Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Thoughts on "Privilege"

YYW
Posts: 36,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 12:40:47 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Privilege is commonly regarded, in the sociocultural academic context, as the presence of certain qualities or absence of certain restraints enjoyed by some and not others that are often peculiar to an individual's circumstance. Conceptually, I can understand the literal definition of what "privilege" is, but prudent consideration of the mechanics of how it works tends to reveal that the whole notion of "the qualities" that give rise to privilege are either in want of any kind of meaningful proof, or are provably false.

Obviously I can't dispel all the myths of privilege, because people who believe in myths aren't likely to be persuaded with evidence that some myth they believe is false, but for those individuals on the margin of persuadability, perhaps some lucid analysis will change how you think about the concept. To be clear, I don't care if people believe in privilege or not, because the issue doesn't touch me on a personal level. I just want to show that if people believe in privilege, what they're putting their faith in is about as empirically provable as ghosts or the easter bunny.

Since we've established what the concept of "privilege" is (see the first paragraph), we've got to look into how it works; like, how the concept is applied to people and their situations. Privilege exists on a binary spectrum; either you'e got it or you don't, and the notion is that there is one group or groups that is/are privileged and another group or groups that is/are not privileged. Most conventionally, privilege discussions form on the basis of distinctions within certain categories in general (i.e. race, class, gender, sexuality, religion, ethnicity, culture, intellect, looks, height, etc.).

in the race category, the privileged people are the white ones, and the non privileged people are the non-white ones. In the class category, the privileged people are the rich--however you define "rich"--and the non privileged people are the poor, or the people who are at least not rich. In the gender category, the privileged people are the men, and the non-privileged people are everyone other than men, specifically women, and all the other genders that people "identify" as now (e.g. genderqueer, genderfuck, gender[whatever noun, adjective, or verb you can think of]). In the sexuality category, the privileged people are heterosexuals, and the non-privileged people are the non-heterosexuals (i.e. gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transexuals, pansexuals, demisexuals, and whatever else people are claiming as a "sexuality" these days). In the "religion" category, the "privileged" people are Christians (and, increasingly, Jews), but the non-privileged are, in particular, Muslims, but also everyone else, including but not limited to atheists, pagans, Hindus, people who worship Zeus, etc. For ethnicity, you are privileged only if you are Caucasian, and not privileged if you are anything else. If you are smart, good looking, and tall, then you're privileged, but if you're not smart, not good looking, and not tall, then you're oppressed.

So, the most "privileged" person is a good-looking, bright, white, anglo-saxon protestant. the least privileged person, hilariously enough, remains a competition among those who try to quantify such things. (Note: who is the most and least privileged cannot be quantified, for reasons that should be intuitively obvious; any attempts to the contrary are futile exercises in pseudointellectual vanity.) But notice, nevertheless, how what constitutes "privilege" and what does not is necessarily relative. For example, we only know that white people are privileged because black people are not privileged. We only know men are privileged because women and all the other "genders" out there are not privileged. The binary exists on a relative, but qualitative scale. This should make you skeptical about the concept's merits.

There are four reasons why you should be skeptical of "privilege" as it's defined. What constitutes "privilege" is at once necessarily and ironically Euro-Western centric, at the expense of all other places on the map. Thus, it is culture-specific. Is that a sufficient reason to be dubious? Those who argue for recognition of "privilege" would contend that to discuss privilege absent culture would be inapropriate because of the fact that privilege can only exist within the norms of a given culture. But what is culture? How shall we define it, and with what level of precision? Is culture a general thing, like "American" culture? Is it more specific, like "Texan" culture? More specific yet, like to counties, cities, towns, localities, and neighborhoods? Of course it is, and the "culture" that exists in Harlem is totally different than in Houston, for example. It would be absurd to think that privilege looks the same there, given the vast breadth of cultural variance. The same principal applies with even more "bite" in Europe. So, "privilege" if it exists at all can not be universal even within the United States or Europe, even if we're only going to talk about the relative privilege of groups that exist within the cultures of the United States and Europe. So, does being white mean something different in California than it means in Kentucky? Likely, it does, if it exists at all. It seems like what constitutes "privilege" is necessarily a moving target, if not totally illusory by its nature.

