Poll: Privilege

[RoonMian]

I've been sitting on this for a while now.

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.

You're disadvantaged.

Not being rejected for a job because of your gender isn't a privilege, it's a right. Not being stopped by police at a higher rate because of your skin colour isn't a privilege, it's a right. Not being thrown out of home, family, and community because of your sexuality isn't a privilege, it's a right.

These are all rights ALL people should have, but some are not afforded for whatever reason. These are not privileges, these are rights.
When you tell someone they are privileged, you're saying it's not something they are deserving of. But they do deserve it, and so does everyone else.

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.

While I agree with everything you said on principle you, as a white, heterosexual male (hey, I'm one, too! Twinsies!) have an inherent advantage over others by not being denied these fundamental rights on a systemic level. And you didn't do anything to deserve these advantages, you were just born with them, just giving you a little (or sometimes maybe even a big) head start.

And what do we call unearned, inherent advantages over others? Yeah...

For example in my country just having a Turkish name drops your chances to get invited to a job interview about 10 to 15% depending on skill level. I did nothing to deserve my completely regular native name, I was just born with it, but here I am having an inherent advantage over millions of my fellow countrymen who just happen to have a migrational background. I wish I didn't have that advantage but that's the thing with privileges... You also can't get rid of them that easily.

 

[Mikeybb]

It's a lot easier to see the privilege another has, rather than recognize your own.
Perhaps it's because distance from a situation allows a broader view of circumstances than being close to it, or perhaps the 'grass always being greener' is a fundamental aspect of the human condition.
Whatever it is, one thing is for sure.
Privilege does exist and it has as many forms as there are opinions over which privilege is the most advantageous.

Being part of the group that has it, however, isn't good grounds for thinking poorly of a person.
Nor should their failure to recognize it, or acknowledge it, be grounds for considering them thus.
If the person in question advocates denying to others, then I'd say they've earned all the scorn they gather.

The only other thing I'd add is this.
Privilege is a very good macro concept, in that it gives a good indication of the troubles a person may or may not have in their life based on their societal position and status.
However, like most macro scale concepts, it runs into trouble when applied on the micro scale.
Privilege as a concept doesn't take into account the variety of mitigating circumstance that can and do make up the histories of people when you view them as individuals rather than a statistical element.

Of course, this is all based on my guesswork and that's informed by an education that's already a ten years out of date, so consider the above as potentially the ramblings of the confused, elderly and desperately in need of slippers and a warm drink.

 

[Erttheking]

Really the OP just seems like he's splitting hairs. Basically he's going "Things aren't X, they're Y. It basically means the same thing but I like calling it Y better." No idea why. Then again any actual point in internet discussion always seems to get lost in wordplay.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Maybe it's because privilege conveys a sort of "you don't deserve it" tone. Like, if you accomplish quite a bit in life, someone will go "yeah, because you're privileged" or something similar. I'm just guessing here, since I haven't accomplished much beyond finishing school. And like you said, the internet ran that right into the ground.

I like your thread. And I think you've unwillingly hit on the major point here, but in the reverse.

Privilege definitely conveys a "you don't deserve it" tone. But towards the Disadvantage.

Privilege is being able to benefit for being born a certain way, but also not having everything that might happen to your race, gender, or sexuality pinned on you. I can point out most people who go and do school or mass shootings are white... And that will never be focused on for you or any white male. No one will fear you walking around with a gun. And if you are, you might be questioned a bit more than me, a black man who will more likely be shot down on sight.

Because you deserve the benefit of the doubt. You deserve the chance to live, or if you ARE doing a crime, a chance to serve the rest of life in jail. You deserve that.

In the minds of a lot of people, I wouldn't. They would find pictures of me looking like a thug (spoilers, there are none) and believe that would justify everything. I do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. I do not deserve understanding that maybe I'm just a kid who wants to look cool and fit in... and no one's buying and marketing Pharrels any more, but they certainly will have a dozen of these fake thug rappers.

I do not deserve a jury or my time in jail if I did anything wrong. Read some of these comments on all these news stories about black men being shot. Really. Some are trolling, but a lot are real. The second a black man in America commits a crime, he very well forfeited his life. Whatever happened to the man now, the response will usually be "Well, if he didn't want to get shot, he shouldn't have stole that iPod/Mouthed off to the police/Been in an area that it would look suspicious that he's there".

