|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Let's stop pretending for a moment that you're the spokesman for hard luck white america. You're clearly personally offended by the idea of privilege, and by others asking you to consider your own. Why is that? Why does it matter? As we've established above, there's no moral stigma associated with the injunction to check privilege, so it presumably comes down to a matter of personal preference among rational actors or something.
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 07:45 |
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:Why does it matter? As we've established above, there's no moral stigma associated with the injunction to check privilege, so it presumably comes down to a matter of personal preference among rational actors or something. I don't hold that opinion. I think it's fairly shocking to be asked to check your privilege. I also think it's important to do it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
There is no judgmental aspect to privilege, no. There is quite an interesting aspect to the kind of person who takes such a milquetoast concept so personally that they're deeply offended by its very existence, though. What exactly is it they have a problem with? I mean, i'm aware that the food chain exists. It's existence, and it being pointed out to me, doesn't cause me to feel deep feelings of shame or anger. If it did, I'd probably want to figure out why that is, because it's not a normal response.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:No, that's merely a pleasant side-effect. The point is to get people to realize that their situation sucks but that other people in similar (this qualifier is very important, so don't forget it) may have it even worse due to arbitrary conditions out of their control like their race or their gender or their health condition. It's to get them to think "Wow, my situation sucks, and it would probably suck even worse if I were black, or a woman, or trans. I should work together with them to raise us all up."
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Yeah or maybe I do want to stop police shootings You don't, though. E: Let me be a little more clear. I'm sure you probably think you care about stopping police shootings, but if your only plan to address it is to ignore it because black men being murdered in cold blood just isn't important enough to address right now in lieu of the petty problems you personally face then you actually don't give a poo poo about it at all. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Jan 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Yeah or maybe I do want to stop police shootings but I know that the desperately poor are too poor at the moment to be able to concentrate on the horrible injustices right now. I also know that if you ever did act the way you do on here they would never listen to anyone who geniuniley wanted change again. Let me say this, whatever cause you claim to support, you're its greatest enemy. The best way you would help it would be to play warhammer and never ever talk about it because too caustic for it. From what I can parse from your posts, you seem to believe that poor / disadvantaged people are unwilling to care about anyone else, and that asking them to consider the problems of other people will anger and alienate them. Is this true? Why do you believe this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 05:50
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
Rush Limbo posted:There is no judgmental aspect to privilege, no. There is quite an interesting aspect to the kind of person who takes such a milquetoast concept so personally that they're deeply offended by its very existence, though. What exactly is it they have a problem with? In what sort of bubble do you live that you actually believe this? Like I get that it's not supposed have those connotations but we can't even get the left to reliably understand that nevermind the actual poor white people who are having it thrown at them. It just strikes me as the gooniest thing in the loving world to say something dismissive and divisive and then act like "well they shouldn't be offended if they were as woke as me". It's doesn't matter what the concept is supposed to mean if you can effectively communicate it, what matters is the message that actually gets received. Edit: phone post typos
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:From what I can parse from your posts, you seem to believe that poor / disadvantaged people are unwilling to care about anyone else, and that asking them to consider the problems of other people will anger and alienate them. Is this true? Why do you believe this? Its more like this if you try to guilt and scream at them like Who What now is advocating then they will be turned off from the message. They cannot imagine that they are privileged. They have to be turned out by appealing not to think about someone as more disadvantaged but to their general humanity. Who What Now posted:You don't, though. Actually it is. Its just that I don't think screaming at poor whites that their privileged actually helps. Sorry you cannot see it. Now pelase help the cause by playing warhams so it isn't hurt more. U.T. Raptor posted:Not to mention all those leftist candidates and legislation that lost big even in places Clinton herself did well. You mean like how in red states they voted for minimum wage increases? Also jsut so you know having a lovely candidate like HRC can hurt downticket races. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 06:15 on Jan 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