How, then, can you talk meaningfully about it when it varies so considerably from place to place? Does privilege even exist at all? If it does, how could you prove it? What would you do? What would you look for? Usually, those who talk about "privilege" tend to make pretty unsophisticated (read: weak, inarticulate, and insufficient) arguments to show that it exists, that tend to be limited to post hoc and speculative analysis.

For example, "there are more white people in positions of power in industry, therefore the industry must be systemically biased against non-white people." Is that a persuasive argument? It shouldn't be, if you have a brain. You need more information. To meaningfully make that argument, you have to causally connect "whiteness" with "advancement in the industry." It's not enough to say that white people are overrepresented and therefore the industry is biased in favor of white people and against all others. Why? Because as every first year college student learns, correlation is not causation.

Another example might be something like "white men are promoted faster than black women, therefore white men are privileged and black women are not." Maybe white men work harder than black women. Maybe there are more white men than there are black women in the industry, and in society in general (hint: there are a lot more white men than back women in the United States, and even more than that in Europe). Maybe white men work differently than women. Maybe women transition from job to job sooner than men do and therefore have less opportunity to advance because they don't stick to one job. Maybe... maybe... maybe. To the extent that there are variables (read: the "maybes") you have to control for those even if you're using what is commonly regarded as the most sophisticated model to plot your quantitative analysis of the extent to which "privilege" exists. The problem is that that's impossible to do with something as simple as, for example, regression analysis despite the fact that it's the gold standard in social science. The impact, obviously, is that it's pretty damn hard to account for all the "other stuff" that plays into sociocultural outcomes, if it's even possible, and reasonable people have sincere doubts that it is.

So, if privilege exists, in best case, privilege is illusory or a moving target, and it can't be proven. All we can meaningfully say about it, then, is conjectural. Why, then would I ever bother to "check" it? I wouldn't, obviously, because the notion that I should is an absurdity.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 12:43:51 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
The four reasons:

Privilege is nebulous, illusory, not probable and misleading even in the best case. I challenge any of you to prove to me why I should regard discussion of it, then, with any level of merit, as it has none.
Tsar of DDO
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 12:44:55 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
You are like a broken record.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 12:49:46 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
The only thing people who disagree with me will ever say are absurd things like "you are a broken record." What they will not say is why I am wrong, because they cannot.

I know as well as everyone else here that what I wrote went over PeterSmith's head. None are surprised.
Tsar of DDO
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 1:18:45 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 12:40:47 AM, YYW wrote:

I hate the black and white idea of "whites are privileged. Blacks are not" or "men are privileged and women are not". Every group-blacks, whites, men, women ect have their own set of advantages and disadvantages. Not every member of a group will be effected by their groups set of advantages and disadvantages equally. Some black people will benefit from the advantages of being black and some won't. Some white people benefit from the advantages of being white and some won't. Some black people will be affected by the disadvantages of being black and some black people won't be effected by these disadvantages. Some white people will be effected by the disadvantages of being white while other whites will not be effected by these disadvantages. Even some of the people who do benefit from their groups advantages might have hard lives related to other disadvantages. For example the disadvantages a white man faces in relation to health, poverty ect can override the benefits he gets from being white and male. The same goes the other way. The advantages a black women gets from being wealthy and healthy would override the disadvantages she gets from being black and female. Its not as simple as saying "he's a white man, so he's privileged" You have to look at someones health, economic status and oteher things to really determine weather they are privileged. It is very annoying to say the least when people assume that someone is privileged based on their race and/or sex alone, without considering that persons economic status, health ect.
I would like to point out that there are disadvantages that come with being white. Whites are misrepresented in history, shamed for what a minority of whites in history did (slavery, imperialism ect), loose jobs and spots they work for via affirmative action (for white men), get blamed for everything, suffer from hate crimes ect http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
"Another example might be something like "white men are promoted faster than black women, therefore white men are privileged and black women are not." Maybe white men work harder than black women. Maybe white men work harder than black women" Exactly. This reminds me of the gender wage gap argument. "Men make more money than women therefor men are payed more for the same work" In reality men work more high paying jobs for longer hours. They make more money because of life choices not their sex.
You know who needs to check their privilege? The rich spoiled SJWs who got everything they want, crawling around college campuses.
YYW
Posts: 36,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 6:04:43 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
This post is not about the person who posted before me. It's about how a certain category of people respond to those who question the concept of privilege. I preface this because there are plenty of individuals in this world who do not process information correctly and just react, who tend to react to things, as would be conventional of and typical for unreasonable people, and I'd like to preempt foreseeable problems to that end.

