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

[Sunstone]

It seems to me that some discussions of this group not being able to understand that group neglect basic facts about human nature. Such as the basic fact that humans tend to have empathy for others. Or that humans tend to have imaginations. Sure, there's a degree to which you cannot understand other people's experiences and lives. But it is possible to make too much of that. In my opinion, folks that don't substantially (albeit imperfectly) understand where others are coming from most likely haven't made that much of an effort to do so -- which is, perhaps, an all too common problem.

 

[Sunstone]

The concept of privilege strikes me as a very useful one in explaining or describing certain facts about society. For instance, the fact that white teens need, on average, to commit more, and more serious, crimes than black teens before they are jailed.

 

[Sunstone]

I actually wonder about folks who deny privilege exists or that it's significant in, say, American society. Do they also believe George Washington never told a lie? I mean, what kind of rosy view of things must you have to think privilege doesn't exist or isn't significant? Especially given that a failure to understand that much about a society -- any society -- amounts in practice to a failure to understand human nature.

We'll never get rid of privilege entirely, but we can ameliorate it. Yet, those of us who are in denial of the fact or significance of it are no more going to help with that than people who deny racism exists are going to help ameliorate racism.

 

[Revoltingest]

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?"

Inaccurate statements abound. There are those you listed, & many others. We can agree that wrongful statements should be disputed. The issue before us is how best to do it. So.....what's the goal? I say it should be to recognize the problems, to understand them, & to devise solutions. If some approaches get in the way of this goal, then it's time to reconsider them.

I think in terms of technical writing..... Identify your audience. What message/info do you want to convey? What effect upon them do you intend? Communication should serve this purpose.

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."

If someone denies that a real problem exists, then the best approach would be to provide a cogent argument. But too often, we merely see claims maid without support, which is unconvincing.

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.

Don't we all wonder why others just can't see things as we do? This isn't limited to this or that group. What options do we have to change their minds other than cogent argument.& civil discourse? There are public demonstrations & civil disobedience to call attention to problems, but ultimately these methods must be backed up by reasoned persuasion.

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.

You're not alone in being dismissed & dissed. It happens to all of us....even me....it's true! I'm regularly told that I haven't read the right books, that someone like me just cannot understand someone like them, that I'm a racist, that I'm a misogynist, that I'm an abuser, that I'm a stalker, that I'm crazy, etc, etc. We must persevere despite the verbal missiles lobbed at us..

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?

This is too broad a question for a specific answer. Suffice to say that people who are disrespectful to others won't find their arguments effecting agreement.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Even before "privilege" became a buzzword, we all discussed problems & solutions. We used the power we have to effect change. This word which focuses upon those groups nominally without problems doesn't add anything, but does draw focus away from the disadvantaged. But it is sometimes used as an attack, as Mystic experienced. (Personally, I don't recall anyone ever rudely pointing that word in my direction.)

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

Meh....we're all privileged here.
In order to sue, I'll need your full name (real one), address, social security number, & bank account numbers. You're required by law to give those to me. I recommend doing it by PM because there are some unscrupulous people here.

 

[Revoltingest]

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?

A 2nd response to this post:
So much of your post is a long list of offensive statements you've endured. I don't understand how this relates to the OP's theme of addressing problems in the process of discussion. Is it your call for greater civility from those who oppose you, or is it justification for responding in kind?

The above question has been a difficult one to word such that it will be taken solely in the spirit of understanding your perspective. If it comes across as offensive, then I've messed up.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Inaccurate statements abound...

Well, that's that, then. When my part and my perspective of the conversation is seen as "inaccurate" from the get-go, then where do we go from there besides changing the tone from equal understanding to one where I now have to prove that my own perspective is valid?

Once or twice with the same party? Fine. But repeated attempts with the same party make for a very lopsided conversation. It becomes unproductive and a waste of time if I must keep explaining why my perspective is even worth considering as valid in the first place.

No disrespect, Rev. I didn't take offense at your responses, fwiw.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

The concept of privilege strikes me as a very useful one in explaining or describing certain facts about society. For instance, the fact that white teens need, on average, to commit more, and more serious, crimes than black teens before they are jailed.

A more obvious privilege is that straight people do not have to consider how they will come out to their parents, while this is a daily stressor for queer teens.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, that's that, then. When my part and my perspective of the conversation is seen as "inaccurate" .....

I was agreeing with you by calling those offensive statements inaccurate.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I was agreeing with you by calling those offensive statements inaccurate.

Oh my mistake. Sorry about the jump to conclusions.

