|
Owlofcreamcheese posted: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!". This is actually probably true for all sciences, not just gender science. Gender science is pretty privileged compared to the history of gawking that other fields of study and discourse has had to put up with over the centuries. Is it any more intolerable in this case?
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:27 |
|
|
Neurolimal posted: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. If you're referring to this: Neurolimal posted: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! Then we have a massive problem since those poor Americans chose to vote for somebody who loudly and openly stated his intention to victimize non-white or non-male people. Like it or not the fact that they could go out and vote for somebody like Trump with little expectation of getting anywhere near the negative consequences of others as a result of his administration is pretty much the whole point of privilege theory. There's no wide ranging class consciousness at work here, it boils down to a specific segment of the population, even if they aren't well-off, having undue influence that means they can just ignore or even heighten other people's problems without much repercussion. In any event anybody who uses the language of privilege but is hostile to the impoverished (as opposed to some of the things that some impoverished sectors of the society might support) is basically a fraud who's not being intellectually honest. Its like trying to use the theory of evolution to argue in favor of young earth creationism, you're basically having to ignore what your chosen theory actually says and cutting out parts at the core of it to make it work. In either event its ridiculous to put the onus on either Evolution or Privilege theory if they're being misused so blatantly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted: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. Where are you actually seeing this happen?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Which usage, and by who? The alt-right, and the right in general, who have been using it a lot, because they want to discredit it. I assume science and all associated terminology are also now gauche because Creationists have latched on to certain terms, because the Devil can quote scripture.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:This is actually probably true for all sciences, not just gender science. Gender science is pretty privileged compared to the history of gawking that other fields of study and discourse has had to put up with over the centuries. Is it any more intolerable in this case? I have never heard anyone say a quasar is fake because it has a fake name. I have seen a million posts on the internet claiming various expressions of gender or sexuality are fake because they used "made up" names.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Rakosi posted: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. I hope I didn't imply that by understanding privilege it becomes your responsibility to fix the world. However, it does empower you to fix your own mindset and respond to situations that you don't understand with more compassion and empathy. If more people have that empathy and capacity for self examination, then those issues are lessened. quote: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. Yes, a white person with no worldly possession is still privileged in many ways, but "more privileged" is weird and crude and not nuanced enough to be useful. In fact I would go so far as to say that magnitudes of privilege of inapplicable unhelpful. That white person who is living as a hermit is likely to still have better outcomes when dealing with law enforcement, for instance. However, I also don't think that privilege is something to "fix" because it's emergent from realities we can't get away from (except perhaps by creating homogenous societies). quote: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. I think you are looking at this idea through a misguided prism where if it doesn't lead to an immediate action one can take then it's useless. Rather it's a lens to view the world through broadly and to make sense of behaviors and patterns you may not have examined. quote: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. Privilege doesn't make those claims about hereditary guilt. Some people may make them, but it's not inherent to the idea. To be honest I don't think it's possible to understand the broader definition of privilege and still hold your worldviews. I just read the things you've written and know 100% that you have at some point all seriousness said "The truth lies somewhere in the middle," or "Well, communism is great on paper."
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:If you're referring to this: The issue is that you can't just turn your nose up and denigrate them for choosing survival over virtue. A lot of dems are opting to double down on shaming these people for not voting ir voting trump, rather than considering the idea of presenting both social and fiscal leftism. These people dont see it as "being privileged enough to not care about Trump's policies", they see it as "being desperate enough to support anyone willing to acknowledge them, or just losing all hope and not voting at all". quote:In any event anybody who uses the language of privilege but is hostile to the impoverished (as opposed to some of the things that some impoverished sectors of the society might support) is basically a fraud who's not being intellectually honest. Its like trying to use the theory of evolution to argue in favor of young earth creationism, you're basically having to ignore what your chosen theory actually says and cutting out parts at the core of it to make it work. In either event its ridiculous to put the onus on either Evolution or Privilege theory if they're being misused so blatantly. I agree that they're frauds, but the issue is that they try to retain respect by, rather than saying "gently caress poor people, I'm not poor" they craft a false history of fiscal leftism suppressing social progress. They abuse and tarnish the term Privilege when doing this. Who What Now posted:Where are you actually seeing this happen? It happened constantly during the primary (when it seemed like Hillary could win without respecting poor voters), then happened quite a bit after the election, and now is only brought up in places without dissenting voices.