I'm also really happy we can have a space for this. I myself often get pretty impatient with homophobia and the related intolerances. Then I'll tell myself well, the intolerance of others can be damaging, and it's best if the issues can be explained intelligently/respectfully/patiently since in-roads are never made otherwise---- so I should check my own intolerance of those who I think are intolerant at the door. I can disagree with intolerance and still be assertive and try to open up peoples perspectives with good discussion.
People are more emotional than we all realize-- angry discussion usually just galvanizes opinions, regardless of how logical we think we're being and how we imagine logic to trump emotion in discussion.
Oh, and mad props on the banner :D
Yeah awesome post, fighting bigotry and prejudice with bigotry and prejudice. SRS would be proud.
"You have to tolerate my intolerance!" ...c'mon dude we've all been here long enough to know that's shit. Don't peddle that crap here.
I don't think it's about tolerating intolerance, I think it's about "It seemed inevitable that this thread would end up with a torrent of white cis straight middle class males decrying the concept of privilege and whining that it hurts their feelings."
I mostly just get tired of the fact that "equality" mostly seems to mean "equal opportunities regardless of sex, race and sexuality". And don't get me wrong, I fully support equal job opportunities, marriage for all who truly love their partner, and everything else in that regard, because these are all things that a "minority" lesbian girl could do just as well as a white straight male (just to name the opposites). I also truly like the new banner. But there are many more ways in which people differ, and they don't get nearly the same amount of attention while people who belong to a different kind of minority can feel just as bad for the same reasons. Maybe even worse, as few people acknowledge their situation.
Maybe you could help me out by listing the minorities that you think aren't getting enough attention? Particularly minorities that people refuse to give attention to?
I wouldn't go as far as saying people "refuse" to give attention to anyone, but I didn't go into specifics because I feel they are really based on my own experiences (not being disadvantages by any, just noticing them happening) and because I didn't want to derail the thread. But if you want me to list a few:
- People literally saying that they couldn't understand how one could ever truly love a fat person - All the kids around the world who are being bullied for having a strange hobby, not having a common hobby or having different tastes - Introverted people (usually dismissed as being boring or uninteresting) - Sick people of any kind (physically disabled people are getting a lot of attention in most cases, but mentally disabled people... they rarely do) - Ugly people (usually covertly, and while being subjective, people who are deemed attractive by many people are more highly rated on pretty much everything other attribute compared to people who are deemed less attractive) - Intelligence - Religion
Obviously all these different people are still allowed to marry, but all these people can be made fun of or feel excluded for these very reasons. And because most of them aren't superficial, it's hard for many people to know what it's like to be really introverted, so less people know "what it's like".
As far as I know most "white cis straight middle class males" are simply guys tired of being told to respect anything and everything all the time. I'm basing this mostly on my surroundings, so I could be terribly wrong.
So...these straight white guys are tired of being told they can't be assholes? Why am I supposed to feel sorry for these particular straight white guys?
I think Plansix below you summarized this way better than I did. It's not about being told "don't be an asshole" and no one is asking you to feel sorry for them, but if we're not supposed to dismiss a group of people for a certain quality because a few members of that group behave in a particular way, then just don't do it at all.
None of those people you listed are denied rights. And I don't understand your second response. Could you please clarify? Are you saying you're not supposed to dismiss a group because of the way a few members of that group act but it would just be better if those few members didn't do that? Could you give an example there?
So because they were not denied rights, you get to call them privileged by default? If they have terminal cancer, but you didn't know because they don't wear a sign, can you still call them privileged just because you are gay?
There's a reason I have stopped responding to your posts. You refuse to acknowledge the definition of privilege in the context of social justice and you have arbitrarily decided it is a personal insult. Even Scarlett tried to correct this dumbass misconception but apparently you people just aren't having it. Go home.
Why do you insist on labeling people you don't know or entire social groups? Isn't that exactly what your are fighting against? How you can say that I am privileged just because I date a woman and I happen to be white? Why are you allowed to assume things about me, but I am not allowed to assume things about you?
Do you see the flaw with the argument and why some people object to it?
The only reason that people object to it is because they are immature and, for some absurd reason, can't accept the fact that every little thing they got in their lives wasn't 100% hard work on a fair playing field when compared to the rest of society. People naturally want to rationalize why they are well-off and others aren't, and they don't want to acknowledge that they got to where they were in an unfair manner.
So because they were not denied rights, you get to call them privileged by default? If they have terminal cancer, but you didn't know because they don't wear a sign, can you still call them privileged just because you are gay?
Why yes, that is the very definition of the concept.
If someone told me that society unfairly empowered me because I am white and straight, I would agreed. It is a far better way to convey the idea that claiming someone is privileged just because they happen to be a white and straight.
There is a term for this. It is called privilege. It is incredibly childish of you to be insulted just because the term "privilege" is used.
Seriously, what is your problem with the word privilege? Here's the definition:
Definition of privilege noun a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people:
something regarded as a rare opportunity and bringing particular pleasure:
(also absolute privilege) (in a parliamentary context) the right to say or write something without the risk of incurring punishment or legal action for defamation.
the right of a lawyer or official to refuse to divulge confidential information.
chiefly historical a grant to an individual, corporation, or place of special rights or immunities, especially in the form of a franchise or monopoly.
That is the term's definition and there is a reason it's used.
"You have to tolerate my intolerance!" ...c'mon dude we've all been here long enough to know that's shit. Don't peddle that crap here.
I don't think it's about tolerating intolerance, I think it's about "It seemed inevitable that this thread would end up with a torrent of white cis straight middle class males decrying the concept of privilege and whining that it hurts their feelings."
I mostly just get tired of the fact that "equality" mostly seems to mean "equal opportunities regardless of sex, race and sexuality". And don't get me wrong, I fully support equal job opportunities, marriage for all who truly love their partner, and everything else in that regard, because these are all things that a "minority" lesbian girl could do just as well as a white straight male (just to name the opposites). I also truly like the new banner. But there are many more ways in which people differ, and they don't get nearly the same amount of attention while people who belong to a different kind of minority can feel just as bad for the same reasons. Maybe even worse, as few people acknowledge their situation.
Maybe you could help me out by listing the minorities that you think aren't getting enough attention? Particularly minorities that people refuse to give attention to?
I wouldn't go as far as saying people "refuse" to give attention to anyone, but I didn't go into specifics because I feel they are really based on my own experiences (not being disadvantages by any, just noticing them happening) and because I didn't want to derail the thread. But if you want me to list a few:
- People literally saying that they couldn't understand how one could ever truly love a fat person - All the kids around the world who are being bullied for having a strange hobby, not having a common hobby or having different tastes - Introverted people (usually dismissed as being boring or uninteresting) - Sick people of any kind (physically disabled people are getting a lot of attention in most cases, but mentally disabled people... they rarely do) - Ugly people (usually covertly, and while being subjective, people who are deemed attractive by many people are more highly rated on pretty much everything other attribute compared to people who are deemed less attractive) - Intelligence - Religion
Obviously all these different people are still allowed to marry, but all these people can be made fun of or feel excluded for these very reasons. And because most of them aren't superficial, it's hard for many people to know what it's like to be really introverted, so less people know "what it's like".
As far as I know most "white cis straight middle class males" are simply guys tired of being told to respect anything and everything all the time. I'm basing this mostly on my surroundings, so I could be terribly wrong.
So...these straight white guys are tired of being told they can't be assholes? Why am I supposed to feel sorry for these particular straight white guys?
I think Plansix below you summarized this way better than I did. It's not about being told "don't be an asshole" and no one is asking you to feel sorry for them, but if we're not supposed to dismiss a group of people for a certain quality because a few members of that group behave in a particular way, then just don't do it at all.
None of those people you listed are denied rights. And I don't understand your second response. Could you please clarify? Are you saying you're not supposed to dismiss a group because of the way a few members of that group act but it would just be better if those few members didn't do that? Could you give an example there?
So because they were not denied rights, you get to call them privileged by default? If they have terminal cancer, but you didn't know because they don't wear a sign, can you still call them privileged just because you are gay?
There's a reason I have stopped responding to your posts. You refuse to acknowledge the definition of privilege in the context of social justice and you have arbitrarily decided it is a personal insult. Even Scarlett tried to correct this dumbass misconception but apparently you people just aren't having it. Go home.
Why do you insist on labeling people you don't know or entire social groups? Isn't that exactly what your are fighting against? How you can say that I am privileged just because I date a woman and I happen to be white? Why are you allowed to assume things about me, but I am not allowed to assume things about you?
Do you see the flaw with the argument and why some people object to it?
No. Because you're not understanding the definition of privilege and you have obstinately refused to do so for the majority of this thread's run. All of those questions would easily be answered if you'd take your head out of your ass and actually admit that you are misunderstanding privilege.
Am I privileged because I just happen to be white and straight?
Yes
If so, why do you gain the ability to assume that about me with only those two pieces of information?
