6 ms·

Correction: zero tolerance for a system they've spent their entire lives within that never taught them the right way to think about their position in society.

cllns 14y ago
Maybe. This is a tough point. The 'system' obviously sucks but I don't want to skirt personal responsibility. It's the upper-middle class straight white cisgendered male's fault if he doesn't take the time to learn about his privilege. He has the resources, but chooses to ignore it. (Note: I'm not saying the person from the article necessarily fits this description; I'm speaking more generally)
- theorique 14y ago
  It's the upper-middle class straight white cisgendered male's fault if he doesn't take the time to learn about his privilege. He has the resources, but chooses to ignore it. What's in it for him?
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - mdpye 14y ago
    Growth, and positive interaction with the rest of the world?
    - jbooth 14y ago
      Balance that against the positive ego effects of thinking that you pulled yourself up by your bootstraps and built the log cabin you were born in. Parent post was right for a good number of people.
      - lurker14 14y ago
        And the rest of us are well within our rights to not tolerate those people.
    - theorique 14y ago
      Is such growth and positive interaction only possible if a White / Cis / Male submits himself to this particular narrative, or is there room to debate and disagree?
      - mdpye 14y ago
        Absolutely there is space for debate and disagreement - the problem is generally in getting acknowledgement that there are other view points with which to engage. A considered opinion deserves respect if not agreement. One formed on assumption, in a vacuum is more difficult to accept.
- pnathan 14y ago
  At the extreme risk of starting a flame war, why do you seem to posit that he should do that as a moral obligation? (I'm reading that you posit that, perhaps I misinterpreted) If I read that correctly, under what strictures do you interpret reading about the idea of privilege (noting that this word in and of itself has contested and differing meanings) as a moral obligation?
  - cllns 14y ago
    Very good question. I'm not sure I have a good answer. I haven't though about it in terms of it being a moral obligation. My intuitive, immediate response is that it has something to do with (most?) privilege being an unfair, oppressive institution: one that is self replicating unless it's actively fought. I'm not sure this actually addresses the question you asked though.
    - mpyne 14y ago
      > My intuitive, immediate response is that it has something to do with (most?) privilege being an unfair, oppressive institution: one that is self replicating unless it's actively fought. You should be careful how you consider this though. We wouldn't hack a tall person's legs off at the knee to force them to be equally as tall as the rest of us, nor do we give geniuses lobotomies to try and equal out intelligence within the population. It is no one's moral imperative to punish themselves for being placed in a good situation. If life was inherently fair we'd all still be a soup of completely equal unicellular organisms. Our differences and our circumstances conspire to make it so that not everyone has the exact same shot at success, but that's not the worst possible thing that could happen either. If you want to reduce unfair privilege I would recommend starting by helping those without it, instead of obligating those with it.
      - makomk 14y ago
        That's a very impressive strawman you've got there, given that the comment you replied to didn't argue that people should "punish themselves for being placed in a good situation", let alone that they should be brought down to the level of the rest of the population. All cllns was arguing was that people should be aware of their status in society. Unless, of course, you think that being made aware just how little of what they take for granted is available to others and how unimportant their own skills were is cruel to privileged people? Because if that's the case, fuck you. Seriously.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  Interestingly people who are upper middle class and devote time and energy to the cause of the poor are often disparaged for that. Terms like "champagne socialist" or "bleeding heart liberal" are invoked. Perhaps it is seen as patronising to the poor because it makes the implication that the poor need the help of upper middle class white people to help them out of their problems?
  - mpyne 14y ago
    Well, I would argue that during the period where there is a large disparity, that the poor need the help of those most able to provide the help (i.e. those who are already well-off). At the very least they need those they are "competing" against to ease up, otherwise the imbalance ends up locked in. That doesn't mean "upper middle class white" necessarily, but it does disproportionately seem to affect that group (because otherwise we wouldn't be talking so much about gender, class, race, etc. privilege)
  - lurker14 14y ago
    People who use the terms "champagne socialist" or "bleeding heart liberal" as insults are fellow rich people who feel socially threatened by the people they insult.
criley 14y ago
Correction: zero tolerance for parents who raise children and do not teach them the right way to think about their position in society. Not that I necessarily agree with my correction, but I found yours to be a bit... politically myopic.
theorique 14y ago
the right way to think about their position in society. What is "the right way" for a person to think about his position in society? Is there only one correct point of view?
- freshhawk 14y ago
  Good point, but teaching them that "your position in society" is a thing that should be thought about and has a huge effect on your worldview is step one.
  - theorique 14y ago
    That's true - it's good that people don't take their life situation for granted. What concerns me is when it's presented as a predigested, one size fits all "conclusion" - e.g. "Straight White males are oppressors, females and minorities are oppressed, no exceptions ever".
    - calinet6 14y ago
      Of course not, the important thing is that they understand and respect the complexity of the situation they live in, and understand how to think about it—not what to think about it, but how.

