## Privilege

Next
• 561
I don't even know what we're talking about anymore because you before said you didn't want to call just any desirable attribute a privilege but now you are calling the lack of an undesirable attribute a privilege and so I assume anything goes now.

Any desirable attribute is not a privilege, for instance take a professional football player. The hard work & sacrifice he's put into it isn't privilege... what's privilege is the genetics behind that or that his parents could afford football camp. Privilege is about things you don't control. If it's positive and outside of your control, yes, it could be considered a privilege. Even the absence of a negative could be considered a privilege - that's why I'm saying the modern discourse about privilege - if we're being honest with it - should be expanded tremendously. That is - if we want to work within this framework.

I think Asif is right in saying that you are in a sense by asking intelligent people to view their intelligence as an unearned advantage, you are asking for things like guilt and shame.

I don't mean for it to come across that way just like I'm not asking people who are not in chronic pain to feel guilty about that. I consider it a privilege that I'm not in chronic pain, but again it would seem ridiculous to suggest that people without chronic pain should feel guilty about not having it. I don't personally feel guilty for not having a billion different disorders. It would be like guilty overload.

And if someone did receive a huge advantage and now they're proud of a good placing, what a prick. Of course, you did well, you have all these unearned advantages.

Someone is still praiseworthy for turning, say, a $1 million into$5 million - it's an excellent job, but I think we'd both agree this is different from someone reaching $5 million who started out with$10. I'm not here to belittle those who were born into privilege and stayed in privilege, but someone who overcame a legitimate obstacle to achieve is super praiseworthy. There's something special about that (I deal a lot in the disability community, by the way so that's my frame of reference.)

Dating, for example, I am sympathetic here because it is inherently competitive and being attractive is an advantage, period. Your characterisation seems apt here, you are not creating competition, it already existed.

Yep, generally speaking attractiveness is an advantage although there may be cases where it isn't. Similarly, being born into wealth or having intelligence (intelligence is largely genetic, by the way) is generally an advantage, although not always. You won't be capable of holding anything beyond an entry level position with an IQ of less than 80. They won't even let you into the military.

Let me briefly touch on your suggestion of "lucky", this is not something I would give you grief over but you have to see how different this is compared to "unearned advantage". There is no competition, there is no hierarchy, there is only gratitude, it is a very positive perspective and I can't really find fault in it.

You can have gratitude, I have no problem with that. I can accept the gratitude line of thought. Personally, I just find the concept of privilege more interesting to explore because it has more of a social element to it. You can reject the framing of privilege all you want, but that's basically how discourse is going around today so.... if you're going to engage with a left-winger it's gonna be difficult if you just reject their concepts entirely, but each to his own.
• 708

The language you use has implications outside of the control of your intent, yet nobody has the final say on what the consequences of your language are. So you can say things like "you can have gratitude" but to a large extent, you lose control over that. Most people don't take "unearned advantages" within competitive contexts well at all. Can you not see how being grateful for intelligence (a blessing) and being grateful for intelligence (an unearned advantage) are different? One is virtuous and one is nearly ill-intentioned, that's my interpretation at least.

The interplay between privileges could very well undermine the entire purpose of the conceptualisation and I think this would happen. You point out how going from $1m to 5m is different than going from$10 to 5m and I agree, I think most people would agree but in this example, you haven't acknowledged any other privileges besides wealth. I think the introduction of other privileges could create any narrative - given including all of the privileges is impractical due to how many there (and because it mightn't be convenient for the narrative we are trying to make).

What bothers me most of all is that for you, the justification is truth, while I am here trying to consider the pros and cons of the framing. How would it be used, by whom and for what? I arrive at unpleasant answers. I believe that your dedication to truth is misplaced here, for your characterisation of the truth has its own consequences and because of this, we can easily see that your characterisation is something separate from the truth. Hence we must evaluate your characterisation through different means than by whether it is true. This equally applies to framing.

Generally speaking, I prefer to look at these kinds of things on a case-by-case basis and how they affect the individual. In your case, I see no problems, your conceptualisation of things isn't causing you any undue negative feelings, it's not getting in the way of positive feelings and there are no effects that I can interpret as negative. If your framing operated only as it operates through you then I might not have an issue with it but that is not my expectation.

