Number one rule of tumblr: Everything is either racist, sexist, or homophobic. If you do not agree, check your white privilege. If you're not white, check your upper-class privilege. If you're not upper-class, check your not-living-in-Rwanda privilege. Ad nauseum.
So I have enough fake app money to get myself a real $10 gift card on iTunes but the app I'm using isn't going to give out iTunes cards again till tomorrow because today's cards are "sold out".
Bluh. I hate how they do that. It's digital money; you couldn't run out of it if you tried.
Kexruct: Fouria and I tackled that very subject (privilege) a while back, thread is titled "social justice" I think.
Personally find this whole "privilege" business to be nothing but horsedump and hopefully a quickly dying fad
I mean, obviously if you're rich, you won't be able to understand the plight of the poor man as easily, but it's seriously not as big of a deal as people make it out to be.
Doctor Who reference in Pokemon B2W2? Headcanon accepted.
One thing I forgot to mention about how "privilege" is a bogus philosophy is that according to how it works, the most privileged is a straight white male, and the least privileged is a gay black woman.
One thing I forgot to mention about how "privilege" is a bogus philosophy is that according to how it works, the most privileged is a straight white male, and the least privileged is a gay black woman.
One thing I forgot to mention about how "privilege" is a bogus philosophy is that according to how it works, the most privileged is a straight white male, and the least privileged is a gay black woman.
Now. Who's the richest woman in the entire world?
I don't think Oprah is a lesbian.
Clearly you don't read The National Enquirer often enough.
Clearly you don't read The National Enquirer often enough.
This
Honestly, I don't know and it's wrong for me or anyone else to label her as such. But back to what I was saying, Oprah's not only the richest woman in the world, she did it by bootstraps.
Kexruct: Fouria and I tackled that very subject (privilege) a while back, thread is titled "social justice" I think.
Personally find this whole "privilege" business to be nothing but horsedump and hopefully a quickly dying fad
And I did a shit job defending it, because I kept talking about the lack of privilege instead of privilege itself. I regret that thread a lot, actually. I didn't do the argument justice at all.
It's not horsedump and it's not a fad. If x and y are not equal in a given respect (e.g. in a social context), by definition, x > y (or vice versa). In the context of social inequality, that relationship is conventionally expressed as "x is privileged over y". That is all it means.
One thing I forgot to mention about how "privilege" is a bogus philosophy is that according to how it works, the most privileged is a straight white male, and the least privileged is a gay black woman.
Also, during the discussion in the social justice/privilege thread, I wasn't actually familiar with tumblr sj movement or the problems with it, of which there are several, some of them quite severe. The term "privilege" doesn't originate with them, however.
Oprah is a hell of a big "1". She got where she is through her own hard work. Regardless, I stand corrected.
Things haven't improved for "privilege" as a fact or even a concept, either. People are still fitting facts to it as a theory hoping to persuade -- as opposed to proving -- that it's a real societal problem.
Oprah is a hell of a big "1". She got where she is through her own hard work. Regardless, I stand corrected.
Things haven't improved for "privilege" as a fact or even a concept, either. People are still fitting facts to it as a theory hoping to persuade -- as opposed to proving -- that it's a real societal problem.
I don't think one can reasonably argue that it's not possible for a black woman to succeed in this society. There are successful black women in all kinds of occupations, from business to politics to entertainment. With brains and sufficient determination, you can achieve a lot.
The privilege argument seeks to draw attention to certain significant obstacles to success that black people and women tend to encounter - obstacles that simply don't exist for white men.
I've noticed that in discussions of prejudice and privilege, quite often the terminology is attacked when the concepts referred to aren't even in dispute. For example, there was a recent Radio Times article headlined "There Is No Glass Ceiling". The article stated that there were substantial obstacles encountered by women in the business world that men didn't encounter, obstacles arising from prejudice. Which is, in fact, the glass ceiling. It doesn't mean that it's impossible for a woman to scale the corporate ladder, so to speak, but it makes it a lot more difficult than it could or should be.
I've noticed that in discussions of prejudice and privilege, quite often the terminology is attacked when the concepts referred to aren't even in dispute. For example, there was a recent Radio Times article headlined "There Is No Glass Ceiling". The article stated that there were substantial obstacles encountered by women in the business world that men didn't encounter, obstacles arising from prejudice. Which is, in fact, the glass ceiling. It doesn't mean that it's impossible for a woman to scale the corporate ladder, so to speak, but it makes it a lot more difficult than it could or should be.
