So, a poster was pointing out that they felt excluded from common discourse, since they were white and therefore were condidered privileged to the point that their input was considered irrelevant. This person was trying to say that being white doesn't necessarily mean having privilege, because there are poor white people too, and also white people in very precarious situations.
Someone else basically said "yes, but all else being equal you're better off in your current situation for being white, so consider that a privilege".
I then responded with a question if having white skin really is such an advantage that it's reason from excluding people from the discourse, and if it's really worse than other things such as say being from a really rich or upper class family. I phrased this as a *question* whether or not your skin color is such a predictor of success that having it automatically should disqualify you from participating, as opposed to all other properties of a person.
Permbanned. I don't get it, the term "predictor of success" is a scientifically established term. Did I say something stupid?
Here's what I wrote verbatim:
> Well, that same logic applies for so many different properties that the whiteness seems almost irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
> If you consider things like birthplace, education, wealth, wealth of family, social network, employment, sexual orientation, race, eye color, skin and hair color etc, is skin color really such a great predictor of success in today's society?
> And is it so big that it can be used to suppress the voice of those people with the argument that their skin color gives them such a distinct advantage that they shouldn't be allowed to speak as if they're part of the group?