I don't really care what everyone else is thinking or doing and convincing others of anything usually requires status, authority, them having a certain perception of you, something. Convincing someone who has no reason to believe you except because they accept your logic, you rarely see it.
• 8.4k
All you have done so far is respond to my critique of white privilege by reiterating that black people have been/are unfairly treated and asking me whether black lives matter.

The post that followed this opening is the first critique of white privilege, from you, that I've seen. I'm still struggling to understand why you are replying with such underlying discontent about me personally. I'm not attacking you. I recognize that the notion of "white privilege" is used, quite unjustly, as an attack. I do not condone such use.

That said, the post deserves more of my attention. I appreciate it, because it seems that there's much to work with, and you may be surprised to know that there remains much agreement. Some of the issues ought be further unpacked. As you well know, the topic is nuanced... quite so.

I'm working on a more appropriate and in depth reply, because I think you've offered a good start...

:wink:
• 8.9k
Being able to use stairs is a privilege.

Why do we build stairs instead of ramps? Well, they are cheaper, they take up less space. They are convenient.

Stairs were not invented in order to exclude folk. But it is what happened.

So how will you react to this? Seems to me that you have a choice.

You might simply acknowledge that stairs prevent some folk from doing things that you do.

Or you might deny the obvious, or claim it unimportant, belittle those affected, distance yourself from responsibility, twist it so that it becomes about you, bury it in arguments about other things, put up more walls and barriers so that you don't feel uncomfortable.

It's up to you.
• 208
@Banno Why the dichotomy? You can say it would be good to have a lift. Nothing to do with a person being able to use stairs being "privileged". This is just a sneaky way of categorizing people hierarchically and virtue signalling.
And who identifies "privilege", the govt academics and leftists? No thanks,the idea of rich elites dictating categories of humans Is hypocritical and extremely discriminatory. An appeal to emotion by elites....
You donating your next pay packet to lifts banno?
• 208
Up to you with implication you dont care if you dont agree with arguement as constructed. Sheesh! The rhethoric of the virtue signaller. Trying to guilt people for being able to walk!
• 445
I'm a "cis white male" and wouldn't place myself in a category such as "powers that be". In fact, a majority of visible minorities are doing far better for themselves than I am for myself. So I'm wondering now what it is you think you're talking about. Are you saying that, in modern times, with legislation that protects and equalizes all people based on merit--and then promotes visible minorities based on social and economic inequities and perceived inequalities--if a "cis white male" is elected to some office, any office, or given any position of authority over anyone, I'm then in a position of power by virtue of my skin colour? Is that really what you're saying here?

And do you get that what you're saying, if I understand correctly, is racist and dehumanizing?

Also, given that you believe guilt is transferable between people of a common skin colour, are you then willing to serve prison time for a stranger's crimes?
• 8.9k
Or you might deny the obvious, or claim it unimportant, belittle those affected, distance yourself from responsibility, twist it so that it becomes about you, bury it in arguments about other things, put up more walls and barriers so that you don't feel uncomfortable.

...or you might ignore the facts and instead attack me.
• 708

I have noticed a trend with you Banno, you do this in many of the arguments you make. You take a small set of facts or reasonable points and use them to create a highly specific narrative. You are either highly adept at creating a manipulative framing or oblivious to the importance of framing, I am starting to believe it is the former. Your characterisations and interpretations aren't facts, your blurring of these differences is manipulative.

Being able to use stairs is a privilege. - interpretation

Why do we build stairs instead of ramps? Well, they are cheaper, they take up less space. They are convenient. - fact

Stairs were not invented in order to exclude folk. But it is what happened. - fact

So how will you react to this? Seems to me that you have a choice. - narrative

You might simply acknowledge that stairs prevent some folk from doing things that you do. - fact

Or you might deny the obvious, or claim it unimportant, belittle those affected, distance yourself from responsibility, twist it so that it becomes about you, bury it in arguments about other things, put up more walls and barriers so that you don't feel uncomfortable. - narrative

It's up to you.

If we just look at the actual facts, there is not much controversy here, I don't think many people are going to deny this. You are aware of that, yet when we look at the narrative, it turns very dark, very quickly. The "obvious" privilege which is not a fact, being denied, makes you just this terrible, selfish, bigoted person. This is not the first time I've seen this from you, nor will it be the last. This makes for good politics but mediocre philosophy.
• 8.9k
Being able to use stairs is a privilege. - interpretation

Interpretation? So the able bodied gain no advantage by being able to access buildings unavailable to others?

