Check Your Privilege

[Farm Boy]

It can be delayed indefinitely (water/mass).

Well, then we become a forest instead of a prairie. Densely populated forests eventually canopy and suffocate the majority of competing life at the surface level. Then all the excitement gets to be who is winning the most privileged competition for tallest tree. I'd rather live in the prairie. The ground life there is powered by the light of day instead of the darkness of decay. Having the opportunity to rebuild in that light every generation seems to be a small price to pay for ridding ourselves of the strangling oaks.

 

[Flying Pig]

Not really. The "lived experience" thing we got sucked into debating is certainly a related concept, but it's not privilege-checking by itself. I summarized what that is ten pages ago with my first post in the thread [responding to the OP], but people love to take things and run with them, and apparently the idea that patriarchy exists is too much for some men in here to let slide.

So as you can see, it's really just asking people to be socially-conscious in their interactions with people of disadvantaged groups, particularly in the sense that groups whose privilege extends from oppressive social structures (white supremacy, heteronormativity, cisnormativity, patriarchy, etc) have often had the power to talk over the voices of the oppressed and re-write their experiences and history.

I think I see: it's about listening and not unnecessarily trying to re-write someone's version of events. That all sounds fair. Evidently tricky to apply on an internet forum, where it's not possible to talk over or silence somebody as it is in conversation: I would venture that it's being interpreted (not always by those using it) as 'don't disagree with people less privileged than you', which may be where that strange exchange a page or so ago, with everyone arguing over their 'credentials', came from.

 

[Flying Pig]

Wealth can be measured in absolute terms. Do I have more toasters and phones than 5 years ago? Do my gizmos do more things? Do I have enough to eat whereas I did not before? Am I safer from violence? Affluence is more relative, and affluence deals more with the "justice" of the system. We'd be lying to ourselves if we think relative affluence doesn't actually mean more than absolute wealth once the basics(food/clothing/shelter/safety) are mostly covered. The affluence decides who can walk where. Who owes who service. Who owes who 8 hours a day. Who mates with who. Etc etc etc and on down the long windy path. Sometimes you do need to burn the prairie to sustain it.

Edit: We can switch around the definition of Wealth/Affluence if that fits better. Or use different words. I'm just trying to cover a concept, if you have suggestions on different words, I'd find that interesting.

There's a good book on this - called The Spirit Level - which argues with facts and figures exactly the same point: that the defining factor in how healthy and happy people are is much more to do with where they stand relative to their peers than their wealth in the absolute. It's an unfortunate development from the inner chimp.

EDIT: Apologies for the double post.

 

[Rashiminos]

So as you can see, it's really just asking people to be socially-conscious in their interactions with people of disadvantaged groups, particularly in the sense that groups whose privilege extends from oppressive social structures (white supremacy, heteronormativity, cisnormativity, patriarchy, etc) have often had the power to talk over the voices of the oppressed and re-write their experiences and history.

to abrograte or otherwise correct for power relations in the conversation.

On schedule, today...

...they'd have to learn how to consume and inflame just as effectively..

Well, then we become a forest instead of a prairie. Densely populated forests eventually canopy and suffocate the majority of competing life at the surface level. Then all the excitement gets to be who is winning the most privileged competition for tallest tree. I'd rather live in the prairie. The ground life there is powered by the light of day instead of the darkness of decay. Having the opportunity to rebuild in that light every generation seems to be a small price to pay for ridding ourselves of the strangling oaks.

I can sort of see the sentiment there, but I'm remembering a comment from some other place about past actions (like deciding where to live) leading to different presents.... presents. That and various ruminant animals.

Nobody is exercising free will over what race, gender or orientation they are. That was my point.

So if you subtract a finite number of characters from the analogy, does it hold for the rest? Why the ritual if some Harry guy can count to 4 and pick one?

Now you're trying this shtick even on other people's behalf? It's getting old. Other people can speak for themselves, and don't need being instrumentalized in your arguments.

