Originally posted by Cow Poke
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
The Concept of Privilege
Collapse
X
-
The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Postyes you have said that. Basically your concept of privilege is so generalized as to have no meaning. If everyone has various privileges that others don't then it means nothing. It all evens out. I might be disadvantaged in one area and you might be in another. Like CP says, "Life isn't fair" - get over yourself.
Which word would make it possible to actually discuss the issue, rather than the freaking word? I'll be happy to switch to it.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostObviously you needed an affirmative action program where you have to hire two ugly people to replace the one pretty one.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI'm not sure why you need this list from me, but I would include Obama, King (not sure if you count historic figures),...
King rightly pointed out that a lot of the black person's problem is the black person themselves - when he was at Ferguson in his day, he had no trouble pointing out that blacks were (I'd have to look at the speech again) responsible for more crime per capita than any other race, and they needed to do something about it.
Obama was more like you - simply blaming the system, and even justifying their anger.
King worked to change the system, Obama simply blamed the system.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI actually did answer you. I brought up ALL of these things, even in my OP. The responses have mostly focused in on the racial issue, so that dominates the discussion, despite repeated attempts on my part to bring gender, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation back into the discussion.
Let me try one more time....
In the conversations you've had (your 'examples') where you claim all these issues come up ... were YOU the one who initiated these topics of discussion?
You're having a conversation with Wilbur..... does Wilbur bring up theses issues, or do you?The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostWhen injustices occur/exist, we are morally obligated to do what we can to address them.
People DO need to get up and move and not just sit back and whine, AND we need to address the injustices.
But the posts here are predominantly about affirming the former, and denying that there is anything that needs to be done about the latter.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI'm not sure why you need this list from me, but I would include Obama, King (not sure if you count historic figures),...
Obama is a self-centered all-talk-no-action elitist benefiting in every possible way from his own brand of black privilege.
King, on the other hand, was an "in the streets" "where the rubber hits the road" practical active dedicated 100% committed "do something about it" activist.
Do you REALLY think that Obama would have risked going to jail repeatedly for his cause?
It really hacks me when somebody tries to equate Obama with King.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostObama was more like you - simply blaming the system, and even justifying their anger.
King worked to change the system, Obama simply blamed the system.
But all you heard, from either Obama or me, is "blame the system."
I suggest you are selectively listening. I can advocate for change to PARTS of "the system," and still hold individuals accountable for the choices they make within that system. MLK, if you listen to his speeches, ALSO did both.
But my experience here, and in most contexts when I speak to people from the right, is the emphasis is all on the individual and their need to "suck it up" and acknowledgement that the system also needs attention is resisted, refuted, or just flat out ignored.Last edited by carpedm9587; 02-02-2018, 10:25 AM.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostNo, you haven't.
Let me try one more time....
In the conversations you've had (your 'examples') where you claim all these issues come up ... were YOU the one who initiated these topics of discussion?
You're having a conversation with Wilbur..... does Wilbur bring up theses issues, or do you?The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostI do, on a daily basis.
You need to stop seeing this as an either/or.
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostAnd that doesn't describe me. You are being disingenuous, or, at best, ignorant, by making that sweeping claim. You can't seem to get it through your head, for whatever reason, that it can be a "both".The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostI can't let this go.... I am absolutely AMAZED that people see Obama and King as anything near "same".
Obama is a self-centered all-talk-no-action elitist benefiting in every possible way from his own brand of black privilege.
King, on the other hand, was an "in the streets" "where the rubber hits the road" practical active dedicated 100% committed "do something about it" activist.
Do you REALLY think that Obama would have risked going to jail repeatedly for his cause?
It really hacks me when somebody tries to equate Obama with King.
CP - you insert a lot of things into my posts I do not put there, and then object to them. You're not objecting to anything I've actually said - your objecting to the meaning you've added that I did not put there.
As for Obama - we definitely do not see him in the same light. I know the right is badly polarized against him, but most of what you just said is either untrue, or a gross exaggeration, IMO.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostThis is an excellent question. To what degree is the success of "good looking people" an "injustice?" This is a great example of something not being a clear case of social injustice, yet possibly containing some elements of it. So, the good looking sales person will, all other skills being even, tend to out-perform a person who does not have those good looks. Why? Because we are attracted to beauty, as a function of how the human mind works. Is that reality an injustice in an of itself. No, I don't think so, but it can become one under the right (wrong?) circumstances. Therefore, I would definitely advocate for elements in K-12, college, and hiring/training programs that addresses the "don't judge a book by its cover," problem. In my experience, the first step to dealing with a potential problem is to make people aware it exists.
Then, within companies, we can address "beauty bias" by making sure our advancement criteria are merit-based. If a sales manager refuses to hire people they find unattractive because their chance of success is statistically lower - that is a problem. It discriminates against the individual based on a statistic about the group. But, as I said, I don't necessarily see a problem that needs fixing just because a good looking person succeeds.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostI honestly can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostThe fact that the meaning of words as they are in use change, in no way implies relativism of any kind. If you believe that, then you'd have to believe that C.S Lewis was a relativist, because he said that the word 'gentleman' no longer referred to a man belonging to the English gentry, but later referred to any man of good, courteous conduct.
In other words, welcome to Etymology 101 Mountain Man. It's a fascinating world.
People ask: "Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?": or "May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?" Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every available quality except that of being useful. We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very much less important, word.
The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone "a gentleman" you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not "a gentleman" you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said - so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully - "Ah but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?" They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man "a gentleman" in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is "a gentleman" becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's attitude to that object. (A 'nice' meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.
Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say 'deepening', the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to he a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Ronson, Today, 08:45 AM
|
5 responses
50 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
Today, 03:01 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 05-03-2024, 01:19 PM
|
26 responses
205 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Today, 03:06 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-03-2024, 12:23 PM
|
100 responses
422 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by alaskazimm
Today, 10:09 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 05-03-2024, 11:46 AM
|
21 responses
138 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 06:52 AM
|
||
Started by seer, 05-03-2024, 04:37 AM
|
23 responses
115 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
05-03-2024, 02:49 PM
|
Comment