|
Pharohman777 posted: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. Has it occured to you that from the perspective of people who lack privilege, that is precisely how it is? You are starting from the assumption that the position of privilege is "normal" and that deviation from it is the aberrant position.
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:52 |
|
|
The problem with making "privileged" the abnormal state is that it implies that in the privilege-less society you want to create, everyone will be poor, everyone will be abused by the cops, and everyone will be made to feel inferior. You want to talk about bad optics, that's bad optics. Making "disadvantaged" the abnormal state is much better, and it doesn't imply that the people are abnormal, just their socially-imposed condition.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
What about calling it white power?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
21 Muns posted:The problem with making "privileged" the abnormal state is that it implies that in the privilege-less society you want to create, everyone will be poor, everyone will be abused by the cops, and everyone will be made to feel inferior. You want to talk about bad optics, that's bad optics. Making "disadvantaged" the abnormal state is much better, and it doesn't imply that the people are abnormal, just their socially-imposed condition. Or, possibly, understanding that not everybody has the same default experience and complaining about terminology because it does not mesh with your default experience, particularly as someone not on the receiving end of these injustices, is extremely counterproductive to discussing them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
The concept of privilege actually carries no associations with blame, and if you feel it does then you've grossly misinterpreted it and it says more about you than the concept itself. What is says is, "As an x person, you get certain advantages that y person does not" That is literally all it says. There is no "and therefore you are to blame" tacked onto the end, either explicitly or implicitly. When people are told to "check their privilege" what it means is "You are not taking into account that the situation you're in is not the same as the situation other people are in". Again, no blame assigned. Unless, of course, you have an incredible persecution complex and believe that any directed response to you that isn't directly praising you is condemning you, and even when it is praising you you're still suspicious because you're a paranoid lunatic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Or, possibly, understanding that not everybody has the same default experience and complaining about terminology because it does not mesh with your default experience, particularly as someone not on the receiving end of these injustices, is extremely counterproductive to discussing them. You keep making a point of asking why you should moderate your language, but I ask you why you don't. What is it you think the word gets across that cannot possibly conveyed in a less antagonistic or patronizing sense? Effective language, and all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Or, possibly, understanding that not everybody has the same default experience and complaining about terminology because it does not mesh with your default experience, particularly as someone not on the receiving end of these injustices, is extremely counterproductive to discussing them. This does not make sense to me as a response to what I wrote. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:You keep making a point of asking why you should moderate your language, but I ask you why you don't. What is it you think the word gets across that cannot possibly conveyed in a less antagonistic or patronizing sense? Effective language, and all. Because "privilege" being an antagonizing word is primarily because people don't like the concept it conveys. Any word which effectively conveys that concept would become "antagonizing" in short order, because the concept is what people are objecting to. So I see absolutely no reason to change the word to pander to people who have no interest in the concept. It's about as valid as saying "why is it called feminism you should call it "egalitarianism" instead that would make me support it!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
21 Muns posted:This does not make sense to me as a response to what I wrote. Neither state is abnormal, experiences are entirely relative and in discussion of this sort you need to understand that and not constantly seek to normalize something and define everything else in relation to that, normativity like that is part of what is trying to be dismantled.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:You keep making a point of asking why you should moderate your language, but I ask you why you don't. What is it you think the word gets across that cannot possibly conveyed in a less antagonistic or patronizing sense? Effective language, and all. Why does being told you have privilege make you feel attacked?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
This entire train of discussion is hilarious because the same effective arguments intelligent design proponents use are being trotted out in a defense of a concept supposedly enlightened people are upset with. "I don't like you using this academic concept because it upsets me" is one of the principle objections to people using accepted, scientific language to talk about the origins of life and things like evolution because creationists don't like the concept. It has nothing to do with the words they use, and even if they were to coach it in terms they would 'agree' with, it would still be deeply upsetting because it's supportive of a view of the world they don't like.