Great definition of "white privilege" I just heard

First topic message reminder :

On U.S. public radio, and I'm paraphrasing:

"White privilege refers to any unearned advantages that white people enjoy as the result of racist legacies. It doesn't mean if you're white and you have these privileges, you're a racist or you did something wrong. It means that because of a legacy of racism, you have advantages that other people don't have because of your skin color."

Ben_Reilly wrote:

didge wrote:

Wow new line of deflection, when Ben cannot answer my points, make up bullshit.

lol

Your "points" are bullshit and deserve no better in return.

Wow yet another immature reply

So you have failed again to address my points and instead are just left flapping

I shall just take the view you are not only not able but uneducated enough to answer, if you are continually as seen rude and immature

Your classification of being a Liberal has been revoked

The main problem is you argue off everything based on America

You have zero ability of empathic intelligence

You have zero ability to see that white guilt can lead to a reverse in privileges

You do though however want to continually do this

Didge
No one reads the above and thinks Ben is the one that is Rude an Immature!!
HE ADDRESSED YOUR POINT
Your point was found lacking


People DO not have to give the answer You want to your supposed 'points'! they are dumb ass bullshit which anyone that is not a racist fuckwit can see! but You are just too Prejudice against Islam/Christian to see what a complete bag of meaningless irrelevant shit your 'points' are.


you are in NO position to talk to anyone like you are the educated side of the discussion. as you are repeatable found lacking and rely on continuing posting the exact same crap every thread every time you lose the debate you say
"you cant answer my points"
next time you feel like writing that DO everyone a favour AND DONT!!! log off go away do something else Cause NO ONE GIVES A SHIT that you are unable to UNDERSTAND the answer provided, yes we get it you have the mind of a macaw and can parrot back tit bits you think are important with out any real comprehension of how it all fits together.

Veya I told you that until you learn manners and civility I am not responding to any points you make.
You again are abusive and have a potty mouth
So your views are irrelevant and Ben can answer for himself if he so wishes, which he is more than capable of doing unless of course you do not think he can
I already showed in the UK, now the worst off are young white boys starting out in society
This is backed by the ECHR
I believe in equality, it seems those who claim to champion social injustices, do not.
As admin, your judgement does not extend to deciding debates as to who is right on issues
Only on things breaking the rules
So I do not care for your views and you will continue to have your posts ignored until you you learn some manners

didge wrote:Veya I told you that until you learn manners and civility I am not responding to any points you make.
You again are abusive and have a potty mouth
So your views are irrelevant and Ben can answer for himself if he so wishes, which he is more than capable of doing unless of course you do not think he can
I already showed in the UK, now the worst off are young white boys starting out in society
This is backed by the ECHR
I believe in equality, it seems those who claim to champion social injustices, do not.
As admin, your judgement does not extend to deciding debates as to who is right on issues
Only on things breaking the rules
So I do not care for your views and you will continue to have your posts ignored until you you learn some manners

Why do you care whether the "forum joke" answers you or not? Have you stooped that low?

didge wrote:Veya I told you that until you learn manners and civility I am not responding to any points you make.
You again are abusive and have a potty mouth
So your views are irrelevant and Ben can answer for himself if he so wishes, which he is more than capable of doing unless of course you do not think he can
I already showed in the UK, now the worst off are young white boys starting out in society
This is backed by the ECHR
I believe in equality, it seems those who claim to champion social injustices, do not.
As admin, your judgement does not extend to deciding debates as to who is right on issues
Only on things breaking the rules
So I do not care for your views and you will continue to have your posts ignored until you you learn some manners

And LIKE SO MANY POSTERS comment all the time
we are Sick of having every thread that you lose (all of them) being degraded into a deaf dumb ass just parroting "address my points, address my points" in response to having their point addressed.

