Neurotypical Privilege

Post Reply New Topic

This is the extreme form of intellectual dishonesty.

Deception, and insult.

Actually, looks like a case of class privilege in both cases, with poor and working class people having to take on very dangerous jobs that are not in compliance with safety standards in order to make a living, with perhaps white privilege in the first case.

Are you denying that you have now posted twice that you can frame privilege in such a way as to portray poor people as privileged - in this thread? Here's the other instance in case you've forgotten:



You seem to be trying to deconstruct the idea of privilege by presenting it as a framing device and not as actually reflective of the real world - but to do so it requires these "gotcha" tactics rather than addressing the real world inequalities and injustices that make the existence of privilege so obvious to those who are not invested in the idea that it does not really exist.

You talk about intellectual honesty, but your posts about "poor privilege" (and autistic privilege, etc) are pretty clear examples of actual intellectual dishonesty.

Based on what ? Without a definition then there is no way to tell.

Your example wasn't privilege; it was an effort to make up for the effects of inequality.

You're the one who's been knocking down straw men.

I think that Verdandi's purpose in this thread does not include providing Privilege 101.

It is up to you to gain a good understanding of the topic through study. I've just pointed you a little bit in that direction.

It's the fact that they're getting screwed over for the benefit of industrialists and are likely powerless to do much if anything about it on their own.

Again, privilege 101! You need a definite crash course.

May I make a suggestion, just stop. No matter what you say they will both twist it around till they get their way. It's a tactic used to beat you down till you either side with them or they get the last word which ever comes first. Just isn't worth falling for.

Yes. Even though those white petroleum workers are white, they are also working class, exposed to unsafe working conditions, and in today's economy, probably underpaid. Meanwhile, the benefits of their labor serve to make the wealthiest people and corporations significantly wealthier because of Reaganomics.

Also, pre-Obamacare: Being thrown off their insurance (obtained through their employer) because the cost of treating their cancer is "too expensive." And then being uninsurable because of preexisting conditions.




The lack of a definition exists only in your own mind.

Here are some links that may assist you:

http://www.opensourceleadership.com/doc ... itions.pdf

http://oregon.4h.oregonstate.edu/oregon ... s/Shaw.pdf

http://www.agjohnson.us/glad/what-is-a- ... privilege/

http://aeq.sagepub.com/content/43/4/203.abstract

The only way your argument that there is no definition can work is if you restrict all discussion of privilege to this single thread where you have arbitrarily decided that I was unable to provide a definition because I did not provide a definition in response to not actually being asked for a definition. Which is to say, you're being intellectually dishonest again.

Reasonable people - realizing that the discussion here is a microcosm of many other discussions globally - would just go to google and search for writing about privilege.

I want to make a point extra clear: Food, shelter, medical care, and other things are all basic human needs. That public monies may be used to assist the poor and the disabled in achieving these things is not privilege, and in fact goes in the opposite direction: It works against privilege.

IMO, it is sad that there are members of marginalized groups who are blind to these dynamics and who would only be hurting themselves and others in the long run, while playing right into the hands of the privileged in maintaining an oppressive power structure.

If LoveNotHate does not follow a single one of those links, then it is clear that LoveNotHate is not here in good faith.

Well, the groups I created are consistent with the Wikipedia definition of "privilege group".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_ ... inequality)

Quoted: "Privilege is a way of framing issues surrounding social inequality, focusing as much on the advantages that one group accrues from society as on the disadvantages that another group experiences".

"The poor" have social advantages over non-poor, namely "freedom" from a lot of things, and that is a social advantage to be able to move around the country unlike people tied to their material possessions such as a house or even a job. Like the Janis Joplin song, "Freedom is when you have nothing left to lose".

Further, "the poor" impose a social inequality on non-poor through government by taxing the non-poor.

The same reasoning could be applies to ... "The fat", " Autistics", "Females", "Minorities" ... Probably whatever group you name, then I can think of a social advantage they have over others not in that group ..

Thus, the definition of "privilege group" appears to be simply based on the agenda of the person doing the labeling.

I am not sure I will respond anymore, because there is no point. You want to make up a concept and arbitrarily apply it.

Have you followed those links Verdandi posted?

Clearly not. It appears privilege was invented on Wrong Planet just for this thread, and has no existence in the real world.

Doesn't matter that W.E.B DuBois talked about white privilege in 1920 or talked about it in 1851 with "Ain't I a Woman." They didn't use the word privilege, but both spoke about how white people were privileged over black people. We can also ignore Feminism's first wave. Mary Wollstonecraft wrote The Vindication of the Rights of Men in 1790.

But privilege was invented for discussion here on Wrong Planet.

There is no history of black people, women, disabled people, gay men, lesbian women, transgender people, working class people, writing about institutional privilege and inequality. Heck, Karl Marx didn't even write about class struggles in the 19th century. Simone de Bouvier never wrote The Second Sex. Foucault never wrote a damned thing.

And it's all just accidental and coincidental that men are paid more than women for the same work. That white people are paid more than black people for the same work. That black people on average have a fraction of the wealth that white people have. That same-sex marriage was illegal throughout the US until the past two decades, and is still not legal everywhere. It's just coincidence that Kansas is about to pass a law that makes discrimination against same-sex couples (and same-sex people in general) completely legal. It just so happens that when black men were given the right to vote in the 19th century in the US, that Southern states instituted laws that would continue to bar their access to the polls. It just kinda happened that women didn't get the vote until 1920. Its an accident that 1 in 6 women will be raped in their lifetime. No one really knows why when a woman tries to report rape she's often treated as being at fault, blamed for it.

It sure can't be that privilege exists because we just ~made it up~ for Wrong Planet and somehow can't explain it despite explaining it over and over and over again only to be met with the reality that the person who insists it's not a real thing is not acting in good faith and being intellectually dishonest. Despite that being the simpler explanation, it can't possibly be true.



Every single word was sarcasm, but the information is factual.

The following was posed above:
"The poor" have social advantages over non-poor, namely "freedom" from a lot of things, and that is a social advantage to be able to move around the country unlike people tied to their material possessions such as a house or even a job. Like the Janis Joplin song, "Freedom is when you have nothing left to lose".

I have a friend who owns a private jet. Now, let me tell you, that is a man with freedom to move around the country!

Verdandi,

I greatly appreciate your posting of the historical context, which is what I think many miss.

Yes. Here is one of the definitions cited by her.

http://www.opensourceleadership.com/doc ... itions.pdf

Quoted: "Privilege exists when one group has something of value that is denied to others simply because of the groups they belong to, rather than because of anything they’ve done or failed to do".

"Minorities" - entitled minority benefits is something of value given to only minorities, the reason they get that is not because of something they did or not do and it is denied to non-minorities.

"Autistic people" - WP members saying they have some "superior traits" (something of value) than NT people, and they did not get those advantages because of something they did or did not do. These "superior traits" are denied to others who are not autistic.

"The poor" have the advantage of freedom (something of value) simply because they are poor. They don't have the bills, or material possessions tieing them down. They don't have to have the worries about the possessions and what can happen to them. They don't have to worry about finances, managing their finances. This is denied to wealthy people who do have all these problems, especially a business owner that can have extreme stress from managing a business.

"The Fat people" - have the enviable ability - to some - to eat a lot of food - and the advantage of not worrying about gaining weight - less stress, less worry and I would say it is because of a state of mind not that they got fat, so it is not about something they did not do. It might also have a biological basis.