Because those are the only two relevant pieces of information needed...duh.
And could I make any assumption about someone based solely their race and sexual orientation that would be acceptable?
Umm...yeah, you can assume they are privileged. Like I just did above. How are you not following this?
In case you haven't noticed, I'm done treating you like you actually have any interest in understanding this. You've decided you don't like this word so you're gonna be butthurt. It's cool. Keep throwing this tantrum.
"You have to tolerate my intolerance!" ...c'mon dude we've all been here long enough to know that's shit. Don't peddle that crap here.
I don't think it's about tolerating intolerance, I think it's about "It seemed inevitable that this thread would end up with a torrent of white cis straight middle class males decrying the concept of privilege and whining that it hurts their feelings."
I mostly just get tired of the fact that "equality" mostly seems to mean "equal opportunities regardless of sex, race and sexuality". And don't get me wrong, I fully support equal job opportunities, marriage for all who truly love their partner, and everything else in that regard, because these are all things that a "minority" lesbian girl could do just as well as a white straight male (just to name the opposites). I also truly like the new banner. But there are many more ways in which people differ, and they don't get nearly the same amount of attention while people who belong to a different kind of minority can feel just as bad for the same reasons. Maybe even worse, as few people acknowledge their situation.
Maybe you could help me out by listing the minorities that you think aren't getting enough attention? Particularly minorities that people refuse to give attention to?
I wouldn't go as far as saying people "refuse" to give attention to anyone, but I didn't go into specifics because I feel they are really based on my own experiences (not being disadvantages by any, just noticing them happening) and because I didn't want to derail the thread. But if you want me to list a few:
- People literally saying that they couldn't understand how one could ever truly love a fat person - All the kids around the world who are being bullied for having a strange hobby, not having a common hobby or having different tastes - Introverted people (usually dismissed as being boring or uninteresting) - Sick people of any kind (physically disabled people are getting a lot of attention in most cases, but mentally disabled people... they rarely do) - Ugly people (usually covertly, and while being subjective, people who are deemed attractive by many people are more highly rated on pretty much everything other attribute compared to people who are deemed less attractive) - Intelligence - Religion
Obviously all these different people are still allowed to marry, but all these people can be made fun of or feel excluded for these very reasons. And because most of them aren't superficial, it's hard for many people to know what it's like to be really introverted, so less people know "what it's like".
As far as I know most "white cis straight middle class males" are simply guys tired of being told to respect anything and everything all the time. I'm basing this mostly on my surroundings, so I could be terribly wrong.
So...these straight white guys are tired of being told they can't be assholes? Why am I supposed to feel sorry for these particular straight white guys?
I think Plansix below you summarized this way better than I did. It's not about being told "don't be an asshole" and no one is asking you to feel sorry for them, but if we're not supposed to dismiss a group of people for a certain quality because a few members of that group behave in a particular way, then just don't do it at all.
None of those people you listed are denied rights. And I don't understand your second response. Could you please clarify? Are you saying you're not supposed to dismiss a group because of the way a few members of that group act but it would just be better if those few members didn't do that? Could you give an example there?
So because they were not denied rights, you get to call them privileged by default? If they have terminal cancer, but you didn't know because they don't wear a sign, can you still call them privileged just because you are gay?
There's a reason I have stopped responding to your posts. You refuse to acknowledge the definition of privilege in the context of social justice and you have arbitrarily decided it is a personal insult. Even Scarlett tried to correct this dumbass misconception but apparently you people just aren't having it. Go home.
Why do you insist on labeling people you don't know or entire social groups? Isn't that exactly what your are fighting against? How you can say that I am privileged just because I date a woman and I happen to be white? Why are you allowed to assume things about me, but I am not allowed to assume things about you?
Do you see the flaw with the argument and why some people object to it?
To be fair, the fact that one dates a woman and is white is all that is enough to qualify someone as priviledged in certain domains. It doesn't mean you're wealthy or whatever, it means that in those domains you have relative social power over the alternatives. The power itself isn't necessarily obvious, it could be as simple as being allowed to express a given opinion or fact about ones life without it being subject to the expectation of further elaboration or explanation or justification, but power imbalance is still there.
Like it or not, society is shaped by covert norms, which if you violate or happen to be outside of open you up to sanction or disadvantage in negotiating a social situation. Being categorizable as being 'the norm' puts you in a position of relative power over those outside of the norm. It's how every single society on earth operates (even though the norms themselves are different).
If you don't like the word 'privileged', substitute it for 'powerful' or whatever, but it doesn't change the fact that these norms exist.
If someone told me that society unfairly empowered me because I am white and straight, I would agreed. It is a far better way to convey the idea that claiming someone is privileged just because they happen to be a white and straight. It also denotes that it done against my will.
Or at least outside of your conscious control. They're covert norms after all.
If someone calls me privileged, the first thing I want to do is stop being privileged. When I am told I can't stop, I feel like I am being defined against my will and trapped into a negative social group that I cannot escape.
Yup, fair sentiment-- I would get prickly if I was told I was oppressing people when I felt I wasn't. It's not exactly about individuals (although at the same time it's supremely about individuals), but about what we are allowed/expected to do/say in a given context, and what we construe as normal or taboo.
But acknowledging privilege is important too I think, consider the prototypical white, middle aged, wealthy, protestant, politically connected, straight man in control of a large business. People NOT acknowledging that (via all these characteristics I just listed) this hypothetical individual is massively privileged only prop up / perpetuate the privilege and power imbalance.
Acknowledging privilege is a first step towards dismantling these power imbalances.
On June 25 2013 14:15 Fission wrote: It seemed inevitable that this thread would end up with a torrent of white cis straight middle class males decrying the concept of privilege and whining that it hurts their feelings.
I love the mods for doing this and feel they have shown extraordinary restraint in not dropping banhammers like it's in style.I also admire all the brave sexual and gender minoritied people who have posted in this thread, knowing how ugly it would be in here.
I'm also really happy we can have a space for this. I myself often get pretty impatient with homophobia and the related intolerances. Then I'll tell myself well, the intolerance of others can be damaging, and it's best if the issues can be explained intelligently/respectfully/patiently since in-roads are never made otherwise---- so I should check my own intolerance of those who I think are intolerant at the door. I can disagree with intolerance and still be assertive and try to open up peoples perspectives with good discussion.
People are more emotional than we all realize-- angry discussion usually just galvanizes opinions, regardless of how logical we think we're being and how we imagine logic to trump emotion in discussion.
Oh, and mad props on the banner :D
Yeah awesome post, fighting bigotry and prejudice with bigotry and prejudice. SRS would be proud.
"You have to tolerate my intolerance!" ...c'mon dude we've all been here long enough to know that's shit. Don't peddle that crap here.
I don't think it's about tolerating intolerance, I think it's about "It seemed inevitable that this thread would end up with a torrent of white cis straight middle class males decrying the concept of privilege and whining that it hurts their feelings."
I mostly just get tired of the fact that "equality" mostly seems to mean "equal opportunities regardless of sex, race and sexuality". And don't get me wrong, I fully support equal job opportunities, marriage for all who truly love their partner, and everything else in that regard, because these are all things that a "minority" lesbian girl could do just as well as a white straight male (just to name the opposites). I also truly like the new banner. But there are many more ways in which people differ, and they don't get nearly the same amount of attention while people who belong to a different kind of minority can feel just as bad for the same reasons. Maybe even worse, as few people acknowledge their situation.
As far as I know most "white cis straight middle class males" are simply guys tired of being told to respect anything and everything all the time. I'm basing this mostly on my surroundings, so I could be terribly wrong.
As a white guy in the US, I would like if I couldn't be labeled with things like "privileged" or a "whiner" by members of minority groups. Its annoying and does not reflect who I am. They don't know me or who I am, so I don't really see any reason why they feel the need to label me. I am sure they can justify using the word "privilege," through some well thought out argument as to why my life has been made easier by being white, male and straight. I could justify any number of labels for any minority groups, true or not, through a well through out argument as well, but I don't.
You seem to misunderstand what privilege is. I'm a white, straight male as well and you can't tell me our life is not easier based off of those facts alone. We can go somewhere without being judged in a negative manner that is going to affect your job, how others perceive and act around. We are "normal".
If you want a funny but very realistic explanation i suggest you watch .
It is better to be a white straight male than any other race/gender orientation in this day and age. We are not better, but in society we are given a million and one better opportunities that many other don't receive.
On June 25 2013 14:15 Fission wrote: It seemed inevitable that this thread would end up with a torrent of white cis straight middle class males decrying the concept of privilege and whining that it hurts their feelings.
I love the mods for doing this and feel they have shown extraordinary restraint in not dropping banhammers like it's in style.I also admire all the brave sexual and gender minoritied people who have posted in this thread, knowing how ugly it would be in here.
