The Prejudice of Implicit Privilege

[Augustus]

Doesn't privelege do exactly that? Privelege of one implies discrimination against another, I'd have thought?

As I said before, arguing that you are 'technically' correct does very little to win the popular conversation.

My argument is specifically about framing the issue in terms of being persuasive to as large a group as possible. Use the term privilege and you unnecessarily alienate large umbers of people. That's just a fact.

So should people looking to make a positive change deal with the world as it is, or stubbornly stick to some personal terminological preference?

 

[Augustus]

I don't see it as an either-or scenario.

In terms of a mass audience you have to. You don't have enough of their time or focus to start off on the wrong foot.

Preaching to the choir you have a choice.

 

[sealchan]

As I said before, arguing that you are 'technically' correct does very little to win the popular conversation.

My argument is specifically about framing the issue in terms of being persuasive to as large a group as possible. Use the term privilege and you unnecessarily alienate large umbers of people. That's just a fact.

So should people looking to make a positive change deal with the world as it is, or stubbornly stick to some personal terminological preference?

What if someone argues that by only being concerned about 'x' they can't be held accountable for being discriminatory against 'y'? That is the whole point of the term privilege, to identify a new class of discriminatory behavior that DOES NOT require any conscious discriminatory belief.

For example, someone calls the police because they see someone suspicious. The caller was white, the man was black, the caller couldn't identify to the police any specific behavior that was suspicious other than he was unknown to the caller. Let's say the caller has black friends whom he was on the way to meeting.

In this case there is no overt reason to say that the caller was racist.

But let's say that in analogous scenarios, there is a greatly disproportionate number of incidents involving white callers and black suspects.

What do you call that?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I'm sure I must have missed those threads...I'm mainly focused on religion, science and such but I do find myself more and more motivated to look at political issues after recent events.

I'm like you...I like to discuss religion, science, metaphysics but lately a lot of threads popping up tend to be redundant, recycled, and regurgitated. Race and racial politics are largely avoided. My guess as a man of color is a large portion of our Caucasian members do not like being confronted with racism portrayed by their demographic on a regular basis (this is not to say people of color are not antagonists and racist themselves). For me, as a social worker professional now my job is to be an advocate to the disenfranchised and to those who have no voice and one of the things where some people do not have a voice are those who are unable to speak on platforms like religiousforums.com.

When you talk about sensitive subjects especially where people have to be honest about their demographic and especially when you tell your story people hate to be confronted with truth. If they hate my mouth here they should never go on a black website....It is brutal.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

In terms of a mass audience you have to. You don't have enough of their time or focus to start off on the wrong foot.

Preaching to the choir you have a choice.

Again, if I'm worrying about making the wrong impression because some people don't understand or like the usage of a specific term I'd have to stop calling myself a liberal atheist feminist, for fear of starting on the wrong foot. I don't think the conversation will be productive without talking about both 'there is discrimination' and 'you have the power to do something about it because of your position in society.' I don't feel the need to choose between them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you feel that a significant number of people voted for the worse of the two candidates in protest regarding the overall state of politics/choices offered?

Hillary being the worst, no.
People voted for her for a multitude of other reasons....
- Vote for the Woman.
- Vote for the Democrat.
- Hate Trump.
- Vote for the status quo.

 

[Revoltingest]

From what little I did read it seems that challenging a groups "privilege" often brings up prejudicial behavior where that behavior doesn't exist outside of the challenge to their supposed privilege. If those challenged don't buy into the story of their own implicit privilege, certainly one would expect them to protest against charges of being racist.

There is a serious breakdown in mutual understanding in this country and in the conversation is critically failing. I am trying to sincerely understand this.

I will admit that I find it very hard to understand how anything Clinton did or might have done could compare to how bad Trump was even before he was elected. Normally that would have ended his run for office but it so clearly has not. What has fundamentally changed in America's political culture?

I've never found any compelling reason for being lectured about our "privilege".
Moreover, those lecturing always deny up & down their own "privilege".
So it seem just another way to criticize anyone in a majority group by
associating them with racism, without explicitly accusing them.
The guilt trip or solutions intended never work.

