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

[Revoltingest]

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?

The actions to oppress the Lokai would be more useful to address than the mere privilege of the Bele.

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?

As I've said before in so many words., redundancy of "privilege" is created by alternative (& more illuminating) descriptions of the problem.

 

[Sunstone]

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.

Oh, common! "Warfare" has become a common word for describing commonplace conflicts both great and small. For instance, the minor conflict between, say, folks who like to hear "Merry Christmas" and folks who prefer "Happy Holidays". It's perfectly applicable these days to the much greater and more pressing issue of class conflict. You're not going to change the fact words change meanings and evolve new ones, Revoltingest. You deliver your aesthetic preferences as if they were laws of nature, and then posit yourself as on a crusade to cure ignorance and blindness. Thanks for the chuckles.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, common! "Warfare" has become a common word for describing commonplace conflicts both great and small. For instance, the minor conflict between, say, folks who like to hear "Merry Christmas" and folks who prefer "Happy Holidays". It's perfectly applicable these days to the much greater and more pressing issue of class conflict. You're not going to change the fact words change meanings and evolve new ones, Revoltingest. You deliver your aesthetic preferences as if they were laws of nature, and then posit yourself as on a crusade to cure ignorance and blindness. Thanks for the chuckles.

I live to serve, or at least entertain.
And you pursue what is common, eh?

 

[Sunstone]

The actions to oppress the Lokai would be more useful to address than the mere privilege of the Bele.

That strikes me as skirting the issue, but I'll let it go.

As I've said before in so many words., redundancy of "privilege" is created by alternative (& more illuminating) descriptions of the problem.

An example or two of those more illuminating descriptions would be...? Genuinely curious what you've got in mind here, Revoltingest.

 

[Revoltingest]

That strikes me as skirting the issue, but I'll let it go.
An example or two of those more illuminating descriptions would be...? Genuinely curious what you've got in mind here, Revoltingest.

I've covered enuf, & answered many questions. Perhaps you might elaborate on how privilege offers greater understanding of issues than by looking more directly at the underlying problems.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

The well should be safer, but if Timmy can't get a job because he fell down the well, and his kids can't either because of the well incident, a privileged/underprivileged dichotomy is created.

Perhaps you might elaborate on how privilege offers greater understanding of issues than by looking more directly at the underlying problems.

The idea of privilege is looking at the underlying cause. An example would be how transsexuals are chronically under-and-unemployed. This is because this group does not share the privilege of cisgendered people, who typically do not have their gender presentation ridiculed, and because of the social stigmas against transsexuals, they are disadvantaged as a group. The government also likes to step in and complicate things like birth certificates, driver's license, and even taking it upon themselves to define, legally, who you are. Some people will take things too far (because some people will take anything too far), but the idea of "privilege" was started by a woman who took inventory of the ways she is disadvantaged for being a woman. It's not supposed to make people feel guilty, but to open people's eyes to the normal, every day, regular activities and doings of society, as a whole, are causing underlying problems for the disadvantaged. Of course not every white person sees an application with a black name as lesser, but it happens enough that it is a trend in society. Now, we could just say there is a problem with racial name discrimination, which is the underlying problem, but a proper experiment and good observation requires a control group, and the results of the control group recorded and reported along side with the experiment group. We can leave it at the problem, when you leave it the problem of black names not landing as many interviews, it must be asked they don't get as many interviews when compared to whom?

 

[Revoltingest]

The well should be safer, but if Timmy can't get a job because he fell down the well, and his kids can't either because of the well incident, a privileged/underprivileged dichotomy is created.

The idea of privilege is looking at the underlying cause. An example would be how transsexuals are chronically under-and-unemployed. This is because this group does not share the privilege of cisgendered people, who typically do not have their gender presentation ridiculed, and because of the social stigmas against transsexuals, they are disadvantaged as a group. The government also likes to step in and complicate things like birth certificates, driver's license, and even taking it upon themselves to define, legally, who you are. Some people will take things too far (because some people will take anything too far), but the idea of "privilege" was started by a woman who took inventory of the ways she is disadvantaged for being a woman. It's not supposed to make people feel guilty, but to open people's eyes to the normal, every day, regular activities and doings of society, as a whole, are causing underlying problems for the disadvantaged. Of course not every white person sees an application with a black name as lesser, but it happens enough that it is a trend in society. Now, we could just say there is a problem with racial name discrimination, which is the underlying problem, but a proper experiment and good observation requires a control group, and the results of the control group recorded and reported along side with the experiment group. We can leave it at the problem, when you leave it the problem of black names not landing as many interviews, it must be asked they don't get as many interviews when compared to whom?

