all means continue.

Caution is for the wimpy. Caution keeps you on the couch and unable to enjoy life. You can call it caution but lets be real. Its fear. When you live a life free of caution you tend to be successful to the nth degree. Just think about in Nascar running the entire race under the caution flag. Kinda sucks dont it?

Just imagine never wearing a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet. Just imagine cars never including airbags. Just imagine not even pausing before walking out into traffic. Just imagine no fire alarms or fire sprinkler systems in any buildings. Just imagine never making a backup of your important data. Just imagine walking up to a wolf in the wild to pet it.

Taking precautions for potentially dangerous situations isn't fear. It is a natural survival imperative in place to keep us alive.

But go ahead macho man, ignore all reasonable safety measures. I just feel bad for whoever might have to scrape your brains off the pavement because you were too macho to worry about buckling your seat belt.

 

[Asclepias]

It is both, thank you for getting it.

Going by "reputation," over the behavior of an individual actually in front of you, is part and parcel of white privilege, and of course, racism. See, racism and white privilege are two sides of the same coin.

I have, through my own experience and the experience of others, learned that fire will generally burn when touched. Perhaps this fire in front of me now will be different though. Shall I test it out?

In all seriousness though, I get what you are saying. But you have to understand too that you would be a fool to put your life in jeopardy by ignoring real averages, or even commonly held stereotypes that might be wrong. When it comes to personal safety or the safety of those you feel obligated to protect, you err on the side of caution. If there is no threat to your well being you can luxuriate in the freedom to cast aside stereotypes and critically examine the individual you are dealing with, and in those situations you would be a fool to rely on stereotypes to inform your decisions.

I object to your thought that "Going by 'reputation,' over the behavior of an individual actually in front of you, is[...] racism."

It can be racism if race is what you are basing your decisions on, but if the general appearance of the individual is what you are examining, race doesn't have to play a role at all. The "thug" look is intimidating no matter the race of the individual employing it. It is intended to be so. When a person dresses or acts in a manner that is intended to intimidate, you are altogether justified in exercising caution in dealing with that person without even considering the race of the person in question.

I cant imagine the fear you live in. Its hard for me to comprehend going through life thinking I am in danger because someone read some stats off to me about a group of people. Did you even check the variables contributing to their interpretation to the statistics?

Caution is not fear.

I'm certainly no dare devil, but I don't walk around shaking in my boots either.

I can't imagine throwing caution to the wind and ignoring any potential source of danger just because I might be wrong and it might not actually be dangerous at all.

If it makes you feel strong to portray your rhetorical opponents as weak and fearful for exercising reasonable caution, by all means continue.

Caution is for the wimpy. Caution keeps you on the couch and unable to enjoy life. You can call it caution but lets be real. Its fear. When you live a life free of caution you tend to be successful to the nth degree. Just think about in Nascar running the entire race under the caution flag. Kinda sucks dont it?

Just imagine never wearing a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet. Just imagine cars never including airbags. Just imagine not even pausing before walking out into traffic. Just imagine no fire alarms or fire sprinkler systems in any buildings. Just imagine never making a backup of your important data. Just imagine walking up to a wolf in the wild to pet it.

Taking precautions for potentially dangerous situations isn't fear. It is a natural survival imperative in place to keep us alive.

But go ahead macho man, ignore all reasonable safety measures. I just feel bad for whoever might have to scrape your brains off the pavement because you were too macho to worry about buckling your seat belt.

I dont have to imagine most of that stuff because there was a time when those things were not required and people still lived. As far as not walking up to a wild wolf and petting it that is not something people do every day. It has nothing to do with being macho. It does have something to do with living your life without the mind numbing, immobilizing effect of fear.

 

[Mathbud1]

I have, through my own experience and the experience of others, learned that fire will generally burn when touched. Perhaps this fire in front of me now will be different though. Shall I test it out?

In all seriousness though, I get what you are saying. But you have to understand too that you would be a fool to put your life in jeopardy by ignoring real averages, or even commonly held stereotypes that might be wrong. When it comes to personal safety or the safety of those you feel obligated to protect, you err on the side of caution. If there is no threat to your well being you can luxuriate in the freedom to cast aside stereotypes and critically examine the individual you are dealing with, and in those situations you would be a fool to rely on stereotypes to inform your decisions.

I object to your thought that "Going by 'reputation,' over the behavior of an individual actually in front of you, is[...] racism."

It can be racism if race is what you are basing your decisions on, but if the general appearance of the individual is what you are examining, race doesn't have to play a role at all. The "thug" look is intimidating no matter the race of the individual employing it. It is intended to be so. When a person dresses or acts in a manner that is intended to intimidate, you are altogether justified in exercising caution in dealing with that person without even considering the race of the person in question.

