Here are some. Note that I do not necessarily believe these ideas, just that they are considered taboo to the point that they cannot be tolerated or seriously discussed in certain circles.
* The USA is a moral country.
* The USA is morally superior to most/all other countries.
* A specific member of an in-power "preferred" group can experience unjustified prejudice, oppression, and bullying from members of an out-of-power group.
* Men and women have some neurological differences.
* Some cultures are morally superior to other cultures.
* Christianity's values are moral.
* Conforming gender identities exist for more reasons than culturally enforced gender roles.
There are just tenants of liberal vs conservative philosophy. If you hang out with a certain group of people, half of those things will be unspeakably taboo. If you hang out with the Young Republicans, the other half will be just as unthinkable. That's just culture and world view, not censorship.
If someone says something unpopular on hackernews, ie "Edward Snowden is a traitor" they will be downvoted into oblivion. You could say that hackernewws censored the person's ideas, but I think the reality is that what they said wasn't very popular with the people they said it to. I think this effect is just as relevant and predictable with online communities as it is with college campuses.
>I think this effect is just as relevant and predictable with online communities as it is with college campuses.
Nope. Totally different. In your example, the poster on HackerNews would only get down-voted and thus, censored. Okay. No big deal.
What's happening at the universities right now is different. It is not censership. At these, universities, a person who says, "Edward Snowden is a traitor" would get fired, because students would force the administrators to fired the person they disagree with, because it's "offensive" to call Edward Snowden a traitor.
So totally different. On HackerNews, it's just a down-vote, a simple censorship. At the universities, the person loses his job/education/livelihood, all because he has a different opinion about Edward Snowden. That's not censorship. That's "ruinning-people's-lives-for-having-a-different-opinion" but trying to pass it off as just a simple censorship.
I just wanted to respond to this because (like a lot of these ideas) I think they represent a response to a strawman. The core point of the discussion of privilege acknowledges that all people have privileges. The question then is defining what they are and how useful they are.
When talking about white privilege, the point is that poor whites are better off than poor blacks, just by virtue of being white. The interesting thing here is that there are privileges only afforded to poor blacks. The problem is that the privileges afforded to poor whites are more useful than those afforded to poor blacks.
> When talking about white privilege, the point is that poor whites are better off than poor blacks, just by virtue of being white.
Its not clear to me that that that's true; there is complicated intersectionality at play. Poor whites are more likely to have social networks and other advantages that provide things useful to getting out of poverty, and may -- due to racism and the racially unequal distribution of wealth and power -- have better responses from people in power independent of their own social networks.
OTOH, they may also be more likely to have social networks that are less understanding of an accepting of poverty.
Whether this is a net advantage or net disadvantage varies, among poor whites, considerably from individual to individual.
Group privilege exists mostly in terms of average conditions across groups (and may not thus be particularly useful in discussing the positions of individuals.)
Taking White privilege as a given (which I think does accurately reflect reality, in terms of on-average advantage), I'm not sure that poor White privilege (compared to, poor non-White ) is valid; its certainly not a necessary corollary of White privilege.
Because (at least in part) they commit crime at far higher rates per capita. Black men commit about half of all murders in the USA, despite being about 13% of the population. The statistics are similar for many other crimes. 39% of people arrested for murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault were black from 2011-2013 per FBI statistics [1] [3].
In 2010, 62,593 blacks were victims of white violence, while 320,082 whites were victims of black violence. (Bureau of Justice Statistics). 2013 FBI homicide numbers show a similar ratio, with blacks being about 12 times more likely to kill a white person than whites were to kill a black person [2] (~10 blacks per 100k population kill a white, while ~1 white per 100k kill a black).