We'll have to agree to disagree that the perspective of "privilege" adds anything to understanding & addressing problems.

Also, a giant purple paragraph is very difficult to read.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

I really despise being lectured on privilege by certain self-proclaimed "privileged white men," who have a tendency to speak like converts on the road to Damascus and have a penchant for assuming that opposition to their analysis is the result of psychological defensiveness or failure to understand. With that said...

Disagreement is not defensiveness. Your crude attempts at psychoanalysis have certainly made this "conversation" unpleasant, but you haven't even bothered to note that we do not disagree on certain fundamental facts. You simply assumed that you are speaking with a reactionary.

A discussion is not an attack. By all means, let us discuss issues like racial disparities in incarceration, or wage disparities by gender. I am happy to have those discussions. But we are not having a discussion; you are simply hurling accusations of privilege because I have not accepted your interpretation of these facts, because my own investigation of these issues over a number of years led me to a different conclusion.

I understand what "privilege" is, although anymore I refrain from calling it that because it implies agreement with the proposed interpretative framework of those who promote this analysis. I am not going to address whether or not I fall into any of those categories listed above, but I will tell you this: If you cannot make a reasoned argument that is not dependent on standpoint epistemology, you are probably left to either bask in your own self-righteousness or to win a couple of temporary converts using group pressure tactics.

Well class is not simply about being rich, and Scalzi actually only addresses income, not wealth or class. And neither of you addresses it as I believe it should be addressed: The basis of social inequality.

If you think that the President of the United States making a passing positive reference to a group constitutes some sort of major political achievement, then I cannot help you. But since I believe you have decided that words are a substitute for action, I am also not surprised.

By and large members of these groups do not wholly adopt the kind of analysis you are promoting here. The accusation is against you, not them. Please remember, although I know it is difficult, that you do not speak for them.

Thank you St. Paul, but while I will not be joining your movement by "opening my heart" to your emotive appeals, I am happy to discuss it rationally.

If you are a white person, then all other factors being equal, your life is going to be easier than it would be for a person of color.
If you are a male, then all other factors being equal, your life is going to be easier than it would be for a female.
If you are straight, then all other factors being equal, your life is going to be easier than for a gay person, bisexual, or lesbian.
If you are cisgender, then all other factors being equal, your life is going to be easier than for a transgendered person.
If you are able-bodied, then all other factors being equal, your life is going to be easier than for someone who is physically disabled.
If you are free from mental illnesses, then all other factors being equal, your life is going to be easier than for a person with mental illnesses.

These are facts. To get annoyed by or defensive at these facts is to feel that you are at least as oppressed simply for having your privilege called out as a person of color, a female, an LGBTQIA, a transgender, or a disabled person is simply because of who they are and the systems of power that exist today. Not checking one's privilege at the door is narcissism, pure and simple.

Hey look dude, I always start where I'm coming from as a feminist. But if you think I'm a SJW who is oblivious to the world outside her keyboard, then you haven't been paying attention enough. That is, if you're insinuating that I'm part of the problem.

And, fwiw, I took one women's studies course back in college in 1994.

SJW = Straight ___ White? What does the J stand for?

I think they do if they are based on demonstrable facts. They can be very useful to drive a point home.

It seems to me that tacit approval of sexism and misogyny doesn't serve civil discussion either.

This. A thousand times this. The whole idea of "let's hear opposing points of view" assumes that all such views (1) are based in fact, (2) leave one's biases and privileges out of it, and (3) do not have the effect of trivializing, bullying, or silencing disenfranchised groups. As I have said before and will say again, and again and again and again: Views that fail this basic test do not deserve to be heard out and should not be heard out. The only thing such views deserve is full exposure and swift eradication.

Sunny...didn't you know that "truth" must pass the litmus test of the Self-Made Marlboro Man American Myth first? I mean, if Chuck Norris scoffs at a claim, it must not be true. And it must not be American.

You misspelled "Murica."

 

[Poeticus]

I really despise being lectured on privilege by certain self-proclaimed "privileged white men," who have a tendency to speak like converts on the road to Damascus and have a penchant for assuming that opposition to their analysis is the result of psychological defensiveness or failure to understand.

