Poll: Privilege

[Thaluikhain]

A better example would be:
A) Not being discriminated against
B) The bigots
C) The people the bigots are discriminating against.

Group A is being chosen over group C by the bigots. I wouldn't call that a privilege.
What is happening though, is that group C aren't getting the rights (or civil liberties) they deserve, being treated fairly regardless of race/gender/sexuality.

If Group A is getting preferential treatment, then how are they not privileged?

There hasn't been a lot of mention about the people doing the actual discriminating in this thread (well I've been harping on it to no end), and that's one of the things I'm trying to fix. People are making it sound like some force of nature, when it's actually just some sad lonely idiot blaming all his problems on black people.

No, it's a big slab of society, with the at least nebulous support (intentional or not) of a large amount of others. You don't need to have that many people actively working towards discrimination, as long as lots of the rest don't see an issue with it, and would rather it not change. This is a function of privilege, to see things as normal, that which is fine for them to be fine in general.

 

[Proto Taco]

If you approach it from the standpoint of corporate rhetoric, which most US politics do, then nothing is a right, everything's a privilege and you should just be grateful for the bile you wake up to every morning. Don't even get me started on that load of capitalist tripe.

 

[DarkRawen]

I sort of agree with the OP?

Like, I don't like privilege as a term or idea, and I do agree with that what people are being deprived of in that kind of situation are rights rather than privilege, but I'm not too fond of calling people disadvantaged either, considering it's not a constant thing, and it could be confused for pity/looking down on someone/thinking they require your help when they don't.

Calling groups disadvantaged, I can agree with, but it should be used very sparingly, if at all, when it comes to individuals. It just... seems a bit off, you know, to call someone disadvantaged right off the bat, the same way calling someone privileged when basing that information on very little information seems off, regardless of what the intended meaning of privileged is in that situation (yes, I've seen it change, several times, like most other terms, people attach personal opinions to it).

 

[Thaluikhain]

I sort of agree with the OP?

Like, I don't like privilege as a term or idea, and I do agree with that what people are being deprived of in that kind of situation are rights rather than privilege, but I'm not too fond of calling people disadvantaged either, considering it's not a constant thing, and it could be confused for pity/looking down on someone/thinking they require your help when they don't.

Calling groups disadvantaged, I can agree with, but it should be used very sparingly, if at all, when it comes to individuals. It just... seems a bit off, you know, to call someone disadvantaged right off the bat, the same way calling someone privileged when basing that information on very little information seems off, regardless of what the intended meaning of privileged is in that situation (yes, I've seen it change, several times, like most other terms, people attach personal opinions to it).

I think part of the problem there is that people tend to look at privilege and disadvantage as either/or things, that there's two boxes there and you tick one of them. There's any number of different privileges, and I can more or less guarantee that every individual in this thread has some, but not others, that discrimination works for them in some cases, but against them in others.

 

[DarkRawen]

I sort of agree with the OP?

Like, I don't like privilege as a term or idea, and I do agree with that what people are being deprived of in that kind of situation are rights rather than privilege, but I'm not too fond of calling people disadvantaged either, considering it's not a constant thing, and it could be confused for pity/looking down on someone/thinking they require your help when they don't.

Calling groups disadvantaged, I can agree with, but it should be used very sparingly, if at all, when it comes to individuals. It just... seems a bit off, you know, to call someone disadvantaged right off the bat, the same way calling someone privileged when basing that information on very little information seems off, regardless of what the intended meaning of privileged is in that situation (yes, I've seen it change, several times, like most other terms, people attach personal opinions to it).

I think part of the problem there is that people tend to look at privilege and disadvantage as either/or things, that there's two boxes there and you tick one of them. There's any number of different privileges, and I can more or less guarantee that every individual in this thread has some, but not others, that discrimination works for them in some cases, but against them in others.

That's true, which is why I think it should be used sparingly, either term. Calling someone privileged often appears to be an "absolute", so people tend to have a knee-jerk reaction to it. Personally, my issue is that I'm the other boat, I'd much rather be called privileged because, all things considered, I have it fairly good, but it often feels like people "deprive me" of that due to me "lacking certain privileges". And it's not really a good feeling when people feel bad for you or try to protect you for no reason, or, for some people, even if there is a reason. Especially not when you know that there are loads of others who'd need that protection a lot more.