cllns 14y ago

Maybe. This is a tough point. The 'system' obviously sucks but I don't want to skirt personal responsibility. It's the upper-middle class straight white cisgendered male's fault if he doesn't take the time to learn about his privilege. He has the resources, but chooses to ignore it. (Note: I'm not saying the person from the article necessarily fits this description; I'm speaking more generally)

theorique 14y ago
It's the upper-middle class straight white cisgendered male's fault if he doesn't take the time to learn about his privilege. He has the resources, but chooses to ignore it. What's in it for him?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- mdpye 14y ago
  Growth, and positive interaction with the rest of the world?
  - jbooth 14y ago
    Balance that against the positive ego effects of thinking that you pulled yourself up by your bootstraps and built the log cabin you were born in. Parent post was right for a good number of people.
    - lurker14 14y ago
      And the rest of us are well within our rights to not tolerate those people.
  - theorique 14y ago
    Is such growth and positive interaction only possible if a White / Cis / Male submits himself to this particular narrative, or is there room to debate and disagree?
    - mdpye 14y ago
      Absolutely there is space for debate and disagreement - the problem is generally in getting acknowledgement that there are other view points with which to engage. A considered opinion deserves respect if not agreement. One formed on assumption, in a vacuum is more difficult to accept.
pnathan 14y ago
At the extreme risk of starting a flame war, why do you seem to posit that he should do that as a moral obligation? (I'm reading that you posit that, perhaps I misinterpreted) If I read that correctly, under what strictures do you interpret reading about the idea of privilege (noting that this word in and of itself has contested and differing meanings) as a moral obligation?
- cllns 14y ago
  Very good question. I'm not sure I have a good answer. I haven't though about it in terms of it being a moral obligation. My intuitive, immediate response is that it has something to do with (most?) privilege being an unfair, oppressive institution: one that is self replicating unless it's actively fought. I'm not sure this actually addresses the question you asked though.
  - mpyne 14y ago
    > My intuitive, immediate response is that it has something to do with (most?) privilege being an unfair, oppressive institution: one that is self replicating unless it's actively fought. You should be careful how you consider this though. We wouldn't hack a tall person's legs off at the knee to force them to be equally as tall as the rest of us, nor do we give geniuses lobotomies to try and equal out intelligence within the population. It is no one's moral imperative to punish themselves for being placed in a good situation. If life was inherently fair we'd all still be a soup of completely equal unicellular organisms. Our differences and our circumstances conspire to make it so that not everyone has the exact same shot at success, but that's not the worst possible thing that could happen either. If you want to reduce unfair privilege I would recommend starting by helping those without it, instead of obligating those with it.
    - makomk 14y ago
      That's a very impressive strawman you've got there, given that the comment you replied to didn't argue that people should "punish themselves for being placed in a good situation", let alone that they should be brought down to the level of the rest of the population. All cllns was arguing was that people should be aware of their status in society. Unless, of course, you think that being made aware just how little of what they take for granted is available to others and how unimportant their own skills were is cruel to privileged people? Because if that's the case, fuck you. Seriously.
jiggy2011 14y ago
Interestingly people who are upper middle class and devote time and energy to the cause of the poor are often disparaged for that. Terms like "champagne socialist" or "bleeding heart liberal" are invoked. Perhaps it is seen as patronising to the poor because it makes the implication that the poor need the help of upper middle class white people to help them out of their problems?
- mpyne 14y ago
  Well, I would argue that during the period where there is a large disparity, that the poor need the help of those most able to provide the help (i.e. those who are already well-off). At the very least they need those they are "competing" against to ease up, otherwise the imbalance ends up locked in. That doesn't mean "upper middle class white" necessarily, but it does disproportionately seem to affect that group (because otherwise we wouldn't be talking so much about gender, class, race, etc. privilege)
- lurker14 14y ago
  People who use the terms "champagne socialist" or "bleeding heart liberal" as insults are fellow rich people who feel socially threatened by the people they insult.

criley 14y ago

Correction: zero tolerance for parents who raise children and do not teach them the right way to think about their position in society. Not that I necessarily agree with my correction, but I found yours to be a bit... politically myopic.

theorique 14y ago

the right way to think about their position in society. What is "the right way" for a person to think about his position in society? Is there only one correct point of view?

freshhawk 14y ago
Good point, but teaching them that "your position in society" is a thing that should be thought about and has a huge effect on your worldview is step one.
- theorique 14y ago
  That's true - it's good that people don't take their life situation for granted. What concerns me is when it's presented as a predigested, one size fits all "conclusion" - e.g. "Straight White males are oppressors, females and minorities are oppressed, no exceptions ever".
  - calinet6 14y ago
    Of course not, the important thing is that they understand and respect the complexity of the situation they live in, and understand how to think about it—not what to think about it, but how.