The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

You can't say you don't disagree with social justice/privilege issues and then object to it being a social issue. You're rejecting the entire concept at that point. Society confers advantages to some and disadvantages to others and not in a planned or conscious way. That's what's meant by social justice, not that it's rigged. That's what's meant by institutional racism.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

This sort of ties into both this discussion and the one yesterday about why a white affluent dude offering advice on how to get out of poverty can be useless at best:

 

http://www.theroot.com/buzz/if-i-were-poor...ck-kid-pushback

[StrangeSox]

Soxbadger, here, this might expand a little bit on what you're saying and show that this is something routinely addressed in social research:

 

http://veerserif.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/...r-on-privilege/

 

Passing Privilege (Thanks to throwingExceptions for help on this bit.)

 

Quite a lot of how people interact with other people is dependent on perception. In fact, sometimes what people think you are is more important than what you actually are. Passing privilege stems from that. If people think that you are a member of a privileged group, they will treat you the same way, and so you have access to the same advantages.

 

For example, a closeted gay man might be able to pass very easily for a straight man. Therefore, he’d have passing straight privilege so long as he does not come out. Of course, the major problem with passing privilege is that it’s all based on keeping the assumption intact. (For example, the gay man’s “straight assumption” – he is assumed to be heterosexual.) Passing privilege can happen without any move towards acquiring it specifically, or by intentionally hiding or obfuscating the truth, or by outright lying about it. Possessing passing privilege is sometimes a major barrier, as fear of losing this privilege can sometimes form an obstacle to confronting the truth about yourself.

 

Passing privilege can also be described as “conditional privilege”. Conditional privilege makes it somewhat clearer that this type of privilege depends on a certain condition being maintained; this conditional privilege is gone once people no longer perceive you as part of the majority group.

 

The term itself comes from mixed race people who could “pass” for white, and so could enjoy white privilege – provided that assumption was never lost.

 

SUMMARY:

 

Privilege is a social phenomenon, where members of a favoured group get advantages that other groups don’t get. Privilege comes in many forms and in many different areas. Privilege does not cancel out; being privileged in one area does not remove privilege in another. It is possible to benefit from more than one form of privilege at the same time. If people think that you are a member of a privileged group, even if you aren’t, you have “passing privilege”.

 

Last but not least: one thing that is universal to ALL privilege lists is that the privileged group never has to be aware that they are privileged. Knowing is the first step to dismantling this whole unfair system.

 

These authors, all of them, would be right there with you in recognizing that Irish or Jews haven't (or still don't in some places) been seen or treated as 'white' where white privilege is a dominant thing.

[Jenksismyhero]

You can't say you don't disagree with social justice/privilege issues and then object to it being a social issue. You're rejecting the entire concept at that point. Society confers advantages to some and disadvantages to others and not in a planned or conscious way. That's what's meant by social justice, not that it's rigged. That's what's meant by institutional racism.

 

SOCIETY doesn't confer s***. In 1776 you could say SOCIETY granted white males advantages because the laws of the society literally were written for white males. We don't have that anymore. We have a clean slate when it comes to opportunities for people. It's entirely consistent to admit that there is "privilege" (though I agree with SB that's all about wealth, not skin color, gender, etc) but also deny that it's society's doing.

 

Edit: Perhaps you and I have a different definition of society. Within our society there is privilege and better opportunities for some. That I agree with. I deny that said privilege or opportunities, in 2013, is caused by our society and culture.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

It's incoherent to even talk about privilege outside of a social setting. Society isn't an entity itself, it's people and how they interact and privilege is part of that.

 

You keep phrasing it as a deliberate action, too, that it's society's "doing." No, it's simply something that falls out of the way people interact with each other and what is believed on a communal level. I can't stress enough that it isn't about always deliberate, conscious actions or the legal system actually being intentionally and explicitly unjust (though there's still plenty of racial issues in our system).

[StrangeSox]

This sort of ties into both this discussion and the one yesterday about why a white affluent dude offering advice on how to get out of poverty can be useless at best:

 

http://www.theroot.com/buzz/if-i-were-poor...ck-kid-pushback

 

This serves as an awesome example of both class and white privilege, by the way. The original Forbes piece was essentially "if I were a poor black kid, I'd be a middle-class white kid!" Read through the original and then the numerous responses if you want to see white privilege in 2012 in explicit detail.

Edited January 11, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Soxbadger]

Strangesox,

 

I know what passing is. That is a different phenomenon where you are not part of the privilege group, but you are getting the benefits. What I am discussing is the exact opposite of passing. Its where you look like the privilege group, but you are not getting any benefits, yet at the same time being grouped with those who are.

 

This is my problem. These people are using vast generalizations that are almost universally unsupportable.

 

To use their own statement:

 

Privilege is a social phenomenon, where members of a favoured group get advantages that other groups don’t get.

 

Notice the word, ADVANTAGE.

 

In today's society, merely being white is not an advantage.

 

Further,

 

If people think that you are a member of a privileged group, even if you aren’t, you have “passing privilege”.

 

That isnt true. This isnt about what people think. This is about what is actually happening. It doesnt matter if I think that every black person has a privilege because more black people are athletes. What matters is whether or not there are more black athletes because of some unjust societal advantage or whether its because they are simply better than me.

 

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Strangesox,

 

I know what passing is. That is a different phenomenon where you are not part of the privilege group, but you are getting the benefits. What I am discussing is the exact opposite of passing. Its where you look like the privilege group, but you are not getting any benefits, yet at the same time being grouped with those who are.