I'm also really happy we can have a space for this. I myself often get pretty impatient with homophobia and the related intolerances. Then I'll tell myself well, the intolerance of others can be damaging, and it's best if the issues can be explained intelligently/respectfully/patiently since in-roads are never made otherwise---- so I should check my own intolerance of those who I think are intolerant at the door. I can disagree with intolerance and still be assertive and try to open up peoples perspectives with good discussion.
People are more emotional than we all realize-- angry discussion usually just galvanizes opinions, regardless of how logical we think we're being and how we imagine logic to trump emotion in discussion.
Oh, and mad props on the banner :D
Yeah awesome post, fighting bigotry and prejudice with bigotry and prejudice. SRS would be proud.
"You have to tolerate my intolerance!" ...c'mon dude we've all been here long enough to know that's shit. Don't peddle that crap here.
I don't think it's about tolerating intolerance, I think it's about "It seemed inevitable that this thread would end up with a torrent of white cis straight middle class males decrying the concept of privilege and whining that it hurts their feelings."
I mostly just get tired of the fact that "equality" mostly seems to mean "equal opportunities regardless of sex, race and sexuality". And don't get me wrong, I fully support equal job opportunities, marriage for all who truly love their partner, and everything else in that regard, because these are all things that a "minority" lesbian girl could do just as well as a white straight male (just to name the opposites). I also truly like the new banner. But there are many more ways in which people differ, and they don't get nearly the same amount of attention while people who belong to a different kind of minority can feel just as bad for the same reasons. Maybe even worse, as few people acknowledge their situation.
Maybe you could help me out by listing the minorities that you think aren't getting enough attention? Particularly minorities that people refuse to give attention to?
I wouldn't go as far as saying people "refuse" to give attention to anyone, but I didn't go into specifics because I feel they are really based on my own experiences (not being disadvantages by any, just noticing them happening) and because I didn't want to derail the thread. But if you want me to list a few:
- People literally saying that they couldn't understand how one could ever truly love a fat person - All the kids around the world who are being bullied for having a strange hobby, not having a common hobby or having different tastes - Introverted people (usually dismissed as being boring or uninteresting) - Sick people of any kind (physically disabled people are getting a lot of attention in most cases, but mentally disabled people... they rarely do) - Ugly people (usually covertly, and while being subjective, people who are deemed attractive by many people are more highly rated on pretty much everything other attribute compared to people who are deemed less attractive) - Intelligence - Religion
Obviously all these different people are still allowed to marry, but all these people can be made fun of or feel excluded for these very reasons. And because most of them aren't superficial, it's hard for many people to know what it's like to be really introverted, so less people know "what it's like".
As far as I know most "white cis straight middle class males" are simply guys tired of being told to respect anything and everything all the time. I'm basing this mostly on my surroundings, so I could be terribly wrong.
So...these straight white guys are tired of being told they can't be assholes? Why am I supposed to feel sorry for these particular straight white guys?
I think Plansix below you summarized this way better than I did. It's not about being told "don't be an asshole" and no one is asking you to feel sorry for them, but if we're not supposed to dismiss a group of people for a certain quality because a few members of that group behave in a particular way, then just don't do it at all.
None of those people you listed are denied rights. And I don't understand your second response. Could you please clarify? Are you saying you're not supposed to dismiss a group because of the way a few members of that group act but it would just be better if those few members didn't do that? Could you give an example there?
So because they were not denied rights, you get to call them privileged by default? If they have terminal cancer, but you didn't know because they don't wear a sign, can you still call them privileged just because you are gay?
That's not what we're saying AT ALL.
Yes, as a healthy person I have the privilege of being healthy and all that stuff. Even if I am trans/gay/bi/whatever.
Regarding sexual orientation or gender identity, a cis straight person has the privilege, for example, of never having to question his orientation and his identity, never having to be in a state of denial or hiding, and the possibility of losing support from your family or friend or being denied access to certain stuff on the basis of one sexuality or identity.
Sure, if I'm trans and rich, I have the privilege of being rich and having an easier life than a poor straight cis person. But if we take only the sexuality/identity part of my life, I am not privileged.
I agree that no one should call a particular individual privileged, but we can say on average, using data, that a straight cis person is more likely to be privileged regarding certains aspect of his or her life.
I don't think it's about tolerating intolerance, I think it's about "It seemed inevitable that this thread would end up with a torrent of white cis straight middle class males decrying the concept of privilege and whining that it hurts their feelings."
I mostly just get tired of the fact that "equality" mostly seems to mean "equal opportunities regardless of sex, race and sexuality". And don't get me wrong, I fully support equal job opportunities, marriage for all who truly love their partner, and everything else in that regard, because these are all things that a "minority" lesbian girl could do just as well as a white straight male (just to name the opposites). I also truly like the new banner. But there are many more ways in which people differ, and they don't get nearly the same amount of attention while people who belong to a different kind of minority can feel just as bad for the same reasons. Maybe even worse, as few people acknowledge their situation.
Maybe you could help me out by listing the minorities that you think aren't getting enough attention? Particularly minorities that people refuse to give attention to?
I wouldn't go as far as saying people "refuse" to give attention to anyone, but I didn't go into specifics because I feel they are really based on my own experiences (not being disadvantages by any, just noticing them happening) and because I didn't want to derail the thread. But if you want me to list a few:
- People literally saying that they couldn't understand how one could ever truly love a fat person - All the kids around the world who are being bullied for having a strange hobby, not having a common hobby or having different tastes - Introverted people (usually dismissed as being boring or uninteresting) - Sick people of any kind (physically disabled people are getting a lot of attention in most cases, but mentally disabled people... they rarely do) - Ugly people (usually covertly, and while being subjective, people who are deemed attractive by many people are more highly rated on pretty much everything other attribute compared to people who are deemed less attractive) - Intelligence - Religion
Obviously all these different people are still allowed to marry, but all these people can be made fun of or feel excluded for these very reasons. And because most of them aren't superficial, it's hard for many people to know what it's like to be really introverted, so less people know "what it's like".
As far as I know most "white cis straight middle class males" are simply guys tired of being told to respect anything and everything all the time. I'm basing this mostly on my surroundings, so I could be terribly wrong.
So...these straight white guys are tired of being told they can't be assholes? Why am I supposed to feel sorry for these particular straight white guys?
I think Plansix below you summarized this way better than I did. It's not about being told "don't be an asshole" and no one is asking you to feel sorry for them, but if we're not supposed to dismiss a group of people for a certain quality because a few members of that group behave in a particular way, then just don't do it at all.
None of those people you listed are denied rights. And I don't understand your second response. Could you please clarify? Are you saying you're not supposed to dismiss a group because of the way a few members of that group act but it would just be better if those few members didn't do that? Could you give an example there?
So because they were not denied rights, you get to call them privileged by default? If they have terminal cancer, but you didn't know because they don't wear a sign, can you still call them privileged just because you are gay?
There's a reason I have stopped responding to your posts. You refuse to acknowledge the definition of privilege in the context of social justice and you have arbitrarily decided it is a personal insult. Even Scarlett tried to correct this dumbass misconception but apparently you people just aren't having it. Go home.
Why do you insist on labeling people you don't know or entire social groups? Isn't that exactly what your are fighting against? How you can say that I am privileged just because I date a woman and I happen to be white? Why are you allowed to assume things about me, but I am not allowed to assume things about you?
Do you see the flaw with the argument and why some people object to it?
No. Because you're not understanding the definition of privilege and you have obstinately refused to do so for the majority of this thread's run. All of those questions would easily be answered if you'd take your head out of your ass and actually admit that you are misunderstanding privilege.
Am I privileged because I just happen to be white and straight?
And could I make any assumption about someone based solely their race and sexual orientation that would be acceptable?
Umm...yeah, you can assume they are privileged. Like I just did above. How are you not following this?
In case you haven't noticed, I'm done treating you like you actually have any interest in understanding this. You've decided you don't like this word so you're gonna be butthurt. It's cool. Keep throwing this tantrum.
The part that blows my mind about you and this discussion is that I completely agree with you in every way, except the use of the word "privileged". I explained over and over that some people find the word offensive and that there are better way to explain the issue of social justice. I don't disagree with the fact that I been unfairly empowered by society, because it is 100% true.
What I disagree with is your need to cling to a word that you know white, straight people find offensive. You know it offends them and yet you still us it. You could easily describe social justice in a number of ways, but this is the one you choose to use. You choose to use the one that you know will have the best chance of offending people that happen to be straight.
Maybe you could help me out by listing the minorities that you think aren't getting enough attention? Particularly minorities that people refuse to give attention to?
I wouldn't go as far as saying people "refuse" to give attention to anyone, but I didn't go into specifics because I feel they are really based on my own experiences (not being disadvantages by any, just noticing them happening) and because I didn't want to derail the thread. But if you want me to list a few:
- People literally saying that they couldn't understand how one could ever truly love a fat person - All the kids around the world who are being bullied for having a strange hobby, not having a common hobby or having different tastes - Introverted people (usually dismissed as being boring or uninteresting) - Sick people of any kind (physically disabled people are getting a lot of attention in most cases, but mentally disabled people... they rarely do) - Ugly people (usually covertly, and while being subjective, people who are deemed attractive by many people are more highly rated on pretty much everything other attribute compared to people who are deemed less attractive) - Intelligence - Religion
Obviously all these different people are still allowed to marry, but all these people can be made fun of or feel excluded for these very reasons. And because most of them aren't superficial, it's hard for many people to know what it's like to be really introverted, so less people know "what it's like".