You do Not debate, so I am not deciding a debate is over as One was never started!! You Pontificate, get owned and then act like a parrot Every single time

Ben_Reilly wrote:

didge wrote:Veya I told you that until you learn manners and civility I am not responding to any points you make.
You again are abusive and have a potty mouth
So your views are irrelevant and Ben can answer for himself if he so wishes, which he is more than capable of doing unless of course you do not think he can
I already showed in the UK, now the worst off are young white boys starting out in society
This is backed by the ECHR
I believe in equality, it seems those who claim to champion social injustices, do not.
As admin, your judgement does not extend to deciding debates as to who is right on issues
Only on things breaking the rules
So I do not care for your views and you will continue to have your posts ignored until you you learn some manners

Why do you care whether the "forum joke" answers you or not? Have you stooped that low?

Because Ben its simple, you only care about certain discrimination

And its based on a darker shade ratio

That is what is troubling and we are seeing the effects of white guilt by leftists in Europe. Now Europe has been miles and leaps forward thinking than the US for the last few decades, but the left when in power, have over compensated for prejudice to minorities. To now see poorer whites suffer, but you do not care about that. You will only do so in a couple of decades when you see the same happen within the states. That is how many years behind the US is behind Europe. There is still problems for minorities in this country with prejudice and discrimination, in the judicial system, for example. Of which I all the time on speak out on, but the moment people show where problems are now coming up with the poorer whites, we see the worst hypocrisy ever from you. 

You go off suffering poverty as a child, using some sob story, sorry but I do not need to go on about on this topic. The fact I grew up in severe poverty. I strove like everyone else in my family to do well, even though society disadvantaged me, being of the lowest class and discriminated against. You forget I am off immigrant parents also, at a time when the Irish were treated with disdain and prejudice. So do not dare pull that bullshit with me as you have never suffered discrimination like I did growing up. Its about wanting to succeed, even when disadvantaged, which nothing is stopping any of us from doing. So don't dare play the victim card to me about poverty. Even you have succeeded with journalism and why? With hard work, just like everyone has the opportunity to do when disadvantaged, but the difference between us is this. You do not want equality and suffer white guilt. I am against all discrimination and look to obtain equality for all. I want to see bad ideas become of a thing of the past, because these bad ideas effect the well being and equality of people. You though defend them. Your method only brings further imbalance because again, you only look through the American leftist white guilt lens and if there was ever a more flawed system, it is that.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Check this out, Tommy:

Put simply, the (U.S. housing) market penalizes integration: The higher the percentage of blacks in the neighborhood, the less the home is worth, even when researchers control for age, social class, household structure, and geography.

A 2007 study by George Washington University sociology professor Gregory D. Squires comments on why most whites avoid racially diverse neighborhoods: “Evidence indicates that it is the presence of blacks, and not just neighborhood conditions often associated with black neighborhoods (e.g., bad schools, high crime), that accounts for white aversion to such areas. In one survey, whites reported that they would be unlikely to purchase a home that met their requirements in terms of price, number of rooms, and other housing characteristics in a neighborhood with good schools and low crime rates if there was a substantial representation of African Americans.”

When blacks buy homes in majority minority neighborhoods, we increase the racial wealth gap. Whites who want to experience racial diversity at home also pay dearly.

Of course, home ownership has significant benefits even if it is not a great financial investment. Homeowners generally experience lower crime rates and better schools and municipal services. Also, not all black homeowners increase the racial wealth gap when they buy homes. Blacks who live in overwhelmingly white neighborhoods win as long as they remain a very small part of the community.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/12/10/how-home-ownership-keeps-blacks-poorer-than-whites/#71c5517c7e57

So in the U.S., white people who want to buy houses tend to avoid black people -- EVEN in nice neighborhoods. Black people can live in nice neighborhoods so long as there aren't too many of them.

But it gets worse! In a policy that I have criticized many times, the United States doesn't spend the same amount on every public school student's education, even adjusted by local cost of living. Oh no -- public school districts are funded by local property taxes, which are generated at far greater amounts in wealthy communities than they are in poor communities.