What is interesting to me is how those who have "faith" in illusory ideas like "privilege" tend to regard anyone who questions their narrative. (When I say "narrative" I might as well be saying "proclamation of faith," because what they do looks more like theology than anything reasonable.)

Alas, the SJW types (or the black people who do nothing other than shout about how oppressed they are) tend to characterize anyone who questions their narrative as "going crazy" or "losing their minds." Surely, as we have seen, there are people on DDO who do that, and there are also people in life who do that.

These people are intellectually dishonest, of course, but it is more important to understand *why* they are mischaracterizing rational discourse as something the Joker would say. The reason the SJW types do that is because they lack the ability to justify their "faiths" in things for which there is no evidence. So, their beliefs are necessarily irrational, and therefore the only way to defend an irrational belief is, unsurprisingly, irrationally.

One very common example of an irrational defense of an irrational belief is, simply, to mischaracterize rational discussion on the other side as "just a bunch of people who are losing their minds." It's silly, and people should be skeptical of those who do that.

It's a common manipulative device, and it's not just SJW's that do it. Politicians do it all the time (e.g. Ted Cruz), because it's a kind of "shorthand" tool to manipulate people into agreeing with you, without having to provide reasonable justification for what you're trying to convince your audience of. It is also a form of ad hom argumentation, whereby the implicit purpose is to discredit the speaker's message by discrediting the speaker.

Why do people resort to such tactics? Because reason isn't on their side, of course. The only people who resort to such tactics, and then DO NOTHING ELSE, are those whose beliefs are so hollow that they cannot be reasonably supported.

Is that the kind of person you want to be? I should think not... Better to be a reasonable person, than an irrational one.
Tsar of DDO
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 7:25:48 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 12:40:47 AM, YYW wrote:
You know, after reading that long post, it occurred to me that the main concept could be truncated if you replace the word "privileged" with "talented"

Some people have talents over others. But just having a talent doesn't necessarily mean anything. I could have a talent for fastest nose picker, and it wouldn't really give me power; unless I was in a nose picking race. In that case I would be the most talented person. I have a nose picking talent, you do not.

The only permanent way to eliminate comparative talents and likewise, privileges, is to just sterilize the planet and clone everyone, and then create the perfect egalitarian society.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 7:25:50 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 12:49:46 AM, YYW wrote:
The only thing people who disagree with me will ever say are absurd things like "you are a broken record." What they will not say is why I am wrong, because they cannot.

I know as well as everyone else here that what I wrote went over PeterSmith's head. None are surprised.

Yep, it does appear that SJWs on here have their quite annoying way of inefficiently arguing, which may be by calling out racism or saying insults quite often. I don't know when they will realize they're being far more racist than the people they call out for being racist.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 7:27:20 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 7:25:50 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/15/2016 12:49:46 AM, YYW wrote:
The only thing people who disagree with me will ever say are absurd things like "you are a broken record." What they will not say is why I am wrong, because they cannot.

I know as well as everyone else here that what I wrote went over PeterSmith's head. None are surprised.

Yep, it does appear that SJWs on here have their quite annoying way of inefficiently arguing, which may be by calling out racism or saying insults quite often. I don't know when they will realize they're being far more racist than the people they call out for being racist.

The most bigoted person you will ever meet is a SJW.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 7:31:19 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 7:27:20 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/15/2016 7:25:50 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/15/2016 12:49:46 AM, YYW wrote:
The only thing people who disagree with me will ever say are absurd things like "you are a broken record." What they will not say is why I am wrong, because they cannot.

I know as well as everyone else here that what I wrote went over PeterSmith's head. None are surprised.

Yep, it does appear that SJWs on here have their quite annoying way of inefficiently arguing, which may be by calling out racism or saying insults quite often. I don't know when they will realize they're being far more racist than the people they call out for being racist.

The most bigoted person you will ever meet is a SJW.