And I agree with this entire statement. If actual prejudice in society is what we're talking about here, you're not going to find an argument with me. However, as we discussed at length, privilege is not exactly analogous with your statement on prejudice above. It tries to define itself on a far broader spectrum which is pretty much my entire problem with it (other than its very shaky credentials)
@ Corporal Forsythe: From what I've seen of its use on tumblr, you are perfectly correct. It seems to have acquired the status of a buzzword there, but I think it's worth being mindful of its origins and the concept it is intended, and still used, to express.
"Privilege" is obviously an English word, Latin in origin. As a noun, it conventionally means a special advantage or right granted to a person or group, while as an adjective it tends to mean favouring one thing over another. In the latter sense it has seen quite a longstanding philosophical use. It appears, for example, on the first page of Being and Nothingness; Sartre writes: "The appearances which manifest the existent are neither interior or exterior; they are all equal, they all refer to other appearances, and none of them is privileged." I have in front of me a translation of "Origin of Geometry," the third appendix of Edmund Husserl's 1936 philosophical work, The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology, by John P Leavey, Jr. At one point, Husserl states that "What is privileged in consciousness as the horizon of civilization and as the linguistic community is mature normal civilization (taking away the abnormal and the world of children)." Husserl is obviously not trying to draw attention to an injustice against "the abnormal" and children; he is simply saying that the emphasis of language is on the practices and norms of most adults.
A great deal of philosophical (and especially phenomenological and existential) terminology has been imported into the humanities and social sciences in recent years, in no small part courtesy of Judith Butler (influenced, of course, by Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan, etc.) who applied post-structuralist theory to feminism. As far as I can tell, the sense of the word "privilege" meaning to emphasise one thing over another, for example, to presume maleness or straightness, entered the social sciences that way.
There was already an existing tradition of using the term "white privilege", or "white skin privileges", to refer to the psychological and other advantages benefitting white Americans in the 1960s and '70s. This was itself influenced by W. E. B. Du Bois, who noted back in the 1930s that poor white workers were afforded a greater level of respect than black workers.
The current use of "privilege" on tumblr seems to be a hybrid of these two usages, neither of which is itself, as far as I can see, wrong. Where it seems to go astray is you see people applying it to invented social minorities that are not the victims of social oppression, such as teen subcultures, online fandoms, and people attempting to appropriate the identities of genuine oppressed groups (e.g. "transethnicity"), and you also see this kind of isolationist movement which attempts to brush off all external criticism by using "privilege" as a silencing word.
There was already an existing tradition of using the term "white privilege", or "white skin privileges", to refer to the psychological and other advantages benefitting white Americans in the 1960s and '70s. This was itself influenced by W. E. B. Du Bois, who noted back in the 1930s that poor white workers were afforded a greater level of respect than black workers.
The current use of "privilege" on tumblr seems to be a hybrid of these two usages, neither of which is itself, as far as I can see, wrong. Where it seems to go astray is you see people applying it to invented social minorities that are not the victims of social oppression, such as teen subcultures, online fandoms, and people attempting to appropriate the identities of genuine oppressed groups (e.g. "transethnicity"), and you also see this kind of isolationist movement which attempts to brush off all external criticism by using "privilege" as a silencing word.
This being the case, we don't have an argument with each other at all. Actually, the only thing I'd argue is that people of all races (in the United States, I can't speak for anyone else) all have the same opportunities available to them for an education and other things. I can't speak for instances of Company A and Company B that only hire white people or hispanics, but I think that at least our opportunity for education sets us a bit past (but not totally free from) what you described above.
But just so we're on the same wavelength here, this is a prime example of what pisses me off about this whole stupid "privilege" movement:
if being 100% gay is playing for the other team then i’d like to imagine being pansexual as playing for every team. you just sort of run around between the in and outfields juggling the extra balls and sit a couple innings in the audience eating a hotdog and eventually everyone starts to question whether you even know how to play baseball or not
This being the case, we don't have an argument with each other at all. Actually, the only thing I'd argue is that people of all races (in the United States, I can't speak for anyone else) all have the same opportunities available to them for an education and other things. I can't speak for instances of Company A and Company B that only hire white people or hispanics, but I think that at least our opportunity for education sets us a bit past (but not totally free from) what you described above.
Oh, no disagreement from me. There can be no question but that we've come a long, long way since the 1960s.
As a word is used more frequently in politics, the likelihood of it losing all meaning approaches one.
As a word is used more frequently in "Reasonable" debates (examples: OTC, youtube comments), the probability of it losing all meaning approaches one.
The frequency of "intelligent" people using face-palms, disappointments, do you realize what you just said, etc; is inversely proportional to the amount and quality of meaning in an argument.