It doesn't matter that states come out with studies that for the same crime and the same amount of violence, judges are more lenient with white criminals than they are blacks. Minorities do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. They do not deserve common sense thought.

If you target any group of people more, you'll find more of that group of people doing bad things. That doesn't mean that those group of people are just naturally dangerous. But if you search 75 black men, and 15 white guys, how shocked are you that you found 25 black guys doing something wrong and only 3 white guys? It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

I can point out that there are News Networks that are devoted to demonizing my gender and race mixture because it gets people going and they are very prone to accept that. Now that? That I somehow do deserve. No matter the court systems even admitting impropriety. No matter how many times cops are caught lying via video tape. No matter how many rich families can buy silence, and those families are usually rich... And this is due to one simple fact.

The Privileged have the privilege of what they can focus on and what they don't have to. They mete out what is deserved and what is not. And the rest have to accept it. Closed minded Privileged can read all those reports for various states, watch pure police cam footage of police abuse ... and they can choose to look at it a different way. They can choose to believe there might be extenuating circumstances.

I don't deserve that privilege. If I ever have a son, I have to teach him that any moment a police officer even approaches him, he has to go docile, he has to go prone, and if it ever comes to violence... he has to sit there and take it. More over, because of the color of his skin, the cop will be believed almost always more than his word. I will tell him that he probably has no recourse and will have to hope for the best, because if you even video tape or record police officers now they will arrest you on that if they didn't have a real crime before. He can be lied on, beaten to an inch of his life, and told he's going to jail for trying to protect his civil liberties.

Because a whole bunch of Privileged got together and said... he doesn't deserve that.

I get what you're saying here, but you're making privilege out to be some sort of force of nature, which it isn't. Our idea of privilege is something that revolves around bigotry and ignorance. No, I will never face the bigoted assumption that I'm a thug based off of my skin colour, and I'd say that's a right. Other people will face this assumption from bigots, and will not have this right. The problem in this scenario is not that I'm being treated fairly, it's that someone else not, by bigoted people. Not being given the shit end of the stick from bigoted people isn't a privilege, it's a right; something many don't have. This is what we need to fix.

It's not some universal thing. Someone is doing the focusing, someone is deciding you're not worth arresting instead of shooting, someone is saying you don't deserve the rights other people have,

 

[CrystalViolet]

"Privilege" is a concept that has been absolutely corrupted by so-called "Tumblr feminists" and the kinds of social justice types that expressed the same views before the site was founded.

This is so true and I'm so glad you made this point.

-snip

The function of the "privilege" concept is for people who were born with some advantageous characteristics completely out of their control to recognise and be sensitive to the disadvantage of others. Nowadays I hate the term and what it has become. It has been turned into a stick of self righteousness to beat contested arguments to submission. If a white man argues that "rape culture" is not a most appropriate term one can dismiss totally the argument because CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE! It seems that only the most vocal and toxic (Tumblr) feminists are using it in a very condescending way and it's pissing people off. I am a feminist and I want to change the minds of people who may have outdated or sexist outlooks on things but you can't do that when you're insulting people. It's just not a useful term any more and it should be shelved.

I'm saying this as a lesbian Jew (atheist Jew )

 

[Robert Marrs]

I start taking the notion seriously when it isn't being preached to me by people who are and likely always will be far better off then me. That or when its no longer being used as an excuse to discriminate against the supposed privileged or to excuse the actions of the supposed unprivileged.

 

[Itdoesthatsometimes]

I've been sitting on this for a while now.

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.

Wrong, you are privileged, accept it. I could theoretically stop here, but I'll address the rest of your post anyway.

You're disadvantaged.

Personally I have some disadvantage nothing I would consider exceptional. But I realize you are not necessarily talking to me alone. So, theoretically you are right here, but you must be right completely for your poll. This is why your poll is problematic (yeah, I know people hate that word too). You either do not understand that things can be nuanced or you are just presenting your invalid statement with a valid one to promote your idealistic statement. I will get into more problems with your poll, later.

Not being rejected for a job because of your gender isn't a privilege, it's a right. Not being stopped by police at a higher rate because of your skin colour isn't a privilege, it's a right. Not being thrown out of home, family, and community because of your sexuality isn't a privilege, it's a right.