As far as I know most "white cis straight middle class males" are simply guys tired of being told to respect anything and everything all the time. I'm basing this mostly on my surroundings, so I could be terribly wrong.
So...these straight white guys are tired of being told they can't be assholes? Why am I supposed to feel sorry for these particular straight white guys?
I think Plansix below you summarized this way better than I did. It's not about being told "don't be an asshole" and no one is asking you to feel sorry for them, but if we're not supposed to dismiss a group of people for a certain quality because a few members of that group behave in a particular way, then just don't do it at all.
None of those people you listed are denied rights. And I don't understand your second response. Could you please clarify? Are you saying you're not supposed to dismiss a group because of the way a few members of that group act but it would just be better if those few members didn't do that? Could you give an example there?
So because they were not denied rights, you get to call them privileged by default? If they have terminal cancer, but you didn't know because they don't wear a sign, can you still call them privileged just because you are gay?
There's a reason I have stopped responding to your posts. You refuse to acknowledge the definition of privilege in the context of social justice and you have arbitrarily decided it is a personal insult. Even Scarlett tried to correct this dumbass misconception but apparently you people just aren't having it. Go home.
Why do you insist on labeling people you don't know or entire social groups? Isn't that exactly what your are fighting against? How you can say that I am privileged just because I date a woman and I happen to be white? Why are you allowed to assume things about me, but I am not allowed to assume things about you?
Do you see the flaw with the argument and why some people object to it?
No. Because you're not understanding the definition of privilege and you have obstinately refused to do so for the majority of this thread's run. All of those questions would easily be answered if you'd take your head out of your ass and actually admit that you are misunderstanding privilege.
Am I privileged because I just happen to be white and straight?
Yes
If so, why do you gain the ability to assume that about me with only those two pieces of information?
Because those are the only two relevant pieces of information needed...duh.
And could I make any assumption about someone based solely their race and sexual orientation that would be acceptable?
Umm...yeah, you can assume they are privileged. Like I just did above. How are you not following this?
In case you haven't noticed, I'm done treating you like you actually have any interest in understanding this. You've decided you don't like this word so you're gonna be butthurt. It's cool. Keep throwing this tantrum.
The part that blows my mind about you and this discussion is that I completely agree with you in every way, except the use of the word "privileged". I explained over and over that some people find the word offensive and that there are better way to explain the issue of social justice. I don't disagree with the fact that I been unfairly empowered by society, because it is 100% true.
What I disagree with is your need to cling to a word that you know white, straight people find offensive. You know it offends them and yet you still us it. You could easily describe social justice in a number of ways, but this is the one you choose to use. You choose to use the one that you know will have the best chance of offending people that happen to be straight.
Again, see my above post, just below the one you quote, but I think the fact that it's an uncomfortable word is important. It's an important prerequisite to dismantling the social structures that enable power imbalances. If we feel good about our position of power, we aren't very motivated to deal with the inequities it creates. If we can continue on being oblivious to it, we are just perpetuating it. Society is made up of individuals--- social norms are made up of the collective behaviour of many many individuals.
I can think someone is fundamentally a good person and also that that person is privileged and unaware of their own privilege at the same time. It just makes relevant education on the source of that privilege.
I don't think it's about tolerating intolerance, I think it's about "It seemed inevitable that this thread would end up with a torrent of white cis straight middle class males decrying the concept of privilege and whining that it hurts their feelings."
I mostly just get tired of the fact that "equality" mostly seems to mean "equal opportunities regardless of sex, race and sexuality". And don't get me wrong, I fully support equal job opportunities, marriage for all who truly love their partner, and everything else in that regard, because these are all things that a "minority" lesbian girl could do just as well as a white straight male (just to name the opposites). I also truly like the new banner. But there are many more ways in which people differ, and they don't get nearly the same amount of attention while people who belong to a different kind of minority can feel just as bad for the same reasons. Maybe even worse, as few people acknowledge their situation.
Maybe you could help me out by listing the minorities that you think aren't getting enough attention? Particularly minorities that people refuse to give attention to?
I wouldn't go as far as saying people "refuse" to give attention to anyone, but I didn't go into specifics because I feel they are really based on my own experiences (not being disadvantages by any, just noticing them happening) and because I didn't want to derail the thread. But if you want me to list a few:
- People literally saying that they couldn't understand how one could ever truly love a fat person - All the kids around the world who are being bullied for having a strange hobby, not having a common hobby or having different tastes - Introverted people (usually dismissed as being boring or uninteresting) - Sick people of any kind (physically disabled people are getting a lot of attention in most cases, but mentally disabled people... they rarely do) - Ugly people (usually covertly, and while being subjective, people who are deemed attractive by many people are more highly rated on pretty much everything other attribute compared to people who are deemed less attractive) - Intelligence - Religion
Obviously all these different people are still allowed to marry, but all these people can be made fun of or feel excluded for these very reasons. And because most of them aren't superficial, it's hard for many people to know what it's like to be really introverted, so less people know "what it's like".
As far as I know most "white cis straight middle class males" are simply guys tired of being told to respect anything and everything all the time. I'm basing this mostly on my surroundings, so I could be terribly wrong.
So...these straight white guys are tired of being told they can't be assholes? Why am I supposed to feel sorry for these particular straight white guys?
I think Plansix below you summarized this way better than I did. It's not about being told "don't be an asshole" and no one is asking you to feel sorry for them, but if we're not supposed to dismiss a group of people for a certain quality because a few members of that group behave in a particular way, then just don't do it at all.
None of those people you listed are denied rights. And I don't understand your second response. Could you please clarify? Are you saying you're not supposed to dismiss a group because of the way a few members of that group act but it would just be better if those few members didn't do that? Could you give an example there?
So because they were not denied rights, you get to call them privileged by default? If they have terminal cancer, but you didn't know because they don't wear a sign, can you still call them privileged just because you are gay?
There's a reason I have stopped responding to your posts. You refuse to acknowledge the definition of privilege in the context of social justice and you have arbitrarily decided it is a personal insult. Even Scarlett tried to correct this dumbass misconception but apparently you people just aren't having it. Go home.
Why do you insist on labeling people you don't know or entire social groups? Isn't that exactly what your are fighting against? How you can say that I am privileged just because I date a woman and I happen to be white? Why are you allowed to assume things about me, but I am not allowed to assume things about you?
Do you see the flaw with the argument and why some people object to it?
To be fair, the fact that one dates a woman and is white is all that is enough to qualify someone as priviledged in certain domains. It doesn't mean you're wealthy or whatever, it means that in those domains you have relative social power over the alternatives. The power itself isn't necessarily obvious, it could be as simple as being allowed to express a given opinion or fact about ones life without it being subject to the expectation of further elaboration or explanation or justification, but power imbalance is still there.
Like it or not, society is shaped by covert norms, which if you violate or happen to be outside of open you up to sanction or disadvantage in negotiating a social situation. Being categorizable as being 'the norm' puts you in a position of relative power over those outside of the norm. It's how every single society on earth operates (even though the norms themselves are different).
If you don't like the word 'privileged', substitute it for 'powerful' or whatever, but it doesn't change the fact that these norms exist.
If someone told me that society unfairly empowered me because I am white and straight, I would agreed. It is a far better way to convey the idea that claiming someone is privileged just because they happen to be a white and straight. It also denotes that it done against my will.
Or at least outside of your conscious control. They're covert norms after all.
If someone calls me privileged, the first thing I want to do is stop being privileged. When I am told I can't stop, I feel like I am being defined against my will and trapped into a negative social group that I cannot escape.
Yup, fair sentiment-- I would get prickly if I was told I was oppressing people when I felt I wasn't. It's not exactly about individuals (although at the same time it's supremely about individuals), but about what we are allowed/expected to do/say in a given context, and what we construe as normal or taboo.
But acknowledging privilege is important too I think, consider the prototypical white, middle aged, wealthy, protestant, politically connected, straight man in control of a large business. People NOT acknowledging that (via all these characteristics I just listed) this hypothetical individual is massively privileged only prop up / perpetuate the privilege and power imbalance.
Acknowledging privilege is a first step towards dismantling these power imbalances.
I completely agree with you. This discussion arose because due a post were someone was called a "typical privileged, straight person". I responded that it was a terrible way to argue the point because any other straight person is going to feel lumped in with the homophobic jerk. It promoted an entire discussion as to why straight white people are nor are not privileged.
I have never disagreed that I have been unjustly empowered by society, only that using the word privileged to describe it is counter productive to explaining the point. You have to explain to people that it is beyond their control, or they may take offense and disregard your point entirely.
