Explaining "Privilege' to Straight White Male nerds....

Post Reply New Topic

Privilege is clearly falsifiable. If (in the example that I gave just above) equally-qualified job applicants got a similar number of calls for interviews, that would disprove the notion of privilege. Stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination are divisive. Demonstrating their existence will make privileged people feel uncomfortable, but refusing to perpetuate the system of privilege should help alleviate that discomfort.

Certainly racism exists, but nowhere near the epidemic that you seem to place it. You falsely view my logic as an either or proposition when in fact it is based upon a continuum. You are unjustified to disregard my train of reasoning by comparing it to an oversimplification of socioeconomics, when in fact it is actually cause by multiple factors. I do not begin to assume that I know what other individuals want by comparing them to my own desires. Humans are much more complicated then that, but as a rule we tend to respond to incentives. In the future I would appreciate it if you would cease with this strawman tactic ( also, this is not an ad hominem attack; simply a request to stop logical facilities.)

I think the comments you find "unattractive" are actually people who dislike being compared to a stereotype, which may or may not be true.

I simply look at the statistics and research that demonstrate the level of racism (and other discrimination) that exists, and accept that the situation is exactly as bad as they indicate, instead of working backwards from my assumptions to deduce other people's motivations. You have repeatedly ascribed different motives to other groups on the basis of applying logic to assumptions which are not supported by the evidence. Who's actually making straw men?

I think you should look up the definition of a strawman fallacy. On what level do these statistics define and categorize someone as racist? Can a person who never acts on racism still be defined as a racist or hateful. From what I have read it would appear that racism and prejudice are decreasing. However, I prefer to give most statistics a healthy skepticism and attempt to understand before I espouse. You make it sound as if I have carved the motives of different people into stone, when I have merely hypothesized a motive that appears reasonable. As far as I have read, you sir are the one who has "ascribed" motives and act as though it were truth.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PSZyhWwwkw[/youtube]

There's a difference between this guy, who clearly acknowledges the existence of prejudice and feels like people have abused the logical corollary of privilege in order to shut down discussion, and people who deny the existence of privilege altogether. He feels like he was treated badly, and maybe he was, but his anecdote doesn't relate to the common situation of someone who blames oppressed people for their oppression, and who definitely needs to be told to check their privilege.

I also think his example of his bigoted friend doesn't fit very well with his argument. Religion is not a basic quality, it's something people choose to do, and a malignant belief system does not deserve the immunity from criticism that people deserve when it comes to the way they were born.

What I said. The purpose of the term privilege is to assign blame to people simply because they belong to a specific category, and not because of their actions.

If someone is oppressed, then someone else is privileged by virtue of not being oppressed*. Words and concepts don't have an inherent purpose. The have a meaning, or a set of meanings. People use words for various purposes, and I don't doubt that people abuse the word privilege. I suppose you believe that no one should ever be provoked to think about fairness simply because the realization that they have been treated preferentially will make them uncomfortable? Prejudice is divisive, and privilege is the flipside of prejudice.

*In reality, we'd all benefit from everyone being encouraged to get the best education that they can and work at the job where they can be the most productive. The economy is not a zero-sum game, but people who discriminate against other people based on basic traits like sex, sexual orientation, and skin color are treating it as such and choosing winners and losers. In that system, the economy functions less efficiently, although certain individuals will benefit relative to others. Everyone would likely be better off if people worked to overcome the prejudice lurking in the part of their brains that we have in common with reptiles.

Time for me to check my privilege then!

Last edited by AspieOtaku on 09 Nov 2013, 8:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Spot on.

It's not our fault that we are white or black or British or Thai or gay or any particular colour, creed, sexuality, religion or race.

It's shaming people simply for who they are or what group they belong to. It's bigotry in its rankest form.

We should be working on helping to reduce discrimination against various different kinds of people, but shaming particular groups of people will not make things any better - on the contrary, it will lead to greater divisiveness and hatred emanating from both 'competing' groups.

The term 'privilege' simply means that you have benefits (but not rights) other people do not have, for example because of your skin color. Collective guilt has nothing to do with it. There's a difference between creating awareness of these privileges and creating divisors. Since a black person is three times as likely to live below the poverty line as a white person, one can safely assume that there is a privilege to being white.

The word was never a feminist pseudo-scientific term, but a French word from the early Medieval period who refered to special grants or permits to selected people. As long as the notion that black people are different from white people is promoted, white people will always have privileges in the US. If there was an equivalent to the n-word specifically for white people, saying the word out loud would land you a very hefty fine.

Well there is cracker, honky, peckerwood, white trash, whitie, and white devil. Theres no fine for saying that they can say it to white folks all the time in a hateful tone and get away with it.

No no, its called Reverse Racism because simply calling it racism would be politically incorrect.

^I call it racism. I often get in arguments about this, but I think to restrict the use of the word "racism" to a political context is pants-on-head bolshevik ret*d.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhJsIQtgiY4[/youtube]Apparently theres no such thing.

I suppose being impervious to racism must be an African American privilege