Your use of wording here is problematic. You use privilege in your sentence with out acknowledging it's meaning, you use a simplified meaning of it to relate it to the word right. Also not acknowledging the meaning of the word right. Here is what your argument would appear if you understood nuance:

Not being discriminated for sexuality, gender, or race is a civil liberty.

These are all rights ALL people should have, but some are not afforded for whatever reason. These are not privileges, these are rights.
When you tell someone they are privileged, you're saying it's not something they are deserving of. But they do deserve it, and so does everyone else.

Again using privilege with out acknowledging it's meaning. I'll continue revising your argument.

Not being discriminated for sexuality, gender, or race is a civil liberty. One that I feel every person on earth is entitled to.

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.

Let's get back to your poll here. Is this the part we are suppose to vote on? You have consistently used the words privilege wrong and rights wrong, but is this the appeal that we are to vote on? Because, "I want to use words wrong and everyone should make the world better so I can", is pretty weak. How do I vote if you are right or wrong about that? On one hand if everyone contributed to making the world better, I could live with you using words wrong provided you are not causing more harm than good. One the other hand I doubt such noble ideals when the motivation for the improvement of the world is based off of wanting to use words incorrectly and not be called out on it. As stated before, you either do not understand nuance or you are purposefully presenting your invalid ideas with an idealistic one.

Based on pie in the sky idealism, problematic poll, and consist misuse of words, I voted-No. Use words right.

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

I summarize with there is so much wrong with your argument, and I have not even started discussing it yet.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

*Snips Snipington, the Second Son of the inventor of Snips*

I get what you're saying here, but you're making privilege out to be some sort of force of nature, which it isn't. Our idea of privilege is something that revolves around bigotry and ignorance. No, I will never face the bigoted assumption that I'm a thug based off of my skin colour, and I'd say that's a right. Other people will face this assumption from bigots, and will not have this right. The problem in this scenario is not that I'm being treated fairly, it's that someone else not, by bigoted people. Not being given the shit end of the stick from bigoted people isn't a privilege, it's a right; something many don't have. This is what we need to fix.

It's not some universal thing. Someone is doing the focusing, someone is deciding you're not worth arresting instead of shooting, someone is saying you don't deserve the rights other people have,

And you're absolutely right.

However, a lot of people don't understand that the world we hold so dear and base our entire reality on is really all constructs.

Rights are a construct. A body of laws are a construct. Ideals, Involved Morality, Society. All Constructs.

And as long as we adhere to all of these, the idea of Privilege is just as strong as a Right. Because those in power (the majority) will dictate what's acceptable to the rest (the minority).

Rights are just as flimsy as Privilege. Both only have meaning when enough of the society desires to enforce it. If everyone still kowtows to money and lets it dictate how they will spend their lives and sway their opinions, then those with an excess will always find people to back their ideals. We're actively seeing it now. Pick a country. Look at their politics. Show me one country where there is no corruption and misdeeds, especially those that were bought to undermine the general public's "rights".

It will be a sad experiment.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

I've been sitting on this for a while now.

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.

You're disadvantaged.

Not being rejected for a job because of your gender isn't a privilege, it's a right. Not being stopped by police at a higher rate because of your skin colour isn't a privilege, it's a right. Not being thrown out of home, family, and community because of your sexuality isn't a privilege, it's a right.

These are all rights ALL people should have, but some are not afforded for whatever reason. These are not privileges, these are rights.
When you tell someone they are privileged, you're saying it's not something they are deserving of. But they do deserve it, and so does everyone else.

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.

While I agree with everything you said on principle you, as a white, heterosexual male (hey, I'm one, too! Twinsies!) have an inherent advantage over others by not being denied these fundamental rights on a systemic level. And you didn't do anything to deserve these advantages, you were just born with them, just giving you a little (or sometimes maybe even a big) head start.

And what do we call unearned, inherent advantages over others? Yeah...

For example in my country just having a Turkish name drops your chances to get invited to a job interview about 10 to 15% depending on skill level. I did nothing to deserve my completely regular native name, I was just born with it, but here I am having an inherent advantage over millions of my fellow countrymen who just happen to have a migrational background. I wish I didn't have that advantage but that's the thing with privileges... You also can't get rid of them that easily.