Maybe you could help me out by listing the minorities that you think aren't getting enough attention? Particularly minorities that people refuse to give attention to?
I wouldn't go as far as saying people "refuse" to give attention to anyone, but I didn't go into specifics because I feel they are really based on my own experiences (not being disadvantages by any, just noticing them happening) and because I didn't want to derail the thread. But if you want me to list a few:
- People literally saying that they couldn't understand how one could ever truly love a fat person - All the kids around the world who are being bullied for having a strange hobby, not having a common hobby or having different tastes - Introverted people (usually dismissed as being boring or uninteresting) - Sick people of any kind (physically disabled people are getting a lot of attention in most cases, but mentally disabled people... they rarely do) - Ugly people (usually covertly, and while being subjective, people who are deemed attractive by many people are more highly rated on pretty much everything other attribute compared to people who are deemed less attractive) - Intelligence - Religion
Obviously all these different people are still allowed to marry, but all these people can be made fun of or feel excluded for these very reasons. And because most of them aren't superficial, it's hard for many people to know what it's like to be really introverted, so less people know "what it's like".
As far as I know most "white cis straight middle class males" are simply guys tired of being told to respect anything and everything all the time. I'm basing this mostly on my surroundings, so I could be terribly wrong.
So...these straight white guys are tired of being told they can't be assholes? Why am I supposed to feel sorry for these particular straight white guys?
I think Plansix below you summarized this way better than I did. It's not about being told "don't be an asshole" and no one is asking you to feel sorry for them, but if we're not supposed to dismiss a group of people for a certain quality because a few members of that group behave in a particular way, then just don't do it at all.
None of those people you listed are denied rights. And I don't understand your second response. Could you please clarify? Are you saying you're not supposed to dismiss a group because of the way a few members of that group act but it would just be better if those few members didn't do that? Could you give an example there?
So because they were not denied rights, you get to call them privileged by default? If they have terminal cancer, but you didn't know because they don't wear a sign, can you still call them privileged just because you are gay?
There's a reason I have stopped responding to your posts. You refuse to acknowledge the definition of privilege in the context of social justice and you have arbitrarily decided it is a personal insult. Even Scarlett tried to correct this dumbass misconception but apparently you people just aren't having it. Go home.
Why do you insist on labeling people you don't know or entire social groups? Isn't that exactly what your are fighting against? How you can say that I am privileged just because I date a woman and I happen to be white? Why are you allowed to assume things about me, but I am not allowed to assume things about you?
Do you see the flaw with the argument and why some people object to it?
No. Because you're not understanding the definition of privilege and you have obstinately refused to do so for the majority of this thread's run. All of those questions would easily be answered if you'd take your head out of your ass and actually admit that you are misunderstanding privilege.
Am I privileged because I just happen to be white and straight?
Yes
If so, why do you gain the ability to assume that about me with only those two pieces of information?
Because those are the only two relevant pieces of information needed...duh.
And could I make any assumption about someone based solely their race and sexual orientation that would be acceptable?
Umm...yeah, you can assume they are privileged. Like I just did above. How are you not following this?
In case you haven't noticed, I'm done treating you like you actually have any interest in understanding this. You've decided you don't like this word so you're gonna be butthurt. It's cool. Keep throwing this tantrum.
The part that blows my mind about you and this discussion is that I completely agree with you in every way, except the use of the word "privileged". I explained over and over that some people find the word offensive and that there are better way to explain the issue of social justice. I don't disagree with the fact that I been unfairly empowered by society, because it is 100% true.
What I disagree with is your need to cling to a word that you know white, straight people find offensive. You know it offends them and yet you still us it. You could easily describe social justice in a number of ways, but this is the one you choose to use. You choose to use the one that you know will have the best chance of offending people that happen to be straight.
Actually it only offends you. I'm not the one clinging to it. It's a well established word in the lexicon of social justice discussion. When most (sane) white people, with any experience with social justice discussions, hear the word they nod, say "yeah, you're right" and they move on. You on the other hand have taken a word that has long existed in the lexicon, decided you're going to be offended by it, and now you're blaming me for using it as though it hasn't been used with a completely inoffensive definition for pretty much the whole existence of social justice. Drop the martyr complex please. It's annoying.
Maybe you could help me out by listing the minorities that you think aren't getting enough attention? Particularly minorities that people refuse to give attention to?
I wouldn't go as far as saying people "refuse" to give attention to anyone, but I didn't go into specifics because I feel they are really based on my own experiences (not being disadvantages by any, just noticing them happening) and because I didn't want to derail the thread. But if you want me to list a few:
- People literally saying that they couldn't understand how one could ever truly love a fat person - All the kids around the world who are being bullied for having a strange hobby, not having a common hobby or having different tastes - Introverted people (usually dismissed as being boring or uninteresting) - Sick people of any kind (physically disabled people are getting a lot of attention in most cases, but mentally disabled people... they rarely do) - Ugly people (usually covertly, and while being subjective, people who are deemed attractive by many people are more highly rated on pretty much everything other attribute compared to people who are deemed less attractive) - Intelligence - Religion
Obviously all these different people are still allowed to marry, but all these people can be made fun of or feel excluded for these very reasons. And because most of them aren't superficial, it's hard for many people to know what it's like to be really introverted, so less people know "what it's like".
As far as I know most "white cis straight middle class males" are simply guys tired of being told to respect anything and everything all the time. I'm basing this mostly on my surroundings, so I could be terribly wrong.
So...these straight white guys are tired of being told they can't be assholes? Why am I supposed to feel sorry for these particular straight white guys?
I think Plansix below you summarized this way better than I did. It's not about being told "don't be an asshole" and no one is asking you to feel sorry for them, but if we're not supposed to dismiss a group of people for a certain quality because a few members of that group behave in a particular way, then just don't do it at all.
None of those people you listed are denied rights. And I don't understand your second response. Could you please clarify? Are you saying you're not supposed to dismiss a group because of the way a few members of that group act but it would just be better if those few members didn't do that? Could you give an example there?
So because they were not denied rights, you get to call them privileged by default? If they have terminal cancer, but you didn't know because they don't wear a sign, can you still call them privileged just because you are gay?
There's a reason I have stopped responding to your posts. You refuse to acknowledge the definition of privilege in the context of social justice and you have arbitrarily decided it is a personal insult. Even Scarlett tried to correct this dumbass misconception but apparently you people just aren't having it. Go home.
Why do you insist on labeling people you don't know or entire social groups? Isn't that exactly what your are fighting against? How you can say that I am privileged just because I date a woman and I happen to be white? Why are you allowed to assume things about me, but I am not allowed to assume things about you?
Do you see the flaw with the argument and why some people object to it?
To be fair, the fact that one dates a woman and is white is all that is enough to qualify someone as priviledged in certain domains. It doesn't mean you're wealthy or whatever, it means that in those domains you have relative social power over the alternatives. The power itself isn't necessarily obvious, it could be as simple as being allowed to express a given opinion or fact about ones life without it being subject to the expectation of further elaboration or explanation or justification, but power imbalance is still there.
Like it or not, society is shaped by covert norms, which if you violate or happen to be outside of open you up to sanction or disadvantage in negotiating a social situation. Being categorizable as being 'the norm' puts you in a position of relative power over those outside of the norm. It's how every single society on earth operates (even though the norms themselves are different).
If you don't like the word 'privileged', substitute it for 'powerful' or whatever, but it doesn't change the fact that these norms exist.
If someone told me that society unfairly empowered me because I am white and straight, I would agreed. It is a far better way to convey the idea that claiming someone is privileged just because they happen to be a white and straight. It also denotes that it done against my will.
Or at least outside of your conscious control. They're covert norms after all.
If someone calls me privileged, the first thing I want to do is stop being privileged. When I am told I can't stop, I feel like I am being defined against my will and trapped into a negative social group that I cannot escape.
Yup, fair sentiment-- I would get prickly if I was told I was oppressing people when I felt I wasn't. It's not exactly about individuals (although at the same time it's supremely about individuals), but about what we are allowed/expected to do/say in a given context, and what we construe as normal or taboo.
But acknowledging privilege is important too I think, consider the prototypical white, middle aged, wealthy, protestant, politically connected, straight man in control of a large business. People NOT acknowledging that (via all these characteristics I just listed) this hypothetical individual is massively privileged only prop up / perpetuate the privilege and power imbalance.
Acknowledging privilege is a first step towards dismantling these power imbalances.
I completely agree with you. This discussion arose because due a post were someone was called a "typical privileged, straight person". I responded that it was a terrible way to argue the point because any other straight person is going to feel lumped in with the homophobic jerk. It promoted an entire discussion as to why straight white people are nor are not privileged.
I have never disagreed that I have been unjustly empowered by society, only that using the word privileged to describe it is counter productive to explaining the point. You have to explain to people that it is beyond their control, or they may take offense and disregard your point entirely.
I guess I'm okay with the term 'privilege' because it calls power imbalance what it is. An imbalance: a privileging and a dis-privileging.
By default though, not every privileged person is 'typical' or whatever, and the term 'privileged' doesnt necessarily need to bear the connotation of a slur. Separate things.
I wouldn't go as far as saying people "refuse" to give attention to anyone, but I didn't go into specifics because I feel they are really based on my own experiences (not being disadvantages by any, just noticing them happening) and because I didn't want to derail the thread. But if you want me to list a few:
- People literally saying that they couldn't understand how one could ever truly love a fat person - All the kids around the world who are being bullied for having a strange hobby, not having a common hobby or having different tastes - Introverted people (usually dismissed as being boring or uninteresting) - Sick people of any kind (physically disabled people are getting a lot of attention in most cases, but mentally disabled people... they rarely do) - Ugly people (usually covertly, and while being subjective, people who are deemed attractive by many people are more highly rated on pretty much everything other attribute compared to people who are deemed less attractive) - Intelligence - Religion
Obviously all these different people are still allowed to marry, but all these people can be made fun of or feel excluded for these very reasons. And because most of them aren't superficial, it's hard for many people to know what it's like to be really introverted, so less people know "what it's like".
[quote]
I think Plansix below you summarized this way better than I did. It's not about being told "don't be an asshole" and no one is asking you to feel sorry for them, but if we're not supposed to dismiss a group of people for a certain quality because a few members of that group behave in a particular way, then just don't do it at all.
None of those people you listed are denied rights. And I don't understand your second response. Could you please clarify? Are you saying you're not supposed to dismiss a group because of the way a few members of that group act but it would just be better if those few members didn't do that? Could you give an example there?
So because they were not denied rights, you get to call them privileged by default? If they have terminal cancer, but you didn't know because they don't wear a sign, can you still call them privileged just because you are gay?
There's a reason I have stopped responding to your posts. You refuse to acknowledge the definition of privilege in the context of social justice and you have arbitrarily decided it is a personal insult. Even Scarlett tried to correct this dumbass misconception but apparently you people just aren't having it. Go home.
Why do you insist on labeling people you don't know or entire social groups? Isn't that exactly what your are fighting against? How you can say that I am privileged just because I date a woman and I happen to be white? Why are you allowed to assume things about me, but I am not allowed to assume things about you?
Do you see the flaw with the argument and why some people object to it?
No. Because you're not understanding the definition of privilege and you have obstinately refused to do so for the majority of this thread's run. All of those questions would easily be answered if you'd take your head out of your ass and actually admit that you are misunderstanding privilege.
Am I privileged because I just happen to be white and straight?
Yes
If so, why do you gain the ability to assume that about me with only those two pieces of information?
Because those are the only two relevant pieces of information needed...duh.
And could I make any assumption about someone based solely their race and sexual orientation that would be acceptable?
Umm...yeah, you can assume they are privileged. Like I just did above. How are you not following this?
In case you haven't noticed, I'm done treating you like you actually have any interest in understanding this. You've decided you don't like this word so you're gonna be butthurt. It's cool. Keep throwing this tantrum.
The part that blows my mind about you and this discussion is that I completely agree with you in every way, except the use of the word "privileged". I explained over and over that some people find the word offensive and that there are better way to explain the issue of social justice. I don't disagree with the fact that I been unfairly empowered by society, because it is 100% true.
What I disagree with is your need to cling to a word that you know white, straight people find offensive. You know it offends them and yet you still us it. You could easily describe social justice in a number of ways, but this is the one you choose to use. You choose to use the one that you know will have the best chance of offending people that happen to be straight.
Actually it only offends you. I'm not the one clinging to it. It's a well established word in the lexicon of social justice discussion. When most (sane) white people, with any experience with social justice discussions, hear the word they nod, say "yeah, you're right" and they move on. You on the other hand have taken a word that has long existed in the lexicon, decided you're going to be offended by it, and now you're blaming me for using it as though it hasn't been used with a completely inoffensive definition for pretty much the whole existence of social justice. Drop the martyr complex please. It's annoying.
So wait, its my fault that I'm offended by a specific word that you use to describe me and my demographic? Are there any word that someone could use to describe you that you would be offended by? And would it be ok if you were offended and they responded that it was your fault for being offended by a word in the accepted lexicon?
I wouldn't go as far as saying people "refuse" to give attention to anyone, but I didn't go into specifics because I feel they are really based on my own experiences (not being disadvantages by any, just noticing them happening) and because I didn't want to derail the thread. But if you want me to list a few:
- People literally saying that they couldn't understand how one could ever truly love a fat person - All the kids around the world who are being bullied for having a strange hobby, not having a common hobby or having different tastes - Introverted people (usually dismissed as being boring or uninteresting) - Sick people of any kind (physically disabled people are getting a lot of attention in most cases, but mentally disabled people... they rarely do) - Ugly people (usually covertly, and while being subjective, people who are deemed attractive by many people are more highly rated on pretty much everything other attribute compared to people who are deemed less attractive) - Intelligence - Religion
Obviously all these different people are still allowed to marry, but all these people can be made fun of or feel excluded for these very reasons. And because most of them aren't superficial, it's hard for many people to know what it's like to be really introverted, so less people know "what it's like".
[quote]
I think Plansix below you summarized this way better than I did. It's not about being told "don't be an asshole" and no one is asking you to feel sorry for them, but if we're not supposed to dismiss a group of people for a certain quality because a few members of that group behave in a particular way, then just don't do it at all.
None of those people you listed are denied rights. And I don't understand your second response. Could you please clarify? Are you saying you're not supposed to dismiss a group because of the way a few members of that group act but it would just be better if those few members didn't do that? Could you give an example there?
So because they were not denied rights, you get to call them privileged by default? If they have terminal cancer, but you didn't know because they don't wear a sign, can you still call them privileged just because you are gay?
There's a reason I have stopped responding to your posts. You refuse to acknowledge the definition of privilege in the context of social justice and you have arbitrarily decided it is a personal insult. Even Scarlett tried to correct this dumbass misconception but apparently you people just aren't having it. Go home.
Why do you insist on labeling people you don't know or entire social groups? Isn't that exactly what your are fighting against? How you can say that I am privileged just because I date a woman and I happen to be white? Why are you allowed to assume things about me, but I am not allowed to assume things about you?
Do you see the flaw with the argument and why some people object to it?
To be fair, the fact that one dates a woman and is white is all that is enough to qualify someone as priviledged in certain domains. It doesn't mean you're wealthy or whatever, it means that in those domains you have relative social power over the alternatives. The power itself isn't necessarily obvious, it could be as simple as being allowed to express a given opinion or fact about ones life without it being subject to the expectation of further elaboration or explanation or justification, but power imbalance is still there.
Like it or not, society is shaped by covert norms, which if you violate or happen to be outside of open you up to sanction or disadvantage in negotiating a social situation. Being categorizable as being 'the norm' puts you in a position of relative power over those outside of the norm. It's how every single society on earth operates (even though the norms themselves are different).
If you don't like the word 'privileged', substitute it for 'powerful' or whatever, but it doesn't change the fact that these norms exist.
If someone told me that society unfairly empowered me because I am white and straight, I would agreed. It is a far better way to convey the idea that claiming someone is privileged just because they happen to be a white and straight. It also denotes that it done against my will.
Or at least outside of your conscious control. They're covert norms after all.
If someone calls me privileged, the first thing I want to do is stop being privileged. When I am told I can't stop, I feel like I am being defined against my will and trapped into a negative social group that I cannot escape.
Yup, fair sentiment-- I would get prickly if I was told I was oppressing people when I felt I wasn't. It's not exactly about individuals (although at the same time it's supremely about individuals), but about what we are allowed/expected to do/say in a given context, and what we construe as normal or taboo.
But acknowledging privilege is important too I think, consider the prototypical white, middle aged, wealthy, protestant, politically connected, straight man in control of a large business. People NOT acknowledging that (via all these characteristics I just listed) this hypothetical individual is massively privileged only prop up / perpetuate the privilege and power imbalance.
Acknowledging privilege is a first step towards dismantling these power imbalances.
I completely agree with you. This discussion arose because due a post were someone was called a "typical privileged, straight person". I responded that it was a terrible way to argue the point because any other straight person is going to feel lumped in with the homophobic jerk. It promoted an entire discussion as to why straight white people are nor are not privileged.
I have never disagreed that I have been unjustly empowered by society, only that using the word privileged to describe it is counter productive to explaining the point. You have to explain to people that it is beyond their control, or they may take offense and disregard your point entirely.
I guess I'm okay with the term 'privilege' because it calls power imbalance what it is. An imbalance: a privileging and a dis-privileging.
By default though, not every privileged person is 'typical' or whatever, and the term 'privileged' doesnt necessarily need to bear the connotation of a slur. Separate things.