Everyone is a bigot in their own way, but SJWs have no sense in coining the term "bigot." It appears to me as if they seem to have quite a large disdain to anybody against their ideas of reverse discrimination.
YYW
Posts: 36,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 7:53:07 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 7:25:48 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/15/2016 12:40:47 AM, YYW wrote:
You know, after reading that long post, it occurred to me that the main concept could be truncated if you replace the word "privileged" with "talented"

I disagree. Notions of this illusory concept of "privilege" go well beyond individual capacities, and focus more on circumstances.

Some people have talents over others. But just having a talent doesn't necessarily mean anything. I could have a talent for fastest nose picker, and it wouldn't really give me power; unless I was in a nose picking race. In that case I would be the most talented person. I have a nose picking talent, you do not.

The only permanent way to eliminate comparative talents and likewise, privileges, is to just sterilize the planet and clone everyone, and then create the perfect egalitarian society.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 7:53:50 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 7:25:50 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/15/2016 12:49:46 AM, YYW wrote:
The only thing people who disagree with me will ever say are absurd things like "you are a broken record." What they will not say is why I am wrong, because they cannot.

I know as well as everyone else here that what I wrote went over PeterSmith's head. None are surprised.

Yep, it does appear that SJWs on here have their quite annoying way of inefficiently arguing, which may be by calling out racism or saying insults quite often. I don't know when they will realize they're being far more racist than the people they call out for being racist.

Indeed, and as Greyparrot correctly indicated, there is no person you will find who is more racist than an SJW.
Tsar of DDO
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 8:05:32 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 7:53:50 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/15/2016 7:25:50 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/15/2016 12:49:46 AM, YYW wrote:
The only thing people who disagree with me will ever say are absurd things like "you are a broken record." What they will not say is why I am wrong, because they cannot.

I know as well as everyone else here that what I wrote went over PeterSmith's head. None are surprised.

Yep, it does appear that SJWs on here have their quite annoying way of inefficiently arguing, which may be by calling out racism or saying insults quite often. I don't know when they will realize they're being far more racist than the people they call out for being racist.

Indeed, and as Greyparrot correctly indicated, there is no person you will find who is more racist than an SJW.

The issue remains though, that they believe they're like the reincarnation of people like Malcolm X or Rosa Parks. I don't know if it's realistically possible to show how they're more racist than anybody they accuse of being racist.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 8:45:22 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 7:53:07 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/15/2016 7:25:48 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/15/2016 12:40:47 AM, YYW wrote:
You know, after reading that long post, it occurred to me that the main concept could be truncated if you replace the word "privileged" with "talented"

I disagree. Notions of this illusory concept of "privilege" go well beyond individual capacities, and focus more on circumstances.

Some people have talents over others. But just having a talent doesn't necessarily mean anything. I could have a talent for fastest nose picker, and it wouldn't really give me power; unless I was in a nose picking race. In that case I would be the most talented person. I have a nose picking talent, you do not.

The only permanent way to eliminate comparative talents and likewise, privileges, is to just sterilize the planet and clone everyone, and then create the perfect egalitarian society.

I'm just talking about the main concept of your OP about how everyone has power due to accidents of birth, but we call them guiltless terms like "talents" and not privileges...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 9:20:30 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 12:40:47 AM, YYW wrote:
Privilege is commonly regarded, in the sociocultural academic context, as the presence of certain qualities or absence of certain restraints enjoyed by some and not others that are often peculiar to an individual's circumstance. Conceptually, I can understand the literal definition of what "privilege" is, but prudent consideration of the mechanics of how it works tends to reveal that the whole notion of "the qualities" that give rise to privilege are either in want of any kind of meaningful proof, or are provably false.

Obviously I can't dispel all the myths of privilege, because people who believe in myths aren't likely to be persuaded with evidence that some myth they believe is false, but for those individuals on the margin of persuadability, perhaps some lucid analysis will change how you think about the concept. To be clear, I don't care if people believe in privilege or not, because the issue doesn't touch me on a personal level. I just want to show that if people believe in privilege, what they're putting their faith in is about as empirically provable as ghosts or the easter bunny.