I'll respond again when I'm done working out (getting back into pointe shoes this year).

 

[Revoltingest]

A more obvious privilege is that straight people do not have to consider how they will come out to their parents, while this is a daily stressor for queer teens.

Does it really rise to the level of "privilege" to not have to come out as gay to one's parents? By this standard, non-Asians are privileged because they don't have helicopter parents hounding them relentlessly to get a PhD & a good middle management government job. (Many long stories behind that'n!) Is not needing braces a privilege? Who on Earth doesn't have some difficult family stress? The word "privilege" is so broad as to include nearly everyone, while also ignoring great difficulties someone in a privileged group might have.

 

[gsa]

The concept of privilege strikes me as a very useful one in explaining or describing certain facts about society. For instance, the fact that white teens need, on average, to commit more, and more serious, crimes than black teens before they are jailed.

I actually agree that this is a problem. I do not have any objection to the fact of racial disparity and profiling, gender disparities, etcetera. The problem is with the interpretation of these facts. Scalzi, for example, refuses to integrate class into the analysis because it is not an "inherent" category, as opposed to race, gender or sexuality. But the net effect of that is to significantly downplay or even ignore the impact of class.

The left critique of "privilege analysis" does not assume the argument is invalid or even necessarily oppose measures designed to alleviate racial inequality (i.e., affirmative action). But it does deny the prioritization and dominance of these categories as opposed to class. For this, certain gurus of the privilege movement (such as Tim Wise) denounce this as "economic reductionism," when it is no such thing.

I do not need lectures on these matters from arrogant self-described "privileged straight white males" who have had a road to Damascus moment and now carry the message of privilege with the zeal of a converted true believer. When people bristle at this, they are not necessarily having some deep psychological reaction to being "called on their privilege," as my would-be interlocutor would have it.

 

[gsa]

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

See, it's because of your defensiveness that we're just going round in circles now.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Does it really rise to the level of "privilege" to not have to come out as gay to one's parents? By this standard, non-Asians are privileged because they don't have helicopter parents hounding them relentlessly to get a PhD & a good middle management government job. (Many long stories behind that'n!) Is not needing braces a privilege? Who on Earth doesn't have some difficult family stress? The word "privilege" is so broad as to include nearly everyone, while also ignoring great difficulties someone in a privileged group might have.

I'll address this one first, if I may.

What is often times ignored is the intersectionality of what occurs in various aspects of privilege. I'm short. Tall people have advantages where I don't. However, I'm also educated. I have advantages where someone who doesn't have my level of education. I'm white. I have a white-sounding name. My resumes, should I choose to send them out, won't be glossed over as sounding too "ethnic." I'm also older as a dancer, though I work my butt off to maintain my technique, younger dancers have an advantage and are considered more often for work on stage.

My husband doesn't have the "how not to get raped" speech. I get that speech. He doesn't have to worry about it, though I do. However, I'm more educated than he is and have an advantage that he doesn't.

Utilizing the word "privilege" isn't an indicator of laziness, or that people have it easy. Life is hard for everyone. But let's look at a couple of members here who are transgender, and let's look at those of us who are cisgender. We can go to any establishment and go to the bathroom without much concern except if the establishment has good plumbing, enough toilet paper, or what have you. Trans people consider what we cis people consider plus the concern over whether folks are going to beat them up for being creeps.

We just don't have that added stressor. Trans people do, and these stressors impact day to day living. They have to invest extra time, energy, planning, money, and stress into where they can even go to the bathroom.

If it isn't privilege, then what IS it, then? What can the current discrepancy be called without upsetting somebody or causing folks without these particular stressors feel like they're under attack while acknowledging an inequality overall by everyone in the room?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I actually agree that this is a problem. I do not have any objection to the fact of racial disparity and profiling, gender disparities, etcetera. The problem is with the interpretation of these facts. Scalzi, for example, refuses to integrate class into the analysis because it is not an "inherent" category, as opposed to race, gender or sexuality. But the net effect of that is to significantly downplay or even ignore the impact of class.

I have yet to come across social scientists who advocate for gender and racial equality who downplay the impact of class. Class segregation and privilege is a prime mover in much of the discrepancies we see in equality, IMO.

Is there an assumption that rich black men do not experience racial profiling? I'm not sure if there's that assumption being made or not.

There is no doubt in my mind that rich black men experience less racial profiling than poor black men.

