Giving to the Homeless

[EquALLity]

I know right! Cause what a ridiculous thing to say.

Regarding you, it certainly is.

Well you started it.

"You started it!!!!!11111111111"

That sounded like an internship, not a job.
Of course people are willing to hire you if you're willing to offer services for free.
But by your own logic, I also have had a job. At my school, there is an environmental club that I am in, and we help raise money and we do charity work. We're also planning on helping out at the Samartian Village that's nearby.

I also went to a meeting that offered people to go to Arizona to help set up water stands for illegal immigrants. I didn't get picked for that one, since they only took 15 people and about 90 people applied, but I'm planning on going on the trip that they have in June.

Well, I was a CIT, counselor in training, which is pretty close to a job. Being apart of a club isn't a job. o_O
Just because you're doing work for free doesn't mean it isn't competitive. As you pointed out, you didn't get picked for the water stand volunteering.

Yes, I know capitalism is competitive. That's why you have to compete. If you keep failing, the only solution is to keep trying until you succeed.

Newsflash: Until you succeed, you actually DON'T have a source of income.
And if you're homeless with no source of hygiene, it's very unlikely that you're ever going to succeed in getting a job.

I love how you don't address the argument.

You literally quoted the part where I did.
You don't think people should have families when they don't have jobs. Ok. So? That doesn't change the fact that they DO have families. Your opinion about whether or not they should doesn't change the simple fact that they DO. Not to mention that some people have families with jobs and then lose their jobs. What are they supposed to do?
It doesn't matter anyway, because what you think should happen doesn't change reality.

I thought we went over that intersectional theory was PC nonsense.

I said nothing about intersectionality... So basically, you have no idea what the word means.

Intersectionality is the idea that, because all oppression is connected, that you shouldn't be a 'single issue activist', you should fight for all groups together. You don't have to be an intersectionalist to acknowledge the reality of white privilege. You just need to not be blind to your surroundings.

Systematically, I've not seen any in recent memory.

First of all, I didn't even say systematically, and I doubt you even know what that word means.
Just because it may not be systemic doesn't mean it doesn't exist in other relevant respects. The government might not be discriminating against certain groups through policy, but that doesn't mean certain groups aren't marginalized.
But discrimination based on sexuality and gender identity are still deeply systemic by the government. Reality doesn't a shit what you've 'seen'. Transgender people are still able to be discriminated against in certain states, and there are many areas throughout the country where employers can discriminate against the LGBTQPA+ community in terms of hiring and service.

There is actually a debate going on that say that women have more rights than men, such as being exempt from selective services, allowing to give consent if they wish to be circumcised (while men are circumcised during infancy), child custody court cases generally being in favor of the mother, regardless of how good of a parent they are, and women getting less jail time than men (not 100% sure about this one).

Yeah, and there's a debate going on in the government right now about whether or not its appropriate to give a white supremacist a major government position in the Trump administration. There are a lot of debates going on.
Of course there are some ways in which women have an easier time, but those few things pale in comparison to other issues.

Yeah, y'know it's not like the rapists/psychiatrists can be referred to as doctors.

Um... I guess rapists can be doctors... Wtf are you talking about???
Psychiatrists can be referred to as doctors, sure, but you listed them before as a separate thing. And psychiatrists/psychologists have nothing to do with issues of oppression... They treat mental health issues. o_O

Not to mention that you can't name a specific person, you just vaguely reference groups of experts, who aren't even experts in what we're talking about.

[Red]

Regarding me, it certainly is.

Thank you for admitting your own fault.

"You started it!!!!!11111111111"

Well, you did.

Well, I was a CIT, counselor in training, which is pretty close to a job. Being apart of a club isn't a job. o_O
Just because you're doing work for free doesn't mean it isn't competitive. As you pointed out, you didn't get picked for the water stand volunteering.

Yes, but I actively work with them whenever I can. It's like your counselor internship. No pay, does charity work, gives experience, etc..

Newsflash: Until you succeed, you actually DON'T have a source of income.