quote:From what I can parse from your posts, you seem to believe that poor / disadvantaged people are unwilling to care about anyone else, and that asking them to consider the problems of other people will anger and alienate them. Is this true? Why do you believe this? It's more that the plight of other disadvantaged people is constantly brought up as some sort of counter to their own problems, whenever the idea of them pursuing a solution to their problem is brought up. It's not hard to notice by following this conversation: people brought up that opposition to the term is a result of poor optics and attempts to bludgeon other issues with it, they get insulted and eventually its used to bludgeon other issues. For the past two pages it's been like so: One side: This term doesnt work well for convincing others Other side: It's not meant to convince others or be applied to shame or persuade, it's just an intellectual term Other Other side: check your privilege is an important phrase to shame and persuade others. They must know their privilege even though I will admit that they lack privilege in other areas. Who What Now earns a special mention, since they decided that this was a debate arena instead of polite conversation, and intentionally ignored replies in some effort to "win" Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 06:01 on Jan 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:In what sort of bubble do you live that you actually believe this? Like I get that it's not supposed have those connotations but we can't even get the left to reliably understand that nevermind the actual poor white people who are having it thrown at them. Just to clarify, there may indeed be a judgmental aspect tacked onto such a statement, but that's the personal preference of the person making the statement, and not actually implied in the fact the statement has brought to light. For example, "Climate change is real, you loving cretin" In this particular statement, the person is asserting that climate change is real. It is. It's existence doesn't actually lend any character judgement on anyone, though, that's entirely on the person who is adding such judgement on. Likewise, "You're privileged, you rear end in a top hat" is potentially bringing to light the existence of a lack of introspection on that person's privilege, and is making a judgement. The "You're privileged" doesn't actually say anything about them as a person. The "you rear end in a top hat" is what does that. "You're privileged" on its own would have been just as sufficient, but the initial statement has a greater amount of expression, and we wouldn't want to stifle that, would we? e: I also really, really think that "What message is received" is as much to do with the person receiving the message as the person saying it, perhaps even more so. If I say "I think Israel has overstepped its mark with its treatment of Palestinians" and you hear "Kill all the Jews" then you are mental and no amount of reasoning is going to change your mind if you reject reality and substitute your own. Rush Limbo fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Jan 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
Rush Limbo posted:Just to clarify, there may indeed be a judgmental aspect tacked onto such a statement, but that's the personal preference of the person making the statement, and not actually implied in the fact the statement has brought to light. The issue with this is that it's possible to imply something without outright stating it via context. If I see a weelchair-bound person nearby and start loudly talking about how much I love running, most people are going to intuit that i'm an rear end in a top hat, for example. Similarly, if someone is talking about how important fiscal issues are, and someone else says "you're privileged enough to be able to talk about that instead of my problems", the people reading aren't going to go "huh, hes pointing out that privilege exists and affects our focus and goals", they're going to think "this person doesn't like this other person airing out their grievances or theories, and wants to shut it down".
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:The issue with this is that it's possible to imply something without outright stating it via context. If I see a weelchair-bound person nearby and start loudly talking about how much I love running, most people are going to intuit that i'm an rear end in a top hat, for example. In the first example, one might well say "hey I think you're being a bit insensitive, seeing as I can't walk. You might wanna check your privilege." In the second example, one might well say "hey I can't really relate to what you're talking about to be honest. You might wanna check your privilege there, me and my friends and family can barely afford rent." I don't see how either is controversial. If either person gets offended by those statements, the fault is not on the person who called them out. Now, if you say instead "Wow, how elitist are you? Check your privilege, you ableist, one percent piece of filth," then you're obviously the rear end in a top hat. It doesn't matter what words you used, you're just an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 06:20
|
|
|
Rush Limbo posted:Just to clarify, there may indeed be a judgmental aspect tacked onto such a statement, but that's the personal preference of the person making the statement, and not actually implied in the fact the statement has brought to light. I think a closer analogy would be "overpopulation and fossil fuel consumption are of course the major causes of climate change", addressed to a mother of three who needs to use an SUV on a regular basis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
21 Muns posted:I think a closer analogy would be "overpopulation and fossil fuel consumption are of course the major causes of climate change", addressed to a mother of three who needs to use an SUV on a regular basis. If your argument is that you shouldn't shout "PRIVILEGE" at random people over and over again without context or reason, yeah I think we're on the same page. I fail to see how that makes the term itself divisive or unimportant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:In the first example, one might well say "hey I think you're being a bit insensitive, seeing as I can't walk. You might wanna check your privilege." It's passive aggression, is my point. The first example isn't me not noticing the crippled individual, its me passive-aggressively making fun of them in a way with plausible deniability. Similarly, in the second example the person responding to the first doesn't think that the first would appreciate an intellectual lesson its saying "my issue is more important" in a way that is the verbal equivalent of "im not touching yoooouuu".
