- the problem is that "prejudice" and "bias" are emotionally-laden words that have come to have powerful connotations (and, perhaps by now, even denotations?) that push them directly into the "THIS IS BAD" category, even if they still serve in non-bad ways.
Privlidge seems to have hit that rather quickly.
As an example, I am biased against venomous snakes. Why? I don't want to be bitten.
How does this translate? I avoid the things as much as possible, and if it's not possible, I either work to shoo them off my property with snake-b-gone, or kill them with my hoe the farming implement, Internet: the farming implement.
Your feelings are acceptable. Your actions are not. Unless you live somewhere with an aggressive AND dangerously venomous snake having an irrational fear of a creature is one thing, killing it for what it is at an incredibly minor risk to your own life when its done nothing wrong isn't right. Your irrational fears do not warrant killing an innocent creature.
System Administrator
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yes every person has some privileges, some are more prominent than others and some of those come from how society views you without knowing you and how that affects individuals. There's nothing new there. Often we are talking about specific privilege, how a majority and minority are affected differently. Really interesting stuff.
Listen BNW, I'm not trolling, this is an honest question; you mention double secret probation fairly often in threads about privilege. What exactly do mean when you say that, and how is it relevant to the subject of privilege?
Edit: Given my post up thread, I feel a need to clarify that when I say privilege, I'm usually talking about an assumption that my (or whoever's; any individual, I suppose) experience is more valid than another person's.
At the risk of just being wrong, the way it resonates with me is that it seems that by saying "you have privilege" you are accusing him of claiming and using something that he does not want to claim or use.
Then by applying the term "unconscious" (or whatever) you're implying it's like a sleeper agent - spying for "the enemy" even though they don't want to.
That can definitely be excessively offensive, whether or not it's true.
The problem is, his version of privilege and, say, yours (or Lissa's, even if they, too differ) are different from his, but probably not in ways that are easily defined with words. Instead, there's a whole host of contexts and life-lessons that come with the phrase that are applied, and the effect is that accusatory elements are repeatedly shoved in his face... without intent or malice.
(Which is, incidentally, exactly the way he uses the "privilege" - which, as described, he has - up-thread.)
In short, it's a communications issue that's probably exacerbated by politics or personal opinions and how they're wedded together through life experiences.
Your feelings are acceptable. Your actions are not. Unless you live somewhere with an aggressive AND dangerously venomous snake having an irrational fear of a creature is one thing, killing it for what it is at an incredibly minor risk to your own life when its done nothing wrong isn't right. Your irrational fears do not warrant killing an innocent creature.
They certainly are to my way of thinking!
Why? Because I have one of those fore-mentioned four-year-olds who wanders around my yard.
The four-year-old is substantially prioritized above the snake. He is an innocent who will not intentionally hurt or aggravate or otherwise threaten the snake. But he will do it, by odds.
The snake, on the other hand, is an "innocent" who will intentionally strike said child, if threatened - which, by odds, will happen (because creatures nearby to other creatures interact).
It is for his sake (as well as mine) that I take proactive measures.
And yes every person has some privileges, some are more prominent than others and some of those come from how society views you without knowing you and how that affects individuals. There's nothing new there. Often we are talking about specific privilege, how a majority and minority are affected differently. Really interesting stuff.
It is really fascinating... and also really context-laden and sensitive. Which itself is fascinating. Circles...
Y'all talk too much.
True. True.
Y'all talk too much.I agree.
Less reasonable talking and more internet slap fighting, folks!
The peanut gallery is getting restless!
Oh, uh, GRAR! HATE! VITRIOL!
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've taken some time to muse over this topic this morning, and wish I'd had a moment to see it before leaving the office and unplugging from the forums last night. Speaking as a moderator, our general policy would have been to remove this post and have a discussion through email about the inclusion of comments made in other threads on our forums (because they can derail the conversation into a rehash of a disagreement or discussion from a different thread, rather than the intended topic) and suggest it be reposted after revision. It is incredibly easy to interpret the comments made about Crystal/DrDeth's posts to the locked thread in a negative light, though our Community team has assumed the intent to be that these references are meant to be exemplary. For future discussions, it's not the best form to dissect comments in a thread where the poster may not see it or is not actively participating in it, as in the case of new discussion from a thread derailing. Online discussions can be difficult to parse without being able to hear vocal inflection/interpret tone, see body language, and so on. We feel like that is the issue at the heart of the original post and we've chosen to let the discussion continue as there are/can be insightful posts which we feel are of value to our community.