Then keep trying, not sure what to tell you.

And if you're homeless with no source of hygiene, it's very unlikely that you're ever going to succeed in getting a job.

If a homeless guy came up to me, and said "Hey, can I use your shower so I can go for a job interview", I'd let them use my shower, trusting that they will go out and do some work. But I've also heard of some places that offer free showers and housing.

You literally quoted the part where I did.
You don't think people should have families when they don't have jobs. Ok. So? That doesn't change the fact that they DO have families. Your opinion about whether or not they should doesn't change the simple fact that they DO. Not to mention that some people have families with jobs and then lose their jobs. What are they supposed to do?

*Sigh* Their stupidity, I'm afraid. If they have experience though, they do have a chance of pulling through. But if you get pregnant in college, with no source of income, you better live in a state that allows abortions.

It doesn't matter anyway, because what you think should happen doesn't change reality.

Neither of us know the reality of the situation, it's just our best guesses.

I said nothing about intersectionality... So basically, you have no idea what the word means.

Do you?
I know what it is. It's the idea that people are privileged by race, gender, sexuality, etc.. I have not seen any solid evidence that this is still the case in our modern day first world.

Intersectionality is the idea that, because all oppression is connected, that you shouldn't be a 'single issue activist', you should fight for all groups together. You don't have to be an intersectionalist to acknowledge the reality of white privilege. You just need to not be blind to your surroundings.

As I've said, I haven't seen any evidence of that. Now you're starting to sound like Libertarian Socialist Rants.
It's kinda racist/sexist/homophobic against the so called 'privileged people' to claim they're better off than most other people, even though that isn't taking other factors into account. Like when Bernie Sanders said that white people don't know what it's like to live in a ghetto.

Please, define for me what you think is oppression.

First of all, I didn't even say systematically, and I doubt you even know what that word means.

I'm using the term within the standards of how our system works. Like it works in favor of one group in this scenario.

Just because it may not be systemic doesn't mean it doesn't exist in other relevant respects. The government might not be discriminating against certain groups through policy, but that doesn't mean certain groups aren't marginalized.

Yes, and white people can me marginalized too, if you look at the examples I gave earlier. I've seen straight white men been marginalized by feminists and the BLM movement. I think the LGBT community is a lot more tolerable, but I haven't seen it all yet.

But discrimination based on sexuality and gender identity are still deeply systemic by the government. Reality doesn't a shit what you've 'seen'.

Then please, show me contrary examples.

Transgender people are still able to be discriminated against in certain states, and there are many areas throughout the country where employers can discriminate against the LGBTQPA+ community in terms of hiring and service.

I agree, that's a problem.
Thankfully, it won't be like this forever. People seem to be getting gradually more tolerable over the pass 100 or so years.

Yeah, and there's a debate going on in the government right now about whether or not its appropriate to give a white supremacist a major government position in the Trump administration. There are a lot of debates going on.

Yeah, that totally refutes my claim.

Of course there are some ways in which women have an easier time, but those few things pale in comparison to other issues.

Like?

Um... I guess rapists can be doctors... Wtf are you talking about???

Put the words together.

Psychiatrists can be referred to as doctors, sure, but you listed them before as a separate thing. And psychiatrists/psychologists have nothing to do with issues of oppression... They treat mental health issues. o_O

You do know that there is a difference between a psychiatrist and psychologist, right?
Why am I asking? You'll just Google it, then claim to know.
Anyways, the books are about how the human mind works, how we're exposed to certain biases, why we want success, etc..

Not to mention that you can't name a specific person, you just vaguely reference groups of experts, who aren't even experts in what we're talking about.

I didn't feel as though I am obligated to. Why should I bother? I doubt you'll bother picking up those books.
Anyways, from the ones I can remember, they are:
Malcolm Gladwell
Tom Peters
Robert Greene
Michael Howe

And those are just the ones I can remember.
I also want to add that, while successful people can give advice on how to succeed, always have a bit of skepticism on what they say. While it's good to take risks now and again, sometimes, they can lead you right back where you started.

