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

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Okay, so here's something that's been bothering me for a while. I'd like to hear some other opinions. Maybe it's just me getting grumpy as the big Three-Oh (otherwise known as GAY DEATH) approaches at a terrifying rate and I won't any longer be able to claim youth as an excuse for whatever crappy opinions I might have.

I'm a economically left leaning. I'm a die hard social liberal. I was raised to believe (and have been further convinced by life) that everybody is my equal, regardless of gender, ethnicity, creed, wealth or occupation. Nobody is of intrinsically lesser or greater value than anybody else.

I believe that the free exchange of ideas is fundamentally important to a liberal society. Robust and sincere dialogue is the best and maybe only real way we can arrive at the "truth." No idea is above question and no ideology should be protected from criticism. Short of outright exhortation to violence, nobody should have their ideas shouted down and suppressed just because I or you may not like or agree with them. If you think they're wrong, persuade them or put your own ideas out there too.

I have always believed that my fellow citizens on the progressive side of politics generally shared these ideals and these were, indeed, the basis of a progressive liberal view.

Lately, I've been doubting that.

Whenever I see somebody question the narrative pushed by progressive luminaries in the media, I see a mob descend throwing insults, shaming and generally belittling the questioner for daring to step out of line.

When I see somebody who simply honestly hasn't read up on all the preferred jargon and says something "problematic" I see them hounded out of progressive circles and shrilly told to "check their privilege".

You were raising some noteworthy points until you said this.

Freedom of speech means nothing more than the government's not having the ability to suppress the beliefs and opinions of its citizens. That's it. It does not mean that said speech is tolerable, nor does it mean that an organization of any stripe should even allow it.

But if those who possess white privilege, male privilege, cis privilege, straight privilege, or any of the other privileges that our society's systems of power selectively dole out, then every single issue we ever try to confront will remain unsolved. Every single one. People with these privileges almost always become defensive the second their privilege is called out. As a straight, white, cisgendered male, I can tell you right now that that defensiveness not only doesn't help: It actively contributes to the problem.

When I see somebody look critically at the canon of studies behind the "killer stats" du jour and point out that maybe there are some faults or, heaven forfend, deliberate obfuscation, I see them rounded on and derided for being anti science or just being plain unintelligent for not "getting it".

Where did we go wrong? What happened to healthy scepticism? What happened to freedom of thought and intelligent discussion of ideas? What happened to education, not indoctrination?

Why is it that if a progressive wants to discuss the merits of Islam as an ideology, it's relative value as a religion and how that intersects with Western culture in the 21st century, they pretty much have to find a borderline or outright fascist because they're the only ones willing to talk about it. Their fellow progressives won't even countenance the discussion because racism, because Islamophobia, because you're the wrong colour of person to be allowed to voice an opinion on the subject.

Why is it that if a progressive wants to examine and talk about the ongoing merits of modern feminism and how it affects people and society today, unless they are gushing praise for it they are immediately shouted down and labelled a misogynist and a generally ****ty person. And if this person has a penis, they're probably a rape apologist (or an actual rapist!) and if they have a vagina they're a traitor or some kind of 1950s stepford wife with Stockholm syndrome. Want a frank discussion on this topic? You've got to find some bitter, damaged men who can't be objective and angry women lashing out on their behalf because nobody else on the progressive side will tolerate challenges to dogma.

Why is it that if a progressive expresses views on foreign affairs that may not be entirely dependent on the West being responsible for pretty much every perceived wrong in the world and that maybe our liberal Western values might actually be worth something, they are labelled a racist, a colonial apologist or worse?

What the hell happened to us? When did we become this? When did we become so obsessed with orthodoxy and so hostile to critical thinking? When did we decide different viewpoints must be suppressed?

Maybe I'm just imagining it, but this really does seem to be a trend that's being steadily getting worse and is utterly dominant on social media. Or am I just another entitled ****lord who needs to check his ****** privilege?

TL;DR - We're supposed to oppose the Religious Right. When did we BECOME them?

No matter how gently you burst a water balloon, anyone standing underneath it is still going to get wet.

