
Talking about white privilege causes reduction in support for politicians - cdepman
https://psyarxiv.com/uzkvf/
======
supernova87a
I think it's because the accusation of "privilege" is conversation-stopping.
There is no where to go once this is said, because it's a fundamental attack
on who the person is, which is something that cannot be changed, discards any
merit of a point being argued, and provides no solutions.

It essentially asserts that the person saying something is to be disqualified
and/or the opinion is inferior without any logical proof. And it suggests "my
position is inherently more correct than yours" because I'm not privileged. It
signals the end of rational discussion.

Is it any wonder that many people (when their private opinions are polled,
rather than asked to join shouting in a crowd) actually dislike the tactic?

~~~
Pfhreak
It's not an attack, though, and it's not a reflection of who a person is.
Privilege is about the circumstances the person is in, how lucky they are in
the cosmic lottery of life. Being privileged doesn't make you a bad person.
Failing to recognize your privilege may, depending on your moral framework.

~~~
pb7
>Failing to recognize your privilege may

What does that even mean? This is code for “you should feel guilty for who you
are” and generally a big reason why people become combative when the term
“privilege” gets brought up.

~~~
Pfhreak
I'll try to explain with an example: I am able bodied, I can walk and run
easily. When I visit a store or bus depot or whatever, I can navigate it with
ease. This is privilege, and I am not a bad person for being able bodied.

I shouldn't feel guilt because I can walk. But it's important to recognize
that my experiences and my abilities might be different than others.

An architect designing a public building with only stairs or narrow doors, or
a traffic planner optimizing crossing times for an average pedestrian are
cases of failing to recognize their privilege in being able bodied. If, after
being made aware of their privilege, they continue to design for themselves
then they may be considered immoral by some people.

~~~
pnako
It's the wrong word then. The etymology of privilege:

Middle English: via Old French from Latin privilegium ‘bill or law affecting
an individual’, from privus ‘private’ + lex, leg- ‘law’.

In fact, in France privilèges have been abolished during the revolution. And
it's not just the wrong word, it's kind of opposite; privilege generally meant
the benefit of a minority, but here it's used to describe when the majority
benefits, because they are the majority.

~~~
Pfhreak
Unfortunately, that's not how language works. Words get adopted to mean things
independent of their etymology all the time. I find it confusing a lot of the
time. (eg "literally" used to mean "figuratively").

~~~
pnako
That's actually how language works. We use the common, dictionary definition
of words, not whatever some academic with an agenda made up.

~~~
Pfhreak
You believe that language is prescriptive -- that there are 'correct' usages
of words. [1] I believe that language is descriptive -- that dictionaries
follow common usage rather than define the usage. Depending on your cultural
heritage, one or the other may be more common.

Descriptivism allows for expressions like, "To boldly go where no man has gone
before!" which is a split infinitive, and an 'incorrect' use of language. If a
native speaker would say a thing in speaking, then it's valid. Native English
speakers use language in all sorts of ways that would be 'incorrect' \-- from
jive to rhyming slang to 1337 sp34k to adoptions from queer culture like
'shade' or 'yass'.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription)

------
esotericn
Sure, because it's a controversial framing.

White privilege absolutely exists, as does 'male privilege', 'health
privilege' (mental or physical), 'preference/motivation privilege' (e.g. do
you enjoy, or can you at least tolerate, doing things that are financially
viable) and a whole host of other inherent advantages that a person can
possess from birth, or obtain later in life and hold on to.

Quite literally, 'privilege' (less aggressively known as advantage) is
obviously a thing. Even if you don't consider the 'white' variant, people win
and lose the game of society based on pretty arbitrary attributes.

We generally don't run around speaking about those issues in those terms,
though, because it's just not a very tactful way of addressing them (attacking
core components of a person's ego), it's much more politically manageable to
discuss equality/empathy/representation for example.

It would be equally unpopular to talk about e.g. the 'transgender plight',
despite the struggles trans individuals face. Words are important.

~~~
klipt
And the same people who love talking about 'male privilege' tend to get
offended at the mention of 'female privilege', even though there are numerous
documented examples, eg people having to vacate seats on flights just because
they were seated next to a child _and were male_ and thus assumed to be a
potential predator.