Does that make Cheezy an instrument?

 

[Farm Boy]

There's a good book on this - called The Spirit Level - which argues with facts and figures exactly the same point: that the defining factor in how healthy and happy people are is much more to do with where they stand relative to their peers than their wealth in the absolute. It's an unfortunate development from the inner chimp.

I'll have to read a book again one of these years. Well, a book that doesn't rhyme. Though I do like Dr. Seuss better than I remembered liking him. Is it like that baboons and stress video that got linked several months back? Where the more dominant individuals were not merely dominant but also happier and healthier from the stress differential alone? A state of affairs measurably similar to that inside the British civil service?

 

[Leoreth]

I think I see: it's about listening and not unnecessarily trying to re-write someone's version of events. That all sounds fair. Evidently tricky to apply on an internet forum, where it's not possible to talk over or silence somebody as it is in conversation: I would venture that it's being interpreted (not always by those using it) as 'don't disagree with people less privileged than you', which may be where that strange exchange a page or so ago, with everyone arguing over their 'credentials', came from.

That interpretation is extreme and definitely a (deliberate or not) misinterpretation of what the idea of privilege and awareness thereof are about.

But even if it is harder to (physically? acoustically? not sure what the right qualifier is here) talk over someone on a discussion board than it is in an actual conversation, the same dynamics are still in effect.

For example, let's say a woman writes that cat calling is gross and obnoxious and has made her feel uncomfortable and unsafe every time it happened to her. Than a male poster comes along and writes that in his opinion, cat calling is a compliment and if he was a woman he would be flattered if it happened to him.

Both perspectives are right there to be read unobstructed, but the way the debate is set up the appearance of both positions carrying equal weight are created. Or given that groups with privilege often have the numerical advantage or otherwise dominate the conversation, the privileged position might even appear as carrying more weight.

In reality, men do not know what it is like being subjected to cat calling the way women are, and their assumption that they can just find out by imagining it and being unbiased about it is plain wrong. That is precisely their privilege showing.

In consequence, as a man, you should strive to take women's experiences seriously instead of talking over them with your much less pertinent speculation about what women's experiences might be like.

 

[Farm Boy]

Why on earth would "walking a mile in somebody else's shoes" involve "just find out by imagining it" instead of "taking women's experiences seriously?" That would make it ridiculous rather than meaningful.

 

[Oruc]

Nobody is exercising free will over what race, gender or orientation they are. That was my point.


Okay, let's say the picture you paint of this dog-eat-dog world is true, let's further assume that your characterization of my person as someone who would endorse such a world at your expense is also correct. (Also for simplicity we are natives of the same country.)

All of this is of course only projection on your part, which is extra hypocritical considering your complaints about me, but it makes for a nice hypothetical.

So, under these circumstances, why should I side with you over an immigrant? You both seem to be basically the same to this hypothetical version of myself.

I never said you endorsed such a world I said you believe you're moral person, an absolute paragon of moral excellence bestriding the world. But it's a con, you con yourself and others.

But you would never side with me that would be nativist which in your world view and according to your ideology is morally wrong. We either have a system where the people higher up the chain browbeat or beat you into line or if we still work within our current system I have to hold out hope (which is always the absolute last refuge of the damned) for a demagogue or populist. Those are the ways when you would side with me.

Now you're trying this shtick even on other people's behalf? It's getting old. Other people can speak for themselves, and don't need being instrumentalized in your arguments.

What shtick? I share genuine emotion and you take the damn piss. The fact you're a mod is a joke your modding status should be removed.

 

[Leoreth]

So if you subtract a finite number of characters from the analogy, does it hold for the rest? Why the ritual if some Harry guy can count to 4 and pick one?

Have you read Harry Potter?

