John Stewart - Bill O'Riley: Does White Privilege Exist?

The Coffee Shop
1

8 minutes of The Daily Show: http://thedailyshow.cc.com/full-episodes/uljff9/october-15--2014---bill-o-reilly

I thought they hit on some points, which was the difference between a) it doesn’t exist at all and b) it does exist, but talking about it only serves to be a crutch that prevents any real progress.

The key point that I thought Stewart hit on: Bill admits that the neighborhood he grew up in helped form his values and contributed to his success today. He then admitted that blacks were not allowed to live in his neighborhood. He countered with the argument that “that was then and this is now,” and that, “they can live in that neighborhood today.” This, of course, does not match the previous statement he made that where he lived then has an impact on him today.

2

it seemed to me O’Reilly was cautious of the phrase ‘white privilege’, but seemed to confirm the notion in principle
.

3

Jon Stewart had a guest on last night that explained why there is “white privilege.”

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/extended-interviews/dmnaja/bryan-stevenson-extended-interview

The extended interview is much better than the short one during the show.

4

8 minutes of The Daily Show: http://thedailyshow.cc.com/full-episodes/uljff9/october-15--2014---bill-o-reilly

I thought they hit on some points, which was the difference between a) it doesn’t exist at all and b) it does exist, but talking about it only serves to be a crutch that prevents any real progress.

The key point that I thought Stewart hit on: Bill admits that the neighborhood he grew up in helped form his values and contributed to his success today. He then admitted that blacks were not allowed to live in his neighborhood. He countered with the argument that “that was then and this is now,” and that, “they can live in that neighborhood today.” This, of course, does not match the previous statement he made that where he lived then has an impact on him today.

So what is your point here?

That black people have bad moral values so being around them will make you a bad person?

Or that black people need to live with white people to learn good moral values?

Racist!!!

5

So what is your point here?

I was intending to make no point that could possibly be understood by you.

6

That was funny!

7

So what is your point here?

I was intending to make no point that could possibly be understood by you.

Aha, special victim mentality code?

Yeah, I struggle with that.

8

See post #5.

9

8 minutes of The Daily Show: http://thedailyshow.cc.com/...2014---bill-o-reilly

I thought they hit on some points, which was the difference between a) it doesn’t exist at all and b) it does exist, but talking about it only serves to be a crutch that prevents any real progress.

The key point that I thought Stewart hit on: Bill admits that the neighborhood he grew up in helped form his values and contributed to his success today. He then admitted that blacks were not allowed to live in his neighborhood. He countered with the argument that “that was then and this is now,” and that, “they can live in that neighborhood today.” This, of course, does not match the previous statement he made that where he lived then has an impact on him today.

So what is your point here?

That black people have bad moral values so being around them will make you a bad person?

Or that black people need to live with white people to learn good moral values?

Racist!!!

You win the innernets today.

10

Oh god I sat through this to maybe learn something. Endless antidotal things (Trayvon Really?) from the past, like no one has a clue about Black History, It’s not like we don’t have a month donated to it every year. What will reliving the past over and over again do to stop the problems in the black community!!!

There are a lot of repressed groups but somehow they can move on.

Only someone who can’t be fired will dare speak the truth:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSEFigZ8YoA

11

White privilege: When I get pulled over by a cop I more worried about a ticket that unreasonable search or getting shot.

12

it seemed to me O’Reilly was cautious of the phrase ‘white privilege’, but seemed to confirm the notion in principle

…and in the end, Stewart also moved to a middle ground by saying it was a “factor”. I think they probably largely agree. OReilly is trying to stress the good, the oppportunity that is out there to such a greater extent today, while Stewart is trying to make a point that there is still white privilege.

13

What do you do when pulled over, exactly?

14

Pulling out my license and registration slowly.

15

See post #5.

Barry… You stated it was your KEY POINT.

Reread what you wrote and you’ll see my point is valid.

This is the point you never understand, when you make the claim that white people are holding black people down, that also implies white people have this special power over black people, a superiority.

The reality is that this is not true. You are truly a racist when you imply this as factual because you obviously believe whites do have this special power and superiority over blacks.

I was busting your chops to begin with but I’m not kidding any longer - you are the worst type of racist because you can’t recognize your racism. It’s so deeply ingrained it’s simply part of you.

Until you stop believing whites hold blacks down, you’ll never view blacks as anything but inferior.

