Atheistforums.com

https://archive.is/8AEaX

Quote“That’s what the hell he gets. Good for him!” My mother had uttered those words in her typical matter-of-fact tone one morning as she watched the news. “He” was Michael Fay, an 18-year-old from Ohio who had confessed to vandalizing cars in Singapore, and was subsequently sentence to six lashes from a rattan cane. I was in sixth grade and all I could imagine was how horrible the pain would be. My mother was unmoved at the thought, remarking, “He earned that.”
I thought about my mother’s words a few days ago while watching video of 21-year-old Otto Warmbier, another man from Ohio who last week was convicted of subversion for stealing a propaganda banner in North Korea, and sentenced to 15 years hard labor. Just as in Fay’s case, I was shocked by the severity of the punishment. I’ve tried to imagine spending a decade and a half performing what the North Korean state deems hard labor and I can’t. But I’m not 11 anymore, and now, my mother’s callous reaction to Micahel Fay’s sentence is my reaction to another young white man who went to an Asian country and violated their laws, and learned that the shield his cis white male identity provides here in America is not teflon abroad.
“
“That kind of reckless gall is an unfortunate side effect of being socialized first as a white boy, and then as a white man in this country.”
As shocked as I am by the sentence handed down to Warmbier, I am even more shocked that a grown man, an American citizen, would not only voluntarily enter North Korea but also commit what’s been described a “college-style prank.” That kind of reckless gall is an unfortunate side effect of being socialized first as a white boy, and then as a white man in this country. Every economic, academic, legal and social system in this country has for more than three centuries functioned with the implicit purpose of ensuring that white men are the primary benefactors of all privilege. The kind of arrogance bred by that kind of conditioning is pathogenic, causing its host to develop a subconscious yet no less obnoxious perception that the rules do not apply to him, or at least that their application is negotiable.
Headline after headline has highlighted that Otto Warmbier is a student. His LinkedIn profile states that he is majoring Economics with a minor in Global Sustainability and is a Managing Director of an “alternative investment fund.” A man reared in this country who studies the globe as a part of his higher education curriculum must have been at least passingly aware of the notoriously strained relationship between the United States and North Korea. Surely he had read the stories of Jeffrey Fowle and Matthew Miller, other white American men arrested in North Korea for “petty crimes” who were subsequently sentenced to hard labor.
Yeah, I’m willing to bet my last dollar that he was aware of the political climate in that country, but privilege is a hell of a drug. The high of privilege told him that North Korea’s history of making examples out of American citizens who dare challenge their rigid legal system in any way was no match for his alabaster American privilege. When you can watch a white man who entered a theatre and killed a dozen people come out unscathed, you start to believe you’re invincible. When you see a white man taken to Burger King in a bulletproof vest after he killed nine people in a church, you learn that the world will always protect you.
“
“If he had obeyed North Korea’s laws, he would be home now.”
Coming from a country filled with citizens who lambaste black victims of state sanctioned violence by telling us that if we obey the law, we wouldn’t have to face the consequences, Warmbier should’ve listened. If he had obeyed North Korea’s laws, he would be home now. In fact, if he had heeded the U.S. Department of State’s strong advisement against travel to North Korea, he would be home right now. And if Eric Garner is to be blamed for his own death for selling loose cigarettes or if Sandra Bland is dead because she failed to signal when changing lanes, then Otto Warmbier is now facing a decade and a half of hard labor because he lacked both good judgment and respect for the national autonomy of a country which has made its hatred for and vendetta against America unequivocally clear.
And while I don’t blame his parents for pressuring the State Department to negotiate his release, I wonder where they were when their son was planning a trip to the DPRK. Didn’t they impress upon him the hostile climate that awaited him? Didn’t they rear him to respect law and order? Did they not teach him the importance of obeying authority?
What a mind-blowing moment it must be to realize after 21 years of being pedestaled by the world simply because your DNA coding produced the favorable phenotype that such favor is not absolute. What a bummer to realize that even the State Department with all its influence and power cannot assure your pardon. What a wake-up call it is to realize that your tears are met with indifference.
As I’ve said, living 15 years performing manual labor in North Korea is unimaginable, but so is going to a place I know I’m unwelcome and violating their laws. I’m a black woman though. The hopeless fear Warmbier is now experiencing is my daily reality living in a country where white men like him are willfully oblivious to my suffering even as they are complicit in maintaining the power structures which ensure their supremacy at my expense. He is now an outsider at the mercy of a government unfazed by his cries for help. I get it.

