Poll: Privilege

[Itdoesthatsometimes]

So I'm not using the other definition of privilege, but I am using one, but I should also use the other(s)? What's the nuance here? Cos' I'm lost.

You're saying that we should only use the word in situations that fit one definition, not the other. A brief conversation for analogy:

Spoiler

Terry: We have a new policy: whenever you use the company car you to record your mileage in this log.
Gonad: That's not a log, it's a book. Logs are tree trunks.
Terry: "Log" can mean either a tree trunk or a book used to track activities.
Gonad: So I'm using the first definition. Why should I use the other?

While Gonad is right that "log" can refer to a building material, insisting that people only use it in that sense, and not to refer to recordkeeping, is still incorrect.

I know I said I could not reexplain with out coming off rude to CpT x Killsteal. I appreciate (you) someone else trying. And what you said was certainly a part necessary for the explanation, part of which that was getting rude on my part when typing out an explanation before giving up last night.

I do have to say that your analogy while necessary, more applies to a word like right more so than privilege. Right as a word like log, has different meanings completely separate from each other. Where as the word privilege, has a more complex relation with it's definitions.

While contextualized privilege can mean different things. The definitions of privilege offer refined context to the first definition. Unlike log or right, that mean two different things entirely. Therefore the use of privilege even if contextualized to mean a more specific aspect of Privilege, does not disregard the other definitions, as does log and log (tree partition)-right and right (side).

A more accurate way of demonstrating meaning of privilege actually can be applied to the word right.

Right as applied to a moral, ethical, or legal principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rights definition 22.

Like privilege http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/privilege?s=t definition 1, right has three aspects of refinement.

Right: Moral, ethical, or legal
Privilege: Right, immunity, and benefit

From here a person refines the aspect of context but keeps intact the concept of definition.

The problem with the original post is that the argument has been refined for one aspect contextualized in three aspects and used to negate one aspect of the definition.

Meanings of words lose other definitions when it is a different concept, not because it is a refined aspect. A person can disregard aspects through context, provided he/she does not mix aspects.

 

[Piorn]

All those things are already solved on paper, in a top down approach.
The people just haven't caught on, yet.
As long as we don't actively work to revert things already achieved, it will solve itself in time.

Oh and calling people "privileged" is ironically one of the things still keeping those walls inside our heads standing. If you're being called "privileged", you either pity, or you're annoyed by a different group of people than yours. No matter if the emotion is positive or negative, it still creates a mental divide between "them" and "us".

 

[cleric of the order]

So; let's stop calling X people privileged, and start focusing on fixing the disadvantages of different groups, and give them the same rights afforded to everyone else.

To summarise what I'm saying (as if it hasn't gotten across already): These things aren't privileges, they are rights.

See I agree mostly the problem is, more or less these groups are not necessarily privileged or disadvantaged because of their race more to education and familial bonds.
An unpopular opinion but on my old grandfather would likely agree with, he spent a lot of his life supporting the disadvantaged and poor in Jamaica, back in the day and was able to amass money as an Indian living in the twilight days of the Britain empire.
What we need to do in America at least is to target demographics, give these people better education, free university access and the like.
It does make what colour or whatever these people are they need to have a full education and full responsibilities as human beings.
Give these people some hope, give support their family some family (trust me broken homes tend to produce messed up kids) and never let them take the easier path.
Otherwise this is just like normal, every empire have their castes inadvertently or not.
Poverty is a frankly familial trait, born poor, die poor once the aristocracy has been cemented.
This thing will pass as the old dies and the new raises itself up, again as my grandfather said, time solves all problems

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

snip

But you are still privileged over other people by bigots not being bigoted against you.

Some I'm privileged because bigots like me at first glance? Is that really such a great thing?
And if privilege revolves around who does and doesn't hate who, then should we really be keeping it as a concept?

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

So I'm not using the other definition of privilege, but I am using one, but I should also use the other(s)? What's the nuance here? Cos' I'm lost.

