3 ms·

> I think you started with a misstep. It's not class-specific.

bumby 3y ago
Despite your matter-of-fact proclamation, privilege is quite often defined by class. >A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste. >So, where does the privilege reside Considering the OP connected it to a social group (ie community), I don't think class is a misstep, considering 'class' is literally a collection of individuals. I was pointing out that classifying people by income didn't seem to make sense and asking what classification they had in mind. While you're not the OP, maybe you have a different thought. But you haven't clued any of us in as to what that is, just that 'it's not class'. Without any clarification, it comes across like you're just bristling at the idea of class privilege rather than giving it much substantive thought.
- digging 3y ago
  > privilege is quite often defined by class. But... not always? I don't know how to classify this group and focusing on how to classify those affected and not affected doesn't feel like the most useful topic. What I'll call "acommunality" is rampant in the US and directly related to the epidemic of loneliness. It affects people of all social classes, perhaps not equally. It has many causes, investigate those instead of trying to pick a predefined class to attach this to.
  - bumby 3y ago
    >But... not always? Of course. I'm not saying a simplified model that groups into socio-economic class is the end-all-be-all of measuring privilege. (My first comment said quite the opposite). This borders on bad-faith interpretation. You claimed class is a misstep in logic. But classification is how we make sense of the world. Case and point: you just classified into "lonely" and "not lonely". Those are two classifications (ie classes) of social orientation. I get that "class" and 'privilege' are loaded words in todays parlance, but it's really just grouping individuals who are alike in some feature. What you seem to be saying is that the term 'wealth' isn't a useful classification feature, not that classification isn't useful. So back to my original ask to the OP, I said wealth doesn't seem to be the most useful feature and I was asking them what they thought was the best classification scheme.
    - digging 3y ago
      No, I'm saying classification is not useful here because we don't have enough data.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - bumby 3y ago
        What would 'enough data' look like to you? What features, and to what extent, would need measurement?

Despite your matter-of-fact proclamation, privilege is quite often defined by class. >A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste. >So, where does the privilege reside Considering the OP connected it to a social group (ie community), I don't think class is a misstep, considering 'class' is literally a collection of individuals. I was pointing out that classifying people by income didn't seem to make sense and asking what classification they had in mind. While you're not the OP, maybe you have a different thought. But you haven't clued any of us in as to what that is, just that 'it's not class'. Without any clarification, it comes across like you're just bristling at the idea of class privilege rather than giving it much substantive thought.

digging 3y ago
> privilege is quite often defined by class. But... not always? I don't know how to classify this group and focusing on how to classify those affected and not affected doesn't feel like the most useful topic. What I'll call "acommunality" is rampant in the US and directly related to the epidemic of loneliness. It affects people of all social classes, perhaps not equally. It has many causes, investigate those instead of trying to pick a predefined class to attach this to.
- bumby 3y ago
  >But... not always? Of course. I'm not saying a simplified model that groups into socio-economic class is the end-all-be-all of measuring privilege. (My first comment said quite the opposite). This borders on bad-faith interpretation. You claimed class is a misstep in logic. But classification is how we make sense of the world. Case and point: you just classified into "lonely" and "not lonely". Those are two classifications (ie classes) of social orientation. I get that "class" and 'privilege' are loaded words in todays parlance, but it's really just grouping individuals who are alike in some feature. What you seem to be saying is that the term 'wealth' isn't a useful classification feature, not that classification isn't useful. So back to my original ask to the OP, I said wealth doesn't seem to be the most useful feature and I was asking them what they thought was the best classification scheme.
  - digging 3y ago
    No, I'm saying classification is not useful here because we don't have enough data.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - bumby 3y ago
      What would 'enough data' look like to you? What features, and to what extent, would need measurement?