I don't understand why you can't just say "hey that thing you said is kind of offensive to [somegroupofpeople]"
Because that's not the same thing. You say "that's offensive" and people may go "No it's not because I don't mean [blah], I mean [blah]", which may be missing the point. Or they may go "If anyone is offended by [blah] they need to get over themselves", which is easy to say from a privileged position but is in itself utterly insensitive.
Privilege is a real phenomenon. Certain traits are afforded a particular status in our society that others are not. I think we ought to be able to acknowledge this without namecalling or flying off the handle at one another.
Remember back in the 50s when they'd record like Elvis singing YOU AIN'T NOTHIN BUT A HOUND DOG and then they'd turn the record over and reverse it and it was all NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP and people were all like, "That is actually the voice of Satan coming from that song."
Privilege is a real phenomenon. Certain traits are afforded a particular status in our society that others are not. I think we ought to be able to acknowledge this without namecalling or flying off the handle at one another.
I am simply not comfortable with it being assumed that I do not know/care about the problems that minorities face in the present day. I do, and it offends me when people insist that I can't possibly understand because I'm white and straight (I am not, by the way, straight. But everyone assumes that for some reason. I'm bisexual.)
And to be completely honest, I'm generally far more worried about intent when it comes to causing offense. It's much easier to apologize for accidentally offending someone, than it is to convince someone who's actively maliciously hating them to stop doing so, and I think the latter is what should be focused on. Because if you focus on the former you move to trying to prevent offense, which is basically censorship, which I'm not okay with.
I don't think that it is being assumed. I do think it's important to be aware that you haven't had the same experiences as whoever you're talking to and you may not have considered something that is apparent to them. Sorry if this seems rude, but I really don't see that as an insult. I mean, I kind of doubt it's even humanly possible to fully consider everyone's point of view without hearing it from them.
And I think unintentional prejudice is every bit as damaging as the acknowledged, malicious kind, which it feeds into and perpetuates. The goal is not to prevent offence, but to prevent prejudice.
I don't think that it is being assumed. I do think it's important to be aware that you haven't had the same experiences as whoever you're talking to and you may not have considered something that is apparent to them. Sorry if this seems rude, but I really don't see that as an insult. I mean, I kind of doubt it's even humanly possible to fully consider everyone's point of view without hearing it from them.
No it's not, but that is why I prefer to be told I'm being offensive by the person I'm offending. When you take it upon yourself to cry foul over everything that could possibly offend anyone, you're not actually doing any good.
If someone is offended by me saying "you guys" because it's sexist (and I have heard that) I want it from their mouth, and I want to know why. What I do not want is some self-proclaimed champion saying that that's sexist, because at that point you're acting on behalf of the people you're claiming to represent. That's rude on it's own terms, and it's also offensive in its own way, since you're assuming that they can't do anything for themselves (it's not a conscious assumption, but it is definitely made).
And I think unintentional prejudice is every bit as damaging as the acknowledged, malicious kind, which it feeds into and perpetuates. The goal is not to prevent offence, but to prevent prejudice.
No, it's definitely to prevent offense. If it was to prevent prejudice, it'd be indistinguishable from normal social activism.
No it's not, but that is why I prefer to be told I'm being offensive by the person I'm offending. When you take it upon yourself to cry foul over everything that could possibly offend anyone, you're not actually doing any good.
If someone is offended by me saying "you guys" because it's sexist (and I have heard that) I want it from their mouth, and I want to know why. What I do not want is some self-proclaimed champion saying that that's sexist, because at that point you're acting on behalf of the people you're claiming to represent. That's rude on it's own terms, and it's also offensive in its own way, since you're assuming that they can't do anything for themselves (it's not a conscious assumption, but it is definitely made).
Well, obviously I'm not going to blow up at somebody for saying "you guys", but I'm not going to just sit there when somebody is being racist or sexist without making my displeasure known. To do that would be utterly irresponsible.
In any case, I know this is awful, but there have been times when somebody has offended me personally but I've kept my mouth shut out of fear of turning them against me or ruining a social situation for the others present. It's entirely possible that people are being offended by a person's behaviour but nobody tells them out of fear of drawing attention to themselves.
