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

[dust1n]

I enjoyed it, but it seemed to cram too much into a single episode.
Poor Jonas....RIP.

Same here. There was a ton of wrapping of old plotlines and starting new ones. It definitely went in a direction I wasn't expecting. I'm excited to see how it develops though, now that the bulk of having to catch everything up is done.

 

[Revoltingest]

Go Team Venture!

 

[dust1n]

Go Team Venture!

Mmhmm, because of all the vapid leftists and arrogant rightists, I've officially switched to the Venture Party.

 

[Revoltingest]

Mmhmm, because of all the vapid leftists and arrogant rightists, I've officially switched to the Venture Party.

David Bowie for Prez!
Brock Samson to run the Secret Service.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

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."

Here. See #3.

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.

OK, what I'm about to say may torpedo any chance we had of coming to a consensus on this matter, but I feel it needs to be said anyway: The highlighted phrase had no business being said. It is a lie, pure and simple. Privileged people commonly resort to this line, not because it is the truth--it's not--but as a means to preserve their power over the disenfranchised. And if you disagree with this--which I assume you will--then I invite you to look within yourself and figure out why. Here's the thing: I'm not blameless, either. I wish I had been able to overcome the hurdle of what privilege really means earlier in life: It is a relative measure, not an absolute measure. As Scalzi points out, it does not mean that all whites have it good and all blacks have it bad, for example. There are plenty of counterexamples to that.

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.

Perhaps this is something that the Democratic party needs to consider more closely. I agree, more progress is needed. For instance, the President of the United States mentioned the word "transgender" in a SOTU address for the first time ever. While this is great, we still have a long ways to go on that issue alone. You're right, the Democratic party should never, ever grow complacent with the status quo.

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.

Good, because reactionaries want to return to "the way things used to be," which is not at all what most proponents of civil rights, women's rights, LGBTQIA rights, etc. want.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

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.

I don't think you understand. If I wanted to, I could leave this discussion right now if I really felt like it and never have to think about the issues raised again. That is privilege, pure and simple. People of color, transgenders, etc. do not have that privilege.

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.

I'm not sure what the hangup is, Revasser. All I can do here is point you back to my previous comments.

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.

Violence? That raises the question of the definition of "violence." If violence is an act against another human's will, then practically everything in the law is structured towards violence--a position that I would actually be willing to consider, though it would take me some convincing. But the bigger issue I have is the implication that merely requiring a privileged person to not use certain hateful words, phrases, or comments is "violent" just as the physical dangers that LGBTQIAs, women, and people of color disproportionately have to face, is dismissive of their respective struggle. For example, I'm not allowed to say the N-word? Boo-hoo, I guess I'm gonna have to choose from the other tens of thousands of words in the English language instead. Poor, oppressed, white me!

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.

Why? I feel like this indicates that you see this as some sort of zero-sum game in which one of us wins and the other one loses. That mindset, FWIW, is fundamental to fueling racism, sexism, homophobia, and genderphobia.

Now you said a lot in this last bit, so I'm going to try to hear it out:

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.

I'm glad you felt comfortable saying all of that. And I'm in no position to comment on your experiences as a gay man in a mostly-straight world. But I can safely say that society does afford me privileges that it doesn't afford you for the mere fact that I am attracted to women and not other men. Whatever these advantages are of being gay, sure, I admit that they may exist, but overall, the balance of power is decidedly in one direction. As for the issues you raise about effeminatity, men crying, etc., are you familiar with the concept of intersectionality?

You seem to understand that privilege is a real live thing. Good. What I want you to try next is to not dismiss it when it is called out. And yes, I know from experience, it is not an easy thing at first. But trust me, it's worth it in the long run.

 

[gsa]

Here. See #3.

Let me get this straight: Scalzi’s "difficulty setting" is impervious to wealth and economic status because those factors are not socially "inherent," but the social constructs of race, sexuality and gender are socially "inherent" and therefore must be taken into account? So someone who is a black lesbian born into a family of accepting billionaires starts with fewer points than a white male born into a destitute family in a trailer park?

It makes me ill to think that anyone claiming this would call themselves a leftist.

OK, what I'm about to say may torpedo any chance we had of coming to a consensus on this matter, but I feel it needs to be said anyway: The highlighted phrase had no business being said. It is a lie, pure and simple. Privileged people commonly resort to this line, not because it is the truth--it's not--but as a means to preserve their power over the disenfranchised. And if you disagree with this--which I assume you will--then I invite you to look within yourself and figure out why. Here's the thing: I'm not blameless, either. I wish I had been able to overcome the hurdle of what privilege really means earlier in life: It is a relative measure, not an absolute measure. As Scalzi points out, it does not mean that all whites have it good and all blacks have it bad, for example. There are plenty of counterexamples to that.

