6 ms·
Do you disagree with the author? Depending on where you live, his point is very valid. As a resident of Canada, I feel that I live in a fairly progressive, cult
by jskopek 13y ago
Do you disagree with the author? Depending on where you live, his point is very valid. As a resident of Canada, I feel that I live in a fairly progressive, culturally diverse society. Yet even here, I have heard friends of different ethnicities complain about racial issues.
Not all racial or gender divisions are obvious; exclusion or denial of privilege is harder to spot.
- sp332 13y agoThere's a big difference in perspective between saying "the majority is privileged" and saying "the minority is disadvantaged". When the majority is heterosexual, white, and "cis-gendered", isn't that the baseline instead of privileged?
- shinratdr 13y agoThat depends entirely on the direction you're observing from.
- sp332 13y agoLet's say things are set up to pander to the majority, even when it puts a minority at a disadvantage. What is the argument for making things harder for the majority, to equalize things for the minority? On average, society would come out worse, so you'd have to argue that equality itself is more valuable than any advantage for the majority.
- shinratdr 13y ago> On average, society would come out worse That's a massive leap in logic. Society isn't a simple one in, one out metric.
- phillmv 13y agoWell, by your own metaphor on _average_ society would come out the same, by definition. (I suspect you meant median). As a result, it sounds like you're saying "screw you, I got mine". We can flip the question around: why does this majority deserve better opportunities? There aren't very good answers to that question. The main thing I'd point out is that unlike your metaphor society is not a zero-sum game.
- sp332 13y agoWell, by your own metaphor on _average_ society would come out the same, by definition. No, if you make things worse for 90% of the population, and make it better for 10% of the population, the total is worse and therefore the average (mean) is worse. Edit: an example. Let's say the first 9 people rate society at 10 points, and the last one rates it a 4. Total 94, mean 9.4, median 10. Now change things around so everyone is equal and ranks things a 9. Total 90, mean 9.0, median 9. Even though the majority is almost as happy as before, and the minority is much happier, most measures come out worse.
- phillmv 13y agoWhy is the total going down in the after picture? Because our points only belong to the set of natural numbers ;)? We're assuming in this totally contrived example that points are a measure of total resources + opportunity in our closed system, since we're implying a redistribution of a fixed pool of resources^1. So, the total in the "after" picture would still be 94 and thus the mean would remain at 9.4 and the median would be 9.4 - (and down from 10). I'm not a fan of arguing from averages - realistically, the picture is more like 1 - 1000pts, 2 - 100pts, 3-50pts, 4-30pts, 5, 6-7 - 20pts, 8-10 10pts ~ 1270 total, avg 127, median 20. But these are all contrived examples (in the above I'm more leaning on income distribution, which I've reproduced from memory and may be skewed). If we equalize the above, the median would go up. The argument for redistribution can be made on an economic/statistical basis - but the argument for equality, I think, is ultimately moral. It's not about fairness per se, but about justice. ^1 Not quite my stance but for the sake of argument.
- sp332 13y agoOh, I see! I wasn't really considering a zero-sum situation. In the argument from justice, you think it's a moral mandate to take money away from people because other people have less money?
- phillmv 13y agoWell, if you're going to compare two scenarios using a numerical example, I think the assumption that the total pool of opportunity would decrease is a rather strong one! >In the argument from justice, you think it's a moral mandate to take money away from people because other people have less money? Well, not because other people have less money. My politics are roughly "people should do whatever they want, but they should have to pay the price of the externalities of their actions", sprinkled with "reducing overall human misery is virtuous". More like, because in order for the massively wealthy to exist there's a strong argument that there has to be a massive underclass to go along with it. In this light, being rich creates the externality of forcing people to be poor, and as a result it's perfectly moral to redistribute some of that wealth. Another argument goes, we have a more vibrant and stable society if we ensure that a) everyone is healthy and gets a good education and b) no one person or group in particular can amass so much power as to be capable of destabilizing society as a whole. There are a few other argument, but at the time of writing I think those two are the strongest. We can talk about right wrongs from the historical record, we can talk about the duty to minimize misery, we can talk about private property is a state-regulated right and thus it's legitimate to argue over it, we can talk about theological underpinnings, etc etc. You may disagree, of course.
- king_jester 13y ago> What is the argument for making things harder for the majority, to equalize things for the minority? Nobody is arguing to make things harder or worse for those with privilege. Generally people are asking for equal consideration and opportunity and a recognition of past and existing injustice.
- sp332 13y agoWell you may not be, but many people are.
- thwest 13y agoShow me where people are advocating anti-white and anti-cis policies.
- sp332 13y agoIf you’re straight, consider a commitment ceremony but don’t get married until all people can share in that legal right should they so choose. If you’re a white person with wealth and children, choose to invest in and send your children to a local, public, neighborhood school or at least a private school with a strong commitment to diversity and inclusion rather than a lily-white private place with connections to the Ivy League. http://everydayfeminism.com/2012/12/how-to-talk-to-someone-about-privilege/ http://everydayfeminism.com/2012/12/how-to-talk-to-someone-a...
- rsml 13y agoTaken to its logical extreme, you could argue that sometimes it is advantageous for a society to harvest the organs of a healthy person, so that multiple people can have their lives extended through transplantation. Eugenics can also be argued for by saying that there's a net benefit to society. One argument against this is based on the philosophical concept of a Veil of Ignorance[1]. We should create the rules of society as if we don't already know what our position in society will be. No one wants to live in a society where they could be randomly selected for organ harvesting, for example. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance
- FkZ 13y ago"What is the argument for making things harder for the majority, to equalize things for the minority?" That is an argument no one is making. What are you talking about?