Revasser, since you went there, I'm going to give you an opportunity to put into practice what you preach. When I read all this, I see the very defensiveness I was referring to earlier. It's as if you're committing the very sin that you accuse others of. If you really and truly support free speech, then you must support the free speech rights of those who you believe are trying to shut free speech down. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot accuse others of hostility and then talk in such a hostile manner yourself. You need to choose a consistent position for everyone, not one that gives you and those who agree with you wholeheartedly some sort of elevated status in this conversation.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Frankie,

Hear me out on this ... I can't, for the life of me, understand certain White Liberals at all. As a person of color, I truly fail, utterly and hopelessly, in understanding such an anointed breed that seems to speak on behalf of us downtrodden colored folks. Allow me to explain:

A few weeks ago, we had many of them condemn American Sniper, along with various other patriotic expressions. And these are individuals that are American-born citizens. Now here's the thing, bro: my parents and I came here in the late nineties and became naturalized citizens in the early years of the following decade, in 2002, I believe. What baffles the mind is how one can see citizenship of a country (in response to Blumenthal's statements), for which my parents underwent rigorous preparation to become citizens of (insert image of my Indian mother struggling heavily over the citizenship exam, trying desparately to articulate the words and sentences as well as she possibly could; my father frantically searching for directions to get to the place where it all goes down and praying fervently to the gods that it all goes a-okay) as something regressive.

Many born citizens of the US will never ever understand how big of a day that was for us! It was one of the most important days for my parents. That very day, my father and mother went out and bought a huge flag of the US and we hung it on the stand that comes prepackaged with various houses with garages (that little stand that juts out). I guess what I'm trying to say is ... "born-citizen privilged" folk need to understand that many members of minority groups like my parents and me are very proud to be patriotic and citizens of the US, we worked very hard (especially my parents; mostly my parents) to get where we are now. Sorry not sorry for Uncle Tom-ing it up, ya'll.

​

That's beautiful. That's one of the things I love about America. That's the promise, that's the dream, man. Yes, America is still a work in progress but we have such an amazing ideal to look to -

"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Ironically, Emma Lazarus, who wrote those words, was a 19th century Jewish feminist and an early Zionist. But she was a fine example of the triumph of the American ideal.

I think what went wrong with the rights movements started in the mid-20th century when they started to base critiques off of a sort of neo-Marxism mixed with postmodern deconstructionism. They replaced the capitalist class in Marxism with (white) men, Christians, heterosexuals, etc. Instead of fighting for an equal place at the table, it became about overturning the table and putting "the oppressors" in their place. It's resulted in perpetual fighting, stifled discourse, anger and misunderstanding. I'm sick of it and so I'm an individualist. I don't care about your skin color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc. and I don't buy into their privilege narrations anymore. People should just be viewed as individual human beings with their own struggles to overcome and their own talents to add to the community.

I've lived in the inner city most of my life and I've seen what this sort of stuff does to young black people. They destroy their own futures and communities, hate white people and everything associated with white people. It's a mess. It wasn't always like that, though. Whenever I talk to older black people, they pretty much all tell me that the younger generation is screwed up and that it was a lot different when they grew up. They had self-respect and pride in themselves and worked hard. They made so many cultural contributions. But charlatans like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton came on the scene and screwed it all up, along with certain aspects of rap culture.

Anyway, this is a really good book about the corruption of academia that's spawned this bs:
The Victims' Revolution: The Rise of Identity Studies and the Closing of the Liberal Mind: Bruce Bawer: 8601402834327: Amazon.com: Books

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

As a white, cis-gendered male, I most certainly have privileges that many others in our society don't. That's not what I was really talking about.

That's not necessarily true. The only real privilege and power in America these days comes from $$$$$.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

As a white, cis-gendered male, I most certainly have privileges that many others in our society don't. That's not what I was really talking about.

What I mean is that, in the effort to being politically correct, it seems that nothing ever gets done. That what is considered important to some is not important to others. What really seems to be more important is whose theory is more correct, or which professor/feminist/cultural marxist is more relevant.

