Soxbadger

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 05:44 PM) No, impoverished areas in the U.S. Many single affluent people do live in impoverished areas. The reason most people move is schools. My parents moved from 1 suburb to another just so I would go to the right school. In comparison. there are no "whole foods" in the suburb they live in. They dont move to another suburb just because there are no "Whole Foods" within 5 miles of their house.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 05:39 PM) I wonder why affluent white people don't make it a priority to go to these places if there's such an abundance of healthy food available there. What areas are you referring to? Nairobi?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 05:33 PM) Obviously that dogfood is a perfectly acceptable option for humans. Kidding aside, if an area has a specialty store for domesticated animals, chances are there are other options for food more palatable to humans in the area as well. No it doesnt. According to many in this thread, finding food in America is very difficult. Like being in a desert, you know like Nairobi.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 05:25 PM) Not sure where you buy your food but when things like Petsmart come up in the results I have to wonder how good the shopping choices are in that area. Do you really believe that it is harder to get food in America than other countries? Like I said, it wasnt scientific. Here is another search, for grocery stores: https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=U...p;ved=0CM8BELYD Notice how on almost every major street there is at least 1 little dot. Here is a specific article that points out why some of this is nonsense: http://www.webofcreation.org/Earth%20Probl...styproblems.htm Supply meet demand. It wasnt that they didnt have access to food. It was there were 62 grocery stores and only 1/5 sold fruits and vegetables. Now why do we think that is? 1) Because the grocery store doesnt want to sell healthy food? 2) Because the people who go to the grocery store dont buy healthy food?

lol what the what. here is the link again, hopefully it works right: https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=U...p;ved=0CM8BELYD Turns out that when you search "Harlem food stores" it comes out Netherlands, you have to put "New York"

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 04:56 PM) Probably because these are broad explanations of the concept and not specialized examinations of a certain society at a certain time. Yes, it absolutely is. Read the one scholarly article I posted way back in the first post on this for some examples, keeping in mind that privilege isn't only (or even mainly) about economic advantages, it is about social interactions. This isn't about you, period. It's about an aggregate. You and jenks both keep trying to individualize this when it is exactly the opposite of what the topic actually is. 1) And that is exactly my point. When you say "White privilege" you have to define it because it absolutely is dealing about a certain society at a certain time. 400 years is still a certain society at a certain time. White privilege is simply the most recent privilege in our very specific society (Western Judeo Christian). 2) This is the part where you are stretching privilege. Social interactions are not inherently privilege. They could be privilege. But you have to remember that the interaction involves an individual and somehow that individual believing that they are or are not privileged. I just think this kind of nonsense. Just because you are the majority, doesnt mean you have some sort of inherent privilege. In fact historically, many minorities (rich upper class) were able to keep down the majority (poor lower class). Just because there were more poor didnt mean they had privilege. 3) The topic is about individuals. Because society is nothing more than a conglomerate of individuals. So if every individual in society has a certain opinion then it becomes societies opinion. There is no "society" without individuals. And since I cant speak for other people, I inherently have to speak from my perspective. And based on all of these arguments, they would think Im not privileged because Im from some minority. I could not disagree more.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 05:12 PM) it's not having easy access to non-GMO food that's the issue. AND in urban areas, it's not having easy access to ANY healthy options. I live in NYC. You go to harlem it's all McD's, Popeye's, etc, etc. That's it. I dont live in harlem so I cant comment. I did a google search for Harlem new York Food Stores [urlhttps://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=harlem+food+stores+new+york&fb=1&gl=us&hq=harlem+food+stores&hnear=0x89c24fa5d33f083b:0xc80b8f06e177fe62,New+York,+NY&ei=t57wUOS6DY-HqwGRy4HgDg&ved=0CM8BELYD[/url] 31k hits. Here is a search for Nairobi Kenya: Nairobi Kenya food store https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=U...p;ved=0CJcBEMgT 3k hits Now this isnt scientific, but Id guess that a store with fresh produce is closer to someone in Harlem NY, than in most other places in the world.