[EquALLity]

I think you made a typo there.

?

Well, you did.

Yes, but I actively work with them whenever I can. It's like your counselor internship. No pay, does charity work, gives experience, etc..

Not really, that's just volunteering.

Then keep trying, not sure what to tell you.

You just don't understand the concept of time, do you?
We're in the present. You don't have a job, so you don't have a source of income, and you can't pay your bills. Maybe you're homeless, or just really poor. You apply for a job. You don't get it.
One day, in the future, you may get a job. That doesn't change that at that time, that person has no way of making money.

If a homeless guy came up to me, and said "Hey, can I use your shower so I can go for a job interview", I'd let them use my shower, trusting that they will go out and do some work. But I've also heard of some places that offer free showers and housing.

You just don't understand the concept of what is ideal in a thought experiment vs reality, do you?
It doesn't matter what you WOULD do. That doesn't change what IS.
You're never going to be walking down the street, run into a homeless person, and offer a shower. You probably will be on your way somewhere, and that's pretty dangerous.

*Sigh* Their stupidity, I'm afraid. If they have experience though, they do have a chance of pulling through. But if you get pregnant in college, with no source of income, you better live in a state that allows abortions.

You didn't address anything at all.
First of all, it's not stupidity to start a family with a source of income and lose your job. You didn't PLAN on losing a job. But even in situations where it is stupidity, THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE REALITY. You don't seem to understand the simple concept you can't respond to what is as if it were what it should be.

Neither of us know the reality of the situation, it's just our best guesses.

It's completely irrelevant.

Do you?
I know what it is. It's the idea that people are privileged by race, gender, sexuality, etc.. I have not seen any solid evidence that this is still the case in our modern day first world.

Um, NOPE. That's not what it is. Like I said, it's the idea that oppression is all CONNECTED. Hence 'intersectional'. Oppression intersects other oppression.

If you don't think there's privilege based on at least one of those things, then honestly you're just an idiot. I literally just pointed out that the LGBTQPA+ community is able to be discriminated against BY LAW in many areas of the country. That's not oppression? That's not a certain group being less privileged, when they are discriminated against BY LAW?

As for race, really? There's equal discrimination against white people and people of color in America? You can't be serious.
A black church was just burned down by a Trump supporter. When was the last time a white church was burned down?

The KKK exists and is politically relevant. There is a movement rising called the 'alt-right', and they're basically Neo-Nazis. That's not an exaggeration, they call the media what Nazis called the German press at the time- lügenpresse. They recently shouted "Heil Trump!" at their rally and raised their hands up like fucking Nazis. One of the leaders in that movement, Steve Bannon (who pulled his kid out of a school because there were "too many Jews"), is likely to get a major position in the Trump administration.
Is ANYTHING similar happening to white people? Please think of a single thing.

As I've said, I haven't seen any evidence of that. Now you're starting to sound like Libertarian Socialist Rants.
It's kinda racist/sexist/homophobic against the so called 'privileged people' to claim they're better off than most other people, even though that isn't taking other factors into account. Like when Bernie Sanders said that white people don't know what it's like to live in a ghetto.

Please, define for me what you think is oppression.

It's not racism to acknowledge the existence of racism. It's racist to DENY racism when it's staring you straight in the face.

As for Bernie Sanders, he recently criticized identity politics and blamed it as part of the reason Trump got elected. Clearly you know nothing about what he stands for.

I'm using the term within the standards of how our system works. Like it works in favor of one group in this scenario.

Well then it depends on what system you're referring to.

Yes, and white people can me marginalized too, if you look at the examples I gave earlier. I've seen straight white men been marginalized by feminists and the BLM movement. I think the LGBT community is a lot more tolerable, but I haven't seen it all yet.

You mean tolerant?
White people/straight people/men CAN be marginalized. That doesn't mean they're not overall more privileged.
I think we should worry more about black churches being burned and a white supremacist being a major adviser for Trump than some people on the Internet saying stupid things about men and white people.

Then please, show me contrary examples.

I did.

