4 ms·

Privilege is fake and just used to bully white cis men. It's a justification for discrimination. It's the same as the n-word in principle, used to single out pe

by rpnx 3y ago

Privilege is fake and just used to bully white cis men. It's a justification for discrimination. It's the same as the n-word in principle, used to single out people of a particular race. The weird thing is that some people consider it acceptable... it's just anti-white racism, the opposite but equivalent to anti-black racism.

zlg_codes 3y ago
See, this is the "two wrongs don't make a right" approach, which passes moral muster. The people who don't care about reverse -isms are more concerned about punching up versus punching down, though they also tend to be careful to not define either of those things clearly, so they can be flexible in their social aggression. The biggest mistake they make as moral actors is failing to take economic and social standing as a separate axis of comparison. Not all white guys have privilege, not all minorities live in the ghetto.
faeriechangling 3y ago
I’d argue the point of “Privileged” is to generalize people. “Privileged” is something all white people are, and it’s commonly presented as something they have in roughly equal proportion. The point of doing so is to allow the wealthiest richest white people to maintain their wealth and dominance over everybody by drawing negative attention to powerless people who look similar as a scapegoat. There is a reason why enacted measures to remove “privilege” do not include wealth redistribution but include many measures where the cost is put largely on lower and middle class people. When is the last time you heard about a DIE seminar holder talking about the racial wealth gap (in 2019 whites held 87% of US wealth) and we instead mostly talk about relatively smaller income gaps? It’s because the concept of white privilege, conceptually back to the day of the invisible knapsack, rested in the idea that if most people of a racial group experienced something positive they had racial privilege. It focuses on the average and ignores the edge cases. All inequality is blamed on the average cases. The remedies disproportionately affect the average.

by rpnx 3y ago

zlg_codes 3y ago

See, this is the "two wrongs don't make a right" approach, which passes moral muster. The people who don't care about reverse -isms are more concerned about punching up versus punching down, though they also tend to be careful to not define either of those things clearly, so they can be flexible in their social aggression. The biggest mistake they make as moral actors is failing to take economic and social standing as a separate axis of comparison. Not all white guys have privilege, not all minorities live in the ghetto.

faeriechangling 3y ago

I’d argue the point of “Privileged” is to generalize people. “Privileged” is something all white people are, and it’s commonly presented as something they have in roughly equal proportion. The point of doing so is to allow the wealthiest richest white people to maintain their wealth and dominance over everybody by drawing negative attention to powerless people who look similar as a scapegoat. There is a reason why enacted measures to remove “privilege” do not include wealth redistribution but include many measures where the cost is put largely on lower and middle class people. When is the last time you heard about a DIE seminar holder talking about the racial wealth gap (in 2019 whites held 87% of US wealth) and we instead mostly talk about relatively smaller income gaps? It’s because the concept of white privilege, conceptually back to the day of the invisible knapsack, rested in the idea that if most people of a racial group experienced something positive they had racial privilege. It focuses on the average and ignores the edge cases. All inequality is blamed on the average cases. The remedies disproportionately affect the average.