So children who were stupid enough to be born to poor parents are penalized at school by getting less spent on their education than the kids who were smart enough to pick rich parents. Being black almost automatically means you'll live in a neighborhood that generates lower property tax income from the schools you or your kids will attend. And quality of education is most definitely a factor in future success, is it not?

So, if a system rewards you for being white by saying your house is worth more and by giving you a higher-quality public education, how can you deny that white privilege exists?

And how can I, who has railed against this institutionalization of poverty for years, be accused of not caring about poor whites?

You and Didge really piss me off when you say that, by the way. I spent several years of my childhood living in trailer parks and have never had better than working-class income in my life.

So areas with loads of blacks have high crime rates and they don't do very well at school...


Who's fault is that...!?

So what if everyone in a nice neighbourhood with nice houses was black? Are they still paying less in local taxes because their houses are worth less?

Ben's already answered that.

sassy wrote:Ben's already answered that.

Not really.

Black people can live in nice neighborhoods so long as there aren't too many of them.

What if everyone in the nice neighbourhood was black, or the vast marjority?

Doesn't happen Raggs... because blacks like doing crime and not working ..

So if people in a particular area paying more in local taxes than people in another area, isn't it fair that they get more for what they're paying?

Tommy Monk wrote:Didge is even copying my sayings... I said 'little things please little minds' to him about a year ago...


My way of thinking has always been along the same lines as what Didge was just espousing.


I have long been a critic of leftie thinking, the idiocy and hypocrisy of it as well as the subsequent damaging effects when they are allowed to put it into action.


The lefties are always "SIXHIRBing' me off and painting me as a 'far right nazi' (oxymoron) etc...


They do this every time I point out their idiocy/hypocrisy or the resulting damaging consequences of their actions...


They do this as a defence mechanism whenever faced with logical arguments that force them to thinking a way that makes them start to realise the idiocy/hypocrisy/damage of their own ideas/actions!!!

http://psychcentral.com/lib/15-common-defense-mechanisms/

https://youtu.be/lCis1U1nFR0

Your way of thinking is not along the same lines, you follow prejudice and look at others with prejudice
I look at this from equality.
So you can keep spamming and we may agree that lefties have caused over compensating but that is the limit of agreement as far as i am concerned.

So you think it is right to give some peopke special treatment in the name of equality, but just not too much...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:So you think it is right to give some peopke special treatment in the name of equality, but just not too much...!?

Really, where did I say that here?

The point is the well being and equality of people.
Which refusing shaking hands does effect people.
Wearing a turban does not.
The face veil does effect others through communication as the face is a part of communication through body language.
Again I would rather people did not believe in gobbledygook, but some things certainly do not effect others or effect equality.

You said 'over compensating' was the problem... so you think special treatment is ok but just not too much...?

Tommy Monk wrote:You said 'over compensating' was the problem... so you think special treatment is ok but just not too much...?

Over compensating in regards to helping and giver preferential treatment in needs for education.
Clearly white boys from a poor background have been left at the back of the class in education.
People will get away with racism if within the left as seen by the recent racism committed by Labour memeber's
That is the over compensation I talk of with the left and white guilt
Not where people have or wear things that do not effect equality or you
That is not special treatment as you have no need or desire to dress the same do you, so how is that special?

That didn't answer my question.

Tommy Monk wrote:

That didn't answer my question.

Yes it did, as you are not being specific.
If things do not effect you then how is it special treatment, unless you want the same.
Do you want halal meat?
There is nothing stopping having halal meat is there.
That is equality, its not special treatment

So if a house in a "black" area is worth less than a house in a "white" area, that means that the house in the "black" area cost less, right? That's good for the person who bought it, isn't it?

Raggamuffin wrote:So if a house in a "black" area is worth less than a house in a "white" area, that means that the house in the "black" area cost less, right? That's good for the person who bought it, isn't it?