You're saying that we should only use the word in situations that fit one definition, not the other. A brief conversation for analogy:

Spoiler

Terry: We have a new policy: whenever you use the company car you to record your mileage in this log.
Gonad: That's not a log, it's a book. Logs are tree trunks.
Terry: "Log" can mean either a tree trunk or a book used to track activities.
Gonad: So I'm using the first definition. Why should I use the other?

While Gonad is right that "log" can refer to a building material, insisting that people only use it in that sense, and not to refer to recordkeeping, is still incorrect.

Anyway, I had a mini-discussion about this topic just the other week, actually, because I don't really see what the benefit is in telling someone to "check their privilege".

95% of the time, it's basically the "there are children starving in Africa" argument redux. It's telling someone "you have it better than someone else, so shut up about everything".

In most of the cases I've seen it used, it's more of a response to comments along the lines of "keep your politics out of my games" or "I don't see a problem here, so stop complaining", and the point is that you don't see the problem because you're privileged, not because there isn't a problem at all. It's not "you have it better so fuck you", it's "your perspective on this issue is limited, maybe you should listen to other people instead of just assuming you know everything".

Could you use an analogy with the different definitions of privilege?

What if I want the percieved problem that i can't percieve explained to me logically? Because, while this is just bashing my anecdotal evidence against yours, it usually does come down to "shut the fuck up or agree with me" (though I haven't seen it on this site thankfully). And rather than "children starving in Africa", it's usually "I'm a woman/trans/gay/black/etc" and you're a white straight man". But again, this is anecdotal. So, do you think someone without the problem can or can't imagine themself in their shoes and empathise? And do you think the 'privileged' person can have a different opinion when the situation is explained to them.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

So; let's stop calling X people privileged, and start focusing on fixing the disadvantages of different groups, and give them the same rights afforded to everyone else.

To summarise what I'm saying (as if it hasn't gotten across already): These things aren't privileges, they are rights.

Meh. I see "privilege" as an academic concept which is a useful shorthand for something along the lines of "an invisible standard". This is a separate, secondary meaning apart from what "privilege" usually means.
"Rights" is a good word on its own, but I do not feel that it captures what I think of when the concept of privilege is brought up. The word "privilege" is not the perfect choice either. But now that the concept has been named "privilege" I do not see much use in redefining it to "rights". I suspect that it would cause more confusion than it is worth.

As for your call to action: I would like to focus on fixing things too. But if I had not gotten the concept of "privilege" explained to me then I would have lacked an important perspective - a perspective that is very useful for fixing some things.

The standard isn't that invisible. There are bigoted people discriminating against others, it's not hard to see it. And a lot of these things are already rights, such as being treated equally, not being shot because of skin colour, not being rejected for a job because of sexuality/gender/race etc,. slavery wasn't ended because people thought "something something privilege", but "everyone deserves the same rights". Granted it took a while for that to settle in completely, but we're there now. Most of us anyway.

Where was I? Oh yes, this not-so-invisible, also known as a double standard, is already called bigotry.

Edit: I'd consider actual privilege to be something like being born into a rich/well-off family. Having something that isn't a right, something you haven't earned, but something given to you.

 

[Zannah]

If everyone should have the rights, but only one group has them, that group is priviledged. Simple as that.

Also Captcha: "Battle royale"

well...

 

[peruvianskys]

I'm not benefiting from gays not being able to be married, and I'm not benefiting from people of different races being shot. This is what I'm trying to drive at. Me being able to get married and not be shot because a someone was spooked about my race does not mean I'm privileged, it means I've got a right which I deserve being afforded to me, whereas someone else is not being afforded the right they deserve.

You might say that someone with better or equal qualifications for a job being rejected in place of me solely based upon their race/gender/sexuality indirectly benefits me, but the person in charge of HR being an arsehole does not make me privileged. I wasn't chosen because I was privileged, the other applicant was rejected because the one doing the choosing was discriminatory.