Instead of focusing on "privilege", examine where people are wrongly
denied what should be theirs. That'll actually achieve something.

 

[Augustus]

Again, if I'm worrying about making the wrong impression because some people don't understand or like the usage of a specific term I'd have to stop calling myself a liberal atheist feminist, for fear of starting on the wrong foot.

Were you trying to reach a mass American audience with a goal of being as persuasive as possible then it would be advisable, you aren't though.

My point was that if progressives, in general, want their ideas to be accepted by larger numbers of people then they need to learn how to frame them in a manner that doesn't instantly lose much of their audience.

The US right is far better at framing issues than the left (estate tax/death tax, tax cuts/tax relief).

It's often not what you say that's important, but how you make people feel.

I don't think the conversation will be productive without talking about both 'there is discrimination' and 'you have the power to do something about it because of your position in society.' I don't feel the need to choose between them.

In general, if your goal is to influence people who don't already agree, your choice is between using the term privilege and being persuasive.

You just managed to explain perfectly well without using the term 'privilege'. That's all it requires. You don't have to make any ethical or moral compromises, just avoid using the word privilege.

The linguistic frame is often more important than the idea you are presenting. There is much research on this issue, and decades of professional practice.

Do you believe the term 'privilege' is effective for reaching mutual understanding?

If so, why? If not, why insist on using it?

 

[Augustus]

But let's say that in analogous scenarios, there is a greatly disproportionate number of incidents involving white callers and black suspects.

What do you call that?

Almost anything except 'privilege' if you want to change people's minds.

There are hundreds of thousands of words in the English language, to purposely choose one which basically attacks the person you are trying to influence is not an intelligent way of discussing something if your goal is to influence them. It can even alienate people who completely agree with you.

Do you believe that the words we choose can often be more important than the point we are making?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Were you trying to reach a mass American audience with a goal of being as persuasive as possible then it would be advisable, you aren't though.

My point was that if progressives, in general, want their ideas to be accepted by larger numbers of people then they need to learn how to frame them in a manner that doesn't instantly lose much of their audience.

The US right is far better at framing issues than the left (estate tax/death tax, tax cuts/tax relief).

It's often not what you say that's important, but how you make people feel.



In general, if your goal is to influence people who don't already agree, your choice is between using the term privilege and being persuasive.

You just managed to explain perfectly well without using the term 'privilege'. That's all it requires. You don't have to make any ethical or moral compromises, just avoid using the word privilege.

The linguistic frame is often more important than the idea you are presenting. There is much research on this issue, and decades of professional practice.

Do you believe the term 'privilege' is effective for reaching mutual understanding?

If so, why? If not, why insist on using it?

I'm not a political campaigner or advertiser. That's not how I want to reach out. If we hit a road block any time someone mentions there are power dynamics they benefit from while others suffer from, or that stopping active discrimination isn't a solution without also addressing these structures... then they're not ready to have the dialogue, no matter what I call the phenomna. I call it privilege because its a useful term that's well circulated and understood by people I do intend to speak with.

So yes, I do think it's effective. Ditto liberal, atheist, feminist even if there are those who would balk at my usage, feel that the word is too confrontational or something beyond my use.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

"I've never found any compelling reason for being lectured about our "privilege".
Moreover, those lecturing always deny up & down their own "privilege".
So it seem just another way to criticize anyone in a majority group by
associating them with racism, without explicitly accusing them.
The guilt trip or solutions intended never work."

"Some people take white privilege as a moral accusation against them personally. The existence of white privilege doesn’t make any one of us a bad person. No single one of us invented it and we were all born into a world in which it already existed. In a way, it even co-opts us whites. The existence of white privilege does not reflect on the morality of any one of us. Our individual responses to white privilege, however, do.
Once we start to see how white prevalence impacts the way we see race, we can start to look for other perspectives. We can listen to people of color with respect rather than disbelief. In a very real sense, they are likely to have more expertise in seeing its workings because of their experience. Relying on the experience of others to understand so much about our world can make us feel vulnerable.