- twelvechairs 13y agothe majority isnt all those things and male.
- sp332 13y agoWhite women are still privileged over other women (in the US and Canada anyway). You don't have to be male to be privileged.
- king_jester 13y agoHaving your status considered the baseline is a part of privilege. Folks who fall outside of that baseline face real negative consequences for it. Both "the majority is privileged" and "the minority is disadvantaged" are true at the same time.
- sp332 13y agoOK so the majority has some privilege just from being the majority. But that isn't a moral failing, something they should be ashamed of, something they shouldn't take full advantage of, or something they can change. So it doesn't seem to have anything in common with, say, racism or sexism.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- Stealth- 13y agoAs another resident of Canada, I have to completely disagree with you. I have to pay $20,000 for my schooling. My first nations friends pay nothing, it's covered by tax payers. This includes numerous other benefits that I do not get. In Canada, unfortunately it can often seem like the minority have more privileges. That's not equality, to me.
- shinratdr 13y agoAnd all they had to do to get that was to be ripped from their homes and placed into residential schools, which existed into the 60s. What a sweet deal! This smacks of tremendous ignorance of the history of First Nations people and what white Canadians have done to them. It's possibly the most concrete demonstration of white privilege I've ever seen. "Well gee, I'm just a simple guy, but I don't think trying to balance out the horrible things that people of my race did to people of another race well into the 1900s that irreversibly affected their communities ability to survive is all that fair if I don't get those things too!" It's all well and good to want a level playing field, but when you've spend the last century digging everyone else into gigantic holes, it kind of rings a little hollow.
- Stealth- 13y agoGrowing up in a poorer neighbourhood, the native friends I had were able to play football, have school lunches, go on fieldtrips, and go to university when I could not because they were paid for with tax payers' dollars. My grandparents were not even in this country at the time, it was not my ancestors nor me that hurt anyone. So I should have less because of what someone with the same skin colour as me did decades ago? Doesn't that seem a little, I don't know, discriminatory?
- shinratdr 13y ago> the native friends I had were able to play football, have school lunches, go on fieldtrips, and go to university when I could not because they were paid for with tax payers' dollars. I don't know where you live but in Toronto with the exception of university tuition, all those things are provided for children that can't afford them regardless of their background. The concept of not letting a child go on a field trip or go hungry at lunch because they couldn't afford it is just insane to my ears. > My grandparents were not even in this country at the time, it was not my ancestors nor me that hurt anyone. Good thing this has little or nothing to do with punishing the descendants of those who may or may not have perpetrated injustice. It's about providing a leg-up to those that have been held down for decades. You had no such disadvantages so you don't receive the leg up. > Doesn't that seem a little, I don't know, discriminatory? Providing benefits to anyone while excluding anyone else is technically discrimination. That's doesn't make it bad. Not all things are equal. It's discrimination that students pay less than you to take the subway. Also discrimination, also not a bad thing.
- strathmeyer 13y agoAs a heterosexual white male it was very interesting to learn that all the thing I have been denied because of my race and gender should have been a privilege and that I have never actually been an outsider and have actually been the cause of everyone's loneliness instead of legitimately feeling it myself.
- xacaxulu 13y agoWhat a sad life we've been leading!! CAN'T....GO.....ON.....
- volaski 13y ago"I'm a white guy, I am so more privileged than most black guys" "I'm a guy, I am so more privileged than most girls" "I'm a white guy, I am so more privileged than most asian guys" "I'm a straight guy, I am so more privileged than most gay guys" How do these make you feel? Also how about someone went up to an old man and said, "You are an old man in your sixties, and I'm a college kid in my twenties. You will die much earlier than me. That's pretty much close to fact. Do you disagree?"
- jrs99 13y agoI think it depends on how rich the target person is.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- jrs99 13y agoDo you know what it feels like to be a 5'1" white male or a 7'2" obese white male or a 6'5" white female? Race problems do exist, but because you're white doesn't mean you don't have problems with society.
- nollidge 13y agoNope, it doesn't, but does mean you don't have some particularly common ones!
- mkr-hn 13y agoIt has a lot more to do with financial status and social standing than any other factor. A white guy growing up and living in a poor part of the southeast has a very different experience from a white guy who grew up in a mansion. Race and gender are poor guides to figuring out how much a person struggles.
- FD3SA 13y agoPrecisely. It never ceases to amaze me how splintered the socioeconomic classes become via interest groups. Men vs. women, Black vs White vs Hispanic, Christian vs Muslim vs Jew vs atheist, Democrat vs Republican, gay vs straight vs trans, etc etc. Socioeconomic status is the only real differentiator, and these factions only serve to divide the people whose interests are in reality, quite aligned. Unsurprisingly, this tends to greatly assist those at the top of the socioeconomic ladder in maintaining political deadlock on issues which greatly assist the majority at the expense of the tiny minority. Issues such as the social safety net, healthcare, education, infrastructure, and democratic process. A cursory review of history shows that this is not a novel strategy.
- altero 13y agoI am European, but to me that sounds racist "I am white and heterosexual, I have the privilege". Like other people are worth less because they do not have privilege? I understand there are bonus points for this in America. But it also means that rest of the article is very likely going to be a political rant