We have to distinguish between privilege and right here. Being born into a rich/well-off family is a privilege (and there's nothing wrong with that). Being treated fairly in a job interview is a right, not a privilege. Some people aren't being afforded this right, because some of the people handling the job interviews are bigoted.

One of the things that has been mentioned several times:

OP, summarized:

"Down exists, but up does not".

Really the OP just seems like he's splitting hairs. Basically he's going "Things aren't X, they're Y. It basically means the same thing but I like calling it Y better." No idea why. Then again any actual point in internet discussion always seems to get lost in wordplay.

As Rude as HECK puts it, I am focusing on the "down", this is for two reasons:
1. The "up" in this case are the rights that everyone deserves, fair treatment regardless of skin colour/sexuality/gender. These aren't privileges. The people calling them privileges are moving the bar down, which they shouldn't be, because 'not being shot' sounds like a bloody good right to have.
2. Focusing on the "up", aka the people who have the rights everyone should, is pointless. Focusing on the people barely indirectly benefiting from the people who are on the "down" side, does nothing.

So rather than saying "You're privileged because that black man got rejected for his skin colour by a bigoted HR Manager", I'm saying "We need to focus on helping the person who got rejected by the bigoted HR manager". Which one do you think is better?

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

snip

You say I'm not using the words privilege and right, right, yet offer no definition of your own. Would you mind doing so.

*Snips Snipington, the Second Son of the inventor of Snips*

I get what you're saying here, but you're making privilege out to be some sort of force of nature, which it isn't. Our idea of privilege is something that revolves around bigotry and ignorance. No, I will never face the bigoted assumption that I'm a thug based off of my skin colour, and I'd say that's a right. Other people will face this assumption from bigots, and will not have this right. The problem in this scenario is not that I'm being treated fairly, it's that someone else not, by bigoted people. Not being given the shit end of the stick from bigoted people isn't a privilege, it's a right; something many don't have. This is what we need to fix.

It's not some universal thing. Someone is doing the focusing, someone is deciding you're not worth arresting instead of shooting, someone is saying you don't deserve the rights other people have,

And you're absolutely right.

However, a lot of people don't understand that the world we hold so dear and base our entire reality on is really all constructs.

Rights are a construct. A body of laws are a construct. Ideals, Involved Morality, Society. All Constructs.

And as long as we adhere to all of these, the idea of Privilege is just as strong as a Right. Because those in power (the majority) will dictate what's acceptable to the rest (the minority).

Rights are just as flimsy as Privilege. Both only have meaning when enough of the society desires to enforce it. If everyone still kowtows to money and lets it dictate how they will spend their lives and sway their opinions, then those with an excess will always find people to back their ideals. We're actively seeing it now. Pick a country. Look at their politics. Show me one country where there is no corruption and misdeeds, especially those that were bought to undermine the general public's "rights".

It will be a sad experiment.

Society is made up, I agree with that. However, people don't have to agree with what those in power or in the majority dictate. I'm trying to fix a broken way of thinking (in a tiny tiny place in the grand scheme of things, but who knows, whispers have wings).

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

People are not "Moving the bar down." They're not saying that these things are privileges, they're saying that some people are more privileged than others, basically they're saying some people have it better than the other.

Why? That's like arguing that focusing on the wealth gap between the 1% and everyone else is pointless. If you want to fix a problem you need to see exactly why it's a problem.

No one really says either. People tend to say "You're privileged because you don't need to deal with X" and for some reason this makes some people get really defensive. Hell if I know why.

Really it feels like you're just splitting hairs over words here.

 

[dragonswarrior]

"Privilege" is a concept that has been absolutely corrupted by so-called "Tumblr feminists" and the kinds of social justice types that expressed the same views before the site was founded.

It's used very spitefully to dismiss the opinions of people based on their gender, race, sexual orientation, gender identity and so on. At the root there is a genuine sentiment, it is harder for people of one demographic to relate to the problems of other demographics other than their own... but beyond that, it gets messy.

White Privilege is actually a thing (kinda) in the sense that non-whites get unfair disadvantages (this depends on the race, however blacks tend to get the raw deal in comparison to other minorities). However, I don't like calling it "white privilege" I like calling it... racism! Why demonise a group when you can call out the actual behaviour that causes the harm.