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:The issue is that you can't just turn your nose up and denigrate them for choosing survival over virtue. A lot of dems are opting to double down on shaming these people for not voting ir voting trump, rather than considering the idea of presenting both social and fiscal leftism. Social and fiscal leftism was presented. Huge portions of Clinton's speeches were about her plans to shape fiscal policy. Stop spreading this lie. quote:It happened constantly during the primary (when it seemed like Hillary could win without respecting poor voters), then happened quite a bit after the election, and now is only brought up in places without dissenting voices. I don't remember ever seeing a single instance of the concept of privilege being used to silence and rhetorically bludgeon people. Since it apparently happened so often, could you give me specific examples?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Social and fiscal leftism was presented. Huge portions of Clinton's speeches were about her plans to shape fiscal policy. Stop spreading this lie. I think Trump still did better with it. Not that he's actually a fiscal leftist, he's an idiot, but in terms of actually convincing people I think Hilary did a fairly poor job. She led a rather conservative campaign, the main impression I got was that she was planning to just continue as usual, which isn't very compelling if you're not doing so well currently. Compared to Obama campaigning basically on the word "change" it's not super surprising that the people who were engaged by his campaign were not very interested by Hilary being fairly dull and not at all giving the impression of radicalism, compared to Trump's very populist and very "the current administration is loving terrible I would do it so much better" language. If you want a change in your circumstances Hilary did a shite job of it. And that trump didn't manage to completely sink the republicans would suggest that a good number of people bought what he was selling in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
The word "privilege" is not designed to make you feel bad about yourself and apologise for being born a white man. It's so that you stop saying things like "We all start out from a level playing field! If black people don't do so well, maybe they should blame their own attitude or maybe they are just genetically inferior!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Social and fiscal leftism was presented. Huge portions of Clinton's speeches were about her plans to shape fiscal policy. Stop spreading this lie. It was a minor point at best in her campaign. She actively ignored the states and towns most ravaged by the current state of affairs, and downplayed fiscal topics the moment the primary was over. As Chuck Schumer said: “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.” quote:I don't remember ever seeing a single instance of the concept of privilege being used to silence and rhetorically bludgeon people. Since it apparently happened so often, could you give me specific examples? You never encountered the constant arguments that New Deal's outcome meant that fiscal leftists couldn't be trusted to support social leftism? What about "Breaking up the banks wont end racism"? Jokes about 'economic anxiety' early after the election whenever it was suggested that racism didn't sweep trump into the office? Damning rust belt voters who didnt turn out as being privileged/racist for not bein energized and enthusiastic about the idea of voting for Hillary whenever anyone suggested she was at fault? Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Jan 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I think "liberals and conservatives are both bad and both on the same team of loving the worker" has more room to resonate with people than "this Semitic ethno-religious group is the secret cause of all ills but the Electric Jew stops us talking about it" if presented right. Its really simple. "The financial elite" are loving you over resonates well with most people. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Jan 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
quote:It was a minor point at best in her campaign. She actively ignored the states and towns most ravaged by the current state of affairs, and downplayed fiscal topics the moment the primary was over. . . . You never encountered the constant arguments that New Deal's outcome meant that fiscal leftists couldn't be trusted to support social leftism? What about "Breaking up the banks wont end racism"? Jokes about 'economic anxiety' early after the election whenever it was suggested that racism didn't sweep trump into the office? The problem is that the data doesn't support your rhetoric. Survey after survey has demonstrated racial animus to be a primary driver of Trump voters. And analysis of Clinton's speeches and rhetoric demonstrate they were overwhelmingly about jobs and fiscal policy. The issue is how her campaign was covered--i.e. significantly less than Trump's, with more consistent criticism compared to her primary opponents and an overwhelming focus on emails. On racial animus, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and a big summary article here. I mean, you can feel any way you want to about Trump supporters, but just because you feel their primary interests are economic anxiety doesn't mean it's true. In fact, here and here and here discuss that Trump supporters themselves tend to be more well off than those around them. They just feel like everything is terrible. As for coverage of Clinton--you only need to read here and here for analyses of the media coverage to understand how little Clinton's actual words and policy proposals had to do with what was reported about her.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:The word "privilege" is not designed to make you feel bad about yourself and apologise for being born a white man. It's so that you stop saying things like "We all start out from a level playing field! If black people don't do so well, maybe they should blame their own attitude or maybe they are just genetically inferior!" It is though. Instead of talking about disadvantaged social groups and focusing on how much worse they have it when compared to other social groups and how that should be fixed, the term privilege is kind of attacking and blaming rich/white/male/etc. people for being born that way and for being who they are. I don't think that it was an accident that we talk about how men have privilege instead of talking how women are disadvantaged and should have the same opportunities as men.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