I missed the most important bit, which is that I think it's important for people to work together to combat things like prejudice. If we treat it as being the responsibility only of those directly affected, we are dividing along lines of race and gender and sexuality, which is the worst thing we can do if we want to end discrimination.
No, it's definitely to prevent offense. If it was to prevent prejudice, it'd be indistinguishable from normal social activism.
What do you mean by "normal social activism"?
Obviously I don't think needlessly offending people is a good thing, but no, it's to prevent prejudice, or at least, I do honestly think drawing attention to privilege is an important and necessary aspect of fighting prejudice and I have heard others say the same. How could it not be, when unchecked privilege allows prejudices to perpetuate and intensify?
In any case, I know this is awful, but there have been times when somebody has offended me personally but I've kept my mouth shut out of fear of turning them against me or ruining a social situation for the others present. It's entirely possible that people are being offended by a person's behaviour but nobody tells them out of fear of drawing attention to themselves.
Not trying to be a dick here, but this is what is meant by "not walking the walk".
I'm not really criticizing, I've done the same thing.
I sincerely doubt these bloggers have not also done the same thing.
Obviously I don't think needlessly offending people is a good thing, but no, it's to prevent prejudice, or at least, I do honestly think drawing attention to privilege is an important and necessary aspect of fighting prejudice and I have heard others say the same. How could it not be, when unchecked privilege allows prejudices to perpetuate and intensify?
Okay y'know what, let's just make this simple. Define "privilege" for me here. Because this is maddening.
What I get out of this is "well you're privileged, so you wouldn't understand". And that is not an answer, that is the opposite of an answer. That is unhelpful, and it honestly kind of pisses me off. This is specifically why I don't like these kinds of people, you ask for clarification and get a mu.
Or to put it in short form, the conversation tends to go a bit like:
Doctor Who reference in Pokemon B2W2? Headcanon accepted.
One of the problems in the military, especially in the Marines, is whenever a set of orders or standards is handed down, someone is going to come along and do it one better which will be followed by another trying to top that and so on. For instance:
On our service/dress uniforms, we're not allowed to use our pockets. We have to place our keys/wallet/etc into our socks. Now, there's no order on the books (and we Marines love our orders) saying we can't. Technically, I can stuff the pockets of my service/dress slacks with anything I want. But Marines just don't because it's one of those little things that someone sometime back thought up to outdo some other previous attempt to outdo something. I imagine some years from now that it's going to evolve that maybe someone will see that unsightly bulge in your sock and make it so you have to walk around with your stuff crammed into your underwear so your car keys can scrape against your unmentionables while you walk around wondering why you just didn't join the damn Air Force.
This whole new social justice movement has this same problem but worse. Way worse. Dr Martin Luther King Jr and the other pioneers and members of the Civil Rights Movement fought to remove the segregated spaces and being called the likes of "colored" and other indignities, and then stated the simple fact that they can get along in this modern world just as well as anyone else which the very nature and Constitution of this country guaranteed. They wanted equal rights, equal access, and equal treatment; there was nothing unrighteous about this movement. Then the "I can do this better than they did" effect mentioned above took the wheel and set it on a new unfortunate course. Which was a roundabout.
Fast forward to today and many permutations of this effect later, one of the things this new internet-based social justice movement demands is that there be exclusive, segregated "spaces" for these "people of color" to retreat to, because they simply cannot keep up in this scary modern world. The language they use to describe this, of course, is much more flowery and appealing, but what they're demanding is the exact same shit Jim Crow provided for the exact same damn reasons. And it's a fucking insult to people today and especially those back then who crusaded for equal rights in dangerous times.
And that's just one of the reasons I don't like the social justice movement.
Not trying to be a dick here, but this is what is meant by "not walking the walk".
I'm not really criticizing, I've done the same thing.
I sincerely doubt these bloggers have not also done the same thing.
Well, yes. I never said I was perfect. I am trying to speak my mind a bit more lately, but sometimes, when I've thought that I was the only one present who was bothered by something, I've found it easier to just let it go. I'm not proud of every stupid thing that I've done.
