Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Just checking, but you're still arguing in good faith and not being purposefully obtuse, right? Or maybe it's just your style of writing I have trouble understanding.

Horrible style of writing. I write the way I think without enough filtering. Let me just massage this a bit

The underlying system that means that some group have privileges over other should be dismantled

I am smart, I have a privilege over dumb people. I should have my intelligence dismantled.

That is why that assumption doesn't work wholesale.

IN FACT IT HAS A DOUBLE ASSUMPTION!

I am smart, therefor I am the only person or group who is smart.

WAIT! Triple assumption

I am smart, therefor I am purely advantaged over people who are dumb.

It isn't like smart people have higher rates of depression than people who are dumb and thus we cannot look at it as purely advantage or disadvantage.

WAIT!!! FOURTH assumption

They are dumb, therefor they are purely disadvantaged over people who are smart.

The requirement for someone to do something about their privilege requires quite a few assumptions:
-1) That it is a privilege that can be changed, should be changed, and is just to be changed
-2) That the privilege is uniquely theirs and isn't shared or experienced by anyone else
-3) That the privilege is entirely positive without any sort of drawbacks or negatives that might make it a mixed bad and cannot be thought of as purely putting one over someone else.
-4) That the opposite, the "disadvantage" is purely negative and that there are no positives or perks associated with it.
-5) (I am adding this), that the Privilege is theirs to deal with and is something they affect. A Child isn't responsible for their protected status.

A example that is often cited, for example, is that women feel intense anxiety walking around at night. This is not only an anxiety shared by men, but statistically men have more to fear. This is to say nothing of the fact that "Check your Privilege" focuses on men exclusively for night anxiety as perpetrators, instead of arming women.

[Sheb]

I don't see how any of those apart from 1) and 5) is a requirement.

-1) That it is a privilege that can be changed, should be changed, and is just to be changed

Maybe it's because I'm French-speaking, so for me privileges means stuff like the privilege of the nobility, but for me those three things are part of the definition of privileges. Privileges are advantages that you get from belonging to a given group but didn't do anything to deserve.*

-2) That the privilege is uniquely theirs and isn't shared or experienced by anyone else

I don't see why. If it is shared by other groups too, then it just mean that this other groups should also loose the same privileges.

-3) That the privilege is entirely positive without any sort of drawbacks or negatives that might make it a mixed bad and cannot be thought of as purely putting one over someone else.

Well, 1) A privilege is by its definition positive. Now, if membership of a group gives you some advantage but also expose you to discrimination  what does that change? Both should be challenged.

-4) That the opposite, the "disadvantage" is purely negative and that there are no positives or perks associated with it.

Again, why is that a requirement?

-5) (I am adding this), that the Privilege is theirs to deal with and is something they affect. A Child isn't responsible for their protected status.

I half agree with that one. Juste because you are not responsible for the existence of the privileges doesn't mean you shouldn't try to abolish them (see my previous exemple being white in the 50's in the Deep South).




*Actually one of the reason I'm not that fond of the term privilege, because it seems to imply that the goal is to bring the privileged groups down rather than brings the other one up, but that's the term that stuck so well, gotta roll with it.

[Neonivek]

Actually one of the reason I'm not that fond of the term privilege, because it seems to imply that the goal is to bring the privileged groups down rather than brings the other one up, but that's the term that stuck so well, gotta roll with it.

One of the same reasons I don't like it. Yet as it keeps being used the unfortunate implications keep seeping in.

Maybe it's because I'm French-speaking, so for me privileges means stuff like the privilege of the nobility, but for me those three things are part of the definition of privileges. Privileges are advantages that you get from belonging to a given group but didn't do anything to deserve

This isn't your fault.

Yet one must beg the question: Is that advantage real? Universal to that group?

For nobility it is easy to see what privileges they have access to because they are codified.

Well, 1) A privilege is by its definition positive. Now, if membership of a group gives you some advantage but also expose you to discrimination  what does that change? Both should be challenged.

Wasn't the entire basis of Checking your Privilege was that privilege itself prevents you from understanding those without it? Sounds like by that definition a privilege IS a disadvantage as well.

Also I am not talking about entire groups I am talking about singular "privileges"

If it is shared by other groups too, then it just mean that this other groups should also loose the same privileges.

What if that group IS the "Disadvantaged" group?

[Sheb]

Quote
If it is shared by other groups too, then it just mean that this other groups should also loose the same privileges.

What if that group IS the "Disadvantaged" group?

Uh? By definition when discussing a given sets of privileges, the one that benefits from it aren't the one that are disadvantaged by it.

[Neonivek]

Ignoring that advantages can also be disadvantages and disadvantages can also be advantages.

What I mean is: What are you changing if both groups contain the same privilege?

Edit: An example of an advantage that is also a disadvantage would be Diplomatic Immunity. Having it also means you MUST act in accordance with being a diplomat and often means you earned it in some capacity. Being a diplomat, a requirement for diplomatic immunity, isn't anything anyone but diplomats do.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

I'M NOT DEAD!

Anyway, how's it - oh, look, an argument! How neat. jumps in

The underlying system that means that some group have privileges over other should be dismantled

I am smart, I have a privilege over dumb people. I should have my intelligence dismantled.