ATP5G1 posted:As for coverage of Clinton--you only need to read here and here for analyses of the media coverage to understand how little Clinton's actual words and policy proposals had to do with what was reported about her. And her campaign should've done something about it or the party not defaulted to a candidate with decades of baggage. Motto fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Jan 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
quote:I don't think that it was an accident that we talk about how men have privilege instead of talking how women are disadvantaged and should have the same opportunities as men. Uh, we talk about both. The reason you can't just talk about disadvantages is because inevitably someone barges in saying that Those People Just Need To Work Harder Like I Did. At which point one points out that actually, one's gender/race/religion/etc can confer advantages that others not of that group have.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Motto posted:And her campaign should've done something about it or the party not defaulted to a candidate with decades of baggage. What? Exactly what should they have done? Magically made Trump voters not racist? Magically transformed the media so they didn't talk about her emails? At what point does the media and the populace take responsibility for not giving a poo poo about policy? edited to add: The primary issue is that conservatives have spent decades nurturing a propaganda machine that exploited xenophobia, racism, and misogyny to push anti-intellectualism, anti-expertise, distrust for governance, and conspiracy theories. A propaganda machine that was aided by the development of the internet and the flexibility it allowed in developing these communities, and was further expanded by far-right groups and autocrats (i.e. Putin) to advance their political aims. You could cry about the existence of this machine, you could blame the Left for not having its own machine, or you could start asking exactly why we still tolerate the bigoted attitudes that form the foundation of these movements. ATP5G1 fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Jan 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
The problem with arguing that everyone who voted fro Trump is a loving racist is that it actually ends up reinforcing the ideas of the 90s new democrats. Which got us here in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
ATP5G1 posted:The reason you can't just talk about disadvantages is because inevitably someone barges in saying that Those People Just Need To Work Harder Like I Did. People can still say this same kind of stuff if you prefer to talk about privilege instead of disadvantage. 'Privilege' doesn't really add anything to the idea that some people have more advantages than others in society. The reason why the word privilege was coined was either 1) because people thought that it would be rude or politically incorrect to refer to some groups of people as disadvantaged (it could kind of make it sound like they have personal issues or something) or 2) to place blame on rich/white/male/etc people for being born that way. It's not really a word with deep meaning--it is just a marketing term, IMO. Edit: I'm not necessarily saying that it is bad or unfair to talk about privilege and blame rich/white/male/etc people for being themselves. They are the ones who tend to write the rules of society, after all, and society is a little more messed up than it could or should be. But it is a little delusional to claim that the term privilege isn't antagonizing. Of course it is. That's the point of the term. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Jan 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:This is actually probably true for all sciences, not just gender science. Gender science is pretty privileged compared to the history of gawking that other fields of study and discourse has had to put up with over the centuries. Is it any more intolerable in this case? People in other scientific fields get dumped on for using misleading terminology, jargon or euphemisms all the time. People in the physical sciences will often create and employ new, fantastical sounding terminology for normal, common, well-known and understood ideas or scientific phenomena to make their research sound more novel and exciting. They also use euphemisms and misdirection to hide disappointing or unsavory aspects of their research. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Jan 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
ATP5G1 posted:The problem is that the data doesn't support your rhetoric. Survey after survey has demonstrated racial animus to be a primary driver of Trump voters. And analysis of Clinton's speeches and rhetoric demonstrate they were overwhelmingly about jobs and fiscal policy. The issue is how her campaign was covered--i.e. significantly less than Trump's, with more consistent criticism compared to her primary opponents and an overwhelming focus on emails. The first part is a nonsequitur to what I said, and doesn't take into account those who just didn't vote. As for the second part, what were you expecting to happen with a media blackout? Sanders got his message out easily by interacting with the media, Trump got his slogans and larger stances out easily by interacting with the media, why are we supposed to be outraged that the media didn't put in extra footwork to cater to her?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:The reason why the word privilege was coined was either 1) because people thought that it would be rude or politically incorrect to refer to some groups of people as disadvantaged (it could kind of make it sound like they have personal issues or something) or 2) to place blame on rich/white/male/etc people for being born that way. It's not really a word with deep meaning--it is just a marketing term, IMO. Privilege is being so supper upset a label dare get applied to your groups and having your solution be that a even more negative label gets applied to the other groups.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Privilege is being so supper upset a label dare get applied to your groups and having your solution be that a even more negative label gets applied to the other groups. silence_kit posted:Edit: I'm not necessarily saying that it is bad or unfair to talk about privilege and blame rich/white/male/etc people for being themselves. They are the ones who tend to write the rules of society, after all, and society is a little more messed up than it could or should be. But it is a little delusional to claim that the term privilege isn't antagonizing. Of course it is. That's the point of the term.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
