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

[MysticSang'ha]

I wonder if the sociological academic term of "privilege" is as misunderstood as the term "theory" in science when critique of evolutionary constructs occur in public discourse.

 

[Revoltingest]

How was that an overlooking of an injustice? I acknowledged early in my post that there should be no mandatory conscription, circumstances permitting of course. But when such measures must be taken, everyone of sound mind and healthy body should be considered.

Aye, you did stand up for what is right. (I criticize the perspective....not you.) But from the privilege perspective, this is a tertiary concern. (I would'a said "secondary", but "tertiary" sounded fancier. I'm all about fancy.)

 

[Revoltingest]

What about what you done, and declared being discriminated against a privilege? And what of the transpeople who have served? Obviously not openly, but they have/do serve, having to sacrifice themselves in more ways than normal in order to do so.

The problem there isn't anyone's privilege.....it's that tansfolk suffer ill treatment, & deserve better.

To summarize it more clearly....
What's wrong is wrong cuz it's wrong to those wronged, & not cuz it's not wrong to non-wronged groups.
You can quote me on that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I wonder if the sociological academic term of "privilege" is as misunderstood as the term "theory" in science when critique of evolutionary constructs occur in public discourse.

The way guilt is often attached to it and how individual experiences to the contrary are frequent, I think the answer is yes. But then again a handful of individual experiences to the contrary seem to be frequently used to defend broken systems, such as American capitalism and the notion of upward mobility, as a few people, even those who started as dirt poor immigrants, strike it rich, even though there is a stronger trend of stagnation and downward mobility. A biracial president does not mean we, as a society at large, have moved away from race being a strong consideration on job applications. Even if we get a female president, it still does not mean society at large, especially in the realm of employment, views pregnancy and motherhood as costly, burdensome, and fundamentally counter to the goals and ideals of selfish profit that fuel capitalism.

 

[Revoltingest]

The way guilt is often attached to it and how individual experiences to the contrary are frequent, I think the answer is yes. But then again a handful of individual experiences to the contrary seem to be frequently used to defend broken systems, such as American capitalism and the notion of upward mobility....

This analogy doesn't work though.

Americastanian capitalism is far from broken because it still works well in comparison to other economic systems around the world. Sure, sure, it has problems, particularly with corruption (crony capitalism) & dysfunctional over-regulation (compared to freer economies like Canuckistan), but these don't prevent it from working. Examples of people thriving in it abound.

The privilege perspective is at best redundant though. Whether it's academics trying to justify their jobs by introducing new jargon to research & teach, or a new way to attack others without admitting it's an attack, it adds nothing to our understanding of social issues. It even appears to do the opposite. Where are any examples of the privilege perspective telling us something we don't already know?

I'll pay you 10 frubies to ditch the magenta font.
(It doesn't work well with quoting.)

 

[dust1n]

The subject. Which can mean a lot more than you probably think.

What exactly is different regarding the person A, if person A is advantaged over person B, or if person B is disadvantaged compared to person B?

 

[Revoltingest]

What exactly is different regarding the person A, if person A is advantaged over person B, or if person B is disadvantaged compared to person B?

It's fun filled analogy time!
Which description makes more sense.....
1) Sally was decapitated in a car crash.
2) Everyone but Sally was privileged to have a safe trip, & keep their heads.

 

[dust1n]

It's fun filled analogy time!
Which description makes more sense.....
1) Sally was decapitated in a car crash.
2) Everyone but Sally was privileged to have a safe trip, & keep their heads.

...what do car accidents have to do with privilege and society?

 

[Revoltingest]

...what do car accidents have to do with privilege and society?

I illustrated the difference between focusing on the advantages of the privileged instead of the more significant problems of the "unprivileged".

 

[dust1n]

I illustrated the difference between focusing on the advantages of the privileged instead of the more significant problems of the "unprivileged".

But your illustration doesn't have anything to do with privilege at all, at least in no way that I would ever use the word...

 

[Revoltingest]

But your illustration doesn't have anything to do with privilege at all, at least in no way that I would ever use the word...

The word "privilege" as used here describes a perspective which looks at a group having optimum circumstances. It is contrasted to the implied poorer circumstances of non-members of that group.
Looking at this approach in general, we see it can be applied to all sorts of circumstances. Sally's problem is not that there is a class of non-decapitated drivers.....it's that she lost her head.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I illustrated the difference between focusing on the advantages of the privileged instead of the more significant problems of the "unprivileged".

Expand that to:

- everyone who kept their heads were unaware Sally lost hers and rarely carry the risk of losing their heads

And/or

- "Sally should have known better and it was her own damn fault for losing her head"

And/or

- cars were designed to protect people more often who's names don't start with the letter "S".

Now it might fit better.

