Check Your Privilege

[Gary Childress]

“Check Your Privilege” is an online expression used mainly by social justice bloggers to remind others that the body and life they are born into comes with specific privileges that do not apply to all arguments or situations. The phrase also suggests that when considering another person’s plight, one must acknowledge one’s own inherent privileges and put them aside in order to gain a better understanding of his or her situation.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/check-your-privilege

I saw the phrase "check your privilege" used in an argument recently. It was between an atheist and a theist. I may not be relaying the argument reasonably accurately but it seemed to go essentially like this (to be brief):

Theist: The teachings of Christ are my guide and they are wonderful.

Atheist: the teachings of Christ are immoral and ludicrous.

Theist: You seem very agitated, you must be possessed by a demon. I'll pray for you. And I find it odd that you are oppressing me by denying my right to believe in my faith.

Atheist: Check your privilege. Atheists have it difficult in society because they are viewed as being "possessed" or they are going to go to hell, etc. when they express their views as a minority.

The argument was between two white guys so it seemed a little odd to me to see "check your privilege" invoked by one against the other.

My personal view in life as an agnostic has been to accept that IF there is a God then I am probably "unworthy" to any God that may exist because I am a non-believer. I suppose I have "low self esteem" in that respect. I don't really fight it. I just sort of accept it. Clearly the atheist above is actively fighting the stigma associated with his beliefs.

So here's my question: Should I NOT accept such a label that may be consigned to me by theists? That there maybe is a God, and if there is, because I am not a "believer" I am probably somehow "less good" or whatever than a believer? Should I instead be "standing up for myself" and be actively trashing the religious views of my "oppressors"?

Thoughts?

 

[Aea]

Privilege is a thing. But anybody who uses the phrase "Check your privilege" outside of sarcasm is probably a moron. Just my opinion.

 

[Gary Childress]

I'm pretty sure the guy who used the phrase "check your privilege" is not a moron. From the tone of his rhetoric and his lexicon he seems VERY well educated. I believe he's a high school mathematics teacher or something like that. I would definitely discount "moron" as a possibility.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

So here's my question: Should I NOT accept such a label that may be consigned to me by theists? That there maybe is a God, and if there is, because I am not a "believer" I am probably somehow "less good" or whatever than a believer? Should I instead be "standing up for myself" and be actively trashing the religious views of my "oppressors"?

Thoughts?

What label? "Atheist"? "Unworthy"? "Posessed by a demon"?

 

[Gary Childress]

What label? "Atheist"? "Unworthy"? "Posessed by a demon"?

Probably the latter two as the first one probably isn't really as oppressive I don't think.

 

[Daw]

Should I NOT accept such a label that may be consigned to me by theists? That there maybe is a God, and if there is, because I am not a "believer" I am probably somehow "less good" or whatever than a believer? Should I instead be "standing up for myself" and be actively trashing the religious views of my "oppressors"?

Thoughts?

The primary thought is that theists are not to be argued with. It's plain pointless by definition. Here's why:

Theists' positions, whatever they are, are based on faith, not reason. Faith does not require reasoning, otherwise it is not faith but knowledge. One cannot believe in what one knows for sure.

Since argument operates reasons, it is in an entirely different dimension.

As for the labels and tags, they shall be ignored no matter whom they come from, IMO, because they often come followed by an army of strawmen.

Also, I personally believe - and therefore no one can argue that - that whoever uses labels and tags is a believer of some sort, and therefore arguing with him/her is pointless, too. Well, trying won't hurt most of the times, but you'd better be ready to shrug and abandon the attempt any moment if you give it a try.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well.... if you don't believe in such things as gods and demons then of course you should reject such labels.

As for "unworthy". I'd argue that if any god actually does exist, and is in anyway benevolent and intelligent, then NOT believing in him would actually make you more worthy in his eyes, given the total paucity of evidence for his existence, as it indicates that you're not willing to just follow the crowd on blind faith. Perhaps that's his ultimate test

(As an aside, I'm not sure the thread title does a very good job of conveying the contents)

 

[useless]

It's been twisted into some sort of joke, but i still think asking particularly detatched people to "check their priviledge" is valid.