Elite members of socially disadvantaged groups are still members of the elite. If you do not believe that class trumps these categories then you a) do not understand the way that the ruling class operates and b) tend to support political solutions that will either fail to address the true structural problems with society or even worse, exacerbate them.

You can stop psychoanalyzing me, Dr. Freud. I’m not the one ignoring the political saliency of class in favor of identity politics. There’s a reason that I reject your approach that has nothing to do with being a reactionary or harboring deep seated anxieties about race, gender and sexuality. I mean, this is an online forum. How do you even know anything about me? My race, gender or sexuality?

Motivational consciousness raising is no replacement for serious politics.

Perhaps this is something that the Democratic party needs to consider more closely. I agree, more progress is needed. For instance, the President of the United States mentioned the word "transgender" in a SOTU address for the first time ever. While this is great, we still have a long ways to go on that issue alone. You're right, the Democratic party should never, ever grow complacent with the status quo.

You need to re-read what I wrote. The idea that referencing the LGBT community during the state of the union address is some sort of meaningful progressive milestone is part of the reason no one takes this level of analysis seriously.

Good, because reactionaries want to return to "the way things used to be," which is not at all what most proponents of civil rights, women's rights, LGBTQIA rights, etc. want.

Reactionaries also embolden the ruling class by ignoring the category of class in order to engage in sectarian and comparative oppression wars.

 

[dust1n]

I'd say wealth is a much great indicator toward advantage, though this is relatively new... However, a black lesbian billionaire probably doesn't get to go to the billionaire functions.

 

[gsa]

I'd say wealth is a much great indicator toward advantage, though this is relatively new... However, a black lesbian billionaire probably doesn't get to go to the billionaire functions.

Wealth has always been a good indicator of social advantage. It is no trump card, but nothing else is either. And there are few disadvantages that come with being a socially disadvantaged group that cannot be either overcome or diluted with wealth. The need to contest this obvious point is mind boggling.

 

[dust1n]

Wealth has always been a good indicator of social advantage. It is no trump card, but nothing else is either. And there are few disadvantages that come with being a socially disadvantaged group that cannot be either overcome or diluted with wealth. The need to contest this obvious point is mind boggling.

I don't know. I'd have to think about any and all cases. But one example that comes to mind is that the lame prestigious Augusta golf club that just admitted females only two years ago. Those two women being Condolezza Rice and Darla Moore, the latter who is a multibillionaire.

But obviously being hated and rich affords one a lot more material opportunities than being loved and poor.

I guess it would be unfair to say that wealth hasn't always been a great indicator of wealth, but race and gender and play less of a role than say, anytime more than 40 years ago.

 

[gsa]

I don't know. I'd have to think about any and all cases. But one example that comes to mind is that the lame prestigious Augusta golf club that just admitted females only two years ago. Those two women being Condolezza Rice and Darla Moore, the latter who is a multibillionaire.

But obviously being hated and rich affords one a lot more material opportunities than being loved and poor.

I guess it would be unfair to say that wealth hasn't always been a great indicator of wealth, but race and gender and play less of a role than say, anytime more than 40 years ago.

I am not sure I understand your very last point, but I am not denying that racism or homophobia or sexism has any impact on rich minorities and women. I am simply denying that it makes them as socially disadvantaged as the white male born into poverty. His ability to flourish as a human being is far more diminished as a result of that accident of birth than theirs will be, and it is solely a result of wealth.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I am not sure I understand your very last point, but I am not denying that racism or homophobia or sexism has any impact on rich minorities and women. I am simply denying that it makes them as socially disadvantaged as the white male born into poverty. His ability to flourish as a human being is far more diminished as a result of that accident of birth than theirs will be, and it is solely a result of wealth.

Is there a suitable description for this phenomenon that doesn't offend people or cause rich folks to bristle at the terminology?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I am not sure I understand your very last point, but I am not denying that racism or homophobia or sexism has any impact on rich minorities and women. I am simply denying that it makes them as socially disadvantaged as the white male born into poverty. His ability to flourish as a human being is far more diminished as a result of that accident of birth than theirs will be, and it is solely a result of wealth.

A white cisgendered male, even poverty, will not know the struggles faced by everyone who isn't a white cisgendered male (and in America it really helps to be Christian). Just having a "non-white" name alone can get your resume/application over looked. A white man in poverty is not at any greater disadvantage than a black person, trans person, and he certainly is not lesser privileged than a woman, whose natural act of giving birth puts her at odds against the corporate culture. I think it was Chris Rock who said if you're white, then smile: you're white.