This conversation is rather hard to follow, so I might be misinterpreting this, but - seriously? Privilege is not synonymous with success. Do you really not understand this? Privilege is a modifier on success. Men's success and women's success are both distributions, but the men's distribution is higher than the women's distribution. This variance is also higher than biological theories can explain, as experimental results like "identical job applications are more likely to succeed if a male name is on the application" demonstrate.

If someone is saying "all successful people got that way through privilege," then your response is a decent rebuttal. If not, it's just clueless.

Wasn't the entire basis of Checking your Privilege was that privilege itself prevents you from understanding those without it? Sounds like by that definition a privilege IS a disadvantage as well.

That's hardly a meaningful disadvantage. Even better, it lets you think of your success as being solely dependent on your own traits and effort! That's an advantage, right? (Two can play at this "advantages have associated disadvantages and vice versa" game.)

[Neonivek]

This conversation is rather hard to follow, so I might be misinterpreting this, but - seriously? Privilege is not synonymous with success.

I am very VERY hard to follow so I don't blame you.

My words was a counterpoint that any advantage someone has over someone else "needs to be dealt with".

So I gave an example of an advantage that not only cannot be dealt with, but would be oppressive if it could.

As well if an advantage doesn't lead to success, you are no longer advantaged. As well an advantage that isn't accessible isn't an advantage either

That's hardly a meaningful disadvantage.

I think your drawing a lot more from what I am saying than what I intended, but let me try to catch you up to the conversation. Yes it isn't a meaningful disadvantage, well it is sociopathy if taken to its logical conclusion, but I was simply laying the ground work that just because something is an advantage it doesn't mean that advantage cannot come with sizable or even overwhelming disadvantages that might make it impossible to gauge.

I was simply calling back to an earlier point in the conversation where it was outright said that "Privilege" comes with that disadvantage, therefor one cannot say that privilege is always pure advantage.

---

Or rather my goal is to challenge the precepts that "Check your Privilege" is based on. That it requires a lot of assumptions about a person, society, their gender, their race, the color of their skin, their orientation. That it requires assumptions about their lives and how the advantages present themselves.

It requires an assumption of perpetual victimhood and eternal victimizer.

To say nothing of how it is actually used "Do something about it!" Vs. What it actually means. (At which I have yet to see it used properly once)

Which is why I am going through this conversation.

[Sheb]

This conversation is rather hard to follow, so I might be misinterpreting this, but - seriously? Privilege is not synonymous with success.

I am very VERY hard to follow so I don't blame you.

(1) My words was a counterpoint that any advantage someone has over someone else "needs to be dealt with".

So I gave an example of an advantage that not only cannot be dealt with, but would be oppressive if it could.

(2) As well if an advantage doesn't lead to success, you are no longer advantaged. As well an advantage that isn't accessible isn't an advantage either

That's hardly a meaningful disadvantage.

(I added number to make my answers easier to follow)

(1) Did I say that? Because I certainly didn't intend to say that.
(2) That's not true. Success depends on many factor, from your intrisic quality to how much your work to blind luck to, well, yeah, privilege. Just because other factors (including luck) meant you didn't achieve in a particular case doesn't mean there is no advantage. My +2 on my roll still is there even if I failed the roll.

[Neonivek]

You HAD the advantage. Past tense.

An advantage that cannot be used is no longer an advantage.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

You know, talking of "privileges" in the context of intelligence reminds me of the Social Contract, which states (roughly) that no human is so weak (metaphorically as well a physically and mentally) as to be unable to kill the strongest through SOME means. Our entire society is based off this notion. So... you know, to come along and say that someone has offended you and they shouldn't be able to do that, it's not like they've murdered you or so disenfranchised you as to be unable search out life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. AND, where people have been so disenfranchised (or disadvantaged if you like) that it basically worse for that group of people to live their lives than to seek an increase in their prospects or fortunes through violence it has generally been corrected (in the US, in the past 100 or so years.)

There is a difference between fighting for the equality owed to you by society and simply hating, slandering, or otherwise demeaning those more fortunate than you.

[Neonivek]

It kind of moves further than that.

Devaluing your own worth and overvaluing the worth of others.

Both which are equally harmful.

-----

Wait wait wait O_O I just saw this...

Apparently a study was made and...

It seems that Men have a larger desire for cuddling, and women the stronger desire for sex?

Huh, just goes to show you can't take stereotypes for granted if this is true. Then again it also makes a lot more sense given other stereotypes.

You know the one where men lack sentimentality in sex and women do? Under this stereotype it makes a lot of sense.

I should find that source and post it...

[hops]

What age demographics are we talking about?

[Neonivek]

What age demographics are we talking about?

According to what I read...

Middle age and older.

[hops]

That's surprising. What about marital status? Gib link?

[Neonivek]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/?icid=hjx004

Here is one... but if you want to fish around for articles here is my google search

https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&site=webhp&q=Man+value+cuddling%2C+women+value+sex&oq=Man+value+cuddling%2C+women+value+sex&gs_l=psy-ab.3...1403678.1408734.0.1408866.35.34.0.0.0.0.146.3346.11j19.30.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..5.17.1843...0j0i67k1j0i131k1j0i10k1j0i22i30k1j33i160k1j33i21k1.IMGuxAgOVF8