I agree, that's a problem.
Thankfully, it won't be like this forever. People seem to be getting gradually more tolerable over the pass 100 or so years.

But it's like that NOW. The progress hasn't happened yet. We're living in the PRESENT, not the idealistic future.
NOW, on November 25th, the law permits discrimination against the LGBTQPA+ community in many parts of the country. It's called institutionalized oppression.

Not all oppression is perpetrated by the government, and that oppression matters too, but this IS done by the government.

Yeah, that totally refutes my claim.

There was nothing to refute, you just said 'there's a debate going on'. Yeah, there are a lot of debates going on. So?

Like?

Abortion, pay gap, birth control, unequal representation in government, more likely to be stalked/assaulted, sexual assault against them generally ignored by colleges, more likely to be poor, etc.

Put the words together.

Rapist-psychiatrists. Well, now it makes sense.

You do know that there is a difference between a psychiatrist and psychologist, right?
Why am I asking? You'll just Google it, then claim to know.
Anyways, the books are about how the human mind works, how we're exposed to certain biases, why we want success, etc..

That's why I put the slash. They're similar enough to lump them into the same category for this- they both cure mental health problems. There's no difference in terms of relevance to this topic.

Biases and why we want success aren't related to this.

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

Can you not give the homeless a food stamp? Apologies if I am late to this conversation.

[Red]

Not really, that's just volunteering.

You didn't get paid for your work either. That sounds like volunteering to me. Or an internship (which doesn't mean you actually had a job)

You just don't understand the concept of time, do you?

Real question: Do you?

We're in the present. You don't have a job, so you don't have a source of income, and you can't pay your bills. Maybe you're homeless, or just really poor. You apply for a job. You don't get it.

There is bound to be at least one minimum wage job out there that people can find.
I have more respect for people who try and fail rather than people who beg without trying. It's difficult to tell who's who though.

One day, in the future, you may get a job. That doesn't change that at that time, that person has no way of making money.

And how exactly is that my problem?

You just don't understand the concept of what is ideal in a thought experiment vs reality, do you?
It doesn't matter what you WOULD do. That doesn't change what IS.

I know. I'm just saying. But I do also remember saying that there are places like Samaritan Villages where people can get cleaned up.

You're never going to be walking down the street, run into a homeless person, and offer a shower. You probably will be on your way somewhere, and that's pretty dangerous.

I live in an affluent part of town, so that doesn't concern me.

You didn't address anything at all.
First of all, it's not stupidity to start a family with a source of income and lose your job. You didn't PLAN on losing a job.

I knew you were going to say that for some reason.
It's hard to find a job where you have 100% job security. My suggestion is build an emergency fund. Make sure your partner also has a job. It's best to have kids when you know that you are financially stable. It costs a quarter of a million to raise a child until the age of 18.

But even in situations where it is stupidity, THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE REALITY. You don't seem to understand the simple concept you can't respond to what is as if it were what it should be.

You're right, I don't understand. But neither do you. It is, as I've said, our best guesses about this. We don't know for sure. Neither of us have ever been out of a job. Maybe it's easy, maybe it's hard. Instead of assuming you're 100% right, try having a bit of skepticism about your viewpoints.

It's completely irrelevant.

Please, explain how.

Um, NOPE. That's not what it is. Like I said, it's the idea that oppression is all CONNECTED. Hence 'intersectional'. Oppression intersects other oppression.

That's what I said. IE If you're a white woman, you're privileged by race, but disadvantaged by gender, and vice versa. I have yet to see sufficient evidence of this.

If you don't think there's privilege based on at least one of those things, then honestly you're just an idiot. I literally just pointed out that the LGBTQPA+ community is able to be discriminated against BY LAW in many areas of the country. That's not oppression? That's not a certain group being less privileged, when they are discriminated against BY LAW?

I never denied that. I agreed with you. I'm just trying to say that people are over exaggerating how much privilege a person has.

As for race, really? There's equal discrimination against white people and people of color in America?