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because "privilege" being an antagonizing word is primarily because people don't like the concept it conveys. Any word which effectively conveys that concept would become "antagonizing" in short order, because the concept is what people are objecting to. This is actually a really good point, but as I said earlier, 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. Feminism works because it already has traction. Privilege has the unfortunate rhetorical associations of A) being very recent and B) internet liberalism, and it's the latter connection which totally abuses the concept, and makes it a weak spot to target for the right. You also underestimate, I think, the time it naturally takes for concepts to become mainstream, and your impatience is not sufficient to indict your opposition as racists or whatever else. Progress cannot be forced, as the Trump and Brexit backlash attest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because "privilege" being an antagonizing word is primarily because people don't like the concept it conveys. Any word which effectively conveys that concept would become "antagonizing" in short order, because the concept is what people are objecting to. The problem is that privilege is/has become a word with a lot of negative connotations. "We have to pay for the Privilege of having fast internet." "the owner of the place installed a pay toilet since he decided going to the bathroom is a privilege" Parents use the word to describe things they can take away from kids if they get out of line, like TV privileges or internet privileges. People use privilege to describe having to pay for what is seen as an essental service that should be free. Privilege has a ton of negative connotations, especially for those who had parents use that word in regard to their school grades and electronics access. And then the radical progressive started using it as an insult, or in a condescending manner, like "You are just a Privileged white male." Imagine someone yelling that last line out in an insulting tone. Privilege is a horrible word to use to describe the negative deviations from societal norms blacks and women can encounter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 01:40
|
|
|
In order to propagate the idea it is not necessary to convince people who have already decided they hate it, it is necessary to convince people who are actually interested. And for them the term is quite functional. There are always reactionaries to any challenging idea. I see no reason to listen to them when they come "concerned" that the idea is too radical and if only it were phrased in nicer, less challenging terms it would gain more traction. Of course it might, but then it wouldn't serve the goal it needs to. Many other ideas have faced the same challenge and have succeeded in overcoming it by the efforts of their proponents. I see no reason to believe the proponents of intersectional progressivism will not succeed as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
Even if it were to get to the point where we have to talk in literal baby talk because the accepted, academic terms are too threatening it still won't be enough because it's not about the word, it's about the concept it conveys, and it's just tone argument ontop of tone argument, made even worse in this particular case because it's not even an inflammatory or controversial word, it's the accepted god drat academic term to describe the phenomena. Again, it's not even a new concept. It dates back to 1903, over 100 loving years. It's existed literally longer than everyone who is complaining about it being a made up term. gently caress you. The term isn't made up, you are 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
silence_kit posted: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. Okay, so labels are antagonizing and used to shame but your suggestion is we should then NOT use the label on white people and only use it for black people? Come on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:The problem is that privilege is/has become a word with a lot of negative connotations. It's very bizarre for posters on SA, who otherwise are obsessed with the meaning of words, to feign ignorance and overlook the normal English meaning of the word 'privilege' and claim that the social justice term privilege isn't antagonizing at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Okay, so labels are antagonizing and used to shame but your suggestion is we should then NOT use the label on white people and only use it for black people? ? I'm not sure where you are getting this from. To use everybody's favorite term of which without it it is impossible to understand inequality in society, I never said that black people are privileged relative to white people. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Jan 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Neither state is abnormal, experiences are entirely relative and in discussion of this sort you need to understand that and not constantly seek to normalize something and define everything else in relation to that, normativity like that is part of what is trying to be dismantled. So you've got two groups, group A and group B. Group A is treated very badly and group B is treated very well. If you saw this and decided to change it, what would the ideal outcome be? It would be an increase in group A's quality of life. If you're thinking "take away some quality of life from group B and give it to group A", your thinking is disturbing in how it defaults to a zero-sum model. If you're thinking "treat group B worse until the two groups are equal", you're directly valuing "equality" over the quality of life of any human, which is absurd. Framing, say, the treatment of whites (better job opportunities, better survival rates in police encounters, better media representation, etc) as privilege and therefore abnormal is bad because it directly insinuates those things should be taken away from white people instead of given to nonwhite people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:In order to propagate the idea it is not necessary to convince people who have already decided they hate it, it is necessary to convince people who are actually interested. And for them the term is quite functional. There are always reactionaries to any challenging idea. I see no reason to listen to them when they come "concerned" that the idea is too radical and if only it were phrased in nicer, less challenging terms it would gain more traction. Yes but curtailing the misuse of this concept would be helpful in getting people who aren't actively hostile to it to have an open mind. People on the left have been using the concept of privilege as an argument for too long. I've had a number of discussions with people who are right-leaning that ended with them agreeing with the concept by describing it without using the word privilege until after they're sold. Many people hostile to it have a completely warped view of what it actually means. Some of that is bad faith nonsense from the right, but having a bunch of loud assholes on the left willfully owning the straw man isn't helping.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