Does that happen in the UK?
Its an area that will cost more or less, does it not?

When blacks buy homes in majority minority neighborhoods, we increase the racial wealth gap. Whites who want to experience racial diversity at home also pay dearly.

I guess if you talk about "wealth" as in in how much your house is worth, that's right, but then if a person paid less for a house they have more money to spend on other things than someone who gets paid the same but whose house cost more.

Raggamuffin wrote:

When blacks buy homes in majority minority neighborhoods, we increase the racial wealth gap. Whites who want to experience racial diversity at home also pay dearly.

I guess if you talk about "wealth" as in in how much your house is worth, that's right, but then if a person paid less for a house they have more money to spend on other things than someone who gets paid the same but whose house cost more.

How do you figure they have more or less money to spend, unless each start with the same money and incomes?

didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I guess if you talk about "wealth" as in in how much your house is worth, that's right, but then if a person paid less for a house they have more money to spend on other things than someone who gets paid the same but whose house cost more.

How do you figure they have more or less money to spend, unless each start with the same money and incomes?

I'm talking about people who do have the same income and the same amount of money. The implication is that those whose houses are worth less are poorer than those whose houses are worth more, but that's not necessarily the case as less of their income is being used to pay for the house.

Raggamuffin wrote:

didge wrote:


How do you figure they have more or less money to spend, unless each start with the same money and incomes?

I'm talking about people who do have the same income and the same amount of money. The implication is that those whose houses are worth less are poorer than those whose houses are worth more, but that's not necessarily the case as less of their income is being used to pay for the house.

But a person buying into an area will generally be poor if its low income and even more now they cannot afford to buy a first time home.
You are making a general rule that does not fit, because people on the same income and monies will buy within a set money threshold.
That means anything above that is out of their range.
Most of them if what is classed as poor will only be able to afford within homes that are very low income

If a black person earns the same as a white person and chooses to buy a house in a "black" area which costs less, how does that equate to them being less privileged?

Raggamuffin wrote:If a black person earns the same as a white person and chooses to buy a house in a "black" area which costs less, how does that equate to them being less privileged?

Where did I say it does?

That area though might have less facilities for those living there.
I mean if the choice is to move into a dominant white area in the deep South or a place in Detroit, what do you think the black person is going to do?
Set themselves up for problems.
So there is privilege within the US as its based on a white Middle class system and has been since the 1950's

I don't this argument holds up really. We're talking about intrinsic privilege based on your skin colour, but the issue of where one buys a house is a matter of choice.

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't this argument holds up really. We're talking about intrinsic privilege based on your skin colour, but the issue of where one buys a house is a matter of choice.

It does if an area has more money pumped into an area than another does.
It is a matter of choice but like I say, would you move into the Middle of Harlem, if you were moving to the US?
Or over here would you move to Slough?
I would not have an issue as I grew up in a mixed ethnic area, but this is the point more so about where you would feel comfortable living.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Check this out, Tommy:

Put simply, the (U.S. housing) market penalizes integration: The higher the percentage of blacks in the neighborhood, the less the home is worth, even when researchers control for age, social class, household structure, and geography.

A 2007 study by George Washington University sociology professor Gregory D. Squires comments on why most whites avoid racially diverse neighborhoods: “Evidence indicates that it is the presence of blacks, and not just neighborhood conditions often associated with black neighborhoods (e.g., bad schools, high crime), that accounts for white aversion to such areas. In one survey, whites reported that they would be unlikely to purchase a home that met their requirements in terms of price, number of rooms, and other housing characteristics in a neighborhood with good schools and low crime rates if there was a substantial representation of African Americans.”

When blacks buy homes in majority minority neighborhoods, we increase the racial wealth gap. Whites who want to experience racial diversity at home also pay dearly.