I, a brown-colored person, despise it even more. And I ain't even involved in this exchange, ya feel me? Shiiii boiiii.

 

[Koldo]

The well should be safer, but if Timmy can't get a job because he fell down the well, and his kids can't either because of the well incident, a privileged/underprivileged dichotomy is created.

Personally, I refuse to say that by being treated fairly and decently I am somehow 'privileged'. I just don't like the term. It implies that being treated poorly is somehow the default stance. There is something completely messed up with that.

 

[Revoltingest]

SJW = Straight ___ White? What does the J stand for?

Note even close!
Urban Dictionary: social justice warrior

 

[gsa]

If you are a white person, then all other factors being equal, your life is going to be easier than it would be for a person of color.
If you are a male, then all other factors being equal, your life is going to be easier than it would be for a female.
If you are straight, then all other factors being equal, your life is going to be easier than for a gay person, bisexual, or lesbian.
If you are cisgender, then all other factors being equal, your life is going to be easier than for a transgendered person.
If you are able-bodied, then all other factors being equal, your life is going to be easier than for someone who is physically disabled.
If you are free from mental illnesses, then all other factors being equal, your life is going to be easier than for a person with mental illnesses.

These are facts. To get annoyed by or defensive at these facts is to feel that you are at least as oppressed simply for having your privilege called out as a person of color, a female, an LGBTQIA, a transgender, or a disabled person is simply because of who they are and the systems of power that exist today. Not checking one's privilege at the door is narcissism, pure and simple.

You sound like a microeconomics 101 lecturer explaining supply and demand curves to bored undergrads. "Assuming that everything else is static, or ceteris paribus, then X." The problem, as is explained by the time you get to the advanced lectures, is that in the real world ceteris is never paribus. We are not disembodied agents defined by those categories alone. The fact that you have to hold "all other factors" to be the same is an admission of the impact of wealth, to say nothing of raw intelligence, familial background, religion, geography, etcetera.

This. A thousand times this. The whole idea of "let's hear opposing points of view" assumes that all such views (1) are based in fact, (2) leave one's biases and privileges out of it, and (3) do not have the effect of trivializing, bullying, or silencing disenfranchised groups. As I have said before and will say again, and again and again and again: Views that fail this basic test do not deserve to be heard out and should not be heard out. The only thing such views deserve is full exposure and swift eradication.

Open discourse is the actual test that we use to determine if an idea is a bad one. What you are talking about sounds more like a secular version of hunting heretics. Socialists and libertarians disagree with your views; do they deserve "swift eradication" as you put it?

 

[gsa]

Personally, I refuse to say that by being treated fairly and decently I am somehow 'privileged'. I just don't like the term. It implies that being treated poorly is somehow the default stance. There is something completely messed up with that.

That's what happens when you see social equality as a scarce good that has been allocated unequally. The view is quite warped. As I said earlier in the thread, we could resolve racial profiling by forcing everyone to live in a police state where they are subject to routine and random searches, enjoy no privacy and face routine incarceration. That would help correct racial discrimination in the justice system, if you can call the resulting system just.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

That's what happens when you see social equality as a scarce good that has been allocated unequally. The view is quite warped. As I said earlier in the thread, we could resolve racial profiling by forcing everyone to live in a police state where they are subject to routine and random searches, enjoy no privacy and face routine incarceration. That would help correct racial discrimination in the justice system, if you can call the resulting system just.

Yeah, who has advocated that here? Not I. So that straw man can be left out in the field .

Dismantling oppression =/= Taking people's nice things away

It's expanding the scope of liberties and justice to include marginalized groups.

Now, problems occur when the very distinctions about marginalization aren't even acknowledged as in existence.

YOU may understand the stratifications that exist that negatively impact historically marginalized groups actually exist, but being in these debates at RF for a long long time, I can tell you that more often than not, there are many people who will argue to the teeth that things like sexism doesn't even exist...

... Except for sexism against men. Then the war cries are sounded against feminists and how we just don't care about men.

 

[gsa]

Yeah, who has advocated that here? Not I. So that straw man can be left out in the field .

Dismantling oppression =/= Taking people's nice things away

It's expanding the scope of liberties and justice to include marginalized groups.

Now, problems occur when the very distinctions about marginalization aren't even acknowledged as in existence.