As a white man, I know what it’s like to feel defensive about race. I’ve used arguments like, “My family wasn’t even here during slavery, and went through all kinds of hardships to overcome them,” to diminish white privilege’s impact on people of color. I’ve experienced my own strong emotional reactions against the examination of how our current system is a legacy of the past and how it acts outside of our immediate awareness to sustain itself. I’ve felt my own desire to diminish what’s said by people speaking out or protesting against racism.

Defensiveness can make us want to attack people who make us feel uncomfortable. We can confuse that feeling with feelings of moral outrage toward those people for what they’re saying or doing, especially when their experience contradicts our worldview. Having misconceptions about white privilege contributes to that confusion. Much of my basic obligation to fairness relies on the choices I make about those feelings."

Why Some White People Don’t See White Privilege | HuffPost

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Nah. Self indulgence is.

That's what a double standard is, uber-self-indulgence at the expense of the rights of others. If your a fat couch potato and keep to yourself, who cares.

 

[Koldo]

I must agree with @Augustus here.

The way we typically frame 'privileges' is as some sort of bonus that some people have. But in the 'privilege talk', the privilege term is used in a way that literally everyone and their mothers has privileges. Even having access to a right is a form of privilege. The problem being that (1) if everyone has privileges, then it feels like no one does, and (2) the average Joe and Jane don't feel like they have a privilege when they are struggling to pay their own bills.

Do you want Joe and Jane to side with you ? Drop the privilege talk. Just raise awareness.

 

[Koldo]

I'm not a political campaigner or advertiser. That's not how I want to reach out. If we hit a road block any time someone mentions there are power dynamics they benefit from while others suffer from, or that stopping active discrimination isn't a solution without also addressing these structures... then they're not ready to have the dialogue, no matter what I call the phenomna. I call it privilege because its a useful term that's well circulated and understood by people I do intend to speak with.

So yes, I do think it's effective. Ditto liberal, atheist, feminist even if there are those who would balk at my usage, feel that the word is too confrontational or something beyond my use.

Do you mean you only intend to speak with people that agree with you ?

 

[Augustus]

I'm not a political campaigner or advertiser. That's not how I want to reach out... I call it privilege because its a useful term that's well circulated and understood by people I do intend to speak with.

This was the context of my discussion though.

I assume that the overall purpose of identifying and discussing 'white privilege' is to have a positive effect on society. This requires mass communication.

While it might be ok for academic discussions, those involving active educated publics with open minds, chatting with friends or preaching to the choir, it is terrible for mass, popular communication.

It triggers a negative emotional response which is a disaster, gives people an easy 'out' if they want, and can even be rejected by someone who actually agrees with the sentiment behind it.

So yes, I do think it's effective.

For popular consumption with a goal of bringing people around to your position? As in, this is how people should collectively address the issue if they want real social change?

 

[Augustus]

"Some people take white privilege as a moral accusation against them personally. The existence of white privilege doesn’t make any one of us a bad person. No single one of us invented it and we were all born into a world in which it already existed. In a way, it even co-opts us whites. The existence of white privilege does not reflect on the morality of any one of us. Our individual responses to white privilege, however, do.

The fact that people have to write things like this to explain how a term is not an accusation of moral failings is precisely why anyone wishing to be persuasive should avoid it like the plague.

 

[Revoltingest]

"I've never found any compelling reason for being lectured about our "privilege".
Moreover, those lecturing always deny up & down their own "privilege".
So it seem just another way to criticize anyone in a majority group by
associating them with racism, without explicitly accusing them.
The guilt trip or solutions intended never work."

"Some people take white privilege as a moral accusation against them personally. The existence of white privilege doesn’t make any one of us a bad person. No single one of us invented it and we were all born into a world in which it already existed. In a way, it even co-opts us whites. The existence of white privilege does not reflect on the morality of any one of us. Our individual responses to white privilege, however, do.
Once we start to see how white prevalence impacts the way we see race, we can start to look for other perspectives. We can listen to people of color with respect rather than disbelief. In a very real sense, they are likely to have more expertise in seeing its workings because of their experience. Relying on the experience of others to understand so much about our world can make us feel vulnerable.