 

[Revoltingest]

Expand that to:
- everyone who kept their heads were unaware Sally lost hers and rarely carry the risk of losing their heads
And/or
- "Sally should have known better and it was her own damn fault for losing her head"
And/or
- cars were designed to protect people more often who's names don't start with the letter "S".
Now it might fit better.

A better way to describe the situation is that a car's occupant was decapitated.
This warrants looking into the accident, determining causes, & considering preventive measures.

People who kept their heads will correctly view their state of still attached heads as not problematic for Sally.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

A better way to describe the situation is that a car's occupant was decapitated.
This warrants looking into the accident, determining causes, & considering preventive measures.

Yes.

Now add campaigns to make the people who didn't lose their heads having seatbelts that don't cause chafing...because...well they may not have lost their heads, but the chafing is just as horrible, isn't it?

 

[dust1n]

The word "privilege" as used here describes a perspective which looks at a group having optimum circumstances. It is contrasted to the implied poorer circumstances of non-members of that group.
Looking at this approach in general, we see it can be applied to all sorts of circumstances. Sally's problem is not that there is a class of non-decapitated drivers.....it's that she lost her head.

It's an interesting way to use the word, but it's certainly not how I understand it, and how I'm pretty sure most feminists are using it.

The fact that some people get struck by lightning or die in a tornado doesn't create a class of people who don't die by random force majure.

Privilege is something actually recognized and acted upon by humans within their grouping. Unfortunately, as humans, we are vulnerable to any random path of death, but there isn't a God that grants this privilege. Humans and their institutions grant privileges. Making a mistake that accidentally kills you or others doesn't really have anything to do with privilege at all, at least the way I've always conceived of the concept.

 

[Revoltingest]

Now add campaigns to make the people who didn't lose their heads having seatbelts that don't cause chafing...because...well they may not have lost their heads, but the chafing is just as horrible, isn't it?

This is unclear.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's an interesting way to use the word, but it's certainly not how I understand it, and how I'm pretty sure most feminists are using it.
The fact that some people get struck by lightning or die in a tornado doesn't create a class of people who don't die by random force majure.

Sometimes force majure (nice legal term I use in leases) does affect classes of people, eg, people who live in areas not well served by disaster preparedness.
But I digress.
The point I'm trying (& failing) to make is that the "privilege perspective" describes problems afflicting people by calling attention to people who don't have those problems.
Another analogy:
My problem with the military draft (if reactivated) is not that some groups are privileged by exemption (eg, women, transfolk, clergy)...my problem is that anyone is subject to it (even if it's only young non-trans males with low lottery numbers).

Privilege is something actually recognized and acted upon by humans within their grouping. Unfortunately, as humans, we are vulnerable to any random path of death, but there isn't a God that grants this privilege. Humans and their institutions grant privileges. Making a mistake that accidentally kills you or others doesn't really have anything to do with privilege at all, at least the way I've always conceived of the concept.

I don't dispute that the concept of "privilege" exists. But I find it redundant (since it describes nothing new), & it's so often used in polarizing ways without offsetting benefit. It's naught but a buzzword de jour. I'll wager your left one that in 10 years it will have disappeared, & been replaced by something equally vapid.

 

[dust1n]

Sometimes force majure (nice legal term I use in leases) does affect classes of people, eg, people who live in areas not well served by disaster preparedness.

Sure. I got an illustration.

Take New Orleans. It's a geographically bad location. People who live would be disadvantaged, but there's nothing that is granting privilege to the rest of the world to be a better location regarding hurricanes. No one decides that. It just is a fact of existence beyond our control.

However, say that the federal government, or the general sentiment of a population, has a quicker emergency response in case some other natural disaster, and that more monied resources pour into that location faster, whether it be because that area has less minorities, or because its more important in an economic sense, or just because who ever is overseeing some aspect of these benefits just happens to be from that city, whatever the potential reasoning may be, that that location and people in it would then be privileged. The privilege is a something that society recognizes in an uneven number of cases some sort of benefit that is not available to others, for whatever the reason may be.

I don't it's privilege to exist, unless there is a God or something deciding who lives and dies.

I don't dispute that the concept of "privilege" exists. But I find it redundant (since it describes nothing new), & it's so often used in polarizing ways without offsetting benefit. It's naught but a buzzword de jour. I'll wager your left one that in 10 years it will have disappeared, & been replaced by something equally vapid.

Well, if you are like me, an epistemological nihilist, it's no secret that words are fluid in meaning, and essentially hold no real meaning.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, if you are like me, an epistemological nihilist, it's no secret that words are fluid in meaning, and essentially hold no real meaning.

I don't think I'd ever admit to being something with such a long name.
But I see words as having fuzzy meanings which evolve over time.

 

[dust1n]

I don't think I'd ever admit to being something with such a long name.
But I see words as having fuzzy meanings which evolve over time.

A long name, but incredibly succinct and accurate description for something otherwise that might long-winded.