Lefty loonies and liberals, what the hell happened to us?

[Sunstone]

I don't see the concept of privilege as being all that vague. Maybe it's just me, but it seems fairly easy to grasp and apply consistently.

 

[gsa]

I'd call that phenomenon an example of internalized racism. People have been known before to loathe their own genetic makeup. And blacks and women are no different. Take Phyllis Schlafly, for example.

I actually don’t think so in this case. Not because I think that the phenomenon of internalized prejudice is nonexistent, but because I don’t think it explains the Congressional Black Caucus support of the disparity in sentencing. At the time it was adopted, the point of the harsher sentencing law was to curb the use of crack cocaine, which was perceived as an epidemic within the black community. This was seen as a way to help the black community. Similarly, there’s always an incentive for congressional representatives to bring money to their district, to demonstrate that they are helping their communities while they are in Washington. But the net effect of increased spending on law enforcement and the creation of a sentencing disparity is a racial disparity in incarceration. There are other points along the line that can’t be ignored, too (racial profiling, plea bargaining outcomes, etcetera).

But my point in using this example was to demonstrate how the privilege analysis can sometimes lead to false historical conclusions. It was actually a "benign" race conscious motivation that helped create a completely unjust sentencing disparity, not simply racial animus or a failure on the part of white policy makers.

 

[Father Heathen]

that the US Democrat party is further left than Communist ... and that the US Republican party is further right than the Nazis.

Uh, no. You totally misunderstood how that chart works.

Per the chart:
Conservative = fiscal freedom, personal restriction

Liberal = fiscal restriction, personal freedom

Libertarian = fiscal freedom, personal freedom

Authoritarian = fiscal restriction, personal restriction

 

[Sunstone]

I think that's a good point about how privilege analysis can lead to historically false conclusions. It would seem insufficient then to by itself establish something to have been the case.

 

[gsa]

I don't see the concept of privilege as being all that vague. Maybe it's just me, but it seems fairly easy to grasp and apply consistently.

When the concept is adequately explained at the outset, I agree. Sometimes, though, the level of analysis is unclear; I don't really see privilege as something that someone can demonstrate, for example. It is something that is conferred as a result of your social status, not something that you generate yourself. I suppose you can demonstrate your ignorance of how your social status confers certain advantages or, more appropriately from my perspective, how a marginal social status is weighed down by certain disadvantages.

I think that's a good point about how privilege analysis can lead to historically false conclusions. It would seem insufficient then to by itself establish something to have been the case.

I think that's right. And I also think the historical example is useful because it shows the law of unintended consequences. We should certainly be on the lookout for how our own perspective is skewed by being a member of a socially dominant group, but we also can’t overlook how good intentions can lead to disastrous consequences.

 

[Sunstone]

Personally, I'm a staunch believer in the solid and established theory that the vast majority of social problems today can be placed on the narrow shoulders (or on the broad buttocks, as the case may be) of uppity women who don't know their place in the god-ordained scheme of things. I call this quite respectable theory, "The Limbaugh Theory of Everything with corollaries by Doctors O'Reilly and Hannity".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

POS (Privilege Obsession Syndrome) smacks too much of assigning rank to victimhood status.

It's isn't using victimhood status though. It's observations alone that prove men do not have to put up with things women do, white people do not have to put up with things black people do, heterosexuals do not have to put up with things homosexuals do, extroverts will never have it as hard as introverts, and so on.
As for Timmy falling down the well, if he fell down the well once and people still hold it against him and it makes his life harder, harder doing things like obtaining a job, then he is disadvantaged because of this social stigma.

Uh, no. You totally misunderstood how that chart works.

I don't misunderstand it. The symbols used, and how they are placed, are extremely misleading. It also over simplifies things because it makes things more messy than a two-sided scale, due to the fact most political ideologies have branches that go left and right.

 

[Revoltingest]

Take the plight in the first place as real, first. So far in the problem conversations, they're not acknowledged as even in existence.

The "victim mentality" exists. The only issue is when it applies or does not. When it does, the problems to address are credibility for claims, & source of the false perception or over-reaction. Note that this can apply to men, women, blacks, whites, Xians, Jews, etc.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's isn't using victimhood status though. It's observations alone that prove men do not have to put up with things women do, white people do not have to put up with things black people do, heterosexuals do not have to put up with things homosexuals do, extroverts will never have it as hard as introverts, and so on.
As for Timmy falling down the well, if he fell down the well once and people still hold it against him and it makes his life harder, harder doing things like obtaining a job, then he is disadvantaged because of this social stigma.

I don't misunderstand it. The symbols used, and how they are placed, are extremely misleading. It also over simplifies things because it makes things more messy than a two-sided scale, due to the fact most political ideologies have branches that go left and right.

And here's the problem with this post. It focuses on straights, whites & males as the privileged classes, while ignoring privilege within the ostensibly disadvantaged groups. It's all a "us against them" perspective. You see it as true. I see it as divisive & unproductive. It doesn't have to be so, but it just too often ends up being that way.

Btw, Timmy's problem isn't that the other kid has the privilege of not falling down wells....Timmy's problem is that he falls down wells. They should make well openings safer.

Btw, love the avatar!

 

[Father Heathen]

I know I'm late to the "privilage" discussion, but one thing that bothers me about the term is how it's slung about in a presumptious and dismissive manner, and how being deemed "privilaged" invalidates ones experiences and observations. It paints with a broad brush and oversimplifies the social landscape.
I was told once that a black kid being bullied by white kids is a greater offense than a white kid being bullied by black kids due to privilage, regardless if they were both innocent and victimized to the same severity.
It seems that "privilage" implies some sort of guilt and debt.