To use a very subjective example, I used to be a part of my colleges LGBT support group. I only went to a few meetings before I stopped going. Mainly because I didn't feel welcomed there. When I had mentioned that I was religious, and that maybe we could have a function for other religious LGBT, I was basically told that a queer being religious was "being hypocritical" and had my ideas totally shot down. I was also called a neo-colonialist and cultural appropriator, because I'm a white male who practices Hinduism. No real inclusiveness, no working together with the knowledge of diversity, just a fixed idea of what constituted being LGBT is "supposed to be" and a near rejection of what differed.

Granted, this is a very personal example, but it's very similar to what I see with liberalsim and political correctness and academia in general. So to answer your second question, no, I guess there's no real way to discuss anything without upsetting someone or pissing others off. Which, as far as I'm concerned, is the crux of the problem with modern liberalism. Everyone seems too busy crying "I'm the true victim" instead of working together to actually fix the problem.

I understand exactly what you're saying. I've gotten hate for being Catholic from other queers. They view it as akin to a betrayal. As a religious LGBT person, you're caught between a rock and a hard place in the cultural dialogue on such matters.

 

[Revoltingest]

Many people don't take opportunities because they unforeseeable and equally lack in failure. But since there is no real economic net holding anything in society together, than the risk is far too great for many people, at least in their eyes.

Why is a safety net necessary to exploit the opportunity to study politics, economics, government, etc?

 

[dust1n]

Why is a safety net necessary to exploit the opportunity to study politics, economics, government, etc?

Because scholarship will drop immensely once people catch on to the economic uncertainty of a career.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

That's not necessarily true. The only real privilege and power in America these days comes from $$$$$.

Watch out, some folks will see this as harmful and divisive rhetoric of class warfare.

 

[Revoltingest]

Because scholarship will drop immensely once people catch on to the economic uncertainty of a career.

One cannot study things apart from a career? It needn't be done at a spendy school....one can read books, attend free lectures, etc.

 

[dust1n]

One cannot study things apart from a career? It needn't be done at a spendy school....one can read books, attend free lectures, etc.

I'm for all things, however, I think education needs to made more available. It doesn't do much to keep potentially skilled workers from getting to a position of expertise.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm for all things, however, I think education needs to made more available. It doesn't do much to keep potentially skilled workers from getting to a position of expertise.

This is getting off into a different area. Me too say edumacashun goodly.

 

[Yerda]

I really hate placing myself on a left/right spectrum, even though it is useful to use when identifying with talking about people on a specific policy, perhaps.
Every issue, whether you are a liberal or conservative, needs to be looked at with fresh eyes, unbiased, and with a common sense.

I know you think I'm "a leftist", cause I think the Kippers are batty, but I agree with you. The left-right thing is mostly total balls.

 

[gsa]

People with these privileges almost always become defensive the second their privilege is called out. As a straight, white, cisgendered male, I can tell you right now that that defensiveness not only doesn't help: It actively contributes to the problem.

I am personally opposed to the privilege analysis because I think it is myopic and overstates personal status while downplaying the primary generator of inequality (class). It has also had an unfortunate tendency to inhibit criticism of reactionary ideologies, whether it is forms of exclusionary ethnic nationalism or blind and brainless accusations of "Islamophobia." This is not the same thing as denying that "privilege" exists, but it is absolutely a refusal to adopt it as the primary lens for social and political analysis.

In practice, I have seen the way accusations of privilege can also be used to squash dissent and exert pressure. Are people defensive when called out for speaking from a viewpoint that has certain social and political and economic advantages? Sure. But that doesn't legitimize the critique of those views, and it certainly doesn't mean that one speaking from a certain social status has the better analysis.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

I am personally opposed to the privilege analysis because I think it is myopic and overstates personal status while downplaying the primary generator of inequality (class). It has also had an unfortunate tendency to inhibit criticism of reactionary ideologies, whether it is forms of exclusionary ethnic nationalism or blind and brainless accusations of "Islamophobia." This is not the same thing as denying that "privilege" exists, but it is absolutely a refusal to adopt it as the primary lens for social and political analysis.

In practice, I have seen the way accusations of privilege can also be used to squash dissent and exert pressure. Are people defensive when called out for speaking from a viewpoint that has certain social and political and economic advantages? Sure. But that doesn't legitimize the critique of those views, and it certainly doesn't mean that one speaking from a certain social status has the better analysis.

