6 ms·

Here are some. Note that I do not necessarily believe these ideas, just that they are considered taboo to the point that they cannot be tolerated or seriously d

Here are some. Note that I do not necessarily believe these ideas, just that they are considered taboo to the point that they cannot be tolerated or seriously discussed in certain circles. * The USA is a moral country. * The USA is morally superior to most/all other countries. * A specific member of an in-power "preferred" group can experience unjustified prejudice, oppression, and bullying from members of an out-of-power group. * Men and women have some neurological differences. * Some cultures are morally superior to other cultures. * Christianity's values are moral. * Conforming gender identities exist for more reasons than culturally enforced gender roles. * Abortion involves the killing of a baby. * Poor whites are not a privileged class.

dionidium 11y ago
This is a good list, but of course the most incendiary additions would involve race.
lukeschlather 11y ago
> Poor whites are not a privileged class. I just wanted to respond to this because (like a lot of these ideas) I think they represent a response to a strawman. The core point of the discussion of privilege acknowledges that all people have privileges. The question then is defining what they are and how useful they are. When talking about white privilege, the point is that poor whites are better off than poor blacks, just by virtue of being white. The interesting thing here is that there are privileges only afforded to poor blacks. The problem is that the privileges afforded to poor whites are more useful than those afforded to poor blacks.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > When talking about white privilege, the point is that poor whites are better off than poor blacks, just by virtue of being white. Its not clear to me that that that's true; there is complicated intersectionality at play. Poor whites are more likely to have social networks and other advantages that provide things useful to getting out of poverty, and may -- due to racism and the racially unequal distribution of wealth and power -- have better responses from people in power independent of their own social networks. OTOH, they may also be more likely to have social networks that are less understanding of an accepting of poverty. Whether this is a net advantage or net disadvantage varies, among poor whites, considerably from individual to individual. Group privilege exists mostly in terms of average conditions across groups (and may not thus be particularly useful in discussing the positions of individuals.) Taking White privilege as a given (which I think does accurately reflect reality, in terms of on-average advantage), I'm not sure that poor White privilege (compared to, poor non-White ) is valid; its certainly not a necessary corollary of White privilege.
  - flopto 11y ago
    Poor blacks, unlike poor whites, are subject to mass incarceration. Edit: this is technically incorrect, see dragonwriter below.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      Poor whites and poor blacks are both subject to mass incarceration; though poor blacks are incarcerated at even higher rates. This is clearly among the factors that, on average, favors poor whites over poor blacks. I certainly did not deny the existence of such factors (I even enumerated some of them.)
      - flopto 11y ago
        > Poor whites and poor blacks are both subject to mass incarceration; though poor blacks are incarcerated at even higher rates. Yes, good to point that out. My argument (implicitly) was that this is a really huge factor which gives poor whites a "net advantage."
        ps4fanboy 11y ago
        An aggregate advantage maybe, however the individual who decides to not put themselves in the position to be incarcerated is confused why you are calling them privileged.
        flopto 11y ago
        Well some people have to work much harder to avoid incarceration.
        ps4fanboy 11y ago
        I concede that point to you, however certain types of violent crime are easier to avoid.
- learc83 11y ago
  I'm certain that poor whites are better off than poor blacks, but both are much worse off in most respects than wealthier people of all races. The problem is that poor and lower middle class people of all races are fighting among themselves for scraps. Yes poor whites are privileged compared to poor blacks, and poor blacks are privileged compared to poor indians living on a reservation. There is almost always someone worse off than you, arguing about who is the most worse off is the wrong fight. The groups that we divide people into are fairly arbitrary anyway. Why stop at race? Surely you can subdivide any race into smaller groups where some are more privileged than others. But to most people taking about privilege (especially college students) this issue is purely binary. If you are white you're privileged, if you're black you're not. To them it doesn't matter if you're comparing a middle class black guy and a dirt poor white dude.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
karmacondon 11y ago
There are just tenants of liberal vs conservative philosophy. If you hang out with a certain group of people, half of those things will be unspeakably taboo. If you hang out with the Young Republicans, the other half will be just as unthinkable. That's just culture and world view, not censorship. If someone says something unpopular on hackernews, ie "Edward Snowden is a traitor" they will be downvoted into oblivion. You could say that hackernewws censored the person's ideas, but I think the reality is that what they said wasn't very popular with the people they said it to. I think this effect is just as relevant and predictable with online communities as it is with college campuses.
- thelastguy 11y ago
  >I think this effect is just as relevant and predictable with online communities as it is with college campuses. Nope. Totally different. In your example, the poster on HackerNews would only get down-voted and thus, censored. Okay. No big deal. What's happening at the universities right now is different. It is not censership. At these, universities, a person who says, "Edward Snowden is a traitor" would get fired, because students would force the administrators to fired the person they disagree with, because it's "offensive" to call Edward Snowden a traitor. So totally different. On HackerNews, it's just a down-vote, a simple censorship. At the universities, the person loses his job/education/livelihood, all because he has a different opinion about Edward Snowden. That's not censorship. That's "ruinning-people's-lives-for-having-a-different-opinion" but trying to pass it off as just a simple censorship.

