AWKWARD ZOMBIE

"Privilege" doesn't really excuse anything. There are white people in poverty, white criminals, and generous white people. Even thinking that all white people are privileged is racist itself.

Being white IS privileged, it means getting less harsh punishments if you commit a crime, it means getting preferential treatment in stores and from cops, and just being considered more trusthworthy based entirerly on the color of your skin. This is not new information. Privilege doesnt have to mean being rich

So your argument for this is 'not all white people'? You need to take into consideration more the things that affect your everyday life and how they differ for people of color and especially black people. Harmful stereotypes, stop and search, racial profiling, the fact that black people are statistically more likely to live in poverty and not get a decent education, statistically more exposed to violence at the hands of both black and white people.

Stop trying to play oppression olympics here by saying "well WHITE PEOPLE don't have the best time of it either you know!" That's not the point and it diverts from the issues the the people in ferguson are focusing on. You want to fight poverty and homelessness, go join one of the many organizations devoted to doing so.

And is your argument "Well there's more black people with that problem so let's ignore everyone else with the same problem"?
Fact is, anyone can be racist against anyone. Pretending it doesn't exist for one skin color is a straight up lie.

For gods sake, its not that it doesnt exist, its that it isnt an INSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM. Sure black people can be racist, and thats a dick move. Still doesnt make white people an opressed group. You cant adress individual problems on a social scale, why is this so hard to get across to people? Its the same reason why male abuse victims dont get the same attention as female ones. Does it happen? Yes. Should it be treated seriously? Yes. But the statistics are so far FAR skewed to the other end of the scale that you CANNOT adress both issues in the same level.

The thing I think explains it best is that one is racism, the other is discrimination.
Anyone can be racist. Only people with power over others can discriminate.
Anyone in America can hate white people all they want, but it's not going to do any good because white people unfortunately have power over them. Racist white people can discriminate, meanwhile racist black people can really only hurl insults.

It's a wrongful assumption that there is no possible position where a black person has power over a white one. For example, a white person could just as well be assaulted by a gang of black racists.

It is true that the potential for institutional discrimination for white people is much greater in the western world though.

Discriminate just means observing and acting upon a difference, not even necessarily with people. Even in the negative context, that's all it is, just in a more specific scene. Unless it has just recently gained that specific definition in sociology, I'm not so sure your definition is right either.

Racism is just a specific kind of discrimination. Sexism is another. Refusing to hire someone with some form of special needs would be a different kind.

Anyone has the means to be racist, or to discriminate in other ways. It's just that only the ones in power get to have their actions be effective (usually).

Fair enough, but it's still true for the majority of the western world, not just the anglosphere.

Common sense tells me Finland has just as much of a problem with racism as any other Western country, especially if immigration is a recent phenomenon. Wow who would've guessed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Finland Maybe you should take a moment and reflect on your anti-American sentiment, and how violence is not an appropriate response to being asked to question your standing in society and how it might benefit you.

Also, white people being privileged doesn't mean they're somehow unaffected by poverty, disability, etc. - it's white privilege, i.e. how you are treated because you are perceived as white in a society where whiteness is the norm and connoted positively. It's not about how well you are off on the whole, it's how oppressed you are not because of how your race is perceived. It's important to recognize that this is not a biologist, essentialist concept, but rather regards "race" as a social construct - it's the belief that it is society that gives meaning to how you appear. Therefore, recognizing white people have white privilege in our current society is not racist, because it's not about how they are because of their "race", but how they are treated because of the social construct of race under which they are treated as white.

But that's theoretical stuff. In real life, opposition to oppression and resentment often go hand in hand, and can be hard to disentangle.

The main thing that gets me about this topic is how some people will look at "white privilege" and somehow think it excuses any acts done on white people out of racism. The idea is we stop all racism everywhere, not excuse some people from committing the acts because "i have it worse". It also makes blatant assumptions about those involved. White people on average may have priviliedge, but if all youre doing is using it as an excuse to shit on one guy, then the one guy clearly has less priviliedge than those in the position of power.

It goes back to the picture of the sewer worker being told to "stop oppressing" a group of women carrying channel hand bags. Its sarcastic for the sake of him or, but the point still stands.

As a proud leftist I'll just call you what you are: A privileged, racist [expletive]. I'd read some history if I were you, that's known to engender a feeling of responsibility in some. Crime in the countries you described used to be much higher when they were still more ethnically homogeneous (curious how you have no issue calling out others for not living where you live, yet no qualms judging the state of Germany - a country where I've actually lived), and calling the Romani immigrants after thousands of years is just as racist as calling European Jews foreigners after thousands of years there. Racist right-wingers obviously do just that, but that doesn't make it any less detestable to those who believe in a more universal humanity.

To those who regard his post as well written, note that he cited no statistics (look up the development of violent crime in Germany on nationmaster or something).

That was an amazing counter argument to Mete's well-written post. Having some nationalism is not being racist. All cultures should be preserved, and if immigrants are actively hostile to a nation's culture, they probably shouldn't be there.

Not to mention that using the word "equal" for a capitalist society (where freedom/agency is never distributed equally), and hardly much less (cis-/hetero-)sexist than other Western societies is either cynical or naive (the kind that comes with being privileged).

While I don't necessarily agree with Mete's views, can we all agree not to make personal attacks on forum members out of no where? The topic had been dead for nearly month. Not worth bringing back for the sake of accusing someone of being racist.