Privilege and the right to complain

[Ihateregistering1]

Considering this is said often enough with a straight face....

there was an Australian Muslim comedian (who is of some ethnicity I do not know) who made a joke in response to being accused of "reverse racism" which was basically

[i/]if we went back in time and shifted the geographical and technological progress of white people in favor of non whites and took their land and sold them into slavery...so white people...why can't they dance?...that would be reverse racism[/i]

Sorry but I find that to be a ridiculous sentiment (and yes, I've seen his sketch, though his name escapes me).

Your ancestors suffering historical injustices at the hands of someone else's ancestors doesn't give you an inherent right to be racist (or generally prejudiced) towards anyone who happens to fall in the same race or ethnicity as them.

Just because you're Jewish doesn't give you an inherent right to go to Germany or Egypt and be an asshole to everyone because of Nazi Germany or the Pharoahs.

Just because you're English doesn't mean you can go to Norway and treat people like shit because of what the Vikings did.

Just because you're...well, from a whole mess of different countries, doesn't mean you can go to Mongolia and be prejudiced towards people because of what was done under the Khans.

And just because your ancestors were enslaved by someone else's ancestors doesn't give you the right to be prejudiced and racist towards them.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

It's not an argument. It's more of a fallacy used to silenced debate. You can call people on it, or just ignore it.

I'll echo this. They don't actually believe what they're saying, because I can guarantee they went on to ***** about whatever it was that was annoying them. This argument is code for "I disagree with you, but I do not have a decent argument/don't want to invest time in making a decent argument, but I still want to try to win this argument."

Some times I kind of muse what debates would look like if people were more honest and weren't playing to win. Like if you didn't have a good argument, you would just say you didn't have one. It wouldn't automatically mean you were wrong just that you personally couldn't make the argument.

 

[Something Amyss]

there was an Australian Muslim comedian (who is of some ethnicity I do not know) who made a joke in response to being accused of "reverse racism" which was basically

[i/]if we went back in time and shifted the geographical and technological progress of white people in favor of non whites and took their land and sold them into slavery...so white people...why can't they dance?...that would be reverse racism[/i]

LOL

The concept of "reverse racism" is so weird, anyway. Racism is racism. The issue is that the majority [footnote]#notallmajorities[/footnote] tends to look for any attempt to equate what they go through with what a minority might go through. Ideally, nobody would need their own safe space, of course. But that's assuming we start from a position of equity.

 

[You Can't Take the Sky From Me]

One thing that I rarely see considered is that just because, for example, I am complaining about EA this does not mean that this is the only problem in my life. I have actual, real, bad problems in my life, but if something else is bothering me right now, that is what I am going to be bitching about, not the sever ongoing trouble in my life. Especially on a video game forum...

 

[Meximagician]

The only thing that comes to mind is a possible retort: "Fine then, what's YOUR solution to the heat death of the universe!?"

 

[Super Cyborg]

It comes down to the situation and context. If someone is complaining that a company is screwing over consumers and doesn't like that, they are allowed to do so. It's not the biggest problem in the world, but to them it's personal enough that they want to complain about it to make changes. There are things that might be bigger, but it doesn't make them less right, or less personal. Now if they are trying to claim that it's a bigger problem than other things, then one can say that they are privileged enough to be able to voice that type of complaint, instead of living in fear of dying, and not being able to speak out. I haven't seen this myself personally.

The harder part comes to those complaining about how bad they have it, or complaining about something in life particular to them. It's fine if they want to complain about work and other life related stuff. When I was a Life Guard, I would vent steam by talking about the stuff I had to deal with. If I'm just venting about the stuff that I dealt with, and that wasn't pleasant to me, that's fine. If I decided today to go talk about how my life sucks, and nobody can imagine my pain, then people can start to make that argument. I have a steady job, don't have to really worry about being discriminated against, etc. where as there are people in the world that have more to worry about than those things, so people will call me out on my bullshit. If a person is having a bad time period, and talks about it, that's fine. The problem comes when you start trying to make people think you have the worst, when there are clearly others that do. Note, I am talking about when small, mundane things have not been working out. If someone is complaining about someone close to them who died, if they got raped, etc. then don't use the privilege to complain card on them.