No; that stairs exclude some folk is a fact, not an interpretation.

The "obvious" privilege which is not a fact, being denied, makes you just this terrible, selfish, bigoted person.

That's not something I have said. That you feel the need to augment my post in order to criticise it is interesting. I don't want you to feel guilty, I want you to recognise the need for ramps.

And again, the critique here is directed at me, not at the point I have made. But then, as soon as privilege is mentioned, folk become oddly defensive. That's curious.
• 8.9k
Curious, that "privilege' is such a trigger for some.
• 708

It is a characterisation of what it means to be able to use the stairs, which is why when you said that "You might simply acknowledge that stairs prevent some folk from doing things that you do" I described it as a fact, even though it's pretty much the same point.

Characterisations are not facts, that you are once again trying to conflate your interpretation with the fact is again, manipulative. Evaluating your characterisation is a separate discussion, calling something a privilege has various implications that you are not unaware of. Even creating a discussion about how stairs create privilege is your prerogative and not simply a neutral discussion about stairs. It's so silly, what you're trying to do here, why can't you just acknowledge your prerogative instead of pretending like you're just dispassionately stating some facts. It is so dishonest.
• 208
Nothing curious here mate.
It's not a neutral word. And your low key dispassion and feigned curiosity is totally disingenuous. Judaka described you well.
You are A politician not a philosopher. To be a philosopher
requires honesty.
• 708

I do not know who he is trying to fool, his political prerogatives are obvious but he feigns ignorance and continues to confuse fact with opinion, honest inquiry with hostility and aggression.

That's not something I have said.
It is my characterisation of what you have said, which I think is defensible. I don't know why you are trying to play dumb. Belittling people, twisting the misfortune of others so it "becomes about you", those are nasty things Banno, you knew that, that's why you said them.

Yes, I wonder why people respond to "facts" as hostility and aggression? Very curious indeed, I wonder who is in the wrong here.
• 8.9k
Triggered.
• 8.9k
hostility and aggression.

Where? What did I say that was hostile or aggressive?

Quote me.
• 708

What have you said that wasn't hostile or aggressive?

You might be; talking about employment; that you can ignore issues apart from those you list is your privilege. You get to pretend that the stairs are not the issue.

Others are not so fortunate.

The point here cuts to the bullshit of the OP. You will not recognise your privilege; it must be pointed out by those who do not share it.

Seems to me as folk won't listen to the other.

Someone... not sure who it was now... made the observation that so many of these discussions come down to trying to convince someone that they should care for someone else.

Case in point.

You might simply acknowledge that stairs prevent some folk from doing things that you do.

Or you might deny the obvious, or claim it unimportant, belittle those affected, distance yourself from responsibility, twist it so that it becomes about you, bury it in arguments about other things, put up more walls and barriers so that you don't feel uncomfortable.

It's up to you.

Curious, that "privilege' is such a trigger for some.

Besides the pernicious ideology you peddle and all of its unpleasantness, you yourself have done nothing but put a target on any who might take the option of disagreeing with you. It is character assassination, the options are "agree with me or something is wrong with you". You characterise differing opinions as belonging to the privileged who ignore the other, the selfish, the ignorant and lacking a moral compass.

There is also just a lack of any honest debate from you, what I've quoted is a majority of your contribution in this thread.
• 208
@Banno What is this particular building you are referring
to which is so important for everybody to access?
Most public buildings I know have ramps and lifts anyway.
Yours is the typical political sophistry. Blow up and highlight a simple specific issue then categorise and shame anyone who disagrees with your crass generalisations and political ideology.
It's like charities that try to shame people into donating .
@Judaka Its expressly obvious how banno operates yet even with all these quotes you highlighted he will try to weasel his way out,obfuscate and make others seem in the wrong.
Typical gaslighting nonsense. I really enjoy his posts as they highlight the psychology of the sophist the ideologue the politically correct dogmatists.
Banno did not have sexual relations with that woman!!!!
If only banno knew my skin color and economics,His arguments about "privilege" would then be self refuting.
Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal