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

[Wherenextcolumbus]

To belong to a particular group is one way to be seen as an ally. But what works even better (& more often) is to cultivate mutual understanding.
Example:
When I discuss religion with fundies, I cultivate being an ally in the sense that I find them as intelligent & rational as heathens. Instead of telling them they're WRONG, I simply explain my different perspective. They eat up my sneaky trick of giving them respect, & being non-threatening.

so the word "privilege" is threatening?

 

[gsa]

Well, that doesn't really answer the question. The question about what sorts of perceived remediation one might apply isn't really what I'm asking. There's nothing about "remediation of unearned advantages" that implies or necessitates an "oppressive police state that disadvantages everyone more or less equally." An oppressive police state would obviously confer privileges to members of its police state anyways.

That's just one example, the broader point is that unearned advantages are taken away, while disadvantages are corrected by elevation of the disadvantaged. The other issue is that it suggests the privilege is the deviation, while disadvantaged status is normative. But it is not a privilege to be free from racial profiling, for example, or racist prosecution. That's a right, not a privilege.

I wonder why advocates insist on the privilege language when it is so clearly a poor method of communicating these issues.

 

[gsa]

so the word "privilege" is threatening?

Yes. And it should be. If your social status is unearned, what does that imply about what should become of that status?

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm letting you and others know that when those who are not disadvantaged deny the struggles exist, we all know it isn't malicious.
Yes, we know that. Nobody means to hurt anyone else. We get that.

But when accusations of malicious intent are loosed upon others, this works against the desire to generate sympathy. People deserve the benefit of any doubt about their motives. Wrongful accusations cause enmity.

But let's get it out there...denial does indeed hurt people who are disadvantaged. It does indeed perpetuate inequality.

I agree, which is why I favor productive discussion to convert backward folk.

It does not hurt me to recognize how the color of my skin has protected me from certain social and cultural phenomena. I am not "guilty" of anything by recognizing how I fit the description of a societal ideal skin color. It does not hurt me to recognize my name doesn't sound too ethnic, and places me at an advantage for business or job hunts.
It DOES hurt me when my risk for being sexually assaulted is denied as actually in existence, and especially so when I am told I am all alone in figuring out how to mitigate my risks.

Even we ultra-privileged types are told things by SJWs which equally wrong. The issue is how to deal with wrong headed folk.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

To belong to a particular group is one way to be seen as an ally. But what works even better (& more often) is to cultivate mutual understanding.
Example:
When I discuss religion with fundies, I cultivate being an ally in the sense that I find them as intelligent & rational as heathens. Instead of telling them they're WRONG, I simply explain my different perspective. They eat up my sneaky trick of giving them respect, & being non-threatening.

We are not talking about religion.

We are talking about societal advantages and disadvantages.

Explain the denial by straights of queers struggles please. Why does that happen in your opinion?

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Yes. And it should be. If your social status is unearned, what does that imply about what should become of that status?

Can I ask what do you think would be the better language to use to describe it?

 

[Revoltingest]

so the word "privilege" is threatening?

Not to me.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

That's just one example, the broader point is that unearned advantages are taken away, while disadvantages are corrected by elevation of the disadvantaged. The other issue is that it suggests the privilege is the deviation, while disadvantaged status is normative. But it is not a privilege to be free from racial profiling, for example, or racist prosecution. That's a right, not a privilege.

I wonder why advocates insist on the privilege language when it is so clearly a poor method of communicating these issues.

Yeah, it's abused by people in the same way that critics of scientific theory abuse the word "theory" to dismiss the studies that back their assertions up.

Critics of the sociological academic term "privilege" use it to attack those who they wish to deny. We can see it here in place. It originated in academia and is now a word of mockery against the social scientists who overwhelmingly agree in the existence of the phenomena.

"It's just a 'theory', right?"

"You're attacking me when you say I am 'privileged'."

I see a pattern.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Not to me.

Well then people can be threatened by language that is non threatening, whether or not you use the word "privilege" to describe it.

 

[Revoltingest]

We are not talking about religion.

Religion is much the same, especially because its closely related to disadvantages. Consider how religion plays the major role in opposition to rights to abortion & contraception. The techniques for productive discussion of contentious issues are universal in application.

Explain the denial by straights of queers struggles please. Why does that happen in your opinion?

This is a large issue, & comprehensive coverage would be long. But I'll give an example to illustrate correction of dysfunctional views.
Fundie friend (call'm B) says being gay is a choice because God gives everyone free will. B also likes science, & respects my training in it. I exploit this by getting B to discuss what he's read about brain anatomy & related phenomena. Eventually, he opens to the idea that gay & trans status have physical origins, & such things aren't choices.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well then people can be threatened by language that is non threatening, whether or not you use the word "privilege" to describe it.