I mean, what do you want from me here? I could just go "yes, I suck, and nothing I can do can make up for my failures", but I'd rather not do that. Instead, I choose to assume that sometimes people get scared and sometimes people are weak and sometimes people make mistakes. And sometimes people just have off-days. But that doesn't invalidate the good that they can do.
Okay y'know what, let's just make this simple. Define "privilege" for me here. Because this is maddening.
What I get out of this is "well you're privileged, so you wouldn't understand". And that is not an answer, that is the opposite of an answer. That is unhelpful, and it honestly kind of pisses me off. This is specifically why I don't like these kinds of people, you ask for clarification and get a mu.
Broadly, privilege is any unearned advantage that may be granted deliberately or inadvertantly (or both) that people who possess certain traits have over people who possess other traits, and which those who possess it might not even notice until it's pointed out to them. Most people are in some respects privileged over some group or other, but some groups are considerably more privileged than others.
Fast forward to today and many permutations of this effect later, one of the things this new internet-based social justice movement demands is that there be exclusive, segregated "spaces" for these "people of color" to retreat to, because they simply cannot keep up in this scary modern world. The language they use to describe this, of course, is much more flowery and appealing, but what they're demanding is the exact same shit Jim Crow provided for the exact same damn reasons. And it's a fucking insult to people today and especially those back then who crusaded for equal rights in dangerous times.
And that's just one of the reasons I don't like the social justice movement.
See this, to me, appears to be not only a gross misrepresentation of safe-spaces but also a massive insult directed at everyone who has ever benefitted from them or supported them.
Unless you are describing some other phenomenon that has escaped my notice?
I mean, what do you want from me here? I could just go "yes, I suck, and nothing I can do can make up for my failures", but I'd rather not do that. Instead, I choose to assume that sometimes people get scared and sometimes people are weak and sometimes people make mistakes. And sometimes people just have off-days. But that doesn't invalidate the good that they can do.
I don't want anything from you. I'm just pointing out that no one's perfect and that people shouldn't act like they are.
I totally agree with what you're saying about that not invalidating the good they can do. So I have to ask why that mindset is not afforded to Laci Green, who made a mistake several years ago and is now being forced to pay for it--possibly with her life, if we are to take the death threats seriously.
Is that really "good" for the sake of anybody? I think not. Especially people trying to justify it with "but other groups of people suffer every day and no one cares about them". This is totally true, and also quite unfortunate, as well as problem that needs to be addressed. It is not, however, an excuse to inflict further suffering on others.
Now I am not accusing you of this kind of behavior and it is obviously an extreme of this mindset, but more mild examples happen all the time with these people.
Broadly, privilege is any unearned advantage that may be granted deliberately or inadvertantly (or both) people who possess certain traits have over people who possess other traits, and which those who possess it might not even notice until it's pointed out to them. Most people are in some respects privileged over some group or other, but some groups are considerably more privileged than others.
I buy that with two caveats.
One is that being privileged in this sense does not make you incapable of sympathizing, helping with, or interacting with people who aren't. I'm often confused as to what exactly SJ bloggers want of me, with pejorative phrases like "check your privilege, you douche". Am I supposed to somehow stop being privileged? Or am I supposed to what, just kill myself or something? That's an issue, pointing out a problem without any way to deal with it. Now often you'll get told that "it's not my job to educate you" by these people, which is true technically, but if you're going to launch that dialogue, you need to be prepared to continue it. You can't just tell someone they have a problem without even suggesting how to fix it. "Being aware" that you're privileged does not actually fix anything.
Two is that that definition assumes all members of a given group of people are the same, which just isn't true. It may be true for a majority of that group, but not for the entirety of it. It's also honestly kind of just generally "-ist". Sure, you're saying that other people are privileged, but what does that say about the people who aren't? It's again the idea that you're trying to do everything for these "underprivileged" people, and that in of itself is very offensive and prejudiced in its own way.
See this, to me, appears to be not only a gross misrepresentation of safe-spaces but also a massive insult directed at everyone who has ever benefitted from them or supported them.
Unless you are describing some other phenomenon that has escaped my notice?
