|
On June 26 2013 04:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 04:56 Klondikebar wrote:On June 26 2013 04:51 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2013 04:47 Klondikebar wrote:On June 26 2013 04:39 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2013 04:30 Klondikebar wrote:On June 26 2013 04:25 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2013 04:21 Klondikebar wrote:On June 26 2013 04:18 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2013 04:17 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
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.
Except I have like the entire social justice movement backing me up. It's not just an internet term. Professors and experts on the subject use it too. You have your own butthurt. I could back down but it would do absolutely nothing to alleviate your stinging red ass pain because the word would still be used regularly to describe your social status as a white heterosexual male.
|
On June 26 2013 05:01 Yorbon wrote:
Wow, is the privilege discussion still going on?
Unfortunatly, and somehow, yes, I swear some people just -dont read- the discussion and post as thoughts enter their head.
|
On June 26 2013 05:04 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 04:58 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2013 04:56 Klondikebar wrote:On June 26 2013 04:51 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2013 04:47 Klondikebar wrote:On June 26 2013 04:39 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2013 04:30 Klondikebar wrote:On June 26 2013 04:25 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2013 04:21 Klondikebar wrote:On June 26 2013 04:18 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
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. Except I have like the entire social justice movement backing me up. It's not just an internet term. Professors and experts on the subject use it too. You have your own butthurt. I could back down but it would do absolutely nothing to alleviate your stinging red ass pain because the word would still be used regularly to describe your social status as a white heterosexual male.
Define social justice for me please.
|
On June 26 2013 05:12 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 05:04 Klondikebar wrote:On June 26 2013 04:58 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2013 04:56 Klondikebar wrote:On June 26 2013 04:51 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2013 04:47 Klondikebar wrote:On June 26 2013 04:39 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2013 04:30 Klondikebar wrote:On June 26 2013 04:25 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2013 04:21 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
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. Except I have like the entire social justice movement backing me up. It's not just an internet term. Professors and experts on the subject use it too. You have your own butthurt. I could back down but it would do absolutely nothing to alleviate your stinging red ass pain because the word would still be used regularly to describe your social status as a white heterosexual male. Define social justice for me please.
It is the concept that all people should be viewed and treated equally in society, beyond laws and government. It is based on the idea that society empowers specific people based on its specific culture, while disenfranchising others. The people in the empowered groups are privileged, though against their control, due to the fact that society sees them as acceptable and does not discriminate against them. A lot of this in unconscious and based on norms in society.
You can also read up on it at Wikipedia, their article is pretty good.
The point I am making is that calling specific people in a demographic privileged to their face, rather than in the abstract, is a pejorative and generally not a good way to discuss the matter. Klondikebar does not agree and thinks I am overreacting.
|
on the whole "privileged" thing (plansix & klondikebar):
if there are people who are underprivileged in a society because they are gay, guess what beeing straight makes you in that society...
|
On June 26 2013 05:30 dr.fahrenheit wrote:
on the whole "privileged" thing (plansix & klondikebar):
if there are people who are underprivileged in a society because they are gay, guess what beeing straight makes you in that society...
I completely agree. Just don't call me that to my face, I don't like it. A lot of people don't, even if its true.
|
On June 26 2013 05:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 05:30 dr.fahrenheit wrote:
on the whole "privileged" thing (plansix & klondikebar):
if there are people who are underprivileged in a society because they are gay, guess what beeing straight makes you in that society... I completely agree. Just don't call me that to my face, I don't like it. A lot of people don't, even if its true.
Umm...sorry the truth about your social status hurts? Last I checked it wasn't anyone's job to coddle your feelings, especially not with omission.
|
On June 26 2013 04:38 Unifex wrote:
I just imagined this conversation and thought it was funny:
"well sir your test results just came back and it seems your brain chemistry/genes/hormones say that you are a homosexual"
"what? no I'm straight"
"Nope says right here you aren't and as we all know it's not a choice so go on now. Here's a rainbow flag."
That's not how those things work.
If you're born female it is very likely that you will be more interested in working with people than working with technology. That does not imply that being born female means you won't be interested in working with technology.