Don't recall saying that. If you think I did, you're misunderstanding what I'm trying to say.

The KKK exists and is politically relevant. There is a movement rising called the 'alt-right', and they're basically Neo-Nazis. That's not an exaggeration, they call the media what Nazis called the German press at the time- lügenpresse. They recently shouted "Heil Trump!" at their rally and raised their hands up like fucking Nazis. One of the leaders in that movement, Steve Bannon (who pulled his kid out of a school because there were "too many Jews"), is likely to get a major position in the Trump administration.
Is ANYTHING similar happening to white people? Please think of a single thing.

Ok.
(Does a single Google search)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_664885285&feature=iv&src_vid=xRlRAyulN4o&v=1S3yMzEee18

It's not racism to acknowledge the existence of racism. It's racist to DENY racism when it's staring you straight in the face.

I never denied racism. I am aware that white supremacist groups exist. To be honest though, I just don't really care.

As for Bernie Sanders, he recently criticized identity politics and blamed it as part of the reason Trump got elected. Clearly you know nothing about what he stands for.

I honestly don't give a shit about what Bernie stands for.

Well then it depends on what system you're referring to.

Which?

You mean tolerant?

yes

White people/straight people/men CAN be marginalized. That doesn't mean they're not overall more privileged.
I think we should worry more about black churches being burned and a white supremacist being a major adviser for Trump than some people on the Internet saying stupid things about men and white people.

I think people should acknowledge the fact that white people are also marginalized.

I did.

Do it again, I wasn't looking.

But it's like that NOW. The progress hasn't happened yet. We're living in the PRESENT, not the idealistic future.
NOW, on November 25th, the law permits discrimination against the LGBTQPA+ community in many parts of the country. It's called institutionalized oppression.

That's actually kinda funny. Well, I guess that's the world we live in.
I agree with you that prejudice against fagolas exist.

Not all oppression is perpetrated by the government, and that oppression matters too, but this IS done by the government.

I think we should be concerned with what the government does though. I haven't heard many lynching cases happen recently.

There was nothing to refute, you just said 'there's a debate going on'. Yeah, there are a lot of debates going on. So?

It shows that the possibility that men are less privileged than women exist. Acknowledge it.

Abortion,

Agree. But a few years ago in Mississipi, there was almost a law passed that forbade abortions. Thankfully it was never passed.

pay gap,

That exists, but not in the way you probably believe.
They took the averages of how much women and men make nationally, and they seemed to use that as propaganda. It doesn't take into other factors, such as how many people from each population work, what kind of work they have, how good of a job they do, etc..

birth control,

I'd like to see the debate where women aren't allowed to take a pill before having sex.

unequal representation in government,

While it is true there is a disproportionate amount of women in the government, other factors have to be taken into account. Maybe women don't want to go into office as much as men, or maybe they have policies that don't agree with the norm.

more likely to be stalked/assaulted,

How exactly? If you feel as though you might get stalked or feel as though you may get assaulted, get help and/or have something on you to detract predators, like pepper spray. There have been studies that show that men are almost as likely to get assaulted as women.

sexual assault against them generally ignored by colleges,

That is a problem, but I have never seen such things happen. In fact, I've seen the opposite happen. Remember the The Duke lacrosse case & the UVA rape scandal?

more likely to be poor, etc.

Yeah I'm gonna need a citation for that.

Rapist-psychiatrists. Well, now it makes sense.

No, I meant the rapists.

That's why I put the slash. They're similar enough to lump them into the same category for this- they both cure mental health problems.

Not exactly. Sure, they work together, but they aren't similar enough to be lumped together. That's like saying a parody and satire are the same thing.

There's no difference in terms of relevance to this topic.

I know right.
I was just saying that he (my health teacher) talks about how much he learns from reading.

Biases and why we want success aren't related to this.

and?

[brimstoneSalad]

Guys, chill out please. Can we get back on topic?