Because of the barrier that online discussions present, it often results in our own ideas being misinterpreted, and it makes the job of moderating those discussions rather difficult (unless there is an explicit and readily identifiable comment that makes it explicitly obvious that the comment is meant to do harm). The nature of online discussions being easy to miss conversational nuances, does result in our own ideas sometimes being misinterpreted. It can also make the job of moderating those discussions difficult. To add some level of transparency, the most important thing I was handed down by Gary Teter/the PMG when I began doing this is (and I'm paraphrasing here): assume that everyone is well-intentioned, even if you know or feel that they are not—everyone has an off-day, or you might be mis-reading at the time. Repeated behaviors are usually the indicator that tips us off to problems, not one-off instances of communication snafus. And as the director of our community now, this is something I impress to every one of our moderators.
Discourse can become tricky when talking about social or political issues because, by their very nature, the topics are personal and people can get very emotionally invested about their point of view. It is not the job of moderators to tell any member of the community that what they think is "wrong," but occasionally a statement will infringe on the guidelines we have in place to keep our community a healthy welcoming environment.
While it's easy to interpret "we don't consider 'cis' to be a personal insult" as a political stance, the motivation behind the decision is that this word itself has a definition that we do not feel violates our Community Guidelines. If someone were to post using "cis" as a way to be personally insulting, that's a different situation. In that case, we would be talking about interpersonal conflict in conjunction with negative appropriation of the word.
We believe that diversity in our community; people coming from all walks of life with different thoughts and political viewpoints, is something that helps the Paizo community be robust and an exciting place to share a common love of gaming. Our intent is to make this space as welcoming from those different viewpoints as is possible.
I suppose the TLDR from myself and the rest of our Community team is this: civil debate is fine, try not to assume the absolute worst of each other, and be cool folks.
It's not every single facet. When we talk about privilege we are talking often about specific types of things and how they differ and what their affects may be.
What would be an example of something that isn't privilege?
Theoretically, something that doesn't determine any sort of advantage relative to another person or group.
Realistically, that is synonymous with "nothing at all".
Your race, your gender, your sexual orientation, those all determine that.
Your religion determines that.
Your interests determine that (people who like sports have a bit of an edge when it comes to social interactions. A larger social pool, and even better business opportunities because it then becomes easier to make common ground with a potential partner or boss).
Where you live and how much you make determines that.
Your appearance determines it, even outside of the obvious race/gender bits.
All of these things and more can give you advantages and disadvantages in society.
Which leaves...what? That everyone is the same species?
To me this sounds like an attempt at marginalizing the issue. Because all things affect outcome, therefore, we can't talk about one of them, because it ignores all the others.
It's a forceful attempt to shut down discussion on the topic.
Silence isn't inclusive. It's just quiet.
Thanks, Chris! I really appreciate it, and apologize for any issue my original post had: it was entirely unintentional on my part.
That is really insightful, and means a lot to me that you are candid and honest. I appreciate it!
* EDIT 2: Bother, a pun. Sorry. Uh... I'll "delete it immediately".
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Listen BNW, I'm not trolling, this is an honest question; you mention double secret probation fairly often in threads about privilege. What exactly do mean when you say that, and how is it relevant to the subject of privilege?
Are you familiar with the 1978 classic of american cinema, animal house?
The dean puts the fraternity on double secret probation: they have a standard of conduct and academic goals that they have to meet, but they're not told what said goals are or even that they exist.
Privlidge comes off the same way to me: you're not told what it is but you are both wrong and a horrible person for using it (whatever it is)
|
System Administrator
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the risk of just being wrong, the way it resonates with me is that it seems that by saying "you have privilege" you are accusing him of claiming and using something that he does not want to claim or use.
I would say that privilege is not something that someone has action over but rather something that happens to them without their knowledge. It's "I like the cut of his jib" or "some aspect of her reminds me of my daughter."
|
System Administrator
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Listen BNW, I'm not trolling, this is an honest question; you mention double secret probation fairly often in threads about privilege. What exactly do mean when you say that, and how is it relevant to the subject of privilege?Are you familiar with the 1978 classic of american cinema, animal house?
