Defender, I can rebut this. And for what it's worth, thank you for coming at this from an angle I can grasp.

You have some decent points here, and let me start by saying that there is absolutely such a thing as class privilege, male privilege, etc. There is also, in some circles, female privilege as well, particularly in the legal system when it comes to custody of children (though we're working on this one). And in certain parts of the world, black privilege is probably a thing too.

Privilege refers to unearned advantages and benefits due to an unrelated characteristic. If you're a white person and you've never been stopped or harassed due to your skin colour in, say, an airport or at a Starbucks or something, then you're experiencing white privilege, because this happens to black people sometimes and it needn't. There are examples I could ascribe to class and gender as well. For instance, people in stores often give more unsolicited advice to women when they appear lost or uncertain vs. men, and you are more likely to be questioned by security if you're loitering in an area wearing "shabby" clothing instead of more middle or high-class apparel. This doesn't mean there aren't glaring exceptions to the rule. There absolutely are. What it means is that these things happen enough that they form part of society's lens by which they view difference.

The trick here, I think, is to recognize that white privilege is not an individual problem, it's a systemic one. I am not in the least angry with you because you've experienced white privilege. Hell, how could I be? I get it all the time! No...instead of being angry that others experience this phenomenon, I'd rather try and get at the root of why it's happening. Anyone who is using the existence of white privilege to fuel a hatred of white people in general does not represent what we're after. Anyone claiming all white people are innately evil and oppressive and awful is, again, missing the point. Some people do this, of course, but I daresay they do not represent the majority, and we actively try to repudiate such rhetoric.

The reason we don't call it "racial imbalance" is a simple one. Racial imbalance would be a term that neatly lets the dominant group (in this case, whites) off the hook. It means we don't have to confront the big bad elephant in the living room anymore, and can pull the "racial imbalance" card any time a person of colour acts in a way that is more harmful than helpful in the struggle for equality, because god knows it does happen. It makes the problems faced by whites, on a racial level, look fundamentally equal to the problems faced by virtually everyone else, and this is simply not accurate and not tenable. So we're calling it what it is. Privilege.

And we're working on it. We want no part of guilt, by the way. We want recognition, ownership and help above all else.
As I said to Ironcross, the first and most important step is to recognize that white privilege exists and is a systemic problem. This doesn't mean taking on a burden of responsibility for awful acts committed by other white people. It doesn't mean thinking you're slime because of the colour of your skin. No one interested in equality actually wants that, not for a single second, so please don't let anyone tell you any different. What we're after is an acceptance that if you belong to certain groups, you've enjoyed some advantages others have not, and with this recognition, we hope that you will use the power you have accrued for good. Listen to those whose experiences don't match your own. Ask them if you can help somehow, and listen to their responses. Validate them insofar as it makes sense to do so. Own the privilege, and be a part of the movement which makes it go away. Because that's ultimately what we're seeking: a system where people truly are equal, where gender and race and all those things are no longer social determinants of success, respect or potential. It's going to take time, and the first and biggest step is the acceptance and abolition of white privilege.

Oh, expressing darkness against you, I have a lot of that.

so, you are, putting it simple that everyone is responsible for calamitys happening to them due to events they had done in an earlier incarnation.
So, a very good friend who died in cancer in 2011 died just because he had done something terible in an earlier life.

Dude, be happy you are not in 10 meters around me otherwise I would gladdly shove up a baseball bat up your rectom so hard that you look like a ryno with a horn coming out of your fucking mouth.
Seriously, I feel nothing more than absolute hate against people who proclaim such stupidity.
I really hope that an earlier incarnation of you or anyone else finds a way to come here and kick your ass!

Greetings Moritz.

Moderation:

Simba, please consider this an official warning. We don't take kindly to the sort of violent threats you're voicing here. Regardless of your feelings toward Bashue and his ideology, that sort of outburst is flat-out not acceptable. It constitutes threat of physical harm against another person, which we don't tolerate in any way, shape or form. Please refrain in future.

Hi.

While I agree that the official warning was the right thing in that situation and i will refrain from these things in the future, i have to say that this was worth the warning.

I won't take it that someone who thinks who is surperior to us just because he apparently found the only and true truth accuses a dead man of sins he has done in a non existing incarnation before his life.

Sorry, but I won't take that from anyone.

Greetings Moritz.

