"American Ethnocentrism" is still a problem in the U.S

[MysticSang'ha]

Ah, but I don't trumpet my race as conferring authority.

As long as I'm within bounds of the rules of RF, I'll speak my mind, thank you very much.

Uh oh....

I promise they won't be used cat toys. I'm in a good mood today.

 

[Revoltingest]

As long as I'm within bounds of the rules of RF, I'll speak my mind, thank you very much.

I'd never want otherwise.

I promise they won't be used cat toys. I'm in a good mood today.

Whew!

 

[Revoltingest]

Any woman bringing this up as a point to consider about sexism in media and women's reproductive rights is playing the victim.[/sarcasm]

Actually, this does seem like playing the victim, even if it is in jest.

 

[Apex]

I read it as your arguing that my very use of the word "privilege" is perceived as an attack. And that my continued use of it is "making it worse."

I'm asking what that "it" is that I'm making worse.

I never said it was an attack. I said the manner in which it frames the situation only serves to worsen it. As far as what "it" is, take your pick of the many "privileges" you have mentioned in this thread. The vast majority of them are due to social ideals or norms that deserve to be changed. I am arguing that using the "privilege" language does nothing to promote change, and only solidifies (if not worsen) the status quo.

Edit: Forgot to add that "X Privilege" also creates more racism and animosity towards those who are undeserving of it.

 

[Me Myself]

In other news:

[youtube]84phU8of02U[/youtube]

 

[Sunstone]

I am arguing that using the "privilege" language does nothing to promote change, and only solidifies (if not worsen) the status quo.

Edit: Forgot to add that "X Privilege" also creates more racism and animosity towards those who are undeserving of it.

By the way, would you also affirm that the abolitionists did nothing to promote the abolition of slavery because their language caused so much divisiveness and animosity? Or that the suffragettes did nothing to promote women's right to vote because their language was confrontational?

 

[Me Myself]

I never said it was an attack. I said the manner in which it frames the situation only serves to worsen it. As far as what "it" is, take your pick of the many "privileges" you have mentioned in this thread. The vast majority of them are due to social ideals or norms that deserve to be changed. I am arguing that using the "privilege" language does nothing to promote change, and only solidifies (if not worsen) the status quo.

Edit: Forgot to add that "X Privilege" also creates more racism and animosity towards those who are undeserving of it.

I thought. Very good point was was that "privilege" as kilgore said, does not seem like a word fitting for someone that is treated as they rightfully diserve because they are human.

Lack of discrimination is not privilege, its justice. Discrimination is a disadvantage, but saying not being discriminated againsy is a "privilege" is a terrible use of language if one has the purpose if making equal rights acally be the default position instead of a "privilege"

 

[Me Myself]

By the way, would you also affirm that the abolitionists did nothing to promote the abolition of slavery because their language caused so much divisiveness and animosity? Or that the suffragettes did nothing to promote women's right to vote because their language was confrontational?

How did you come up with those questions?

He said the LANGUAGE does nothing to promote their purpose, not that EVERYONE WHO USES IT does nothing to promote their purposes.

I just wanted to make sure that such a thing is understood when the questions were thought up.

 

[Sunstone]

How did you come up with those questions?

He said the LANGUAGE does nothing to promote their purpose, not that EVERYONE WHO USES IT does nothing to promote their purposes.

I just wanted to make sure that such a thing is understood when the questions were thought up.

I'm glad to see you still in the habit of spinning everyone's words for them, rather than allowing them to speak for themselves. It's so cute when you think you're god.

 

[Me Myself]

I'm glad to see you still in the habit of spinning everyone's words for them, rather than allowing them to speak for themselves. It's so cute when you think you're god.

Spinninv"? I dont even know what you mean there.

We are all bound to interpret what others say. If you believe I am deliebrately misinterpreting, well, you bleieve that. Not much I can do about it, wrong as it is.

I just wanted to set clear and to know if you were clear on what Apex actually said, and if you considered it when you made your questions.

If you did, I am very curious on their purpose, which you are free to clarify or not as you see fit.

 

[Me Myself]

By the way, would you also affirm that the abolitionists did nothing to promote the abolition of slavery because their language caused so much divisiveness and animosity? Or that the suffragettes did nothing to promote women's right to vote because their language was confrontational?

Would it be possible that they won their cases even when some of their language worked against them?

 

[Apex]

By the way, would you also affirm that the abolitionists did nothing to promote the abolition of slavery because their language caused so much divisiveness and animosity? Or that the suffragettes did nothing to promote women's right to vote because their language was confrontational?

I don't think you are understanding my position.

 

[Sunstone]

... which you are free to clarify or not as you see fit.

I think that, rather than legitimatize your asinine spin with any further response, I'll simply wait for Apex to weigh in. If he's so foolish as to adopt your take on it, well, I'll gleefully point out the stupidity of your position then.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't think you are understanding my position.

Then please be so kind as to clarify it. For it seems to me you are asserting that the language of privilege "does nothing to promote change, and only solidifies (if not worsen) the status quo."

 

[Me Myself]

It does.

Equal rights are not to be seen as a "privilege". They are supposed to be seen as a right.

Discrimination as an infraction of such right, not as "lack of privilege"

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I never said it was an attack. I said the manner in which it frames the situation only serves to worsen it. As far as what "it" is, take your pick of the many "privileges" you have mentioned in this thread. The vast majority of them are due to social ideals or norms that deserve to be changed. I am arguing that using the "privilege" language does nothing to promote change, and only solidifies (if not worsen) the status quo.

Edit: Forgot to add that "X Privilege" also creates more racism and animosity towards those who are undeserving of it.

As far as I'm concerned, people who take offense at being considered part of a privileged class are the ones who don't exactly want the status quo to be changed.

And again, I've heard the term "privilege" being thrown my way because of how I'm white. And it does the exact opposite of your assumption. I look to see how the status quo can be changed to level the playing field.

 

[Revoltingest]

As far as I'm concerned, people who take offense at being considered part of a privileged class are the ones who don't exactly want the status quo to be changed.

Does this mean that you believe many of us want to preserve racism?

 

[Me Myself]

Does this mean that you believe many of us want to preserve racism?

I am not sure how else to read it.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Does this mean that you believe many of us want to preserve racism?

As much as you believing that all I want is to play the victim card.

So you tell me.

 

[Me Myself]

As much as you believing that all I want is to play the victim card.

So you tell me.

So you think I am racist because I believe injustice diserves a more proper label than "lack of privilege"?