CMV: First World Privilege is a larger problem than White Privilege

Pilebsa · 2017-07-10T22:49:44+00:00

I submit, the "privilege" argument is not a rational argumentl for the following reasons:

"Privilege" is a term that traditionally means something desirable and positive. Often times a position of trust, power or influence that is the result of hard work. To use it as a derogatory statement is confusing and contradictory.
In reality, people talking about "___ privilege" are not really complaining that such a privilege is undesirable or inappropriate, merely that their particular special interest group doesn't seem to have the same "privilege", therefore it's not really a privilege. It's more like a "right" that everybody should have. Another reason for abandoning the term "privilege." It simply doesn't make sense in this context.
When you call someone out for "___ privilege", you're not really addressing a specific problem. It's a passive-aggressive projection of frustration more than it points to something that is wrong that can be fixed. It's an abstraction. If one group is doing something specific to another entity, you call out that specific instance in which case, it can be addressed. But when you generalize about entire classes/genders/races/cultures, you aren't doing anything productive. Plus you're lumping all these people together under a single arbitrary, subjective umbrella, regardless of whether they're on your side or not, as being part of the problem.
Ultimately it's contextual. "White privilege" is non-existent in non-white cultures or countries. In every scenario you're going to find a majority of a culture have additional seniority among their own peers. In every facet of the animal kingdom you have creatures show preference to members of their own family/species. This is more an aspect of nature than it is some kind of conscious, evil choice people make. That you've realized all life shows favoritism towards things they're familiar/comfortable with is not some kind of revelation. There are genetic, environmental, biological and evolutionary reasons for this. Good luck eradicating it with a new term you've coined.

Pilebsa · 2017-07-10T22:35:19+00:00

I am tried of Liberal/Conservative entertainers cry babies trying to push an agenda onto us.

You're assuming both sides are the same?

You realize this "agenda" is called "life?"

Different people, groups, parties have ideas on how the world should run.

You are part of that world.

It benefits you to pay attention to this shit instead of merely get annoyed someone who knows a lot more than you, wants to make you aware of something...

Pilebsa · 2017-07-10T22:23:02+00:00

He is against President Trump because it is popular

Really? There's no other reason to oppose Trump other than most people don't like him?

But he is also asking other entertainers to boycott Israel, why?

Why? You just answered this yourself..

In his open letter he wrote that "proclaiming our rejection of apartheid in Israel and occupied Palestine"

So I don't get what you're trying to say..

now I will say this I am not very knowledgeable about the in this area and the article

Ahhh... yea, um.. ok

Pilebsa · 2017-07-10T22:21:10+00:00

Yea, I'm pretty sure those people were very respectful of the previous president /s

Pilebsa · 2017-07-10T16:55:17+00:00

I think the term "liberal" in America is largely meaningless at this point. The conservatives have used it to convey a wide variety of meanings that are far from its original ideal.

Pilebsa · 2017-07-07T20:59:57+00:00

Since you linked examples of republican gerrymandering, and seem to be of the position that both sides do not engage in it

You can't type more than a sentence without engaging in a fallacious argument can you?

I never said both sides didn't engage in it. You suggesting so is a false dichotomy. I said it's BS that both sides do it to the same degree. I was reacting your ongoing false equivalence.

I guess when you can't defend the argument in front of you, you'll fabricate an entirely different argument and argue against that.

No need to reply. You're apparently not talking to me anyway.

Pilebsa · 2017-07-07T19:44:51+00:00

I wonder if he puts in as much effort to teach his students as he does to suggest he's their superior?

Pilebsa · 2017-07-07T19:29:28+00:00

You're arguing over semantics. We all know what is happening.

But it also isn't even really used to ensure that minorities specifically have no power. It is used to weaken an opposing political party

Riiight.. because once again, your argument centers around a ridiculous fallacy that both major parties are equally respectful of minorities... yea, everybody recognizes that... the republicans are just as much for racial equality as the democrats... you make perfect sense /s

and both sides do it.

Bam.. another big logical fallacy: false equivalence....

http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/30/gerrymanders-part-1-busting-the-both-sides-do-it-myth/

http://www.businessinsider.com/partisan-gerrymandering-has-benefited-republicans-more-than-democrats-2017-6

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/01/who-gerrymanders-more-democrats-or-republicans/

Pilebsa · 2017-07-07T03:31:04+00:00

You're pulling a Tu Quoque fallacy on me? Really? If you can find an example of gerrymandering that benefits minorities that means it's not being used elsewhere in a different manner? A false dichotomy?

So are you saying there is no such thing as gerrymandering to keep minority groups oppressed?

Are you really going to suggest that?

Pilebsa · 2017-07-07T02:29:36+00:00

Can anyone cite existing legislation in the United States that is designed to keep minority groups oppressed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

Pilebsa · 2017-07-07T02:23:56+00:00

This impedes the wider collective action in furthering social change.

I'm curious but how does generalizing about an entire race of people playing a role in oppressing another race, "further social change?"

What is the "call to action" that comes to mind when you denigrate someone by calling them "privileged?"

Pilebsa · 2017-07-07T02:09:46+00:00

Also.... do we really need the 8,423rd different way to characterize man's inhumanity to man? Does coining this new term magically enlighten people more or take us one step closer to solving this problem?

I see in this thread, lots of people spending tremendous energy arguing about semantics, while ignoring the real reason anybody should be discussing these issues.

Pilebsa · 2017-07-06T17:48:22+00:00

It seems to me, the solution is to talk about ways in which we are all the same, instead of how we are different.

I am perplexed that the 21st century approach towards civil rights seems to be, basically ignore civil rights in a general sense, and shame people into somehow being nicer human beings. I can't see how this would work.