The whole point of Harry's encounter with the hat is that your own choices determine what kind of person you are, not some all-knowing magical being. Harry does not want to be a Slytherin and would rather like to be a Gryffindor, because he thinks the traits associated with Slytherins are bad and those associated with Gryffindors are good. There is no clearer sign of being a Gryffindor than actively deciding to be a Gryffindor. The sorting hat itself makes that very clear itself, in Chamber of Secrets if I am not mistaken.

That whole bit is about personal morality, mind you. Free will does not apply to say your gender or race. Which is exactly the reason why your analogy does not apply.

Does that make Cheezy an instrument?

Cheezy?

 

[Leoreth]

Why on earth would "walking a mile in somebody else's shoes" involve "just find out by imagining it" instead of "taking women's experiences seriously?" That would make it ridiculous rather than meaningful.

Not sure what you mean.

If you think it is my suggestion that people should "find out by imagining it", then that is the exact opposite of what I was trying to say, apologies for being unclear.

I was deliberately criticizing people in a position of privilege who believe their opinion on an issue is equally valid even though they never experienced it, only because their imagination could substitute for experience.

I never said you endorsed such a world I said you believe you're moral person, an absolute paragon of moral excellence bestriding the world. But it's a con, you con yourself and others.

Being moral =|= being a paragon of virtue.

Just because I try to live up to some moral ideas does not mean that I am always successful. Far from it in fact. Therefore I am far from criticizing anyone from living up to my or their own morals.

That's not what this is about though. You denied that morals even enter into the question. Which I consider a cheap cop out of the responsibility to actually live up to any set of morals.

But you would never side with me that would be nativist which in your world view and according to your ideology is morally wrong. We either have a system where the people higher up the chain browbeat or beat you into line or if we still work within our current system I have to hold out hope (which is always the absolute last refuge of the damned) for a demagogue or populist. Those are the ways when you would side with me.

So you cannot give me a reason why I should see a difference between you and a foreigner, all things being equal?

I know that preferring you over a foreigner would make me a nativist, and you are right that I am not one. But that does not answer the question why I am wrong, and why I should be a nativist.

What shtick?

I mean that part where you try to paint me as someone who is trying to take a posture of moral superiority over you, and is only participating in this discussion as a way of self-aggrandization.

It's disingenuous, needlessly personal and a rather clumsy distraction from the actual topic, but that's fine because all of these things are rather obvious. What's not fine is that you feel the need to project this show on other forum members who don't deserve to be drawn into our conversation without their consent.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

On schedule, today...

I guess you think you're clever or profound or something.

That interpretation is extreme and definitely a (deliberate or not) misinterpretation of what the idea of privilege and awareness thereof are about.

But even if it is harder to (physically? acoustically? not sure what the right qualifier is here) talk over someone on a discussion board than it is in an actual conversation, the same dynamics are still in effect.

For example, let's say a woman writes that cat calling is gross and obnoxious and has made her feel uncomfortable and unsafe every time it happened to her. Than a male poster comes along and writes that in his opinion, cat calling is a compliment and if he was a woman he would be flattered if it happened to him.

Both perspectives are right there to be read unobstructed, but the way the debate is set up the appearance of both positions carrying equal weight are created. Or given that groups with privilege often have the numerical advantage or otherwise dominate the conversation, the privileged position might even appear as carrying more weight.

In reality, men do not know what it is like being subjected to cat calling the way women are, and their assumption that they can just find out by imagining it and being unbiased about it is plain wrong. That is precisely their privilege showing.

In consequence, as a man, you should strive to take women's experiences seriously instead of talking over them with your much less pertinent speculation about what women's experiences might be like.

Thank you. This is a more eloquent way of saying what I was going to respond with.

Why on earth would "walking a mile in somebody else's shoes" involve "just find out by imagining it" instead of "taking women's experiences seriously?" That would make it ridiculous rather than meaningful.

Nonetheless, it is how people often engage with the issue.

 

[Farm Boy]

Nonetheless, it is how people often engage with the issue.

