Support NeoGAF

[Lastyou1]

I don't deny that whites, sometimes, might be privileged and unroghtfully advantaged, especially in the work business. Especially in America.


The point, however, is not skin/race related: due to historical reason the average white guy is usually richer than the average asian guy who is usually richer than the average black who is richer than the average hispanic.

So this brings me to the next and most important point: you are privileged if you are rich, and from there, down it goes to the hierarchy until the very rock bottom.

So almost all the discriminations I've seen are more wallet based than anything else.

My personal theory is: give a job and some dignity to every one, and all this "racism" will end.

 

[TheMikado]

There is no reason why "white privilege" should be any more "exceptional" than any other form of privilege. On the contrary, those who are defending that notion can't even quantify it properly, making it a wholly inaccurate, unscientific and meaningless measure, just like original sin. Sorry, I don't deal in ephemeral metaphysical notions when it comes to explaining reality.

This is a real tangible phenomena, the only thing meaningless and inaccurate and not based in reality are your claims. This is immense historical and sociological context for why it is exceptional in human history. Its as if you literally have never read a single history book.
I've decided to simple provide links so that you can educate yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Divergence

The Great Divergence is a term made popular by Kenneth Pomeranz's book by that title, (also known as the European miracle, a term coined by Eric Jones in 1981)[3] referring to the process by which the Western world (i.e. Western Europe and the parts of the New World where its people became the dominant populations) overcame pre-modern growth constraints and emerged during the 19th century as the most powerful and wealthy world civilization, eclipsing Medieval India, Qing China, the Islamic World, and Tokugawa Japan.

It is literally historical and sociologically exception.

Stop shifting goalposts, this is a discussion about "white privilege" and not imperialism. You know as well as me that from a historical standpoint forceful expansion and conquering wasn't an exclusively European or "white" thing but is part of every culture's history. Besides, it's not like white people of the past enjoyed vast privileges, when most of them had to suffer serfdom and lived in abject poverty. Or what about WWII, when most of Europe was in absolute ruins? Where was the white privilege then?

No one is shifting goal posts.
You literally do not know what "white privilege" you again are arguing on the basis of the "name" rather than the concept and to which I will educated you on below.

Nobody is denying that history hasn't shaped our modern lives, but you're conveniently cherry picking a few historical events in order to construe a skewed picture of the present. Human history has been a history of the rich and powerful dominating the weak and poor, no matter the color of their skin.

"White privilege" is used to explain inequalities of the present in a reductive manner and I highly doubt that most middle-class people of today are still profiting from the fruits of colonialism. Until you provide some clear cut evidence as to how exactly and to what extent those historical events have influenced people's lives of the present, all you're doing is saying that those events were a thing and have somehow kinda maybe sorta influenced modern day lives. Great, nobody is denying that, but it is also not very conducive to accurately explain social inequalities of the present when other factors are probably much more important (like class and wealth).
And there we have it. Go ahead and quantify it, I implore you! But I can already tell you that screeching "white privilege" sure as sh*t isn't it.

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

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is the societal privilege that benefits people whom society identifies as white in some countries, beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances. Academic perspectives such as critical race theory and whiteness studies use the concept to analyze how racism and racialized societies affect the lives of white or white-skinned people.
According to Peggy McIntosh, whites in Western societies enjoy advantages that non-whites do not experience, as "an invisible package of unearned assets".[1] White privilege denotes both obvious and less obvious passive advantages that white people may not recognize they have, which distinguishes it from overt bias or prejudice. These include cultural affirmations of one's own worth; presumed greater social status; and freedom to move, buy, work, play, and speak freely. The effects can be seen in professional, educational, and personal contexts. The concept of white privilege also implies the right to assume the universality of one's own experiences, marking others as different or exceptional while perceiving oneself as normal.[2][3]

In the United States
History
Some scholars attribute white privilege, which they describe as informal racism, to the formal racism (i.e. slavery followed by Jim Crow) that existed for much of American history.[56] In her book Privilege Revealed: How Invisible Preference Undermines America, Stephanie M. Wildman writes that many Americans who advocate a merit-based, race-free worldview do not acknowledge the systems of privilege which have benefited them. For example, many Americans rely on a social or financial inheritance from previous generations, an inheritance unlikely to be forthcoming if one's ancestors were slaves.[57] Whites were sometimes afforded opportunities and benefits that were unavailable to others. In the middle of the 20th century, the government subsidized white homeownership through the Federal Housing Administration, but not homeownership by minorities.[58] Some social scientists also suggest that the historical processes of suburbanization and decentralization are instances of white privilege that have contributed to contemporary patterns of environmental racism.[59]

In South Africa
Registration certificate identifies a person as white
White privilege was legally enshrined in South Africa through apartheid. Apartheid was institutionalized in 1948 and lasted formally into the early 1990s. Under apartheid, racial privilege was not only socially meaningful—it became bureaucratically regulated. Laws such as the 1950 Population Registration Act established criteria to officially classify South Africans by race: White, Indian, Coloured (mixed), or Black.[110]

Many scholars say that 'whiteness' still corresponds to a set of social advantages in South Africa, and conventionally refer to these advantages as "white privilege". The system of white privilege applies both to the way a person is treated by others and to a set of behaviors, affects, and thoughts, which can be learned and reinforced. These elements of "whiteness" establish social status and guarantee advantages for some people, without directly relying on skin color or other aspects of a person's appearance.[2] White privilege in South Africa has small-scale effects, such as preferential treatment for people who appear white in public, and large-scale effects, such as the over five-fold difference in average per-capita income for people identified as white or black.[111]

Oh so you just want to feel "special" is that it? I'm sorry that Peterson isn't catering to your particular whims, but "white privilege" is entirely unexceptional considering the fact that other privileges have a much bigger impact on people's lives. Do you really think the color of your skin matters that much if you're born into a rich family? That's just daft. Besides, most rich black people in America live in the same gated communities away from the poor and downtrodden, just like every other rich American family.

Once again, you have an incredibly fundamentally remedial understanding of the concept. Peterson acknowledges the cultural benefits conveyed to those identified within that culture. He acknowledges it with his Asian analogy.
It's like you've missed the entire point. It is a real and tangible aspect of daily life. However Peterson minimizes the reach and extent of the modernize society and the extent to which it has influenced the present.

Then why even bring this up in this particular thread about Peterson? If you want to twist around Peterson's words in order to construe some slippery slope fallacy so that they better fit your narrow view about Peterson, that's your prerogative, but don't present it as fact.