Intersectionality deals both with the privileged/unprivileged false dichotomies (in reality, people have statistically different [not inherently superior] privileges, even along perceived "racial" divides, calling one privileged is not useful or accurate and it just fuels racial tension), and the idea that all of these 'oppressions' are institutional and linked to a single cause (patriarchy) which must be dismantled in order to break down all systems of privilege.

The concept of "white privilege" is in itself a racist and race-baiting idea if you do not pair it with the equal and opposite ideas that other "races" also have their own privileges, and whites have disadvantages as well. Much like the idea of "male privilege" is sexist if not paired with the understanding of female privilege and the drawbacks males face too.
Of course unlike gender (for which there is serious evidence of biological difference), any dealing with race is probably counter-productive. The real evidence lies with socioeconomic and cultural factors, not genetics (you'll be hard pressed to find controls strong enough to legitimize race realism).

Maybe we should just stick to discussion on panhandling?

[PsYcHo]

Guys, chill out please. Can we get back on topic?

Maybe we should just stick to discussion on panhandling?

Seems like a reasonable request, since ideally a thread is supposed to cover a single topic. Someone who is new to the forum or just debating in general could see this as a less of a debate about the original post, and more a grudge match. (Several topics were in play, perhaps new threads/additions to old ones would be more appropriate?)

[EquALLity]

Intersectionality deals both with the privileged/unprivileged false dichotomies (in reality, people have statistically different [not inherently superior] privileges, even along perceived "racial" divides, calling one privileged is not useful or accurate and it just fuels racial tension), and the idea that all of these 'oppressions' are institutional and linked to a single cause (patriarchy) which must be dismantled in order to break down all systems of privilege.

Not sure if this is entirely accurate.

The concept of "white privilege" is in itself a racist and race-baiting idea if you do not pair it with the equal and opposite ideas that other "races" also have their own privileges, and whites have disadvantages as well. Much like the idea of "male privilege" is sexist if not paired with the understanding of female privilege and the drawbacks males face too.

That seems kind of silly to me.

It's like if I was talking about problems with Donald Trump, and then someone says, "but Hillary Clinton said ________!"
It's just diverting from the actual topic unnecessarily, and stretches the conversation out for no reason, making it harder to dive deep into a certain issue. After we establish the problem with Trump (or the lack of one), then I think it's ok to talk about Hillary Clinton having a problem. Unless you're in some type of setting where you only have one chance to comment, though, bringing up the problem with Hillary causes less discussion about the intended topic and is just annoying.

And "non-white privilege" is not equal to white privilege. It's not 'equal and opposite'. Is there a group comparable to the alt-right rising, and is one of the leaders of it going to be a major part of the next presidency? No. Was there a white church just burned down in support of Hillary Clinton? Nope. It's just not equal.

Of course unlike gender (for which there is serious evidence of biological difference), any dealing with race is probably counter-productive. The real evidence lies with socioeconomic and cultural factors, not genetics (you'll be hard pressed to find controls strong enough to legitimize race realism).

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying we should never identify racism as racism?
It's not all about socioeconomic status and cultural factors. Burning down a black church has nothing to do with that.

Maybe we should just stick to discussion on panhandling?

Yeah, this isn't really what the topic was about. If it's going to continue, it should probably be it's own topic... Not that I really want to get into an extensive debate about this.

[Red]

Intersectionality deals both with the privileged/unprivileged false dichotomies (in reality, people have statistically different [not inherently superior] privileges, even along perceived "racial" divides, calling one privileged is not useful or accurate and it just fuels racial tension), and the idea that all of these 'oppressions' are institutional and linked to a single cause (patriarchy) which must be dismantled in order to break down all systems of privilege.

Well I know that. Do you know why people who believe intersectional theory are against the cis straight white males? Sure, historically, this may be the case, but the past is irrelevant; we should focus on what we should do to make the future better. It's as Kennedy said:
"...those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future."

The concept of "white privilege" is in itself a racist and race-baiting idea if you do not pair it with the equal and opposite ideas that other "races" also have their own privileges, and whites have disadvantages as well. Much like the idea of "male privilege" is sexist if not paired with the understanding of female privilege and the drawbacks males face too.