See, here's the problem: If I call you on that, you'll probably think I'm the pot-stirrer, bad guy, or whatever. One of the very, very high hurdles to jump for those of us who are privileged is to recognize that the existence of privilege is a matter of fact, not opinion. All other factors being equal:

It is a fact that my lot in life will be significantly easier because I am white and not black.
It is a fact that because I am an adult male, then as long as I stay out of prison, my chances of being raped are very low.
It is a fact that because I am cisgendered, I never have to worry that what's between my legs doesn't correspond to what's between my ears.
It is a fact that because of this and other privileges I have, I never have to think about said privileges. That is the very essence of privilege.

And this is a tiny, tiny sample of facts. Pure, hard facts. As I noted, these facts are very, very difficult for most privileged people to acknowledge. Can you? Will you?

 

[gsa]

See, here's the problem: If I call you on that, you'll probably think I'm the pot-stirrer, bad guy, or whatever. One of the very, very high hurdles to jump for those of us who are privileged is to recognize that the existence of privilege is a matter of fact, not opinion. All other factors being equal:

It is a fact that my lot in life will be significantly easier because I am white and not black.
It is a fact that because I am an adult male, then as long as I stay out of prison, my chances of being raped are very low.
It is a fact that because I am cisgendered, I never have to worry that what's between my legs doesn't correspond to what's between my ears.
It is a fact that because of this and other privileges I have, I never have to think about said privileges. That is the very essence of privilege.

And this is a tiny, tiny sample of facts. Pure, hard facts. As I noted, these facts are very, very difficult for most privileged people to acknowledge. Can you? Will you?

No, not on all points about life being easier, because your facts do not exist in isolation from class. As for the rest, yes. Although I think characterizing it as a privilege is problematic.

 

[Revasser]

You were raising some noteworthy points until you said this.

Freedom of speech means nothing more than the government's not having the ability to suppress the beliefs and opinions of its citizens. That's it. It does not mean that said speech is tolerable, nor does it mean that an organization of any stripe should even allow it.

At no point did I mention state interference, nor indeed did I mention "freedom of speech" in that context. I can see how you might infer that, but that seems to be your own baggage so I'll leave it at that.

But if those who possess white privilege, male privilege, cis privilege, straight privilege, or any of the other privileges that our society's systems of power selectively dole out, then every single issue we ever try to confront will remain unsolved. Every single one. People with these privileges almost always become defensive the second their privilege is called out. As a straight, white, cisgendered male, I can tell you right now that that defensiveness not only doesn't help: It actively contributes to the problem.

You provide a pretty good example here of what I mean when I observe what progressive circles seem willing to accept as axiomatic and what they are not and the kind of language used to define the tribe, as it were.

Revasser, since you went there, I'm going to give you an opportunity to put into practice what you preach. When I read all this, I see the very defensiveness I was referring to earlier. It's as if you're committing the very sin that you accuse others of. If you really and truly support free speech, then you must support the free speech rights of those who you believe are trying to shut free speech down. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot accuse others of hostility and then talk in such a hostile manner yourself. You need to choose a consistent position for everyone, not one that gives you and those who agree with you wholeheartedly some sort of elevated status in this conversation.

Again, you seem to be inferring a desire for state or other mechanical interference. Once again, I'm able to see how you might infer that but, also once again, this seems to be your own baggage and isn't really addressing what I'm saying.

Here's the thing, people are allowed to be hostile. People are allowed to form tribes and enforce their membership requirements and status hierarchy as they like (and to pretend that this is not what they are doing, if they want). People are allowed to ask others to acknowledge their social privilege and hand wave questions to their own away as 'defensiveness.'

At no point am I offering a desire for my own distaste to be enforced by authority. I'm questioning my own understanding of whether groups of people I have in the past understood as being interested in the maintenance of certain values are actually interested in them or not and giving some examples of where I personally feel I've been given cause to question.