The experience of trans men in particular is filled with realizations that
privilege isn't a one way street.

~~~
matheusmoreira
Women aren't required to fight for their nation. They can join the military if
they want but conscription is still a male burden.

~~~
dragonwriter
Conscriptions is no one's burden in the modern US, which has a military
expressly designed not to use conscripts in any capacity, even in major
contingencies.

~~~
remarkEon
... which is incredibly naive. It assumes a permanence to the current state of
affairs where none exists. A World War scenario could not be fought with
volunteers, which is why the Selective Service System still exists.

>even in major contingencies.

Yeah, no. There are contingency plans for major conflicts that absolutely do
involve the draft.

~~~
dragonwriter
> A World War scenario could not be fought with volunteers

It absolutely could. Something that looked like WWI or WWII couldn't, but a
modern major power conflict wouldn't look like anything like those.

> which is why the Selective Service System still exists.

But no draft law, and thus no conscription, exists: conscription is no one's
burden. Any actual draft law would likely make changes to the selective
service system based on whatever vision of conscription motivated the draft
law itself, rendering guesses about the hypothetical future burden of
conscription based on the registration-with-no-legal-basis-for-conscription
system that exists today purely speculative.

------
seventytwo
Obviously.

White privilege absolutely exists, and it should absolutely be discussed, but
in the context of politics, it’s an implied message of, “your problems aren’t
significant and you should get over it.” Whether or not what’s objectively
true has no bearing on how it makes people feel and how, then, they will
perceive the person speaking.

A better approach is to focus on shared problems, but perhaps give a bit more
attention to those with particular hardships or barriers.

~~~
luminaobscura
Being white has advantages, that's true.

Being black can also have advantages (affirmative action).

But no one uses "black privilege". Because everyone is aware that most of the
blacks are, in sum, more disadvantaged compared to median citizen.

Some of the whites are also more disadvantaged. If I were one of them, i would
be equally repulsed by "white privilege"

~~~
jvsg
Blacks make up 13% of U.S population but 74.4% of NBA, and 30% of Hollywood.
Is that meritocracy or priviledge?

~~~
luminaobscura
Don't know about Hollywood but NBA is both. Meritocracy selecting privileged
genes.

------
jchw
Privilege has become a dirty word, and I suspect it is in no small part due to
the fact that some people feel it is over-emphasized compared to other aspects
of one’s status (especially on an individual level, of course,) and because it
is sometimes used in a combative manner to cut others down, which perhaps
unconsciously sends the message that instead of increasing the privilege of
the underprivileged, we’d rather decrease the privilege of others instead, to
even the playing field. And I can’t really attest to this, because I mostly
stay out of political discussions, but it would fit with the American, and
perhaps human, tradition of focusing on retribution instead of, but often
under the guise of, improving the status quo, ignoring evidence that this is
not the happening. I feel this kind of behavior is really evident any time
human emotions run high, and it unfortunately describes how we handle a lot of
problems in the U.S., especially crimes: we don’t really want to try to
improve on the root causes, or to rehabilitate, often we want people to rot in
prison.

The word privilege on its own should not bring all of this baggage, but it
feels like it’s too late. The word is now tainted for many. Does this mean
serious discussion about it has been pushed off a couple generations?

~~~
esotericn
Well, the implicit connotation in the term 'privilege' is that it's been
conferred as some sort of favour, perhaps even a temporary one (e.g. it's a
privilege to be awarded a prize).

Compare with, say, 'advantage'.

Underprivileged, and disadvantaged, are also often used as synonyms within the
social context, whilst outside of that they're not at all the same thing.

~~~
jchw
I agree, the word privilege does not feel like it does the disparity justice,
when I think about it. Not sure what the implications of this are, but it’s
thought provoking, anyways.

------
duxup
White privilege and other topics are largely academic topics that are
statistical and general in nature. Take that to an individual and tell them
about their privilege based on some stats, they're going to feel like it
doesn't fit... and really it doesn't on an individual level.

Obama had a speech near the end of his presidency, he talked about situations
talking to individuals who have real struggles, real problems in their lives
and don't feel like anyone handed anything to them.

Then someone comes to them who doesn't know them, and talks to them about
their privilege? That's not going to help convince them of anything.

Even to a further extent, talk to anyone you don't know .. and tell them what
you know about them based on just their race? That's probabbly not going to go
well.

You're not getting far, and frankly on an individual / non academic level it
seems off the mark for an individual or audience.

I feel like concepts like white privilege and such sort of escaped academia
and more general conversations, and are swung around a bit wildly and
inaccurately by some folks.

------
wolco
Not a big surprise. In the simple world of white privilege white people have
an advantage and black people are disadvantaged from birth. Policies must
balance this out.

In the real world life people don't fit into these simple boxes. Where do half
white / half black people fit in. Are they slightly privileged?Should someone
100% black feel disadvantaged over someone with lighter skin? Are brown people
more privileged? Does it matter if they are from Mexico vs Arab vs Southern
Italian vs Indian? Who has more or less privilege?

Where do the Obama daughters fit in? They have more privileges and a bigger
leg up over anyone reading this site. Do they suffer from white privilege?