The dean puts the fraternity on double secret probation: they have a standard of conduct and academic goals that they have to meet, but they're not told what said goals are or even that they exist.
Privlidge comes off the same way to me: you're not told what it is but you are both wrong and a horrible person for using it (whatever it is)
But you aren't a horrible person for having it. It's not something you can control.
At the risk of just being wrong, the way it resonates with me is that it seems that by saying "you have privilege" you are accusing him of claiming and using something that he does not want to claim or use.
I would say that privilege is not something that someone has action over but rather something that happens to them without their knowledge. It's "I like the cut of his jib" or "some aspect of her reminds me of my daughter."
Exactly. And as he noted: everyone has something like that. And as you noted: some just have more than others. It's not automatically a bad thing (I don't think), but rather the inequity is something that can hopefully be addressed over time. But that might just be (mis?)reading into it.
EDIT: Ah, yeah, exactly. Proven-by-ninja Saranrae!
It's not every single facet. When we talk about privilege we are talking often about specific types of things and how they differ and what their affects may be.
What would be an example of something that isn't privilege?
Theoretically, something that doesn't determine any sort of advantage relative to another person or group.
Realistically, that is synonymous with "nothing at all".
Your race, your gender, your sexual orientation, those all determine that.
Your religion determines that.
Your interests determine that (people who like sports have a bit of an edge when it comes to social interactions. A larger social pool, and even better business opportunities because it then becomes easier to make common ground with a potential partner or boss).
Where you live and how much you make determines that.
Your appearance determines it, even outside of the obvious race/gender bits.
All of these things and more can give you advantages and disadvantages in society.
Which leaves...what? That everyone is the same species?
To me this sounds like an attempt at marginalizing the issue. Because all things affect outcome, therefore, we can't talk about one of them, because it ignores all the others.
It's a forceful attempt to shut down discussion on the topic.
Silence isn't inclusive. It's just quiet.
Mm? No, it's discussing words that people have said.
You can certainly talk about specific things, but what we're discussing is that the term is so broad as to make discussing specifics difficult at best. Since privilege as a theory applies to EVERYTHING, narrowing it down to specifics makes the word worthless, because then you need to qualify.
Privilege is everything, therefore you then need to specify "Privilege gained from being a white male".
It's clunky because the term is far too general when used the way it's been suggested to be used in this thread.
Narrowing it down, perhaps, to "Societal factors outside your control" (race, gender, sexuality, and to an extent wealth) would make it a more meaningful phrase.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Privilege is weird. It specifically involves many things you probably aren't aware of.People generally do not accept double secret probation unless its feeding into an already held belief.
Many little things; tiny little bits that on their own don't amount to much if anything but over the course of a lifetime can have a profound affect or none at all.*paints their Kosh Costume black and purple*
"What do you want?"
"How does defining things in terms of privilege help you get it? *
Listen BNW, I'm not trolling, this is an honest question; you mention double secret probation fairly often in threads about privilege. What exactly do mean when you say that, and how is it relevant to the subject of privilege?
Edit: Given my post up thread, I feel a need to clarify that when I say privilege, I'm usually talking about an assumption that my (or whoever's; any individual, I suppose) experience is more valid than another person's.
I interpret it to mean that if the system of privilege is so pervasive and complex that we cannot avoid contributing to discrimination, and cannot even know the ways that we contribute, then anyone can be accused of discrimination at any time, for any reason, with no defense.
EDIT: ninja'd
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks, Chris! I really appreciate it, and apologize for any issue my original post had: it was entirely unintentional on my part.
That is really insightful, and means a lot to me that you are candid and honest. I appreciate it!
EDIT: Uh... I swear there was a post here! If you want me to delete this, just let me know, and I will
post-haste*.* EDIT 2: Bother, a pun. Sorry. Uh... I'll "delete it immediately".
No worries, I hid while I corrected my editorial mistakes (this is why I'm not an editor/developer/holder of a red pen ;)).
But you aren't a horrible person for having it. It's not something you can control.
It gets used as more than that. It gets used as what you're saying is irrelevant and wrong because you have privilege.
You can't not have privilege because everyone is a majority about something
No worries, I hid while I corrected my editorial mistakes (this is why I'm not an editor/developer/holder of a red pen ;)).Thanks, Chris! I really appreciate it, and apologize for any issue my original post had: it was entirely unintentional on my part.
That is really insightful, and means a lot to me that you are candid and honest. I appreciate it!
EDIT: Uh... I swear there was a post here! If you want me to delete this, just let me know, and I will
post-haste*.* EDIT 2: Bother, a pun. Sorry. Uh... I'll "delete it immediately".
Cool! Thanks. :D
EDIT: For clarity. Thread is hoppin', I'm tellin' ya!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But empirically? There can be no value beyond the "emotional" value of "other people are great, I probably shouldn't hate them" that we (well, I presume most of us) have.
I disagree. Other people can directly affect my quality of life in measurable ways. And it doesn't actually matter how I define quality of life, as long as I actually bother to do so. Granted, they'll affect it differently for the different definitions, so, yeah, that's a case where language can be a stumbling block, but it doesn't need to be an impassible one.
You can't just punt that decision as unimportant because it's not empirically provable. (Note, we can possibly push that decision down a level by showing that the stronger state does or does not provide "better" outcomes for more of its citizens, but that's just pushing the emotional reasoning down a step.)
That's exactly what I propose doing. Push the reasoning down as many levels as possible, until you get to a level that is purely emotional and has no possible connection with reality. Then you declare that level as "not useful input," and instead look at everything above that point. As you yourself point out, we can assign values only to the things that map to how things turn out in the real world. I simply contend that things that don't map to reality not only can be discounted, but should be tagged as "morally suspect," specifically because there is no way to value them.
If we ever get to a scenario in which we push it all the way, and find that the disagreement of two groups solely arises from a level totally divorced from reality, then their disagreement is actually meaningless, and they're both wrong as far as that goes. "Should Gnorgman wear a red cape or a blue one" is a functionally meaningless question, if Gnorgman doesn't exist. No one should be basing real policies on that question. However, in a lot of cases, the source of the disagreement actually comes in at a higher level, where one group is making a faulty valuation of things that can, in fact, be valuated.
Also, it should be pointed out that most people value stuff like survival and happiness (the ones who don't value the former fail to survive, and lose their input; the ones who don't value the latter are ignored by everyone else anyway). So even though valuing those technically is an emotional decision, in practical terms it's a default state. So starting with those usually won't cause you to go too far wrong.
Yeah, it's not perfect, because neither is life. One of those ancient Greeks or other has long ago pointed out that first causes are always unreliable, after all. But there's no need to let perfect be the enemy of good -- there's still a lot we can do even with the obvious limitations.
Granted, they'll affect it differently for the different definitions, so, yeah, that's a case where language can be a stumbling block, but it doesn't need to be an impassible one.
Exactly!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Listen BNW, I'm not trolling, this is an honest question; you mention double secret probation fairly often in threads about privilege. What exactly do mean when you say that, and how is it relevant to the subject of privilege?Are you familiar with the 1978 classic of american cinema, animal house?
The dean puts the fraternity on double secret probation: they have a standard of conduct and academic goals that they have to meet, but they're not told what said goals are or even that they exist.
Privlidge comes off the same way to me: you're not told what it is but you are both wrong and a horrible person for using it (whatever it is)
Thanks for the explanation. Being born into an old New England WASP family, I was never really confused about what it was, but I get where you're coming from.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Careful Kirth, you're getting dangerously close to the philistine club with what would be a good rant against philosophy there... :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Careful Kirth, you're getting dangerously close to the philistine club with what would be a good rant against philosophy there... :)
Never mind that it takes philosophy to even phrase the arguments I'm making.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
. . . Alchemy? *hides under table*
. . . Alchemy? *hides under table*
... so OP? EDIT: (Sorry. It's a joke! Don't take the baaaaiiiit~!)
|
System Administrator
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I interpret it to mean that if the system of privilege is so pervasive and complex that we cannot avoid contributing to discrimination, and cannot even know the ways that we contribute, then anyone can be accused of discrimination at any time, for any reason, with no defense.
EDIT: ninja'd
I think it's important to discuss those though as well as the perceptions of those things. They are important to the public discourse and getting along together and kind of understanding why people may be upset. Ultimately, we need to discuss privilege because we can find little tweaks that may help push society to be a little equitable and I think that's good for everyone. I don't think people don't believe in privilege they just hate the word or consider it more overt than it tends to be.
