The Democrat Thread

[Jenksismyhero]

Congrats, you've identified that not every single contributing factor in someone's life can be mapped to social justice issues, though why their parents and homes are s***ty might be at least somewhat related.

 

Social injustice isn't about deliberate and conscious rigging or discrimination. A lot of it is about lack of self-awareness among the privileged, like the straight white male from an upper-middle class background with good parents not realizing how much smoother his road in life has been than others.

 

So basically by social injustice you mean unfairness.

 

I didn't grow up with the physical attributes to be the starting QB of Alabama's football team, banging an incredibly hot model. SOCIAL INJUSTICE, WHY WON'T SOCIETY MAKE IT EQUAL FOR ME!

[StrangeSox]

Damnit I deleted my original post so this isnt going to be half as good.

 

She did not talk about my point, which is that where you are may determine whether you are part of a privileged sect or not. A white man may be privileged in the US, he may not be privileged in Congo. A woman may not be privileged in US, but she may be privileged in Amazon. She does not recognize that you cant be so broad and vague. That the word privilege means something, and that general definition does not mean man, woman or skin color. That is just her nonsensical and unsubstantiated life view. Put it this way, no one is going to say that Kate Middleton isnt privileged. Now maybe she isnt as much as Prince Charles, but that is all relative and why its useless.

 

Maybe it wasn't directly covered in that short, random blog post I found, but that's inherent. Privilege is based on the norm in a given society, so if you change societies, that changes. It's not universal.

 

And that is why she incorrectly used Kosher. Kosher goes against societal norms. That is the entire reason Kosher law was created, to stop normal activity. Thus anyone keeping Kosher explicitly understands that they are making a choice, that will make their life harder. In fact even in Israel a Kosher McDonalds is more rare than a regular McDondalds.

 

She is confusing choice with privilege. Being privileged or not privileged is generally not a choice. I had no choice whether I was born rich or poor. I do have a choice of whether I keep Kosher. You just cant compare if you have any clue what you are talking about.

 

If you keep Kosher or Ha'lal because that's your deeply held religious belief, it's not really as much of a choice. But like I said, that doesn't mean every form of privilege is inherently bad or needs to be 'corrected' or even could be corrected. Nor does everything map to social justice, and maybe Kosher outside of religious beliefs is not a great example. edit: whether or not keeping a religious belief is a 'choice' is a complex issue so I can agree that, if you view religion as a true choice, then we can agree that religious dietary restrictions aren't the best examples.

Edited January 11, 2013 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

So basically by social injustice you mean unfairness.

 

To some extent, maybe?

 

I didn't grow up with the physical attributes to be the starting QB of Alabama's football team, banging an incredibly hot model. SOCIAL INJUSTICE, WHY WON'T SOCIETY MAKE IT EQUAL FOR ME!

 

Thanks for showing that you have no desire to understand the viewpoint someone else is coming from. Tell me more about how I'm the real racist.

[pettie4sox]

I didn't grow up with the physical attributes to be the starting QB of Alabama's football team, banging an incredibly hot model. SOCIAL INJUSTICE, WHY WON'T SOCIETY MAKE IT EQUAL FOR ME!

 

Off topic but she looks like any other dolled up white chick. My opinion of course.

[Jenksismyhero]

Ah yes, the old "YOU don't care as much as ME so you're the racist" bit. Nicely done.

[Jenksismyhero]

Off topic but she looks like any other dolled up white chick. My opinion of course.

 

Yeah i don't think she's the hottest thing out there either. Still, that dude is on top of the world at the moment. Didn't do ANYTHING to get there either. Social lottery winner. So unfair.

[pettie4sox]

Yeah i don't think she's the hottest thing out there either. Still, that dude is on top of the world at the moment. Didn't do ANYTHING to get there either. Social lottery winner. So unfair.

 

I see what you did there. Did you see his twitter responses? The guy talks like a wangsta... I don't get it.

[Jenksismyhero]

I see what you did there. Did you see his twitter responses? The guy talks like a wangsta... I don't get it.

 

Oh i'm sure he's a huge douchebag too.

[StrangeSox]

Ah yes, the old "YOU don't care as much as ME so you're the racist" bit. Nicely done.

No, it's the old you've clearly demonstrated that you're not the least bit interested in a good-faith discussion to understand where I'm coming from, so I'm not going to bother.

[Soxbadger]

Maybe it wasn't directly covered in that short, random blog post I found, but that's inherent. Privilege is based on the norm in a given society, so if you change societies, that changes. It's not universal.

 

 

 

If you keep Kosher or Ha'lal because that's your deeply held religious belief, it's not really as much of a choice. But like I said, that doesn't mean every form of privilege is inherently bad or needs to be 'corrected' or even could be corrected. Nor does everything map to social justice, and maybe Kosher outside of religious beliefs is not a great example. edit: whether or not keeping a religious belief is a 'choice' is a complex issue so I can agree that, if you view religion as a true choice, then we can agree that religious dietary restrictions aren't the best examples.

 

Point 1.

 

No that is why her blog is incorrect. Privilege as used by most people, is universal. Privilege generally relates to money. A child born to a black person with a billion dollars, a white person with a billion dollars or a women with a billion dollars, would be considered privileged, regardless of their race, religion, gender. Now you can make arguments about why they may not be as privileged as someone else, but that goes against the normal and understood ideas of "privilege" and the "privileged class".

 

Point 2.

 

Religion is a choice. Everything that stems from religion is a choice. This is the fundamental error of her argument. She does not understand what choice is. Privilege is not based on choice, it is based on the lack of choice.

 

IE (fake examples)

 

Example 1) I chose to go to community college over Harvard.

 

I can not then argue that the people of Harvard are more privileged because I had the opportunity to go to Harvard, I just chose against.

 

Example 2) I wanted to go to Harvard, but I did not have enough money so I had to go to community college.

 

I can then argue that it was privilege, because if I had enough money, then I could have gone. I did not have the privilege to go.

 

She really doesnt know what shes talking about.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Soxbadger

[illinilaw08]

Is it societies fault that parents are s***ty? That kids are stuck in s***ty homes? Injustice is when the game is rigged without giving you any sort of opportunity to play. That's not our society. It may be more difficult to play, but everyone has the same opportunity if they take it.

 

I'm not sure how we can "change society" unless we're willing to hold people accountable for their actions. Bailing them out and paying them off isn't changing behavior for future generations.

 

I don't know that social injustice is necessarily the right term, but there are certainly people that have a better opportunity to succeed than do others.

 

The opportunity to succeed is definitely different depending on where you come from. In Indianapolis, in 2009, the public high schools graduated around 48% of the kids that entered high school. At the private schools, those numbers are noticeably higher. I would wager that the numbers are similarly skewed between CPS and a school like New Trier.

 

That's not saying that kids can't find their way, but the margin for error is much smaller from a disadvantaged background (and I think this cuts across economic levels rather than race - I could as easily be talking about a school in a poor rural area as IPS). Parents don't value education, parents might work multiple jobs to try to make ends meet, etc.

 

I'm not sure that social injustice is the right term because I think that does create a connotation that people are victims, but there is certainly an uneven playing field in terms of opportunity for a 16 year old kid whose parents make less than $30k and the parents who are comfortably middle class.

[StrangeSox]

Point 1.

 

No that is why her blog is incorrect. Privilege as used by most people, is universal. Privilege generally relates to money. A child born to a black person with a billion dollars, a white person with a billion dollars or a women with a billion dollars, would be considered privileged, regardless of their race, religion, gender. Now you can make arguments about why they may not be as privileged as someone else, but that goes against the normal and understood ideas of "privilege" and the "privileged class".

 

Class privilege is probably the most common usage, but it's clearly not the only type. In 1950's Alabama, a black millionaire and a white millionaire are going to be the same wealth-wise, but clearly are going to have differences in how they're viewed and treated in society in general. There was a study several years back now that found people with atypical or 'ethnic' names were much less likely to be chosen for an interview than someone with a bland WASP name, that's a form of privilege.

 

Not everything is about economic outcomes or possibilities, either. There's the social pressures homosexuals, transexuals and other non-norm people face. In fact, that most people might not even recognize or be aware of the existence of other types of privilege is central to the problem.

 

Point 2.

