The self-defeating nature of using "Privilege (Theory)" (in societal discourse)

(I do remember you arguing that revenue-based subsidies weren't a good option because it would benefit white people more than black people).

Quote me.

I mean, we have plenty of people you consider racist that would also mock a racist tweet. Does that convince you they aren't ?

It isn't about "racism". That tweet is a distilled statement of what I understand to be identity fundamentalism. It takes one aspect of society, race, and attempts to use that to explain everything. That is what I don't agree with, the view that you are ascribing to me.

Actually, from where I'm standing, your politics look STRONGLY anti-white-man and just marginally anti-capitalist. You look MUCH more obsessed with racial militantism than with class injustice (I do remember you arguing that revenue-based subsidies weren't a good option because it would benefit white people more than black people).

You probably just don't read the majority of my posts. We usually butt heads over these "cultural" issues and that gives you a skewed view of my general outlook.
I believe you are confusing me with metalhead or someone else on revenue-based subsidies. I said that affirmative action based on income/wealth alone will not address racial disparities in college admissions, housing, or the job market. Generally speaking I am opposed to means-tested social programs because I believe universal, unconditional benefits are both morally superior and politically easier (they also save on administration!).

And no, I don't think you explicitely said "we should take revenge on the cis-white-het men", but that's just a strawman. My point is that your tone, the way you mock arguments or people when the subject come, the accusations you throw and so on betray a deep scorn and disgust toward white-cis-het males on the whole, and you consider that if they take a blow as a group, it's deserved.

I have made no secret of my desire for revenge on the people who subjected my country to Trump. But that isn't "white people," it's "Trump voters."
 
Privilege theory (like most feminist theories) undermines progressive reform by lumping together the relatively small number of people who are the primary source of inequality (the wealthy in a society) with a far greater number of those who are victims of unbalanced social systems for no better reason than that they share their more recent common ancestry (race/skin colour etc). As usual, in mis-diagnosing the problem, the solutions suggested are doomed to fail.
 
Privilege theory (like most feminist theories) undermines progressive reform by lumping together the relatively small number of people who are the primary source of inequality (the wealthy in a society) with a far greater number of those who are victims of unbalanced social systems for no better reason than that they share their more recent common ancestry (race/skin colour etc). As usual, in mis-diagnosing the problem, the solutions suggested are doomed to fail.

And this is a good example of class-fundamentalism, which is equally as stupid as race or gender/sex fundamentalism.
 
I mean, I'd love for talking about class to become acceptable again but the way it stands is the centre hates the word and the right is quick and adept at using that fact. Younger generation seems ready to talk about it though.

If class is the only useful tool for addressing inequality then who has been getting mileage out of it in the past 30 years? I imagine it varies country to country.
 
Privilege theory (like most feminist theories) undermines progressive reform by lumping together the relatively small number of people who are the primary source of inequality (the wealthy in a society) with a far greater number of those who are victims of unbalanced social systems for no better reason than that they share their more recent common ancestry (race/skin colour etc). As usual, in mis-diagnosing the problem, the solutions suggested are doomed to fail.
privilege theory invented rasism
 
who said anything about authority?

Well, YOU said it was "his responsibility." Are you now saying that the only qualification required for something to be considered a responsibility is "Berzerker says so"? I mean, if it isn't in the forum rules and you aren't suggesting that there is some authority that determines what his responsibilities are, then what else is left?
 
I have made no secret of my desire for revenge on the people who subjected my country to Trump. But that isn't "white people," it's "Trump voters."

Just like someone might want to 'take care of' inner city gangsters, but that doesn't mean black people. :)
 
Last edited:
And this is a good example of class-fundamentalism, which is equally as stupid as race or gender/sex fundamentalism.
I didn't even use the word class. This should be a clue that I can be a bit more nuanced than the average raving marxist.
 
Well, YOU said it was "his responsibility." Are you now saying that the only qualification required for something to be considered a responsibility is "Berzerker says so"? I mean, if it isn't in the forum rules and you aren't suggesting that there is some authority that determines what his responsibilities are, then what else is left?

Quote me.

Lex says so... If I accuse you of saying something, quoting you is my responsibility if you ask for the quote.
 
I didn't even use the word class. This should be a clue that I can be a bit more nuanced than the average raving marxist.

"I didn't use a word therefore I wasn't talking about the word" is extremely un-nuanced though.
 
I didn't even use the word class. This should be a clue that I can be a bit more nuanced than the average raving marxist.
Aren't we better able to calculate what oppression even is if we can look at the diversity of oppressions and see what they do rather than take aim only at the first and greatest modern one (oppression by commercial interest)?
 
What do you want, an essay on the breakdown of traditional class distinctions since WW2? An analysis of whether or not borgeoisification ever happened?

Edit: Shouldn't we assume people we are talking to do not always hold black and white viewpoints, simply to facilitate a quality discussion?
 
.....
Edit: Shouldn't we assume people we are talking to do not always hold black and white viewpoints, simply to facilitate a quality discussion?
Where's the fun in that?
 
Define quality, Argumentative Brit :cowboy:
 
Back
Top Bottom