|
Does any of this poo poo even matter, given that the left has absolutely no chance of affecting any significant change in society? Alternatively, does this poo poo matters because it is _why_ the left has no chance of affecting any significant change in society?
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 19:14 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:To repeat, privilege is more prone to abuse and harmful application because it frames the issue individually and invites rhetorical invocation in a conflict setting. Above and beyond that, it's also a great source of confusion simply because a word for a politically-relevant concept in everyday speach is reused for an academic concept that has only a small overlap with the everyday definition. You would struggle to write a sentence that simply meant the same thing under both definitions, let alone had the same implications. It's like instead of the words 'air' and 'oxygen' there was 'air' and 'air, when used by scientists'. In everyday language, it makes sense to talk about privileges being given up under social change, as MLK did. A business owner loses the privilege of selecting their customers, and has restrictions on their privilege of selecting their employees. A cop loses the privilege of always being believed after they shoot someone. But those were the privileges of a small elite; the equivalent of slave-owners, not non-slaves. So that usage of privelege is directly contradictory to the acadamic idea that privilege is universal and unavoidable; the comparison with original sin is pretty much on the ball. You can imagine social change that does take meaningful privileges away from everyone, or a large majority; such a change would require a _lot_ of careful justification to count as a good idea. Certainly, given that a small minority of people hold almost all the power, any change that is not focused on the privileges of that minority is almost certainly misdirected. and an academic one
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 10:57
|
|