privilege

[vh]

what is it?
does it exist?
does it matter?

debate!

[FiahOwl]

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '143691'.

[Gordon Freeman]

It doesnt exist. All of your opinions are wrong because I don't like them.

[gabriel.dac]

It is justified

[Jorster]

Privilege is a thing, but not as big a thing as certain people would have you believe.

[atomic7732]

we live in the unahted states of murica where women and minorities make 1 dollar to the dollar a white man makes 'cuz we're all free an' equal and our institushuns arent systematically rigged against people of lesser fortune or people we don't like or are different 'cuz we all got the same oppahtunities!

if you don't notice it and don't have to deal with it, you're privileged

[gabriel.dac]

we live in the unahted states of murica where women and minorities make 1 dollar to the dollar a white man makes 'cuz we're all free an' equal and our institushuns arent systematically rigged against people of lesser fortune or people we don't like or are different 'cuz we all got the same oppahtunities!

if you don't notice it and don't have to deal with it, you're privileged

there is a reason for everything.

[Darvince]

sometimes that reason is very shitty.

[Jorster]

http://imgur.com/a/sNXw1
Saw this on reddit and thought it was interesting

[Jorster]

Also a response about it:

"White privilege"...what a joke. Discrimination against blacks, Hispanics etc. is not "white privilege." It's fucking discrimination. Denying group A their fundamental rights is not mere "privilege" for group B. If "privilege" were the problem, the solution would be taking the "privilege" away. So we could just, for example, get the cops to hassle white people more. Which, however, in point of fact, does not solve the problem. It makes it worse...

Idiots.

What's really annoying about this particular bit of stupidity is that it's not only vapid and inaccurate, but it is specifically designed to give SJWs a way to shit on whites, males, etc. with some degree of impunity. The real problem is discrimination against e.g. blacks. But they don't want to talk about the real problem. They want to spout a bunch of shit about how terrible white people are. Their real goal is not to mitigate the real harm to e.g. blacks--it's to bitch about the groups they hate--e.g. whites.

For example, blacks are being disenfranchised. That's a huge problem. Do I, as a white person, gain from that? Well, my vote counts for more...but to an immeasurably small degree. To focus on the more-or-less imaginary benefit to me, rather than the violation of the rights of others is fucking twisted and perverse.

These people are ignorant, stupid children.

[atomic7732]

i dont think that's quite how that works but ok

first of all your 'sjw's are hardly an issue you need to be worried about

privilege is a great way to describe it: it's a right that you have that others don't...

no one but those screaming 'die cis scum' have probably ever suggested actually taking "privileged" peoples rights away, you're arguing the wrong people about the wrong issues

also please tell me about all those troubling times when you were discriminated or harassed by sjw's because you were a cis white male and how much damage it caused to you

anyway, by all means, please, argue about the pussification of america as a serious issue but those people who recognize systemic problems? they're silly sjws

I'm not defending the idiot sjw's that you like to think you're against, but in reality you let that blanket term cover reasonable people with valid points, and that's a problem

I find the complacency and ignorance (and sometimes outright denial of problems needing to be fixed, due to lack of exposure) of the "privileged" population a problem.

[vh]

The problem is that the idea of privilege focuses on what some people have rather than on what people don't have. This implicitly, if not explicitly, blames the privileged. Think of the sentece: "The 1% have half of the wealth". It's implied that they have too much.

We haven't formally defined privilege. Suppose it is not a limited resource (like freedom). Then it would be wrong to say people have too much privilege, we should say some people have too little privilege. Now suppose it is a limited resource (like money). Then telling people they have privilege is about as productive as telling rich people they are wealthy -- the point is moot.

[atomic7732]

The problem is that the idea of privilege focuses on what some people have rather than on what people don't have. This implicitly, if not explicitly, blames the privileged.

It focuses on (and sometimes blames) the people who have things, because they also have the power to change it, yet they often don't bother to do so. And they are the ones who may be causing or reinforcing it. So, I think it puts the focus right where it should be. You can't just ignore your privilege and tell all the disenfranchised to fight for their own rights (I have my rights after all, why do I need to care for yours?). Then you get people who go "the police protect us, stop rioting and impeding my lifestyle by protesting."

People make it out to be so easy to just help yourself to get yourself, and yourself alone, the stature in society all people deserve... but it's not like that. "If everyone would just do x, they'd be where they need to be." That's 1900s talk. On par with scientific racism.

"The 1% have half of the wealth". It's implied that they have too much.

(As I believe you pointed out,) I don't think this case applies. It wouldn't be realistic for every other single percent to have as much wealth as the top 1% does. Rights and economics work differently.

[FiahOwl]

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '144522'.

[vh]

It focuses on (and sometimes blames) the people who have things, because they also have the power to change it, yet they often don't bother to do so. And they are the ones who may be causing or reinforcing it. So, I think it puts the focus right where it should be. You can't just ignore your privilege and tell all the disenfranchised to fight for their own rights (I have my rights after all, why do I need to care for yours?). Then you get people who go "the police protect us, stop rioting and impeding my lifestyle by protesting."

People make it out to be so easy to just help yourself to get yourself, and yourself alone, the stature in society all people deserve... but it's not like that. "If everyone would just do x, they'd be where they need to be." That's 1900s talk. On par with scientific racism.