 

[gsa]

A white cisgendered male, even poverty, will not know the struggles faced by everyone who isn't a white cisgendered male (and in America it really helps to be Christian). Just having a "non-white" name alone can get your resume/application over looked. A white man in poverty is not at any greater disadvantage than a black person, trans person, and he certainly is not lesser privileged than a woman, whose natural act of giving birth puts her at odds against the corporate culture. I think it was Chris Rock who said if you're white, then smile: you're white.

This isn't all things being equal, this is comparing an impoverished white male to wealthy minorities and women. I'm controlling for wealth, but you are sidestepping it.

 

[dust1n]

I am not sure I understand your very last point, but I am not denying that racism or homophobia or sexism has any impact on rich minorities and women. I am simply denying that it makes them as socially disadvantaged as the white male born into poverty. His ability to flourish as a human being is far more diminished as a result of that accident of birth than theirs will be, and it is solely a result of wealth.

Oh, my point was just correcting what I had said once you pointed something out.

Yeah, I suppose being a male being born into poverty sucks. There are plenty of problems concerning poverty that involve much of the world.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Let me get this straight: Scalzi’s "difficulty setting" is impervious to wealth and economic status because those factors are not socially "inherent," but the social constructs of race, sexuality and gender are socially "inherent" and therefore must be taken into account? So someone who is a black lesbian born into a family of accepting billionaires starts with fewer points than a white male born into a destitute family in a trailer park?

It makes me ill to think that anyone claiming this would call themselves a leftist.

See, it's because of your defensiveness that we're just going round in circles now. That's how 99.99% of these kinds of discussions play out. Privileged people almost always view these discussions not as discussions but as attacks. What they choose to not understand is that they are never in any physical or economic danger as a direct result of said discussions. Disenfranchised groups, because of the disenfranchisement that they experience, are. Note that Scalzi also addressed this, but you choose not to listen to that point, either.

Elite members of socially disadvantaged groups are still members of the elite. If you do not believe that class trumps these categories then you a) do not understand the way that the ruling class operates and b) tend to support political solutions that will either fail to address the true structural problems with society or even worse, exacerbate them.

You can stop psychoanalyzing me, Dr. Freud. I’m not the one ignoring the political saliency of class in favor of identity politics. There’s a reason that I reject your approach that has nothing to do with being a reactionary or harboring deep seated anxieties about race, gender and sexuality. I mean, this is an online forum. How do you even know anything about me? My race, gender or sexuality?

Motivational consciousness raising is no replacement for serious politics.

Again, the first highlighted part is a direct result of privilege (or if you're not, the far less likely chance that you're just enabling the privileged). Why are you being so defensive over this point? Also, if you cannot see the second highlighted part implies that you are more likely white than a person of color, more likely male than female, and more likely straight and cisgender than LGBTQIA, then you simply do not understand what privilege is. And there's not a defensive comment in the world that can fix that problem.

Another thing. Nowhere anywhere in this thread did I even suggest that being rich isn't an advantage. Neither did Scalzi anywhere in his article. We're on the same page there. Scalzi points out the distinction, and I leave it as an exercise to you to discover it.

You need to re-read what I wrote. The idea that referencing the LGBT community during the state of the union address is some sort of meaningful progressive milestone is part of the reason no one takes this level of analysis seriously.

Uh, wow, okay...Obama is only the President of the United States...it's not like what he says matters or anything. Really, man, you need to think what you say through before you say it.

Reactionaries also embolden the ruling class by ignoring the category of class in order to engage in sectarian and comparative oppression wars.

And when has the LGBTQIA community, black community, or any other disenfranchised community in the United States attempted to "engage in sectarian and comparative oppression wars"? That accusation is offensive. It blows their justifiable anger out of proportion, and it trivializes the real, life oppression that they have to deal with every day of our lives, simply because people such as you and me refuse to do anything about it.

Seriously, gsa, you need to just stop. And. Listen. Listen to the voices that have been trying to get their message out for a long, long, long time. Just listen, and hear what they have to say. Can you at least do that?

 

[Revoltingest]

A white cisgendered male, even poverty, will not know the struggles faced by everyone who isn't a white cisgendered male (and in America it really helps to be Christian). Just having a "non-white" name alone can get your resume/application over looked. A white man in poverty is not at any greater disadvantage than a black person, trans person, and he certainly is not lesser privileged than a woman, whose natural act of giving birth puts her at odds against the corporate culture. I think it was Chris Rock who said if you're white, then smile: you're white.

Does the current fashion of decrying "privilege" serve any useful purpose? And is it useful to declare some groups as privileged, & others as not? (This ignores individual variation, & effects of intersecting group memberships.)