Ok. That's fair. But then that wisdom has the same problem that "check your privilege" has. People interpret it to mean something silly and counterproductive instead of what it actually means. I still think we get better mileage out of trying to convince people that just imagining being in the shoes(tone tone and tone!) isn't good enough and that we need to listen to people who've walked the road already than we get out of the more colloquial internet use, rather than a measured educational environment, of holding one's aggressively generalized self(which is the root of the problem in the first place) at bay like some sort of animal.

Who knows though? I'm probably losing the progressive mindset. The more I look at teens the more I see my parents. The internet just lets me see a lot of interactions that would have been private and hidden before.

 

[Rashiminos]

Have you read Harry Potter?

Yes.

The whole point of Harry's encounter with the hat is that your own choices determine what kind of person you are, not some all-knowing magical being.

I get that, but for this analogy, consider Harry to be outside the domain of consideration.. can you do that?

Harry does not want to be a Slytherin (snake euphemism) and would rather like to be a Gryffindor, because he thinks the traits associated with Slytherins are bad (the point of the snake euphemism) and those associated with Gryffindors are good. There is no clearer sign of being a Gryffindor than actively deciding to be a Gryffindor. The sorting hat itself makes that very clear itself, in Chamber of Secrets if I am not mistaken.

That whole bit is about personal morality, mind you.

Which might propose a passive lack of decision-making, or alternatively, a lack of available choice for the other 3 houses. On an aggregate level, a metaphor about there being different types of people in the world is presented. 4 houses..., 4 colors... (red, white, yellow, black).

Free will does not apply to say your gender or race.

What's your take on the showers of red ink, then?

Which is exactly the reason why your analogy does not apply.

If you want to argue against a wider possible domain of my analogy... show the guaranteed non-existence, or we could avoid that conundrum by sticking with the more restricted domain.

Cheezy?

Speaking in place of others.

I guess you think you're clever or profound or something.

I'm not "The Wiz."


***

So you cannot give me a reason why I should see a difference between you and a foreigner, all things being equal?

I know that preferring you over a foreigner would make me a nativist, and you are right that I am not one. But that does not answer the question why I am wrong, and why I should be a nativist.

I'm liking the direction that conversation is going in, now.

 

[Leoreth]

I guess you think you're clever or profound or something.

Reading my post quoted again I don't know if eloquent is the right word here. But let me return the compliment and say that your original definition of privilege checking was concise and to the point and I will use it myself in the future.

 

[Leoreth]

Yes.

I get that, but for this analogy, consider Harry to be outside the domain of consideration.. can you do that?

Which might propose a passive lack of decision-making, or alternatively, a lack of available choice for the other 3 houses. On an aggregate level, a metaphor about there being different types of people in the world is presented. 4 houses..., 4 colors... (red, white, yellow, black).

If you want to argue against a wider possible domain of my analogy... show the guaranteed non-existence, or we could avoid that conundrum by sticking with the more restricted domain.

I know you were trying to make some sort of trodded out point that people who discuss privilege try to pigeonhole people into categories instead of seeing them as individuals, and that is bad because we should treat everyone as individuals etc etc.

That is in fact not what is going on of course. Acknowledging privilege is about freeing people from the normative power of categorization that is taking place (consciously and subconsciously) already, because this normative power originates from those with privilege. Checking your privilege is essentially limiting the extent to which you exercise this power. That is of course not a complete solution.

But I didn't really want to have this conversation, because as I said, it's old and tiresome and not very productive. So instead I just pointed out that your analogy does not even illustrate this characterization.

Not sure what the wide and narrow domain of the analogy are supposed to mean. An analogy by its very nature needs to be direct, so I discussed it on the merits of how it is presented in the source text. If I first have to abstract some elements of the analogy, it is not really an analogy anymore, because the point of an analogy is to showcase an abstract idea in a concrete instance.

What's your take on the showers of red ink, then?

?

Speaking in place of others.