Dat last pragraph

(http://memesvault.com/wp-content/uploads/Facepalm-Meme-08.png)

I think "White privilege" is equatable to "global warming"... it's not the right phrase for what you mean. The more appropriate term would be "Majority privilege". It just happens that the main two majority factors are "White" and "rich" in our culture... with rich being dominated by white males.

That last paragraph is definitely hyperbolic though. Being a North Korean captive might actually be scientifically, objectively provable to be worse than being black in America.

Relevant replies from the interwebs cause i'm too lazy to write:

QuoteWhen you can watch a white man who entered a theatre and killed a dozen people come out unscathed, you start to believe you’re invincible.

Jesus Christ this writer is a psychopath, nobody believes that except people who already have severe mental issues.

That guy killed white people. How the fuck can anyone look at that and think that white people are invincible? White people literally died in that situation. Most people look at a shooting like that and reflect on the fragility of mortality. This woman is a sociopath.
permalinkparent

QuoteWhen you see a white man taken to Burger King in a bulletproof vest after he killed nine people in a church, you learn that the world will always protect you.

The bulletproof vest is there so he doesn't get assassinated and they can give him the sentencing he deserves. As for BK, he was calm with police and told them he was hungry and told them he hadn't eaten in a few days. The police has a duty to feed you while under arrest for a long period of time. And also do it to promote goodwill when you are cooperative.

The fun part is you can take this SJW bullshit and rewrite for anything. How about the Beltway sniper, where two black guys killed 10 people.
When you can watch a black man who shot and killed 10 people come out unscathed, you start to believe you’re invincible.
And he was arrested peacefully because he didn't resist. Does she really want a world where police shoot unresisting people just because they are accused of murder? And I hardly think 12 life sentences and 3,318 years is getting away unscathed. He will die behind bars. What kind of bizarre logic does she employ to imagine that seeing someone only get life in prison would cause a mentally normal person to decide to go to North Korea for a holiday and believe himself to immune to their law?

QuoteNorth Korea proves your white male privilege is not universal

Maybe it's because I'm so tired, but I'm having a hard time processing that headline. How does white privilege work, then? Is it only a privilege in countries where white is the majority? Should it be relabeled "Majority Privilege"? Or can "people of color" who make up the majority in other countries not have privilege? Is it only an American thing? I'm genuinely confused, and should probably go to sleep.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 26, 2016, 05:19:33 PMI think "White privilege" is equatable to "global warming"... it's not the right phrase for what you mean. The more appropriate term would be "Majority privilege".

I dunno about that one, either.  Often, it's an extremely small minority that holds disproportionate wealth/influence/power.  The first and second estates, for example.

Quote from: Hydra009 on March 26, 2016, 05:24:58 PM
I dunno about that one, either.  Often, it's an extremely small minority that holds disproportionate wealth/influence/power.  The first and second estates, for example.

Majority doesn't necessarily mean you have more people but also means the majority of power.

And I don't necessarily like the way the term implies there are "Strongs" and "Weaks". I think it is more more like a hierarchy than a A or B thing.

QuoteShould it be relabeled "Majority Privilege"?

I would say so, yes. It just happens that in English speaking countries the predominate power group is whites, but if you to a different society then it changes based on their cultural factors... be it religious, tribal, racial, or any other factor that separates the "elite" or privileged from the "less-elite" and under-privileged.

Quote from: Hydra009 on March 26, 2016, 05:24:58 PM
I dunno about that one, either.  Often, it's an extremely small minority that holds disproportionate wealth/influence/power.  The first and second estates, for example.

Yeah, I was about to say... part of the requirement for being rich is being a minority among money-holders. :lol:

I saw this article on KiA, I believe, and it's as ridiculous as the title makes it out to be. That said, it's hard to feel sympathy for someone who willingly entered a country that will arrest you for looking at pictures of its leaders incorrectly, and then allegedly did something as monumentally stupid as taking down one of that country's propaganda posters.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 26, 2016, 05:40:41 PM
Yeah, I was about to say... part of the requirement for being rich is being a minority among money-holders. :lol:

I saw this article on KiA, I believe, and it's as ridiculous as the title makes it out to be. That said, it's hard to feel sympathy for someone who willingly entered a country that will arrest you for looking at pictures of its leaders incorrectly, and then allegedly did something as monumentally stupid as taking down one of that country's propaganda posters.