Seems a bit like we're running on parallel tracks here and passing each other but never quite meeting.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

No, not on all points about life being easier, because your facts do not exist in isolation from class. As for the rest, yes. Although I think characterizing it as a privilege is problematic.

There is a correlation between class and privilege, I'll give you that.

Here. Read this. If you disagree with it, please be sure to read the author's follow-up entries; he addresses most of the objections there.

 

[Revasser]

I have some thoughts on this, but I'm not going to share them here to avoid derailing the thread. If I may make a recommendation, though, I suggest reading some of the more popular feminist blogs if you are interested. Some of them talk about men's rights from a feminist perspective. I have personally found them very thought-provoking and often spot on.

Thread drift is a-okay with me but I'm happy to talk it about it elsewhere as well.

But in the interests of responding in kind - I have and I do read plenty of feminist literate and opinion pieces. Simply because it is in my interests for the society I live in to have and to promote gender equity.

And though I don't believe it's what you are doing here, I do notice a certain tendency for some to assume that an otherwise reasonable-seeming person will only disagree on some points because they are not informed on the topic. The implication is that this is because a reasonable person must by definition agree and, for myself, I don't find that attitude helpful.

That being the case, I find popular feminist blogs at the moment to be quite blinkered on gender issues and touting feminism itself as a solution to men's issues is a common but strikes me as simply being a case of the woman with a hammer looking around seeing nothing but nails.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

At no point did I mention state interference, nor indeed did I mention "freedom of speech" in that context. I can see how you might infer that, but that seems to be your own baggage so I'll leave it at that.

Easy now. I invite you to calmly and nondefensively try to understand that when you say this:

When I see somebody who simply honestly hasn't read up on all the preferred jargon and says something "problematic" I see them hounded out of progressive circles and shrilly told to "check their privilege".

Your words have the effect of trivializing those who are marginalized due to a lack of privilege. As a white person, for example, race is merely a topic of debate for me. That is a privilege I have as a white person. I could leave a discussion on race at any time, and a short while later, I could choose to think nothing of race. People of color do not have that privilege.

Can you at least see that?

You provide a pretty good example here of what I mean when I observe what progressive circles seem willing to accept as axiomatic and what they are not and the kind of language used to define the tribe, as it were.

And I counter that this is a false dichotomy. There are some views that do not deserve an equal seat at the table. Arguments that have the effect of maintaining systems of power over marginalized groups, do not deserve an equal seat at the table. This is why, for instance, I am in full favor of Canada's anti-homophobia laws and Germany's anti-anti-Semitism laws. (Anti-Islam speech is trickier to dissect, however, because of the collision of multiple issues, particularly race and religion.)

Again, you seem to be inferring a desire for state or other mechanical interference. Once again, I'm able to see how you might infer that but, also once again, this seems to be your own baggage and isn't really addressing what I'm saying.

Here's the thing, people are allowed to be hostile. People are allowed to form tribes and enforce their membership requirements and status hierarchy as they like (and to pretend that this is not what they are doing, if they want). People are allowed to ask others to acknowledge their social privilege and hand wave questions to their own away as 'defensiveness.'

The highlighted is a direct consequence of privilege and is part of what I've been trying to say all along. When the privileged do this, it is just another reminder to the marginalized that they are marginalized. Or, more simply, it's bullying. And it's a very different dynamic when the contempt is expressed in reverse.

At no point am I offering a desire for my own distaste to be enforced by authority. I'm questioning my own understanding of whether groups of people I have in the past understood as being interested in the maintenance of certain values are actually interested in them or not and giving some examples of where I personally feel I've been given cause to question.

Seems a bit like we're running on parallel tracks here and passing each other but never quite meeting.

No, it seems like you want to gain an honest understanding of these matters, but your dependence on your privilege is keeping you from doing that. That comment made you bristle a little bit, didn't it? Before responding, I want you to look within yourself to see if you can figure out why. Let's just suppose that you were to lose your white privilege, for example. Is it not true that progressing through life would suddenly become harder? People of color are acutely aware of this fact, not because they want to be, but because this fact is a part of their everyday lives. You and I, on the other hand, have a choice in the matter. That is part of what it means to be privileged.