But I'm not. I'm using Peterson's own words where HE correctly states that minorities in dominant cultures will not receive the same benefits of those who are identified as part of the culture. I'm using his own words and statements. You're the only one contradicting the things he says. Did you even watch the video?

Again, why should he offer a "solution" when current western democratic systems already apply individualism in practice? Individualism, not democracy, is what sets modern societies apart from the collective tyrannies of the past. Peterson argues that the resurgence of extremist collectivist ideologies are undermining the individualistic underpinnings of western societies and not the other way around. So why should he present a solution to something that's already been solved?

Except nobody, not me and not Peterson is claiming that social inequalities have been resolved. Nice strawman and false equivalency.

I moved this up so I can try to parse the two statements together... as they are came from the same post. I'm not even sure you know what you are saying anymore so I wont continue to engage you much longer..
I mean... yikes. I won't even debate you on this until you get your point together. Either its resolved or its not figure out what you are trying to say.

Why should they? People, just like their societies are irrational and many societal realities are the result of culture, values, traditions and environmental influences. Hence why societies do not develop everywhere the same. Democracy for example seems to be a good solution against tyranny, hence why it has been adopted by many countries, yet dictatorships still remain! By your logic, we should have democracies everywhere, when you and me both know that that's far from the truth.

Again what? I said nothing of the sort. You made the claim that:

Peterson says that modern western democracies have already developed adequate structures and procedures to deal with social inequalities on an individual level.

And this is where I state you are making the declaration that these solutions are adequate. That's the point. It's your own perspective. That's the entire point of the discussion.

Are we now so desperate for relevancy that we have to dissolve the meaning of words in order to make a point? We are talking about "white privilege" here and not about "imperial/colonial privilege", both are really not the same. "White privilege" is a privilege based on the pigment of your skin, colonialism/imperialism is not! Words and their definitions matter you know, so please stick to the issue at hand. Seems to me as if the only thing that has to appease someone's feelings is your dictionary.

NO, you literally did not even bother to look up the definition of what it is so I helped you out with the above. There has been a clear academic definition and you don't just get to "make up" definitions for things because you can't be bothered to pick up a book.

Gina Crosley-Corcoran in her Huffington Post article, "Explaining White Privilege to a Broke White Person", says that she was initially hostile to the idea that she had white privilege, initially believing, "my white skin didn't do shit to prevent me from experiencing poverty", until she was directed to read Peggy McIntosh's "Unpacking the invisible knapsack". According to Crosley-Corcoran, "the concept of intersectionality recognizes that people can be privileged in some ways and definitely not privileged in others".[11] Other writers have noted that the "academic-sounding concept of white privilege" sometimes elicits defensiveness and misunderstanding among white people, in part due to how the concept of white privilege was rapidly brought into the mainstream spotlight through social media campaigns such as Black Lives Matter.[12] Cory Weinburg, writing for Inside Higher Ed, has also stated that the concept of white privilege is frequently misinterpreted by non-academics because it is an academic concept that has recently been brought into the mainstream. Academics interviewed by Weinburg, who have been otherwise studying white privilege undisturbed for decades, have been taken aback with the seemingly-sudden hostility from right-wing critics since 2014.[13]

Again, you made up your one unsupported definition for what "white privilege" is when it's been a concept floating around in academic circles for decades. But because you in 2018 suddenly don't like the name, the entire concept and definition does not suddenly exist.

If you actually took some time to education yourself on the subject we could have a much richer discussion on academic grounds. Until you do so, you aren't worth my time nor my reply..

 

[TheMikado]

I don't deny that whites, sometimes, might be privileged and unroghtfully advantaged, especially in the work business. Especially in America.

The point, however, is not skin/race related: due to historical reason the average white guy is usually richer than the average asian guy who is usually richer than the average black who is richer than the average hispanic.

So this brings me to the next and most important point: you are privileged if you are rich, and from there, down it goes to the hierarchy until the very rock bottom.

So almost all the discriminations I've seen are more wallet based than anything else.

My personal theory is: give a job and some dignity to every one, and all this "racism" will end.

Unfortunately not all privilege is directly wallet based.

To give an example we often suffer from the ideas of "First World Privilege". Where we view things like clean drinking water or daily baths as "normal" and "standard".

Another example is the "funny smell" syndrome. This where people within a culture may be accustom to certain smells, foods, etc. and foods or smells outside of their immediate interactions.
People or individuals, unaccustomed to the smell or food may view it negatively and may react or interact with that individual based on that.
There is nothing inherently wrong with this, but the point is to understand that the aversion and negative connotations are based on perspective and viewpoint and not a universal truth and that the positive connotations of certain smells/foods vs. the aversion has a historical and cultural development which comes along with it.

Another example is the idea of hair care. Depending on your culture or race, even in America, hair care is different. Some individuals can wash their hair daily without consequences where the majority of black women are unable to do so without spending extraordinary amounts of time attempting to straighten the curls.
If the organization standard or dress expectation for an organization is that you wash your hair daily, no braids, and only straightened hair for reasons of professionalism then can create severe inequity in effort depending on the hair type.
Now if someone decides the policy is fine because they do not have that problem with their hair, they are saying it from their own perspective and a place of privilege where they can easily adhere to the demands because their is no severe or adverse inequity that they experience on a person level.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

This is a real tangible phenomena, the only thing meaningless and inaccurate and not based in reality are your claims. This is immense historical and sociological context for why it is exceptional in human history. Its as if you literally have never read a single history book.
I've decided to simple provide links so that you can educate yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Divergence



It is literally historical and sociologically exception.


No one is shifting goal posts.
You literally do not know what "white privilege" you again are arguing on the basis of the "name" rather than the concept and to which I will educated you on below.


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








Once again, you have an incredibly fundamentally remedial understanding of the concept. Peterson acknowledges the cultural benefits conveyed to those identified within that culture. He acknowledges it with his Asian analogy.
It's like you've missed the entire point. It is a real and tangible aspect of daily life. However Peterson minimizes the reach and extent of the modernize society and the extent to which it has influenced the present.


But I'm not. I'm using Peterson's own words where HE correctly states that minorities in dominant cultures will not receive the same benefits of those who are identified as part of the culture. I'm using his own words and statements. You're the only one contradicting the things he says. Did you even watch the video?



I moved this up so I can try to parse the two statements together... as they are came from the same post. I'm not even sure you know what you are saying anymore so I wont continue to engage you much longer..
I mean... yikes. I won't even debate you on this until you get your point together. Either its resolved or its not figure out what you are trying to say.


Again what? I said nothing of the sort. You made the claim that:
And this is where I state you are making the declaration that these solutions are adequate. That's the point. It's your own perspective. That's the entire point of the discussion.



NO, you literally did not even bother to look up the definition of what it is so I helped you out with the above. There has been a clear academic definition and you don't just get to "make up" definitions for things because you can't be bothered to pick up a book.



Again, you made up your one unsupported definition for what "white privilege" is when it's been a concept floating around in academic circles for decades. But because you in 2018 suddenly don't like the name, the entire concept and definition does not suddenly exist.

If you actually took some time to education yourself on the subject we could have a much richer discussion on academic grounds. Until you do so, you aren't worth my time nor my reply..

There were academics in Nazi Germany, too.

Appealing merely to "academics" is about as logically fallacious as one can get. Part of the overall disagreement on these topics is that some academics insist on one thing -- while conveniently dismissing empirical data and scientific procedures -- and other academics insist on something else. One of the core disagreements is the relative weight and value of different "privileges". As in, what is standard for how much someone's racial privilege weighs against their gender privilege? And who is morally and legally qualified to set that standard?

These two simple questions have no agreed-upon score or scale or answer. When asked about the nitty-gritty, academia completely falls apart, because in reality they are bringing their own biases to the table when they imply one set of privileges "weighs more" than another set of privileges. Show me the empirical data. Show me the studies. Show me the evidence.

EDIT: and I should add, how many privileges and oppressions count toward my overall "score"? Can I dig something up in my past and then use that, kind of like a carbon tax credit but for privilege? How far back into the past can I dig, and what sort of paperwork is required?

"Sins of the father" is not a valid excuse. It's an ancient religious concept that has no place in modern Western society.

If you actually took some time to answer those questions, we could have much richer progress in the real world. But until you give people a "score" and the rules for scorekeeping, you aren't worth my time nor reply...

 

[strange headache]

This is a real tangible phenomena, the only thing meaningless and inaccurate and not based in reality are your claims. This is immense historical and sociological context for why it is exceptional in human history. Its as if you literally have never read a single history book.

Besides ad hominems and repeating "white privilege is a very real thingamabob" do you have anything else of substance to bring forth? You repeating yourself is getting tiresome.

No one is shifting goal posts.

Again, your whataboutism about colonialism and imperialism is not what's being discussed here, but the notion of "white privilege" is.

I moved this up so I can try to parse the two statements together... as they are came from the same post. I'm not even sure you know what you are saying anymore so I wont continue to engage you much longer..
I mean... yikes. I won't even debate you on this until you get your point together. Either its resolved or its not figure out what you are trying to say.

Man, the way you're freaking out only lends to the impression that my arguments are hitting the nail on the head. If you'd calm down and actually read what I write instead of going off like a powder keg, you'd have seen that one argument refers to individualism, while the other refers to social inequalities. Both are obviously not the same.

NO, you literally did not even bother to look up the definition of what it is so I helped you out with the above. There has been a clear academic definition and you don't just get to "make up" definitions for things because you can't be bothered to pick up a book.

I know very well what "white privilege" is, how it's defined, what it's supposed to mean and how it's actually used in everyday discussions. I certainly don't need you to throw links at me and lazily copy paste whole sections from Wikipedia. If you think you condescending and aggressive tone makes you look smart, you're sorely mistaken.

Again, you made up your one unsupported definition for what "white privilege" is when it's been a concept floating around in academic circles for decades. But because you in 2018 suddenly don't like the name, the entire concept and definition does not suddenly exist.

Lots of bullsh*t has been floating around in academic circles for decades (from theology to phrenology), that doesn't mean that they are correct. Like, that's not even an argument. "White privilege" is an unscientific notion that fails to accurately describe or quantify social inequalities. It's a mere qualitative approach that does little to help understand the real injustices in the world but merely creates racial strife for tribalistic reasons.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to play the racial blame game, no matter how much you want me to and I'm certainly not going to water down my vocabulary to accommodate your bullsh*t term. "White privilege" is not "colonial/imperial privilege" no matter how much you stomp your feet.

And by the way, I'm still waiting for you to quantify "white privilege" for me...

If you actually took some time to education yourself on the subject we could have a much richer discussion on academic grounds. Until you do so, you aren't worth my time nor my reply..

How many times do you need to tell me to "educate myself"? Like if that's the extend of your argumentative prowess, you've really not got very much to say. Feel free to ignore me if I'm not "worth your time", I don't really care.

 

[TheMikado]

There were academics in Nazi Germany, too.

Appealing merely to "academics" is about as logically fallacious as one can get. Part of the overall disagreement on these topics is that some academics insist on one thing -- while conveniently dismissing empirical data and scientific procedures -- and other academics insist on something else. One of the core disagreements is the relative weight and value of different "privileges". As in, what is standard for how much someone's racial privilege weighs against their gender privilege? And who is morally and legally qualified to set that standard?

These two simple questions have no agreed-upon score or scale or answer. When asked about the nitty-gritty, academia completely falls apart, because in reality they are bringing their own biases to the table when they imply one set of privileges "weighs more" than another set of privileges. Show me the empirical data. Show me the studies. Show me the evidence.

EDIT: and I should add, how many privileges and oppressions count toward my overall "score"? Can I dig something up in my past and then use that, kind of like a carbon tax credit but for privilege? How far back into the past can I dig, and what sort of paperwork is required?

"Sins of the father" is not a valid excuse. It's an ancient religious concept that has no place in modern Western society.

If you actually took some time to answer those questions, we could have much richer progress in the real world. But until you give people a "score" and the rules for scorekeeping, you aren't worth my time nor reply...

Except you are attempting to ascribe a moral weight to a concept that isn't about moral weight at all.

My very first post was explaining that this privilege is about perspective. It's not something to be tallied or counted up, regardless of whether some individuals do or not. No where did I denounce or state it was even a moral obligation to correct the privileged. I stated multiple times it simply is what it is in history.
The purpose of the discussion isn't to shame individuals, its to understand the sociological and historical reference. To not take the series of events which lead to the life they currently live for granted, nor to see things relative to themselves as being an example of the mean or average.