~~~
samdamsamm
We need more POC CEOs.

~~~
irrational
But which color?

------
rayiner
> Political scientists have long known that major shifts in a nation’s racial
> makeup or in its racial policies can provoke a right-wing response among
> some portions of the electorate. Since the 1960s, the Democratic Party in
> the U.S.has staked out a position as the party of racial liberalism
> (Carmines and Stimson 1989). Democratic support for civil rights legislation
> helped the party secure the long-term loyalty of a majority of African
> American voters, but alienated many of the party’s white voters. This led to
> Republican gains in new areas of the country, especially the South (Black
> and Black 2002.)

That's historical revisionism. Four Civil Rights Acts were passed in the 1950s
and 1960s, plus the Voting Rights Act. Each passed by overwhelming majorities
in the House Republican Caucus, and much narrower majorities in the House
Democratic Caucus. In fact, the 1960s were a time of the Democratic Party
toeing the line on civil rights to appease southern Democrats. Indeed, while
people talk about Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy," Nixon won the South
only because George Wallace. Wallace, running on a segregationist platform,
split the Democratic vote with Hubert Humphrey. Wallace outright won 5 deep
southern states, and beat Humphrey in several others. Nixon--who had helped
shepherd the Civil Rights Act of 1957 through Congress--didn't carry a
majority in any southern state.

In 1976, Carter won the Presidency with the traditional coalition of
conservative Southerners and liberal north easterners, while Ford won the west
and most of the midwest. Reagan won both the south and most of the northeast,
and so did George H.W. Bush in 1988. It wasn't until the 1990s, with Bill
Clinton, that the now-familiar alignment of the south with republicans and the
northeast with democrats took shape.

~~~
shawndrost
I'm very interested in this topic. Do you have a "favorite" (most accurate,
least revisionist) writeup of the causes of the political realignment that
happened between the 1940s and the 1980s? Specifically, if you don't think it
was largely about civil rights, what do you think _was_ happening?

I don't understand how the facts you've cited establish either of these two
sentences as "revisionism": "Democratic support for civil rights legislation
helped the party secure the long-term loyalty of a majority of African
American voters, but alienated many of the party’s white voters. This led to
Republican gains in new areas of the country, especially the South (Black and
Black 2002.)"

As you say, the traditional (pre-1960s) coalition of the Democrats was (white)
conservative Southerners and liberal Northerners. That explains the messy
partisan alignment of the five bills you mentioned. (The voting patterns are
clear if you look at geography, not party affiliation[1].)

In the aftermath of those bills, we find evidence that _something_ strongly
alienated the white, conservative Southern Democrats, and resulted in
Republican gain. While the national politics you mention are confusing, there
is a clear visual pattern in the presidential voting records of a southern
state like North Carolina [2]: blue prior to the 1960s, and red afterwards.