I cant imagine the fear you live in. Its hard for me to comprehend going through life thinking I am in danger because someone read some stats off to me about a group of people. Did you even check the variables contributing to their interpretation to the statistics?

Caution is not fear.

I'm certainly no dare devil, but I don't walk around shaking in my boots either.

I can't imagine throwing caution to the wind and ignoring any potential source of danger just because I might be wrong and it might not actually be dangerous at all.

If it makes you feel strong to portray your rhetorical opponents as weak and fearful for exercising reasonable caution, by all means continue.

Caution is for the wimpy. Caution keeps you on the couch and unable to enjoy life. You can call it caution but lets be real. Its fear. When you live a life free of caution you tend to be successful to the nth degree. Just think about in Nascar running the entire race under the caution flag. Kinda sucks dont it?

Just imagine never wearing a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet. Just imagine cars never including airbags. Just imagine not even pausing before walking out into traffic. Just imagine no fire alarms or fire sprinkler systems in any buildings. Just imagine never making a backup of your important data. Just imagine walking up to a wolf in the wild to pet it.

Taking precautions for potentially dangerous situations isn't fear. It is a natural survival imperative in place to keep us alive.

But go ahead macho man, ignore all reasonable safety measures. I just feel bad for whoever might have to scrape your brains off the pavement because you were too macho to worry about buckling your seat belt.

I dont have to imagine most of that stuff because there was a time when those things were not required and people still lived. As far as not walking up to a wild wolf and petting it that is not something people do every day. It has nothing to do with being macho. It does have something to do with living your life without the mind numbing, immobilizing effect of fear.

My mind is not numb. I am not immobilized by fear. I choose to knowingly assess the risks and rewards for a certain course of action rather than blindly trusting everything will work out right for me.

 

[Asclepias]

I cant imagine the fear you live in. Its hard for me to comprehend going through life thinking I am in danger because someone read some stats off to me about a group of people. Did you even check the variables contributing to their interpretation to the statistics?

Caution is not fear.

I'm certainly no dare devil, but I don't walk around shaking in my boots either.

I can't imagine throwing caution to the wind and ignoring any potential source of danger just because I might be wrong and it might not actually be dangerous at all.

If it makes you feel strong to portray your rhetorical opponents as weak and fearful for exercising reasonable caution, by all means continue.

Caution is for the wimpy. Caution keeps you on the couch and unable to enjoy life. You can call it caution but lets be real. Its fear. When you live a life free of caution you tend to be successful to the nth degree. Just think about in Nascar running the entire race under the caution flag. Kinda sucks dont it?

Just imagine never wearing a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet. Just imagine cars never including airbags. Just imagine not even pausing before walking out into traffic. Just imagine no fire alarms or fire sprinkler systems in any buildings. Just imagine never making a backup of your important data. Just imagine walking up to a wolf in the wild to pet it.

Taking precautions for potentially dangerous situations isn't fear. It is a natural survival imperative in place to keep us alive.

But go ahead macho man, ignore all reasonable safety measures. I just feel bad for whoever might have to scrape your brains off the pavement because you were too macho to worry about buckling your seat belt.

I dont have to imagine most of that stuff because there was a time when those things were not required and people still lived. As far as not walking up to a wild wolf and petting it that is not something people do every day. It has nothing to do with being macho. It does have something to do with living your life without the mind numbing, immobilizing effect of fear.

My mind is not numb. I am not immobilized by fear. I choose to knowingly assess the risks and rewards for a certain course of action rather than blindly trusting everything will work out right for me.

Sounds a lot like you are rationalizing. I trust everything will work out for me and it does wonders. Even got me into owning my own businesses and no longer working to make someone else wealthy.

 

[Mathbud1]

Caution is not fear.

I'm certainly no dare devil, but I don't walk around shaking in my boots either.

I can't imagine throwing caution to the wind and ignoring any potential source of danger just because I might be wrong and it might not actually be dangerous at all.

If it makes you feel strong to portray your rhetorical opponents as weak and fearful for exercising reasonable caution, by all means continue.

Caution is for the wimpy. Caution keeps you on the couch and unable to enjoy life. You can call it caution but lets be real. Its fear. When you live a life free of caution you tend to be successful to the nth degree. Just think about in Nascar running the entire race under the caution flag. Kinda sucks dont it?

Just imagine never wearing a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet. Just imagine cars never including airbags. Just imagine not even pausing before walking out into traffic. Just imagine no fire alarms or fire sprinkler systems in any buildings. Just imagine never making a backup of your important data. Just imagine walking up to a wolf in the wild to pet it.