Greetings all.

Our family friend James Patterson has just passed away at 11:25 AM GMT today. Yes I do have permission to post his name. However, I do look forward to meeting him again. When I wrote regarding death, I did so having already experienced death in my family so all pryer comments were not made out of ignorance but I know full well the impact my words have. Do I stick to what I said in light of my very own 'loss'? Absolutely I do and I have already asked those who care about me to view and treat me the same way as I treat and view others. James was the most relaxed around me and he was the one to tell me to treat others as I treated him. James is a most excellent brother and I am proud to know him. No I am not grieving, instead I have just prayed for him and if he wants to talk to me then he is most welcome to do so.

Kind regards, Amin Abdullah.

Or, uh, it could be an entirely different James Patterson. The name isn't exactly distinctive.

also.
@ironcross: I'm not particularly a fan of the phrasing of the term, but if you admit the phenomenon of white privilege  doesn't exist then you're delusional.
I'm not going to paste the straight white male privilege checklist here, because I'm sure you've seen it, so I'll leave it at this.
I look very clearly Arabic. My middle name on my passport is Mohammad. I will guarantee you that I have been held up at airports significantly more often than you have simply for this fact. That is white privilege. It is not your fault, and very few people are saying that it is, although it is true that those very few tend to be very loud.
The idea behind accepting white privilege is recognising that a problem exists to be able to solve it. it is not intended to assign blame to any one person or group of people, but rather to shed light on the fact that society as a whole focuses very heavily on race, gender and sexuality when making decisions and being a straight white male tends to get you the more favorable treatment. That is all.
Also, about trans gender people, if you will not support them for their own sake, then to quote John Oliver, "at least do it for your own. because we've been through this before, we know how it ends. if you take the anti civil rights side, and deny people access to something they're entitled to, history is not going to be kind to you."

Keep in mind though that I do think that the term could be phrased better.
Case in point, the Esquire article that's blown up the internet the past few days. personally, I see nothing wrong with it, other than perhaps the fact that it was put out during black history month, but that's not what has everyone up in arms. I feel that the danger of a term like "white privilege" is that it creates an echo chamber. it makes it too easy to minimize the experiences of straight white males, who have to deal with the same human struggles as everyone else. it makes it too easy for any of us people of color to blame everything that has ever gone wrong in our lives on racism, rather than being self reflective. it turns everything into a race/sex/sexuality issue, when sometimes it's just a "you're completely unqualified to be here" issue. I'm not saying this is what happens always, mind you, I'm just saying this is the inherent danger of a catch all term phrased to minimize everyone who identifies as one particular group.
It also completely kills any conversations about class, which, especially when it comes to something like higher education, I'd argue is the bigger deal, and especially in here in North America, is not given nearly as much attention as it deserves.

it's not exactly an uncommon first and last name. besides, is the author even British? The guy said he lives in London.

Greetings all.

The James Patterson is not the one in wikipedia, he is a personal family friend. What about the first ever person who committed a crime? Is my argument circular? I have to admit that I do not know. Yes I asked Terence about that and he said that he was one of the first to step out of heaven and evolve as we are evolving right now. He was one of the very first to face the satanic blast. His crimes must therefore have been against the dark sovereign power him/herself. How is this possible? Because only Allah Jehovah God is above his/her own karmic law but in one way only. I understand that Allah Jehovah God cannot be harmed in any way what so ever because he/she is invincible. I don't know why the karmic law is absolute, for Allah Jehovah God when it applies to all of his/her creation; I only know that it is. For more information regarding this, please go to the law of God, the state of heaven the tree of evil, the coercion of the dark energy of God, the dark secret, murder, sin and salvation, A Treatise on Truth and the evolution of evil men, the inner energy of god and man and Peter the fisherman. The last link is an audio letter by Terence Malaher talking to not only Peter the fisherman but also, all those who link into not only him but all of us. It explains everything I've been stating here regarding karma and it's put in a very nice way; far nicer than how I was able to put it. The feeling easy seminar is a comprehensive manual on how to combat the evil forces within with love and good counsel. The last hour is an interview with Terence Malaher; it explains why he wrote the testament of truth, what the testament of truth is all about and why we need to adhere to the wisdom contained therein. These final videos are regarding spirit communication although I don't stop talking to spirits, nor do I reject them in anyway as I do not agree with what it says in this talk and this one is regarding spirit possession. Everything else that Terence teaches including spirit possession, I do agree with but I wouldn't dismiss the spirit communication talk either. There is wisdom therein that I adhere to AKA not rejecting the spirits and saying the star prayers.