Male Privilege And last but not least, the most bullshit of all of them. The idea that men somehow have better lives and opportunities by default is ridiculous. Men consist of roughly half the planet, they are not all gonna uniformly have the upper hand based on their gender. This kind of mentality is highly toxic as it breeds misandry (yes, misandry) and in turn breeds misogyny (internalised or externalised) and basically strengthens the divide between the two binary genders rather than help close it.

So what's actual privilege? Living in a first-world country, having electricity, having internet access, being born into wealth, living in a good area... these things are statistically proven to improve people's quality of life.

So... Your definition of privilege is something that is statistically proven to improve someone's life over the lives of others that cannot have it or access to it?

http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/11/30-examples-of-male-privilege/

I can understand if you want to argue with a couple of these (though I think they're all spot on) but really, male privilege is a thing. If you would like I can find the statistical evidence to back several of these up, I'm just hoping I don't have to.

I can even give a real world anecdotal example. I work with Kindergartners (5 year olds if you don't have Kindergarten in your country). My more ignorant coworkers are constantly telling the (5 year old!) girls in my classes to "close their legs" or "do not sit that way" or "ladies do not sit like that." The boys never get told this. They can sit however they want.

Additionally, I have repeatedly witnessed the girls in my classes being talked to as though they were all idiots, regardless of skill, while the boys are all given patience and understanding, regardless of their skill.

Additionally additionally, the boys get called on far more often, and their answering a question when it isn't their turn is far more likely to be rewarded (based on what I've observed) then it is for girls, who are far more frequently told to be quiet or are punished much harsher for speaking out in class.

It starts earlier than that. But yea, male privilege is rearing it's ugly head at 5 years old.

Also, white privilege isn't about demonizing a group. It's about recognizing that in many places in the world (like the US which is the only one I can speak about with authority) being white gives you advantages that being a person of color does not. That's privilege. And it's something that frequently isn't recognized. I also think it's an important term, because frequently when you try to explain racism to a white person they respond with "But I have black friends so I can't be racist!" or a similar statement. Speaking about racism in terms of the privileges and disadvantages that white people and PoC have to deal with actually makes the conversation easier, and still completely accurate.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Snip

People are not "Moving the bar down." They're not saying that these things are privileges, they're saying that some people are more privileged than others, basically they're saying some people have it better than the other.

Why? That's like arguing that focusing on the wealth gap between the 1% and everyone else is pointless. If you want to fix a problem you need to see exactly why it's a problem.

No one really says either. People tend to say "You're privileged because you don't need to deal with X" and for some reason this makes some people get really defensive. Hell if I know why.

Really it feels like you're just splitting hairs over words here.

You're using privilege in two different ways here. First you use it as a comparison term (some people are more privileged than others), then you use it as an adjective to describe someone (You're privileged). Is it one or both? (just pure curiosity here)

The wealth gap between between the 1% and everyone else is different. The 1% are all focusing on maintaining the gap through bribing politicians and news stations. In this analogy, they're both the people being called privileged, and the bigots.
And heck, you could say they are privileged, since they're filthy rich.

I'm not just splitting hairs over words here, I'm splitting meanings. A privilege is beyond a right, it's not anyone's right to be born into a rich family, but it's everyone's right not to be shot for their skin colour. The latter gets thrown in as a privilege by some, something people aren't entitled to, and that's where the problems lies.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

People are not "Moving the bar down." They're not saying that these things are privileges, they're saying that some people are more privileged than others, basically they're saying some people have it better than the other.

Why? That's like arguing that focusing on the wealth gap between the 1% and everyone else is pointless. If you want to fix a problem you need to see exactly why it's a problem.

No one really says either. People tend to say "You're privileged because you don't need to deal with X" and for some reason this makes some people get really defensive. Hell if I know why.

Really it feels like you're just splitting hairs over words here.

You're using privilege in two different ways here. First you use it as a comparison term (some people are more privileged than others), then you use it as an adjective to describe someone (You're privileged). Is it one or both? (just pure curiosity here)

The wealth gap between between the 1% and everyone else is different. The 1% are all focusing on maintaining the gap through bribing politicians and news stations. In this analogy, they're both the people being called privileged, and the bigots.
And heck, you could say they are privileged, since they're filthy rich.