Just so we're on the same page here, the "safe spaces" I'm talking about are entirely race related. I'm not criticizing the ones that handle abuse/violence/etc victims.
Every example I've seen of these "safe spaces" as discussed is so "people of color" can go and retreat to be only with other "people of color". This does not jive with the philosophy behind the Civil Rights movement which is that people of any color of skin should be able to freely function and mingle together within society with no worry for their safety. This is on the level of basic human rights here. If these people really fear for their safety inside this society, something is broken on a fundamental level and giving them a room to hide in is not a fix. It's also no different than what the south did when they instituted the Jim Crow laws and segregation to ease racial tensions.
I'm also going to go ahead and say that there is no valid reason for society to provide extra to or deprive from any person based on the color of their skin. Every explanation and defense I have seen and heard of these "safe spaces" has been exactly that.
"I'm often confused as to what exactly SJ bloggers want of me, with pejorative phrases like "check your privilege, you douche". "
That means "stop being a bigoted douche". I have no clue who told you that, so I don't know if they were right or not.
" Sure, you're saying that other people are privileged, but what does that say about the people who aren't? It's again the idea that you're trying to do everything for these "underprivileged" people, and that in of itself is very offensive and prejudiced in its own way."
It was probably this that got you in trouble. The point of privelege is that you were born with it and it never goes away. It's saying that if a member of the priveleged group and a member of the not priveleged group were born with everything else about them being equal, society would favor the priveleged one.
That means "stop being a bigoted douche". I have no clue who told you that, so I don't know if they were right or not.
That (unlike the previous example I gave) was not actually said to me, personally, but I've seen it more than once.
It was probably this that got you in trouble. The point of privelege is that you were born with it and it never goes away.
I'm sorry. I don't buy that there's anything so inmalleable that you're just stuck with it by virtue of being a specific race/sex/whatever for your entire life, and nothing you ever do can ever nix it. That's just putting people into boxes at that point.
It's saying that if a member of the priveleged group and a member of the not priveleged group were born with everything else about them being equal, society would favor the priveleged one.
If everything about them were equal than neither would be privileged. That's obviously a hypothetical, but it's an awfully strange one.
See this, to me, appears to be not only a gross misrepresentation of safe-spaces but also a massive insult directed at everyone who has ever benefitted from them or supported them.
Unless you are describing some other phenomenon that has escaped my notice?
Just so we're on the same page here, the "safe spaces" I'm talking about are entirely race related. I'm not criticizing the ones that handle abuse/violence/etc victims.
Every example I've seen of these "safe spaces" as discussed is so "people of color" can go and retreat to be only with other "people of color". This does not jive with the philosophy behind the Civil Rights movement which is that people of any color of skin should be able to freely function and mingle together within society with no worry for their safety. This is on the level of basic human rights here. If these people really fear for their safety inside this society, something is broken on a fundamental level and giving them a room to hide in is not a fix. It's also no different than what the south did when they instituted the Jim Crow laws and segregation to ease racial tensions.
I'm also going to go ahead and say that there is no valid reason for society to provide extra to or deprive from any person based on the color of their skin. Every explanation and defense I have seen and heard of these "safe spaces" has been exactly that.
Blacks being forced to use substandard facilities = Black people not wanting to talk to white people
That means "stop being a bigoted douche". I have no clue who told you that, so I don't know if they were right or not.
That (unlike the previous example I gave) was not actually said to me, personally, but I've seen it more than once.
It was probably this that got you in trouble. The point of privelege is that you were born with it and it never goes away.
I'm sorry. I don't buy that there's anything so inmalleable that you're just stuck with it by virtue of being a specific race/sex/whatever for your entire life, and nothing you ever do can ever nix it. That's just putting people into boxes at that point.
That last sentence confuses me. I'm not "putting people into boxes", I'm saying that society makes you out to be better or worse based on those things.
That is what real activism is about. Changing society. Not accommodating its prejudices, which throughout the course of this conversation, I am increasingly convinced is what the SJ community is trying to do. Obviously not deliberately, but still.
Red herring fallacy? Cause you just tried to point me at a fallacy that had nothing to do with what I had just said. And only after taking something I said out of context.