This is a perfect exaple of how insulting 'check your privilege' has become: http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/12/check-your-privilege-cards-are-the-best-gift.html The cards say, "Uh-oh, your privilege is showing" "You got this card because your privilege allowed to to make a comment others cannot agree with or relate to" Apparently they are supposed to be given out if someone says something 'privileged'. The article even says 'the gift of self-awareness is forever'. This is the sort of thing that infuriates people, saying something, and then getting 'check your privilege' as a response, as if that ends the conversation in any meaningful way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:? I'm not sure where you are getting this from. I never said that black people are privileged relative to white people. You said that labels make you feel bad and attacked, and your solution is that instead of the labels being used on you we should use labels on the other groups that aren't you to say the exact same thing. "labels are for other people, I'm just normal" is a huge element privilege.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:It's very bizarre for posters on SA, who otherwise are obsessed with the meaning of words, to feign ignorance and overlook the normal English meaning of the word 'privilege' and claim that the social justice term privilege isn't antagonizing at all. Words have different meanings in different fields. Who would have thought? Do you also agree that it's only a theory of evolution, too?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:This is a perfect exaple of how insulting 'check your privilege' has become: Who says it's suppose to end the conversation?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
Rush Limbo posted:Even if it were to get to the point where we have to talk in literal baby talk because the accepted, academic terms are too threatening it still won't be enough because it's not about the word, it's about the concept it conveys, and it's just tone argument ontop of tone argument, made even worse in this particular case because it's not even an inflammatory or controversial word, it's the accepted god drat academic term to describe the phenomena. Out of curiosity, how is it the accepted academic term to describe the phenomena? And what does "accepted academic term" mean in social sciences? I know lots of then "accepted academic terms" that are no longer used as social modes because they are noncontributory or latterly debunked in respect to the long term.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Who says it's suppose to end the conversation? The DM, because they failed their saving throw vs. basic human interaction and therefore are unable to speak or mount any sort of defense or dialogue with the person who gave them the card. It's not their fault that they're unable to engage in a meaningful discussion, the card's +10 to dampening was just too strong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:This is actually a really good point, but as I said earlier, 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. Feminism works because it already has traction. Privilege has the unfortunate rhetorical associations of A) being very recent and B) internet liberalism, and it's the latter connection which totally abuses the concept, and makes it a weak spot to target for the right. You also underestimate, I think, the time it naturally takes for concepts to become mainstream, and your impatience is not sufficient to indict your opposition as racists or whatever else. Progress cannot be forced, as the Trump and Brexit backlash attest. Feminism got traction by being very, very unpopular and divisive for a long time. It won out through dogged determination, direct confrontation, and in some cases violent civil protest. The argument that one should not use the word "privilege" because it offends people with privilege is completely ignorant of the history of civil rights and social change.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
Rush Limbo posted:Words have different meanings in different fields. Who would have thought? Do you also agree that it's only a theory of evolution, too? Lol yes I'm sure when the term privilege was coined to refer to social inequality the author was blissfully ignorant of the definition and connotations of the normal English word.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
Rush Limbo posted:The DM, because they failed their saving throw vs. basic human interaction and therefore are unable to speak or mount any sort of defense or dialogue with the person who gave them the card. It's not their fault that they're unable to engage in a meaningful discussion, the card's +10 to dampening was just too strong. You know I've always felt that "Socially Well-Adjusted" was a blatant feat-tax.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:You said that labels make you feel bad and attacked, and your solution is that instead of the labels being used on you we should use labels on the other groups that aren't you to say the exact same thing. So being part of the norm is only due to some extra privilege we get, and that everyone at should be treated bady by police and sexualized like women? is the 'norm' without any of these privileges poor housing opportunities for all and everyone being racist and sexist against one another? Is this what a Privilegeless society really is? When being part of the average population is considered privileged, then people also start to think: 'Hey a privilege is also something that can be taken away, like by electronics when I got bad grades on at test.' I don't want those people to take the 'privilege' of avoiding police brutality away from me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