I'm not just splitting hairs over words here, I'm splitting meanings. A privilege is beyond a right, it's not anyone's right to be born into a rich family, but it's everyone's right not to be shot for their skin colour. The latter gets thrown in as a privilege by some, something people aren't entitled to, and that's where the problems lies.

Both really. Some words can be limited to a single definition.

Yeah well here's the thing. Are there people who argue against these terms that aren't racist? Oh Hell yes plenty. Here's the thing though. Not all of them are. There are plenty of people who have unhealthy mindsets that include racist thoughts, but they don't think that they're racist because they don't hate black people. For example. My mother doesn't think that she's racist. She just thinks Whites and Blacks shouldn't marry. There are these causal ingrained stigmas in our culture that so many people just ignore and don't like being brought to light. College Humor did a decent video on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdyin6uipy4

Yeah, it is. I don't see why this means why we can't talk about some people being better off than others. People have a tenancy to just pretend things like these don't exist if they get the chance. You know the saying, "Out of Sight out of Mine"

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Society is made up, I agree with that. However, people don't have to agree with what those in power or in the majority dictate. I'm trying to fix a broken way of thinking (in a tiny tiny place in the grand scheme of things, but who knows, whispers have wings).

The Majority has the money, The Majority has the privatized armed force.

Cpt, you and I are on the same path, and I commend you on that. The system needs to be fixed for all, but... that's simply not desirable by those in the Majority.

I don't know where you are, but the majority of politicians in most countries are bought and paid for.

NY Governor Cuomo decided to make a commission to root out shady practices in the world of politics. This commission was named the Moreland Commission [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/23/nyregion/governor-andrew-cuomo-and-the-short-life-of-the-moreland-commission.html?_r=0].

New York is an expensive place to live. So there are some subsidies and the like that people can apply for to have affordable housing. This being the world, you can actually buy those affording housing statutes and apply it to anything.

Say, like an apartment building where a duplex apartment can cost 93 million. And that annual taxes alone would be 200k. With just having the affordable housing be... somewhere in this building, those taxes will be cut to 18k.

This is Not a hypothetical. This actually happened. The management bought the affording housing to act as an incentive to rich people. It just so happen that the building time lapsed how good the Affordable Housing credit was good for, and it was worthless... So The company that owns this building gave Cuomo a 100,000 campaign fund and lo and behold, Cuomo signed the Affordable Housing to be valid once again for the building... and five others that company owns. And these credits are good for 10 years, so all the taxes the rich SHOULD BE PAYING, the rich found a way to buy their way out of it.

The Moreland Commission found this out, reported their findings to Cuomo. Who said 'that's nice'.... and disbanded the commission.

Nothing will happen to Cuomo. The Credits will stay for people who really don't even need it. The people are screwed once again.

Majority looks out for Majority (and I'm talking monetary, not race wise). Majority will make laws to serve Majority. When confronted, the Majority will say "eh" and nothing will happen.

 

[Dizchu]

So... Your definition of privilege is something that is statistically proven to improve someone's life over the lives of others that cannot have it or access to it?

http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/11/30-examples-of-male-privilege/

Some of those examples are indeed very true (others extremely subjective)... but don't women have "privileges" that men don't, too? I mean that's what "benevolent sexism" is all about, after all. My argument is that the expectations and restrictions men and women face are around equal, though the nature of the prejudice is different (men are expected to be assertive, cold and stoic, women are expected to be chaste, nurturing and reliant on others).

I think the expectation of "greater responsibility" thrust upon men is seen as more "noble", therefore sexism (in a broad sense) is skewed in their favour. I don't personally find this to be the case, as vulnerability is a trait we all exhibit.

I'd rather just ditch the word "privilege" and make people aware that any gender double-standards are damaging (as I believe sexism to be something that contributes to more sexism).

I can even give a real world anecdotal example. I work with Kindergartners (5 year olds if you don't have Kindergarten in your country). My more ignorant coworkers are constantly telling the (5 year old!) girls in my classes to "close their legs" or "do not sit that way" or "ladies do not sit like that." The boys never get told this. They can sit however they want.