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 06:28
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:It's passive aggression, is my point. The first example isn't me not noticing the crippled individual, its me passive-aggressively making fun of them in a way with plausible deniability. Similarly, in the second example the person responding to the first doesn't think that the first would appreciate an intellectual lesson its saying "my issue is more important" in a way that is the verbal equivalent of "im not touching yoooouuu". Well, yes, exactly. And whether you're being purposefully passive aggressive or not, the phrase "check your privilege" is a way to cut that poo poo out in no uncertain terms. Which is why it's important.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 06:32
|
|
|
Today I learned that mere discussion of privilege and associated concepts is in itself offensive, and that the talks I frequently hear on the radio and such are The One Weird Trick Feminists Use to Circumvent Obscenity Laws (radio controllers hate them!) It's also quite a revelation to know that all those shock jocks have been needlessly using offensive rhetoric when the only thing they needed to do was to have a frank, earnest discussion about basic sociological concepts to achieve the same end. Howard Stern is going to be pissed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 06:38
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Well, yes, exactly. And whether you're being purposefully passive aggressive or not, the phrase "check your privilege" is a way to cut that poo poo out in no uncertain terms. Which is why it's important. You're being pretty dense, dude. He's saying that "check your privilege" is being used to mean "my issue is more important".
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 06:39
|
|
|
21 Muns posted:You're being pretty dense, dude. He's saying that "check your privilege" is being used to mean "my issue is more important". Yeah, I'm aware of that and I'm stating my disagreement with that argument by giving examples of how the phrase is commonly used by normal people, and using his examples to illustrate my own point. Do try and keep up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Yeah, I'm aware of that and I'm stating my disagreement with that argument by giving examples of how the phrase is commonly used by normal people, and using his examples to illustrate my own point. Do try and keep up. Your examples were of examples of what's he was talking about, it's shutting down someone's concerns by saying someone else has it worse. I'm "pro-privilege" as a term but their objections are completely valid and should be considered when deciding when and how to introduce the subject to someone. I mean didn't any of you every have any sort of instruction in dealing with people in crisis? You don't tell a depressed person that someone else has it worse. Same idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 06:49
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Yeah, I'm aware of that and I'm stating my disagreement with that argument by giving examples of how the phrase is commonly used by normal people, and using his examples to illustrate my own point. Do try and keep up. Please do tell me what good you think will come from a conversation that includes the exchange "check your privilege"/"no, check your privilege". 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 06:49
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I mean didn't any of you every have any sort of instruction in dealing with people in crisis? You don't tell a depressed person that someone else has it worse. Same idea. No, of course you don't. But where was I or anyone else defending anything remotely like that behavior? No, people should not use "check your privilege" as a smug toss-off phrase to dismiss people. I think we've established that. Which is why I provided examples where it's a good phrase to use. 21 Muns posted:Please do tell me what good you think will come from a conversation that includes the exchange "check your privilege"/"no, check your privilege". None. Zero good will come of that. Who was suggesting people should do that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 06:54
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:None. Zero good will come of that. Who was suggesting people should do that? You, when you suggested that the proper response to someone dicking around using "check your privilege" to mean "my issue is more important" is to say "check your privilege" right back at them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 06:55
|
|
|
21 Muns posted:You, when you suggested that the proper response to someone dicking around using "check your privilege" to mean "my issue is more important" is to say "check your privilege" right back at them. I did not do that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
Regarding the wheechair bound person earing me talk bout running within earshot example, I feel it's realy condescending to restrain myself from talking about some thing I love for fear that i'd be making some guy feel inadequate about his inability of doing that same thing. I would assume most mature people are able to deal with their own inadequacies and don't have the need to be constantly sheltered from bad feelings especially when these aren't being caused be insults or direct verbal attacks of some kind. Furthermore I reckon that if I was physically disabled myself I would definitly prefer that people would just treat me like any other person, and i can't imagine asking for some kind aditional attention or restrain for issues that could somehow remind me of my disablity, because I feel that admonishing people like that would infact actually be reinforcing my feeling of inadequacy, instead of some kind of normality I would be striving for, and I feel that would be a bad symptom of my emotional intelligence and stability.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 06:59
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Similarly, if someone is talking about how important fiscal issues are, and someone else says "you're privileged enough to be able to talk about that instead of my problems", the people reading aren't going to go "huh, hes pointing out that privilege exists and affects our focus and goals", they're going to think "this person doesn't like this other person airing out their grievances or theories, and wants to shut it down". Dr. Fishopolis posted:In the second example, one might well say "hey I can't really relate to what you're talking about to be honest. You might wanna check your privilege there, me and my friends and family can barely afford rent."