Strangesox, I know what passing is. That is a different phenomenon where you are not part of the privilege group, but you are getting the benefits. What I am discussing is the exact opposite of passing. Its where you look like the privilege group, but you are not getting any benefits, yet at the same time being grouped with those who are. This is my problem. These people are using vast generalizations that are almost universally unsupportable. To use their own statement: Notice the word, ADVANTAGE. In today's society, merely being white is not an advantage. Further, That isnt true. This isnt about what people think. This is about what is actually happening. It doesnt matter if I think that every black person has a privilege because more black people are athletes. What matters is whether or not there are more black athletes because of some unjust societal advantage or whether its because they are simply better than me.

Jenks, The problem that most of these articles fail to address is that you cant change the playing field over night and they also dont recognize that for at least the last 100 years the playing field has become more equal. The biggest factor now is wealth. Im pretty sure that Michael Jordan's kids are more privilege than I was, even though I was a white kid. QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 03:40 PM) LOL Very insightful.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 09:56 AM) I hope they take him to court over that. Sounds to me like that was an oral unilateral contract with performance by Trump. Trump would argue unilateral contract with performance. Maher would argue that there was no contract as there was no "meeting of the minds" and therefore its unenforceable. Bottom line Id guess Maher wins and Trump loses. No way is any judge going to want to set a precedent that a joke or something on tv can be turned into a binding contract. Well see what happens but I doubt it goes anywhere. For Trump to win theyd have to exhume his father and do a DNA test. Because isnt Trump's position that birth certificates arent legitimate proof? Seems silly.

I think most would agree that there is some sort of WASP privilege in the US. But that is far different than white privilege, where you are basically saying that the Irish slave was somehow privileged.

Okay so Ive done a lot of reading and Im pretty sure the problem here is the idea of "white privilege." The reason that this is a problem is that its incorrect. When they mean "white privilege" what they actually are referring to is WASP (white anglo saxon protestant) privilege in the United States, which is a very specific issue based on very specific historical events. The problem it would seem is that less educated authors take this very specific issue and try and paint a very broad "white privilege" brush. The problem is that they are not sophisticated, and there unsophistication shows that they actually do not even understand racial issues. There is no "white" subset, just like there is no "black" subset. There are people who happen to have light or dark skin, but there skin does not tell the entire story. A very good example of this is would be Jews. The majority of Jews look like white people. But you can not say that Jews have historically enjoyed white privilege. Another example of this would be the Irish, another group of "white" people who were not treated equally. To really discuss this subject you first have to start with the truth, there is no such thing as "white" privilege because not all white people have the "white privilege." There are some groups in the US that may have more privilege, but ironically those people likely came from another place where they were not as privileged. The people on the Mayflower didnt leave England because they were being treated well, they left because they did not have equality. Its a pretty complicated subject and it requires more than a superficial understanding of the US post 19th century.

Okay so I read the next article and it linked the article I just crucified. Is there not one legitimate academic article to be found? I have to imagine they will almost universally support my position that privilege is not something that can be apportioned to any race, religion or gender as depending on the time and place, you may or may not have been privileged. What always will be privilege is money. If you were rich in 5k BC, rich in 100 AD or rich in 3000 Ad you always had better access and rights. That is what privilege is.