But the intentional disenfranchisement and exclusion of people of color, women, disabled folks, etc. *does* benefit white dudes like me and you - from individual situations like being considered over a better candidate for a job because he or she is black, to systematic political structures like the fact that a good third of the wealth in white communities was generated during slavery.

I have a lot of problems with the notion of "privilege" because I think it's very individualized and doesn't really lead to anything except people feeling bad, but those in the class of "man" or "white" or whatever absolutely do have lives that are easier because people are dicks to black folks, women, etc.

 

[RoonMian]

snip

But you are still privileged over other people by bigots not being bigoted against you.

Some I'm privileged because bigots like me at first glance? Is that really such a great thing?
And if privilege revolves around who does and doesn't hate who, then should we really be keeping it as a concept?

Of course it's not a great thing. But it won't go away just because you think it shouldn't exist. It's not just a concept, it is a thing that actually happens.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

snip

But you are still privileged over other people by bigots not being bigoted against you.

Some I'm privileged because bigots like me at first glance? Is that really such a great thing?
And if privilege revolves around who does and doesn't hate who, then should we really be keeping it as a concept?

Of course it's not a great thing. But it won't go away just because you think it shouldn't exist. It's not just a concept, it is a thing that actually happens.

I know it actually happens. But I'm saying I'm not privileged because of it.

 

[Itdoesthatsometimes]

snip

But you are still privileged over other people by bigots not being bigoted against you.

Some I'm privileged because bigots like me at first glance? Is that really such a great thing?
And if privilege revolves around who does and doesn't hate who, then should we really be keeping it as a concept?

Of course it's not a great thing. But it won't go away just because you think it shouldn't exist. It's not just a concept, it is a thing that actually happens.

I know it actually happens. But I'm saying I'm not privileged because of it.

This is where the immunity aspect of privilege comes in. You are immune from first glance dislike.

Edit: NB4 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/immune?s=t definition 3. exempt or protected.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

snip

But you are still privileged over other people by bigots not being bigoted against you.

Some I'm privileged because bigots like me at first glance? Is that really such a great thing?
And if privilege revolves around who does and doesn't hate who, then should we really be keeping it as a concept?

Of course it's not a great thing. But it won't go away just because you think it shouldn't exist. It's not just a concept, it is a thing that actually happens.

I know it actually happens. But I'm saying I'm not privileged because of it.

This is where the immunity aspect of privilege comes in. You are immune from first glance dislike.

Edit: NB4 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/immune?s=t definition 3. exempt or protected.

Yes. Immune from first glance dislikes from bigots. One type of arsehole won't have a knee-jerk dislike of me. I still wouldn't say that's a privilege.

Plus if we go with this way, we're basically saying the idea of privilege revolves around bigots hating things, which becomes a 'why do the opinions of bigots matter' scenario.

 

[Itdoesthatsometimes]

snip

But you are still privileged over other people by bigots not being bigoted against you.

Some I'm privileged because bigots like me at first glance? Is that really such a great thing?
And if privilege revolves around who does and doesn't hate who, then should we really be keeping it as a concept?

Of course it's not a great thing. But it won't go away just because you think it shouldn't exist. It's not just a concept, it is a thing that actually happens.

I know it actually happens. But I'm saying I'm not privileged because of it.

This is where the immunity aspect of privilege comes in. You are immune from first glance dislike.

Edit: NB4 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/immune?s=t definition 3. exempt or protected.

Yes. Immune from first glance dislikes from bigots. One type of arsehole won't have a knee-jerk dislike of me. I still wouldn't say that's a privilege.

You don't have to say it, it is however the definition.

Plus if we go with this way, we're basically saying the idea of privilege revolves around bigots hating things, which becomes a 'why do the opinions of bigots matter' scenario.

The idea of privilege is pretty damn broad. First let's get the definition down.