It's antagonizing because it challenges entrenched power, any other term would be considered antagonizing, the only solution would be to not challenge inequality which is obviously unacceptable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:the only solution would be to not challenge inequality which is obviously unacceptable. To rephrase your argument, you are saying that not agreeing with Tiny Brontosaurus 100% of the time is the same as agreeing with her 0% of the time. Obviously that's bogus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
Okay, but if you find labels antagonizing why specifically should your group get to avoid them and it should fall on the other groups to have them? If you find it harmful or upsetting to have labels why should you get to be the only group that is free of them? Like that is one of the basic cores of 'privilege", the idea that one group is the normal default and everyone else is the deviant. That there are girl's bikes and bikes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:To rephrase your argument, you are saying that not agreeing with Tiny Brontosaurus 100% of the time is the same as agreeing with her 0% of the time. Obviously that's bogus. In order to effectively communicate ideas you should use effective language, privilege is a good word for the concept it describes because it is effective at communicating the idea. If you would like to use a less effective term in the hopes that people would not be offended by the idea it communicates as much, you're essentially saying that we should try to challenge injustice less effectively in order to not upset the people being challenged. Which is, well, almost subject_of_letter_from_birmingham_jail.txt Someone who is deeply offended by someone describing a profound injustice with the word "privilege" is actually the one at fault, this isn't arbitrary antagonism about a maybe sort of not that important subject, this is a word which has a well understood meaning becoming the subject of much anguished wailing by people who are very upset that perhaps they are contributing to the injustice it describes, and rather than understanding that they instead are diving right into reactionary bollocks. They're the ones at fault here, I really don't see any other valid interpretation of this. It's the same as people complaining about "PC culture" being the worst thing since abolitionism because they don't like speaking to people civilly. It is a very small request and some people just can't deal with very small and reasonable requests and can deal even less with people thinking they're shitheads because of that incapacity. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Jan 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Okay, but if you find labels antagonizing why specifically should your group get to avoid them and it should fall on the other groups to have them? If you find it harmful or upsetting to have labels why should you get to be the only group that is free of them? When I say that the term is antagonizing, I'm not saying that you should never use the term. Maybe your goal is to be antagonizing and to shame people into being better behaved, to vote certain ways, and donate to or participate in certain causes. Owlofcreamcheese posted:Like that is one of the basic cores of 'privilege", the idea that one group is the normal default and everyone else is the deviant. That there are girl's bikes and bikes. I assume that social justice proponents' vision of an ideal society would be that everybody would get treated the way rich/white/male/etc people are treated now. The new normal at least would be more like that than having everyone be treated in the same way that poor/black/female/etc people are now. It could be argued that 'privilege' isn't a great term because 'privilege' shouldn't be a privilege and should just be normal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:It was a minor point at best in her campaign. She actively ignored the states and towns most ravaged by the current state of affairs, and downplayed fiscal topics the moment the primary was over. As Chuck Schumer said: “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.â€Â I'm really not sure I know how to effectively argue against somebody who doesn't seem to share the same reality I do. Seriously, she had an entire speech this last August on nothing but economics in Detroit. But please, tell me more about how she ignored places that have been hurt by the economy and how she never spoke about economics during the general election. quote:You never encountered the constant arguments that New Deal's outcome meant that fiscal leftists couldn't be trusted to support social leftism? What about "Breaking up the banks wont end racism"? Jokes about 'economic anxiety' early after the election whenever it was suggested that racism didn't sweep trump into the office? Damning rust belt voters who didnt turn out as being privileged/racist for not bein energized and enthusiastic about the idea of voting for Hillary whenever anyone suggested she was at fault? If you don't have examples just say so. Edit: silence_kit posted:I assume that social justice proponents' vision of an ideal society would be that everybody would get treated the way rich/white/male/etc people are treated now. The new normal at least would be more like that than having everyone be treated in the same way that poor/black/female/etc people are now. It could be argued that 'privilege' isn't a great term because 'privilege' shouldn't be a privilege and should just be normal. If you're going to talk about "optics" and words/phrases being antagonistic you should probably not suggest that we instead imply that being poor, non-white, or a woman is abnormal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