Besides that, the brain differences between hetero and homosexual people are much more distinct than just that, basically implying a homosexual mans brain has certain things that make it more similar to the female than male brain. Those kinds of indicators are never to be taken 100%, but they are still this: Indicators.
|
I think the problem is that ascribing privilege to some group is really just a fancy way of saying "I'm more oppressed than you are," which is definitely not an ideal state of affairs, but is ultimately irrelevant to discussions except in the instance that someone refuses to acknowledge that some particular group is mistreated. Furthermore, categorizing a demographic as privileged at the outset as part of your indictment of a particular view implies that this view is integral to that demographic, which is provably false (since there are many people from privileged backgrounds who hold reasonable viewpoints about social justice issues).
I guess the real way to look at it is: yes, white, cisgendered, straight, able-bodied and healthy males are probably in one of the highest rungs of privilege, but it's not unjust that this group is treated well; it's unjust that other groups aren't treated equally well.
There are also areas of privilege which aren't indicative of a fundamental social injustice. For example, people often lament that mainstream American TV shows are oversaturated with white, straight people. Well, this isn't necessarily indicative of a social justice problem. While it's certainly true that there are more white/straight/whatever people on TV than other groups, there also tend to be a lot more, say, straight, cisgendered people in the world than homosexual or trans* people. In this respect, the abundance of shows with several white, straight protagonists versus the virtual non-existence of shows with predominantly homosexual, PoC protagonists makes a lot of sense, because most people aren't, say, homosexual, and therefore most writers and audiences aren't going to, on average, make homosexuality the main focus of their TV consumption. I guess what I'm saying is that it would be unfair to criticize a given TV show for not having gay people in it, because lots of situations, social groups, and so on exist in practice in which sexuality is either irrelevant or in which there aren't gay people. If I wrote a comedy about 5 teenagers partying their post-graduation summer, it wouldn't be bigoted of me to make them all be white and straight, because lots of such groups exist which are comprised of white, straight people.
|
On June 26 2013 05:38 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 05:34 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2013 05:30 dr.fahrenheit wrote:
on the whole "privileged" thing (plansix & klondikebar):
if there are people who are underprivileged in a society because they are gay, guess what beeing straight makes you in that society... I completely agree. Just don't call me that to my face, I don't like it. A lot of people don't, even if its true. Umm...sorry the truth about your social status hurts? Last I checked it wasn't anyone's job to coddle your feelings, especially not with omission.
If I see a girl that have horrible facial scars, should I point if it comes up in discussion because its true? Its not my job to coddle her feelings and it is factual information, so I guess its totally ok, right?
|
On June 26 2013 05:42 Shiori wrote:
I think the problem is that ascribing privilege to some group is really just a fancy way of saying "I'm more oppressed than you are," which is definitely not an ideal state of affairs, but is ultimately irrelevant to discussions except in the instance that someone refuses to acknowledge that some particular group is mistreated. Furthermore, categorizing a demographic as privileged at the outset as part of your indictment of a particular view implies that this view is integral to that demographic, which is provably false (since there are many people from privileged backgrounds who hold reasonable viewpoints about social justice issues).
I guess the real way to look at it is: yes, white, cisgendered, straight, able-bodied and healthy males are probably in one of the highest rungs of privilege, but it's not unjust that this group is treated well; it's unjust that other groups aren't treated equally well.
There are also areas of privilege which aren't indicative of a fundamental social injustice. For example, people often lament that mainstream American TV shows are oversaturated with white, straight people. Well, this isn't necessarily indicative of a social justice problem. While it's certainly true that there are more white/straight/whatever people on TV than other groups, there also tend to be a lot more, say, straight, cisgendered people in the world than homosexual or trans* people. In this respect, the abundance of shows with several white, straight protagonists versus the virtual non-existence of shows with predominantly homosexual, PoC protagonists makes a lot of sense, because most people aren't, say, homosexual, and therefore most writers and audiences aren't going to, on average, make homosexuality the main focus of their TV consumption. I guess what I'm saying is that it would be unfair to criticize a given TV show for not having gay people in it, because lots of situations, social groups, and so on exist in practice in which sexuality is either irrelevant or in which there aren't gay people. If I wrote a comedy about 5 teenagers partying their post-graduation summer, it wouldn't be bigoted of me to make them all be white and straight, because lots of such groups exist which are comprised of white, straight people.