Since we've established what the concept of "privilege" is (see the first paragraph), we've got to look into how it works; like, how the concept is applied to people and their situations. Privilege exists on a binary spectrum; either you'e got it or you don't, and the notion is that there is one group or groups that is/are privileged and another group or groups that is/are not privileged. Most conventionally, privilege discussions form on the basis of distinctions within certain categories in general (i.e. race, class, gender, sexuality, religion, ethnicity, culture, intellect, looks, height, etc.).

in the race category, the privileged people are the white ones, and the non privileged people are the non-white ones. In the class category, the privileged people are the rich--however you define "rich"--and the non privileged people are the poor, or the people who are at least not rich. In the gender category, the privileged people are the men, and the non-privileged people are everyone other than men, specifically women, and all the other genders that people "identify" as now (e.g. genderqueer, genderfuck, gender[whatever noun, adjective, or verb you can think of]). In the sexuality category, the privileged people are heterosexuals, and the non-privileged people are the non-heterosexuals (i.e. gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transexuals, pansexuals, demisexuals, and whatever else people are claiming as a "sexuality" these days). In the "religion" category, the "privileged" people are Christians (and, increasingly, Jews), but the non-privileged are, in particular, Muslims, but also everyone else, including but not limited to atheists, pagans, Hindus, people who worship Zeus, etc. For ethnicity, you are privileged only if you are Caucasian, and not privileged if you are anything else. If you are smart, good looking, and tall, then you're privileged, but if you're not smart, not good looking, and not tall, then you're oppressed.

So, the most "privileged" person is a good-looking, bright, white, anglo-saxon protestant. the least privileged person, hilariously enough, remains a competition among those who try to quantify such things. (Note: who is the most and least privileged cannot be quantified, for reasons that should be intuitively obvious; any attempts to the contrary are futile exercises in pseudointellectual vanity.) But notice, nevertheless, how what constitutes "privilege" and what does not is necessarily relative. For example, we only know that white people are privileged because black people are not privileged. We only know men are privileged because women and all the other "genders" out there are not privileged. The binary exists on a relative, but qualitative scale. This should make you skeptical about the concept's merits.

There are four reasons why you should be skeptical of "privilege" as it's defined. What constitutes "privilege" is at once necessarily and ironically Euro-Western centric, at the expense of all other places on the map. Thus, it is culture-specific. Is that a sufficient reason to be dubious? Those who argue for recognition of "privilege" would contend that to discuss privilege absent culture would be inapropriate because of the fact that privilege can only exist within the norms of a given culture. But what is culture? How shall we define it, and with what level of precision? Is culture a general thing, like "American" culture? Is it more specific, like "Texan" culture? More specific yet, like to counties, cities, towns, localities, and neighborhoods? Of course it is, and the "culture" that exists in Harlem is totally different than in Houston, for example. It would be absurd to think that privilege looks the same there, given the vast breadth of cultural variance. The same principal applies with even more "bite" in Europe. So, "privilege" if it exists at all can not be universal even within the United States or Europe, even if we're only going to talk about the relative privilege of groups that exist within the cultures of the United States and Europe. So, does being white mean something different in California than it means in Kentucky? Likely, it does, if it exists at all. It seems like what constitutes "privilege" is necessarily a moving target, if not totally illusory by its nature.

How, then, can you talk meaningfully about it when it varies so considerably from place to place? Does privilege even exist at all? If it does, how could you prove it? What would you do? What would you look for? Usually, those who talk about "privilege" tend to make pretty unsophisticated (read: weak, inarticulate, and insufficient) arguments to show that it exists, that tend to be limited to post hoc and speculative analysis.

For example, "there are more white people in positions of power in industry, therefore the industry must be systemically biased against non-white people." Is that a persuasive argument? It shouldn't be, if you have a brain. You need more information. To meaningfully make that argument, you have to causally connect "whiteness" with "advancement in the industry." It's not enough to say that white people are overrepresented and therefore the industry is biased in favor of white people and against all others. Why? Because as every first year college student learns, correlation is not causation.

Another example might be something like "white men are promoted faster than black women, therefore white men are privileged and black women are not." Maybe white men work harder than black women. Maybe there are more white men than there are black women in the industry, and in society in general (hint: there are a lot more white men than back women in the United States, and even more than that in Europe). Maybe white men work differently than women. Maybe women transition from job to job sooner than men do and therefore have less opportunity to advance because they don't stick to one job. Maybe... maybe... maybe. To the extent that there are variables (read: the "maybes") you have to control for those even if you're using what is commonly regarded as the most sophisticated model to plot your quantitative analysis of the extent to which "privilege" exists. The problem is that that's impossible to do with something as simple as, for example, regression analysis despite the fact that it's the gold standard in

I am on my phone so this will be short.

