The Concept of Privilege

[Mountain Man]

Yes - implicit bias is a form on unconscious, unintentional racism. It's why I think we need a better word.

Better yet, how about we stop falsely accusing people.

[Mountain Man]

I am using white privilege in the conventional sense, as far as I know: any systemic privilege that is derived from being white (caucasian).

The false implication behind the term is that only whites can be privileged. It's ugly, divisive, and unfair to whites.

[carpedm9587]

Better yet, how about we stop falsely accusing people.

I'm not. I'm speaking about societal trends. I have not said to anyone that they, individually, are implicitly biased. I am recommending that they go to Project Implicit and objectively measure their bias. It's easy to do. Pixie indicates it showed she has no bias and I take her at her word. Statistically, she is an outlier. Most people who take the test exhibit some degree of implicit bias, if they are honestly taking the test. That is what the data shows. Ergo it is accurate to say that implicit bias is still widely present in our society. But it would be wrong of me to point to any one person and accuse them of anything. I don't know.

Likewise, it is accurate to say that there is a higher rate of violent crime in the black community than the white. That is a measurable fact. It would be wrong of me to accuse a person of being violent because they are black.

[carpedm9587]

The false implication behind the term is that only whites can be privileged. It's ugly, divisive, and unfair to whites.

No - that is an implication you are adding. At no point did I say, imply, or think that privilege is limited to white people.

This is what I say when I point out that I spend more time addressing accusations that have nothing to do with what I am saying than I do actually discussing the core issue. And when every assertion on my part that what you are reflecting back is rejected, despite every attempt to carefully use words, I have to assume that the problem is with the recipient.

You are continually adding things to what I say that I did not put there and do not intend. There is nothing I can do about that.

[Mountain Man]

I have not said to anyone that they, individually, are implicitly biased.

When you throw around ugly, divisive, racially charged terms like "white privilege", you are implicitly accusing all white people, and only white people, of being inherently if unconsciously racist simply because they happened to be born white. That's the philosophy at the heart of critical race theory and why liberals love to tell white people (and almost elusively white people) to "check your privilege". It's a nasty, unfair, anti-white ideology that promotes class envy.

[Mountain Man]

At no point did I say, imply, or think that privilege is limited to white people.

Um...

I am using white privilege in the conventional sense, as far as I know: any systemic privilege that is derived from being white (caucasian).

[carpedm9587]

Um...

So we seem to have a problem here with fundamental logic. That I can derive privilege from being white does not imply or mean a) other races have no privilege, or b) being white means I only have privilege with no downsides. These are meanings you are adding to the sentence.

Example: monetary value is something associated with coins.

This does not mean other things do not have monetary value (checks, stocks, property, etc.) nor does it mean that the only attribute of coins is "monetary value." They also have shape, color, weight, and a whole range of other attributes.

[carpedm9587]

When you throw around ugly, divisive, racially charged terms like "white privilege", you are implicitly accusing all white people, and only white people, of being inherently if unconsciously racist simply because they happened to be born white. That's the philosophy at the heart of critical race theory and why liberals love to tell white people (and almost elusively white people) to "check your privilege". It's a nasty, unfair, anti-white ideology that promotes class envy.

No - I'm not. You're adding almost all of that to my statements. Even when I completely avoid the triggering language, you continue to do so. At this point, I have to assume it is because that is what you want to hear and react to. It makes no sense for me to continue to try to explain my meaning to someone who has apparently decided they do not want to understand it and want to misinterpret it. As I have already note, even when I avoid the triggering language, you continue to cling to these false claims.

You're welcome to them, MM, but you're wrong and simply, stubbornly, refusing to acknowledge it. I can no longer say I've never seen you acknowledge error, because now I have seen you do it once. But you do seem pretty resistant to doing so, even when the evidence is provided to you.

[Zymologist]

So we seem to have a problem here with fundamental logic. That I can derive privilege from being white does not imply or mean a) other races have no privilege, or b) being white means I only have privilege with no downsides. These are meanings you are adding to the sentence.

Example: monetary value is something associated with coins.

This does not mean other things do not have monetary value (checks, stocks, property, etc.) nor does it mean that the only attribute of coins is "monetary value." They also have shape, color, weight, and a whole range of other attributes.

I think this illustrates my issue with the whole discussion: bring up "white privilege," and unless one is overly simplistic (e.g., "you're white, therefore you're privileged"), then one seemingly has to add so many qualifications that I fail to see the usefulness of the concept.

Am I privileged because I'm white? In some ways, sure. I couldn't say what the alternative would be like.

Ditto because I'm male? In some ways, sure. I mean, other than statistics regarding dangerous jobs, custody battles, suicide, lifespan, etc.

Am I disadvantaged because I'm unattractive, and/or [insert any of a multitude of variables here]? In some ways, sure.

In my experience, somebody will acknowledge at least some of the huge number of possible variables, and then almost immediately fall back to "white, male privilege." It's frustrating.