Some studies have shown that crime is correlated primarily with poverty, while other studies have found that being black correlates to criminality while controlling for other factors [4]:
"As a means to assess these possibilities, I estimate separate regression
equations for the black and white block groups in Atlanta. [...] Consistent with previous research, percent black retains a strong, significant effect on violent crime net of the effects of other controls. [...]" "[...] Although this finding appears to provide partial
support for the racial invariance assumption, the fact remains that for a large proportion of the black neighborhoods, the effect of disadvantage on violence is weaker than is the effect evident among all of the white neighborhoods in the analysis" (However this paper is largely inconclusive on the issue overall, and predominately suggests that previous research into the topic is inadequate to understand it)
Why this is the case is an interesting problem that I hope we can tackle, better understand, and attempt to solve as a society (by solve I mean bring violent crime down to zero generally, across all groups)
It's important to note the distinction between "blacks commit 50% of the murders in the US" and "50% of the murder convictions in the US are black people." It's well-documented that 40 years ago a white person could openly kill a black person and they would not be convicted. I've read a lot of studies, reviews of court cases, and court judgements about the subject, and it is clear that prosecutors are far less likely to charge a white person with a crime than a black person.
Prosecution figures are simply unreliable as a metric for judging how many crimes are committed by whites vs. blacks. There are many interesting cases that show this. The most interesting one is McCleskey v. Kemp. It's not my favorite in terms of the specifics of the case, but it is my favorite because in the intervening years it has become pretty clearly a bad ruling, to the point that the justice who wrote the majority opinion wishes he could reverse his own vote. The unfortunate thing being that he cannot, and his vote has made it effectively impossible to detect and address racial bias in prosecution.
Other data support these ratios. For example, in surveys of crime victims such as the National Crime Victimization Survey, the race reported by victims of their attacker reflects the proportion of conviction rates:
"The UCR and NVCS show similar trends regarding the races of offenders. Generally, the number of minorities identified as offenders is disproportionately high compared to their overall numbers in the population. As Ronald J Berger et al. advise the NCVS, 'Data are consistent with the UCR. The offenders in these types of crimes are disproportionately young, nonwhite, and male.'" (NVCS page 312, can be found by Google search-inside-the-book)
I would be interested to research the topic further. Could you provide more information about the studies you mentioned? I have not previously seen convincing evidence that bias in the justice system is responsible for the racial disparity in these crime statistics. From what I understand, a lot of the murders are black-on-black violence, as well. In 2013, 90% of blacks were murdered by blacks. A majority of people are killed by one of their own race in general (though black-on-white violence is much higher than white-on-black). People are typically murdered by someone who knew them intimately.
[Updated per correction]
Blacks killed by blacks: 90% [1]
Blacks killed by whites: 8%
Whites killed by whites: 82%
Whites killed by blacks: 15%
In what way are these murder statistics going wrong? White people are committing murder and getting away with it? Whites are committing murder, but it's falsely attributed to blacks? There are single examples of all sorts of crazy things happening in individual cases, but I haven't seen evidence or argument supporting that this happens systematically to a degree anywhere near enough to explain the discrepancy. Murder is a very serious thing, and it's hard for me to believe that prosecution bias is responsible for statistics saying that blacks commit ~4-5x as much crime as whites, and 10x as much murder as whites.
I find it plausible that there are effects along the lines of what you're saying, but I find it hard to believe that it would result in a murder per capita discrepancy of 10:1. It seems more plausible that that kind of bias would result in a discrepancy of much smaller proportions, especially for murder. I would be glad to review whatever evidence is available.
Those statistics are just false. More reliable numbers are:
Blacks killed by blacks: 90%
Blacks killed by whites: 8%
Whites killed by whites: 82%
Whites killed by blacks: 15%
Ratio of whites killed by police to blacks killed by police: 1.857
You're right, that table was inaccurate. I've corrected it to use your numbers. That's more consistent with the other data I was reviewing, which suggested that most homicide was intra-racial rather than inter-racial.
"For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." (Thomas Jefferson)
Read "The New Jim Crow" by Michelle Alexander. I'd suggest starting with chapter 2 since the introduction as well as the first chapter are more of a manifesto, the data which thoroughly demonstrate the point are in chapters 2-5.
One particularly damning statistic: black people pulled over and searched for drugs are significantly less likely to have drugs than white people.
