|
Neo_Crimson posted:I don't understand this particular definition. How is, say, a programmer that makes $125,000 year not just as bad as an a trust fund kid who makes the same? What's important is that they both make a disproportionate amount of money than needed. What a weird thing to say, how much money a year is an appropriate amount of money for a programmer? 
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:33 |
|
|
Neo_Crimson posted:I don't understand this particular definition. How is, say, a programmer that makes $125,000 year not just as bad as an a trust fund kid who makes the same? Here are some arguments: ostensibly, the programmer is contributing to society by working. The trust fund kid isn't really doing anything other than inheriting a lot of money. The programmer is also not in as great of a position if somehow he loses his livelihood due to illness or some other reason. He also isn't anywhere near as rich as the trust fund kid if the trust fund kid is making $125,000 each year on investments. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Dec 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
Shayu posted:What a weird thing to say, how much money a year is an appropriate amount of money for a programmer? Enough to permanently secure food, housing, medical care, and other necessities with some left over for modest personal luxuries, just like every other job no matter what. Ideally without any actual currency system at all. Is this not the goal of wealth redistribution? Neo_Crimson fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Dec 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I am feeling really surprised the concept of "they just need to get laid to be more leftist" is getting traction in this thread. It seems like such a school yard insult type of logic. i get laid a lot and I'm pretty left wing, AMA
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
Neo_Crimson posted:I don't understand this particular definition. How is, say, a programmer that makes $125,000 year not just as bad as an a trust fund kid who makes the same? What's important is that they both make a disproportionate amount of money than needed. The sword of Damocles story is thrown around here a lot, one of those two people still lives under it. The fact that his google glass can tell him the sword manufacturer doesn't erase the fact that he must work or die.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:class consciousness  Who are you and what did you do with Jeffrey?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:I posit that your question could be more clearly stated as "what is the difference between wealthy and high-earning?" If you actually want to have that conversation here, we can, but there's a big difference between being wealthy and having an income a standard deviation or two above the mean. Part of class consciousness is recognizing that the output of a worker's career, even one at 3x the median income, is not a wealthy worker. What I'm trying to say is that why should we make a distinction between "wealthy" and "high-earning", both should be eliminated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
Neo_Crimson posted:What I'm trying to say is that why should we make a distinction between "wealthy" and "high-earning", both should be eliminated. Eh, high earning isn't really a problem, it doesn't create dynastic wealth and power, might serve as a motivator for otherwise lovely jobs. Kind of like saying that we shouldn't distinguish between ebola and the sniffles because both should be eliminated. One's far worse than the other, though the other certainly creates some really loving annoying people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Eh, high earning isn't really a problem, it doesn't create dynastic wealth and power, might serve as a motivator for otherwise lovely jobs. But it still allows people to have disproportionate power over others, which creates hierarchies. Is it not the purpose of communism to have a classless, moneyless, stateless society with a comfortable but enforced standard of living?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:I'm on a train, we all break down and seriouspost sometimes. The OP trolled me into participating by stating its absurd premise right there in the title!!! Well stop it I'm starting to like your style.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
Neo_Crimson posted:But it still allows people to have disproportionate power over others, which creates hierarchies. Depends on what brand of communism you subscribe to I guess. I'd probably be quite happy with a far narrower band of classes, if any, money-using, heavily state-organized society in which people are conditioned to take an active role in the politics of the state. Sort of a democracy but without being able to buy entire swathes of votes or direct control of portions of the state. Actual wealth is far more troublesome to our society than the very concept of income disparity. A, well, social democracy, if you will. Stateless classless moneyless would certainly be nice but I'm not going to complain if we achieved the former proposal instead. Hierarchy is not good but hierarchy with the degree of disparity we currently have is far, far worse than just the concept of hierarchy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
The problem with "privilege" isn't so much the realities of it as that the past few years have managed to construct a political environment where privilege is the hottest poo poo in town, but class privilege can't seem to get mentioned at all. Somehow things went from a push to have a united "99%" to embracing the dumb neoliberal gambit, aiming for a more just society but not pissing off any rich donors in the process.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Neo_Crimson posted:Is it not the purpose of communism to have a classless, moneyless, stateless society with a comfortable but enforced standard of living? Absolutely not. Marx dismisses such a thought as ridiculous on its head - the concept of a universally-accepted exchange-value is so fundamental that should you 'abolish money' then some other commodity would merely replace it as the universal exchange mechanism and just become the unofficial money. Also the point of communism isn't to 'enforce' a standard of living but that it should occur innately to the situation, as common morality leaves no handicapped behind and freeloaders get told to chip in or gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