16

…and in the end, Stewart also moved to a middle ground by saying it was a “factor”. I think they probably largely agree. OReilly is trying to stress the good, the oppportunity that is out there to such a greater extent today, while Stewart is trying to make a point that there is still white privilege.

I would consider both Oriley and Stewart to be moderate……ish on the right and left.

I disagree with what Oriley has often said, that it no longer exists, but do agree that it can/does serve as a crutch.

The difficult part is identifying real barriers that exist today without manufacturing ones that don’t exist.

17

This is the point you never understand, when you make the claim that white people are holding black people down, that also implies white people have this special power over black people, a superiority.

The reality is that this is not true. You are truly a racist when you imply this as factual because you obviously believe whites do have this special power and superiority over blacks.

Reposted for posterity.

18

You’ve already been given the prize for winning the internets, but I figure I might as well respond anyway. I’ve also been around long enough to be fully aware that whatever I write is going to fly straight over your head, so its not really even an attempt to convince you of anything. Its more just an exercise in dealing with stupid arguments……i.e. you’ve more or less presented the “if it weighs the same as a duck, then it must be a witch” line of reasoning.

The argument you’ve laid forth: To claim that racism exists is to state that one race can hold down another race. This implies that the race that is holding down another race has power over them, which further implies that the race is superior, thus the race being held down is inferior, concluding that the person making the original claim is, in fact, the racist for implying that one race is inferior.

Having “power” over someone isn’t necessarily about being genetically superior. If, for example, you were in a jail cell, and I had the keys, I would have power over you. The power is not a result of genetics, but rather a result of circumstance. I have the keys, you don’t, and there are steel bars and a sturdy lock preventing you from getting the keys from me.

Power can also be about numbers. You and I can get into a fight. You may have a black belt in karate and be 250 lbs of muscle, but if I have 4 friends with me, we’d likely still win the fight, not because of superior genetics, but because we out number you 5 to 1.

As Jon Stewart pointed out, American blacks are not the products of people who moved to America with the resources and ambitions to build a better life. They were brought here on slave ships to be slaves, and just to be clear, they weren’t even captured by whites. They were captured by other black africans who then sold them to the white slave traders, so you can’t even make an argument about superior genetics leading to some sort of conquest.

So right off the bat we have “power” as a matter of circumstance. The white slave owners essentially had possession of the keys. They literally owned the keys, but also had the guns, the horses, and the guards.

The other part of the argument is that they also have the numbers. Whites currently outnumber blacks by a ratio of almost 6 to 1. In many cases this gives a direct physical “power” advantage, like when a black person and white person have an altercation, the white person can go grab five of his friends (possibly in bed sheets)……something that would be more significant leading up through the 60s. But even today this is seen more through government representation. 10% of the house is black and only 4% of the senate.

So, no, having the power does not imply superiority.

19

…and in the end, Stewart also moved to a middle ground by saying it was a “factor”. I think they probably largely agree. OReilly is trying to stress the good, the oppportunity that is out there to such a greater extent today, while Stewart is trying to make a point that there is still white privilege.

I would consider both Oriley and Stewart to be moderate……ish on the right and left.

I disagree with what Oriley has often said, that it no longer exists, but do agree that it can/does serve as a crutch.

The difficult part is identifying real barriers that exist today without manufacturing ones that don’t exist.

I almost added something to my previous post that was similar to the bolded. That’s where I would have rather the conversation gone, and in listening to it again, there was really no argument as to whether white privilege exists, and for every direct point that Stewart made, Oreilly agreed completely. I don’t watch OReilly, so I don’t know what he normally says on the issue, but maybe Stewart saw the same things you have, and really just wanted to make sure that Oreilly admits it exists. Kind of pointless, except as a “win”, unless that’s all Stewart was looking for.

20

I believe that this is one of the key broad casts (I watched about half of it):

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2014/08/27/bill-oreilly-truth-about-white-privilege/

In summary, Bill starts off by saying that he does not “believe in white privilege,” and then goes on to talk about what he thinks are the main factors that are holding black americans back. In the segment, he actually more or less admits that white privilege exists, but that there are other more important factors, and that he thinks that it creates a victim mentality.

So, based on his segment, even though he said he doesn’t believe in white privilege, I think what he really means is that its not a good message to send, and that he thinks that there are more major factors involved.

I actually tend to agree with at least 80% of his message, FWIW. I also agree with what you said, which is he and Stewart probably agree more than they disagree. It seems almost like they both agree, but need to stress the different halves of the arguments for their own viewing audiences.