Taking precautions for potentially dangerous situations isn't fear. It is a natural survival imperative in place to keep us alive.

But go ahead macho man, ignore all reasonable safety measures. I just feel bad for whoever might have to scrape your brains off the pavement because you were too macho to worry about buckling your seat belt.

I dont have to imagine most of that stuff because there was a time when those things were not required and people still lived. As far as not walking up to a wild wolf and petting it that is not something people do every day. It has nothing to do with being macho. It does have something to do with living your life without the mind numbing, immobilizing effect of fear.

My mind is not numb. I am not immobilized by fear. I choose to knowingly assess the risks and rewards for a certain course of action rather than blindly trusting everything will work out right for me.

Sounds a lot like you are rationalizing. I trust everything will work out for me and it does wonders. Even got me into owning my own businesses and no longer working to make someone else wealthy.

Sounds a lot like you are a fool. As though NOT using your brain was somehow a virtue. In your business do you analyze risk before you act or do you rely on luck? Do you have a disaster recovery plan in place? Do you think ahead at all?

 

[Asclepias]

Caution is for the wimpy. Caution keeps you on the couch and unable to enjoy life. You can call it caution but lets be real. Its fear. When you live a life free of caution you tend to be successful to the nth degree. Just think about in Nascar running the entire race under the caution flag. Kinda sucks dont it?

Just imagine never wearing a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet. Just imagine cars never including airbags. Just imagine not even pausing before walking out into traffic. Just imagine no fire alarms or fire sprinkler systems in any buildings. Just imagine never making a backup of your important data. Just imagine walking up to a wolf in the wild to pet it.

Taking precautions for potentially dangerous situations isn't fear. It is a natural survival imperative in place to keep us alive.

But go ahead macho man, ignore all reasonable safety measures. I just feel bad for whoever might have to scrape your brains off the pavement because you were too macho to worry about buckling your seat belt.

I dont have to imagine most of that stuff because there was a time when those things were not required and people still lived. As far as not walking up to a wild wolf and petting it that is not something people do every day. It has nothing to do with being macho. It does have something to do with living your life without the mind numbing, immobilizing effect of fear.

My mind is not numb. I am not immobilized by fear. I choose to knowingly assess the risks and rewards for a certain course of action rather than blindly trusting everything will work out right for me.

Sounds a lot like you are rationalizing. I trust everything will work out for me and it does wonders. Even got me into owning my own businesses and no longer working to make someone else wealthy.

Sounds a lot like you are a fool. As though NOT using your brain was somehow a virtue. In your business do you analyze risk before you act or do you rely on luck? Do you have a disaster recovery plan in place? Do you think ahead at all?

Educating yourself is not relying on luck. I think ahead only in the context of how to further my profits. There is no such thing as a disaster plan. The best laid plans fail all the time. Everything is a cycle. There are good times and bad. The funny thing is the more you dwell on the bad the more you stay in that down cycle.

 

[Mathbud1]

Educating yourself is not relying on luck. I think ahead only in the context of how to further my profits. There is no such thing as a disaster plan. The best laid plans fail all the time. Everything is a cycle. There are good times and bad. The funny thing is the more you dwell on the bad the more you stay in that down cycle.

There is no such thing as a disaster plan? Really? I guess backing up our data off-site is a waste right? If there is a disaster in our Data Center we should just say, "oh well it was a disaster. There was nothing we could have done." Let's ignore the fact that we've used such measures to recover from minor disasters already.

Is it your contention that there is no point in considering risk in deciding the best path to maximize your profit?

 

[Asclepias]

Educating yourself is not relying on luck. I think ahead only in the context of how to further my profits. There is no such thing as a disaster plan. The best laid plans fail all the time. Everything is a cycle. There are good times and bad. The funny thing is the more you dwell on the bad the more you stay in that down cycle.

There is no such thing as a disaster plan? Really? I guess backing up our data off-site is a waste right? If there is a disaster in our Data Center we should just say, "oh well it was a disaster. There was nothing we could have done." Let's ignore the fact that we've used such measures to recover from minor disasters already.

Is it your contention that there is no point in considering risk in deciding the best path to maximize your profit?

No backing up data is not a waste. However, doing so could expose your data to hackers, unauthorized access from the companies personnel that houses your data, and in the event of a disaster, no backup. Thats totally different from living your life worried a Black person is going to attack you but you knew that and thats why you are deflecting.