When 'progressives' lecture me about my privilege, it seems ostensibly to educate & edify me towards some vague end which will improve the lot of the woebegone. But it seems pointless....I'm well off & I know it. I don't feel guilty about it, & I'm not giving it up. And sometimes the accusation of "privilege" seems a mere lament or attack. Well, that isn't going to persuade me to change anything. (Ironically, the accusers are so often blind to their own privilege, eg, affirmative action beneficiary, preferential treatment in the justice system, economic advantage, education.)

I say it makes more sense to focus on identifying problems for solution, rather than calling attention to groups whose members have a tendency to do well. "Privilege"....there ought'a be more of it for everyone.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

My experience on that is growing up male, though I got some bits of advice about environmental awareness and being cautious about people and drinks and stuff, the idea of being aware of specifically rape never was mentioned, never brought up, and never made to be a concern until after I took the first few steps in transitioning. At a discussion meeting my therapist had, she asked how many of us have become afraid of rape like never before, and everyone who was living full time nodded in agreement.

Thank you.

Is there a reason why as growing up presenting and being perceived as male you were never afraid specifically of being raped? In your opinion? Do you think it's taboo to discuss males being raped and risk awareness? Is it something else or a combination of factors?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Does the current fashion of decrying "privilege" serve any useful purpose? And is it useful to declare some groups as privileged, & others as not? (This ignores individual variation, & effects of intersecting group memberships.)

When 'progressives' lecture me about my privilege, it seems ostensibly to educate & edify me towards some vague end which will improve the lot of the woebegone. But it seems pointless....I'm well off & I know it. I don't feel guilty about it, & I'm not giving it up. And sometimes the accusation of "privilege" seems a mere lament or attack. Well, that isn't going to persuade me to change anything. (Ironically, the accusers are so often blind to their own privilege, eg, affirmative action beneficiary, preferential treatment in the justice system, economic advantage, education.)

I say it makes more sense to focus on identifying problems for solution, rather than calling attention to groups whose members have a tendency to do well. "Privilege"....there ought'a be more of it for everyone.

Meh, on the other hand, when I have done exactly that, I hear the "cult of victimhood" or "playing the victim"....as well as the complete denial of problems in the first place.

"There is no wage gap."

"Women aren't in any more risk of getting raped. It's all histrionics."

"Racial profiling doesn't exist. Black people just need to respect the police and everything would be fine."

"Trans people shouldn't get special treatment because of having to pee at a public establishment. What if my daughter is in the same bathroom as some rapist who decides to call himself a woman just to get access to my kid?"

The problem with that is in so far as identifying the problem for solution-creation, what happens is a complete denial of the issues raised by disenfranchised groups. And this ends the conversation, unfortunately. Women wanting to talk about the wage gap have to go through more efforts to display the evidence over and over and over again while getting the brick wall, or worse, being told we are simply imagining things while "playing the victim."

At a certain point, people start asking the question of "why?"...why people do not see what others see or experience what others experience. The explanation IMO of privilege is much much less of an attack than condascendingly accusing someone of not taking enough responsibility, playing the victim, telling a boo hoo sob story for attention.

I've heard it all. I've been told by people of color to check my privilege when I have said something out of ignorance as a white person, and believe me that is a vacation compared to being told I'm imagining things and taking no responsibility.

THAT is the attack. It's the same thing as straight people saying they don't want gay people shoving their love lives down people's throats, and considering doing so as an attack.

So...anyone have a more respectful terminology or descriptor of the grouped contrast in life experiences between demographics?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Does the current fashion of decrying "privilege" serve any useful purpose? And is it useful to declare some groups as privileged, & others as not? (This ignores individual variation, & effects of intersecting group memberships.)

When 'progressives' lecture me about my privilege, it seems ostensibly to educate & edify me towards some vague end which will improve the lot of the woebegone. But it seems pointless....I'm well off & I know it. I don't feel guilty about it, & I'm not giving it up. And sometimes the accusation of "privilege" seems a mere lament or attack. Well, that isn't going to persuade me to change anything. (Ironically, the accusers are so often blind to their own privilege, eg, affirmative action beneficiary, preferential treatment in the justice system, economic advantage, education.)

I say it makes more sense to focus on identifying problems for solution, rather than calling attention to groups whose members have a tendency to do well. "Privilege"....there ought'a be more of it for everyone.

I think one of the main things we should recognize as privileged people is the extent to which we can use this status to cause change so that the scales don't remain as unbalanced as they are now. It's not an attack to point out what you can do with the privilege you have; saying that you don't want people to point that out, that you're not feeling guilty about it, and that you're not going to give it up seems to me to be a way of dismissing a very real and long-standing problem.

(Yes, I consider both you and myself socially privileged due to being cisgendered males. Sue me. )