Again "white privilege" is all about understanding that our perspectives are tainted by who we are and that we, while individuals, carry the events which came before us into what we are today. We take for granted basic things such as writing and talking in English which were only made possible by a series of events of incredible historical significance before our birth. That's the point. This isn't about keeping score and it's not about whats a "bigger" advantage or privilege. Again this concept is exceptional in its scope and reach in history, NOT how fair it gets you on an individual basis.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Individualism is the answer to "systemic privilege" anyway. There is no bureauracy large enough, no host of clergymen and philosophers big enough, no government powerful enough to do away with every example of systemic privilege. When it comes to obvious ones like women's suffrage and civil rights, by all means let the government step in. But there is no end-game for "every privilege accounted for". You're searching the Library of Babel. You'll never find the answer.

So, what we have to do instead is make everyone an individual. Their infinitely-tangled mess of privileges and oppressions gets averaged out to just be... an individual. Now, that doesn't mean we stop balancing certain inequality-of-opportunity situations. Charity shouldn't be wielded like a club, but it shouldn't be discouraged either. I'm happy that my taxes go to paving roads, employing teachers, keeping those lights on, paying for people's meals, etc. But let it be distributed based on the need, not by the skincolor. Helping people out is wonderful but you cannot extract that help from people's flesh. Wars have been fought over this sort of treatment, historically.

Except you are attempting to ascribe a moral weight to a concept that isn't about moral weight at all.

My very first post was explaining that this privilege is about perspective. It's not something to be tallied or counted up, regardless of whether some individuals do or not. No where did I denounce or state it was even a moral obligation to correct the privileged. I stated multiple times it simply is what it is in history.
The purpose of the discussion isn't to shame individuals, its to understand the sociological and historical reference. To not take the series of events which lead to the life they currently live for granted, nor to see things relative to themselves as being an example of the mean or average.

Again "white privilege" is all about understanding that our perspectives are tainted by who we are and that we, while individuals, carry the events which came before us into what we are today. We take for granted basic things such as writing and talking in English which were only made possible by a series of events of incredible historical significance before our birth. That's the point. This isn't about keeping score and it's not about whats a "bigger" advantage or privilege. Again this concept is exceptional in its scope and reach in history, NOT how fair it gets you on an individual basis.

Where does the blurry line of "having some perspective" meet against the razor-sharp edge of "here's what will be asked of you"? I have no problem "understanding" it, but why are public figures demanding that I understand it? Why isn't this being left to the history books and academics? We're all free to learn whatever we want to learn.

And yet the discussion continually pops up. Why? It has become a sort of Gospel Message, a truth that you feel compelled to share with the world. No one is obligated to give a shit. If anyone thought it was just "about perspective" they would say "welp, it's just academic anyway. It's sad that people are ignorant but that's life".

But instead, you have a militant reaction any time someone says "nah, get outta here with your privilege rhetoric". Sometimes the timid scholars try to sneak back in and say "but guys... can't we just talk about this?" but once they're in, it's back to the militant defense of the doctrine.

Meanwhile, politicians and news outlets continue to beat people over the head with PRIVILEGE PRIVILEGE all day and night. Are they using it just in the academic sense? Are they just trying to make people aware? Are they "not shaming", as you claim?

"We didn't actually mean you were all racists, white people. We just wanted you to be aware and understand the sociological and historical context of your white skin".

Uh huh.

 

[TheMikado]

Besides ad hominems and repeating "white privilege is a very real thingamabob" do you have anything else of substance to bring forth? You repeating yourself is getting tiresome.



Again, your whataboutism about colonialism and imperialism is not what's being discussed here, but the notion of "white privilege" is.



Man, the way you're freaking out only lends to the impression that my arguments are hitting the nail on the head. If you'd calm down and actually read what I write instead of going off like a powder keg, you'd have seen that one argument refers to individualism, while the other refers to social inequalities. Both are obviously not the same.



I know very well what "white privilege" is, how it's defined, what it's supposed to mean and how it's actually used in everyday discussions. I certainly don't need you to throw links at me and lazily copy paste whole sections from Wikipedia. If you think you condescending and aggressive tone makes you look smart, you're sorely mistaken.



Lots of bullsh*t has been floating around in academic circles for decades (from theology to phrenology), that doesn't mean that they are correct. Like, that's not even an argument. "White privilege" is an unscientific notion that fails to accurately describe or quantify social inequalities. It's a mere qualitative approach that does little to help understand the real injustices in the world but merely creates racial strife for tribalistic reasons.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to play the racial blame game, no matter how much you want me to and I'm certainly not going to water down my vocabulary to accommodate your bullsh*t term. "White privilege" is not "colonial/imperial privilege" no matter how much you stomp your feet.

And by the way, I'm still waiting for you to quantify "white privilege" for me...



How many times do you need to tell me to "educate myself"? Like if that's the extend of your argumentative prowess, you've really not got very much to say. Feel free to ignore me if I'm not "worth your time", I don't really care.

Unfortunately your posts are really amounting to the equivalent of an infant babbling so I'll pass. I've given you enough information and I'll continue to engage with those who want to discuss.

 

[TheMikado]

Individualism is the answer to "systemic privilege" anyway. There is no bureauracy large enough, no host of clergymen and philosophers big enough, no government powerful enough to do away with every example of systemic privilege. When it comes to obvious ones like women's suffrage and civil rights, by all means let the government step in. But there is no end-game for "every privilege accounted for". You're searching the Library of Babel. You'll never find the answer.

So, what we have to do instead is make everyone an individual. Their infinitely-tangled mess of privileges and oppressions gets averaged out to just be... an individual. Now, that doesn't mean we stop balancing certain inequality-of-opportunity situations. Charity shouldn't be wielded like a club, but it shouldn't be discouraged either. I'm happy that my taxes go to paving roads, employing teachers, keeping those lights on, paying for people's meals, etc. But let it be distributed based on the need, not by the skincolor. Helping people out is wonderful but you cannot extract that help from people's flesh. Wars have quite literally been fought over this sort of treatment, historically.

And I agree with individualism as the goal on a micro level, but we also know pure individualism isn't a practical ideal for policy because it requires the removal of standards and that everything would need to be judged on the basis of itself and not comparable. This is a fallacy in my opinion. I agree, but again the discussion isn't so much on what is to be done more than it is about perspective and context. I'm not even advocating that any action needs to be done or that privilege of any kind is inherently wrong. At this point the debate is over its existence which is what the focus of all this back and forth has been. We can't even get past that part of discussion whether the thing we are discussing actually exists. Personally I have no interest in rectifying any general privilege occurring on a macro-level but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist..