 

Religion is a choice. Everything that stems from religion is a choice. This is the fundamental error of her argument. She does not understand what choice is. Privilege is not based on choice, it is based on the lack of choice.

 

Sure, I threw the caveat in there that if you accept religion as a true choice, then dietary restrictions aren't a good example. I don't know if the author would agree that religion is a choice, at least comparable to many other choices, and I don't really care. I'll fully accept that it's a weak case for Kosher. It was a random blog post to give some background on the concept, not some definitive dissertation on social justice.

 

IE (fake examples)

 

I chose to go to community college over Harvard.

 

I can not then argue that the people of Harvard are more privileged because I had the opportunity to go to Harvard, I just chose against.

 

I wouldn't disagree, but privilege isn't really at the individual level like that.

 

I wanted to go to Harvard, but I did not have enough money so I had to go to community college.

 

I can then argue that it was privilege, because if I had enough money, then I could have gone. I did not have the privilege to go.

 

She really doesnt know what shes talking about.

 

So in that case, wealth was a privilege. I don't think she'd disagree, and I know I don't. Before women and minorities were accepted at most colleges, being a white male was a gigantic privilege. At colleges in South Korea and on job applications, people attach photos--certain aesthetics are then greatly privileged. They also have scales and mirrors in the hallways in the highschools and a huge rate of plastic surgery. I don't know what their rate of eating disorders are, but I'd guess they're pretty high. Because of social pressures and expectations, not because of anything innate.

 

I'll see if I can find something a little bit better as a 'primer' for social justice that's in blog- or article-form and not some academic article. I'm far from an expert but I'd say that it forms, at least in some mushy qualitative sense, the basis for a lot of my political and moral beliefs.

 

edit: and thanks for actually engaging in a discussion even though you don't agree without instantly resorting to mockery and strawmen.

Edited January 11, 2013 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Maybe this one's a little better than the first blog link I posted, lots of links and basic definitions:

 

http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146

 

[Soxbadger]

Class privilege is probably the most common usage, but it's clearly not the only type. In 1950's Alabama, a black millionaire and a white millionaire are going to be the same wealth-wise, but clearly are going to have differences in how they're viewed and treated in society in general. There was a study several years back now that found people with atypical or 'ethnic' names were much less likely to be chosen for an interview than someone with a bland WASP name, that's a form of privilege.

 

Not everything is about economic outcomes or possibilities, either. There's the social pressures homosexuals, transexuals and other non-norm people face. In fact, that most people might not even recognize or be aware of the existence of other types of privilege is central to the problem.

 

This is why she is wrong. If you want to use the universal term "privilege" then it means something different than if you just want to say "X is more privileged than Y." Using your example a black millionaire in 1950 may have less privilege than a white millionaire, but has more privilege than a poor white person. Thus it kills the idea that its merely "race" because privilege is almost always connected to wealth (I will get to that further.) It just so happens that in most instances, the most "normal" also happen to have the most "privilege" but that is not always the case, as ultimately privilege (in todays society) rests with money.

 

Not everything is about economic outcomes or possibilities, either. There's the social pressures homosexuals, transexuals and other non-norm people face. In fact, that most people might not even recognize or be aware of the existence of other types of privilege is central to the problem.

 

You can make any word mean anything, but regular people will not associate this with privilege. One of my best friends is a lesbian. Her parents are very wealthy. She went to a 6 sister school, she has 2 masters degrees, etc etc. She is also a Jew. But there is no possible way to say she is not privileged that any normal human would understand. Sure she may have slightly less privilege than her hetero younger sister, but due to the wealth of her family she will always be privileged. No matter how minority of a minority she may be, she still has enormous privilege because of wealth. Does she b**** its harder to find girls? Sure. But thats warping the point of all of this.

 

Sure, I threw the caveat in there that if you accept religion as a true choice, then dietary restrictions aren't a good example. I don't know if the author would agree that religion is a choice, at least comparable to many other choices, and I don't really care. I'll fully accept that it's a weak case for Kosher. It was a random blog post to give some background on the concept, not some definitive dissertation on social justice.

 

When you cite it at as evidence, it tends to suggest you think its good information.

 

Before women and minorities were accepted at most colleges, being a white male was a gigantic privilege. At colleges in South Korea and on job applications, people attach photos--certain aesthetics are then greatly privileged. They also have scales and mirrors in the hallways in the highschools and a huge rate of plastic surgery. I don't know what their rate of eating disorders are, but I'd guess they're pretty high. Because of social pressures and expectations, not because of anything innate.

 

And this is the point I am making. Just because at 1 point being a man was more privileged than being a woman, does not mean that at all points in time it was. The only way to really discuss privilege is to use actual tangible examples, instead of just throwing nonsense out there. Its clear what she is trying to say "You privileged folks (white males) dont understand privilege, so you need to recognize."

 

What she doesnt understand is that merely being white may or may not mack you privileged. Im sure that Eminem doesnt believe his "flesh tone" skin helped him break into the rap game. And while it may have helped him sell more albums, it just shows that you cant say something like that is always a privilege (which is the basic conclusion, if your part of the "norm" you have an advantage. Which does not even touch the, sometimes the abnormal is more privileged.)

 

This is why its easier to keep privilege into a discussion that actually makes sense. Instead of trying to draw these widespread conclusions about how white men always have privilege. Sometimes they have an advantage, sometimes they do not. That is not what privilege is. Privilege is when you ALWAYS have an advantage. Which is why most who understand, would say that there is arguably only 1 universal privilege, wealth.

 

(Ill read the other article when I have a chance.)

[Soxbadger]

Okay so I read the next article and it linked the article I just crucified. Is there not one legitimate academic article to be found? I have to imagine they will almost universally support my position that privilege is not something that can be apportioned to any race, religion or gender as depending on the time and place, you may or may not have been privileged.

 

What always will be privilege is money. If you were rich in 5k BC, rich in 100 AD or rich in 3000 Ad you always had better access and rights. That is what privilege is.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Soxbadger

[Soxbadger]

Okay so Ive done a lot of reading and Im pretty sure the problem here is the idea of "white privilege." The reason that this is a problem is that its incorrect. When they mean "white privilege" what they actually are referring to is WASP (white anglo saxon protestant) privilege in the United States, which is a very specific issue based on very specific historical events.

 

The problem it would seem is that less educated authors take this very specific issue and try and paint a very broad "white privilege" brush. The problem is that they are not sophisticated, and there unsophistication shows that they actually do not even understand racial issues.

 

There is no "white" subset, just like there is no "black" subset. There are people who happen to have light or dark skin, but there skin does not tell the entire story. A very good example of this is would be Jews. The majority of Jews look like white people. But you can not say that Jews have historically enjoyed white privilege. Another example of this would be the Irish, another group of "white" people who were not treated equally.

 

To really discuss this subject you first have to start with the truth, there is no such thing as "white" privilege because not all white people have the "white privilege." There are some groups in the US that may have more privilege, but ironically those people likely came from another place where they were not as privileged. The people on the Mayflower didnt leave England because they were being treated well, they left because they did not have equality.

 

Its a pretty complicated subject and it requires more than a superficial understanding of the US post 19th century.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Soxbadger

[Jake]

We gave WASP males a >100 year head start on everyone else. We still feel the effects of it. We made the rules the same (unless you're gay) but everyone still starts on a different place on the board.

 

The Rawls "original position" argument would be useful here. How would you structure the government if you didn't know how much money you'd have, what color skin, which gender, which talents, etc. The beauty of it is that it still leads to different opinions, but it makes our selfish impulses more likely to end up helping the "underprivileged."

[Soxbadger]

I think most would agree that there is some sort of WASP privilege in the US.

 

But that is far different than white privilege, where you are basically saying that the Irish slave was somehow privileged.

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't disagree with a lot of what's being said here, my problem is when you label this as a societal problem when it's not. Society provides equal opportunity to everyone. Whether or not someones parent is a drug addict or a rich judge doesn't matter in that respect. I hate the term social injustice because it does have the connotation that society is somehow inherently rigging the system against those in less fortunate situations, when in reality it's not society (2013 society) that's doing that.

 

And to that point i'm not sure what society can do. I know that providing people with public housing has been a failure. I know that giving them food and healthcare and everything else like that has been a failure. Simply giving disadvantaged people things doesn't change behavior for future generations. Incentive needs to be instilled. You would think showing kids of life full of misery and crime would be enough, but it's not. Absent taking those types of kids away from their situations, I really don't think "society" can do anything about the problem.