 

[QuietlyListening]

Privilege is supposed to be an uncomfortable concept. Why privilege instead of disadvantaged? Focus. Disadvantaged makes the problem externalized. Oh poor black people. Won't somebody (else) help them? Privilege is about recognizing how the advantaged fit into the system and can inadvertently support it. These disparities do not exist because some bad people want them to exist. They exist because too many good people don't care.

 

[peruvianskys]

Alright, that's bullshit right there, at least the "man" part. People are dicks to men a LOT more than to women. Go to any bar and look at how women are treated vs. men. Go to any prison or divorce court. Go to any city slum. People are dicks to everyone. Only difference is that women/black people/ect get protections and we don't.

That's the most inane nonsense I've ever heard.

You realize one out of every four women in America will be raped right? I'll believe that "people are dicks to everyone" when the same number of men suffer.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

snip

But you are still privileged over other people by bigots not being bigoted against you.

Some I'm privileged because bigots like me at first glance? Is that really such a great thing?
And if privilege revolves around who does and doesn't hate who, then should we really be keeping it as a concept?

Of course it's not a great thing. But it won't go away just because you think it shouldn't exist. It's not just a concept, it is a thing that actually happens.

I know it actually happens. But I'm saying I'm not privileged because of it.

This is where the immunity aspect of privilege comes in. You are immune from first glance dislike.

Edit: NB4 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/immune?s=t definition 3. exempt or protected.

Yes. Immune from first glance dislikes from bigots. One type of arsehole won't have a knee-jerk dislike of me. I still wouldn't say that's a privilege.

You don't have to say it, it is however the definition.

Plus if we go with this way, we're basically saying the idea of privilege revolves around bigots hating things, which becomes a 'why do the opinions of bigots matter' scenario.

The idea of privilege is pretty damn broad. First let's get the definition down.

The broader it is, the meaningless it becomes. If we're going to use it as "X is better off than Y", then we can start applying it to the homeless person who has shoes compared to the one without. Suddenly the homeless person with shoes is privileged.

Then that also raises the question of why we aren't just saying "better off" instead of "privileged" because "better off" only has one meaning and conveys it in a far clearer sense.
Otherwise you're just taking the connotations the word privileged has gathered over hundreds of years and just going 'whoops' and dumping them into a completely different meaning.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Privilege is supposed to be an uncomfortable concept. Why privilege instead of disadvantaged? Focus. Disadvantaged makes the problem externalized. Oh poor black people. Won't somebody (else) help them? Privilege is about recognizing how the advantaged fit into the system and can inadvertently support it. These disparities do not exist because some bad people want them to exist. They exist because too many good people don't care.

I think you've missed my point. I'm saying that being labeled privileged for not having to fear police brutality because of my skin colour isn't a privilege, it's a right. Having that right isn't a privilege, it's something everyone deserves. Leaving the problem as: some people are not getting this right.
These disparities aren't around because people do nothing, they're around because bigots create them. Everyone, including the people not targeted by bigots, should working against the bigots.
Saying that certain people are privileged for not being shot by bigots is both wrong and will only work against getting returning rights to those without.

Captcha: living things. Very clever captcha.

 

[Itdoesthatsometimes]

The broader it is, the meaningless it becomes. If we're going to use it as "X is better off than Y", then we can start applying it to the homeless person who has shoes compared to the one without. Suddenly the homeless person with shoes is privileged.

Yes it does mean that.

Then that also raises the question of why we aren't just saying "better off" instead of "privileged" because "better off" only has one meaning and conveys it in a far clearer sense.

You are answering one of my previous posts. The phrase 'better off' does imply more meaning. The homeless person with shoes is better off than the homeless person with out shoes. let's get into one of your previous statements though.

Spoiler: From your first post

Some people are discriminated against based on their skin colour, on their gender, on their sexuality. People are shot, rejected by their family, and are told they can't do certain jobs. Being a white heterosexual male, I've never faced any of this (might be different for someone else). However.

I'm not privileged.

Why then did you not use the sentence: I'm not better off.