 

[nani17]

So all those white people living on the streets are privileged? How about those homeless vets wow they must be so privileged. By saying white people are privileged means you don't acknowledge those who live on the streets or those that live in poverty(yes they do exist ) What about those in Flint without clean water? You think those white people living there would have had it sorted straight away right? Nah maybe it's because there are black people there.

How about all those dope addicted white people living in those "poverty" aren't they so privileged. This white privilege origins come from America because at the moment they are so divided.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

And I agree with individualism as the goal on a micro level, but we also know pure individualism isn't a practical ideal for policy because it requires the removal of standards and that everything would need to be judged on the basis of itself and not comparable. This is a fallacy in my opinion. I agree, but again the discussion isn't so much on what is to be done more than it is about perspective and context. I'm not even advocating that any action needs to be done or that privilege of any kind is inherently wrong. At this point the debate is over its existence which is what the focus of all this back and forth has been. We can't even get past that part of discussion whether the thing we are discussing actually exists. Personally I have no interest in rectifying any general privilege occurring on a macro-level but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist..

Allow me to make a crude comparison:

You have shit on your hands. You have shit on your keyboard. I do too. At a microscopic level, there's shit, urine, boogers, and much worse crawling over nearly every inch of our world. We act like it doesn't exist. We still shake hands. We still touch our doorknobs. We will kiss one another on the mouth. Germs everywhere.

Sorry for triggering any OCD friends in here, but that's reality.

Now what do I do about this reality?

Do I track down every germ, every last one, every single last one of those germy fuckers. Got a microscope and everything. That's...hardly a sane solution.

A more rational solution would be to get 99.9% of the germs instead. It gives me peace of mind and kills most of them. While there will still be germs, I can sleep soundly knowing that I got most of them.

Your mindset toward privilege needs to be the same. We could really drill down and count up all the various germs privileges in our lives, top to bottom, but there's really no sane way to do it and no sane way to judge it. And it's not going to happen fairly in this current political climate. So why the constant harping on privilege? It's just a fancy term for "guilty before proven innocent", because after all I can see your white skin and that's all the info I need to know that -- y'know, just on a soci-historical-economical level, of course -- you have it better than me and you owe me.

 

[TheMikado]

The European project is already a failure, how many financial crises, in how many countries now? It’s systemic because they have separated key economic controls from national entities.
So now countries cannot print their own money, cannot control interest etc.
The next step will be tax harmonization, which will again hurt peripheral for obvious reasons.... companies moving to more central nations with better infrastructure, access to markets now that tax benefits are of no consequence.
Net result.... another round of recession for various peripheral nations and bailouts, years of austerity.

Anyway addressing “white privilege”..... I think people have it backwards.
How I see it is: European whites are basically responsible for the vast majority of modern society.
They are responsible for nearly all great works of art, the renaissance, roads, acquaducts, cuisine, architecture, democracy, philosophy, astrology, music, the industrial revolution, the printing press, banking, religious institutions and the reformation, the automobile, the submarine, modern farming techniques, modern medicine, the legal system. Even the push for atheism and a secular society in the recent past... headed by four white men, two of them British.
I could go on and on.....

A list of just British inventions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_innovations_and_discoveries


Where would the world be without these things?
Should white people not be loved for sharing all of this with the world?
What if white people had been less merciful? With weapons far more advanced, they could have wiped out every non-white population in the world.

All societies and all races have benefited greatly from European whites and the breakthroughs they have made and therefore are privileged due to white peoples gracious nature.

I think this is a valid and acceptable point of view and portrays the facts relevant to the discussion... I’m interested to hear how some of you react.

The only thing I can disagree with is the idea that the intents were of a "gracious" nature as it was primarily about money.
There were multiple instances of genocide and multiple instances where expansions were failed and pushed back.

But by and large the European expansion brought with it many global benefits to society and enabled our modern society as we know.
It stands to reason that those who invested in this type of expansion and conquest should expect to enjoy returns on this for themselves and their kin.
Again, I don't ascribe a moral weight to the idea of privilege, it simply is a symptom of the historical events which unfolded.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

As an aside, T TheMikado sorry that it seems like it's everyone dog-piling. You must be typing ultra-fast! Even though we seem to disagree on some of these points while still agreeing on others, you've got a great perspective and an open mind. So thanks for sticking with the thread.

 

[bigedole]

As an aside, T TheMikado sorry that it seems like it's everyone dog-piling. You must be typing ultra-fast! Even though we seem to disagree on some of these points while still agreeing on others, you've got a great perspective and an open mind. So thanks for sticking with the thread.

I'd still like him to address one of strange headache 's main points: Please quantify white privilege.

 

[EviLore]

T TheMikado , it's obviously challenging to pinpoint what exactly is playing out in your brain when you construct your posts and arguments from way out here, but there seems to be some kind of pathology....??? Have you suffered any traumatic brain injuries, or have you been diagnosed with any form of cognitive impairment in the past?

I've been keeping an eye on things for a while here, and tried engaging with you on a mostly abstracted logic basis to control for some potentially tricky language and conceptual nuance, but that didn't have any apparent effect either. Very strange. You seem genuinely incapable of accurately representing literally any external position, in any context, and your own assertions shift materially from sentence to sentence without expressing cogent thoughts or having any discernible capacity to consistently reference or reiterate your own statements.

Are you on any controlled substances at the moment that could be interfering with your cognitive faculties?

 

[TheMikado]

Allow me to make a crude comparison:

You have shit on your hands. You have shit on your keyboard. I do too. At a microscopic level, there's shit, urine, boogers, and much worse crawling over nearly every inch of our world. We act like it doesn't exist. We still shake hands. We still touch our doorknobs. We will kiss one another on the mouth. Germs everywhere.

Sorry for triggering any OCD friends in here, but that's reality.

Now what do I do about this reality?

Do I track down every germ, every last one, every single last one of those germy fuckers. Got a microscope and everything. That's...hardly a sane solution.

A more rational solution would be to get 99.9% of the germs instead. It gives me peace of mind and kills most of them. While there will still be germs, I can sleep soundly knowing that I got most of them.

Your mindset toward privilege needs to be the same. We could really drill down and count up all the various germs privileges in our lives, top to bottom, but there's really no sane way to do it and no sane way to judge it. And it's not going to happen fairly in this current political climate. So why the constant harping on privilege? It's just a fancy term for "guilty before proven innocent", because after all I can see your white skin and that's all the info I need to know that -- y'know, just on a soci-historical-economical level, of course -- you have it better than me and you owe me.