The problem with the word "privilege" is that the intellectuals who coined it didn't fully comprehend just how stupid and angry the halfwits who would eventually get ahold of that word would be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
21 Muns posted:So you've got two groups, group A and group B. Group A is treated very badly and group B is treated very well. If you saw this and decided to change it, what would the ideal outcome be? It would be an increase in group A's quality of life. If you're thinking "take away some quality of life from group B and give it to group A", your thinking is disturbing in how it defaults to a zero-sum model. If you're thinking "treat group B worse until the two groups are equal", you're directly valuing "equality" over the quality of life of any human, which is absurd. Once again, "normal" and "abnormal" life experiences are a flawed and limited way of looking at the concept, and you could stand to improve your ability to conceptualized different experiences. To someone in a disadvantaged position, their position is normal, everybody's position is normal to them, because normativity is tied into your personal experience and it is unhelpful to try to create some kind of objective normativity around your personal experience, because that easily serves to marginalize people whose experience deviates from that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
21 Muns posted:So you've got two groups, group A and group B. Group A is treated very badly and group B is treated very well. If you saw this and decided to change it, what would the ideal outcome be? It would be an increase in group A's quality of life. If you're thinking "take away some quality of life from group B and give it to group A", your thinking is disturbing in how it defaults to a zero-sum model. If you're thinking "treat group B worse until the two groups are equal", you're directly valuing "equality" over the quality of life of any human, which is absurd. The reason that Group A is treated very badly is because Group B controls all the resources and freedoms in the equation. You're acting as if institutional racism and patriarchy just popped into existence, apropos of nothing, and white men magically ascended to the top of the pile. White people will absolutely have to give up some privilege and control to level the playing field. Just as rich people are going to have to give up some wealth to raise the quality of life for poor people. There is no situation where you, the privileged, will not have to sacrifice something if you actually care about social, fiscal and political equality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:You keep making a point of asking why you should moderate your language, but I ask you why you don't. What is it you think the word gets across that cannot possibly conveyed in a less antagonistic or patronizing sense? Effective language, and all. I'm somewhat willing to compromise my language for the stupid, semi literate, and overly sensitive as long as we agree that those are the sorts of people who are demanding it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:So being part of the norm is only due to some extra privilege we get, and that everyone at should be treated bady by police and sexualized like women? is the 'norm' without any of these privileges poor housing opportunities for all and everyone being racist and sexist against one another? Is this what a Privilegeless society really is? Do you have the right thread? Nobody in here is making any such argument.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Out of curiosity, how is it the accepted academic term to describe the phenomena? And what does "accepted academic term" mean in social sciences? I know lots of then "accepted academic terms" that are no longer used as social modes because they are noncontributory or latterly debunked in respect to the long term. Much like other terms of art, it has become the generally accepted term because it is the term used by the majority, if not all, academics in the field to describe the particular phenomenon it describes. Much like how "evolution" has become the accepted term to describe the process by which natural selection adapts creatures for survival etc. I'm sure if a better term came along, it would end up being adopted, much like how "Darwinism" lost favour when describing that particular thing, because people other than than Darwin had made significant contributions to the theory and as a general rhetorical shift.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:I don't want those people to take the 'privilege' of avoiding police brutality away from me. Then work to give that privilege to everybody.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Then work to give that privilege to everybody. That is at odds to Dr. Fishopolis posted:White people will absolutely have to give up some privilege and control to level the playing field. Just as rich people are going to have to give up some wealth to raise the quality of life for poor people. There is no situation where you, the privileged, will not have to sacrifice something if you actually care about social, fiscal and political equality. Hmm, maybe your theory of privilege doesn't mean the same to everyone on even your side of the equation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:The reason that Group A is treated very badly is because Group B controls all the resources and freedoms in the equation. You're acting as if institutional racism and patriarchy just popped into existence, apropos of nothing, and white men magically ascended to the top of the pile. So you're saying that white people should be shot by the police under suspicious circumstances more often? Okay, cool, sounds like a sane and reasonable thing a person I want to control our society would say
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:52 |
|
|
Rakosi posted:That is at odds to No I think that we can probably work to give everyone the "don't get beat up by cops" privilege actually. It's stuff like the "don't get prosecuted for killing black people" privilege that we might not give to everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:27
|
|