You said "fuck this" and I'm aware I'll probably be massively ninja'd, but I feel I should respond, especially since you apparently think I am prejudiced.
I totally agree with what you're saying about that not invalidating the good they can do. So I have to ask why that mindset is not afforded to Laci Green, who made a mistake several years ago and is now being forced to pay for it--possibly with her life, if we are to take the death threats seriously.
Because people are hypocrites.
I think we might be kind of at cross-purposes here a bit; to me, Laci Green is a social justice blogger, and a self-described one who really does "walk the walk", at that. The people you are criticizing are also social justice bloggers, but that doesn't mean I'm supportive of every assholish thing they do.
Especially people trying to justify it with "but other groups of people suffer every day and no one cares about them". This is totally true, and also quite unfortunate, as well as problem that needs to be addressed. It is not, however, an excuse to inflict further suffering on others.
Now I am not accusing you of this kind of behavior and it is obviously an extreme of this mindset, but more mild examples happen all the time with these people.
Well, yes. I think people do horrible things to one another all the time. Reasons vary. In a way, people who believe themselves to be in some sense in the right are in fact more dangerous; people who refuse to examine their privilege without realizing that they are prejudiced would fall into this category, as would social justice bloggers who take it upon themselves to persecute innocent Internet users over a throwaway remark they made when they were 18, deleted and apologized for.
One is that being privileged in this sense does not make you incapable of sympathizing, helping with, or interacting with people who aren't. I'm often confused as to what exactly SJ bloggers want of me, with pejorative phrases like "check your privilege, you douche". Am I supposed to somehow stop being privileged? Or am I supposed to what, just kill myself or something? That's an issue, pointing out a problem without any way to deal with it.
When they say that they are expecting you to educate yourself.
Which is not a defence of "check your privilege, you douche", incidentally, because that's an incredibly obnoxious thing to say.
Now often you'll get told that "it's not my job to educate you" by these people, which is true technically, but if you're going to launch that dialogue, you need to be prepared to continue it. You can't just tell someone they have a problem without even suggesting how to fix it. "Being aware" that you're privileged does not actually fix anything.
Agreed, although I do sympathize with people who have encountered so many stubborn people that they're just tired of explaining and would like people to educate themselves. Not saying that's the right thing to do, only that it's understandable, I think. There may be a moral there about sticking your nose into other people's business, but I don't think it's a wholly unreasonable assumption that people who are willing to learn will make the effort to educate themselves and people who are apathetic and content in their prejudice won't bother.
Two is that that definition assumes all members of a given group of people are the same, which just isn't true.
I'm not assuming that at all. Everyone is different, not everyone who belongs to a demographic has the exact same privileges. The most you can say is that two individuals who belong to the same set of categories will, all else being equal, be treated in approximately the same way under identical circumstances.
It may be true for a majority of that group, but not for the entirety of it. It's also honestly kind of just generally "-ist". Sure, you're saying that other people are privileged, but what does that say about the people who aren't? It's again the idea that you're trying to do everything for these "underprivileged" people, and that in of itself is very offensive and prejudiced in its own way.
It's not that idea at all. People who do that are doing it wrong; that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the definition of privilege I gave. People who are less privileged are people and can decide for themselves how to act. I didn't say anything about telling them what to do.
That might not be "the idea" of it. But that's quite honestly what I'm getting out of this.
People who are privileged, who acknowledge they are, who will talk quite a bit about how other people are, and who will never do anything to try to change that.
Because talking, is much easier than taking any action.
Now if you're defining Laci Green as a social justice blogger too, than you can do that, and if she self-identifies, then let her. Definitions are subjective after all, but I think I've pretty well figured out the part I'm talking about.
Uh. I know that I'm not a mod, but if Anonus was here right now, I think he'd advise that everybody just take a chill pill for a few hours. Everybody's heated right now, and there's no way that this conversation is going to improve until everybody calms down.
I'm entirely calm. I don't want to be misconstrued as supporting something dreadful because people who happen to have co-opted some of the related rhetoric are being assholes towards somebody.