 

[Aea]

I'm pretty sure the guy who used the phrase "check your privilege" is not a moron. From the tone of his rhetoric and his lexicon he seems VERY well educated. I believe he's a high school mathematics teacher or something like that. I would definitely discount "moron" as a possibility.

Fine, let's call it intellectually lazy instead. It's basically an ad hominem in my mind.

 

[Gary Childress]

Well.... if you don't believe in such things as gods and demons then of course you should reject such labels.

Well that's sort of the catch with me. I'm just not sure of such things. As I say I'm agnostic. However, if there is a God then I am probably just as "guilty" of being an "unbeliever" as an atheist.

(As an aside, I'm not sure the thread title does a very good job of conveying the contents)

That's certainly possible. But it makes for a catchy thread title I think.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Fine, let's call it intellectually lazy instead. It's basically an ad hominem in my mind.

That's a much better way to put it. It basically translates to "I don't have an actual argument to make, so instead I'm going to cast aspersions on your character by implying that you aren't qualified to have an opinion on the subject".

 

[sophie]

It's a light reminder that different cultures and different experiences create vastly different lenses and viewpoints and one should be mindful of that when making sweeping generalizations, particularly about how the world works.

It does get misused a lot which has morphed it into a bit of a bogeyman or strawman word, particularly when making straw-feminists and straw-SJWs.

Hard to tell without wider context whether OP's example was sarcastic or not, but it's not really a correct application of the phrase.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

However, if there is a God then I am probably just as "guilty" of being an "unbeliever" as an atheist.

Only if there is an irrational and unfair God though. I made an edit to my post which you probably missed.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

It does get misused a lot which has morphed it into a bit of a bogeyman or strawman word, particularly when making straw-feminists and straw-SJWs.

You mean... beause a lot of feminists and SJWs have misused it (after all, who ELSE is going to be using the term at all?!), this fact can now be used to construct straw-feminists and straw-SJWs who.... mis-use the term just as the real ones have done?

 

[Leoreth]

It's a light reminder that different cultures and different experiences create vastly different lenses and viewpoints and one should be mindful of that when making sweeping generalizations, particularly about how the world works.

It does get misused a lot which has morphed it into a bit of a bogeyman or strawman word, particularly when making straw-feminists and straw-SJWs.

Hard to tell without wider context whether OP's example was sarcastic or not, but it's not really a correct application of the phrase.

Yeah, the idea behind that phrase is valid, which makes it unfortunate that it has deteriorated to such a joke. Not sure who to blame for that even, deliberate mischaracterization of social justice activists by their opponents seems to have played as much a role as genuine overuse in inappropriate contexts.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I think it's also a bad phrase because it's not even clear what it even means, due to the multiple meanings and usages of the word "check". I remember starting a thread about two years ago asking what it actually literally means and don't think I got a definitive answer.

 

[useless]

So what would you propose in lieu of "Check your priviledge" Manfred?

 

[warpus]

I'm pretty sure the guy who used the phrase "check your privilege" is not a moron. From the tone of his rhetoric and his lexicon he seems VERY well educated. I believe he's a high school mathematics teacher or something like that. I would definitely discount "moron" as a possibility.

From my experience the people who throw that term around are people who have lost an argument. Not always morons, they just don't want to continue debating the point and are trying to use the phrase as a silver bullet. Very similar to the whole "you're white, you don't get to have a position on this" thing that some racists throw around - it's done for the same reason.

i.e. "I don't want to hear what you're saying, go away, your position doesn't matter, I hereby proclaim victory in this debate, all praise me", etc.

 

[useless]

I think a white person telling people of colour that racism is dead should indeed be told to check their priveledge, but apparently that is "wrong".

Okay.

 

[Leoreth]

I think it's also a bad phrase because it's not even clear what it even means, due to the multiple meanings and usages of the word "check". I remember starting a thread about two years ago asking what it actually literally means and don't think I got a definitive answer.

"Be aware of".

I've never considered that might confuse people, most of the time they start debating the meaning of privilege instead.