Poll: Privilege

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

I agree, as a straight white male nobody is helping me to suceed in life, I still need to work hard and im on my own. The only difference is there is nobody shitting on me.

That's not true. The SJWs and affirmative action are constantly shitting on you.

Oh well okay maybe a few tumblr users don't like me, oh woe is me that's totally comparable to the plights of women and minorities.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

I agree, as a straight white male nobody is helping me to suceed in life, I still need to work hard and im on my own. The only difference is there is nobody shitting on me.

That's not true. The SJWs and affirmative action are constantly shitting on you.

Oh well okay maybe a few tumblr users don't like me, oh woe is me that's totally comparable to the plights of women and minorities.

The living ones? The ones alive now, in the 21st century? Yes.
Everyone goes on about how hard it is to be a woman or minority, and yet nobody can actually point to what the oppression actually is. See, if there's a plight, you should be able to spell out exactly what that plight is, not just say there's a plight. All you really have is statistics, but see, statistics aren't oppression, laws, things that are actively being done against you, are.

When I was younger I used that very argument on this website "Sexism is over guys, you won. You can vote, you can work you have equal rights."

But they say 1 in 4 women get raped, even if that number is an exaggeration even 1 in 10 would be terrifying. Women get paid less the world over for the same work. Those statistics do represent oppression, statistics in this case are a count of bad things being done against people, opression doesnt have to be in law form. Aborigines are here in my own country living in third world type conditions whilst I have acess to wifi and clean water and a decent house and food. Some over zealous activists who don't like me who will never meet me in real life aren't really a problem for me.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

I am a straight white male who grew up ranging from poor to middle class. I had an inverse set of parents, my mother (stepmother but she raised me so she gets the title) is very successful while my father, though a great guy, took a bit longer to get his shit together and stabilize a career, and still makes way less than my Mom does. I watched my parents struggle with bills, fight a lot about money, yet they busted ass to make sure I didn't go without anything so I can say I had an advantage, in that my parents cared a lot about me and wanted to make sure I was comfortable. I don't see that as a privilege, I didn't inherit it simply for being white. They fought hard to make sure we had roof, walls, clothes and food.
They also worked so much I almost never saw them during the daytime and was defaulted to grandparent daycare, which again I was lucky t have.
Was I privileged? Or was I just part of a family that actually cared? I don't know exactly, but where I grew up many many things are a little different than they are most other places. I grew up in an environment where women were just as successful as men (Real Estate) and actually more women were top of that food chain than men (still are). I also grew up where if someone was gay it wasn't that odd of a thing, it was just something that some people were, same with racial minorities. There were poor areas but the amount of poor white folk outnumbered the poor black folk. Of course if you drove north to the bigger city, things did change but I am not talking about something that existed about an hour and a half away.
Something to be said about a small community, people are less likely to be assholes to each other, though it still happens. But I guess my hometown is just a very special place to have lived.
I'm not saying there weren't issues, sure there probably were. My point is that between family and community, I've seen a woman become one of the most successful people in her field, running two separate offices that are gender diverse and also very welcoming environments to work. Not at all as cutthroat as other real estate offices I've done PC tech work for.
I guess I've seen a model of what a decent society can be, and seen it work. Maybe though it only works in small areas and the more humans you cramp together, the worse things get.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

I think the disconnect here is that I'm arguing that me not being discriminated against by bigoted people in certain situations is a, uh, civil liberty that all should have, and having that does not make one "privileged" (adjective). The rest of my OP falls into what what you said (I think).

You can't have someone being discriminated against without someone else being discriminated for, though.

For example, let's say you have 3 people or groups, A, B and C. C is being discriminated against, time or funding or resources or whatever that they should be getting is going to A.

Now, you could argue that B isn't privileged, they are just getting an absence of discrimination, and things would be much the same whether it happened to C or not.

A, however, most definitely is. They are getting a benefit from the discrimination. It's not merely an absence of discrimination.

If someone doesn't get a job because of, say, homophobia, then that's a job that someone else gets instead. If money isn't spent in an area because of racism, it's likely to be spent somewhere else.

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.

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.

 

[Alatar The Red]

Focusing on the 'western' cultures.

The problem with the internet usage of privilege is that 99% of the time people focus on race/gender/bodytype etc. while ignoring the overwhelmingly biggest contributor to the inequality thing: wealth.

Being a woman or non white means almost nothing if you have access to tons of money. And likewise being a man or white means almost nothing if you don't have access to a big pile of money. This is especially annoying when the whole concept of white/male privilege usually comes mostly from expensive american universities.

The normal internet usage of the word usually also mostly ignores non americans. I live in a certain nordic country that has equal rights for women and men except that men are forced to choose between: 6-12 months of military service / 12 months of some shit job without pay / jail time. With that huge disadvantage in mind I'd be relatively comfortable with claiming that in this culture women are more 'privileged'.

 

[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.