Here is a most excellent extract explaining karma and the nature of God.

Kind regards, Amin Abdullah.

Would this be a bad time to mention that the thread title keeps making me think of the Terrain of Testament from the Ultimate Warrior comics? I'm assuming Destrucity doesn't figure in to either the original topic, or the other one, but if I wanted to tie them together, I get this weird feeling it would be the one College Essay I'd get in on time. ... But that feels kinda mean. It also sounds hilarious, so, uh, should I write an essay tying Ultimate Warrior's philosophy to the other two under discussion? We'd have a nice little triad: mainstream, fringe, coocoo for Cocopuffs. I am not sure if that would be OK and that is somewhat concerning.

If anyone saw the first version of this message, it was clunky and sort of all over the place. I'm hoping you haven't replied to it, and that this more streamlined version helps things.

Ironcross, privilege is just that. A label. Basically it's a label that helps explain persistent behaviour or thought toward or about people which separates one group from another. It helps only insofar as it puts a lot of bad or questionable things into one place for analysis.

If two people, one white and one black, are walking through ten different airports, and the black person gets stopped three times as often as the white person without any other mitigating factors, that white person is getting a break. I trust you'd agree? That's white privilege. You, as that white person, are privileged in the sense that you don't know how it feels to be afraid your skin colour will cause hassles at a security checkpoint. You don't even have to think about that potential anxiety.
Or male privilege. When you walk down the street, you probably aren't worried that someone is going to assault or rape you, not in general at least. I have spoken to literally dozens of women about this, and do you know what most of them claim? They say something like, "One of the first things I learned was that there were men who might hurt me, and I was taught that I had to keep myself safe". So, I think you'd agree that keeping safe is a great idea, but look at the differing mindset there. You walk down the street without the constant worry that you're going to be assaulted; many women (not all, of course) have been conditioned, one way and another, to be afraid for their safety. Totally different states of mind, yes? That's male privilege. You don't stress about going out for this reason.
Now flip it around. You have low vision. A sighted person can leave their home and go to a mall with the understanding that their eyes will let them find stuff. And hey, don't get me wrong, you can use your other senses to help you, but unless you know that mall really well from experience, you may have more trouble navigating within its confines, or you may get lost more easily. And this truth may cause you to be a bit more anxious about just going it alone, in a way a fully sighted person is not likely to experience. That's able privilege; the sighted person simply doesn't have to worry.

And here's the rub.
None of these things make us better or worse than one another. You have to stop thinking of privilege as a dirty word, as a club to beat someone with, because that's not its intended purpose. It is meant to show people that their experience is not the only experience, that they may be enjoying benefits, however small, that others don't. This is often the first step toward that "holy shit, I didn't know that" moment most of us have when confronted with experiences that are not our own. The labelling of it as privilege is incensing people who think it's a bad concept or a weapon. It's neither.
So why, again, do we call it privilege and draw attention to it? Because we can minimize some of it.
For whites and people of colour, it would be really, really nice if people guilty of racial profiling or selective screening would realize what they're doing, and adjust their methods accordingly. This is why so many black people are standing up and speaking out about their treatment, playing the "you don't know what it's like" card. Because we don't. And maybe if we had a little more sympathy, we would work on narrowing that gap, or eventually making it not exist.
Men and women...same deal. When women talk about feeling threatened, unsafe, harassed and otherwise hassled by some of the men they come across, they're generally not saying that all men are slime. They're trying to get the good men of the world to understand that they (the good men) do not really understand what it's like to experience this sort of thing. When men do this, it causes them to sort of go "Okay, if I see that happening, I'm going to have to do what I can to shut it down".
And this persists across all oppressed groups. Privilege exists because the oppressing group (the one with more power) has bonuses the other group doesn't. Or the oppressed group, the minority, has disadvantages the other group can't credit or doesn't understand.
Privilege is, in essence, shorthand for "one group may not fully understand the other's struggles, and might better be armed to help if they knew". That's how you turn this inside out, and transform it from a leftist buzzword into an applicable method of reconciliation.