I would argue that most people take privileged as a pejorative, and using a pejorative to describe someones demographic is generally counter productive to making your point. There is nothing positive about the word. It is like the word "ignorant". Although someone who not familiar with a specific culture is "ignorant", you don't call them that to their face.
None of those people you listed are denied rights. And I don't understand your second response. Could you please clarify? Are you saying you're not supposed to dismiss a group because of the way a few members of that group act but it would just be better if those few members didn't do that? Could you give an example there?
So because they were not denied rights, you get to call them privileged by default? If they have terminal cancer, but you didn't know because they don't wear a sign, can you still call them privileged just because you are gay?
There's a reason I have stopped responding to your posts. You refuse to acknowledge the definition of privilege in the context of social justice and you have arbitrarily decided it is a personal insult. Even Scarlett tried to correct this dumbass misconception but apparently you people just aren't having it. Go home.
Why do you insist on labeling people you don't know or entire social groups? Isn't that exactly what your are fighting against? How you can say that I am privileged just because I date a woman and I happen to be white? Why are you allowed to assume things about me, but I am not allowed to assume things about you?
Do you see the flaw with the argument and why some people object to it?
No. Because you're not understanding the definition of privilege and you have obstinately refused to do so for the majority of this thread's run. All of those questions would easily be answered if you'd take your head out of your ass and actually admit that you are misunderstanding privilege.
Am I privileged because I just happen to be white and straight?
Yes
If so, why do you gain the ability to assume that about me with only those two pieces of information?
Because those are the only two relevant pieces of information needed...duh.
And could I make any assumption about someone based solely their race and sexual orientation that would be acceptable?
Umm...yeah, you can assume they are privileged. Like I just did above. How are you not following this?
In case you haven't noticed, I'm done treating you like you actually have any interest in understanding this. You've decided you don't like this word so you're gonna be butthurt. It's cool. Keep throwing this tantrum.
The part that blows my mind about you and this discussion is that I completely agree with you in every way, except the use of the word "privileged". I explained over and over that some people find the word offensive and that there are better way to explain the issue of social justice. I don't disagree with the fact that I been unfairly empowered by society, because it is 100% true.
What I disagree with is your need to cling to a word that you know white, straight people find offensive. You know it offends them and yet you still us it. You could easily describe social justice in a number of ways, but this is the one you choose to use. You choose to use the one that you know will have the best chance of offending people that happen to be straight.
Actually it only offends you. I'm not the one clinging to it. It's a well established word in the lexicon of social justice discussion. When most (sane) white people, with any experience with social justice discussions, hear the word they nod, say "yeah, you're right" and they move on. You on the other hand have taken a word that has long existed in the lexicon, decided you're going to be offended by it, and now you're blaming me for using it as though it hasn't been used with a completely inoffensive definition for pretty much the whole existence of social justice. Drop the martyr complex please. It's annoying.
So wait, its my fault that I'm offended by a specific word that you use to describe me and my demographic? Are there any word that someone could use to describe you that you would be offended by? And would it be ok if you were offended and they responded that it was your fault for being offended by a word in the accepted lexicon?
It's funny when members of the social majority pull the victim card. No, I'm not victim blaming. Using a word to describe your social status is not an insult.
Now, after having this awful awful discussion with you I might go so far as to say that you aren't offended by the word "privilege" as you are just mad that you have to admit you didn't earn your social status. Someone who genuinely wants to understand this issue, wouldn't dig in their heels so much. And someone who understands their position, also would know they aren't in a position to bitch about the lexicon.
On June 26 2013 04:13 Plansix wrote: [quote] So because they were not denied rights, you get to call them privileged by default? If they have terminal cancer, but you didn't know because they don't wear a sign, can you still call them privileged just because you are gay?
There's a reason I have stopped responding to your posts. You refuse to acknowledge the definition of privilege in the context of social justice and you have arbitrarily decided it is a personal insult. Even Scarlett tried to correct this dumbass misconception but apparently you people just aren't having it. Go home.
Why do you insist on labeling people you don't know or entire social groups? Isn't that exactly what your are fighting against? How you can say that I am privileged just because I date a woman and I happen to be white? Why are you allowed to assume things about me, but I am not allowed to assume things about you?
Do you see the flaw with the argument and why some people object to it?
No. Because you're not understanding the definition of privilege and you have obstinately refused to do so for the majority of this thread's run. All of those questions would easily be answered if you'd take your head out of your ass and actually admit that you are misunderstanding privilege.
Am I privileged because I just happen to be white and straight?
Yes
If so, why do you gain the ability to assume that about me with only those two pieces of information?
Because those are the only two relevant pieces of information needed...duh.
And could I make any assumption about someone based solely their race and sexual orientation that would be acceptable?
Umm...yeah, you can assume they are privileged. Like I just did above. How are you not following this?
In case you haven't noticed, I'm done treating you like you actually have any interest in understanding this. You've decided you don't like this word so you're gonna be butthurt. It's cool. Keep throwing this tantrum.
The part that blows my mind about you and this discussion is that I completely agree with you in every way, except the use of the word "privileged". I explained over and over that some people find the word offensive and that there are better way to explain the issue of social justice. I don't disagree with the fact that I been unfairly empowered by society, because it is 100% true.
What I disagree with is your need to cling to a word that you know white, straight people find offensive. You know it offends them and yet you still us it. You could easily describe social justice in a number of ways, but this is the one you choose to use. You choose to use the one that you know will have the best chance of offending people that happen to be straight.
Actually it only offends you. I'm not the one clinging to it. It's a well established word in the lexicon of social justice discussion. When most (sane) white people, with any experience with social justice discussions, hear the word they nod, say "yeah, you're right" and they move on. You on the other hand have taken a word that has long existed in the lexicon, decided you're going to be offended by it, and now you're blaming me for using it as though it hasn't been used with a completely inoffensive definition for pretty much the whole existence of social justice. Drop the martyr complex please. It's annoying.
So wait, its my fault that I'm offended by a specific word that you use to describe me and my demographic? Are there any word that someone could use to describe you that you would be offended by? And would it be ok if you were offended and they responded that it was your fault for being offended by a word in the accepted lexicon?
It's funny when members of the social majority pull the victim card. No, I'm not victim blaming. Using a word to describe your social status is not an insult.
Now, after having this awful awful discussion with you I might go so far as to say that you aren't offended by the word "privilege" as you are just mad that you have to admit you didn't earn your social status. Someone who genuinely wants to understand this issue, wouldn't dig in their heels so much. And someone who understands their position, also would know they aren't in a position to bitch about the lexicon.
Lets not kid ourselves here. We are both equally stubborn on the subject. You could just as easily back down and reconsider use of the word and I could accept it.
I wouldn't go as far as saying people "refuse" to give attention to anyone, but I didn't go into specifics because I feel they are really based on my own experiences (not being disadvantages by any, just noticing them happening) and because I didn't want to derail the thread. But if you want me to list a few:
- People literally saying that they couldn't understand how one could ever truly love a fat person - All the kids around the world who are being bullied for having a strange hobby, not having a common hobby or having different tastes - Introverted people (usually dismissed as being boring or uninteresting) - Sick people of any kind (physically disabled people are getting a lot of attention in most cases, but mentally disabled people... they rarely do) - Ugly people (usually covertly, and while being subjective, people who are deemed attractive by many people are more highly rated on pretty much everything other attribute compared to people who are deemed less attractive) - Intelligence - Religion
Obviously all these different people are still allowed to marry, but all these people can be made fun of or feel excluded for these very reasons. And because most of them aren't superficial, it's hard for many people to know what it's like to be really introverted, so less people know "what it's like".
[quote]
I think Plansix below you summarized this way better than I did. It's not about being told "don't be an asshole" and no one is asking you to feel sorry for them, but if we're not supposed to dismiss a group of people for a certain quality because a few members of that group behave in a particular way, then just don't do it at all.
None of those people you listed are denied rights. And I don't understand your second response. Could you please clarify? Are you saying you're not supposed to dismiss a group because of the way a few members of that group act but it would just be better if those few members didn't do that? Could you give an example there?
So because they were not denied rights, you get to call them privileged by default? If they have terminal cancer, but you didn't know because they don't wear a sign, can you still call them privileged just because you are gay?
There's a reason I have stopped responding to your posts. You refuse to acknowledge the definition of privilege in the context of social justice and you have arbitrarily decided it is a personal insult. Even Scarlett tried to correct this dumbass misconception but apparently you people just aren't having it. Go home.
Why do you insist on labeling people you don't know or entire social groups? Isn't that exactly what your are fighting against? How you can say that I am privileged just because I date a woman and I happen to be white? Why are you allowed to assume things about me, but I am not allowed to assume things about you?
Do you see the flaw with the argument and why some people object to it?
No. Because you're not understanding the definition of privilege and you have obstinately refused to do so for the majority of this thread's run. All of those questions would easily be answered if you'd take your head out of your ass and actually admit that you are misunderstanding privilege.
Am I privileged because I just happen to be white and straight?
