4 ms·

You speak of privilege as an absolute category; I was thinking in more relative terms. If you take two people, of whom one has access to clean water and the oth

You speak of privilege as an absolute category; I was thinking in more relative terms. If you take two people, of whom one has access to clean water and the other doesn’t — wouldn't you say that the first is in a more privileged position than the second?

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
So I'll tell you why I really hate the term in this context. The common usage is to describe an unfair inequality. One person is feeding steak to their dog while another is starving. The spirit of the accusation is that the better off person is too well off and we need to even it out by knocking them down -- since we can't feed steak to every dog, since we can't give everyone a private jet and a mansion and a harem, the people who have those things are contemptible for not giving them up to help the less fortunate. Human rights don't work like that. It isn't the case that people in free countries could help out people in authoritarian countries by giving up some of their free speech if only they weren't so greedy and selfish. They're not using up all the free speech so that nobody else can have any. It's possible for more people to have free speech, and due process, and clean water, without taking any of it away from anybody who currently has it already. Which makes the relativistic comparison counterproductive. It isn't a zero sum game. China should have it independent of whether or not New Zealand or America does, and they could all fully have it at the same time.
- azangru 7y ago
  > The common usage is to describe an unfair inequality. > The spirit of the accusation Yes, this is indeed the common usage, which I find extremely puzzling. The word "privilege" has become somewhat of a pejorative term — an accusation rather than a statement of fact. It seems to have a stronger negative connotation than the word "luck", or the word "advantage", although it has a very similar semantics. I wonder how long this has been the case. Has this bundle of negative connotations come to be associated with this word during the latest culture wars (and if so, I would like to push back against this automatic "spirit of accusation" against those who happen to be in the privileged position), or is there a much longer tradition of such usage? > It's possible for more people to have free speech, and due process, and clean water, without taking any of it away from anybody who currently has it already. Of course it is. I am surprised that the presupposition is that a privileged person is necessarily taking something away from an unprivileged one.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

So I'll tell you why I really hate the term in this context. The common usage is to describe an unfair inequality. One person is feeding steak to their dog while another is starving. The spirit of the accusation is that the better off person is too well off and we need to even it out by knocking them down -- since we can't feed steak to every dog, since we can't give everyone a private jet and a mansion and a harem, the people who have those things are contemptible for not giving them up to help the less fortunate. Human rights don't work like that. It isn't the case that people in free countries could help out people in authoritarian countries by giving up some of their free speech if only they weren't so greedy and selfish. They're not using up all the free speech so that nobody else can have any. It's possible for more people to have free speech, and due process, and clean water, without taking any of it away from anybody who currently has it already. Which makes the relativistic comparison counterproductive. It isn't a zero sum game. China should have it independent of whether or not New Zealand or America does, and they could all fully have it at the same time.

azangru 7y ago
> The common usage is to describe an unfair inequality. > The spirit of the accusation Yes, this is indeed the common usage, which I find extremely puzzling. The word "privilege" has become somewhat of a pejorative term — an accusation rather than a statement of fact. It seems to have a stronger negative connotation than the word "luck", or the word "advantage", although it has a very similar semantics. I wonder how long this has been the case. Has this bundle of negative connotations come to be associated with this word during the latest culture wars (and if so, I would like to push back against this automatic "spirit of accusation" against those who happen to be in the privileged position), or is there a much longer tradition of such usage? > It's possible for more people to have free speech, and due process, and clean water, without taking any of it away from anybody who currently has it already. Of course it is. I am surprised that the presupposition is that a privileged person is necessarily taking something away from an unprivileged one.