 

[HannesPascal]

Yeah, not being able to complain because someone else has it worse is like not being able to be happy because someone else has it better. So non-privileged people have no right to be happy.

 

[Fulbert]

I think we should make the right to complain a privilege. Like, you have a problem that is considered by the Western industrialized internet society to be urgent and legitimately serious and can therefore complain about it on the internet without anybody shaming you with some other people's problems that are approved as more urgent and severe? CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE!

Seriously though, I am pretty sure I'm not the only one that believes dragging the Middle East and Ukraine and the Ebola outbreak into every conversation on the webs is a stupid thing to do.

 

[snowpuppy]

Complaining in general is unpleasant. I try to avoid doing it as a rule. People don't give a shit about my problems, I don't want to bring them down.

 

[Majinash]

I think people tend to misunderatand the idea of "privalige"

for example if a guy says to me "why are you so obessed with female charachters? the only thing that matters is its good" which....well thats pretty rich considering majority of entertainment features men, now that doesn't automatically invalidate his argument.....[i/]however[/i] I can make a strong case in that he might not understand what it means to be constantly relegated to....bad roles

I'm a bit confused about your post. You are saying that of course hypothetical guy in this case isn't wrong because he is a guy, and his argument shouldn't be judged based on his gender. But that you could "make a strong case in that he might not understand what it means to be constantly relegated to....bad roles".

Does this mean it is something like someone saying "gravity is real" and you taking issue with said person having no idea how gravity works, though you wouldn't argue that his statement is correct?

I'm not trying to disagree with you, I just don't understand how making a case he doesn't understand something else would factor into his making a statement? What if a women made that exact statement? Does the conversation end there? It feels odd (at least in this context) there may be a different response to an arguement based soley on who said it.

 

[DementedSheep]

I think people tend to misunderatand the idea of "privalige"

for example if a guy says to me "why are you so obessed with female charachters? the only thing that matters is its good" which....well thats pretty rich considering majority of entertainment features men, now that doesn't automatically invalidate his argument.....[i/]however[/i] I can make a strong case in that he might not understand what it means to be constantly relegated to....bad roles

I'm a bit confused about your post. You are saying that of course hypothetical guy in this case isn't wrong because he is a guy, and his argument shouldn't be judged based on his gender. But that you could "make a strong case in that he might not understand what it means to be constantly relegated to....bad roles".

Does this mean it is something like someone saying "gravity is real" and you taking issue with said person having no idea how gravity works, though you wouldn't argue that his statement is correct?

I'm not trying to disagree with you, I just don't understand how making a case he doesn't understand something else would factor into his making a statement? What if a women made that exact statement? Does the conversation end there? It feels odd (at least in this context) there may be a different response to an arguement based soley on who said it.

I'm not Vault but arguments and opinions don't always hold the same weight based on who says it. It doesn't mean someones opinion is completely invalid and they're not allowed to have any but a persons opinion on a problem they don't have to deal with has less weight than someone who dose because they are lacking that perspective on it.

 

[Majinash]

I'm not Vault but arguments and opinions don't always hold the same weight based on who says it. It doesn't mean someones opinion is completely invalid and they're not allowed to have any but a persons opinion on a problem they don't have to deal with has less weight than someone who dose because they are lacking that perspective on it.

I guess that makes sense somewhat. I guess what confuses me is that someone might take issue with person A's opinion and not person B's opinion even if their opinions are exactly the same, simply because person A and person B are different gender/race/privilege.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

It's already been said, but it can't be said enough.

Dismissing someone's argument based on background is a logical fallacy designed to shut down an argument you can't win. It's only ever seriously used by numbnuts('s?)

For example, anyone who has ever unironically used the term "Check your priviledge", deserves to be kicked in the genitals until they go numb.

 

[Lieju]

I'm not Vault but arguments and opinions don't always hold the same weight based on who says it. It doesn't mean someones opinion is completely invalid and they're not allowed to have any but a persons opinion on a problem they don't have to deal with has less weight than someone who dose because they are lacking that perspective on it.