 

[Father Heathen]

I don't misunderstand it.

You thought it listed Rublicans as right of nazis and Democrats as left of the USSR, so clearly you did.

The symbols used, and how they are placed, are extremely misleading.

Republicans are an example of conservatism, Democrats are an example of liberalism, and Nazism and the Soviet Union were both examples of authoritarianism. How did you struggle with that?

It also over simplifies things because it makes things more messy than a two-sided scale,

Uhh, that chart IS a two-sided scale. Economic freedom vs. economic restriction, and personal freedom vs. personal restriction.

due to the fact most political ideologies have branches that go left and right.

But politics are much more complex than a simple black and white left vs. Right.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

The "victim mentality" exists.

I find that phrase as unproductive as you find "privilege" unproductive. Shall we keep dancing like this? If you expect me to refrain from using it because you find it an attack, then please return the favor in my direction.

The only issue is when it applies or does not. When it does, the problems to address are credibility for claims, & source of the false perception or over-reaction. Note that this can apply to men, women, blacks, whites, Xians, Jews, etc.

Ah, so who decides if a perspective such as mine is determined to have any credibility? Who decides if yours is determined to have any credibility? And should it have to resort to that kind of dialogue?

 

[Sunstone]

I know I'm late to the "privilage" discussion, but one thing that bothers me about the term is how it's slung about in a presumptious and dismissive manner, and how being deemed "privilaged" invalidates ones experiences and observations. It paints with a broad brush and oversimplifies the social landscape.
I was told once that a black kid being bullied by white kids is a greater offense than a white kid being bullied by black kids due to privilage, regardless if they were both innocent and victimized to the same severity.
It seems that "privilage" implies some sort of guilt and debt.

Good points!

I think it's like many concepts: They can be abused. How often have you heard someone accuse another person of being anti-American, antisemitic, or racist when they weren't? It doesn't mean anti-americanism, antisemitism, or racism don't exist. It just means someone is abusing those terms. Privilege is no different than many other concepts in that regard.

 

[Sunstone]

Good points!

I think it's like many concepts: They can be abused. How often have you heard someone accuse another person of being anti-American, antisemitic, or racist when they weren't? It doesn't mean anti-americanism, antisemitism, or racism don't exist. It just means someone is abusing those terms. Privilege is no different than many other concepts in that regard.

I do think that, since the folks who attempt to dismiss other people's ideas by calling them privileged are quite unlikely to reform themselves, people of good will must step in by refusing to take such tactics seriously. Even when it's true that someone is privileged, they can still have good ideas, and ideas should be judged separately and apart from who espouses them.

 

[Revoltingest]

I find that phrase as unproductive as you find "privilege" unproductive. Shall we keep dancing like this? If you expect me to refrain from using it because you find it an attack, then please return the favor in my direction.

The primary difficulties with "privilege" are that it is redundant & distracting. "Victimhood" (or "victimization) is a label for obsession with victim status or the proffering of inaccurate claims. It's a real problem with no other label I know of. Feel free to suggest better ones.
Of course, when calls of victimhood are used for abuse or division then it just as wrong as using the claim of privilege. We should strive to be objective, neutral & accurate.k

Ah, so who decides if a perspective such as mine is determined to have any credibility? Who decides if yours is determined to have any credibility? And should it have to resort to that kind of dialogue?

Everyone makes judgements about the credibility of others. It becomes an issue when material falsity is detected.

 

[Sunstone]

The primary difficulties with "privilege" are that it is redundant...

Could you elaborate on precisely how the concept of privilege is redundant? And why you (apparently) feel that redundancy in concepts is fatal to their truth or usefulness?

...& distracting.

What precisely does the concept of privilege distract from? The warfare being waged by the elites against the middle class, as has been suggested by someone earlier? Or something else?

 

[Revoltingest]

Could you elaborate on precisely how the concept of privilege is redundant? And why you (apparently) feel that redundancy in concepts is fatal to their truth or usefulness?

I covered the redundancy in post #140 & a few others. "Usefulness" is a more applicable word to perspectives than is "truth".

What precisely does the concept of privilege distract from?

All problems described by "privilege" are about the circumstances of advantaged folk. But it's more meaningful to address the circumstances of the disadvantaged, the ones to be most affected by solutions.

The warfare being waged by the elites against the middle class, as has been suggested by someone earlier? Or something else?

I don't buy into histrionics like "warfare" against the middle class.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't buy into histrionics like "warfare" against the middle class.

Is "histrionics" what the kids are calling ignorance of, or willful blindness towards, class conflict these days?

 

[Sunstone]

Consider a simple model:
We have 2 groups:
- The Bele, who are in a position of authority.
- The Lokai, who rebel against authority.
"Privilege" would refer to the Bele & their advantage.
The problem lies with the Lokai's lesser state (which should be elevated), not with the superior state of the Bele.

How useful or accurate would your model be if the Bele elites were doing things to keep the Lokai in a subordinate relationship to them while, at the same time, many average Bele were unconscious of what their elites were doing?

Also, you actually didn't cover redundancy in the post, as you said you did. Would you like to cover that now? Why is the concept of privilege redundant?

 

[Revoltingest]

Is "histrionics" what the kids are calling ignorance of, or willful blindness towards, class conflict these days?

From dictionary.com....
adjective, Also, histrionical
1. of or relating to actors or acting.
2. deliberately affected or self-consciously emotional; overly dramatic, inbehavior or speech.

The 2nd definition would apply because of the word "warfare" is an inaccurate overly dramatic description of the political process of competing interests. I strive to cure ignorance & blindness where I find it.