3 ms·

You're technically right, but the argument that "given otherwise identical circumstances, white people are less oppressed than black people" (or whatever) has t

You're technically right, but the argument that "given otherwise identical circumstances, white people are less oppressed than black people" (or whatever) has the issues that a) "otherwise identical circumstances" almost never exist and b) this argument is often even being used when the otherwise circumstances are clearly not identical (I remember an online discussion where people were called out for criticising Beyoncé, who must have it really hard as a black woman - which, sure, she might have, but she's also crazy rich and a prominent media figure, so she also has privilege; and then again, even not having privilege doesn't mean you should be immune to criticism). I don't question the notion of privilege as much as how often it's applied to shut down dissenting opinion.

joshuamorton 6y ago
Privilege isn't a binary thing. You aren't privileged or not. Many people have some forms of privilege and not others. An affluent white woman and a homeless black man have very different life experiences, each has privileges that the other doesn't. Fighting about which is more privileged is silly (even if it may seem obvious to you). What's ultimately important is to understand situations in which those privileges will affect the experiences of those people. As for Beyonce, that's so vague that I can't know. If she was describing the challenges of being black in the recording industry, then yes using her success to claim she can't understand the challenges she's had to overcome is ridiculous. But in other contexts, that she's affluent is relevant.
- Tainnor 6y ago
  I don't disagree with you. Understanding privilege is important. But you may not have witnessed the ridiculous discussions that I have sometimes seen. The context was that people were complaining about her sexualised persona and what kind of image that projects onto young women. I don't necessarily agree with that criticism (I think it's kinda complex, but I also don't think that sex or being sexual is "wrong" or anything), but I thought that the criticism of "she's a black woman, so if she wants to be sexual, that's her way of reasserting her black femininity and may not be criticised" is frankly ridiculous, when she's clearly benefiting financially so well from it.
- lliamander 6y ago
  > Fighting about which is more privileged is silly And yet that seems to be the game people have to play in order for their statements to have any currency. I even know people who had to take an "oppression index" in college to see who in the class had the least privilege. Interestingly, the person who had the least privilege was also the most ideologically opposed to the concept, for what it's worth.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > And yet that seems to be the game people have to play in order for their statements to have any currency. My experiences, as a cis-het-white-affluent person would disagree. ;) > I even know people who had to take an "oppression index" in college to see who in the class had the least privilege. I'm sorry if I don't put much trust in third hand stories like this, it's easy for them to be blown out of proportion.
    - lliamander 6y ago
      > I'm sorry if I don't put much trust in third hand stories like this, it's easy for them to be blown out of proportion. Fair enough, but consider the new SAT "Adversity" score[1]. Is that not essentially the same thing, but on a larger scale? It's still reducing the "vector" that oppression is supposed to be (from an intersectionality perspective) to a "scalar" value that is useful for sorting people into a hierarchy. With regard to my first point, consider the NYT opinion piece arguing against the Adversity score[2]. The author spends the first two paragraphs establishing his own adversity/lack of privilege before he begins to actually make an argument. I don't think there's anything wrong with him doing so, and I think it's rhetorically effective, but do you think his opinion would be given a platform if he did not have that adversity score? > My experiences, as a cis-het-white-affluent person would disagree. ;) Perhaps because you benefit from (in Paul Graham's words) "orthodox privilege"? That is, your ideas are not questioned on the basis of your identity because they are the "right" opinions[3]. For someone to question the orthodoxy, they must first establish their own adversity or risk being discounted (or worse). --- [1]https://blog.prepscholar.com/sat-adversity-score https://blog.prepscholar.com/sat-adversity-score Curiously, a '0' means "most hardship" and a "100" means "least hardship", which is the inverse of what you would expect. [2]https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/opinion/sat-adversity-score.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/opinion/sat-adversity-sco... [3]which is not to say that you do not hold these opinions sincerely and rationally. I'm sure you do.

joshuamorton 6y ago

Privilege isn't a binary thing. You aren't privileged or not. Many people have some forms of privilege and not others. An affluent white woman and a homeless black man have very different life experiences, each has privileges that the other doesn't. Fighting about which is more privileged is silly (even if it may seem obvious to you). What's ultimately important is to understand situations in which those privileges will affect the experiences of those people. As for Beyonce, that's so vague that I can't know. If she was describing the challenges of being black in the recording industry, then yes using her success to claim she can't understand the challenges she's had to overcome is ridiculous. But in other contexts, that she's affluent is relevant.

Tainnor 6y ago
I don't disagree with you. Understanding privilege is important. But you may not have witnessed the ridiculous discussions that I have sometimes seen. The context was that people were complaining about her sexualised persona and what kind of image that projects onto young women. I don't necessarily agree with that criticism (I think it's kinda complex, but I also don't think that sex or being sexual is "wrong" or anything), but I thought that the criticism of "she's a black woman, so if she wants to be sexual, that's her way of reasserting her black femininity and may not be criticised" is frankly ridiculous, when she's clearly benefiting financially so well from it.
lliamander 6y ago
> Fighting about which is more privileged is silly And yet that seems to be the game people have to play in order for their statements to have any currency. I even know people who had to take an "oppression index" in college to see who in the class had the least privilege. Interestingly, the person who had the least privilege was also the most ideologically opposed to the concept, for what it's worth.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > And yet that seems to be the game people have to play in order for their statements to have any currency. My experiences, as a cis-het-white-affluent person would disagree. ;) > I even know people who had to take an "oppression index" in college to see who in the class had the least privilege. I'm sorry if I don't put much trust in third hand stories like this, it's easy for them to be blown out of proportion.
  - lliamander 6y ago
    > I'm sorry if I don't put much trust in third hand stories like this, it's easy for them to be blown out of proportion. Fair enough, but consider the new SAT "Adversity" score[1]. Is that not essentially the same thing, but on a larger scale? It's still reducing the "vector" that oppression is supposed to be (from an intersectionality perspective) to a "scalar" value that is useful for sorting people into a hierarchy. With regard to my first point, consider the NYT opinion piece arguing against the Adversity score[2]. The author spends the first two paragraphs establishing his own adversity/lack of privilege before he begins to actually make an argument. I don't think there's anything wrong with him doing so, and I think it's rhetorically effective, but do you think his opinion would be given a platform if he did not have that adversity score? > My experiences, as a cis-het-white-affluent person would disagree. ;) Perhaps because you benefit from (in Paul Graham's words) "orthodox privilege"? That is, your ideas are not questioned on the basis of your identity because they are the "right" opinions[3]. For someone to question the orthodoxy, they must first establish their own adversity or risk being discounted (or worse). --- [1]https://blog.prepscholar.com/sat-adversity-score https://blog.prepscholar.com/sat-adversity-score Curiously, a '0' means "most hardship" and a "100" means "least hardship", which is the inverse of what you would expect. [2]https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/opinion/sat-adversity-score.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/opinion/sat-adversity-sco... [3]which is not to say that you do not hold these opinions sincerely and rationally. I'm sure you do.