Also, I'd consider wealth overt and thus a different sort of privilege in general. We can see how money equals influence directly. We can feel it. Probably, unless we've never known anything else. I lived in a trailer growing up, my father had passed when I was two and my mother was legally blind and so we lived largely off of survivors social security. It was a hard life and then I got to a point where I was really comfortable and I was able to put my mother through college and then I transitioned and it's been much more difficult to me. I've felt wealth's ebb and flow directly and I know, mostly, how it affected me. Change generally shows us the difference. Just as I was never really male but most everyone assumed I was and I got to learn a lot about how men and women differ in their individual social networks but my experience is just one of a very few so I don't have all the answers. Also I was weird so I was never really wanted in either circle so I understand some about outcasts. We discuss the things we've experienced and try to find more. Doesn't that seem worthwhile? It does to me.
"Privilege gained from being a white male"
"Societal factors outside your control"
I snipped it down to the two phrases.
Your second phrase is not more specific. In fact its actually vaguer. It is talking about broader culture issues that a single individual can't control? Or is it talking about how the broader culture influences the individual? What is it influencing the individual to do? Or have done to them?
The first sentence is a lot more specific than you give it credit. We know the individual is gaining something, special rights and advantages due to characteristics that they have.
Privilege is also important because it specifically denotes ADVANTAGES, not just influences. People have a hard time recognizing that these advantages exist, so it's important to call them that, which is why the word privilege exists and is used in this regard.
Using the word privilege isn't just an attempt to catalog the factors that go into how a person's status is influenced. It's an attempt to qualify those factors.
To my ears, when someone argues against the word "privilege" it sounds like a climate change denier. (I will ignore any posts that derail to climate) Someone who is trying to deny that the problem even exists in the first place, so instead of working to fix the problem, we have to convince them it's real first, but since they don't believe it's real, that pretty much becomes impossible.
|
System Administrator
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't not have privilege because everyone is a majority about something
But some privilege is more prevalent than others. In the trans community, we talk a lot about passing privilege. Which just means, that people can rarely tell that your trans. You've had some traumatic times but passing privilege helps you get along a lot in society. It means, unless you are out and public as I am, you don't have to deal with a lot of the problems that being trans can have. It means, you aren't necessarily considered foreign to cisgendered people so people can have that moment when you remind them of their daughter or their wife or best friend without relating that to the otherness of being trans. Having passing privilege gives you a lot of the little things that cisgendered privilege gets you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we ever get to a scenario in which we push it all the way, and find that the disagreement of two groups solely arises from a level totally divorced from reality, then their disagreement is actually meaningless, and they're both wrong as far as that goes. "Should Gnorgman wear a red cape or a blue one" is a functionally meaningless question, if Gnorgman doesn't exist. No one should be basing real policies on that question. However, in a lot of cases, the source of the disagreement actually comes in at a higher level, where one group is making a faulty valuation of things that can, in fact, be valuated.
And I think this is the situation with a lot of the "privilege" stuff. Pretty much everyone on both sides of that argument would like to be happier and, if possible, wealthier. That they value those things is not actually under disagreement, so it doesn't matter how they arbitrarily decide on that, as long as they agree. However, we CAN potentially empirically demonstrate that not discriminating against others ultimately makes us happier and wealthier -- if nothing else, the former because we don't have to stress out over them anymore, and the latter because we don't have to pay for therapy anymore. We can empirically demonstrate that people subconsciously discriminate against others, without being aware that they're doing so. So really we're not boiling down to any kind of irreconcilable emotional difference; it's boiling down to one group (those discriminating, even subconsciously) manifestly following a course that works at odds to their stated goals.
If we had the savvy, we could also evaluate the "best" (read: most useful in the fulfilling of their common goals) way to correct that situation. If harping on "privilege" actually works (i.e., causes people to shed unconscious bias), then it's useful. If it instead causes people to feel threatened, circle the wagons, and discriminate all the harder because of it, then we need another strategy that does work.
"Privilege gained from being a white male"
"Societal factors outside your control"
I snipped it down to the two phrases.
Your second phrase is not more specific. In fact its actually vaguer. It is talking about broader culture issues that a single individual can't control? Or is it talking about how the broader culture influences the individual? What is it influencing the individual to do? Or have done to them?