Nah. Privilege doesn't describe anything about the views that people hold. It merely describes a social status conferred by race, gender, or orientation. Sorry you wrote out that whole post for nothing.
|
On June 26 2013 05:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 05:38 Klondikebar wrote:On June 26 2013 05:34 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2013 05:30 dr.fahrenheit wrote:
on the whole "privileged" thing (plansix & klondikebar):
if there are people who are underprivileged in a society because they are gay, guess what beeing straight makes you in that society... I completely agree. Just don't call me that to my face, I don't like it. A lot of people don't, even if its true. Umm...sorry the truth about your social status hurts? Last I checked it wasn't anyone's job to coddle your feelings, especially not with omission. If I see a girl that have horrible facial scars, should I point if it comes up in discussion because its true? Its not my job to coddle her feelings and it is factual information, so I guess its totally ok, right?
If it's relevant and contributes to the discussion...yes, duh. I have to ask how do you function on a day to day basis in the real world? Are the rules of conversing with someone that hard for you?
|
On June 26 2013 05:38 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 05:34 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2013 05:30 dr.fahrenheit wrote:
on the whole "privileged" thing (plansix & klondikebar):
if there are people who are underprivileged in a society because they are gay, guess what beeing straight makes you in that society... I completely agree. Just don't call me that to my face, I don't like it. A lot of people don't, even if its true. Umm...sorry the truth about your social status hurts? Last I checked it wasn't anyone's job to coddle your feelings, especially not with omission.
You do realize that a vast area of social justice activism is concerned with trying to get people to not say things that might hurt someone's feelings, right? Kinda the reason why every SJ blog has "trigger warnings" at the top. IMO, there are some things people can reasonable implore others not to say, and other things they can't. Privilege falls into the latter category, but so does talking about eating healthily (which could trigger overweight people, apparently) discussing risk factors for sexual assault (e.g. walking through a poorly lit area by oneself at 3am, accepting drinks from strangers etc) and so on.
Frankly, I've never really understood the point of telling someone "you're privileged" because it doesn't really accomplish anything. Like, what's it supposed to do? Make them feel bad about being born the way they were? How does that help anyone? Everyone in a Western society is privileged versus people living in war-torn areas of Africa, but saying so doesn't really accomplish anything. We want people in war-torn Africa to have the same opportunities that we do, not begrudge ourselves opportunities we deserve.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 26 2013 05:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 05:38 Klondikebar wrote:On June 26 2013 05:34 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2013 05:30 dr.fahrenheit wrote:
on the whole "privileged" thing (plansix & klondikebar):
if there are people who are underprivileged in a society because they are gay, guess what beeing straight makes you in that society... I completely agree. Just don't call me that to my face, I don't like it. A lot of people don't, even if its true. Umm...sorry the truth about your social status hurts? Last I checked it wasn't anyone's job to coddle your feelings, especially not with omission. If I see a girl that have horrible facial scars, should I point if it comes up in discussion because its true? Its not my job to coddle her feelings and it is factual information, so I guess its totally ok, right?
Not gonna get too stuck into this conversation, but cmon man, don't use bad analogies.
|
On June 26 2013 05:45 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 05:42 Shiori wrote:
I think the problem is that ascribing privilege to some group is really just a fancy way of saying "I'm more oppressed than you are," which is definitely not an ideal state of affairs, but is ultimately irrelevant to discussions except in the instance that someone refuses to acknowledge that some particular group is mistreated. Furthermore, categorizing a demographic as privileged at the outset as part of your indictment of a particular view implies that this view is integral to that demographic, which is provably false (since there are many people from privileged backgrounds who hold reasonable viewpoints about social justice issues).
I guess the real way to look at it is: yes, white, cisgendered, straight, able-bodied and healthy males are probably in one of the highest rungs of privilege, but it's not unjust that this group is treated well; it's unjust that other groups aren't treated equally well.