Of course, home ownership has significant benefits even if it is not a great financial investment. Homeowners generally experience lower crime rates and better schools and municipal services. Also, not all black homeowners increase the racial wealth gap when they buy homes. Blacks who live in overwhelmingly white neighborhoods win as long as they remain a very small part of the community.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/12/10/how-home-ownership-keeps-blacks-poorer-than-whites/#71c5517c7e57

So in the U.S., white people who want to buy houses tend to avoid black people -- EVEN in nice neighborhoods. Black people can live in nice neighborhoods so long as there aren't too many of them.

But it gets worse! In a policy that I have criticized many times, the United States doesn't spend the same amount on every public school student's education, even adjusted by local cost of living. Oh no -- public school districts are funded by local property taxes, which are generated at far greater amounts in wealthy communities than they are in poor communities.

So children who were stupid enough to be born to poor parents are penalized at school by getting less spent on their education than the kids who were smart enough to pick rich parents. Being black almost automatically means you'll live in a neighborhood that generates lower property tax income from the schools you or your kids will attend. And quality of education is most definitely a factor in future success, is it not?

So, if a system rewards you for being white by saying your house is worth more and by giving you a higher-quality public education, how can you deny that white privilege exists?

And how can I, who has railed against this institutionalization of poverty for years, be accused of not caring about poor whites?

You and Didge really piss me off when you say that, by the way. I spent several years of my childhood living in trailer parks and have never had better than working-class income in my life.

This is not the report said. It said that black people "win" if there aren't many of them in a "white" area. You make it sound as if black people need permission to buy a house in such an area.

According to your argument, those black people are choosing to pay more to live in such an area, even if they could get a nice house in a "black" area. That's a matter of choice is it not? It's market forces, not "white privilege. I don't see how paying less for a house makes someone "poorer".

didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't this argument holds up really. We're talking about intrinsic privilege based on your skin colour, but the issue of where one buys a house is a matter of choice.

It does if an area has more money pumped into an area than another does.
It is a matter of choice but like I say, would you move into the Middle of Harlem, if you were moving to the US?
Or over here would you move to Slough?
I would not have an issue as I grew up in a mixed ethnic area, but this is the point more so about where you would feel comfortable living.

Money based on what people are paying in local taxes. They pay less if their house is worth less, right? If they choose to buy a house in a cheaper area, they are also paying less in local taxes, which probably pleases them.

Raggamuffin wrote:

didge wrote:


It does if an area has more money pumped into an area than another does.
It is a matter of choice but like I say, would you move into the Middle of Harlem, if you were moving to the US?
Or over here would you move to Slough?
I would not have an issue as I grew up in a mixed ethnic area, but this is the point more so about where you would feel comfortable living.

Money based on what people are paying in local taxes. They pay less if their house is worth less, right? If they choose to buy a house in a cheaper area, they are also paying less in local taxes, which probably pleases them.

Local taxes?
Again the same will apply if they are within the same money threshold, again if one are gets more funds over the other, that ceases to be any form of benefit, when people wil struggle to pay that tax in the first place.
I fail to see how any of what you are saying is a benefit.

didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Money based on what people are paying in local taxes. They pay less if their house is worth less, right? If they choose to buy a house in a cheaper area, they are also paying less in local taxes, which probably pleases them.

Local taxes?
Again the same will apply if they are within the same money threshold, again if one are gets more funds over the other, that ceases to be any form of benefit, when people wil struggle to pay that tax in the first place.
I fail to see how any of what you are saying is a benefit.

Ben said that schools are paid for by local property taxes.

public school districts are funded by local property taxes, which are generated at far greater amounts in wealthy communities than they are in poor communities.

The idea is that those who buy houses in cheaper areas pay less in local property taxes, and therefore, less money is spent on schools. However, if they choose to buy a house in a cheaper area, they save money on the mortgage and they pay less in tax, so isn't it their own choice?