I think this is a good analogy that I can work with.
Let's say, taking you example, you clean a keyboard for someone who says they are highly sensitive to germs because a couple of specific ones affect them more than others. You do your do diligence and get 99% of the germs like you said.

The person comes back and says this solution doesn't work because it didn't address the specific the germs that affect them personally.
Instead of emphasizing with that person, your response it to prove that you got 99% of germs and that because those specific germs don't affect yourself its clean enough and that they need to look at the 99% of gems that don't or won't effect them rather than focusing on only the couple that may have a larger impact on them personally.
Even worse, after you fail to convince this person, the next step is to tell them that their affliction doesn't actual exist at all and they they are imagining things.

That's the idea behind this and why I used the analogy I used. That doesn't exclude the possibility that some aspects can be imagined or exaggerated, but this is again said from a perspective where you are not at as great a risk to a specific type of germ and thus it's relevance is lessened for you personally.

This is why I don't ascribe a moral weight to this concept, because in the analogy as with white privilege you can't expect people to bend over backwards to remove every single disadvantage individually, but this also doesn't mean that they don't exist. People can by and large only do so much, and people, by and large are going to have sensitivity to the things which impact them. Both views are valid views up until the point where we start denying these views exist and that mechanics behind how these views developed.

 

[TheMikado]

As an aside, T TheMikado sorry that it seems like it's everyone dog-piling. You must be typing ultra-fast! Even though we seem to disagree on some of these points while still agreeing on others, you've got a great perspective and an open mind. So thanks for sticking with the thread.

Thanks, I appreciate it, as an aside. I didn't believe in white privilege initially but again the understanding of perspective. Was what become the most important aspect.

 

[TheMikado]

I'd still like him to address one of strange headache 's main points: Please quantify white privilege.

I did already, there's a long post about it. There's even a wiki about it.

 

[TheMikado]

T TheMikado , it's obviously challenging to pinpoint what exactly is playing out in your brain when you construct your posts and arguments from way out here, but there seems to be some kind of pathology....??? Have you suffered any traumatic brain injuries, or have you been diagnosed with any form of cognitive impairment in the past?

I've been keeping an eye on things for a while here, and tried engaging with you on a mostly abstracted logic basis to control for some potentially tricky language and conceptual nuance, but that didn't have any apparent effect either. Very strange. You seem genuinely incapable of accurately representing literally any external position, in any context, and your own assertions shift materially from sentence to sentence without expressing cogent thoughts or having any discernible capacity to consistently reference or reiterate your own statements.

Are you on any controlled substances at the moment that could be interfering with your cognitive faculties?

Eh you know what, I see this is how you treat your customers with veiled insults from a supposed neutral admin so you get no more of my ad business. I'm deleting my account and I wouldn't be surprised if you hid this post. I choose to vote with my wallet, or rather YOUR wallet. Maybe if you could do you job and keep the site functioning without garbage pop-up ads or other site crashes you could retain members.

Anyway, deleting this account isn't about anything beyond refusing to give you a single cent anymore.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I think this is a good analogy that I can work with.
Let's say, taking you example, you clean a keyboard for someone who says they are highly sensitive to germs because a couple of specific ones affect them more than others. You do your do diligence and get 99% of the germs like you said.

The person comes back and says this solution doesn't work because it didn't address the specific the germs that affect them personally.
Instead of emphasizing with that person, your response it to prove that you got 99% of germs and that because those specific germs don't affect yourself its clean enough and that they need to look at the 99% of gems that don't or won't effect them rather than focusing on only the couple that may have a larger impact on them personally.
Even worse, after you fail to convince this person, the next step is to tell them that their affliction doesn't actual exist at all and they they are imagining things.

That's the idea behind this and why I used the analogy I used. That doesn't exclude the possibility that some aspects can be imagined or exaggerated, but this is again said from a perspective where you are not at as great a risk to a specific type of germ and thus it's relevance is lessened for you personally.

This is why I don't ascribe a moral weight to this concept, because in the analogy as with white privilege you can't expect people to bend over backwards to remove every single disadvantage individually, but this also doesn't mean that they don't exist. People can by and large only do so much, and people, by and large are going to have sensitivity to the things which impact them. Both views are valid views up until the point where we start denying these views exist and that mechanics behind how these views developed.

To the bolded: the way I'd phrase it is not "tell them their affliction doesn't exist". It's not "cover everything" or "pretend it doesn't exist". The third option is to accept there will be day-by-day, year-by-year injustices and imbalances, but that after a certain point you're wasting more time tallying than actually setting things right.

I can accept that a specific privilege exists without believing that it should be re-balanced by society itself, if that's what you're getting at. Actually, I still believe it's sensible to get rid of the really obvious imbalances in privilege (right to vote, for instance) but also that we must accept our own limitations in trying to eliminate every last tiny bit in the name of "equality".

 

[bigedole]

I did already, there's a long post about it. There's even a wiki about it.

I disagree that either you or Wikipedia have quantitatively described white privilege. Please highlight the specific passages you believe have accomplished that.

 

[TheMikado]

Eh you know what, I see this is how you treat your customers with veiled insults from a supposed neutral admin so you get no more of my ad business. I'm deleting my account and I wouldn't be surprised if you hid this post. I choose to vote with my wallet, or rather YOUR wallet. Maybe if you could do you job and keep the site functioning without garbage pop-up ads or other site crashes you could retain members.

Anyway, deleting this account isn't about anything beyond refusing to give you a single cent anymore.

There does not seem to be a method to delete accounts on this forum, I'm not interested in a ban because I'm going to leave of my own accord.

 

[TheMikado]

To the bolded: the way I'd phrase it is not "tell them their affliction doesn't exist". It's not "cover everything" or "pretend it doesn't exist". The third option is to accept there will be day-by-day, year-by-year injustices and imbalances, but that after a certain point you're wasting more time tallying than actually setting things right.

I can accept that a specific privilege exists without believing that it should be re-balanced by society itself, if that's what you're getting at. Actually, I still believe it's sensible to get rid of the really obvious imbalances in privilege (right to vote, for instance) but also that we must accept our own limitations in trying to eliminate every last tiny bit in the name of "equality".

And that's what I agree on, this thread has been arguing on whether these imbalances exist at all. I'm not advocating we do anything about it other than acknowledge their existence.

 

[TheMikado]

I disagree that either you or Wikipedia have quantitatively described white privilege. Please highlight the specific passages you believe have accomplished that.