Honestly though, I wish there was a different, less loaded term to use for it, both disadvantaged and privileged bring certain pictures to mind. Less likely to be discriminated against might be a little too long, though.

 

[Something Amyss]

Honestly though, I wish there was a different, less loaded term to use for it, both disadvantaged and privileged bring certain pictures to mind. Less likely to be discriminated against might be a little too long, though.

Honestly I think any term one might use will fall victim to a euphemism treadmill effect.

Even without loaded terms, people who have it better don't like being told about the problems of others.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Honestly though, I wish there was a different, less loaded term to use for it, both disadvantaged and privileged bring certain pictures to mind. Less likely to be discriminated against might be a little too long, though.

Honestly I think any term one might use will fall victim to a euphemism treadmill effect.

Even without loaded terms, people who have it better don't like being told about the problems of others.

Yeah, second that. Doesn't matter what name you give it, the idea is going to upset people who don't want to hear about it.

 

[DarkRawen]

Honestly though, I wish there was a different, less loaded term to use for it, both disadvantaged and privileged bring certain pictures to mind. Less likely to be discriminated against might be a little too long, though.

Honestly I think any term one might use will fall victim to a euphemism treadmill effect.

Even without loaded terms, people who have it better don't like being told about the problems of others.

People like me and you, I assume, since we both have it better than a lot of people in this world, then? Personally, I don't mind being told about the problems of others, my issue is when people try to make my problems bigger than I perceive them, just because I experience things that someone else might think of as more severe than I do.

And I don't know, I do think there should at least be an attempt to use a term that doesn't bring the image of a silver spoon to mind, considering how strongly associations can work into one's perception of a meaning.

 

[Something Amyss]

People like me and you, I assume, since we both have it better than a lot of people in this world, then?

What a strange thing to assume.

And I don't know, I do think there should at least be an attempt to use a term that doesn't bring the image of a silver spoon to mind, considering how strongly associations can work into one's perception of a meaning.

And those associations persist without the words. In fact, those associations exist so thoroughly that there is virtually no way to bring up certain issues without at least a few people bringing them up. That should be especially evident around these parts.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

well said mate, im tired as shit of all this priviledge talk, it only further segregates people

 

[DarkRawen]

People like me and you, I assume, since we both have it better than a lot of people in this world, then?

What a strange thing to assume.

Not really, seeing as we're both in a position where we can argue about something like this, I'd say it's pretty obvious that we are better off than a lot of people in the world, who can't even utter their opinions without being silenced or punished, for instance. To me, that sounds a lot worse than, for instance, if I couldn't get a job because they've decided that me identifying as a guy while still looking like a girl is me being mentally ill.

And I don't know, I do think there should at least be an attempt to use a term that doesn't bring the image of a silver spoon to mind, considering how strongly associations can work into one's perception of a meaning.

And those associations persist without the words. In fact, those associations exist so thoroughly that there is virtually no way to bring up certain issues without at least a few people bringing them up. That should be especially evident around these parts.

I don't know, I've not seen quite the same kind of reaction when this kind of topic is simply brought up as when privilege is mentioned. Sure, there are always people who try to claim that discrimination doesn't exist, and so on, but that can't be helped, people have their opinions, and if they've kept them for so long, an internet-argument isn't going to do much about it.

Despite being fairly... I don't know, actually. Somewhere in-between, I suppose, I've had conversations with people without mentioning the world privilege, yet the point gets across, and which were quite pleasant. No one felt accused of anything. Of course, very different from what one gets on these topics, where it often feels like one's in the wrong no matter what one's opinion is. I usually post because I think of something I want to say, then I regret it the instant I post. :/

 

[carnex]

Honestly though, I wish there was a different, less loaded term to use for it, both disadvantaged and privileged bring certain pictures to mind. Less likely to be discriminated against might be a little too long, though.

I can't agree more. Privileged, just like disadvantaged is a comparison. So it's completely true to say that let's say, average Malaysian child is privileged compared to let's say average Somalian child. However I would never call average Malaysian child privileged in any shape or form.

When one says Privilegded without any specific comparison, one, in my experience, makes a comparison to that particular person's golden internal standard. That in turn means that privileged person has something, be is materiel or imaterial, that that person doesn't particularly needs to have. Like top level education with private tutors for example. Same goes for word disadvantaged.

Difference is that word "privilege" gives raise to either hostile or distancing feelings while "disadvantaged" raises feelings of sympathy and need top help.

