People who use the word "privilege" the most are used to using word with strong psychological impact on common human claiming it has different meaning. And, in my opinion, this is really cleverly calculated move. It has the effect of pushing their agenda in extreme manners while they can claim that they didn't mean any such thing. Privilege is just another example of it.Senare said: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.CpT_x_Killsteal said: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.
"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.
Think of it this way:slo said:Think of the negative numbers.Maze1125 said:As a mathematician I always find these discussions absurd.
One side is arguing "7 is 5 less than 12."
While the other is arguing "No, you're wrong, 12 is 5 more than 7!"
Both are true at the same time. It's just a matter of perspective.
If x < y, they still can be:
- both below zero
- y below zero while x is at zero
- y below zero while x is above zero
- y at zero while x is above zero
- both above zero
Zero is the norm, the way the things should be. Now if someone kills people and gets away with it because of his social status and friends in government, that's high above zero.
If someone gets severe criminal punishment for a legal activity because of his or her political views that's pretty below zero.
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.DataSnake said:You're saying that we should only use the word in situations that fit one definition, not the other. A brief conversation for analogy:CpT_x_Killsteal said: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.
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.
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.CpT_x_Killsteal said: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.
Some I'm privileged because bigots like me at first glance? Is that really such a great thing?RoonMian said:But you are still privileged over other people by bigots not being bigoted against you.CpT_x_Killsteal said:snip
Could you use an analogy with the different definitions of privilege?DataSnake said:You're saying that we should only use the word in situations that fit one definition, not the other. A brief conversation for analogy:CpT_x_Killsteal said: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.
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.
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".The Rogue Wolf said: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".shrekfan246 said: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".
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.Senare said: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.CpT_x_Killsteal said: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.
"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.
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.CpT_x_Killsteal said: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.
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 said:Some I'm privileged because bigots like me at first glance? Is that really such a great thing?RoonMian said:But you are still privileged over other people by bigots not being bigoted against you.CpT_x_Killsteal said:snip
And if privilege revolves around who does and doesn't hate who, then should we really be keeping it as a concept?
I know it actually happens. But I'm saying I'm not privileged because of it.RoonMian said: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 said:Some I'm privileged because bigots like me at first glance? Is that really such a great thing?RoonMian said:But you are still privileged over other people by bigots not being bigoted against you.CpT_x_Killsteal said:snip
And if privilege revolves around who does and doesn't hate who, then should we really be keeping it as a concept?
This is where the immunity aspect of privilege comes in. You are immune from first glance dislike.CpT_x_Killsteal said:I know it actually happens. But I'm saying I'm not privileged because of it.RoonMian said: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 said:Some I'm privileged because bigots like me at first glance? Is that really such a great thing?RoonMian said:But you are still privileged over other people by bigots not being bigoted against you.CpT_x_Killsteal said:snip
And if privilege revolves around who does and doesn't hate who, then should we really be keeping it as a concept?
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.Itdoesthatsometimes said:This is where the immunity aspect of privilege comes in. You are immune from first glance dislike.CpT_x_Killsteal said:I know it actually happens. But I'm saying I'm not privileged because of it.RoonMian said: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 said:Some I'm privileged because bigots like me at first glance? Is that really such a great thing?RoonMian said:But you are still privileged over other people by bigots not being bigoted against you.CpT_x_Killsteal said:snip
And if privilege revolves around who does and doesn't hate who, then should we really be keeping it as a concept?
Edit: NB4 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/immune?s=t definition 3. exempt or protected.