I want to reply to Corporal Forsythe, but I'll leave it for now if now is not the time.
Red herring fallacy? Cause you just tried to point me at a fallacy that had nothing to do with what I had just said. And only after taking something I said out of context.
This is what you said in reply to me:
Blacks being forced to use substandard facilities = Black people not wanting to talk to white people
What you were doing here was taking a concept that I was arguing and drawing a surreptitious comparison to something completely negative. And completely unrelated. In fact "tenuous" doesn't even qualify here. And then you say it's because I took something you said out of context which is laughable.
I don't like to play semantics in discussions or debates. If you dislike or disagree with any of my points, please say so.
I personally recognize what you could most likely call privilege: I am a heterosexual male in a guy's body who is white-skinned (albeit of Filipino heritage), and lives fairly comfortably (like, my family is probably above middle-class), and I understand that there are others who are much less fortunate than me, and live in the same city as I do.
I personally think that what we need these days is education, forgiveness and a fostering of understanding in all.
And now, to go back to your usual schedule, have an antelope:
I'm entirely calm. I don't want to be misconstrued as supporting something dreadful because people who happen to have co-opted some of the related rhetoric are being assholes towards somebody.
I want to reply to Corporal Forsythe, but I'll leave it for now if now is not the time.
I'm fine with waiting too. Though it'll probably be halfway into tomorrow.
Well, I'm not going to get a dictionary to understand some of those words you put in that post, but I was making fun of the fact that you compared safe spaces to segregation when I said that.
Oh, so you were just generating noise. You know, I'm interesting in hearing what Fouria and the rest have to say, and on heated topics like these, they tend to go by really quick and it can be difficult to keep up. If you believe that any point I make is wrong or stupid, please say so, but please don't waste my time with a comedy routine.
I'm aware that you're probably talking about in some game or something, but now I just have this mental image of you hunched over a bottle, trying to put together a pirate ship inside of it.
Comments
Privilege is a real phenomenon. Certain traits are afforded a particular status in our society that others are not. I think we ought to be able to acknowledge this without namecalling or flying off the handle at one another.
I am simply not comfortable with it being assumed that I do not know/care about the problems that minorities face in the present day. I do, and it offends me when people insist that I can't possibly understand because I'm white and straight (I am not, by the way, straight. But everyone assumes that for some reason. I'm bisexual.)
And to be completely honest, I'm generally far more worried about intent when it comes to causing offense. It's much easier to apologize for accidentally offending someone, than it is to convince someone who's actively maliciously hating them to stop doing so, and I think the latter is what should be focused on. Because if you focus on the former you move to trying to prevent offense, which is basically censorship, which I'm not okay with.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
And I think unintentional prejudice is every bit as damaging as the acknowledged, malicious kind, which it feeds into and perpetuates. The goal is not to prevent offence, but to prevent prejudice.
No it's not, but that is why I prefer to be told I'm being offensive by the person I'm offending. When you take it upon yourself to cry foul over everything that could possibly offend anyone, you're not actually doing any good.
If someone is offended by me saying "you guys" because it's sexist (and I have heard that) I want it from their mouth, and I want to know why. What I do not want is some self-proclaimed champion saying that that's sexist, because at that point you're acting on behalf of the people you're claiming to represent. That's rude on it's own terms, and it's also offensive in its own way, since you're assuming that they can't do anything for themselves (it's not a conscious assumption, but it is definitely made).
No, it's definitely to prevent offense. If it was to prevent prejudice, it'd be indistinguishable from normal social activism.
In any case, I know this is awful, but there have been times when somebody has offended me personally but I've kept my mouth shut out of fear of turning them against me or ruining a social situation for the others present. It's entirely possible that people are being offended by a person's behaviour but nobody tells them out of fear of drawing attention to themselves.
I missed the most important bit, which is that I think it's important for people to work together to combat things like prejudice. If we treat it as being the responsibility only of those directly affected, we are dividing along lines of race and gender and sexuality, which is the worst thing we can do if we want to end discrimination. What do you mean by "normal social activism"?