I guess that makes sense somewhat. I guess what confuses me is that someone might take issue with person A's opinion and not person B's opinion even if their opinions are exactly the same, simply because person A and person B are different gender/race/privilege.

Think of it as them having different experiences.

I for example am of the majority ethnicity in my country, so the chances of me noticing racism against minorities is smaller than themselves.

Similarly, I can't count the times straight people have told me Finland doesn't have any issue with homophobia, because they haven't noticed it.

When I know plenty of gay/bi people who have been harassed, assaulted, or have their parents disown them for no other reason than being gay.

(Or to pick a video-game-related thing, how many straight people have complained how Bioware games 'pander' to gays, and forget the poor heterosexual people.)

Everyone is the expert of their own situation, you just usually lack the experiences other people have, and don't happen to think how different life-experiences affect you.

This doesn't mean straight people can't have an opinion gay rights, or men can't have an opinion on feminism, but if the arguments are just based on personal experiences, they are inherently less of an experts.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'm a bit confused about your post. You are saying that of course hypothetical guy in this case isn't wrong because he is a guy, and his argument shouldn't be judged based on his gender. But that you could "make a strong case in that he might not understand what it means to be constantly relegated to....bad roles".

Does this mean it is something like someone saying "gravity is real" and you taking issue with said person having no idea how gravity works, though you wouldn't argue that his statement is correct?

I'm not trying to disagree with you, I just don't understand how making a case he doesn't understand something else would factor into his making a statement? What if a women made that exact statement? Does the conversation end there? It feels odd (at least in this context) there may be a different response to an arguement based soley on who said it.

To add to what other has said (and I'm also not Vault):

There's two problem here.

Firstly, the man in this situation is looking at the problem from the point of view of someone who isn't affected by the problem. That is, there isn't a problem for him. He's not in a good place to understand the problem. He also is likely to not realise that he is only looking at it from a certain point of view, and hadn't considered that others would view things differently. This is one of the problems with privilege, it seems perfectly normal and natural to those with that. By comparison, currently able-bodied people might be walking along quite contentedly, without ever stopping to consider if a wheelchair could negotiate the same footpath or flight of stairs, because it's not something they have to deal with.

Secondly, the man in that situation seems to have decided that they know more about the problem than the person who actually experiences it. This is another common problem with privilege, people with privilege tend to be seen as the unbiased default, and thus are best suited to decide things for others. By comparison, gay jurors rejected for trials with gay defendants, due to concerns of bias. Only, straight jurors aren't rejected for trials with straight defendants the same way, that would be absurd. You also endlessly see people who are trying to help other people's causes trying to work their way into the leadership of those causes, because they've got all these wonderful ideas. This is often done without malice, but it is a real problem.

 

[Majinash]

Secondly, the man in that situation seems to have decided that they know more about the problem than the person who actually experiences it.

Ok, I understand your first point. I guess you are saying it is like asking a doctor about the benifits of or problems with say... Amiodarone, vs asking a cab driver the same question. You are saying people who are impacted adversly by a situation are more experienced with that situation.

After typing that out I still have a bit of a hangup. Being that true, they have a viewpoint that those with privilege don't have. But everyone has a different viewpoint, and thus they would be lacking a viewpoint someone with privilege has that they don't. I don't want to say one viewpoint is "better" but would I be right to assume one viewpoint is more "impactful"? Maybe?


Mostly I don't think I can accept your second point. The situation I gave was purely hypothetical where both a man and a woman both gave the same answer to the situation Vault used. Is it fair to assume the privileged person edcided they know more than the person who experiences it? Can we not accept that someone who doesn't experience something may have an opinion even though they know they aren't an expert on the situation? Or maybe they are an activist in the area? I understand that by default we might assume the privileged party is less educated on a matter, but should we?

Do we ONLY have to value the opinion of the person with the most experience? Should we put some kind of numeriacal weight to each opinion based on a set of criteria? I don't feel like the best opinion is to simply say "topic is women in video games, you're a man so I think your opinion is misinformed".