So talking as if all sides in a debate over power and privilege deserve an equal voice at the table does no service to those who have been denied that very voice. If you can somehow understand that, you can start to peel back the obstacles to understanding the truth here.

 

[gsa]

There is a correlation between class and privilege, I'll give you that.

Here. Read this. If you disagree with it, please be sure to read the author's follow-up entries; he addresses most of the objections there.

I skimmed it. It does not discuss wealth (which I will accept as a proxy for class) with any depth. It barely acknowledges it. I am also not going to hunt down the author’s response to criticisms. I am more interested in why the need to obfuscate the clear, empirically demonstrable impact of class/wealth/economic status manifests itself in these discussions of "privilege."

There s a clear alternative theory: Privilege analysis is beneficial to the upper class. First, it has a tendency to create divisions among the working class. Second, it has a particular advantage to the elite within the subcategories of oppression it identifies: Females, LGBT people, religious and ethnic minorities, etc. Notwithstanding their membership within a well-demarcated economic elite that exploits the working class, these individuals will be able to assume a cherished mantle of victimhood.

It also correlates much too closely with the lobbying complex that supports the modern reformist Democratic Party. Ironically, the privilege lobby can recognize this in cases where the status is sexual (i.e., "Gay, Inc" in the form of HRC, or the various pro-choice feminist organizations), but it is less apt to identify it among the racial and ethnoreligious lobbies.

Again, agreeing with the bare bones of "privilege theory" says very little about one’s political commitments; nor do the points of disagreement. I don’t call you reactionaries; there are plenty of members of the Left who would.

 

[Revasser]

Easy now. I invite you to calmly and nondefensively try to understand that when you say this:

Your words have the effect of trivializing those who are marginalized due to a lack of privilege. As a white person, for example, race is merely a topic of debate for me. That is a privilege I have as a white person. I could leave a discussion on race at any time, and a short while later, I could choose to think nothing of race. People of color do not have that privilege.

Can you at least see that?

Again, you seem to be assuming things that aren't there but that's fine, in the interests of not getting too badly side tracked I'll accept that you feel I'm being defensive of whatever privilege I may have.

No, I do not see simply asking the question as trivialising anybody. One can acknowledge the struggles of some groups and be willing to work to address those whilst also asking that people examine their own assumptions about other groups and how easy or difficult they may have things. I don't feel that honest inquiry is a zero sum game.

And if you really, really, really think a 20-something white male who prefers some kind of social life with decent people has the option to simply to leave the discussion and not think about it, I do wonder if you might perhaps need to take a look at how Western society is experienced in that age bracket.

And I counter that this is a false dichotomy. There are some views that do not deserve an equal seat at the table. Arguments that have the effect of maintaining systems of power over marginalized groups, do not deserve an equal seat at the table. This is why, for instance, I am in full favor of Canada's anti-homophobia laws and Germany's anti-anti-Semitism laws. (Anti-Islam speech is trickier to dissect, however, because of the collision of multiple issues, particularly race and religion.)

Once more, you're bringing in state intervention when this simply wasn't the question I was asking. You'll note I very carefully avoided the term "freedom of speech" in my initial post and this is why. In this kind of discussion the term is loaded and tends to lead to the above.

On a personal note, since you seem to want to talk about state intervention, yes I am uncomfortable with governments using the threat of violence (which is what such laws are) as a way to enforce standards on the non-violent freedom of expression of citizens - even when I would personally benefit from them in the short term, as is the case with anti-homophobia laws.

The highlighted is a direct consequence of privilege and is part of what I've been trying to say all along. When the privileged do this, it is just another reminder to the marginalized that they are marginalized. Or, more simply, it's bullying. And it's a very different dynamic when the contempt is expressed in reverse.

I want to just say that I agree with this, but I feel you'd take that as acquiescence to your own prejudices. Happy to be proven wrong.

No, it seems like you want to gain an honest understanding of these matters, but your dependence on your privilege is keeping you from doing that. That comment made you bristle a little bit, didn't it? Before responding, I want you to look within yourself to see if you can figure out why. Let's just suppose that you were to lose your white privilege, for example. Is it not true that progressing through life would suddenly become harder? People of color are acutely aware of this fact, not because they want to be, but because this fact is a part of their everyday lives. You and I, on the other hand, have a choice in the matter. That is part of what it means to be privileged.