As a white man, I know what it’s like to feel defensive about race. I’ve used arguments like, “My family wasn’t even here during slavery, and went through all kinds of hardships to overcome them,” to diminish white privilege’s impact on people of color. I’ve experienced my own strong emotional reactions against the examination of how our current system is a legacy of the past and how it acts outside of our immediate awareness to sustain itself. I’ve felt my own desire to diminish what’s said by people speaking out or protesting against racism.

Defensiveness can make us want to attack people who make us feel uncomfortable. We can confuse that feeling with feelings of moral outrage toward those people for what they’re saying or doing, especially when their experience contradicts our worldview. Having misconceptions about white privilege contributes to that confusion. Much of my basic obligation to fairness relies on the choices I make about those feelings."

Why Some White People Don’t See White Privilege | HuffPost

Interesting that you red quote me without alerting me.
And then you chop off the more important part of the quote.
Again, the question...
Of what use is focusing upon "privilege" instead of the plight of those wrongfully denied rights?

There is often a presumption that "privilege" is about race.
But the charge is also wielded by some feminists who believe that
men have it but women don't. When told of their longer lifespan &
exemption from the military draft, they dismiss this as irrelevant.
Even black folk have their share of the privilege pie, with preferential
treatment by government & under affirmative action (which still exists,
even if not in name).
People might prefer the "privilege" afforded some other group, but
even those who feel disadvantaged typically have theirs.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

The fact that people have to write things like this to explain how a term is not an accusation of moral failings is precisely why anyone wishing to be persuasive should avoid it like the plague.

Like my professor once said "people do not wish to acknowledge things even when you hold the mirror to their face"

The guy that wrote that made a lot of sense as to why in this case "white privilege" is often met with defensiveness.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Even black folk have their share of the privilege pie, with preferential
treatment by government & under affirmative action (which still exists,
even if not in name).

Respect is earned, not given and there is none with you especially with such an ignorant statement. Need I remind you that the females within your demographic benefit more from affirmative action than us:

White women benefit from affirmative action the most.

In the first two decades of affirmative action, white women saw more growth in their careers than any racial group. Columbia University law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw explained in her 2006 essay “Framing Affirmative Action” why depicting a black person as the poster child for affirmative action is flawed. “The primary beneficiaries of affirmative action have been Euro-American women,” she wrote.

Today, women outnumber men on college campuses and are more likely to earn their bachelor’s degrees and attend graduate school than men. More than 30 years after affirmative action was extended to include women, the percentage of female physicians jumped from 7.6 to 25.2. However, these improvement are more likely to benefit white women than women of color.

See:4 Key Points That Debunk Misconceptions Around Affirmative Action

"Even black folk have their share of the privilege pie, with preferential
treatment by government"

Federal assistance benefits working-class whites most, study says

Working-class whites are the biggest beneficiaries of federal poverty-reduction programs, even though blacks and Hispanics have substantially higher rates of poverty, according to a study released Thursday by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Government assistance and tax credits lifted 6.2 million working-class whites out of poverty in 2014, more than any other racial or ethnic demographic. Half of all working-age adults without college degrees lifted out of poverty by safety-net programs are white; nearly a quarter are black and a fifth are Hispanic.

The result does not simply reflect the fact there are more white people. The percentage of otherwise poor whites lifted from poverty by government safety-net programs is higher, at 44 percent, compared with 35 percent of otherwise poor minorities, the study concluded.


Among working-class minorities, 43 percent of otherwise poor blacks were lifted from poverty by the federal safety net. Only 28 percent of otherwise poor Hispanics were lifted from poverty.

“There is a perception out there that the safety net is only for minorities. While it’s very important to minorities . . . it’s also quite important to whites, particularly the white working class,” said Isaac Shapiro, a senior fellow at the center and one of the report’s authors.

See:https://www.newsday.com/news/nation...rking-class-whites-most-study-says-1.13138023

The next time you want to make asinine statements make sure you do internetz

 

[Revoltingest]

Respect is earned, not given and there is none with you especially with such an ignorant statement.

Meh....I don't expect respect from anyone here.
Some people will give it.
But some won't.
I don't take it personally.
And I recommend that you learn to do the same.
You'd experience less anger & hostility, which would
enable more understanding of opposing views.