Otherwise you're just taking the connotations the word privileged has gathered over hundreds of years and just going 'whoops' and dumping them into a completely different meaning.

Actually you are, the word has always meant a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most. You desire it to mean something else.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

The broader it is, the meaningless it becomes. If we're going to use it as "X is better off than Y", then we can start applying it to the homeless person who has shoes compared to the one without. Suddenly the homeless person with shoes is privileged.

Yes it does mean that.

Then that also raises the question of why we aren't just saying "better off" instead of "privileged" because "better off" only has one meaning and conveys it in a far clearer sense.

You are answering one of my previous posts. The phrase 'better off' does imply more meaning. The homeless person with shoes is better off than the homeless person with out shoes. let's get into one of your previous statements though.

Spoiler: From your first post

Some people are discriminated against based on their skin colour, on their gender, on their sexuality. People are shot, rejected by their family, and are told they can't do certain jobs. Being a white heterosexual male, I've never faced any of this (might be different for someone else). However.

I'm not privileged.

Why then did you not use the sentence: I'm not better off.

Otherwise you're just taking the connotations the word privileged has gathered over hundreds of years and just going 'whoops' and dumping them into a completely different meaning.

Actually you are, the word has always meant a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most. You desire it to mean something else.

I thought privilege had more than one meaning, at least that's what you've been telling me. Which is why I didn't use better off because I was using a different meaning for privilege (apparently).

And I'm pretty sure privilege and right have always meant different things. You the right to an attorney, you have the right to remain silent, you have the right to speak your mind, you have the right to keep and bear arms, fight for our right to party, etc.

Mate, there are only so many circles we can do here.

 

[Itdoesthatsometimes]

The broader it is, the meaningless it becomes. If we're going to use it as "X is better off than Y", then we can start applying it to the homeless person who has shoes compared to the one without. Suddenly the homeless person with shoes is privileged.

Yes it does mean that.

Then that also raises the question of why we aren't just saying "better off" instead of "privileged" because "better off" only has one meaning and conveys it in a far clearer sense.

You are answering one of my previous posts. The phrase 'better off' does imply more meaning. The homeless person with shoes is better off than the homeless person with out shoes. let's get into one of your previous statements though.

Spoiler: From your first post

Some people are discriminated against based on their skin colour, on their gender, on their sexuality. People are shot, rejected by their family, and are told they can't do certain jobs. Being a white heterosexual male, I've never faced any of this (might be different for someone else). However.

I'm not privileged.

Why then did you not use the sentence: I'm not better off.

Otherwise you're just taking the connotations the word privileged has gathered over hundreds of years and just going 'whoops' and dumping them into a completely different meaning.

Actually you are, the word has always meant a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most. You desire it to mean something else.

I thought privilege had more than one meaning, at least that's what you've been telling me. Which is why I didn't use better off because I was using a different meaning for privilege (apparently).

And I'm pretty sure privilege and right have always meant different things. You the right to an attorney, you have the right to remain silent, you have the right to speak your mind, you have the right to keep and bear arms, fight for our right to party, etc.

Mate, there are only so many circles we can do here.

Let me know if you disagree, but this is the argument I think you are trying to present:


"Not being discriminated for sexuality, gender, or race is a civil liberty. One that I feel every person on earth is entitled to. The condition of humanity does not currently nor ever has lived up to these ideals. The ethical righteousness of these civil liberties must however be fought for to become legal rights and not just moral dreams. The world can be a much better place without these discriminations.

One such discrimination that personally affects me is based on that entitlement not being fully achieved. I am better off within these legal liberties, while some are not. While not all betterment is of the legal nature nor all disadvantage quantifiable. My entitlement should not be used against me within the greater fight for civil liberties for humanity.

Please recognize that I am human as well, and we can fight to eradicate all forms discrimination and work for moral, ethical, and legal civil liberties together.

That is the dream. Am I right to want and believe in this?"

Is that about right?