This doesn't mean straight people can't have an opinion gay rights, or men can't have an opinion on feminism, but if the arguments are just based on personal experiences, they are inherently less of an experts.

I think I understand what you mean, but it isn't clicking with me the way you put it. Sick people aren't experts on disease, so I wouldn't think someone would be more of an expert on something because they experience it. I know that a chronically sick person would be more familiar with a lot of things about their disease than a layperson, but not more than a certain doctors (cancer patients vs oncologists).

But I think maybe I'm getting hung up too much on the metaphor and missing your point.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Ok, I understand your first point. I guess you are saying it is like asking a doctor about the benifits of or problems with say... Amiodarone, vs asking a cab driver the same question. You are saying people who are impacted adversly by a situation are more experienced with that situation.

After typing that out I still have a bit of a hangup. Being that true, they have a viewpoint that those with privilege don't have. But everyone has a different viewpoint, and thus they would be lacking a viewpoint someone with privilege has that they don't. I don't want to say one viewpoint is "better" but would I be right to assume one viewpoint is more "impactful"? Maybe?

"Relevant" might be the better word, and it only is applying to that area.

Mostly I don't think I can accept your second point. The situation I gave was purely hypothetical where both a man and a woman both gave the same answer to the situation Vault used. Is it fair to assume the privileged person edcided they know more than the person who experiences it? Can we not accept that someone who doesn't experience something may have an opinion even though they know they aren't an expert on the situation? Or maybe they are an activist in the area? I understand that by default we might assume the privileged party is less educated on a matter, but should we?

Do we ONLY have to value the opinion of the person with the most experience? Should we put some kind of numeriacal weight to each opinion based on a set of criteria? I don't feel like the best opinion is to simply say "topic is women in video games, you're a man so I think your opinion is misinformed".

Well, we can assume that a person with privilege is going to be less informed about not having that particular privilege than someone who hasn't got it.

That is not to say that other people can't have an opinion, of course, but that they aren't going to have the same understanding on that issue, and they should recognise it.

 

[Cerebrawl]

It's not an argument. It's more of a fallacy used to silenced debate. You can call people on it, or just ignore it.

Yes, it even has a name: the Fallacy of relative privation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation

 

[Aramis Night]

Well, we can assume that a person with privilege is going to be less informed about not having that particular privilege than someone who hasn't got it.

This is one of my biggest issues with this concept. It relies on an assumption right out of the gate. Something that we shouldn't be encouraging. It is possible to be one thing but be treated like another. For example, when I was locked up I was placed in the same area that the guards put gay people(with the sex offenders). I am not gay, but because they believed I was, I was treated as they would be treated.

The problem with invoking "privilege" is that even if they do have an understanding of the issue their position is dismissed summarily for being the wrong class of person regardless of actual experience.

 

[Daw]

A recent thread in the Gaming Forum has got me wondering about something that seems to be popping up all over the place these days. There seems to be a consistent argument around those who are in privileged positions not being able to complain about things that impact or interest them simply because there are others who have it worse.

For example, as someone living a relatively comfortable life in a first world country you're not allowed to complain about something in pop media because you're not a civilian caught in the middle of a civil war in the Middle East. Or, perhaps, because your issues don't revolve around solving the Ebola outbreak in Africa they are simply invalid and not worth even speaking aloud.

This is a perspective that I personally have a lot of issue with. Now, I'm certainly not saying that my issues with DLC in videogames are on par with the Gaza crisis, but they are still issues I have and find interest in discussing.

What do you all think about the question of privilege and the right to complain?

I believe companies doing stuff that is wrong need to be called out, if its DLC related or connected to them never casting female mains.
I think the people who throw up arguments "oh you have a nice life you shouldn't complain about minor things" are just shithole trolls who can't come up with anything better, or anal housed trolls who defend large companies because they can only have one console.

We want the people with more money and spending power to tell these companies off as it is, because they're more likely to see the money flow rather than opinions.

As with other topics governments should be held accountable life shouldn't be wasted and treated as poorly as it is but our world isn't a fair place luck is much of being privileged in this world.

I'd just avoid fighting with people on the internet.