If you are referring to my reply to Flying Pig's reply to Cheezy, I did never claim to speak for Cheezy. I was simply adding my thoughts on the matter as they pertained to that post. I also never made any assumptions about Cheezy as a person and used that to bolster my position.

Oruc did both of these things.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

No matter how you phrase it, asking someone to confront their own priviledge, is always going to be adversarial, i can certainly understand why some dislike the way it's asked, but it's essentially a request for some introspection.

Politely requesting someone use some introspection doesn't sound particularly adversarial to me.

 

[Leoreth]

Politely requesting someone use some introspection doesn't sound particularly adversarial to me.

I'm glad to hear you like the phrase then.

 

[Rashiminos]

Politely requesting someone use some introspection doesn't sound particularly adversarial to me.

I find that it is often enough, nonetheless. *Gaze*

 

[Flying Pig]

That interpretation is extreme and definitely a (deliberate or not) misinterpretation of what the idea of privilege and awareness thereof are about.

But even if it is harder to (physically? acoustically? not sure what the right qualifier is here) talk over someone on a discussion board than it is in an actual conversation, the same dynamics are still in effect.

For example, let's say a woman writes that cat calling is gross and obnoxious and has made her feel uncomfortable and unsafe every time it happened to her. Than a male poster comes along and writes that in his opinion, cat calling is a compliment and if he was a woman he would be flattered if it happened to him.

Both perspectives are right there to be read unobstructed, but the way the debate is set up the appearance of both positions carrying equal weight are created. Or given that groups with privilege often have the numerical advantage or otherwise dominate the conversation, the privileged position might even appear as carrying more weight.

In reality, men do not know what it is like being subjected to cat calling the way women are, and their assumption that they can just find out by imagining it and being unbiased about it is plain wrong. That is precisely their privilege showing.

In consequence, as a man, you should strive to take women's experiences seriously instead of talking over them with your much less pertinent speculation about what women's experiences might be like.

Yes, I can get behind all of this.

 

[Oruc]

Being moral =|= being a paragon of virtue.

Just because I try to live up to some moral ideas does not mean that I am always successful. Far from it in fact. Therefore I am far from criticizing anyone from living up to my or their own morals.

That's not what this is about though. You denied that morals even enter into the question. Which I consider a cheap cop out of the responsibility to actually live up to any set of morals.

I don't believe you don't know what exaggeration is.

So you cannot give me a reason why I should see a difference between you and a foreigner, all things being equal?

I know that preferring you over a foreigner would make me a nativist, and you are right that I am not one. But that does not answer the question why I am wrong, and why I should be a nativist.

Because it's better for everybody, the only way we can continue with this mass immigration is if we keep vast swathes of the world in perpetual misery, where they think sharing a dump with 20 people (I'm postman I see where they live) is a step up. I was against going into Libya and traitorfish accused me of racism "I guess brown people don't deserve liberty" he said. Well how they feeling about that liberty now? But hey at least we have that steady supply of immigrants to make you feel good and stoke the dying embers of our society.
You're just kicking it down the generations so at least it doesn't blow up in our faces. But if we stopped meddling and the majority of them stayed in their native lands they would work to improve their homelands. Sure we would have adjust because as they keep telling our economies rely on these hundreds of thousands of immigrants coming in, and if that's the case the system is going to need major changes because that can't and certainly won't continue forever all we're doing is delaying the inevitable.

I mean that part where you try to paint me as someone who is trying to take a posture of moral superiority over you, and is only participating in this discussion as a way of self-aggrandization.

It's disingenuous, needlessly personal and a rather clumsy distraction from the actual topic, but that's fine because all of these things are rather obvious. What's not fine is that you feel the need to project this show on other forum members who don't deserve to be drawn into our conversation without their consent.

How on earth can you deny it? Read that response where you trot out the buzzwords I might as well not have been there. It is what you were doing and I'm not going to tiptoe around just because you're a mod I can draw (or try to draw) whoever the hell I want into this.