[bmags]

Its a pretty complicated subject and it requires more than a superficial understanding of the US post 19th century.

 

 

LOL

[Soxbadger]

Jenks,

 

The problem that most of these articles fail to address is that you cant change the playing field over night and they also dont recognize that for at least the last 100 years the playing field has become more equal.

 

The biggest factor now is wealth. Im pretty sure that Michael Jordan's kids are more privilege than I was, even though I was a white kid.

 

LOL

 

Very insightful.

 

[StrangeSox]

Okay so I read the next article and it linked the article I just crucified. Is there not one legitimate academic article to be found? I have to imagine they will almost universally support my position that privilege is not something that can be apportioned to any race, religion or gender as depending on the time and place, you may or may not have been privileged.

 

I looked for blog posts instead of big, boring dissertations.

 

Nobody would disagree that what is or isn't privileged, aside from maybe wealth, is dependent on numerous factors. That's the whole point of recognizing it as a societal force--it depends on the society. Neither of those articles I linked would disagree with what you say here at all.

 

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Jenks,

 

The problem that most of these articles fail to address is that you cant change the playing field over night and they also dont recognize that for at least the last 100 years the playing field has become more equal.

 

None of them seem to be saying that it can be changed overnight, or that things haven't improved in many aspects. You're projecting that into them.

[StrangeSox]

Okay so Ive done a lot of reading and Im pretty sure the problem here is the idea of "white privilege." The reason that this is a problem is that its incorrect. When they mean "white privilege" what they actually are referring to is WASP (white anglo saxon protestant) privilege in the United States, which is a very specific issue based on very specific historical events.

 

White privilege isn't restricted to the United States.

 

The problem it would seem is that less educated authors take this very specific issue and try and paint a very broad "white privilege" brush. The problem is that they are not sophisticated, and there unsophistication shows that they actually do not even understand racial issues.

 

There is no "white" subset, just like there is no "black" subset. There are people who happen to have light or dark skin, but there skin does not tell the entire story. A very good example of this is would be Jews. The majority of Jews look like white people. But you can not say that Jews have historically enjoyed white privilege. Another example of this would be the Irish, another group of "white" people who were not treated equally.

 

This is covered under intersectionality and there's lots of writing and literature on it. You're taking two articles I posted as intentionally base-level, remedial "here is what this concept is" things and criticizing them for not being scholarly works.

 

To really discuss this subject you first have to start with the truth, there is no such thing as "white" privilege because not all white people have the "white privilege." There are some groups in the US that may have more privilege, but ironically those people likely came from another place where they were not as privileged. The people on the Mayflower didnt leave England because they were being treated well, they left because they did not have equality.

 

Its a pretty complicated subject and it requires more than a superficial understanding of the US post 19th century.

 

You're right, and a couple of blog posts explaining the basic concepts of what privilege is aren't trying to be a whole bunch of dissertations on the causes of and changes of privilege. You're rejecting these articles for not being something they weren't trying to be. Italians and Irish didn't benefit from white privilege at one point, but now they do because in society as a whole they're viewed as "white." Just the opposite problem happens with "one drop" disqualifying mixed racial backgrounds, or why someone of mixed racial backgrounds like Obama are going to identify as black and not white--they're going to be viewed as black by society.

 

I don't know man, it seems like you absolutely get the subject but are attacking broad, general discussions of privilege for not being hyper-focused with historical analysis.

Edited January 11, 2013 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

I think most would agree that there is some sort of WASP privilege in the US.

 

But that is far different than white privilege, where you are basically saying that the Irish slave was somehow privileged.

 

The Irish weren't, but now they are viewed as white. Nobody ever said these categories are static across time and place. That a group that is now seen as white wasn't at some point doesn't mean white privilege didn't and doesn't exist. It just means that who gets included in the privilege isn't 100% static.

 

eta: which is exactly why ss2k5's earlier racism accusations are such bulls***, because this framework explicitly rejects a people or a culture as inherently inferior.

Edited January 11, 2013 by StrangeSox