This is why she is wrong. If you want to use the universal term "privilege" then it means something different than if you just want to say "X is more privileged than Y." Using your example a black millionaire in 1950 may have less privilege than a white millionaire, but has more privilege than a poor white person. Thus it kills the idea that its merely "race" because privilege is almost always connected to wealth (I will get to that further.) It just so happens that in most instances, the most "normal" also happen to have the most "privilege" but that is not always the case, as ultimately privilege (in todays society) rests with money. You can make any word mean anything, but regular people will not associate this with privilege. One of my best friends is a lesbian. Her parents are very wealthy. She went to a 6 sister school, she has 2 masters degrees, etc etc. She is also a Jew. But there is no possible way to say she is not privileged that any normal human would understand. Sure she may have slightly less privilege than her hetero younger sister, but due to the wealth of her family she will always be privileged. No matter how minority of a minority she may be, she still has enormous privilege because of wealth. Does she b**** its harder to find girls? Sure. But thats warping the point of all of this. When you cite it at as evidence, it tends to suggest you think its good information. And this is the point I am making. Just because at 1 point being a man was more privileged than being a woman, does not mean that at all points in time it was. The only way to really discuss privilege is to use actual tangible examples, instead of just throwing nonsense out there. Its clear what she is trying to say "You privileged folks (white males) dont understand privilege, so you need to recognize." What she doesnt understand is that merely being white may or may not mack you privileged. Im sure that Eminem doesnt believe his "flesh tone" skin helped him break into the rap game. And while it may have helped him sell more albums, it just shows that you cant say something like that is always a privilege (which is the basic conclusion, if your part of the "norm" you have an advantage. Which does not even touch the, sometimes the abnormal is more privileged.) This is why its easier to keep privilege into a discussion that actually makes sense. Instead of trying to draw these widespread conclusions about how white men always have privilege. Sometimes they have an advantage, sometimes they do not. That is not what privilege is. Privilege is when you ALWAYS have an advantage. Which is why most who understand, would say that there is arguably only 1 universal privilege, wealth. (Ill read the other article when I have a chance.)

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 01:38 PM) We see guys in baseball become minor league managers rather than be major league assistants, because they feel it's the best way to prove they have the skills to be a successful major leave manager. How many baseball managers were coaching in a minor league system that used different rules than MLB? The comparison you are trying to make is NCAA HC over a NFL Coordinator position. A better comparison would be hiring a guy from the Liga Mexicana de Béisbol, after he was 3rd Base Coach for a MLB team 5 years prior. Sure the guy from Liga Mexicana de Béisbol could be great, but a lot of people are going to ask why did he go there, when he would have made more money in the US.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 12:21 PM) Maybe it wasn't directly covered in that short, random blog post I found, but that's inherent. Privilege is based on the norm in a given society, so if you change societies, that changes. It's not universal. If you keep Kosher or Ha'lal because that's your deeply held religious belief, it's not really as much of a choice. But like I said, that doesn't mean every form of privilege is inherently bad or needs to be 'corrected' or even could be corrected. Nor does everything map to social justice, and maybe Kosher outside of religious beliefs is not a great example. edit: whether or not keeping a religious belief is a 'choice' is a complex issue so I can agree that, if you view religion as a true choice, then we can agree that religious dietary restrictions aren't the best examples. Point 1. No that is why her blog is incorrect. Privilege as used by most people, is universal. Privilege generally relates to money. A child born to a black person with a billion dollars, a white person with a billion dollars or a women with a billion dollars, would be considered privileged, regardless of their race, religion, gender. Now you can make arguments about why they may not be as privileged as someone else, but that goes against the normal and understood ideas of "privilege" and the "privileged class". Point 2. Religion is a choice. Everything that stems from religion is a choice. This is the fundamental error of her argument. She does not understand what choice is. Privilege is not based on choice, it is based on the lack of choice. IE (fake examples) Example 1) I chose to go to community college over Harvard. I can not then argue that the people of Harvard are more privileged because I had the opportunity to go to Harvard, I just chose against. Example 2) I wanted to go to Harvard, but I did not have enough money so I had to go to community college. I can then argue that it was privilege, because if I had enough money, then I could have gone. I did not have the privilege to go. She really doesnt know what shes talking about.

I think Turner's system is better than Martz's for Lovie. He is much more experienced with balanced run attacks (Dallas Cowboys) than Martz ever was. Martz was great with Faulk, but that was a lot more about getting guys into open space. Martz never seemed to do well with a smash mouth approach.