The issue is of priorities; even if you consider the high-earning to be terrible in the same way, it's objectively true that they are not the architects nor perpetuators of the extreme inequality we see today. In fact they are often used to scapegoat for the elite. Not to mention that it will be easier to make them accept a unified quality of life with the workers than the kind of people who accumulate millions of dollars to then rot in a bank.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
Neo_Crimson posted:Enough to permanently secure food, housing, medical care, and other necessities with some left over for modest personal luxuries, just like every other job no matter what. Ideally without any actual currency system at all. I think they do that in Cuba if this is your ideal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
Neo_Crimson posted:What I'm trying to say is that why should we make a distinction between "wealthy" and "high-earning", both should be eliminated. radical white supremacists are extremely marginal and widely loathed but at least capable of radicalizing their tiny audience of symps because the popular perception of whiteness imagines it to be a fairly fixed and defined paper-bag-test sort of a deal where they're assured a place on the winning side in the race war; whereas it is blatantly obvious to anyone who's spoken to a modern-day communist even in passing that all they actually want to do with power is finish the job Stalin started and gradually work their way towards purging the entire human race for increasingly arbitrary impurities OneEightHundred posted:The problem with "privilege" isn't so much the realities of it as that the past few years have managed to construct a political environment where privilege is the hottest poo poo in town, but class privilege can't seem to get mentioned at all. Somehow things went from a push to have a united "99%" to embracing the dumb neoliberal gambit, aiming for a more just society but not pissing off any rich donors in the process. I don't think "things" went anywhere, you're talking about two entirely different groups of people. It's not like Hillary Clinton or her stans were the homeless guys and mixed anarchists camping out in Zuccotti Park, and it's not the latter whose rhetoric has significantly changed to try and appear like the former. That some of the less dangerous leftist rhetoric got coopted by business interests doesn't represent a failure of the idea of privilege or intersectionalism, but an acknowledgement by the bloodsuckers of America that that's an idea that resonates with people which they need to try to triangulate against to maintain their station. That might kill it as a useful agent of change in the process, but if your manifesto can't survive being adapted into a hip McDonalds ad maybe the problem is that your movement isn't actually equipped to handle success. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 06:16 on Dec 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
Neo_Crimson posted:Enough to permanently secure food, housing, medical care, and other necessities with some left over for modest personal luxuries, just like every other job no matter what. Ideally without any actual currency system at all. That's the goal of welfare for the needy, not a model of a just and prosperous society you weirdo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 10:28
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:That's the goal of welfare for the needy, not a model of a just and prosperous society you weirdo. Are you suggesting that the welfare of the needy should not be the primary focus of a just and prosperous society?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Kilano posted:I dont think the poor are privileged regardless of their race. I grew up poor and i'd take virtually anything else over being poor. Wait, so you don't think there are problems that non-white poor people experience that white poor people don't? Because if so you are demonstrably wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
In the end-goal society of a radical leftist platform poverty has been eradicated, or is only frictional, i.e. temporary. And people aren't expected to live just barely above poverty because that's not the limit of what sort of life fairly distributed surplus value can buy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Wait, so you don't think there are problems that non-white poor people experience that white poor people don't? Because if so you are demonstrably wrong. No, that's not what I said. I said being poor is one of the worst possible situations you can have. If you are both non-white and poor, that's an even bigger disadvantage. I do think it's ridiculous to say people living in poverty, even white, are "privileged"
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
Kilano posted:No, that's not what I said. A poor white person is far less likely to be murdered by police than a poor black person, for starters. A poor white person is less likely to get a drug charge that forbids them from getting federal student funding forever. A poor white person is also more likely to be promoted into management than a poor black person.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
Kilano posted:No, that's not what I said. "Privilege" is a means of explaining why non-white people are more likely to be poor than white people (in the USA or other similar countries.) It's not a way to say "Suck it up" to poor white people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
Kilano posted:No, that's not what I said. You can be privileged and still have a lovely life, it just means someone else would have a shitter one if they were in your circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
Kilano posted:I do think it's ridiculous to say people living in poverty, even white, are "privileged" This is a misunderstanding of the term, which I appreciate isn't helped by it almost never being explained properly... The concept of 'privilege' was never meant to imply that having any of the boxes ticked meant you were living a perfect life, it was meant to draw attention to the fact that the way society chooses to treat people means that life can be (even) harder for people who you share a trait with. It's not meant to be a ranking system but a request for people to realise that life isn't easy for people, for a myriad of reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