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 07:00
|
|
|
I was referring to the literal statement, not the metaphor. Should have been clearer, quite hung over, excuse me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 07:02
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:From what I can parse from your posts, you seem to believe that poor / disadvantaged people are unwilling to care about anyone else, and that asking them to consider the problems of other people will anger and alienate them. Is this true? Why do you believe this? Are you expecting people to invest time into somebody else's agenda when they are struggling to pay their own rent, put food on their own table, or battling the drug epidemic?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 10:26
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Are you expecting people to invest time into somebody else's agenda when they are struggling to pay their own rent, put food on their own table, or battling the drug epidemic? I'm not sure what you mean by "investing time in somebody else's agenda". I do believe it's a good thing to encourage everyone to be aware of the concept of privilege, and for it to be part of the language we use as a country.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 10:54
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:I'm not sure what you mean by "investing time in somebody else's agenda". I do believe it's a good thing to encourage everyone to be aware of the concept of privilege, and for it to be part of the language we use as a country. People are aware of social issues, awareness is useless if people do not have the luxury to act upon it or at least refine it through a dialogue - and it is very much a luxury. Additionally the current nagging of people who have their own problems isn't just asking for them to "be aware", they are being actively vilified and dehumanized for not putting their personal concerns second after what somebody else deemed to be more important than their well being. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 11:07 on Jan 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 11:03
|
|
|
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. not getting shat on, a literal zero sum game
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 11:10
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
OwlFancier posted:You've had this explained to you many times and you aren't getting it. How you meant it doesn't matter if you can't say it without being a condescending prick. You may not (consciously) think that poor whites are just trailer trash who deserve to be shat on, but you sure as hell are saying things that imply it. If you don't get that you're bad at communication.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 11:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You've had this explained to you many times and you aren't getting it. People keep equivocating having good opinions on race with being self aware about your own upbringing. I think, in particular, young white liberals like to use this tactic because this magically explains away whatever discrepancies between them and someone else with a similar upbringing (i.e. where thirty or so years ago their boomer parents decide to move into a suburb to get away from "those people in urban areas"). Dead Cosmonaut fucked around with this message at 12:23 on Jan 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 12:18
|
|
|
It's unfortunate that the term "check your privilege" is so poisoned that there's no real way to use it effectively on people who aren't already convinced privilege is a real thing. It's just easier to talk about the values behind the idea instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
Kit Walker posted:It's unfortunate that the term "check your privilege" is so poisoned that there's no real way to use it effectively on people who aren't already convinced privilege is a real thing. It's just easier to talk about the values behind the idea instead. I agree. This might seem like semantics to some but this change in language is literally the difference between being laughed at or listened too in some cases. It's also important to make sure other liberals stop poisoning the well of these concepts to begin with, by calling them on it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
Kit Walker posted:It's unfortunate that the term "check your privilege" is so poisoned that there's no real way to use it effectively on people who aren't already convinced privilege is a real thing. It's just easier to talk about the values behind the idea instead. I've never heard it except sarcastically.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:I've never heard it except sarcastically. You should probably get off the Internet once in awhile and venture into the real world then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You should probably get off the Internet once in awhile and venture into the real world then. Where exactly is your "real world," in which you hear terms like "check your privilege" used with absolute seriousness?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 07:45 |
|
|
Why can't these thin-skinned crybaby basementdwelling neckbeard redditor permavirgins realize that I'm not using the term disparagingly?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 15:04
|
|