Majority in power and not necessarily in number.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 26, 2016, 05:52:32 PM
Majority in power and not necessarily in number.

Sorry about that, you ninja'd me as I was posting.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 26, 2016, 05:40:41 PM
Yeah, I was about to say... part of the requirement for being rich is being a minority among money-holders. :lol:

I saw this article on KiA, I believe, and it's as ridiculous as the title makes it out to be. That said, it's hard to feel sympathy for someone who willingly entered a country that will arrest you for looking at pictures of its leaders incorrectly, and then allegedly did something as monumentally stupid as taking down one of that country's propaganda posters.

Here is when the distinction between causal responsibility and moral responsibility comes in. He willfully manipulated factors in his control which made it more likely that he got in trouble with the facist regime of NK. But as a person getting super drunk and getting raped it is not his moral responsibility that this happened to him. You gotta be very careful making that clear if you are gonna make those sorts of points. The writer of this article seemed to not give a fuck about making that distinction in his opening paragraph by echoing the words of her mother.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 26, 2016, 05:52:32 PMMajority in power and not necessarily in number.

Seems like a fairly unusual way of using that term.  I noticed you using "predominate power group" and "elite".  Imo, those are a little bit clearer and less ambiguous terms.

Quote from: Hydra009 on March 26, 2016, 06:01:20 PM
Seems like a fairly unusual way of using that term.  I noticed you using "predominate power group" and "elite".  Imo, those are a little bit clearer and less ambiguous terms.

This white male privilage thing is because criticizing aristocracy and classism is no longer hip in this socjus circles. It's all about the race and sex now. Even when wealth is still the best measure of power the times you find the word classism used vs racism on this type of liberal news sites like huffpost shows the zeitgeist has changed. The irony is that many prominent people in this political movement have considerable wealth. My commie friend calls this identity politics of the petit burgeois a cancer for the left that divides the working class in racial and sexual groups. I do not buy into the whole marxism thing, but i tend to agree with him on that point.

Quote from: Hydra009 on March 26, 2016, 06:01:20 PM
Seems like a fairly unusual way of using that term.  I noticed you using "predominate power group" and "elite".  Imo, those are a little bit clearer and less ambiguous terms.

Yeah, majority isn't the term I would use for the over-arching theme. It only makes sense with an obsolete definition for it.


And trust me mauricio, I spend the majority of my time around academics, intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals... class is still very much en vogue. It's just the role race and sex play in these things is becoming much more recognized.

I think the main problem is people get caught up in it MUST be factor A or factor B that is causing the problems rather than looking at it as factor A, B, C through Z all contribute in different amounts.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 26, 2016, 06:15:07 PM
Yeah, majority isn't the term I would use for the over-arching theme. It only makes sense with an obsolete definition for it.

Aristocracy is the word you are looking for.

Quote from: mauricio on March 26, 2016, 06:18:03 PM
Aristocracy is the word you are looking for.

No, it's not. The average white male is not part of the aristocracy but he is granted certain privileges in society that an average minority race race or woman would not get. But again, that is not the only factor of if you are privileged or not, hence the reason I said it is a multitude of factors.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 26, 2016, 06:20:09 PM
No, it's not. The average white male is not part of the aristocracy but he is granted certain privileges in society that an average minority race race or woman would not get. But again, that is not the only factor of if you are privileged or not, hence the reason I said it is a multitude of factors.

In your exchange with hydra you were talking about the minority on which the majority of power is concentrated this is called the aristocracy which is synonymous of elite the word you used. Agreed with your second sentence.

Quote from: mauricio on March 26, 2016, 06:23:21 PM
In your exchange with hydra you were talking about the minority on which the majority of power is concentrated this is called the aristocracy.

Oh okay, I thought you meant the over-arching field of privilege vs non-privilege.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 26, 2016, 06:20:09 PM
No, it's not. The average white male is not part of the aristocracy but he is granted certain privileges in society that an average minority race race or woman would not get. But again, that is not the only factor of if you are privileged or not, hence the reason I said it is a multitude of factors.