This is labeling the wrong group. Instead of focusing and blaming on the people who have privilege, people need to focus on the people who can change things. Yes, this inclues people of all privilege levels. And perhaps people with more privilege tend to be those who can make more change and don't, but that doesn't excuse the mistargeting.

In other words, instead of talking about privilege, talk about the "bystanders" of social justice.

---

Also, privilege is nearly never used to get people to take action. I've just never seen any post that says "hello privileged people, go to 123 Rainbow street and protest for unprivileged people's rights". Even if these posts were common (which they are not), they would be pretty ineffectual. If you go up to someone and tell them they don't deserve what they have, they're not going to want to help you.

So the concept of privilege is not used to fix discrimination and it is not even capable of fixing discrimination.

(As I believe you pointed out,) I don't think this case applies. It wouldn't be realistic for every other single percent to have as much wealth as the top 1% does. Rights and economics work differently.

Do they? if everyone has privilege, does anyone have privilege?

---

[Jorster]

It focuses on (and sometimes blames) the people who have things, because they also have the power to change it, yet they often don't bother to do so. And they are the ones who may be causing or reinforcing it. So, I think it puts the focus right where it should be. You can't just ignore your privilege and tell all the disenfranchised to fight for their own rights (I have my rights after all, why do I need to care for yours?). Then you get people who go "the police protect us, stop rioting and impeding my lifestyle by protesting."

People make it out to be so easy to just help yourself to get yourself, and yourself alone, the stature in society all people deserve... but it's not like that. "If everyone would just do x, they'd be where they need to be." That's 1900s talk. On par with scientific racism.

This is labeling the wrong group. Instead of focusing and blaming on the people who have privilege, people need to focus on the people who can change things. Yes, this inclues people of all privilege levels. And perhaps people with more privilege tend to be those who can make more change and don't, but that doesn't excuse the mistargeting.

In other words, instead of talking about privilege, talk about the "bystanders" of social justice.

---

Also, privilege is nearly never used to get people to take action. I've just never seen any post that says "hello privileged people, go to 123 Rainbow street and protest for unprivileged people's rights". Even if these posts were common (which they are not), they would be pretty ineffectual. If you go up to someone and tell them they don't deserve what they have, they're not going to want to help you.

So the concept of privilege is not used to fix discrimination and it is not even capable of fixing discrimination.

(As I believe you pointed out,) I don't think this case applies. It wouldn't be realistic for every other single percent to have as much wealth as the top 1% does. Rights and economics work differently.

Do they? if everyone has privilege, does anyone have privilege?

---

Well said.

[atomic7732]

but that doesn't excuse the mistargeting.

I don't think it's mistargetting any more than plenty of policies which put more effort in one place to improve it, versus anywhere else, because you will get more (percieved, at least) benefit.

By focusing in one area, you can get breakthroughs in other areas as well. Just like the people who don't support the space program because they think the money is being frivolously spent solely to put some piece of expensive electronics on a rock they'll never see. Yet this teaches and helps so much else out which can benefit many more people. Or focusing on racist brutality by cops. That helps everyone, not just one group.

In other words, instead of talking about privilege, talk about the "bystanders" of social justice.

That could help.

Also, privilege is nearly never used to get people to take action.

...

So the concept of privilege is not used to fix discrimination and it is not even capable of fixing discrimination.

Idunno, maybe not online, but irl campaigns:

Do they? if everyone has privilege, does anyone have privilege?

They wouldn't... but privilege is relative. Wealth is not (and rights aren't either).

[Jorster]

So passing trans people have cisgender privilege?

[Darvince]

yes

[Gordon Freeman]

yes

yet they are still shunned by religinuts (because movie)

[Darvince]

no they're shunned by pretty much everyone you zirkza

[vh]

I don't think it's mistargetting any more than plenty of policies which put more effort in one place to improve it, versus anywhere else, because you will get more (percieved, at least) benefit.

By focusing in one area, you can get breakthroughs in other areas as well. Just like the people who don't support the space program because they think the money is being frivolously spent solely to put some piece of expensive electronics on a rock they'll never see. Yet this teaches and helps so much else out which can benefit many more people. Or focusing on racist brutality by cops. That helps everyone, not just one group.

But it's not improving anything. It would be like a campaign to give everyone a terrorist index: 0 for no-risk, 10 for probably terrorist. Muslims start off with index 5, Atheists get a +2 bonus, political dissidents get a +4. And by getting these people to stop terrorism, (afterall, a muslim has a better chance of getting his fellow jihadist to stop suicide bombing), we'll see reduced numbers of christians blowing up people too.

Idunno, maybe not online, but irl campaigns:

That's no call of action. It just tells everyone they have privilege. It doesn't tell anyone to take action.

They wouldn't... but privilege is relative. Wealth is not (and rights aren't either).

Wealth is relative. You can have inflation, you can change between currencies.
Rights are relative. You can nearly always have more rights taken away or given to you.

But say there's a limit where you can't have anymore rights taken away. Say you don't even have the right to exist.
Well since you don't have the right to exist, you can't possibly have any privileges either. So if rights are absolute, then privilege is too.

[atomic7732]

"We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people." - Martin Luther King Jr, 1963