Interesting example, I don't doubt that it's sexist... however, if one of the boys chose to play with girls' toys, what would the reaction be? I know this depends on the place (some toy stores really push the "gender neutral" idea which I think is cool on a conceptual level). But I know that boys are taught from a very early age what's appropriately "masculine" for them, an attitude that comes from both authority figures such as teachers and parents and their peers.

Additionally, I have repeatedly witnessed the girls in my classes being talked to as though they were all idiots, regardless of skill, while the boys are all given patience and understanding, regardless of their skill.

Hmm, I can bring up anecdotal examples where the opposite is true (and statistical evidence that in many supposedly "gender neutral" subjects, females have higher chances of succeeding), but I think responding to anecdotes with anecdotes stagnates the discussion. We also live in different countries so maybe there are different attitudes.

Speaking about racism in terms of the privileges and disadvantages that white people and PoC have to deal with actually makes the conversation easier, and still completely accurate.

I think it depends on the tone of the conversation. Now I understand that the USA has a more toxic and widespread problem with racism than we have here in the UK (here far-right parties like the BNP and to a lesser extent UKIP get ridiculed on a daily basis for their bigotry, high-profile racism gets a lot of social media attention too). But when the tone shifts to "guilt by association", it gets unnecessarily hostile.

Now I love to make fun of fellow caucasians. I think some "white stereotypes" are hilarious, but when they're consistently portrayed as the "oppressor"... that's when it gets awkward. I mean I probably agree with you on this, just the word "privilege" makes me uncomfortable. And no, it's not because I have to "check my privilege", it's because it's not unusual for an environment of condescension to come along with it.

But then again maybe that's just because of where I live, often characterised as "notoriously" multicultural.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Snip

People are not "Moving the bar down." They're not saying that these things are privileges, they're saying that some people are more privileged than others, basically they're saying some people have it better than the other.

Why? That's like arguing that focusing on the wealth gap between the 1% and everyone else is pointless. If you want to fix a problem you need to see exactly why it's a problem.

No one really says either. People tend to say "You're privileged because you don't need to deal with X" and for some reason this makes some people get really defensive. Hell if I know why.

Really it feels like you're just splitting hairs over words here.

You're using privilege in two different ways here. First you use it as a comparison term (some people are more privileged than others), then you use it as an adjective to describe someone (You're privileged). Is it one or both? (just pure curiosity here)

The wealth gap between between the 1% and everyone else is different. The 1% are all focusing on maintaining the gap through bribing politicians and news stations. In this analogy, they're both the people being called privileged, and the bigots.
And heck, you could say they are privileged, since they're filthy rich.

I'm not just splitting hairs over words here, I'm splitting meanings. A privilege is beyond a right, it's not anyone's right to be born into a rich family, but it's everyone's right not to be shot for their skin colour. The latter gets thrown in as a privilege by some, something people aren't entitled to, and that's where the problems lies.

Both really. Some words can be limited to a single definition.

Yeah well here's the thing. Are there people who argue against these terms that aren't racist? Oh Hell yes plenty. Here's the thing though. Not all of them are. There are plenty of people who have unhealthy mindsets that include racist thoughts, but they don't think that they're racist because they don't hate black people. For example. My mother doesn't think that she's racist. She just thinks Whites and Blacks shouldn't marry. There are these causal ingrained stigmas in our culture that so many people just ignore and don't like being brought to light. College Humor did a decent video on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdyin6uipy4

Yeah, it is. I don't see why this means why we can't talk about some people being better off than others. People have a tenancy to just pretend things like these don't exist if they get the chance. You know the saying, "Out of Sight out of Mine"

Not sure where you're going with this, but I agree with this paragraph.

And how do we fix this "Out of sight out of mind" situation? By focusing on some people not being disadvantaged and having their rights taken away, or focusing on the ones that are? Or are you referring to your previous paragraph? It seems like the subject has changed. Please clarify.

Unless, what you're trying to say is that the hypothetical HR manager doesn't know they're racially discriminating against someone. In that case someone needs to explain that to them. Calling them privileged though, wouldn't change a thing.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Society is made up, I agree with that. However, people don't have to agree with what those in power or in the majority dictate. I'm trying to fix a broken way of thinking (in a tiny tiny place in the grand scheme of things, but who knows, whispers have wings).