 

[Mathbud1]

Educating yourself is not relying on luck. I think ahead only in the context of how to further my profits. There is no such thing as a disaster plan. The best laid plans fail all the time. Everything is a cycle. There are good times and bad. The funny thing is the more you dwell on the bad the more you stay in that down cycle.

There is no such thing as a disaster plan? Really? I guess backing up our data off-site is a waste right? If there is a disaster in our Data Center we should just say, "oh well it was a disaster. There was nothing we could have done." Let's ignore the fact that we've used such measures to recover from minor disasters already.

Is it your contention that there is no point in considering risk in deciding the best path to maximize your profit?

No backing up data is not a waste. However, doing so could expose your data to hackers, unauthorized access from the companies personnel that houses your data, and in the event of a disaster, no backup. Thats totally different from living your life worried a Black person is going to attack you but you knew that and thats why you are deflecting.

I'm not living my life worried that some black person is going to attack me. If, in the course of living my life, I come into contact with a person who, by my estimation, appears confrontational or aggressive, I will, in that situation, act with due caution. Will you?

 

[Asclepias]

Educating yourself is not relying on luck. I think ahead only in the context of how to further my profits. There is no such thing as a disaster plan. The best laid plans fail all the time. Everything is a cycle. There are good times and bad. The funny thing is the more you dwell on the bad the more you stay in that down cycle.

There is no such thing as a disaster plan? Really? I guess backing up our data off-site is a waste right? If there is a disaster in our Data Center we should just say, "oh well it was a disaster. There was nothing we could have done." Let's ignore the fact that we've used such measures to recover from minor disasters already.

Is it your contention that there is no point in considering risk in deciding the best path to maximize your profit?

No backing up data is not a waste. However, doing so could expose your data to hackers, unauthorized access from the companies personnel that houses your data, and in the event of a disaster, no backup. Thats totally different from living your life worried a Black person is going to attack you but you knew that and thats why you are deflecting.

I'm not living my life worried that some black person is going to attack me. If, in the course of living my life, I come into contact with a person who, by my estimation, appears confrontational or aggressive, I will, in that situation, act with due caution. Will you?

I thought you were the one that said you were "cautious of Blacks" or something to that effect. I dont recall you saying anythig about being the person being confrontational or aggressive or is that just the natural state of a Black person to you? If someone attacks me and they are rainbow colored I will put a foot in their ass. What I wont do is assume all rainbow colored people are out to get me and live my life fearful of that event.

 

[imurmeisus]

Do I subscribe to the idea of white privilege? I selected yes just to jump in. Do I believe it exists? Yes, just as I believe yellow privilege, brown privilege, black privilege, red privilege, etc. exist. Do I support it? No. Do I condone it? Probably more than I realize. Do I benefit from it? Probably more than I realize. Is it legal? There are some laws that say its not.

 

[Asclepias]

Do I subscribe to the idea of white privilege? I selected yes just to jump in. Do I believe it exists? Yes, just as I believe yellow privilege, brown privilege, black privilege, red privilege, etc. exist. Do I support it? No. Do I condone it? Probably more than I realize. Do I benefit from it? Probably more than I realize. Is it legal? There are some laws that say its not.

What the hell is Black privilege? Never heard of that one.

 

[Mathbud1]

Educating yourself is not relying on luck. I think ahead only in the context of how to further my profits. There is no such thing as a disaster plan. The best laid plans fail all the time. Everything is a cycle. There are good times and bad. The funny thing is the more you dwell on the bad the more you stay in that down cycle.

There is no such thing as a disaster plan? Really? I guess backing up our data off-site is a waste right? If there is a disaster in our Data Center we should just say, "oh well it was a disaster. There was nothing we could have done." Let's ignore the fact that we've used such measures to recover from minor disasters already.

Is it your contention that there is no point in considering risk in deciding the best path to maximize your profit?

No backing up data is not a waste. However, doing so could expose your data to hackers, unauthorized access from the companies personnel that houses your data, and in the event of a disaster, no backup. Thats totally different from living your life worried a Black person is going to attack you but you knew that and thats why you are deflecting.

I'm not living my life worried that some black person is going to attack me. If, in the course of living my life, I come into contact with a person who, by my estimation, appears confrontational or aggressive, I will, in that situation, act with due caution. Will you?

I thought you were the one that said you were "cautious of Blacks" or something to that effect. I dont recall you saying anythig about being the person being confrontational or aggressive or is that just the natural state of a Black person to you? If someone attacks me and they are rainbow colored I will put a foot in their ass. What I wont do is assume all rainbow colored people are out to get me and live my life fearful of that event.

Perhaps you should check your understanding of my posts. I never said I was cautious of blacks. I will be cautious of people who dress like thugs regardless of their race.