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

[brennan]

That could be part of a whole thread on the problems with our media discourse at the moment.

 

[Hygro]

 

[JMA2286]

Quote me.



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.



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!).



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."

"My country"

Lol this sounds like the attitude of someone who has a very different idea of whose country it is than most of the country

 

[metalhead]

What do you want, an essay on the breakdown of traditional class distinctions since WW2? An analysis of whether or not borgeoisification ever happened?

Yes!

Edit: Shouldn't we assume people we are talking to do not always hold black and white viewpoints, simply to facilitate a quality discussion?

No!

 

[Berzerker]

"My country"

Lol this sounds like the attitude of someone who has a very different idea of whose country it is than most of the country

less than a 1/5th of the country voted for Trump

 

[JMA2286]

less than a 1/5th of the country voted for Trump

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/2016_Presidential_Election_by_County.svg

Geography says otherwise

 

[Hygro]

Land can't vote.

 

[JMA2286]

A united people who inhabit more land get more of a vote in the Electoral College... lol

 

[Hygro]

Pretty weird.

 

[sophie]

Land can't vote.

US terracracy confirmed.

 

[Modder_Mode]

Wealthy sci-fi authors of color harassed and trolled underprivileged white Americans.

White is a color too....
If you mean black people, just say it, don't get dragged into all that pathetic "you can't call them black" mentality, if you do, then you only reinforce the thought process that some people are special because of the color of their skin.

They argue that they are fighting racism but are themselves racist. If racism requires racial privilege, then Asians can be racist. If reverse racism requires non-racial privileges, then wealthy PoC’s can be reverse racist.

That's the world we live in though, people will tell you that only "white" people can be racist, and that if someone of "color" is racist towards "white" people then its reverse racism. LOL its racist no matter what, racism is not an exclusivity to white people. Unfortunately that's how far the brainwashing has come.

 

[brennan]

These ideas are based upon the relatively recent idea that racism requires a power imbalance, that the oppressed cannot by definition be racist, only an oppressor can be racist. A thought-experiment shows that this is silly:

Imagine two islands, one of green people and one of purple people. They have exactly the same numbers of people, exactly the same level of technological and industrial development. Now imagine that they despise each other in a pathologically racist manner. Green people hate purples people because they are purple - being purple is unclean, inferior, impure. Purple people think exactly the same about Green people.

Under the racism = prejudice + power analysis there can be no racism in this scenario as there is no power imbalance. This demonstrates that this definition of racism is useless.

 

[Berzerker]

it is logical for the oppressed to hate the oppressor, it is not logical for the oppressor to hate the oppressed

race is secondary

 

[Timsup2nothin]

These ideas are based upon the relatively recent idea that racism requires a power imbalance, that the oppressed cannot by definition be racist, only an oppressor can be racist. A thought-experiment shows that this is silly:

Imagine two islands, one of green people and one of purple people. They have exactly the same numbers of people, exactly the same level of technological and industrial development. Now imagine that they despise each other in a pathologically racist manner. Green people hate purples people because they are purple - being purple is unclean, inferior, impure. Purple people think exactly the same about Green people.

Under the racism = prejudice + power analysis there can be no racism in this scenario as there is no power imbalance. This demonstrates that this definition of racism is useless.

I think that is less a definition than a cause for concern. In your thought experiment racism obviously exists, but it isn't really a cause for concern. Both of our island nations may suffer a bit from missed trade opportunities, and we can say that they would both likely have "healthier" societies if they could put aside their animosities, but overall nothing really unjust is happening.

Now, give one island ten times the size and population and allow them to build a substantial military advantage. The people of the other island may still be just as racist, but clearly they aren't going to start a war or set out on a genocide so there still is no cause for concern there. But the other side...now their racism has concern attached.

In the US there is a whole lot of fear mongering among whites. The kind of people who write for Breitbarf are constantly beating the 'blacks hate us just like we hate them' drums...as if a similarity in racism inherently should be cause for equivalence in concern. It is all about "we must maintain the power to protect ourselves," and maybe there is something to that. Given their abhorrent behavior as the majority holding all the power they may be justified in fearing what will happen if anyone else gets any.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

it is logical for the oppressed to hate the oppressor, it is not logical for the oppressor to hate the oppressed

Not logical, but is it necessary? Can you oppress someone that you don't hate?

 

[Senethro]

You can attempt to change peoples minds, but you can't (or maybe shouldn't) forcibly do it. Reducing racism to merely being "people being mean to other peoples" is missing the parts that are easier to change and do more damage, which are the power structures and social conventions.

You can legislate against businesses within a state treating some state citizens different from other citizens, but you can't (sensibly) make thought a crime. The business owner should be allowed to think what he will, as long as he doesn't act on it.

 

[Narz]

Not logical, but is it necessary? Can you oppress someone that you don't hate?

People oppress the Earth and factory farmed animals but I dont think they hate animals or nature. The easiest kind of oppression to maintain is unthinking opression.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

People oppress the Earth and factory farmed animals but I dont think they hate animals or nature. The easiest kind of oppression to maintain is unthinking opression.

I don't really think that's "oppression." Bottom line, we eat them. That's a pretty one way relationship, no matter how it's played.

 

[Hygro]

These ideas are based upon the relatively recent idea that racism requires a power imbalance, that the oppressed cannot by definition be racist, only an oppressor can be racist. A thought-experiment shows that this is silly:

Imagine two islands, one of green people and one of purple people. They have exactly the same numbers of people, exactly the same level of technological and industrial development. Now imagine that they despise each other in a pathologically racist manner. Green people hate purples people because they are purple - being purple is unclean, inferior, impure. Purple people think exactly the same about Green people.

Under the racism = prejudice + power analysis there can be no racism in this scenario as there is no power imbalance. This demonstrates that this definition of racism is useless.

You didn't demonstrate jack.

 

[Narz]

I don't really think that's "oppression." Bottom line, we eat them. That's a pretty one way relationship, no matter how it's played.

Substitute sweatshop workers for factory farmed animals if you prefer. I'd argue most of oppression in the modern world is done without a 2nd thought for the opressed (except by sociopath CEOs maybe).

The modern world runs on oppression. If we figure out how to run a world without it maybe humanity will survive.