The first sentence is a lot more specific than you give it credit. We know the individual is gaining something, special rights and advantages due to characteristics that they have.
Privilege is also important because it specifically denotes ADVANTAGES, not just influences. People have a hard time recognizing that these advantages exist, so it's important to call them that, which is why the word privilege exists and is used in this regard.
Using the word privilege isn't just an attempt to catalog the factors that go into how a person's status is influenced. It's an attempt to qualify those factors.
To my ears, when someone argues against the word "privilege" it sounds like a climate change denier. (I will ignore any posts that derail to climate) Someone who is trying to deny that the problem even exists in the first place, so instead of working to fix the problem, we have to convince them it's real first, but since they don't believe it's real, that pretty much becomes impossible.
Not quite what I meant.
"Societal factors outside your control" may be vague, but it is A.) Descriptive and B.) MORE specific than the current definition which boils down to "Everything that gives any human being an advantage over any other human being in any facet of every interaction they have with another".
Then "privilege gained from X" is a much more specific EXAMPLE OF a "Societal factor outside your control" rather than the only way to describe the concept at all being a laundry list of all types of privilege that person may have.
Does this make any sense to anyone but me?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Privilege gained from being a white male"
"Societal factors outside your control"
I snipped it down to the two phrases.
Your second phrase is not more specific. In fact its actually vaguer. It is talking about broader culture issues that a single individual can't control? Or is it talking about how the broader culture influences the individual? What is it influencing the individual to do? Or have done to them?
The first sentence is a lot more specific than you give it credit. We know the individual is gaining something, special rights and advantages due to characteristics that they have.
Privilege is also important because it specifically denotes ADVANTAGES, not just influences. People have a hard time recognizing that these advantages exist, so it's important to call them that, which is why the word privilege exists and is used in this regard.
Using the word privilege isn't just an attempt to catalog the factors that go into how a person's status is influenced. It's an attempt to qualify those factors.
To my ears, when someone argues against the word "privilege" it sounds like a climate change denier. (I will ignore any posts that derail to climate) Someone who is trying to deny that the problem even exists in the first place, so instead of working to fix the problem, we have to convince them it's real first, but since they don't believe it's real, that pretty much becomes impossible.
Not quite what I meant.
"Societal factors outside your control" may be vague, but it is A.) Descriptive and B.) MORE specific than the current definition which boils down to "Everything that gives any human being an advantage over any other human being in any facet of every interaction they have with another".
Then "privilege gained from X" is a much more specific EXAMPLE OF a "Societal factor outside your control" rather than the only way to describe the concept at all being a laundry list of all types of privilege that person...
No. To me it sounds like your arguing for more specific terminology, but arriving at vaguer stuff, which is the opposite of your argument. At least from how it reads so far.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Compare this to breathing. A creature who lives in the planet earth is actually pretty rocking with their privilege, if they breath oxygen... and, meanwhile, plants are pretty rocking if they breath carbon dioxide.
In the interest of accuracy of communication, during respiration ("breathing"), plants also take in oxygen and release carbon dioxide. Photosynthesis is the process that involves taking in carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen, and its net effect is larger.
Ya know... you know how to ruin a perfectly good point, Kirth. ;P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually think the X-men point stands pretty well. People are not, in general, a&$$*%&s. They don't gain anything from alienating potential allies, so the alienating they do do comes from various forms of misunderstanding, or competing gains from doing so, often both.
As an example: the idea that homosexual men are dangerous to other men because they will rape them if given the chance. If I would try to guess the background of this idea, I would say that for a heterosexual man who has no idea about homosexuality, it is very difficult to even imagine wanting to have sex with another man, indeed would consider such to always be undesirable, meaning the act itself would be, or be very close to, rape. From there comes the consequence that since gays are rapists, they are evil, and there is identity, support, and camaraderie to be won in denouncing evil people together with others.
But given the chance, most (though certainly not all) of these people would, if given enough information about it, having seen enough examples of it, meeting enough homosexuals, find something better to devote their time to doing than hating gays. It is not necessarily an easy process. It requires working with some previous assumptions, and not everyone is able to do that. But on the whole, it works.