Damnit I deleted my original post so this isnt going to be half as good. She did not talk about my point, which is that where you are may determine whether you are part of a privileged sect or not. A white man may be privileged in the US, he may not be privileged in Congo. A woman may not be privileged in US, but she may be privileged in Amazon. She does not recognize that you cant be so broad and vague. That the word privilege means something, and that general definition does not mean man, woman or skin color. That is just her nonsensical and unsubstantiated life view. Put it this way, no one is going to say that Kate Middleton isnt privileged. Now maybe she isnt as much as Prince Charles, but that is all relative and why its useless. And that is why she incorrectly used Kosher. Kosher goes against societal norms. That is the entire reason Kosher law was created, to stop normal activity. Thus anyone keeping Kosher explicitly understands that they are making a choice, that will make their life harder. In fact even in Israel a Kosher McDonalds is more rare than a regular McDondalds. She is confusing choice with privilege. Being privileged or not privileged is generally not a choice. I had no choice whether I was born rich or poor. I do have a choice of whether I keep Kosher. You just cant compare if you have any clue what you are talking about.

So im thinking that the day after the bears hire a new coach, Lovie starts being canonized in Chicago?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 11:17 AM) In the mean-time, if you want to try to understand the rhetorical background on privilege I'm coming from, you can read over this: http://nymbp.org/reference/WhitePrivilege.pdf or maybe this, a condensed version: http://brown-betty.livejournal.com/305643.html I'm probably using shorthand or terminology or phrasing that, if someone isn't familiar with it, could be misinterpreted or misunderstood to mean something else. I'm not always the best communicator. I didnt read the pdf, but the HTML was ridiculous. Advantages that you think are normal? How in the world does that apply to being Kosher. If anything, being able to keep Kosher is a privilege because it means you have enough money to pick and choose what you eat. The article also did not even recognize that the same person could be considered "privileged" in one area and be considered "not privileged" in another.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 11:05 AM) I'd tend to agree if I didn't see so many OCs and DCs not pan out. It appears there are lots of intangibles to being a successful nfl head coach, that we can't put our finger on. That said i hope this is false. Though it'd be great if a great D coach came back out of the woodwork, and Emery chose trestman for offense. Well part of the intangibles are the GM and players. There is no precise formula for how to pick a coach, but I know how I would go about it. QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 11:28 AM) Just like Jim Harbaugh never would have had to settle coaching San Diego State and Stanford, right? The Bills hired a college coach who went 25-25 from a mediocre football school in a weak football conference and I'm ecstatic about the hire because of his reputation around the league and, honestly, how hotly pursued he was. Does it mean success? Not at all, but he's already brought in Pettine from the Jets who, even though Rex Ryan felt otherwise, still had a top 10 defense this year and were consistently in the top 5-10 under his reign. I honestly think, with a search process this extensive and lengthy, I think if he were hired, you'd have to atleast hold off judgment. You cant compare Harbaugh or Marrone to Trestman. Harbaugh and Marrone are 9 years younger than Trestman, and both of them followed the normal career path for HC. Trestman is an outlier because he took a job in the CFL which is very unusual. Why is that odd? Because as this article points out ( http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/cfl-55-yard-...193904982.html) that even as an OC in the NCAA he would make more money. In comparison, Harbuagh and Marrone have never had to make a lateral or backwards move. They have always progressed (position coach, coordinator, head coach.) Trestman man turn out to be the best coach that has ever existed. But you have to question why a guy who is so good, would be taking less money, to work in a lessor league.

I think there are safer bets and there are riskier bets. General logic is that the safest bet is to hire a HC that has already been successful in the NFL. After that, you have different theories. Some would say that the next safest is OC/DC as they are already in the NFL and thus they are familiar. Others would say HC at College as they already have experience as HC. But I think most people would agree that after those 3, you then enter much riskier territory. Sure you could find the next Bill Walsh coaching arena league, perhaps you could find another Lombardi coaching some small HS. And this is ultimately why I was not super enthusiastic about the Bears firing Lovie Smith. I just have no faith in their front office.

QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 12:04 AM) For the Bears or the Browns? For the Browns, sorry I didnt clarify.

Norv Turner as possible OC

Alleged benefits of eating healthy. If were going to be imperialists, lets do it right this time. Question everything, trust no one!