Sorry this will be my final post:

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is the societal privilege that benefits people whom society identifies as white in some countries, beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances. Academic perspectives such as critical race theory and whiteness studies use the concept to analyze how racism and racialized societies affect the lives of white or white-skinned people.

According to Peggy McIntosh, whites in Western societies enjoy advantages that non-whites do not experience, as "an invisible package of unearned assets".[1] White privilege denotes both obvious and less obvious passive advantages that white people may not recognize they have, which distinguishes it from overt bias or prejudice. These include cultural affirmations of one's own worth; presumed greater social status; and freedom to move, buy, work, play, and speak freely. The effects can be seen in professional, educational, and personal contexts. The concept of white privilege also implies the right to assume the universality of one's own experiences, marking others as different or exceptional while perceiving oneself as normal.[2][3]

 

[bigedole]

Sorry this will be my final post:

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is the societal privilege that benefits people whom society identifies as white in some countries, beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances. Academic perspectives such as critical race theory and whiteness studies use the concept to analyze how racism and racialized societies affect the lives of white or white-skinned people.

According to Peggy McIntosh, whites in Western societies enjoy advantages that non-whites do not experience, as "an invisible package of unearned assets".[1] White privilege denotes both obvious and less obvious passive advantages that white people may not recognize they have, which distinguishes it from overt bias or prejudice. These include cultural affirmations of one's own worth; presumed greater social status; and freedom to move, buy, work, play, and speak freely. The effects can be seen in professional, educational, and personal contexts. The concept of white privilege also implies the right to assume the universality of one's own experiences, marking others as different or exceptional while perceiving oneself as normal.[2][3]

I know you said that was your last post but you have to understand that literally nothing you wrote is a quantitative description, right? It's literally all feelings. At any rate, happy internet trails.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Segregated breadlines + Inequal distribution of welfare based on genetics + economic downturn = riotous rise of fascism and civil unrest.

Why do we forget the 20th century? It was just a few years ago.

 

[strange headache]

Unfortunately your posts are really amounting to the equivalent of an infant babbling so I'll pass. I've given you enough information and I'll continue to engage with those who want to discuss.

This isn't the first time I've had to endure your incredibly aggressive and condescending tone. I don't mind, but the only one who's quite obviously not interested in a discussion is the one throwing around personal insults whenever his arguments are challenged. Also, lazily throwing out links and copy pasting walls of text are not what I'd consider engaging.

I did already, there's a long post about it. There's even a wiki about it.

Unfortunately, none of that manages to actually quantify "white privilege".

Eh you know what, I see this is how you treat your customers with veiled insults from a supposed neutral admin so you get no more of my ad business.

Veiled insults? You mean like you condescendingly and repeatedly telling other people to "educate themselves" and accusing them of "babbling like an infant"? Contrary to your comments, these weren't veiled insults but an accurate description of how every futile discussion with you is going down.

You quite obviously like to dish out knowledge but can't stand being challenged. Once you decide that somebody's wrong, doesn't matter what he writes, you'll either misrepresent him or bombard him with condescending remarks and hastily googled together text snippets.

Sorry this will be my final post: White privilege (or white skin privilege) is the societal privilege that benefits people whom society identifies as white in some countries...

And there we go again, more lazily copy pasted Wikipedia snippets as if that was somehow an argument. How is that definition any different from what I've said? Yet you keep accusing me of not understanding that notion. Lastly, "critical race theory" and "whiteness studies" are nothing but pseudo-academic snake-oil. No academic worth his salt should take that stuff seriously.

 

[Noboru Wataya]

T TheMikado , it's obviously challenging to pinpoint what exactly is playing out in your brain when you construct your posts and arguments from way out here, but there seems to be some kind of pathology....??? Have you suffered any traumatic brain injuries, or have you been diagnosed with any form of cognitive impairment in the past?

I've been keeping an eye on things for a while here, and tried engaging with you on a mostly abstracted logic basis to control for some potentially tricky language and conceptual nuance, but that didn't have any apparent effect either. Very strange. You seem genuinely incapable of accurately representing literally any external position, in any context, and your own assertions shift materially from sentence to sentence without expressing cogent thoughts or having any discernible capacity to consistently reference or reiterate your own statements.

Are you on any controlled substances at the moment that could be interfering with your cognitive faculties?

The fuck?

 

[Vicetrailia]

T TheMikado , it's obviously challenging to pinpoint what exactly is playing out in your brain when you construct your posts and arguments from way out here, but there seems to be some kind of pathology....??? Have you suffered any traumatic brain injuries, or have you been diagnosed with any form of cognitive impairment in the past?

I've been keeping an eye on things for a while here, and tried engaging with you on a mostly abstracted logic basis to control for some potentially tricky language and conceptual nuance, but that didn't have any apparent effect either. Very strange. You seem genuinely incapable of accurately representing literally any external position, in any context, and your own assertions shift materially from sentence to sentence without expressing cogent thoughts or having any discernible capacity to consistently reference or reiterate your own statements.

Are you on any controlled substances at the moment that could be interfering with your cognitive faculties?

Ok mate, tell me that you didn't post this with a straight face. You come out wrong, and for all of the wrong reasons in this post. This is now how you should treat customers, and you should be asking better questions than this.

 

[Papa]

T TheMikado

You are losing this very badly. Appeals to nonsense concepts dreamed up by illegitimate academics does nothing to help your case; it only shows that you’re one of many who have fallen for the seductive rhetoric of a modern day cult. Dismissing S StRaNgE thoughtful and well-presented arguments by calling them “infantile babbling” and bombarding him with Wikipedia links to the aforementioned nonsense concepts demonstrates that you’re not here to discuss with an open mind, only to preach.

I don’t have the time or mental energy to get caught up in your logic finger trap, so spend your time on replying to this wisely. I just wanted to point out how poorly your arguments are coming across. If you change your mind and decide to try to find some kind of middle ground, know this: it will only be found by looking at the same concept from a different perspective, namely that your current argument is focused on dragging people down when it should instead be focused on lifting people up. The core of the issue may well be the same, but you’re hitting a brick wall in its diagnosis and any subsequent treatments you may propose will similarly be tainted.

Edit: was further up the page and didn’t realise there was a bit of a dogpile going on.

 

[mr2xxx]

T TheMikado Great job here defending your point. Even had EviLore resort to personal attacks. No wonder people left in droves.

 

[Papa]

Ok mate, tell me that you didn't post this with a straight face. You come out wrong, and for all of the wrong reasons in this post. This is now how you should treat customers, and you should be asking better questions than this.