Framing it as discrimination sort of scuppers that process, I think. Doing so assigns blame for it (You are an evil and horrible person for not respecting gay people!) when in fact the basic problem is one of information and understanding. See, the response is going to be defensive and not understanding. (Since I am not an evil and horrible person, you are wrong, and you attack me so you're the problem.) Not everyone is decent, but enough people are, and nothing cements a viewpoint as firmly as being told you are a bad person for holding it. As counterintuitive as that it.
I do not always express things perfectly. I am rather tired due to being up too early again. I hope you take my meaning, though. I also hope I didn't offend anyone.
Eeeeeeexxxxxactly~!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the main cause for me misunderstanding you, Tacticslion is that you always manage to agree with everybody, even when they're furiously disagreeing with each other. :o
But some privilege is more prevalent than others. In the trans community, we talk a lot about passing privilege.
You can't not have privilege because everyone is a majority about something
_____ privilege can be discussed at least, because its defined for most values of blank. Without a word in front of it its everything.
Even then it still makes it sound like you should be happy about having life only hand you HALF a bucket of ____, that lifes only ground you down half way.. aren't you lucky?
When it comes to things that other people do and might be able to do something about it has the unfortunate implication that anyone above the bottom rung is in the wrong spot and the absolute worst off is the default setting about how it SHOULD be. It makes it sound like we should stop entitling people basic human, decent treatment rather than stop discriminating against people. Even though the net effect is the same the perspective normalizes the absolute worst about the human condition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the main cause for me misunderstanding you, Tacticslion is that you always manage to agree with everybody, even when they're furiously disagreeing with each other. :o
On the other hand, I find that people disagree with each other far less than they think they do!
It's actually one of the reasons I started this thread, though I don't think I fully realized it at the time.
I've seen quite a number of arguments with people totally agreeing with one another while demanding that the other person recant their entirely "incorrect" opinion... or at least, both of their opinions look, effectively, the same, with subtle nuances in their differences - differences they in favor of arguing over the similarities.
For (hypothetical-only*) example, let's say two people - let's make up really fake-sounding names, like Gerth** Kirsen and jetheff - are talking about the importance, validity, or worthlessness of emotion when reasoning morality.
On the surface, this is a bitter*** rivalry, with no common ground between them. But digging deeper, what's really going on? One is, effectively, arguing that you must accept that emotional reasoning is part of morality, even while it's important to hold to <standard regarding functional change>; the other is arguing that while emotional reasoning is part of morality, <standard regarding functional change> is of utmost importance in determining "useful" morality.
This is, in effect, the same argument thrown back and forth, with a differing emphasis depening on who's talking.
While their arguments are different, they're substantially more nuanced in their differences. Neither are anti-ration or anti-emotion - they simply appear that way, due to their emphasis and word choice; each feels it is absolutely necessary against over-reliance upon the cause the other seems to be championing, while both agree that there is a place - and necessity**** - for both.
To be clear, it's something that I've done as well. I'll see someone post that, and think, "No! They're wrong!" and proceed to post something that, functionally, is nearly identical to their view, but for a (comparatively) tiny nuance - a nuance that I feel is exceptionally important, because it holds so much (relative) weight that the argument seems to be entirely against what the previous person held as true.
It's kind of like a person holding up this and saying, "This is called 'Orange'!" and another going, "No, actually, it's called yellow!" and, you know, both of them are totally correct, when really they're arguing about a nuance, and I'd much rather just peel and eat the thing, despite becoming ever-more educated about the nature of light waves, experiential color differences, and fruity nomenclature (and probably examples of agrarian history and the development of civilization in conjunction with fruit).
At other times, I may well have argued something, or find someone else's argument strongly compelling and agree with them, but then an even more strongly compelling (or equally- or nearly-equally- or just fairly-compelling) argument comes along, and I find myself understanding and/or agreeing with that position... or, even if I don't, I can certainly respect the mind that came up with it and recognize the thought, effort, and reasoning that goes into it.
While this is true for many arguments, I find it especially tends to be true amongst those who argue over morality, politics, "social justice", and RAW.
* I've learned my lesson^ about providing practical examples! ... at least until I forget, later, because I'm an ADD and dyslexia-riddled parent of a four- and one-year-old!
** Eh, let's stick with a last name. "Gerth" sounds too much like something that should apply to me.
*** Well, mildly insistent, anyway.
**** The kind of "necessity" that states, "So long as we're human, we will..." as opposed to, "As humans, in order to live, we need..."