The left critique of "privilege analysis" does not assume the argument is invalid or even necessarily oppose measures designed to alleviate racial inequality (i.e., affirmative action). But it does deny the prioritization and dominance of these categories as opposed to class. For this, certain gurus of the privilege movement (such as Tim Wise) denounce this as "economic reductionism," when it is no such thing.

What do you think is a better description and better solution? No need to write a dissertation, but bullet point a better perspective if you please.

I do not need lectures on these matters from arrogant self-described "privileged straight white males" who have had a road to Damascus moment and now carry the message of privilege with the zeal of a converted true believer. When people bristle at this, they are not necessarily having some deep psychological reaction to being "called on their privilege," as my would-be interlocutor would have it.

I was once told before by a very good friend of mine who is also a black, lesbian, and womanist activist (she refuses to call herself feminist because of the white dominance in much of the discourse) when it came to being an activist/ally and it's contrast with being a social justice warrior....

"While all y'all are standing up yelling at each other over what is important to me, nobody is shutting up long enough to listen to what I'm saying myself. If you give a ****, shut the hell up and listen to me for once, will ya?"

 

[gsa]

I have yet to come across social scientists who advocate for gender and racial equality who downplay the impact of class. Class segregation and privilege is a prime mover in much of the discrepancies we see in equality, IMO.

No, because social scientists are not fools. Note that my interlocutor is probably not a social scientist. That said, there are social scientists that might downplay the impact of class.

Is there an assumption that rich black men do not experience racial profiling? I'm not sure if there's that assumption being made or not.

No, but the social significance of that kind of profiling is quite different. First, it is less pervasive because police target not only minority areas for surveillance, but poor minority areas (and in some areas, just poor areas including where poor whites live). Second, it is far less likely to lead to arrest and prosecution. Class affects all stages of the socially significant actions.

What do you think is a better description and better solution? No need to write a dissertation, but bullet point a better perspective if you please.

I am a socialist, so I favor restructuring the economy to achieve social equality. That would mean things like guaranteed minimum income, a right to housing, free public education, higher taxation on wealth, etc. I am not opposed to addressing racial and sexual discrimination within that framework, but to me it is actually a nonsolution standing alone, and may in fact exacerbate social divisions and inequality.

I was once told before by a very good friend of mine who is also a black, lesbian, and womanist activist (she refuses to call herself feminist because of the white dominance in much of the discourse) when it came to being an activist/ally and it's contrast with being a social justice warrior....

"While all y'all are standing up yelling at each other over what is important to me, nobody is shutting up long enough to listen to what I'm saying myself. If you give a ****, shut the hell up and listen to me for once, will ya?"

Which has its place. I am not opposed to listening to the experiences of socially oppressed groups; what leftist would be? Experience and emotion has a role in this too; but it is not dispositive either. What this ridiculous "privilege analysis" assumes is that the left critique is somehow reductionist or all about poor whites. That’s a ridiculous caricature of both the liberal and socialist traditions.

 

[leibowde84]

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".

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?

There are people like the ones you describe on both sides of politics. The problem is that the only ones we hear from are the loud ones.

 

[Apex]

Anyone else have a sense of deja vu from this thread?

 

[Revoltingest]

If it isn't privilege, then what IS it, then? What can the current discrepancy be called without upsetting somebody or causing folks without these particular stressors feel like they're under attack while acknowledging an inequality overall by everyone in the room?

I don't say that "privilege" doesn't exist. Instead, I say it's a redundant perspective at best....one with problems.
- It's taken up by some to attack those they believe have it.
- It addresses a problem by focusing on people lacking the problem.
- It doesn't focus on the people with the problem.
- As we see here, it's overly broad.
- It's redundant at best.
Let's consider just one of the above as applied to academic performance of black kids in schools. If we presume that white & Asian kids do better cuz of "privilege", then how is the problem to be addressed from this perspective? Reducing "privilege" is wrong, so that's ruled out. It should be about embiggening those who aren't doing well. Looking at this.... Why aren't they doing as well? This will have multiple causes to investigate, but I'll pick one:
Higher percentage of low income status makes kids vulnerable to lead poisoning (pre 1978 housing), poor nutrition, & a reduced pre-school learning environment. Solutions could take the form of food assistance, lead mitigation, parent coaching about educational play.
To reduce all this to "privilege" doesn't improve our understanding, & could even mislead because it isn't about the advantaged kids..

Note: We landlords inform residential tenants of lead risks from paint & plumbing.
Note: Even trans men & women are privileged relative to straight guys. They're not subject to the draft.

 

[Revoltingest]

Anyone else have a sense of deja vu from this thread?

Oh, yeah....