It seems you're making a point about threats but I don't know what it is.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Religion is much the same, especially because its closely related to disadvantages. Consider how religion plays the major role in opposition to rights to abortion & contraception. The techniques for productive discussion of contentious issues are universal in application.

You brought up religious doctrine versus science. That's a conflation of our topic.

Now, if the opposition of rights to abortion and contraception included religious doctrine, then that is symptomatic of the large scale denial of the struggles women face, or placing more responsibility on the shoulders of women that cuts away at constitutional rights (an example of scapegoating).

This is a large issue, & comprehensive coverage would be long. But I'll give an example to illustrate correction of dysfunctional views.
Fundie friend (call'm B) says being gay is a choice because God gives everyone free will. B also likes science, & respects my training in it. I exploit this by getting B to discuss what he's read about brain anatomy & related phenomena. Eventually, he opens to the idea that gay & trans status have physical origins, & such things aren't choices.

And, as I have said before, it's effective for straight allies to explain the science behind the assertion that queers are not operating by choice.

Are you suggesting that queers have not consistently used the same tactic as you have?

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

It seems you're making a point about threats but I don't know what it is.

What do you mean when you say you educate people in a non-threatening way? What is "threatening" to you?

 

[Revoltingest]

You brought up religious doctrine versus science. That's a conflation of our topic.

"Conflation" doesn't apply here. I'm addressing the larger issue of how to advocate regarding contentious topics, which is a general approach.

Now, if the opposition of rights to abortion and contraception included religious doctrine, then that is symptomatic of the large scale denial of the struggles women face, or placing more responsibility on the shoulders of women that cuts away at constitutional rights (an example of scapegoating).

This claim notwithstanding, I find opportunity for productive discussion.

And, as I have said before, it's effective for straight allies to explain the science behind the assertion that queers are not operating by choice.

I don't dispute this. I'm pointing out that one needn't be straight for them to perceive an ally. It's all in the approach used.

Are you suggesting that queers have not consistently used the same tactic as you have?

No. But I notice that some are better at such tactics than others.

 

[Revoltingest]

What do you mean when you say you educate people in a non-threatening way? What is "threatening" to you?

Examples: Some see gay folk & atheists as a threat....they/we are trying to impose our values upon them, & corrupt traditional values, eg, removing the 10 Commandments from schools. Taking that last item, if I argue that the 10 Commandments shouldn't be in public schools, I'll tailor my argument to shared values, eg, the Constitution, the 1st Amendment, & how best to inculcate the little brats with shared secular values while preserving the parents' rights to give'm religious values. I want them to see me as being on their side, even if my approach is different.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Examples: Some see gay folk & atheists as a threat....they/we are trying to impose our values upon them, & corrupt traditional values, eg, removing the 10 Commandments from schools. Taking that last item, if I argue that the 10 Commandments shouldn't be in public schools, I'll tailor my argument to shared values, eg, the Constitution, the 1st Amendment, & how best to inculcate the little brats with shared secular values while preserving the parents' rights to give'm religious values. I want them to see me as being on their side, even if my approach is different.

So what you are saying is that you are pointlessly policing LGBT tactics when all kinds of tactics are implemented by activists?

 

[Revoltingest]

So what you are saying is that you are pointlessly policing LGBT tactics when all kinds of tactics are implemented by activists?

No, that's what you're erroneously saying.

We're discussing how to best change the minds of others. I offer views based upon my interactions with people. Some here will agree....some won't. And now I know you're in the latter camp. (That explains the paucity of frubies from you.)

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

No, that's what you're erroneously saying.

What you are saying is that LGBT activists should try and find common ground as much as possible with the people who are trying to oppress them and trying to maintain their power, in order to be "non threatening." Therefore pointlessly policing the approach of LGBT activists

 

[Revoltingest]

What you are saying is that LGBT activists should try and find common ground as much as possible with the people who are trying to oppress them and trying to maintain their power, in order to be "non threatening." Therefore pointlessly policing the approach of LGBT activists

It seems you disagree with me.
I got that.
What alternative do you propose?

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

It seems you disagree with me.
I got that.
What alternative do you propose?

Heather already pointed out that all sorts of tactics are used within activism so you basically saying "we should all be doing this, the way I do it" isn't helping LGBT people with anything. I propose if you want to be an ally that you focus on using your privilege to aid the situation and not police how LGBT activists fight for their rights in regards to their use of the word "privilege" or any other language they use to describe their oppression.