^ Hm. This may not be true. But I'm pretty sure any hypothetical people are pretty cool with me enough to be chill, even if I've made a grave error. Man.
^^ And if one did, it would firmly be filed under Enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting effect], with possibly a few other descriptors or sub-types thrown in their for good measure.
EDIT: COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODE FIXING!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we are discussing privilege as a concept, we absolutely need to discuss the worst things that can happen to a person.
Mental illness.
I work in mental health, with the worst-off people. Schizophrenia, specifically. To sum it up quickly: It will happen to a bit less than a percent of us. Men get it at twenty, women at thirty, on average. What it does is complex, but can be summed up as "it takes everything from you". It denies you the ability to think, to concentrate, to remember, to relate to others, and it breaks your body down. There is help, in the form of pretty heavy medication, and you will likely be forced to take it, giving you severe side effects.
There is more, of course, but that is enough. There is not a day each and every one of should not be thankful it didn't happen to us or our loved ones. Check your privilege, indeed.
Someone having a harder time getting jobs is a problem. Someone risking getting harmed by others in certain situations is another. Someone not getting the same amount of money as others doing the same job is a third... But psychiatry and research in mental illness is not a prioritized field. Year by year, grants are cut, money is drained. By the same politicians who smiling claim that "their driving force is the struggle of the weakest in society".
Check your privilege.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My brother is a psychiatrist and tells some horrific mental health stories. You're absolutely right - it's an awful thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we are discussing privilege as a concept, we absolutely need to discuss the worst things that can happen to a person.
Mental illness.
Aaaand this is why I find it worse than useless as a concept. It opens the bard door to EVERYTHING and leads to a random catch phrase that sounds profound but says nothing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To quote a wise man: Eeeeeeeexxxxxxxactly~!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right. One thing more that needs to be said: Schizophrenia is an extremely fair disorder. The levels of it in populations do not vary by much. It exists everywhere. It is remarkably constant, though some symptoms vary a little by culture. It is NOT very closely tied to genetics, so it doesn't just happen to those families. There is no age by which it can no longer happen to a person, so yes, it can still happen to you and yours. Statistically, as I said, it will happen to one kid in four classes.
Cheers.
Living in a country with socialized medicine, the allocation of resources to various parts of health care is a continuous political debate. The practice of it is of course a different question, but the theory is simple enough. Simply put, the available resources, being finite, must be used to help those at the bottom first. Once those worst-off have enough to put them even with more groups, those groups too get resources. It is explicitly written that if cuts need to be made, they should be applied to those at the top before hitting those with a bigger need. At the very top are cosmetic surgery and similar things, which are not funded publicly (of course).
The situation about discrimination is not much different. There is a finite amount of time and interest available, and that is what can bring us results. And even if there are people who devote their lives to these fights, the interest of the public is fickle and limited. It is all well and good to devise entire libraries of definitions, new words, and so on (privilege, intersectionality, etc), and while this will keep various academics employed, it is not what will bring results.
Find those worst off. Help the public understand their situation. Devise simple-to-use explanations and spread these. Spend the resources available to help people in concrete ways, so people can see it happen. Repeat until Utopia dawns on us all. If you want a faster way, understand that it will be a huge risk to take.
For the first line, that's true. Except that it's usually, not always, clear from context what type of privilege your talking about. If it's a cis person talking about trans issues, then it's likely cis privilege. If it's a white person talking about race, it's likely white privilege.
And it spreads. Do you think for one second its possible for white privilege to not include economic privilege? Geographic privlidge.
I disagree entirely that it implies the bottom rung is the best place to be, just that it's hard to see what's happening at the bottom when you're higher up.
Its also easier to mistake something that has nothing to do with discrimination for discrimination. If you are right then show that you are right.
I get the point that "privilege" makes it sound like everything above the worst is extra, but I'm not sure what to do about that.
Frame it in terms of rights. You don't want the privilege of walking down the street without being shot you want the right.
I think a big part of it comes down to .... sorry, I don't know any other terms for this, the guy walk of talking and the girl way of talking.
When guys talk about a problem its argument and solution based aka how do I fix this. . What is the problem is the problem there, what is a solution what are the pros and cons whats another solution
When girls talk its about reaching understanding and empathy. IRL i know how to uh huh and nod along. I really don't know what the internet version of that is.