Kilano posted:No, that's not what I said. Well then, what would you call it when one group of people doesn't have to worry about certain difficulties that other, similar groups do?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
It's funny because people were fine for decades when you called certain groups underprivilaged, but the second you said the exact same thing but changed the locus people started flipping out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
The issue isn't really the concept of a poor minority being less privileged than a poor white, its more that: 1. In the current state of affairs for anyone below upper-middle class, its an unfortunate word to use because their quality of life is low enough that the idea that they're having an easy life (which is what is commonly associated with privilege) is offensive. In political junkie terms, it's bad optics. 2. It's been recently abused to shout down the concerns of poor americans in general (not even specifically white), as well as used to put unreasonable burden on the class least qualified or prepared for it (These poor people dared to vote for the person who at least told them that they can make things better for them, what horrific selfish racists! If it weren't for the completely manufactured social vs. fiscal leftism quarrel, and the fact that americans in general are in a rough state, there'd be no controvery over the use of the word privileged.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:The issue isn't really the concept of a poor minority being less privileged than a poor white, its more that: This. To a person who doesn't spend their day worrying about social injustices, "privileged" means "is a rich gently caress with a Lambo parked in front of dad's 10000 sqft holiday home", not "slightly less oppressed than some other poor fuckers".
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 11:20
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:This. To a person who doesn't spend their day worrying about social injustices, "privileged" means "is a rich gently caress with a Lambo parked in front of dad's 10000 sqft holiday home", not "slightly less oppressed than some other poor fuckers". Ok, so what other word should we use instead?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
Privilege is a really dumb term that should never have been coined. Like, men being privileged over women and whites being privileged over non-whites is a really dumb oversimplification if you really want to talk about the scale of "privilege" that goes on in the world. Why don't female non-whites living below the poverty line in the west walk around all day musing on the privilege they experience over the genitally mutilated 10 year old 3rd world child who is already being weaned onto drugs and is being trafficked for sex. There's always someone who has it worse. I would argue, actually, that the gap in privilege between men and women and whites and non-whites in our society, is far far smaller than the gap in privilege between those same repressed demographics and people suffering in other parts of the world. Privilege is a diagnoses of irrelevance. And even if we all accepted the notion, how is it actionable? What do you do with privilege exactly? Those who have it have to help more than those who don't? I don't think we should tell anyone what they ought or ought not to do based solely on the circumstances of their birth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
blowfish posted:This. To a person who doesn't spend their day worrying about social injustices, "privileged" means "is a rich gently caress with a Lambo parked in front of dad's 10000 sqft holiday home", not "slightly less oppressed than some other poor fuckers". Rakosi posted:Privilege is a really dumb term that should never have been coined. Like, men being privileged over women and whites being privileged over non-whites is a really dumb oversimplification if you really want to talk about the scale of "privilege" that goes on in the world. Why don't female non-whites living below the poverty line in the west walk around all day musing on the privilege they experience over the genitally mutilated 10 year old 3rd world child who is already being weaned onto drugs and is being trafficked for sex. There's always someone who has it worse. I would argue, actually, that the gap in privilege between men and women and whites and non-whites in our society, is far far smaller than the gap in privilege between those same repressed demographics and people suffering in other parts of the world. This is like getting outraged at people using theory in the scientific sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Privilege is a really dumb term that should never have been coined. Like, men being privileged over women and whites being privileged over non-whites is a really dumb oversimplification if you really want to talk about the scale of "privilege" that goes on in the world. Why don't female non-whites living below the poverty line in the west walk around all day musing on the privilege they experience over the genitally mutilated 10 year old 3rd world child who is already being weaned onto drugs and is being trafficked for sex. There's always someone who has it worse. I would argue, actually, that the gap in privilege between men and women and whites and non-whites in our society, is far far smaller than the gap in privilege between those same repressed demographics and people suffering in other parts of the world. Oh here's a good tool to help me understand my life and how differs from other peoples' lives in some fundamental ways that I haven't thought about before. I suppose I could probably use this to be a better person. Or.... I could complain about it online because it hurts my feelings, and the possibility of being a better person carries the implication that I'm not already just the greatest thing ever. If you can't understand privilege in the academic sense, then you're a god damned simpleton. I'm not saying this to be hateful. It's just a