Obviously I don't think needlessly offending people is a good thing, but no, it's to prevent prejudice, or at least, I do honestly think drawing attention to privilege is an important and necessary aspect of fighting prejudice and I have heard others say the same. How could it not be, when unchecked privilege allows prejudices to perpetuate and intensify?
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
See there run away you said
To go you were it, you were it
To lay underneath the red sky there
To lay under her, I want her there
Not trying to be a dick here, but this is what is meant by "not walking the walk".
I'm not really criticizing, I've done the same thing.
I sincerely doubt these bloggers have not also done the same thing.
Okay y'know what, let's just make this simple. Define "privilege" for me here. Because this is maddening.
What I get out of this is "well you're privileged, so you wouldn't understand". And that is not an answer, that is the opposite of an answer. That is unhelpful, and it honestly kind of pisses me off. This is specifically why I don't like these kinds of people, you ask for clarification and get a mu.
Or to put it in short form, the conversation tends to go a bit like:
"what's 'being privileged' mean?"
"you wouldn't understand, you're privileged"
or
"what's 'being privileged' mean?"
"fuck you, I'm not your teacher"
You can see why this is annoying.
I mean, what do you want from me here? I could just go "yes, I suck, and nothing I can do can make up for my failures", but I'd rather not do that. Instead, I choose to assume that sometimes people get scared and sometimes people are weak and sometimes people make mistakes. And sometimes people just have off-days. But that doesn't invalidate the good that they can do. Broadly, privilege is any unearned advantage that may be granted deliberately or inadvertantly (or both) that people who possess certain traits have over people who possess other traits, and which those who possess it might not even notice until it's pointed out to them. Most people are in some respects privileged over some group or other, but some groups are considerably more privileged than others.
See this, to me, appears to be not only a gross misrepresentation of safe-spaces but also a massive insult directed at everyone who has ever benefitted from them or supported them.
Unless you are describing some other phenomenon that has escaped my notice?
I don't want anything from you. I'm just pointing out that no one's perfect and that people shouldn't act like they are.
I totally agree with what you're saying about that not invalidating the good they can do. So I have to ask why that mindset is not afforded to Laci Green, who made a mistake several years ago and is now being forced to pay for it--possibly with her life, if we are to take the death threats seriously.
Is that really "good" for the sake of anybody? I think not. Especially people trying to justify it with "but other groups of people suffer every day and no one cares about them". This is totally true, and also quite unfortunate, as well as problem that needs to be addressed. It is not, however, an excuse to inflict further suffering on others.
Now I am not accusing you of this kind of behavior and it is obviously an extreme of this mindset, but more mild examples happen all the time with these people.
I buy that with two caveats.
One is that being privileged in this sense does not make you incapable of sympathizing, helping with, or interacting with people who aren't. I'm often confused as to what exactly SJ bloggers want of me, with pejorative phrases like "check your privilege, you douche". Am I supposed to somehow stop being privileged? Or am I supposed to what, just kill myself or something? That's an issue, pointing out a problem without any way to deal with it. Now often you'll get told that "it's not my job to educate you" by these people, which is true technically, but if you're going to launch that dialogue, you need to be prepared to continue it. You can't just tell someone they have a problem without even suggesting how to fix it. "Being aware" that you're privileged does not actually fix anything.
Two is that that definition assumes all members of a given group of people are the same, which just isn't true. It may be true for a majority of that group, but not for the entirety of it. It's also honestly kind of just generally "-ist". Sure, you're saying that other people are privileged, but what does that say about the people who aren't? It's again the idea that you're trying to do everything for these "underprivileged" people, and that in of itself is very offensive and prejudiced in its own way.
That means "stop being a bigoted douche". I have no clue who told you that, so I don't know if they were right or not.
" Sure, you're saying that other people are privileged, but what does that say about the people who aren't? It's again the idea that you're trying to do everything for these "underprivileged" people, and that in of itself is very offensive and prejudiced in its own way."
It was probably this that got you in trouble. The point of privelege is that you were born with it and it never goes away. It's saying that if a member of the priveleged group and a member of the not priveleged group were born with everything else about them being equal, society would favor the priveleged one.