I think people need to understand that no group of people has more 'privilege' than the other. People need to understand that every group has it's advantages and drawbacks, and, aside from equal rights, no one is 100% equal, and frankly, I think that sounds like the most reasonable case.
Intersectional theory is starting to sound like a conspiracy theory now that I think about it.

Of course unlike gender (for which there is serious evidence of biological difference), any dealing with race is probably counter-productive. The real evidence lies with socioeconomic and cultural factors, not genetics (you'll be hard pressed to find controls strong enough to legitimize race realism).

Well I mean come on, that's pretty much common knowledge (or at least I think it is). If I had to choose between hiring a woman or a man for a construction job, I'd likely choose the man.
But there are a few genetic differences between a black and a white (although they are completely irrelevant). For instance, white people's skin tends to look saggier when they're younger, while black guys tend to look young until they're at least 60. Something to do with melanin, I don't know I'm no astrophysicist.

Maybe we should just stick to discussion on panhandling?

But it's fun!

[brimstoneSalad]

That seems kind of silly to me.

It's like if I was talking about problems with Donald Trump, and then someone says, "but Hillary Clinton said ________!"

It would be like talking about a problem with Trump, wherein the same problem applies to Clinton. Like that he and she supported the Iraq war. Saying it about one when establishing a contrast between the two implies that the other is innocent.

When you just say something like "male privilege" without mentioning a specific issue, you are implying that men are overall privileged and women are not. These statements are only useful as comparisons. When you mention one without the other it's nothing but rhetoric.

It's just diverting from the actual topic unnecessarily, and stretches the conversation out for no reason, making it harder to dive deep into a certain issue.

Then talk about a specific issue that applies to one and not the other.

Men have privileges, but so do women. Mentioning "male privilege" alone which is always implicitly in contrast to female privilege (unlike in politics where there are more than two candidates, or at least people think there are) is about as honest as criticizing Hillary for supporting the war in contrast to Trump, when he did the same thing.

After we establish the problem with Trump (or the lack of one), then I think it's ok to talk about Hillary Clinton having a problem. Unless you're in some type of setting where you only have one chance to comment, though, bringing up the problem with Hillary causes less discussion about the intended topic and is just annoying.

Then you shouldn't bring up the problem at all if it applies to both candidates. Privilege applies to men and women.

Unless you're talking about a specific privilege in a specific context -- like men being physically stronger than women, as it applies to domestic violence and fear -- then it's wrong to mention generally that men have privilege because it implies that women do not.

And "non-white privilege" is not equal to white privilege. It's not 'equal and opposite'.

There is no means of quantifying.
We can't really weigh physical strength against the ability to have children, and we can't weigh the supposed "racial" advantages either.
We can look seriously and objectively at socioeconomics, but equating that to race is in itself racist. Talk about poverty instead to avoid race baiting by accident.

Is there a group comparable to the alt-right rising, and is one of the leaders of it going to be a major part of the next presidency? No. Was there a white church just burned down in support of Hillary Clinton? Nope. It's just not equal.

A white man was shot in the neck during a BLM riot. White students are being denied passage into buildings for education by human barricades, conservative speakers are being denied access to and frightened away from events.

All of this shit is terrible. If you're trying to quantify human suffering and then pin it on a "race", that's part of the problem.
We need to get away from the race issues, not reinforce them.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying we should never identify racism as racism?
It's not all about socioeconomic status and cultural factors. Burning down a black church has nothing to do with that.

There are true racists on both sides, but we don't need to reinforce their beliefs.
That's like telling the terrorists that they have the true interpretation of Islam.

Racism is aberrant, and incidences of confirmed racial violence are like shark attacks and lightning strikes. That's not substantial in social terms.
The evidence of real and significant difference has to do with socioeconomics.

Maybe we should just stick to discussion on panhandling?

Yeah, this isn't really what the topic was about. If it's going to continue, it should probably be it's own topic... Not that I really want to get into an extensive debate about this.

Do you have any other questions on the panhandler/panhandlers?