Btw women are also granted privileges males do not get and both get different social pressures and punishments when they fail to behave inside their gender role. Whether you are privileged or not by your gender depends of how well does the gender role fits you.

Quote from: mauricio on March 26, 2016, 06:28:37 PM
Btw women are also granted privileges males do not get and both get different social pressures and punishments when they fail to behave inside their gender role. Whether you are privileged or not by your gender depends of how well does the gender role fits you.

Thats true, but in terms of power balance and opportunity chances it is still shifted heavily in white, heterosexual male's favour in a society. The field needs to be made level before it is made balanced, hence the reason the aforementioned difference receives more attention.

Ridiculous column based on nothing but speculative bullshit. This was nothing to do with 'white" anything. the idiot went into a country that was openly hostile towards US citizens and did a minor offense that the government of NK blew up into a crime. This is a political toy and he is a pawn. Nothing to do with any color at all. This is about not going into countries where they hate us. Jesus, this idiot is a nut.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 26, 2016, 06:50:37 PM
Thats true, but in terms of power balance and opportunity chances it is still shifted heavily in white, heterosexual male's favour in a society. The field needs to be made level before it is made balanced, hence the reason the aforementioned difference receives more attention.

But only if he actually fits his role. Ultimately it is not about being white or male it is about how well do you function in your societal role how well do you fit as cog on the social machine. Beta males are gonna suffer because they are males but incapable of properly filling their role. Their male "privilege" becomes the source of their suffering. A white poor person in peru is gonna suffer violence and racism because he will exist in a social enviroment which expects him to be rich and arrogant. In contrast a women who wants to be a housewife and taking care of the kids will benefit from her "unprivilage" of not being expected to have a leading role on the bussiness world. Interesting you bring up heterosexuality/homosexuality. From my point of view a male homosexual can't be differentiated from a male heterosexual at a glance and probably some of his suffering is because he does not fit in his male role. Homophobia and heavy dislike for unmanly males must overlap quite a bit, my experiences in traditionalist and conservative circles point to that direction. And one does not need to be a homosexual male to not fit in the male role there's various ways in which you can fail to meet the expectations and suffer social consequences. This is why it is important to see this from a more neutral point of view than what terms like white male privilege and many of their users allow. I do agree there is an imbalance of power distribution pointing towards the direction you say though. I just do not like the way the issue is framed sometimes dimissing the suffering of certain individuals just because they are members of the supposedly privileged identity. That type of collectivist identity politics rhetoric can be obfuscating and dangerous for the prospect of reasonable resolution to social conflicts. It is also pretty useless in international discussions like those on the internet. It would be better to have less politicized terms that address the underlying mechanics of privilege beyond the specific case of the US.

Quote from: aitm on March 26, 2016, 06:52:56 PM
Ridiculous column based on nothing but speculative bullshit. This was nothing to do with 'white" anything. the idiot went into a country that was openly hostile towards US citizens and did a minor offense that the government of NK blew up into a crime. This is a political toy and he is a pawn. Nothing to do with any color at all. This is about not going into countries where they hate us. Jesus, this idiot is a nut.

People often view unfortunate events through the lens of their own bias to reinforce their personal narrative of the world. When you don't share that person's lens he or she can appear like "a nut."

When you're a hammer everything looks like a nail.

Needless to say that this fool has got to be regretting his actions in NK. I highly doubt that he made his trip there purely to demonstrate to the world just how privileged he is as a white male. Does anyone realistically think he just woke up one day and thought, 'By golly I'm a priveledged white man and I am going to NK and show those slanty eyed bastards that I can go and do as I damned well please and the white world will come to my rescue and even start WWIII to protect me! '?
I get where the author is coming from even if it's not really hitting the mark. Sometimes people just do extraordinarily stupid shit and have to pay the price for their stupidity.
I have about as much sympathy for the guy as I do for someone getting kicked out of the forum for calling everyone names for no reason which is approximately zero divided by zero.
I do get a bit tired of reading all about this white male privilege thing AS IF any white male in the US can commit any crime any time, any place of any severity without ever having to answer for their actions, but on the same hand I've witnessed up close and personal the effects of the privilege in a court room where I walked home free and clear while the black guy beside me in court was dragged right back to the cells for the exact same offense..