If you think of this as the opposite of racism, it sure as he11 exists. The examples are all around. Where everine gets stuck is the idea that it is an insult, or a request to change behavior, I posit it is not. It is simply something to be aware of.
YYW
Posts: 36,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 9:29:46 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 9:20:30 PM, TBR wrote:
I am on my phone so this will be short.

If you think of this as the opposite of racism, it sure as he11 exists. The examples are all around. Where [everyone] gets stuck is the idea that it is an insult, or a request to change behavior, I posit it is not. It is simply something to be aware of.

My post was about "privilege" not racism. Of course racism exists, but I'm not going to change my behavior because people tell me I'm 'privileged'. Privilege and racism are not the same thing.
Tsar of DDO
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 9:37:31 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 7:27:20 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/15/2016 7:25:50 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/15/2016 12:49:46 AM, YYW wrote:
The only thing people who disagree with me will ever say are absurd things like "you are a broken record." What they will not say is why I am wrong, because they cannot.

I know as well as everyone else here that what I wrote went over PeterSmith's head. None are surprised.

Yep, it does appear that SJWs on here have their quite annoying way of inefficiently arguing, which may be by calling out racism or saying insults quite often. I don't know when they will realize they're being far more racist than the people they call out for being racist.

The most bigoted person you will ever meet is a SJW.

SJWs are bigoted against white men. I've known SJWs personally.
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 9:39:44 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 8:32:15 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/15/2016 8:03:13 PM, vortex86 wrote:
http://www.usatoday.com...

Good.
I've had teachers who pushed feminist, Black LIES Matter, SJW narratives in classes about English, government and history.
YYW
Posts: 36,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 10:03:22 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 9:39:44 PM, Dilara wrote:
At 4/15/2016 8:32:15 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/15/2016 8:03:13 PM, vortex86 wrote:
http://www.usatoday.com...

Good.
I've had teachers who pushed feminist, Black LIES Matter, SJW narratives in classes about English, government and history.

That is lamentable, though I'm not surprised at all.
Tsar of DDO
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 10:22:53 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
You clearly have not defined what privilege is in terms of group sociology. Privelage is rooted in bias, which is most definitely empirically proven. Bias has real and definite repercussions to the benefit and detriment of categories of people.

There is mountains of evidence that shows privelage or a lack thereof such as beautiful women performing better at door to door sales or black wait staff making less tips than white.
BlueDreams
Posts: 199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 11:07:14 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
" To be clear, I don't care if people believe in privilege or not, because the issue doesn't touch me on a personal level."

That's what we call privilege.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 2:42:25 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 9:29:46 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:20:30 PM, TBR wrote:
I am on my phone so this will be short.

If you think of this as the opposite of racism, it sure as he11 exists. The examples are all around. Where [everyone] gets stuck is the idea that it is an insult, or a request to change behavior, I posit it is not. It is simply something to be aware of.

My post was about "privilege" not racism. Of course racism exists, but I'm not going to change my behavior because people tell me I'm 'privileged'. Privilege and racism are not the same thing.

No no. Not what I am saying. This is the... well, the flip of "racism" - it is the unearned benefit that I may receive in any situation.
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 3:31:37 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 10:03:22 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:39:44 PM, Dilara wrote:
At 4/15/2016 8:32:15 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/15/2016 8:03:13 PM, vortex86 wrote:
http://www.usatoday.com...

Good.
I've had teachers who pushed feminist, Black LIES Matter, SJW narratives in classes about English, government and history.

That is lamentable, though I'm not surprised at all.

SJWs are crawling all over colleges and high schools. Now elementary schools.
YYW
Posts: 36,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 4:43:57 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 10:22:53 PM, slo1 wrote:
You clearly have not defined what privilege is in terms of group sociology. Privelage is rooted in bias, which is most definitely empirically proven. Bias has real and definite repercussions to the benefit and detriment of categories of people.

Do share with me this "empirical proof."

There is mountains of evidence that shows privelage or a lack thereof such as beautiful women performing better at door to door sales or black wait staff making less tips than white.

That doesn't show "privilege."
Tsar of DDO
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 5:04:15 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 3:36:32 PM, YYW wrote:
@GP

I approve!

I just thought the video was cute because one of its opening points was that white homosexuals are oppressive :)