I'm still checking if schools are funded solely from local property taxes actually, but I'm just going on what Ben said at the moment.

Raggamuffin wrote:

didge wrote:


Local taxes?
Again the same will apply if they are within the same money threshold, again if one are gets more funds over the other, that ceases to be any form of benefit, when people wil struggle to pay that tax in the first place.
I fail to see how any of what you are saying is a benefit.

Ben said that schools are paid for by local property taxes.

public school districts are funded by local property taxes, which are generated at far greater amounts in wealthy communities than they are in poor communities.

The idea is that those who buy houses in cheaper areas pay less in local property taxes, and therefore, less money is spent on schools. However, if they choose to buy a house in a cheaper area, they save money on the mortgage and they pay less in tax, so isn't it their own choice?

I'm still checking if schools are funded solely from local property taxes actually, but I'm just going on what Ben said at the moment.

And?

If people are on very low wages, how much do you think can be given in taxes to help?
That does not make it a benefit in anyway
This is why I think the US system is daft.

didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben said that schools are paid for by local property taxes.



The idea is that those who buy houses in cheaper areas pay less in local property taxes, and therefore, less money is spent on schools. However, if they choose to buy a house in a cheaper area, they save money on the mortgage and they pay less in tax, so isn't it their own choice?

I'm still checking if schools are funded solely from local property taxes actually, but I'm just going on what Ben said at the moment.

And?

If people are on very l;ow wages, how much do you think can be given in taxes to help?
This is why I think the US system is daft.

We're not talking about wages at this point though - wages haven't been mentioned. Ben said in that areas where black people are in a majority the houses are worth less just because black people live there.

Raggamuffin wrote:

didge wrote:


And?

If people are on very l;ow wages, how much do you think can be given in taxes to help?
This is why I think the US system is daft.

We're not talking about wages at this point though - wages haven't been mentioned. Ben said in that areas where black people are in a majority the houses are worth less just because black people live there.

It will be dependent on wages, how much a community can input into the tax systems, so that point is vital.
So did you ask also what wages they are given in that area, because I bet you there is a big disparity on that was well in some areas?

I would also question the assumption that schools which get more money are necessarily better than those which get less, or that going to a school which gets less money means that people leave with worse qualifications. A lot of it is to do with attitude, parental encouragement, and self-discipline IMO.

didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

We're not talking about wages at this point though - wages haven't been mentioned. Ben said in that areas where black people are in a majority the houses are worth less just because black people live there.

It will be dependent on wages, how much a community can input into the tax systems, so that point is vital.
So did you ask also what wages they are given in that area, because I bet you there is a big disparity on that was well in some areas?

Low income applies to white people as well though, so they are likely to buy a house in a cheaper area and be subject to less local spending on schooling. According to Ben, they are still at an advantage because they're white though.

Raggamuffin wrote:

didge wrote:


It will be dependent on wages, how much a community can input into the tax systems, so that point is vital.
So did you ask also what wages they are given in that area, because I bet you there is a big disparity on that was well in some areas?

Low income applies to white people as well though, so they are likely to buy a house in a cheaper area and be subject to less local spending on schooling. According to Ben, they are still at an advantage because they're white though.

I never said it did not, but you were dismissing wages, when it is a vital factor here.
One town may get more money for the same low income paid jobs.
So that information is important here

didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Low income applies to white people as well though, so they are likely to buy a house in a cheaper area and be subject to less local spending on schooling. According to Ben, they are still at an advantage because they're white though.

I never said it did not, but you were dismissing wages, when it is a vital factor here.
One town may get more money for the same low income paid jobs.
So that information is important here

I'm not dismissing them. I'm referring to the stuff which Ben said, and he wasn't talking about wages, he was talking about house prices which appear to be affected by the colour of the people who live in them in a particular area.

If the discussion turns to wages, the question is - do white people get paid more than black people simply because they're white and for no other reason? Remember that this is a thread about "white privilege".