There are also areas of privilege which aren't indicative of a fundamental social injustice. For example, people often lament that mainstream American TV shows are oversaturated with white, straight people. Well, this isn't necessarily indicative of a social justice problem. While it's certainly true that there are more white/straight/whatever people on TV than other groups, there also tend to be a lot more, say, straight, cisgendered people in the world than homosexual or trans* people. In this respect, the abundance of shows with several white, straight protagonists versus the virtual non-existence of shows with predominantly homosexual, PoC protagonists makes a lot of sense, because most people aren't, say, homosexual, and therefore most writers and audiences aren't going to, on average, make homosexuality the main focus of their TV consumption. I guess what I'm saying is that it would be unfair to criticize a given TV show for not having gay people in it, because lots of situations, social groups, and so on exist in practice in which sexuality is either irrelevant or in which there aren't gay people. If I wrote a comedy about 5 teenagers partying their post-graduation summer, it wouldn't be bigoted of me to make them all be white and straight, because lots of such groups exist which are comprised of white, straight people.
Nah. Privilege doesn't describe anything about the views that people hold. It merely describes a social status conferred by race, gender, or orientation. Sorry you wrote out that whole post for nothing.
When you reply to an argument dismissively with "typical cisgendered, white, straight males" that is definitely making allusions to an argument viz. one's privilege. Let's call a spade a spade. The person who wrote what I mentioned above was associating the privilege of some demographic with certain arguments as if that somehow affects their validity (since said poster didn't offer any actual counterarguments).
|
On June 26 2013 05:48 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 05:38 Klondikebar wrote:On June 26 2013 05:34 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2013 05:30 dr.fahrenheit wrote:
on the whole "privileged" thing (plansix & klondikebar):
if there are people who are underprivileged in a society because they are gay, guess what beeing straight makes you in that society... I completely agree. Just don't call me that to my face, I don't like it. A lot of people don't, even if its true. Umm...sorry the truth about your social status hurts? Last I checked it wasn't anyone's job to coddle your feelings, especially not with omission. You do realize that a vast area of social justice activism is concerned with trying to get people to not say things that might hurt someone's feelings, right? Kinda the reason why every SJ blog has "trigger warnings" at the top. IMO, there are some things people can reasonable implore others not to say, and other things they can't. Privilege falls into the latter category, but so does talking about eating healthily (which could trigger overweight people, apparently) discussing risk factors for sexual assault (e.g. walking through a poorly lit area by oneself at 3am, accepting drinks from strangers etc) and so on. Frankly, I've never really understood the point of telling someone "you're privileged" because it doesn't really accomplish anything. Like, what's it supposed to do? Make them feel bad about being born the way they were? How does that help anyone? Everyone in a Western society is privileged versus people living in war-torn areas of Africa, but saying so doesn't really accomplish anything. We want people in war-torn Africa to have the same opportunities that we do, not begrudge ourselves opportunities we deserve.
God do you suck at conversing in the real world too? No one's running around randomly screaming at white people that they're assholes for being privileged. Really...who does that? It's a term used when it's relevant to the conversation. So usually when people say "I don't understand why we need gay pride parades, why do they have to shove it in our faces that they're gay?" That becomes an appropriate time to mention privilege.
Jesus Christ have you people never had a conversation outside an internet forum before?
|
On June 26 2013 05:49 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 05:43 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2013 05:38 Klondikebar wrote:On June 26 2013 05:34 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2013 05:30 dr.fahrenheit wrote:
on the whole "privileged" thing (plansix & klondikebar):
if there are people who are underprivileged in a society because they are gay, guess what beeing straight makes you in that society... I completely agree. Just don't call me that to my face, I don't like it. A lot of people don't, even if its true. Umm...sorry the truth about your social status hurts? Last I checked it wasn't anyone's job to coddle your feelings, especially not with omission. If I see a girl that have horrible facial scars, should I point if it comes up in discussion because its true? Its not my job to coddle her feelings and it is factual information, so I guess its totally ok, right? Not gonna get too stuck into this conversation, but cmon man, don't use bad analogies.
Honesty is not always the best policy in discussion. There is more than one way to make a point. Offending our audience is not always affect to make them agree with you.
Also, I used up a lot of my good analogies earlier.
|
On June 26 2013 05:30 dr.fahrenheit wrote:
on the whole "privileged" thing (plansix & klondikebar):
if there are people who are underprivileged in a society because they are gay, guess what beeing straight makes you in that society...
It does not make you privileged in the traditional sense of the word. I shall once again try to explain why those of us who do not discuss social justice (rather silly term in its own right - does the "social" really add anything?) often feel insulted by the term privileged:
An imbalance can exist in which group A has all its basic human rights and group B does not. In this case group B has been robbed of their rights, but that does not mean group A suddenly has gained special rights - which calling them privileged in the traditional sense would suggest. Group A is undoubtedly at an advantage, or rather in reality what really happened was that group B was put at an disadvantage.