Quote from: mauricio on March 26, 2016, 07:04:53 PM
But only if he actually fits his role. Ultimately it is not about being white or male it is about how well do you function in your societal role how well do you fit as cog on the social machine. Beta males are gonna suffer because they are males but incapable of properly filling their role.

Lordy I know I should not get involved in this but…..

Your sentence says to me: Your role in society is defined by what you put into it. Work harder than the person next to you and you will achieve more.
So if you meant something else, you need to word it differently for me anyway.


Beta males are only beta if they want to be. They do fit a role and it is the role they choose because beta want to be beta. If they wanted to be alpha, they could be fucking alpha if they wanted to. The whole alpha- beta thing is a very crucial part of the range of human sexuality of which the sliding scale designates the degrees of male physiology to female in a way that defines the alpha "aggressive" male all the way down to neuter or complete androgyny and continues down to the "omega" of completely passive female. Everyone of us has been a sideline reporter in human sexuality. We have watched but are not watching.

Quote from: aitm on March 27, 2016, 09:21:12 PM
Lordy I know I should not get involved in this but…..

Your sentence says to me: Your role in society is defined by what you put into it. Work harder than the person next to you and you will achieve more.
So if you meant something else, you need to word it differently for me anyway.

No that is not what i meant. Your social role is by definition mainly defined by society as a whole not you. It is defined by the accumulation of expectations the majority of individuals of your society have of members of your particular role within it. My point was that the privileged people are the ones who actually fit in their roles organically. For example males with lower than average testosterone who are overly conservative, submissive and introverted do not fit the male role in many societies. This can be changed to a certain degree with self improvement but there's obviously natural tendencies that will make it much harder for this deviant individual to exist in this role. Basically what I'm saying is that privilege and restriction is not completely defined by the role you get but also by how much it aligns with your natural tendencies as an individual with specific biological and psychological structures. The thing you mention of beta males having their role too is also true i guess, this beta male role may be a more natural fit for them but bring them social repercussions they do not appreciate. I think a lot of social activist groups and the like are deviants working to forge themselves more comfortable roles in a society that gave them the short end of the stick. This is palpable in some of the more emotionally driven discourse of feminists and MRAs they are expressing their pain of not fitting in with rage and bile. I do not make generalized value judgements about any of this though so do not misrepresent me. I think some of this anger is the product of rather unethical impositions of unjustified social norms, but there's also anger that is like complaining you cannot breathe underwater. There's also a lot of confident blaming going around which I do not really think is reasonable.

Quote from: aitm on March 27, 2016, 09:21:12 PM
Lordy I know I should not get involved in this but…..

Your sentence says to me: Your role in society is defined by what you put into it. Work harder than the person next to you and you will achieve more.
So if you meant something else, you need to word it differently for me anyway.


Beta males are only beta if they want to be. They do fit a role and it is the role they choose because beta want to be beta. If they wanted to be alpha, they could be fucking alpha if they wanted to. The whole alpha- beta thing is a very crucial part of the range of human sexuality of which the sliding scale designates the degrees of male physiology to female in a way that defines the alpha "aggressive" male all the way down to neuter or complete androgyny and continues down to the "omega" of completely passive female. Everyone of us has been a sideline reporter in human sexuality. We have watched but are not watching.

Also there will always be betas even if they try their hardest to be alphas. That's how sexual selection works. That's why sexual dimorphism and reproduction is evolutionary useful. It creates an evolutionary pressure than selects the most sexually fit to actually pass their genes while the rest die off. Many of the sexually selected characteristics are generally advantageous for adaptation to the enviroment, survival, fertility and ultimately the spread of genes.

BTW this does not mean that if you have natural beta male tendencies you are fucked forever. As you said this goes in degrees and our modern society with the prohibition of poligamy and enforced monogamy and other rules actually helps beta males imo. You do not need to be the top dog to enjoy a comfortable position on the hierarchy.

Edit: btw what actually defines sexual fitness in human males, specially nowadays is probably not just something super simplified like aggresiveness and being a "bad boy" whatever that means. Though I think androgens and their correlation with reduced risk aversion and the attractiveness of ambition in males are all relevant things.

Muy macho, hombre ;-)

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-f50qnAjNj8I/TXnUaxp9pVI/AAAAAAAAAJ0/2SJu21wLcH0/s1600/alphamaledemotivational.jpg)