What was it that alienated the white, conservative Southerners? Perhaps there
is a more compelling answer to this than "civil rights", but your evidence
does not establish that. You cite George Wallace, but his story is one of many
that supports the quoted passage and its thesis that civil rights was a key
issue. A long-time Democrat, he was one of many blue dogs who broke with the
national party over segregation. His famous "segregation now, tomorrow,
forever" speech in 1963 was arguably his moment of greatest acclaim by his
electorate, and by 1968, he was sufficiently alienated from Democrats to make
a third-party run as a segregationist. Many other Southern dems (eg Eastland,
Thurmond) opposed the civil rights bills, and in their aftermath, switched
parties in name or in spirit (supporting Republican national candidates),
citing civil rights or segregation as a particular point of policy difference.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_pa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party_and_region)
[2]
[https://www.270towin.com/states/North_Carolina](https://www.270towin.com/states/North_Carolina)

------
Barrin92
The title of the submission seems (intentionally?) misleading. It causes loss
of support among white voters, conservatives and moderates in particular, the
actual title of the paper being

"Losing Elections, Winning the Debate: Progressive Racial Rhetoric and White
Backlash"

------
c3534l
Even if the word isn't that bad inherently, the racist and dismissive way that
its used in practice makes it a very foolish word to use if you're trying to
connect with people rather than alienate them.

------
trhway
Framing an issue in one way may immediately get you half-way to the effective
solution while another way would get you far away from it. "White privilege"
immediately suggests a solution - "deprivileging". Not many would feel like
having such a solution applied to them, it feels like an attack and triggers
instinctive self-defense. The same issue can be framed as various
groups/classes/races being "underprivileged". That triggers empathic response
and calls to the sense of justice and equality.

------
spacefearing
The the phrase white privilege is an ingenious attempt by malicious people and
their useful-idiots to divert attention from issues of class to issues of
race.

These toxic propagandists have tricked millions of people into believing that
the poorest white person is as responsible for the poverty of black people as
the richest.

Transforming the political fight from the 1% vs the 99% into a fight of the
racial majority vs a racial minority. If the 99% are fighting among
themselves, they can't unite against the 1%.

Millions of powerless white people predictably take offense at the idea that
they're responsible for an economic system rigged by the rich to oppress poor
people of all races. Of course prejudice exists but the core issue holding
people back is purely economic, not racial.

~~~
linuxftw
Remember occupy Wall St? The propagandists got out in front of that one.
Remember people protesting the wars? Propagandists fixed that too.

------
AstralStorm
Ultimately the problem with the phrasing is that privilege is something given
which can be removed. It's false because no one in particular decrees or gives
benefits for being white - which would also be illegal.

Disparity and disadvantage are better words.

It's a social bias, and those cannot be changed by a decree. So not only is it
attacking people, alleging guilt, it's also an ineffective stance to
repeatedly point it out. Affirmative action also has connotation of failure to
solve the issues black people face.

------
aklemm
The framing around “privilege” is useful because it forces a reckoning that
white people need to cede something in order for a more equitable society to
emerge. Granted, I see the many problems with it, but a lot of that is just
white people choking on the reality that they’ll need to give up some things.

------
loopz
Generalizations based on colour is ......?

------
lainga
"Some scholars suggest we can best understand these developments as a form of
backlash against ongoing cultural, economic,and demographic trends (Kaufmann
2019; Norris and Inglehart 2019)"

Is the paper paper based on the premise that the right-wing views, or the
rising success thereof, are an anomaly or "backlash" from some normal state?

ed: or not? Is there another interpretation of the first page?

~~~
albntomat0
I understand the usage of "backlash" here to mean a response in the other
direction.

Cause: The political left begins discussing white privilege more than it did
previously Effect: The political right begins discussing their views on race
more as well, in ways specifically counter to the ones raised by the left.

It's a cause and effect in the opposite direction. I think abnormality implies
something other than a cultural response.

------
the_grue
As far as I understand the term, white privilege means some kind of economical
and political advantage of whites over other races. Meaning that the outcomes
are different, depending on one's race. From a brief glimpse of the paper, it
is quite clear that the authors push for equality of outcome and label their
position as 'liberal'. However, many people disagree. The classical liberal
position is granting every person equality of opportunity, saying nothing
about equality of outcome. And for a good reason: you actually can't have
both. Either everyone is equal at the start of the game and then the more
successful achieve more, or everyone is equal at the end, and for that you
have to make their opportunities unequal.

When you think about it this way, equality of outcome is essentially a Marxist
rhetoric. So it's quite understandable why many people don't like politicians
who advocate this controversial position.

If, the other hand, what politicians really want is a greater equality of
opportunity, they really should make that clear. But I don't think they
usually mean that, given that people who talk about white privilege are
usually the ones who push for so-called 'affirmative action', which clearly
reduces equality of opportunity in favor of equality of outcome.