The UCR aren't independent data that confirm conviction-based statistics, they are based on law-enforcement reporting, and share the same biases as prosecutions do.
Policing perpetuates poverty and thus crime by forcing poor, black men to deal with the criminal justice system from an early age. Court fees, court appearances, civil asset forfeiture, jail time, and property damage from police searches are all burdens that poor, black, law-abiding people bear, not to mention wrongful conviction.
Edit: missed this line in your comment before:
> Why this is the case is an interesting problem that I hope we can tackle, better understand, and attempt to solve as a society
This is what Black Lives Matter is about. They understand the problem (often by living through it) and are focused on tackling it. Because they don't focus too much on helping other people to understand the problem, this might not be clear to you.
Edit: I was about to respond to your reply, but it looks like you deleted it.
> too many topics seem taboo to reason about objectively
I think the disagreement is about where this reasoning can/should happen. From the perspective of the BLM movement, it is not their job to educate people about race. I think this reasoning has already happened at an academic level and has concluded that (to summarize very broadly) white people have a whole lot of privilege.
[2] Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness
[3] Alice Goffman, On the Run (this is an ethnography, so you may need to have an understanding of ethnographic methods to accept the evidence here as "data")
Poor whites and poor blacks are both subject to mass incarceration; though poor blacks are incarcerated at even higher rates. This is clearly among the factors that, on average, favors poor whites over poor blacks. I certainly did not deny the existence of such factors (I even enumerated some of them.)
An aggregate advantage maybe, however the individual who decides to not put themselves in the position to be incarcerated is confused why you are calling them privileged.
Avoiding committing crime and avoiding being incarcerated for crime are not the same thing.
(The first may help in the second, but just as committing a crime is neither necessary nor sufficient to assure incarceration for it, avoiding committing a crime is neither necessary nor sufficient to avoid incarceration for it. It is frequently argued that it is both more necessary and less sufficient for blacks to avoid crime in order to avoid incarceration as compared to whites, for instance.)
Its hard to be incarcerated for murder without someone actualy being murdered. Therefore the most effective way to avoid incarceration for murder is to stop murdering. People are not being wrongly incarcerated (wholesale) for violent crimes that dont exist, not being violent is sufficient to avoid incarceration for such crimes.
> Its hard to be incarcerated for murder without someone actualy being murdered.
No, its hard (but not impossible) to be incarcerated for murder without someone being dead. In a system in which law enforcement, the judiciary, and/or the population from which juries are drawn are biased against people like you -- whether for race or other reasons -- it can be quite easy to be incarcerated (or worse!) for murder without having killed the person who is dead, much less having murdered them (which is legally more specific than merely having killed them.)
> People are not being wrongly incarcerated (wholesale) for violent crimes that dont exist, not being violent is sufficient to avoid incarceration for such crimes.
No, even if the premise was true (that people are not wrongly incarcerated for violent crimes that do not exist), it doesn't justify the conclusion: not being violent would not be sufficient to avoid incarceration based on that premise, you'd have to stop everyone else from being violent, too, since only the existence of the crime, not you actually being the one who committed it, is posited as necessary for the punishment to occur.
>People are not being wrongly incarcerated (wholesale) for violent crimes that dont exist, not being violent is sufficient to avoid incarceration for such crimes.
That's absurd. You're completely ignoring the face that the FBI invented completely bogus disciplines of forensic science (hair analysis, bite marks) and self-certified experts in those disciplines who then went forth and helped convict scores of people for two decades.
Of all murder cases in a period of time what % of cases are effected by these issues with these types of forensic science (you arent suggesting all forensic science is bunk are you?), I never said the justice system is infallible, however are you suggesting that the majority people who are convicted of murder are innocent?
So its a subjective claim then not something that can be looked quantitatively? There are around 13,000 murders per year in the US, how many of these murders per year result in the wrong person being convicted? I would be surprised if its greater than 4%
I'm certain that poor whites are better off than poor blacks, but both are much worse off in most respects than wealthier people of all races. The problem is that poor and lower middle class people of all races are fighting among themselves for scraps.