This whole thread is composed of people who are arguing semantics in lieu of actual solutions to real cultural problems. And in many cases, arguing and name-calling people who are on their own side. We really are screwed, when we're more obsessed with arguing with each other over stupid words than actually fighting for equality.

Pilebsa · 2017-07-06T17:41:48+00:00

Can you or someone explain to me how talking about "privilege" fixes anything?

If you say, "cops are killing unarmed black people", there's a very specific issue that appears affect people of color in a disproportionate way... it's something we can identify, target, and come up with direct ways to fix. If you say, "In industry X, with all things being equal, white people are favored over blacks in hiring practices", again this is a specific, targetable problem we can do something about. We can pass anti-discrimination laws. We can and have taken actions to reduce this from happening.

When you say, "white privilege" what specific problem does that identify? What solution is there to "white privilege?" What law can you pass that reduces "white privilege?" I don't see how it accomplishes anything productive. There are plenty of very specific racial problems we can talk directly about and solve specifically. Talking in the abstract about a generalized racial imbalance seems like a great way to pretend you care, but never get specific enough to really effect change.

Pilebsa · 2017-07-06T17:32:22+00:00

What you're describing is racism. Not privilege.

Why do you have to appropriate another word that has an entirely different meaning, when we already have a word which accurately describes the dynamics: racism.

In every culture there is * privilege towards whatever majority/ruling class has power. In China, Japan, UAE, Saudi Arabia, etc., it's not "white privilege". It's racism. It's cultural favoritism.

Even if you could eradicate "white privilege" that wouldn't solve this problem because skin color is really a symptom and not a cause. It would be nice if we could strip away the chaff and get to the real causes of this. Then we could probably have something closer to a truly equal society where people of all races, classes, cultures, genders, sexual preferences, etc., can treat each other better. That's what I want. When you say "white privilege" I don't know what to do? That term doesn't give anybody an idea of how to make the world better. It just implies certain classes of people should feel shame. I am not quite sure how that fixes things?

Pilebsa · 2017-07-06T17:30:23+00:00

That adds a lot to the conversation.

I guess if you can't argue something, just dismiss it.

That strategy is at the core of the whole privilege argument.

It's not about actually finding solutions and making things better.

It's just name-calling.

Pilebsa · 2017-07-06T17:29:02+00:00

That adds a lot to the conversation.

I guess if you can't argue something, just dismiss it.

That strategy is at the core of the whole privilege argument.

It's not about actually finding solutions and making things better.

It's just name-calling.

Pilebsa · 2017-07-06T17:07:58+00:00

Why do people who harp about x privilege fail to see that the x in the equation is not principal to the equation. There are other factors.

Being "white" is contextual, and if in another context, "white" accomplishes the opposite, then by the power of deductive reasoning, whiteness is not a causal factor. Do the math.

Here.. I'll do it for you since you're so apprehensive to understand the dynamics at play... it's less about a particular race or gender and more about whatever class is in power will show favoritism to its own. By refusing to acknowledge this unavoidable, simple truth, you condemn yourself to forever playing "privilege whack-a-mole".

At the end of the day, being white is not the problem. The problem is not embracing equality for all. Not treating all people as equals. One step towards going there is not generalizing about large swaths of humans and marginalizing them. That's exactly the opposite of what you should be doing if you truly care about equality.

Pilebsa · 2017-07-06T17:05:58+00:00

You don't seem to understand what white privilege is.

I don't agree with you, therefore I'm ignorant.

Very mature.

Pilebsa · 2017-07-06T16:57:25+00:00

I am white, I am not a racist, I benefit from white privilege.

How do you know? How do you know it's not because you're male, have blue eyes, or maybe what college you come from? Or that you speak English? Maybe you've bypassed obstacles because you have a pleasant demeanor that makes others feel comfortable?

Have you run into people who told you, "Whew! Finally a white person! Glad you're here!" Otherwise I might suggest it's quite presumptuous of you to assume every good thing that happened to you was because you were dealing with a racist who favored your skin color over every other quality about you.

Pilebsa · 2017-07-06T16:45:02+00:00

"Privilege", in the context of identity politics, doesn't really mean "advantage compared to a baseline". It means that where people unlike you encounter obstacles, you don't.

"Privilege in the context of identity politics" is a confusing term and IMO shouldn't be used. Privilege is something people traditionally are rewarded with, usually through their work. If it's not earned, then it shouldn't be called "privilege", a more appropriate term might be "bestowed" or "inherited." By using "privileged" it as a negative connotation you undermine what it is you're really trying to accomplish: everybody should be treated the same, therefore, everybody should have this "privilege."

This also is a rather wide sweeping generalization.

It's true, 50 years ago, and 100 years ago, for example, that there was obvious systemic disenfranchisement of people of color in our society. But there have been huge gains made (historically - not so sure in the last year or two but it's still much better than it was decades ago). The problem with the privileged argument is that it really doesn't take into account progress and those behind it. I fail to see what value is gained in attacking people on your side and suggesting they're just as much part of the problem as those they are fighting against.

Pilebsa · 2017-07-06T16:32:43+00:00

Sure, but which "kind" do you think has all the money and the power?

It depends upon which country and culture you're in.

Want to talk about privilege? It's your "Western privilege" talking, as if white people rule the world. They're not even a majority on this planet in terms of controlling land or resources.

See how far being a white person gets you in China or Japan? Or the middle east? How much privilege do you think you'll have in Saudi Arabia?

It all depends on the context.

Sure you could say "white males" took control of America, then again you could say "Europeans" did that. The privilege argument is a nesting doll of annoying useless metaphors.

Nine-Year Club	Secret Santa 2013
Secret Santa 2012	Secret Santa 2011
Verified Email

Pilebsa

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

daily reddit gold goal