factual statement regarding intellectual bandwidth. Seriously, read Peggy McIntosh's essay thoughtfully and slowly. Genuinely ask yourself the questions she asks of herself. I'm not saying you have to assess the same implications to privilege that she does, but it should be obvious that what she's talking about is real. Is it in some ways a simplification? Of course. All mental models are simplifications. Is it accurate enough to be useful? Absolutely. Even if the only the use is that in McIntosh's words, "Describing white privilege makes one newly accountable." Or don't. Accountability is scary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Privilege is a really dumb term that should never have been coined. Like, men being privileged over women and whites being privileged over non-whites is a really dumb oversimplification if you really want to talk about the scale of "privilege" that goes on in the world. Why don't female non-whites living below the poverty line in the west walk around all day musing on the privilege they experience over the genitally mutilated 10 year old 3rd world child who is already being weaned onto drugs and is being trafficked for sex. There's always someone who has it worse. I would argue, actually, that the gap in privilege between men and women and whites and non-whites in our society, is far far smaller than the gap in privilege between those same repressed demographics and people suffering in other parts of the world. I hate this poo poo since it boils down to 'somebody else somewhere has it worse so shut up already'. Like this exact same sentiment is used to tell people after things like OWS or whatever to stop complaining about poverty or income inequality with the logic that by virtue of living in somewhere like America you were part of the richest of the rich on an international scale, but for people crushed by debt, poverty and inequality over the last several decades that's just being condescending to their plight and trying to divert attention away from real problems that exist by using 3rd worlders, whose problems will more than likely go even more entirely ignored by those making such arguments, as nothing more than a rhetorical bludgeon. Even still it manages to ignore important appendages to privilege theory, particularly intersectionality which is all about trying to see how things like class or race intersect to victimize certain members of society more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
For the record, I don't think its a bad term, just that recent usage has been poisoning it. Sort of like how the phrase virtue-signaling calls to mind MRA's even though its usable without referencing them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
I'm not outraged and it doesn't hurt my feelings. And I do understand what it is that's being described Mr. Belding. We have reached the same conclusions but I think you're content at the result and I'm not. quote:And even if we all accepted the notion, how is it actionable? What do you do with privilege exactly? Those who have it have to help more than those who don't? I don't think we should tell anyone what they ought or ought not to do based solely on the circumstances of their birth. quote:Is it in some ways a simplification? Of course. All mental models are simplifications. Is it accurate enough to be useful? Absolutely. Even if the only the use is that in McIntosh's words, "Describing white privilege makes one newly accountable." Accountable how? I've never heard anyone strongly married to this idea of privilege actually come up with a thing that they want their newly woke white friend to do now that he knows he's privileged, to rectify the situation. In privilege speak, even if he gave away all his worldly possessions to the poorest minorities in society and lived as a hermit he is still more privileged because he's still white and therefore still has more potential social/economical power than the repressed/minorities. Normally when you hold someone to account for something, you follow it up with something they can do to rectify the situation or whatever, but in this situation it is impossible. He is accountable because he is white and only being dead or having been born as not-white would make him less accountable. Society is a bit broken, however, and unactionable and unsaleable ideas like these do more to stop people taking the liberal left seriously than they do helping with the actual issues. It is totally possible to understand everything behind the notion of "privilege" in society, and not be right wing, and still not be content with its use as a catchphrase or the inferences it makes about hereditary guilt/accountability/responsibility.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:For the record, I don't think its a bad term, just that recent usage has been poisoning it. Which usage, and by who?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Which usage, and by who? Like I mentioned in the previous post, it's been exploited by those who wish to silence or supress the concerns of the impoverished. This puts it in an unfavorable view to all parties; fiscal leftists, alt-right (who tend to have deplorable social views and reasonable fiscal), and centrists. It's a solid term for explaining how black americans are at an inherent disadvantage, but its recent usage as a battering ram against other leftist topics are making it less acceptable by others; in this sense those who wish to cultivate leftist infighting are just as guilty of regressing social causes as any right-wing movement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:33 |
|
|
Honestly it's fun to act like it's a bunch of poor innocents that just are innocently misunderstanding the idea of privilege because of the word. But I am 100% sure if someone in 1970 had called it "squigglysquink" or whatever you'd both have that thing people do with gender science where they dismiss it with "now they are making up words! see how fake this is!". But also you'd just see that people pretty much like their privileged position so don't want to discuss it, and deliberately "misunderstand" it. It's not some recent usage that is "poisoning" it, it's that people with it don't actually really want it to go away and wish people would stop mentioning it at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 17:03
|
|