Check Your Privilege

[Manfred Belheim]

You'll become a Theist or an Atheist when you are certain about either.

There's no requirement for certainty in either atheism OR theism.

 

[Daw]

It means that kind of Atheist does not believe in Gods on the same basis that you don't believe in Santa Clause, Elves and the Tooth Fairy. They say the Standard is to not believe in X until you have evidence for the existence in X.

Then this kind of Atheists confuse faith/belief with knowledge. When you have evidence for the truthfulness of X, you prove it and then you know it. The beauty of faith OTOH is exactly that you don't have to prove it. It's a groundless certainty.

E.g.: Your nickname on this forum can as well be your real name, why not. I don't know. I have no reasons to state it is true, and neither I have to state it is false. But I can groundlessly believe either. Alternatively I could run a full-scale investigation involving checking your passport and questioning your relatives. Then I know, but I cannot believe any longer, because I have the proof.

There's no requirement for certainty in either atheism OR theism.

But there is. Otherwise it's called "crisis of faith" by Theists (recommended therapy is prayer and fasting) and "[CENSORED]" by Atheists (recommended therapy is reading something scientific).

 

[Ryika]

Nice strawman, but let's get to the nub of this argument; you think i believe white peoplke's opinions on racism are inherently not worthwhile/not welcome

No, I did not say that. You made the general statement that white people can just be ignorant of the effects of racism and I gave you an example where that doesn't hold true:

Unless of course you're being told that you're just a white guy who needs to shut the hell up because their opinion is worthless to them, solely on the basis of their color of skin.

You then answered with:

Anti-Racism is anti-white!

Which is just a dismissive statement. You did not correct your previous statement, you did not acknowledge that white people also have to deal with racism (not to the same extend, although that kind of racism is certainly growing), so I repeated that the kind of reaction in my example is most certainly a case of racism.

now here's what i actually think:

I tend to think that white people telling black people that racism is dead/racism isn't a problem, should infact be ignored and their opinions mocked and laughed at, for being so out of touch. Hell, race is no determining factor on whether i ignore stupid arguments, a black person could make (and have) the argument that LGBT people suffer from no discrimination and i'd equally ignore, mock and laugh at their position.

I think the "Racism is not a problem anymore!"-crowd is pretty much a counter-initiative to the people claiming that racism is everywhere and the cause for everything. Yes, we should put way less focus on both parties and actually try to focus on the truth that is that yes, racism still exists and should be combated, but it is not as insanely common as some people claim. People saying that there is no racism at all anymore are just as useless to a reasonable debate as the people who claim that asking "Where are you from?" is a "racial micro-aggression with the intend to hurt people".

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Check your priviledge is pretty clear actually, it's not some arcane, unknowable term.

Well, if it were, you would have thought I would have got a clear answer when I started a thread asking what it meant about 2 years ago.

The problem is that the word "check" has many different meanings and usages, several of which COULD be the intended meaning in this context, but all of which would make the phrase mean a different thing. Given that it's rarely expanded upon (as it is, as has been pointed out, usually used to end a discussion rather than further it) it never actually became clear to me which of the meanings was actually intended.

So... I disagree with your statement. Even ignoring the fact that you worded it in such a way as to present a false dichotomy.

 

[useless]

Are you aware of what priviledge is? Are you aware of what the word "check" in general means?

"Check your priviledge" literally means check the priviledges as a [Insert group here] that you enjoy, that many others do not. I can't get much clearer or simpler than this. It also means have some introspection of yourself.

 

[BvBPL]

In the contexts of "check your privilege," I like imagining a hockey check.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I tend to think that white people telling black people that racism is dead/racism isn't a problem, should infact be ignored and their opinions mocked and laughed at, for being so out of touch.

The only thing wrong with that sentence is that you felt the need to specify the races of the two people involved.

 

[Ryika]

Then this kind of Atheists confuse faith/belief with knowledge. When you have evidence for the truthfulness of X, you prove it and then you know it. The beauty of faith OTOH is exactly that you don't have to prove it. It's a groundless certainty.

Then why do people not believe in the tooth fairy? Obviously something made them keep their belief in X but not keep their belief in Y, although the evidence for both is the same (none). Many people believe in gods because they think they have some evidence for his existence. "My son was saved by a miracle!", "When I was in this hard time, God send my X and it helped me get out of that phase!", etc.

 

[warpus]

Except even rich people of colour suffer from racism, maybe not to the same degree or severity as less rich people of colour.

All I'm saying is that for someone to say "There is no racism out there, never seen any" then they're either lying or living some sort of a sheltered life. And sheltered lives usually mean that you're really well off or living somewhere in a shack in Alaska thinking that WW2 is still going on.

There's no requirement for certainty in either atheism OR theism.

Yeah exactly, I don't get why people continue getting this wrong.