So talking as if all sides in a debate over power and privilege deserve an equal voice at the table does no service to those who have been denied that very voice. If you can somehow understand that, you can start to peel back the obstacles to understanding the truth here.

Are you sure you're not just projecting your own emotions in this case? I'm an emotional person so I'm certainly aware I have a tendency to skew in that direction but you're reading more into it than there is. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're honestly mistaken and not simply trying to poison the well.

I feel your broadening the scope of my initial question here quite a bit, but if you want an honest response to your question, sure. If my ethnicity suddenly changed for whatever reason I would certainly lose plenty of good things I get from being of European appearance and would gain other advantages depending on what I was changed to, especially when it came to dealing with certain groups of people. They won't balance out in the society I'm currently a part of unless I'm very wrong about ethnic disadvantage but I don't feel I'd be served by ignoring the gains I might make because I'm losing in some or even most other areas. I guess I just don't feel that special pleading or crassly keeping score is really where I'd want that to lead.

But ethnicity is a pointless discussion, since I really do agree I am looking at it from a position of privilege and anything I can say on that topic is, rightly or wrongly, easily dismissed.

So let's try a minority I belong to and see where that goes.

Let's say I become heterosexual tomorrow. Awesome! Society loves me now!

I gain heaps of great stuff. I get to match up to society's assumption of heteronormativity and not have to correct people all the time, sometimes at risk of social expulsion or anger. I'm at greatly reduced risk of being the recipient of violence based on my sexual orientation. I'm unlikely to be denied access to housing and employment because I'm open about my orientation. I get a massively increased pool of potential sexual and romantic partners. My partner and I have the option of being legally married with the paperwork to prove it. I don't have my manhood challenged on the basis of the sex of my partner (well, probably not anyway). I can kiss my partner in public without risking abuse from strangers.

Heck, I would probably gain a whole bunch of advantages that I can't even imagine.

But let's also examine some of the positives I get as a visitor to vegemite valley that I might lose.

I can act and speak in a "traditionally feminine" way and not really get questioned on it. I can express hurt and pain and strong emotions other than rage and not be called a ***** or told to "man up". I can have my opinion automatically accepted as valid in discussion of issues pertaining to sexuality. I can cry in the company of others and expect comfort, concern and support from the people around me instead of disdain. I can reasonably expect to be the chased as often as I am the chaser in dating situations and being the chased is not chalked up as a point against my gay cred. I am at significantly reduced risk of being the recipient of domestic violence from my partner and if there is mutual violence, I am much less likely to be assumed to be the aggressor regardless of the reality of the situation. If I'm raped by a member of my preferred gender, I can expect to have it treated seriously and not dismissed because of social assumption that I can't be raped by the gender I'm attracted to.

I could go on, because I am aware of the advantages my sexual identity gets me and I don't mind acknowledging them and talking about them openly.

Do all those things mean that I'm better off or even on equal footing with straight dudes in my country? Probably not. In the scheme of things, had I been given a choice at birth whether to be straight or gay, I'd have gone with straight. From my limited perspective it certainly seems that your average straight male has to deal with a lot less garbage than I have to in my day to day life.

But what this doesn't mean is that when a straight guy points out my advantages or compares them to his, I'm going to shout him down or dismiss his concerns out of hand. I'm not going to hound a well meaning straight male out of a discussion because he slipped and described as me a ****** or a poofter because that's what he's been conditioned to do. If he wants to discuss difficulties he faces that are unique to heterosexual males, I'll happily participate and won't dismiss him because I reckon I've got things worse or assume that he is diminishing my own experience because his is different. And I won't simply handwave away genuine problems he might have that the struggle for equality for people of my sexual orientation may actually be contributing to as simply "loss of privilege".

My impression has typically been that the political groups I run with also value this kind of openness and willingness to talk about social issues regardless of whether they come from widely accepted majorities or minorities. I have encountered too many instances where that has not been the case and that causes me to wonder.

Hope that clears things up a little. Or not. I ramble.