The Majority has the money, The Majority has the privatized armed force.

Cpt, you and I are on the same path, and I commend you on that. The system needs to be fixed for all, but... that's simply not desirable by those in the Majority.

I don't know where you are, but the majority of politicians in most countries are bought and paid for.

NY Governor Cuomo decided to make a commission to root out shady practices in the world of politics. This commission was named the Moreland Commission [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/23/nyregion/governor-andrew-cuomo-and-the-short-life-of-the-moreland-commission.html?_r=0].

New York is an expensive place to live. So there are some subsidies and the like that people can apply for to have affordable housing. This being the world, you can actually buy those affording housing statutes and apply it to anything.

Say, like an apartment building where a duplex apartment can cost 93 million. And that annual taxes alone would be 200k. With just having the affordable housing be... somewhere in this building, those taxes will be cut to 18k.

This is Not a hypothetical. This actually happened. The management bought the affording housing to act as an incentive to rich people. It just so happen that the building time lapsed how good the Affordable Housing credit was good for, and it was worthless... So The company that owns this building gave Cuomo a 100,000 campaign fund and lo and behold, Cuomo signed the Affordable Housing to be valid once again for the building... and five others that company owns. And these credits are good for 10 years, so all the taxes the rich SHOULD BE PAYING, the rich found a way to buy their way out of it.

The Moreland Commission found this out, reported their findings to Cuomo. Who said 'that's nice'.... and disbanded the commission.

Nothing will happen to Cuomo. The Credits will stay for people who really don't even need it. The people are screwed once again.

Majority looks out for Majority (and I'm talking monetary, not race wise). Majority will make laws to serve Majority. When confronted, the Majority will say "eh" and nothing will happen.

Nothing can happen unless the majority, people wise, stop bickering amongst ourselves. That's the only to way tackle these problems non-violently. The two alternatives are either bloody, or more of this.

 

[Itdoesthatsometimes]

snip

You say I'm not using the words privilege and right, right, yet offer no definition of your own. Would you mind doing so.

You are missing the nuance again, I accused you of misusing the word rights and privilege, I accused you of not acknowledging the meanings of the words right and privilege.

I do have to say that it was purely intentional that I left out definitions in hopes you would look them up yourself, damn pie in the sky idealism. But okay here you go.

Privilege
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/privilege

With nuance:

6. an advantage or source of pleasure granted to a person.
This is the one you use.

7. the principle or condition of enjoying special rights or immunities.
This is the one you neglect. This is both misuse and lack of acknowledgment.


Right
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civil%20rights

With Nuance: You should acknowledge that not only does right have broad scope but also that the plural form of right has an much broader meaning. In other words, you tell me what definition of this word you were using. My best guess was that you meant Liberty.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberty

Rights
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rights?s=t
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civil%20rights

With nuance: Liberties becomes a more concise word for the plurality of right. Being the misuse of the word rights for not acknowledging the word right.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Can anyone be disadvantaged without someone else being advantaged in comparison? And vice-versa? I don't think this distinction has teeth. Sure, you can say they're disadvantaged, but that doesn't mean you're not privileged in comparison (and these are strictly comparative terms in the first place), and sure, you can call it a right, but when other people don't have that right, then when you do have that right, you're basically privileged. Having rights other people don't is certainly a privilege.

This all just sounds like semantic quibbling to get out of the primary guilt complex: that one's own success owes in some part to other people not having the opportunity to compete for the same position. Nothing you've said actually contests that root of the issue, however. It just draws a little semantic blanket over it, to hide it away. It's not like the primary guilt complex cannot be contested; I don't even think it's strictly true. Economics is not a zero sum game, and not disadvantaging qualifying individuals would almost certainly create more total value to go around. But that's a different discussion, and notably not a semantic one.

If we say everyone has the right to live, but then someone dies (murdered), does that right become a privilege? There's a huge distinction between what we are entitled to (not being shot/rejected for work for skin colour), and what we given (born into a rich/well-off family).

I don't have to say about the second paragraph. Yes in some way the situation of everyone int he world effects everyone in the world. There's an endless stream of cause and effect, considering some sort of guilt over that is pointless. I don't know if there are people that do, but they shouldn't.