dionidium 11y ago

This is a good list, but of course the most incendiary additions would involve race.

lukeschlather 11y ago

> Poor whites are not a privileged class. I just wanted to respond to this because (like a lot of these ideas) I think they represent a response to a strawman. The core point of the discussion of privilege acknowledges that all people have privileges. The question then is defining what they are and how useful they are. When talking about white privilege, the point is that poor whites are better off than poor blacks, just by virtue of being white. The interesting thing here is that there are privileges only afforded to poor blacks. The problem is that the privileges afforded to poor whites are more useful than those afforded to poor blacks.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> When talking about white privilege, the point is that poor whites are better off than poor blacks, just by virtue of being white. Its not clear to me that that that's true; there is complicated intersectionality at play. Poor whites are more likely to have social networks and other advantages that provide things useful to getting out of poverty, and may -- due to racism and the racially unequal distribution of wealth and power -- have better responses from people in power independent of their own social networks. OTOH, they may also be more likely to have social networks that are less understanding of an accepting of poverty. Whether this is a net advantage or net disadvantage varies, among poor whites, considerably from individual to individual. Group privilege exists mostly in terms of average conditions across groups (and may not thus be particularly useful in discussing the positions of individuals.) Taking White privilege as a given (which I think does accurately reflect reality, in terms of on-average advantage), I'm not sure that poor White privilege (compared to, poor non-White ) is valid; its certainly not a necessary corollary of White privilege.
- flopto 11y ago
  Poor blacks, unlike poor whites, are subject to mass incarceration. Edit: this is technically incorrect, see dragonwriter below.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    Poor whites and poor blacks are both subject to mass incarceration; though poor blacks are incarcerated at even higher rates. This is clearly among the factors that, on average, favors poor whites over poor blacks. I certainly did not deny the existence of such factors (I even enumerated some of them.)
    - flopto 11y ago
      > Poor whites and poor blacks are both subject to mass incarceration; though poor blacks are incarcerated at even higher rates. Yes, good to point that out. My argument (implicitly) was that this is a really huge factor which gives poor whites a "net advantage."
      - ps4fanboy 11y ago
        An aggregate advantage maybe, however the individual who decides to not put themselves in the position to be incarcerated is confused why you are calling them privileged.
        flopto 11y ago
        Well some people have to work much harder to avoid incarceration.
        ps4fanboy 11y ago
        I concede that point to you, however certain types of violent crime are easier to avoid.
learc83 11y ago
I'm certain that poor whites are better off than poor blacks, but both are much worse off in most respects than wealthier people of all races. The problem is that poor and lower middle class people of all races are fighting among themselves for scraps. Yes poor whites are privileged compared to poor blacks, and poor blacks are privileged compared to poor indians living on a reservation. There is almost always someone worse off than you, arguing about who is the most worse off is the wrong fight. The groups that we divide people into are fairly arbitrary anyway. Why stop at race? Surely you can subdivide any race into smaller groups where some are more privileged than others. But to most people taking about privilege (especially college students) this issue is purely binary. If you are white you're privileged, if you're black you're not. To them it doesn't matter if you're comparing a middle class black guy and a dirt poor white dude.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

karmacondon 11y ago

There are just tenants of liberal vs conservative philosophy. If you hang out with a certain group of people, half of those things will be unspeakably taboo. If you hang out with the Young Republicans, the other half will be just as unthinkable. That's just culture and world view, not censorship. If someone says something unpopular on hackernews, ie "Edward Snowden is a traitor" they will be downvoted into oblivion. You could say that hackernewws censored the person's ideas, but I think the reality is that what they said wasn't very popular with the people they said it to. I think this effect is just as relevant and predictable with online communities as it is with college campuses.

thelastguy 11y ago
>I think this effect is just as relevant and predictable with online communities as it is with college campuses. Nope. Totally different. In your example, the poster on HackerNews would only get down-voted and thus, censored. Okay. No big deal. What's happening at the universities right now is different. It is not censership. At these, universities, a person who says, "Edward Snowden is a traitor" would get fired, because students would force the administrators to fired the person they disagree with, because it's "offensive" to call Edward Snowden a traitor. So totally different. On HackerNews, it's just a down-vote, a simple censorship. At the universities, the person loses his job/education/livelihood, all because he has a different opinion about Edward Snowden. That's not censorship. That's "ruinning-people's-lives-for-having-a-different-opinion" but trying to pass it off as just a simple censorship.