Yes poor whites are privileged compared to poor blacks, and poor blacks are privileged compared to poor indians living on a reservation. There is almost always someone worse off than you, arguing about who is the most worse off is the wrong fight.
The groups that we divide people into are fairly arbitrary anyway. Why stop at race? Surely you can subdivide any race into smaller groups where some are more privileged than others.
But to most people taking about privilege (especially college students) this issue is purely binary. If you are white you're privileged, if you're black you're not. To them it doesn't matter if you're comparing a middle class black guy and a dirt poor white dude.
> I had an ex co-worker who confided in me that he doesn't like gay people. I was very happy that he couldn't say that in public.
He can still talk about it when he's around other like-minded people though. By not being able to say it in public, isn't he basically ensuring that he'll never have a conversation with someone with a dissenting opinion and never be forced to think through it? These things just reinforce his attitude probably.
Does HN really think telling a person that you don't like them because of orientation/gender/race/religion doesn't contribute to a hostile work environment? That's kind of disturbing.
yeah, but if he felt free to say publicly that he didn't like them because they're homosexual, then he might feel free to harass them, as has been the custom.
There's a difference between discussing much a person hates a group of people and discussing why people hate people; There's a difference between discussing why racist halloween costumes are offensive (and perpetuate subconscious hate) and discussing whether or not hate speech has a place on college campuses.
The line I quoted says "doesn't like" not "hate" but by equating the two and then banning "hate speech" you are succeeding in your goal of shutting down ideas and discussion.
Distilling one's "like" of a person down to their sexual preference [or skin color/religion/take on abortion/etc.] isn't exactly the best way to promote ideas and discussion, either. I am not sure if someone saying "I don't like gay people" is the best person to defend in the debate of "what is free speech?", which is what it seems like you are trying to sarcastically do here.
Note, this coworker in question didn't say "I don't think gay marriage should be an institution of the state" or some other impersonal statement that can actually be evaluated through logic. There is a distinct difference between those two types of statements. Do you think it's reasonable to defend people who say "I don't like gay people."?
He has the right to no like gay people. Just like you have to right to not like [insert whatever it is that you don't like]
As long as he don't act out on it, and go around killing gay people or something.
Just like you have the right to not like George Bush, or football jocks, or goths, or whatever. Nothing wrong with that. As long as you don't try to assassinate George Bush, you have the right to not like him.
I mean, sure, not liking gays make him a homophobic, but as long as he don't continuously go around calling all gays "Faggot" to their faces, harassing them, threatening them, etc.
It's just as reasonable as defending someone who says "I don't like pumpkin pie", "I don't like racists" or "I don't like project managers". Nobody's obligated to like anyone or anything else, and you're not a bad person for not doing so.
"I had an ex co-worker who confided in me that he doesn't like gay people. I was very happy that he couldn't say that in public."
Let's unpack this.
Are you happy that homophobia is now socially inappropriate? Or are you happy that it is verboten to reveal or express a homophobic opinion?
There is an important distinction to be drawn here. That homophobia is becoming socially backward and marginal is a wonderful thing. That nobody can say something homophobic is not. The way free speech works is, at its most basic: you're allowed to express yourself publicly. The public will then determine how it deals with you. If you say "I don't like gay people" to your co-workers, and your co-workers ostracize you, and/or you are fired for creating a hostile work environment, then you reaped the just results of your decision to speak up. But you should have the freedom to speak up, nevertheless. The choice should be yours.
We should also note that prior restraint and group-self-censorship aren't going to change your co-worker's opinions. Whether or not he's too scared to speak his mind, his mind is made up. Deprive him of the chance to engage in any sort of dialogue about his beliefs, and he'll never get the chance to have them challenged, and they'll remain deeply held.
Edit: I'm looking for specific examples. Otherwise we are just feigning outrage.
I had an ex co-worker who confided in me that he doesn't like gay people. I was very happy that he couldn't say that in public.