Atheism and agnosticism do not lie on the same line either, they're not mutually exclusive concepts. Atheism deals with belief while agnosticism deals with knowledge. Belief and knowledge are different concepts, they are not the same.

At first, I rolled my eyes at the phrase, but it does make some sense. I hate the phrase, but it's an important thing to keep in mind. Man, I hate it when I agree with the SJW on some things...

Privilege definitely exists, in many forms. The way the phrase is used by people though, that's what's usually laughable. It's almost always said to try to shut someone up rather than academically pointing out the current state of affairs, or something similar.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

But there is. Otherwise it's called "crisis of faith" by Theists (recommended therapy is prayer and fastening) and "[CENSORED]" by Atheists (recommended therapy is reading something scientific).

You're wrong. And there's also nothing necessarily contradictory about religion and science. For most of history they've worked quite well alongside each other.

Agnosticism is merely an acknowledgement that you do not and cannot know for sure, but it doesn't mean you're sat on the fence of having any kind of crisis.

 

[warpus]

I think a part of the problem is some people hearing something like this from their pastor or whoever: "There are us, people who fear God, then there are agnostics, who are not yet ready, and at the other end of the scale are those evil atheists, who don't believe"

A simplified view of the world that might sound good in a sermon, but is factually incomplete and incorrect. It also paints a "us vs them" sort of mentality, which makes it easier for the speaker to rally people to a cause.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Are you aware of what priviledge is? Are you aware of what the word "check" in general means?

"Check your priviledge" literally means check the priviledges as a [Insert group here] that you enjoy, that many others do not. I can't get much clearer or simpler than this. It also means have some introspection of yourself.

And I can't get much clearer or simpler than again stating that "check" has multiple meanings and usages, which is why the phrase is ambiguous. Yes, it's safe to assume that it doesn't mean "stamp your privilege with a pattern of alternating black and white squares", but there are still several other quite plausible meanings which would make the phrase mean different things. Check doesn't mean any one thing "in general".

I'd suggest you look up "check" in a dictionary to see what I mean, but then you seem unable to look up "privilege" so maybe that's a lost cause.

 

[Aea]

It's a common phrase with a well understood meaning.

 

[sophie]

It's silly because if someone doesn't get that there's racism out there, I doubt it's because due to their skin colour. It's far more likely they've live a sheltered life, or something similar.

i.e. privilege

And check = "be mindful of" in this context.

 

[warpus]

i.e. privilege

And check = "be mindful of" in this context.

Yes, possibly $$$ privilege or "Living in the woods" privilege, but skin colour privilege never makes sense to me in this scenario. As if someone is going to not realize there is racism out there simply because they are white. Yeah, those people are racists, they are lying, they aren't just walking through life not realizing there is racism around just because they're white. Oh, I'm sure a couple people like that exist, but a very tiny minority.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

It's a common phrase with a well understood meaning.

I hope you don't work for the OED.

 

[Daw]

Then why do you not believe in the tooth fairy?

Well, if you insist to publicly vivisect my personal insides, I don't have to believe in the tooth fairy or Grandpa Frost. I know they are real. Moreover, I've been both myself.

Obviously something made you keep your belief in X but not keep your belief in Y, although the evidence for both is the same (none).

Ummm... wishful thinking?

I mean, wouldn't it be great if X was true! And Y scares the hell out of me, really, so...

Many people believe in gods because they think they have some evidence for his existence. "My son was saved by a miracle!", "When I was in this hard time, God send my X and it helped me get out of that phase!", etc.

Yep. In fact, no evidence is sufficient. For instance, if I ran the investigation with checking what you would present to me as your passport and questioning those I believe to be your relatives, then I'd have to take efforts to verify your passport is genuine and those weird folks are in fact your relatives and they're not lying to me.

And it's an endless tale, so why bother? And if finally it all boils down to something we believe anyway, then people have some logic in saving the effort and start with believing right away.

 

[Daw]

You're wrong.

Well, if that's what you believe..

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I'm almost gnostic about it.

 

[sophie]

Yes, possibly $$$ privilege or "Living in the woods" privilege, but skin colour privilege never makes sense to me in this scenario.

No as in: I've never had to deal with a cop prima facie assuming I'm up to no good. I've never had to consider store managers ordering employees to shadow me the instant I enter a store. I've never had to worry about my child playing with a nerf gun in the park. I've never had to evaluate how quickly I can run in heels. I've never had to consider what coworkers would think if I ordered a side of fries and a dessert. I've never had to worry about whether I'm on a no-fly list that would hinder my travel plans.

The statement, again, doesn't assume that simply because you are a white, cishet male you are incapable of considering or understanding different experiences. It is merely a gentle reminder that, "hey, you just made a broad generalization that in essence said 'because I am a white cishet male and it's like that for me, it must therefore be like that for everybody else', and you may want to reconsider that statement because different people may have had different experiences." That's really all the statement is saying.