[carpedm9587]

I think this illustrates my issue with the whole discussion: bring up "white privilege," and unless one is overly simplistic (e.g., "you're white, therefore you're privileged"), then one seemingly has to add so many qualifications that I fail to see the usefulness of the concept.

Am I privileged because I'm white? In some ways, sure. I couldn't say what the alternative would be like.

Ditto because I'm male? In some ways, sure. I mean, other than statistics regarding dangerous jobs, custody battles, suicide, lifespan, etc.

Am I disadvantaged because I'm unattractive, and/or [insert any of a multitude of variables here]? In some ways, sure.

In my experience, somebody will acknowledge at least some of the huge number of possible variables, and then almost immediately fall back to "white, male privilege." It's frustrating.

There are systemic ways in which I am privileged by my whiteness. There are systemic ways in which I am privileged by my maleness. There are systemic ways in which I am privileged by my incredible good looks (ok - maybe that's a bit of a stretch ). That doe snot imply all white people everywhere experience those privileges to the same degree, and there are some who do not experience them at all (i.e., a person with a white-sounding name who has never written or submitted a resume is not going to experience the "privilege" that occurs in that context.). A person who is male who doesn't play a musical instrument is not going to experience the "privilege" their maleness would give them in that context.

That does not make the existence of these "privileges" less real. They are systemic, measurable, real, and unjust. It simply means not all people benefit equally from systemic, and unjust, privilege.

[Zymologist]

There are systemic ways in which I am privileged by my whiteness. There are systemic ways in which I am privileged by my maleness. There are systemic ways in which I am privileged by my incredible good looks (ok - maybe that's a bit of a stretch ). That doe snot imply all white people everywhere experience those privileges to the same degree, and there are some who do not experience them at all (i.e., a person with a white-sounding name who has never written or submitted a resume is not going to experience the "privilege" that occurs in that context.). A person who is male who doesn't play a musical instrument is not going to experience the "privilege" their maleness would give them in that context.

That does not make the existence of these "privileges" less real. They are systemic, measurable, real, and unjust. It simply means not all people benefit equally from systemic, and unjust, privilege.

I think this is what people take objection to; I'm not sure that I've really seen this demonstrated. It's one of those topics that, if you'll allow me to say so, people aren't really "allowed" to question nowadays.

[Mountain Man]

I think this is what people take objection to; I'm not sure that I've really seen this demonstrated. It's one of those topics that, if you'll allow me to say so, people aren't really "allowed" to question nowadays.

If you dig back though academic history, the concept of "white privilege" was based almost exclusively on personal anecdotes where someone felt like they weren't given a fair shake because they weren't white, including absurd "injustices" like turning on the TV and seeing a majority of white people as opposed to an unrealistically disproportionate ratio of non-whites. Subsequent "research" has been little more than an exercise in confirmation bias.

[carpedm9587]

I think this is what people take objection to; I'm not sure that I've really seen this demonstrated. It's one of those topics that, if you'll allow me to say so, people aren't really "allowed" to question nowadays.

I gave two examples, both of which were backed by studies. There are others. At this point, however, there seems little point in going further. Most of the denizens of this particular forum (at least those responding) appear to be dedicated to the proposition that none of this exists, and no amount of data seems likely to change that perspective.

This is what is meant when folks talk about the fact that we are in a new age where facts just don't matter. If the facts don't fit the opinion, they are simply discarded or ignored. IMO, that's a pretty dangerous way to function. It's a threat to democracy, and it's a threat to civil society, IMO.

[Zymologist]

I gave two examples, both of which were backed by studies. There are others. At this point, however, there seems little point in going further. The denizens of this particular forum appear to be dedicated to the proposition that none of this exists, and no amount of data seems likely to change that perspective.

This is what is meant when folks talk about the fact that we are in a new age where facts just don't matter. If the facts don't fit the opinion, they are simply discarded or ignored. IMO, that's a pretty dangerous way to function. It's a threat to democracy, and it's a threat to civil society, IMO.

And this is why I mentioned not being "allowed" to question it. If you're going to be this dismissive, I don't see the point in going further either.

Edit: e.g., "you disagree? Obviously you just don't care about facts."

^that sort of talk is why I'm virtually incapable of taking politics seriously. It happens everywhere.

[carpedm9587]

And this is why I mentioned not being "allowed" to question it. If you're going to be this dismissive, I don't see the point in going further either.

Edit: e.g., "you disagree? Obviously you just don't care about facts."

^that sort of talk is why I'm virtually incapable of taking politics seriously. It happens everywhere.

Um... I'm not talking about people who disagree. I'm talking about people who tell me I mean X when I have repeatedly said "I don't mean X, you're adding meaning to what I've said that I did not put there."

And if someone believes that the studies I've provided are not accurate, then tell me how they are not accurate. If you believe the conclusions they draw do not mean what they are claimed to mean, then let's discuss that. If you have other evidence that is sourced and comes to a different conclusion, let's discuss that.

But to simply wave them away and ignore them? I would suggest it is not I being dismissive.