Personally, I prefer a bit of personality in the moderators so long as they’re not pushing political ideology. Mikado has been posting nonsense for several pages now and wasting his time and a lot of others’ too. EviLore was giving him an excuse; a way out; a golden bridge to retreat across.

 

[TheMikado]

Personally, I prefer a bit of personality in the moderators so long as they’re not pushing political ideology. Mikado has been posting nonsense for several pages now and wasting his time and a lot of others’ too. EviLore was giving him an excuse; a way out; a golden bridge to retreat across.

JordanN spent half the thread discussing Eugenics and not word about that. Swooping in to comment on my posts not once but twice while failing to do their job as an administrator and keep the thread on track seems like a waste of everyone’s time.

I also couldn’t leave without saying this, but Sorry to all those I’m leaving, but I don’t care if my patronage only amounts to a penny. EvilLore will be a penny poorer as far as I’m concerned.

 

[Papa]

JordanN spent half the thread discussing Eugenics and not word about that. Swooping in to comment on my posts not once but twice while failing to do their job as an administrator and keep the thread on track seems like a waste of everyone’s time.

I also couldn’t leave without saying this, but Sorry to all those I’m leaving, but I don’t care if my patronage only amounts to a penny. EvilLore will be a penny poorer as far as I’m concerned.

I would rather discuss Jordan’s wrongthink with him than outright dismiss it. All that does is force him out of the daylight where his opinions can fester without our peer review. He has clearly spent a lot of time on the diagnosis end of the race IQ conundrum and very little on the treatment end. However, he has shown that he is open to modifying his views when presented with new information like what iBuzzati showed him. I haven’t seen the same from you.

That is incredibly petty and I hope you reconsider once you calm down.

 

[EviLore]

100% serious, not a personal attack or a troll and the debate itself is totally irrelevant to me. Pretty curious about the source of the issue here. Doesn't fit neatly into any of the (whole bunch of) behavioral archetypes I'm accustomed to with forum posting.

Edit: at any rate, looks like asking into it ended up directly triggering, which wasn't my intention but helps clarify some of the underlying issues. If there's some e.g. BPD involved, my bad for inquiring bluntly like that. Wasn't looking to generate any drama or negativity, just getting clarification if possible before taking action. Best wishes and thanks for contributing to the discussions here. T TheMikado

 

[SatansReverence]

T TheMikado Great job here defending your point. Even had EviLore resort to personal attacks. No wonder people left in droves.

Pointing out the scatterbrain nature of T TheMikado posts is "personal attacks" in 2018...

Having argued with this user on numerous occasions, the condescending and insulting tone they take has well and truly been noted. As is the fact that the topic at hand is rarely directly argued against instead parallel or tangent arguments are brought fourth and used as a cudgel in an attempt to win the original discussion while doing nothing to comment on the core issue.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

Pointing out the scatterbrain nature of T TheMikado posts is "personal attacks" in 2018...

Eh, there's a difference between "pointing out the scatterbrain nature" and accusing him of mental instability, being mentally challenged/impaired, having "traumatic brain injuries", or being on drugs.

 

[JordanN]

I can't remember any post I said where I argued for eugenics?
Was it when I said I didn't want murderers to breed? If someone is given the death penalty or locked away for life for committing murder, is that also Eugenics since you can't reproduce in jail (or when you're dead)?

Or was it when I said women and men have different anatomy? Is that also eugenics? If so, TheMikado never cared about reading people's posts and is bad at holding a debate.
Way too many times, users like TheMikado think everything they write is correct and everyone else is wrong. They also resort to making up phony labels (Eugenics?) and repeat it non-stop thinking they're right and it's everyone else who is too dumb or can't understand them.

 

[ar0s]

Couldn't even get passed the first paragraph before the screeches of "alt-right" "misogynist" and "racist" came out.

I.e how to make people know your article isn't worth reading because your counter points, if you even have any, are going to be garbage.

Plus listing Brexit as an example of white people ruining things rather than positive manifestation of the nation-state and the largest democratic mandate in British History to break free of the anti-worker corporatist European Union and make our own way in the world. Even without all the cat-whistle words to enrage the auth-left simply having Brexit in a list of bad things when it has not happened yet and any positive or negative outcome will be over the long term gives you all you need to know about that particular article.

 

[Dontero]

It was a failed idea to begin with when the guy before her decided to put something that complex to a yes or no vote.

It always astounds me when people turn on democracy when vote goes wrong way. UK was either way leaving EU because public didn't like EU and that dislike was growing year by year past 20 years. That year when Brexit vote happened was tipping point of no return. Either UK gov had "YES" and could for next 20 years say to public "well there was vote mates and we are staying" or just in case of "NO" tackle problem head on like in this case because now majority of people want to get out of EU for various reasons.

Problem here wasn't Brexit vote. Problem here was that for past 20 years people turned on EU. While you can argue that some parts of campaign for Brexit were "fake" you cannot deny that past 20 years people suddenly decided to leave EU based on some small UKIP party propaganda.

What sink UK for EU was that everyone and their dog in eastern europe learned english and when UK opened its doors they didn't expect flood of people who will change their society. Regardless of outcome that change people were not fine with it and put stop to it.

Mistake was opening doors as one of the first for eastern Europe unlike Germany which waited nearly 8 years before you could work there being from E.Europe without any additional papers other than your ID of member state.

And before someone goes "this is bullshit", i know it personally because i worked for a time in UK, i live in part of Poland (e.Europe) where shitload of people don't live anymore and i know exactly how for example polish small building sector wiped out brits small building sector.

And as a Pole i am not surprised by outcome of brexit. In their place i would do exactly the same.

And brexit frankly speaking is one of the long chain of fuckups by "elites" who don't live normal common lives and don't know how is like to live in city where 50% of your neighbours are now talking polish and your nearest winniers packaging factory which used to hire all brits has now 90% poles in it and outcome is that there will be about 97% because only boss will stay brit.

You can also say "well people should be racist/xenoiphobic" to which i say, they aren't. There is slight different between going somewhere meeting with people from other nations and calling them XYZ than watching same people "invade" your home and change everything about your life and you are supposed to "enjoy" it or you are racist. Life doesn't work like that. Human psyche doesn't work like that. People want to be around people they know what they can expect of, with shared history, shared talking subject etc. This is the same way i wouldn't want to have 50% brits in my town regardless if they are nicest people ever.