Yes
If so, why do you gain the ability to assume that about me with only those two pieces of information?
Because those are the only two relevant pieces of information needed...duh.
And could I make any assumption about someone based solely their race and sexual orientation that would be acceptable?
Umm...yeah, you can assume they are privileged. Like I just did above. How are you not following this?
In case you haven't noticed, I'm done treating you like you actually have any interest in understanding this. You've decided you don't like this word so you're gonna be butthurt. It's cool. Keep throwing this tantrum.
The part that blows my mind about you and this discussion is that I completely agree with you in every way, except the use of the word "privileged". I explained over and over that some people find the word offensive and that there are better way to explain the issue of social justice. I don't disagree with the fact that I been unfairly empowered by society, because it is 100% true.
What I disagree with is your need to cling to a word that you know white, straight people find offensive. You know it offends them and yet you still us it. You could easily describe social justice in a number of ways, but this is the one you choose to use. You choose to use the one that you know will have the best chance of offending people that happen to be straight.
Actually it only offends you. I'm not the one clinging to it. It's a well established word in the lexicon of social justice discussion. When most (sane) white people, with any experience with social justice discussions, hear the word they nod, say "yeah, you're right" and they move on. You on the other hand have taken a word that has long existed in the lexicon, decided you're going to be offended by it, and now you're blaming me for using it as though it hasn't been used with a completely inoffensive definition for pretty much the whole existence of social justice. Drop the martyr complex please. It's annoying.
I don't really disagree with your premise of privilege, but referring to the "lexicon of social justice discussion" is not credible because social justice discussions on the internet are a cesspool of illogical argumentation and, ironically, martyr complexes (along with a fucking massive amount of invented terms, many of which make absolutely no sense and have absolutely no scholarly backing e.g. transfat, transethnic, demisexual etc.). I have absolutely no problem acknowledging that I'm culturally advantaged by default for being white, not disabled, cisgendered, and heterosexual. However, none of these things are my fault, hence I cannot be blamed for them (or the effects of other privileged people who propagate injustice (e.g. I am not guilty or complicit in the actions of slavemasters in the 1700s)) and none of them affect my ability or, more importantly, right to comment or issues facing victims of discrimination.
Essentially, I have no problem with talking about privilege so long as it makes sense to talk about it. Too often in SJ discussions, the term "privilege" is thrown around with the implication that because someone is privileged, their opinion is irrelevant because they are (apparently) fundamentally incapable of grasping what it feels like to be discriminated against. Whether or not the latter clause is true is irrelevant (and it isn't true, since empathy has an imaginative component i.e. you don't need to be discriminated against to understand on some level what being discriminated against is like, assuming that there exist clear explanations of what these things are) because being privileged or unprivileged does not affect one's ability to understand or offer reasoned argumentation.
In that sense, I understand Plansix's reservations, because a lot of the time someone says "typical straight privileged white cisgendered blah blah" they're deferring to a thought-terminating cliche rather than actually addressing the argument in question. If someone says "being gay isn't so bad," tell them what challenges gay people face on a daily basis, not that they're a typical example of a privileged person, because that's just an ad hominem that makes it seem like you don't have a real argument. I have no idea why SJ issues in every arena tend to employ this "you're not part of the afflicted group so you don't get a say" argument, but it's wrong as fuck, so let's please stay away from it.
tl;dr privilege is a useful construct in understanding subtle problems that certain groups face. It has nothing to do with the legitimacy of one's argument or right to speak.
For christs sake, this discussion has been going on far too long. The point, the simple, simple easy to grasp point, that Plansix was trying to make is this. If you want to bring people to your side of the discussion, avoid putting their backs up.
Simple right? we can all agree to that, now lets look at this instance of "putting peoples backs up" The term "Privilege"
So the claim here, is that the concept it represents is -not- offensive, merely the way the concept is put across.
ok
BUT WAIT you say, the meaning of "privilege" is...!!! blah blah blah, it doesn't -matter- what the intended meaning is for his point.
If the majority of people take this word badly, even if they are wrong in doing so then you are still going to shut down a lot of potentially otherwise enlightening discussions by putting someone's back up and making them feel like a dick.
His point is simply, that if you want to -actually help the movement- you might want to consider another way of phrasing that tricky subject that you already know is going to be difficult for people to come to terms with and admit if they have not previously thought about it.
None of those people you listed are denied rights. And I don't understand your second response. Could you please clarify? Are you saying you're not supposed to dismiss a group because of the way a few members of that group act but it would just be better if those few members didn't do that? Could you give an example there?
So because they were not denied rights, you get to call them privileged by default? If they have terminal cancer, but you didn't know because they don't wear a sign, can you still call them privileged just because you are gay?
There's a reason I have stopped responding to your posts. You refuse to acknowledge the definition of privilege in the context of social justice and you have arbitrarily decided it is a personal insult. Even Scarlett tried to correct this dumbass misconception but apparently you people just aren't having it. Go home.
Why do you insist on labeling people you don't know or entire social groups? Isn't that exactly what your are fighting against? How you can say that I am privileged just because I date a woman and I happen to be white? Why are you allowed to assume things about me, but I am not allowed to assume things about you?
Do you see the flaw with the argument and why some people object to it?
To be fair, the fact that one dates a woman and is white is all that is enough to qualify someone as priviledged in certain domains. It doesn't mean you're wealthy or whatever, it means that in those domains you have relative social power over the alternatives. The power itself isn't necessarily obvious, it could be as simple as being allowed to express a given opinion or fact about ones life without it being subject to the expectation of further elaboration or explanation or justification, but power imbalance is still there.
Like it or not, society is shaped by covert norms, which if you violate or happen to be outside of open you up to sanction or disadvantage in negotiating a social situation. Being categorizable as being 'the norm' puts you in a position of relative power over those outside of the norm. It's how every single society on earth operates (even though the norms themselves are different).
If you don't like the word 'privileged', substitute it for 'powerful' or whatever, but it doesn't change the fact that these norms exist.
If someone told me that society unfairly empowered me because I am white and straight, I would agreed. It is a far better way to convey the idea that claiming someone is privileged just because they happen to be a white and straight. It also denotes that it done against my will.
Or at least outside of your conscious control. They're covert norms after all.
If someone calls me privileged, the first thing I want to do is stop being privileged. When I am told I can't stop, I feel like I am being defined against my will and trapped into a negative social group that I cannot escape.
Yup, fair sentiment-- I would get prickly if I was told I was oppressing people when I felt I wasn't. It's not exactly about individuals (although at the same time it's supremely about individuals), but about what we are allowed/expected to do/say in a given context, and what we construe as normal or taboo.
But acknowledging privilege is important too I think, consider the prototypical white, middle aged, wealthy, protestant, politically connected, straight man in control of a large business. People NOT acknowledging that (via all these characteristics I just listed) this hypothetical individual is massively privileged only prop up / perpetuate the privilege and power imbalance.
Acknowledging privilege is a first step towards dismantling these power imbalances.
I completely agree with you. This discussion arose because due a post were someone was called a "typical privileged, straight person". I responded that it was a terrible way to argue the point because any other straight person is going to feel lumped in with the homophobic jerk. It promoted an entire discussion as to why straight white people are nor are not privileged.
I have never disagreed that I have been unjustly empowered by society, only that using the word privileged to describe it is counter productive to explaining the point. You have to explain to people that it is beyond their control, or they may take offense and disregard your point entirely.
I guess I'm okay with the term 'privilege' because it calls power imbalance what it is. An imbalance: a privileging and a dis-privileging.
By default though, not every privileged person is 'typical' or whatever, and the term 'privileged' doesnt necessarily need to bear the connotation of a slur. Separate things.
I would argue that most people take privileged as a pejorative, and using a pejorative to describe someones demographic is generally counter productive to making your point.
Agree in that 'Doing Pejorative' is counterproductive to a point when your purpose is to have a discussion without generating conflict. Disagree in that utilizing a term that has the connotation of being an undesirable label to those who value social justice is productive.
There is nothing positive about the word. It is like the word "ignorant". Although someone who not familiar with a specific culture is "ignorant", you don't call them that to their face.
No, there isn't anything positive about it, which is accurate if you take the view that power imbalances are not positive.
It might be productive to disassociate the term itself, which I think is useful, with being on the receiving end of insults. As I say, they're probably separate things.
Hell, even I frequently make the mistake of 'Damn those powerful rich folks'-ing when I should be 'Damn the collective conceptualization of society that allows people to elevate themselves to disproportionate power'-ing.
Just to share a little nugget of what I learned from yesterday:
Those of us who do not daily discuss social justice will use "privileged" in it's true sense, whilst those who happen to discuss social justice often will use it as they have redefined it.
If you belong to the first group simply simply replace "privileged" with "advantaged" (or in some cases empowered - it seems to really cover a mix) whenever Klondikebar writes it.
EDIT: By "true sense" I mean in accordance to the historical definition and the definition in which you distinguish so that a privilege is not used to cover basic human rights.
EPT