This is like a kind of Poe's law of politic speak. An unsaleable and unactionable idea, however good, is indistinguishable from no idea at all. In many cases you're preaching to people (and rather incessantly) who already know they have it better than others and find it patronizing that you had to coin a catchword in order to explain it to them. In other cases you're telling people who don't give a drat. In what's left, you're preaching to the choir. quote:Okay, but if you find labels antagonizing why specifically should your group get to avoid them and it should fall on the other groups to have them? If you find it harmful or upsetting to have labels why should you get to be the only group that is free of them? So much of the tone of this betrays the kind of vengeful spite that people who hate the word privilege imagine it is being used with. Tic for tac nonsense. Responses in this thread about the topic show that some more liberally bent posters are deliberately obfuscating that catchwords like these are used a lot by people (usually college students) who bandwagon on the moral outrage train at every opportunity, with no ability to pick what is and is not a smart hill to die on, politically. It is possible to agree with this kind of language in principle but also find it inexpedient or even counter-intuitive to progress. Rakosi fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Jan 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:In order to effectively communicate ideas you should use effective language, privilege is a good word for the concept it describes because it is effective at communicating the idea. If you would like to use a less effective term IMO, privilege is an effective term only if you think it is effective to shame people into acting in different ways. Whether that's effective is debatable. In your defense, it is used in many sects of Christianity and is at least somewhat effective. OwlFancier posted:Someone who is deeply offended by someone describing a profound injustice with the word "privilege" is actually the one at fault, this isn't arbitrary antagonism about a maybe sort of not that important subject, this is a word which has a well understood meaning becoming the subject of much anguished wailing by people who are very upset that perhaps they are contributing to the injustice it describes, and rather than understanding that they instead are diving right into reactionary bollocks. They're the ones at fault here, This is just more of that George W Bush thinking: "you're either with us or against us."
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
If your argument against a particular political belief is "college students are bad at it" then I think perhaps you may just have to give up on life because no possible political position is tenable by that logic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:IMO, privilege is an effective term only if you think it is effective to shame people into acting in different ways. Whether that's effective is debatable. In your defense, it is used in many sects of Christianity and is at least somewhat effective. It is a word used to describe a concept, feeling shame about it is pointless, I don't give a poo poo what you feel except that feeling shameful is not remotely helpful to me or my cause, I can't do anything with your shame, all I require is that you behave appropriately. I see no reason to moderate my language into meaninglessness because you're too emotionally delicate to deal with the slightest criticism of your beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:IMO, privilege is an effective term only if you think it is effective to shame people into acting in different ways. Whether that's effective is debatable. In your defense, it is used in many sects of Christianity and is at least somewhat effective. If someone saying you have privilege causes you such intense feelings of shame then that's a problem with you, not with the word. Tons of people don't feel any shame at all being told that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I see no reason to moderate my language into meaninglessness because you're too emotionally delicate to deal with the slightest criticism of your beliefs. Are you seeing NO irony at all, here? ITT: Liberal taps into the same frustrations that drive the alt-right Rakosi fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Jan 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:If you're going to talk about "optics" and words/phrases being antagonistic you should probably not suggest that we instead imply that being poor, non-white, or a woman is abnormal. Lol, your reading comprehension is certainly below normal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Lol, your reading comprehension is certainly below normal. Or you're very bad at effectively communicating. It's definitely one of the two.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Are you seeing NO irony at all, here? No? Academics frequently have people show opposing views to theirs, it's part of what makes academia academia. I suspect you're not thinking of this in an academic sense though, but are about to spout something about Tumblr or whatever, at which point I direct you to: OwlFancier posted:If your argument against a particular political belief is "college students are bad at it" then I think perhaps you may just have to give up on life because no possible political position is tenable by that logic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Are you seeing NO irony at all, here? I'm not asking you to moderate your language, I'm telling you that your argument is bunk. I think you are expressing it perfectly well, and it is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:27 |
|
|
yeah, the problem with using 'privilege' to describe common advantages in the US is that most of what is a 'Privilege' is the lack of a societal failure. Police treating blacks harsher than whites, men not facing the sexism woman can face, etc. And so telling someone that he is privileged because he never experiences these failures of an attempt to make an equal and just society makes it seem like that person is being blamed for circumstances beyond their control. It is akin to telling someone they are born with inescapable sin for being born white. And so trying to stir up empathy for the nonprivileged can run into a brick wall of 'why are you saying I MUST do this for merely being born a certain race or gender'. I think all the people saying 'white men are the most privileged' end up making a opposition that sees nothing privileged about their day-to-day, struggling to make a living lifestyle, as they don't see how their situation could ever be called privileged. In common everyday use, privilege is something extra on top of the normal operations of day to day life. The privilege of cutting line because of a membership, the privilege of going first because of a won coin flip. The privilege of getting to go first in a board game because its your birthday.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 01:10
|
|