For example average black child "from the hood" is privileged compared to average child from Serbia which is privileged compared to that average child from Malaysia which is privileged compared to average child from Somalia. But I would never call any of them privileged per-se. Although many would call one of them so.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

A better example would be:
A) Not being discriminated against
B) The bigots
C) The people the bigots are discriminating against.

Group A is being chosen over group C by the bigots. I wouldn't call that a privilege.
What is happening though, is that group C aren't getting the rights (or civil liberties) they deserve, being treated fairly regardless of race/gender/sexuality.

If Group A is getting preferential treatment, then how are they not privileged?

There hasn't been a lot of mention about the people doing the actual discriminating in this thread (well I've been harping on it to no end), and that's one of the things I'm trying to fix. People are making it sound like some force of nature, when it's actually just some sad lonely idiot blaming all his problems on black people.

No, it's a big slab of society, with the at least nebulous support (intentional or not) of a large amount of others. You don't need to have that many people actively working towards discrimination, as long as lots of the rest don't see an issue with it, and would rather it not change. This is a function of privilege, to see things as normal, that which is fine for them to be fine in general.

Group A is not getting shat on. That's the difference here. They're getting regular, equal treatment, whereas group C is not (by group B). Group A is getting what they deserve, the right all groups have, they'ere not being afforded special privileges.

If someone is directly asked "are you ok with X being discriminated against", and their answer is "I'm fine with it, nothing needs to change", I'd place them in Group B.
And I wouldn't call it a function of privilege, I'd call it being a selfish prick.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Group A is not getting shat on. That's the difference here. They're getting regular, equal treatment, whereas group C is not (by group B). Group A is getting what they deserve, the right all groups have, they'ere not being afforded special privileges.

Again, they are getting their rights, and things that should have gone to Group C. You said "Group A is being chosen over group C". That means they are getting things out of Group C being discriminated against that they might no otherwise.

Now, sure, if both groups were in totally separate societies, the discrimination against one doesn't affect the other. But if they are both living in the same society, what affects one affects the other. If a man gets promoted over a woman due to discrimination, she isn't just worse off, he is better. If a police officer doesn't believe a black man, and takes a white man's word over him, the white man is benefiting. If an employer won't hire a gay person, the job will end up going to a straight person, who is benefiting.

You cannot talk about discrimination without admitting that people, who may or may not be involved, are benefiting from it.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Group A is not getting shat on. That's the difference here. They're getting regular, equal treatment, whereas group C is not (by group B). Group A is getting what they deserve, the right all groups have, they'ere not being afforded special privileges.

Again, they are getting their rights, and things that should have gone to Group C. You said "Group A is being chosen over group C". That means they are getting things out of Group C being discriminated against that they might no otherwise.

Now, sure, if both groups were in totally separate societies, the discrimination against one doesn't affect the other. But if they are both living in the same society, what affects one affects the other. If a man gets promoted over a woman due to discrimination, she isn't just worse off, he is better. If a police officer doesn't believe a black man, and takes a white man's word over him, the white man is benefiting. If an employer won't hire a gay person, the job will end up going to a straight person, who is benefiting.

You cannot talk about discrimination without admitting that people, who may or may not be involved, are benefiting from it.

Yes, someone will get hired, and if the person doing the hiring is bigoted to people that aren't my colour/gender/sexuality then I am going to inadvertently 'benefit' from this (though being liked by a bigot is straining the word benefit).
I'm familiar with cause and effect.

Maybe it's just bad wording, but Group A isn't getting someone else's rights. Probably just misworded.

You're completely forgetting about Group B in all this. The whole someone benefiting and someone suffering in this context is completely revolving around them. Me being promoted/hired/listened to, isn't a privilege or an injustice. Group B screwing over Group C is.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Me being promoted/hired/listened to, isn't a privilege or an injustice.

No, but getting promoted/hired/listened to due to the colour of your skin (say) is. You are getting an undeserved benefit. This doesn't make it your fault, but is something that needs to be acknowledged.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Me being promoted/hired/listened to, isn't a privilege or an injustice.

No, but getting promoted/hired/listened to due to the colour of your skin (say) is. You are getting an undeserved benefit. This doesn't make it your fault, but is something that needs to be acknowledged.

The bigot doing the hiring isn't in awe of my pale skin, they've got an irrational dislike/hatred of people with a certain skin colour.
You're making it out to be a direct 'benefit' when it isn't, it's just cause and effect.