 

This is my problem. These people are using vast generalizations that are almost universally unsupportable.

 

Probably because these are broad explanations of the concept and not specialized examinations of a certain society at a certain time.

 

To use their own statement:

 

 

 

Notice the word, ADVANTAGE.

 

In today's society, merely being white is not an advantage.

 

Yes, it absolutely is. Read the one scholarly article I posted way back in the first post on this for some examples, keeping in mind that privilege isn't only (or even mainly) about economic advantages, it is about social interactions.

 

Further,

 

 

 

That isnt true. This isnt about what people think. This is about what is actually happening. It doesnt matter if I think that every black person has a privilege because more black people are athletes. What matters is whether or not there are more black athletes because of some unjust societal advantage or whether its because they are simply better than me.

 

This isn't about you, period. It's about an aggregate. You and jenks both keep trying to individualize this when it is exactly the opposite of what the topic actually is.

 

[Soxbadger]

Probably because these are broad explanations of the concept and not specialized examinations of a certain society at a certain time.

 

 

 

Yes, it absolutely is. Read the one scholarly article I posted way back in the first post on this for some examples, keeping in mind that privilege isn't only (or even mainly) about economic advantages, it is about social interactions.

 

 

 

This isn't about you, period. It's about an aggregate. You and jenks both keep trying to individualize this when it is exactly the opposite of what the topic actually is.

 

1) And that is exactly my point. When you say "White privilege" you have to define it because it absolutely is dealing about a certain society at a certain time. 400 years is still a certain society at a certain time. White privilege is simply the most recent privilege in our very specific society (Western Judeo Christian).

 

2) This is the part where you are stretching privilege. Social interactions are not inherently privilege. They could be privilege. But you have to remember that the interaction involves an individual and somehow that individual believing that they are or are not privileged. I just think this kind of nonsense. Just because you are the majority, doesnt mean you have some sort of inherent privilege. In fact historically, many minorities (rich upper class) were able to keep down the majority (poor lower class). Just because there were more poor didnt mean they had privilege.

 

3) The topic is about individuals. Because society is nothing more than a conglomerate of individuals. So if every individual in society has a certain opinion then it becomes societies opinion. There is no "society" without individuals. And since I cant speak for other people, I inherently have to speak from my perspective. And based on all of these arguments, they would think Im not privileged because Im from some minority. I could not disagree more.

[Balta1701]

By the way...no, the Nazis did not ban guns.

[BigSqwert]

lol @ the first reply

[Balta1701]

lol @ the first reply

Yeah, i stopped trying at that.

[StrangeSox]

You gotta admit, that was an impressive list, tying basically everything that person is against directly to Nazi Germany.

[Jake]

You gotta admit, that was an impressive list, tying basically everything that person is against directly to Nazi Germany.

 

Indeed. That has facebook repost written all over it, I know lots of people that would eat that up.

[Steve9347]

lol @ the first reply

People make me hate religion.

[bigruss]

People make me hate religion.

This.

 

I get why people are drawn to it, how it can help people, but the cons most definitely outweigh the pros.

[Y2HH]

This.

 

I get why people are drawn to it, how it can help people, but the cons most definitely outweigh the pros.

 

I have no problem with religion so long as people don't take it so literally, which, I don't believe it was meant to be taken. I have a problem when people take their religious beliefs past the realm of reality, where it's plain as day that what they're saying, and what's actually happening around them are completely opposite...it's like...stop...SHHHH. Stop pretending you don't see these things...admit they're there, admit they exist, and move on.

[Jake]

The people who wrote both parts of the Bible and later hand chose the parts to be included did not really consider that those texts would persist, undisturbed but frequently translated, for over a thousand years.

[Reddy]

religion is for dumb people.

[Soxbadger]

I have no problem with religion so long as people don't take it so literally, which, I don't believe it was meant to be taken. I have a problem when people take their religious beliefs past the realm of reality, where it's plain as day that what they're saying, and what's actually happening around them are completely opposite...it's like...stop...SHHHH. Stop pretending you don't see these things...admit they're there, admit they exist, and move on.

 

 

The people who wrote both parts of the Bible and later hand chose the parts to be included did not really consider that those texts would persist, undisturbed but frequently translated, for over a thousand years.

 

You cant talk about Old Testament and New Testament as if they are the same. Old Testament is supposed to be the actual historical story. As if you were watching a true historical documentary starting from the beginning of the universe.

[Steve9347]

You cant talk about Old Testament and New Testament as if they are the same. Old Testament is supposed to be the actual historical story. As if you were watching a true historical documentary starting from the beginning of the universe.

The Bible sux.

[Reddy]

The Bible sux.

but but but HOW CAN YOU HAVE A MORAL CODE IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE BIBLEZZZZ!?!!?

[Soxbadger]

The Bible sux.

 

I think you meant "books suck".

[StrangeSox]

You cant talk about Old Testament and New Testament as if they are the same. Old Testament is supposed to be the actual historical story. As if you were watching a true historical documentary starting from the beginning of the universe.

 

I read this book a year or two ago. It gave me a much greater appreciation for the cultural traditions of the Hebrew Bible and the history of the Jewish people and their faith.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Arch...t/dp/0684869136

[StrangeSox]

btw posts like reddy's are why I refuse to self-identify as an atheist.