YOU may understand the stratifications that exist that negatively impact historically marginalized groups actually exist, but being in these debates at RF for a long long time, I can tell you that more often than not, there are many people who will argue to the teeth that things like sexism doesn't even exist...

... Except for sexism against men. Then the war cries are sounded against feminists and how we just don't care about men.

No, you haven't advocated that perspective. But then, what is the very definition of privilege? "[A] special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people." Notice: Special right, special advantage, special immunity, not one generally available to all. The removal of a special advantage, a special right or a special immunity does not result in the end of oppression, if oppression is the state of not having this special advantage, right or immunity. It simply results in oppression for everyone.

If you want to end oppression, you work against oppression. You properly characterize the disadvantages as unjust weights that are unfairly added to members of marginalized groups. You don't characterize not being stopped by the police on a pretext as a special right, special advantage or special immunity.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

You sound like a microeconomics 101 lecturer explaining supply and demand curves to bored undergrads. "Assuming that everything else is static, or ceteris paribus, then X." The problem, as is explained by the time you get to the advanced lectures, is that in the real world ceteris is never paribus. We are not disembodied agents defined by those categories alone. The fact that you have to hold "all other factors" to be the same is an admission of the impact of wealth, to say nothing of raw intelligence, familial background, religion, geography, etcetera.

You have made it very clear that you have no intention of listening to the stories of struggles of people of color, women, and LGBTQIAs. So why do you deserve to be listened to? What gives you special status that those "other" people don't have?

Open discourse is the actual test that we use to determine if an idea is a bad one. What you are talking about sounds more like a secular version of hunting heretics. Socialists and libertarians disagree with your views; do they deserve "swift eradication" as you put it?

See above.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Yeah, who has advocated that here? Not I. So that straw man can be left out in the field .

Dismantling oppression =/= Taking people's nice things away

It's expanding the scope of liberties and justice to include marginalized groups.

Now, problems occur when the very distinctions about marginalization aren't even acknowledged as in existence.

YOU may understand the stratifications that exist that negatively impact historically marginalized groups actually exist, but being in these debates at RF for a long long time, I can tell you that more often than not, there are many people who will argue to the teeth that things like sexism doesn't even exist...

... Except for sexism against men. Then the war cries are sounded against feminists and how we just don't care about men.

I have said it before, and I will say it again: Lewis's Law.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have said it before, and I will say it again: Lewis's Law.

Now, there is a convenient & shorthand way of smugly dismissing any disagreement without actually addressing it!

Edit:
I hereby define.....
"Lewis Syndrome" - Smug dismissal of any disagreement by declaring it an attack, & thereby avoiding discussion.

 

[gsa]

You have made it very clear that you have no intention of listening to the stories of struggles of people of color, women, and LGBTQIAs. So why do you deserve to be listened to? What gives you special status that those "other" people don't have?

As I've said repeatedly, you have no idea whether I fall into one or more of those categories. But even if I did, it is not a trump card. My (offline) status is not an argument. All you have to go by is the pixels on the screen.

I am very happy to listen to the stories of struggles people have, where it is material to a conversation. Since this began with a discussion about Islam, let us use a concrete example: Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an exemplary woman who has a lot to say about oppression, bigotry and sexism. Do you listen to her? She satisfies at least two of your criteria; three if you include "Allied" in the LGBTQIAXYZ etc formulation, since she is a pretty strong supporter of rights for LGBT people.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

As I've said repeatedly, you have no idea whether I fall into one or more of those categories. But even if I did, it is not a trump card. My (offline) status is not an argument. All you have to go by is the pixels on the screen.

If you cannot choose to understand that these words alone telegraph the fact that you are more likely white than of color, more likely male than female, more likely cis than trans, and more likely straight than gay or bi, then you and I are pretty much done. Seriously, there is no point in our going round and round any more without an honest and open acknowledgement of the various privileges you and I have. Statistically it's nearly impossible that you don't possess at least one of the aforementioned privileges. At least I can admit that I have them and deserve none of them.

I am very happy to listen to the stories of struggles people have, where it is material to a conversation. Since this began with a discussion about Islam, let us use a concrete example: Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an exemplary woman who has a lot to say about oppression, bigotry and sexism. Do you listen to her? She satisfies at least two of your criteria; three if you include "Allied" in the LGBTQIAXYZ etc formulation, since she is a pretty strong supporter of rights for LGBT people.

Thanks for the name. I'll be sure to take a look.