If I were to hypothetically agree that your definition of privilege is correct for a moment, would privilege even be a bad thing? Would it even matter at all? It is after all just cause and effect from someone else being mistreated by someone else. Not to be mean or anything, but I've yet to see you mention the Group B in this, the bigots. This particular idea of privilege centers solely around bigoted people. You're holding them as some sort of arbiters of who gets privilege and who doesn't.

 

[g3ko]

Me being promoted/hired/listened to, isn't a privilege or an injustice.

No, but getting promoted/hired/listened to due to the colour of your skin (say) is. You are getting an undeserved benefit. This doesn't make it your fault, but is something that needs to be acknowledged.

I mean no disrespect to but into this discussion at this point, but the problem i have is your answer to this, particularly that "undeserved" word and where you chose to insert it into your response. I'd say it's undeserved for someone not to be listened to in a job, or whatever, everyone deserves to be heard out.

It seems that everyone is still focusing on the better that others have instead of getting it for themselves, they want the other group to not have it anymore. That neighbours goat quote comes to mind. I'd rather my neighbour not have a goat because i don't have one instead of going out and getting one myself.
The grass always seems greener on the other side, but this isn't the way to do it.

No mean to disrespect anyone, just my two cents.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Stupid Firefox ate my last response

The bigot doing the hiring isn't in awe of my pale skin, they've got an irrational dislike/hatred of people with a certain skin colour.
You're making it out to be a direct 'benefit' when it isn't, it's just cause and effect.

Of course it's a benefit. You are being viewed as superior to someone else. In large part, that's the reason why others are viewed as inferior, so that your own group is superior by contrast. It's not a coincidence that most people that hate group X are in some other group they feel is superior.

If I were to hypothetically agree that your definition of privilege is correct for a moment, would privilege even be a bad thing? Would it even matter at all?

Yes. If nothing else, it would still be unfair.

More to the point, though, privilege isn't a one off thing, it's something that pops up again and again and again, and tends to have a big impact on people with privilege. Spend your whole life being told that you are superior to another group of people, and consciously or not, you are likely to start believing it. Even if you are aware of the problem, it's still likely to be an issue.

Even if that isn't a problem, or at least not a large one, it is going to view the way you view certain things. For example, during the Occupy protests, white New Yorkers were (rightfully) upset at being harassed by police. Only, it was pointed out that black New Yorkers had been harassed by police for years. Police harassment just hadn't seemed a problem to many white people until they were getting a taste of it. They had the privilege of being white, so police harassment wasn't a thing they had to deal with the way black people did. So they didn't see it as that big a problem, but expected people to care when it happened to them.

This particular idea of privilege centers solely around bigoted people.

Why. Privilege doesn't exist without the privileged.

Also, define "bigoted people". Most (I'd say 100% but can't prove it) people are bigoted to some extent about some issues.

You're holding them as some sort of arbiters of who gets privilege and who doesn't.

Who does or doesn't get privilege is arbitrarily decided by society.

I mean no disrespect to but into this discussion at this point, but the problem i have is your answer to this, particularly that "undeserved" word and where you chose to insert it into your response. I'd say it's undeserved for someone not to be listened to in a job, or whatever, everyone deserves to be heard out.

It seems that everyone is still focusing on the better that others have instead of getting it for themselves, they want the other group to not have it anymore. That neighbours goat quote comes to mind. I'd rather my neighbour not have a goat because i don't have one instead of going out and getting one myself.
The grass always seems greener on the other side, but this isn't the way to do it.

Privilege is relative. You can't gain more without someone else losing. By comparison, not everyone can be a millionaire without being a millionaire becoming meaningless. You have to have lots of people with less for it to mean anything. It's not a privilege to have a goat unless there are other people that can't have one.

You have to take away privilege in order for there to be equality.

The other problem is that people who've lived their life with a privilege tend to see it as normal, just the way things are. Worse, the way things should be...after all, it's fine for them, why change it?

The Western world is mostly run by straight white guys. Imagine there was a series of elections tomorrow, and for some strange reason, it was mostly black lesbians that got in. There's plenty of people who'd totally say (and believe) that they aren't racist or sexist or homophobic who would freak the hell out over that. Hell, even just an equal proportion, with half women, single digits percentages of LGBT people and what proportion of those nations weren't white...that'd pose a massive problem for people who don't see equality as normal.