Actually, one thing I do think deserves keeping in mind (but apologies if this is stating the obvious) is that the quality of education can vary quite severely by region, as can ethnic/racial demographics.
There are also other factors that can adversely affect the quality of education an individual receives, of course, such as upbringing and economic bracket.
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."
How's everything going so far?
Edit: Argh, looks like I missed my chance. Oh, well.
Pretty good, the boardwalk was nice even if half the stuff was closed, and we saw the USS Atlantus (aka "The Concrete Ship") at Cape May. I bought a bunch of stupid souveniers (among them, a dried starfish, an Angry Birds t-shirt) and have been playing a lot of Ninja Cop (THE BEST GBA GAME EVER) and Summon Night Story since there's no wi-fi in my cabin.
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."
Good to hear!
You responded right as I edited that part in. That is just perfect timing.
Comments
Bluh. I hate how they do that. It's digital money; you couldn't run out of it if you tried.
I don't think Oprah is a lesbian.
@lee4hmz
I'm thinking of something a little more specific, but yeah, basically.
It's not horsedump and it's not a fad. If x and y are not equal in a given respect (e.g. in a social context), by definition, x > y (or vice versa). In the context of social inequality, that relationship is conventionally expressed as "x is privileged over y". That is all it means.
Sample size of 1. Very compelling.
Also, during the discussion in the social justice/privilege thread, I wasn't actually familiar with tumblr sj movement or the problems with it, of which there are several, some of them quite severe. The term "privilege" doesn't originate with them, however.
The privilege argument seeks to draw attention to certain significant obstacles to success that black people and women tend to encounter - obstacles that simply don't exist for white men.
I've noticed that in discussions of prejudice and privilege, quite often the terminology is attacked when the concepts referred to aren't even in dispute. For example, there was a recent Radio Times article headlined "There Is No Glass Ceiling". The article stated that there were substantial obstacles encountered by women in the business world that men didn't encounter, obstacles arising from prejudice. Which is, in fact, the glass ceiling. It doesn't mean that it's impossible for a woman to scale the corporate ladder, so to speak, but it makes it a lot more difficult than it could or should be.
"Privilege" is obviously an English word, Latin in origin. As a noun, it conventionally means a special advantage or right granted to a person or group, while as an adjective it tends to mean favouring one thing over another. In the latter sense it has seen quite a longstanding philosophical use. It appears, for example, on the first page of Being and Nothingness; Sartre writes: "The appearances which manifest the existent are neither interior or exterior; they are all equal, they all refer to other appearances, and none of them is privileged." I have in front of me a translation of "Origin of Geometry," the third appendix of Edmund Husserl's 1936 philosophical work, The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology, by John P Leavey, Jr. At one point, Husserl states that "What is privileged in consciousness as the horizon of civilization and as the linguistic community is mature normal civilization (taking away the abnormal and the world of children)." Husserl is obviously not trying to draw attention to an injustice against "the abnormal" and children; he is simply saying that the emphasis of language is on the practices and norms of most adults.
A great deal of philosophical (and especially phenomenological and existential) terminology has been imported into the humanities and social sciences in recent years, in no small part courtesy of Judith Butler (influenced, of course, by Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan, etc.) who applied post-structuralist theory to feminism. As far as I can tell, the sense of the word "privilege" meaning to emphasise one thing over another, for example, to presume maleness or straightness, entered the social sciences that way.
There was already an existing tradition of using the term "white privilege", or "white skin privileges", to refer to the psychological and other advantages benefitting white Americans in the 1960s and '70s. This was itself influenced by W. E. B. Du Bois, who noted back in the 1930s that poor white workers were afforded a greater level of respect than black workers.
The current use of "privilege" on tumblr seems to be a hybrid of these two usages, neither of which is itself, as far as I can see, wrong. Where it seems to go astray is you see people applying it to invented social minorities that are not the victims of social oppression, such as teen subcultures, online fandoms, and people attempting to appropriate the identities of genuine oppressed groups (e.g. "transethnicity"), and you also see this kind of isolationist movement which attempts to brush off all external criticism by using "privilege" as a silencing word.
Yes, that looks like a prime example of "privilege" as a buzzword divorced from its actual meaning.
As a word is used more frequently in "Reasonable" debates (examples: OTC, youtube comments), the probability of it losing all meaning approaches one.
The frequency of "intelligent" people using face-palms, disappointments, do you realize what you just said, etc; is inversely proportional to the amount and quality of meaning in an argument.
There are also other factors that can adversely affect the quality of education an individual receives, of course, such as upbringing and economic bracket.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
I am here again.
Still in New Jersey, now in A MCDONALD'S IN NEW JERSEY.