The difference is actually important, because calling group A for privileged (in the traditional sense) would suggest that you see group A as undeserving and want group A pulled down to group Bs level, instead of pulling group B up to the level of group A.
As you can see this is quite different from how you and Klondikebar employ the term privileged - something you forgot to make clear the first time around (probably because that is how you are used to employ it) and hence is now caught in this discussion with those of us who are from other fields where privileged means the above.
|
On June 26 2013 05:38 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 05:34 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2013 05:30 dr.fahrenheit wrote:
on the whole "privileged" thing (plansix & klondikebar):
if there are people who are underprivileged in a society because they are gay, guess what beeing straight makes you in that society... I completely agree. Just don't call me that to my face, I don't like it. A lot of people don't, even if its true. Umm...sorry the truth about your social status hurts? Last I checked it wasn't anyone's job to coddle your feelings, especially not with omission.
But that's like saying your "privileged" because you can see while others are blind. Basically you can twist this so that EVERYONE is privileged because some other people get shit on either by nature or society.
there seems to be a bunch of anti white trends in our generation, for example racism. if a white guy is experiences racism from a black guy its called "reverse racism", implying that only white people can be racist. The wording in itself implies that only whites are racist. social justice seems in that same vein, like im supposed to feel guilty for being white or something. social justice = anti white imo.
|
On June 26 2013 05:49 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 05:45 Klondikebar wrote:On June 26 2013 05:42 Shiori wrote:
I think the problem is that ascribing privilege to some group is really just a fancy way of saying "I'm more oppressed than you are," which is definitely not an ideal state of affairs, but is ultimately irrelevant to discussions except in the instance that someone refuses to acknowledge that some particular group is mistreated. Furthermore, categorizing a demographic as privileged at the outset as part of your indictment of a particular view implies that this view is integral to that demographic, which is provably false (since there are many people from privileged backgrounds who hold reasonable viewpoints about social justice issues).
I guess the real way to look at it is: yes, white, cisgendered, straight, able-bodied and healthy males are probably in one of the highest rungs of privilege, but it's not unjust that this group is treated well; it's unjust that other groups aren't treated equally well.
There are also areas of privilege which aren't indicative of a fundamental social injustice. For example, people often lament that mainstream American TV shows are oversaturated with white, straight people. Well, this isn't necessarily indicative of a social justice problem. While it's certainly true that there are more white/straight/whatever people on TV than other groups, there also tend to be a lot more, say, straight, cisgendered people in the world than homosexual or trans* people. In this respect, the abundance of shows with several white, straight protagonists versus the virtual non-existence of shows with predominantly homosexual, PoC protagonists makes a lot of sense, because most people aren't, say, homosexual, and therefore most writers and audiences aren't going to, on average, make homosexuality the main focus of their TV consumption. I guess what I'm saying is that it would be unfair to criticize a given TV show for not having gay people in it, because lots of situations, social groups, and so on exist in practice in which sexuality is either irrelevant or in which there aren't gay people. If I wrote a comedy about 5 teenagers partying their post-graduation summer, it wouldn't be bigoted of me to make them all be white and straight, because lots of such groups exist which are comprised of white, straight people.
Nah. Privilege doesn't describe anything about the views that people hold. It merely describes a social status conferred by race, gender, or orientation. Sorry you wrote out that whole post for nothing. When you reply to an argument dismissively with "typical cisgendered, white, straight males" that is definitely making allusions to an argument viz. one's privilege. Let's call a spade a spade. The person who wrote what I mentioned above was associating the privilege of some demographic with certain arguments as if that somehow affects their validity (since said poster didn't offer any actual counterarguments).
I replied dismissively because you got the definition of privilege wrong within the first paragraph of your post. It kinda rendered most of what what followed from that moot.
And is it really that hard to believe that people that argue against the relevance of gay pride parades tend to be from the social status that has never had a pride issue? And yes, I will agree that if someone genuinely wants to understand then writing them off and moving on isn't very diplomatic. But c'mon, read the goddamn thread. How many people in here genuinely wanted to understand?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