That (unlike the previous example I gave) was not actually said to me, personally, but I've seen it more than once.
I'm sorry. I don't buy that there's anything so inmalleable that you're just stuck with it by virtue of being a specific race/sex/whatever for your entire life, and nothing you ever do can ever nix it. That's just putting people into boxes at that point.
If everything about them were equal than neither would be privileged. That's obviously a hypothetical, but it's an awfully strange one.
Society is changeable.
That is what real activism is about. Changing society. Not accommodating its prejudices, which throughout the course of this conversation, I am increasingly convinced is what the SJ community is trying to do. Obviously not deliberately, but still.
@Cpl_Forsythe
Red herring fallacy? Cause you just tried to point me at a fallacy that had nothing to do with what I had just said. And only after taking something I said out of context.
And I'm to just accept that as a fact of life?
Fuck that nonsense.
I think I've figured this out pretty well. Thank you for your time, but I don't think I require any further information.
I think we might be kind of at cross-purposes here a bit; to me, Laci Green is a social justice blogger, and a self-described one who really does "walk the walk", at that. The people you are criticizing are also social justice bloggers, but that doesn't mean I'm supportive of every assholish thing they do. Obviously not. Well, yes. I think people do horrible things to one another all the time. Reasons vary. In a way, people who believe themselves to be in some sense in the right are in fact more dangerous; people who refuse to examine their privilege without realizing that they are prejudiced would fall into this category, as would social justice bloggers who take it upon themselves to persecute innocent Internet users over a throwaway remark they made when they were 18, deleted and apologized for.
When they say that they are expecting you to educate yourself.Which is not a defence of "check your privilege, you douche", incidentally, because that's an incredibly obnoxious thing to say. Agreed, although I do sympathize with people who have encountered so many stubborn people that they're just tired of explaining and would like people to educate themselves. Not saying that's the right thing to do, only that it's understandable, I think. There may be a moral there about sticking your nose into other people's business, but I don't think it's a wholly unreasonable assumption that people who are willing to learn will make the effort to educate themselves and people who are apathetic and content in their prejudice won't bother. I'm not assuming that at all. Everyone is different, not everyone who belongs to a demographic has the exact same privileges. The most you can say is that two individuals who belong to the same set of categories will, all else being equal, be treated in approximately the same way under identical circumstances. It's not that idea at all. People who do that are doing it wrong; that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the definition of privilege I gave. People who are less privileged are people and can decide for themselves how to act. I didn't say anything about telling them what to do.
^^You're right, you never literally said that.
That might not be "the idea" of it. But that's quite honestly what I'm getting out of this.
People who are privileged, who acknowledge they are, who will talk quite a bit about how other people are, and who will never do anything to try to change that.
Because talking, is much easier than taking any action.
Now if you're defining Laci Green as a social justice blogger too, than you can do that, and if she self-identifies, then let her. Definitions are subjective after all, but I think I've pretty well figured out the part I'm talking about.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Uh. I know that I'm not a mod, but if Anonus was here right now, I think he'd advise that everybody just take a chill pill for a few hours. Everybody's heated right now, and there's no way that this conversation is going to improve until everybody calms down.
I'm actually pretty calm right now.
Reading Alice at the same time helps. Can't speak for anyone else.
I want to reply to Corporal Forsythe, but I'll leave it for now if now is not the time.
I personally recognize what you could most likely call privilege: I am a heterosexual male in a guy's body who is white-skinned (albeit of Filipino heritage), and lives fairly comfortably (like, my family is probably above middle-class), and I understand that there are others who are much less fortunate than me, and live in the same city as I do.
I personally think that what we need these days is education, forgiveness and a fostering of understanding in all.
And now, to go back to your usual schedule, have an antelope:
Wheeeee
Personally I've had a revelation regarding myself and the people around me, but okay.
I'mma play Pokemon now.
Must have been some anniversary thing.
Alice The Webcomic was last updated in 2006, a Christmas Card was posted this past Christmas, but not an actual comic.
I have a sad.
....
I'm aware that you're probably talking about in some game or something, but now I just have this mental image of you hunched over a bottle, trying to put together a pirate ship inside of it.
/important information