Raggamuffin wrote:

didge wrote:


I never said it did not, but you were dismissing wages, when it is a vital factor here.
One town may get more money for the same low income paid jobs.
So that information is important here

I'm not dismissing them. I'm referring to the stuff which Ben said, and he wasn't talking about wages, he was talking about house prices which appear to be affected by the colour of the people who live in them in a particular area.

If the discussion turns to wages, the question is - do white people get paid more than black people simply because they're white and for no other reason? Remember that this is a thread about "white privilege".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_wage_gap_in_the_United_States

Like i say the US is decades behind the UK

I'm talking about direct discrimination. In other words, if one white person and one black person are doing exactly the same job in the same department in the same company, and they've been there for exactly the same length of time they have the same qualifications, and they're the same age, is the white person paid more than the black person?

By the way, we know that in the UK there is age discrimination when it comes to the "national living wage" or the minimum wage.

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm talking about direct discrimination. In other words, if one white person and one black person are doing exactly the same job in the same department in the same company, and they've been there for exactly the same length of time they have the same qualifications, and they're the same age, is the white person paid more than the black person?

By the way, we know that in the UK there is age discrimination when it comes to the "national living wage" or the minimum wage.

What do you think I just presented to you?

You can have wage disparity between companies and in companies.
So again you need to show two towns, one predominantly white, the other black, their incomes, their outputs and what taxes is paid and what the state helps with.
They have to be comparable for your claims
I shall await your evidence

Never claimed the Uk does not still have some discrimination in wages, but its leaps and bounds better than the US

didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm talking about direct discrimination. In other words, if one white person and one black person are doing exactly the same job in the same department in the same company, and they've been there for exactly the same length of time they have the same qualifications, and they're the same age, is the white person paid more than the black person?

By the way, we know that in the UK there is age discrimination when it comes to the "national living wage" or the minimum wage.

What do you think I just presented to you?

You can have wage disparity between companies and in companies.
So again you need to show two towns, one predominantly white, the other black, their incomes, their outputs and what taxes is paid and what the state helps with.
They have to be comparable for your claims
I shall await your evidence

Never claimed the Uk does not still have some discrimination in wages, but its leaps and bounds better than the US

You presented an article which talks about many issues, not just race, none of which points to any intrinsic "white privilege".

Raggamuffin wrote:

didge wrote:


What do you think I just presented to you?

You can have wage disparity between companies and in companies.
So again you need to show two towns, one predominantly white, the other black, their incomes, their outputs and what taxes is paid and what the state helps with.
They have to be comparable for your claims
I shall await your evidence

Never claimed the Uk does not still have some discrimination in wages, but its leaps and bounds better than the US

You presented an article which talks about many issues, not just race, none of which points to any intrinsic "white privilege".

No, I was stating to you about wage disparity in the US, of which you would need to discount from your thesis
I then presented evidence of this
I shall await your evidence

didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You presented an article which talks about many issues, not just race, none of which points to any intrinsic "white privilege".

No, I was stating to you about wage disparity in the US, of which you would need to discount from your thesis
I then presented evidence of this
I shall await your evidence

Evidence of what? I asked a question, I didn't make a claim.

Raggamuffin wrote:

didge wrote:

No, I was stating to you about wage disparity in the US, of which you would need to discount from your thesis
I then presented evidence of this
I shall await your evidence

Evidence of what? I asked a question, I didn't make a claim.

I answered your questions, you then made points that need evidence to back them up

Over to you

Or you simply do not have this to back up your previous views then?

No problem either way

didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Evidence of what? I asked a question, I didn't make a claim.

I answered your questions, you then made points that need evidence to back them up

Over to you

Or you simply do not have this to back up your previous views then?

No problem either way

What points? I asked two questions. If you're going to get bolshy, forget it - I see the signs of an impending post from you containing the word "failed" and/or an order to address your points.