7 ms·

“Check Your Privilege” is Actually Just a Lousy Argument

15 points by bmmayer1 12y ago

sharemywin 12y ago
usually isn't this to counter an argument like "poor people think/act/do certain ways." Like they're lazy and don't want to work or other types of speculative arguments. So pointing out that someone isn't poor and probably doesn't know the motivations of another, doesn't seem like a poor argument. I'm pretty sure it's not a valid argument in court to speculate on someone else intentions. (appeal to authority.)
- GHFigs 12y ago
  usually isn't this to counter an argument like "poor people think/act/do certain ways" No. Privilege is by definition[1] not something you can control, ergo not something you say or do. It doesn't have to be something you're aware of[2], or that has helped you at all[3], or that has anything to do with you personally[4], or that you can shed by admitting[5], or denying[6]. To check your privilege means you acknowledge someone else's perception of you[7] and shut up[8] while they judge you[9]. [0] http://groupthink.jezebel.com/to-the-princeton-privileged-kid-1570383740 http://groupthink.jezebel.com/to-the-princeton-privileged-ki... [1] Ibid. "Privilege is when you get conscious or unconscious benefits from a demographic trait about yourself that you cannot control." [2] Ibid. "These benefits may be overt or they may be covert." [3] Ibid. "...it can simply be the lack of something negative." [4] Ibid. "You have privilege because you are part of a group that has privilege. [...] remember once again, this isn't a personal conversation." [5] Ibid. "Looking deeply at things you're offering up as the ways in which you are privileged are going to show you that you are in fact privileged in the ways that you just denied." [6] Ibid. "All you'd like to do is keep staring at Megan Kelly's breasts and being blissfully oblivious that the world is a sad, fucked up place and dealing with your feelings of guilt that you got an okay deal?" [7] Ibid. "So when someone says "check your privilege", what they mean is embrace and admit that you have preconceived notions and a specific world perspective..." [8] Ibid. "...and to set those aside for a second and just listen." [9] Ibid. "Otherwise you'll just look like a complete fucking asshole when you write a hypocritical article completely missing the point of everything."
  - thescribe 12y ago
    This is why I find the concept of Privilege so laughable, it's become so divorced from the concept of freeing the oppressed.
ossreality 12y ago
Oh look, someone else who doesn't understand what privilege means and is probably mischaracterizing his experience with actual usage of the word "privilege". Shocker.
jbarciauskas 12y ago
The goal of admonishing a person to check their privilege is not to invalidate their argument from a logical standpoint. It doesn't represent an ad hominem argument, because it's not about winning the argument, at least not directly. It's merely posing questions to consider: How has my privilege potentially affected my opinion? Would I have the same opinion if I had different life experiences? A reasonable equivalent that is somewhat less loaded and suggestive, but equally less powerful, is to admonish someone to "check your assumptions". Do your assumptions include the fact that people are poor because they are lazy? Why do you assume that? Is it based on empirical evidence, or your own unwillingness to acknowledge the fundamental randomness of the circumstances surrounding your own success?
- gingerrr 12y ago
  I think the rephrasing "check your assumptions" is better in some senses - part of privilege is the ability to assume certain things and have them be true because you're part of a dominant segment, while others don't have the luxury of making those assumptions - e.g. myself, a white male, being able to assume that a store worker is asking if I need help to be genuinely helpful, rather than to be suspicious. "Check your privilege" doesn't make the connection to those underpinning beliefs like "check your assumptions" does.
doktrin 12y ago
> There’s a word for this logical fallacy: ad hominem. That's a bit ironic, considering this entire post is nothing but a school of red herrings. For example : > What’s weird is that this line is almost exclusively employed against those who challenge the liberal-Democratic axis of thought on political or economic issues, even though no one seems to apply the logic consistently > I’ve actually seen, in the heat of an impassioned discussion, a “check your privilege” practitioner contort their definition of privilege to include the very, very, unprivileged individual who had taken a contrary view. > To present that opinion you must have evidence and support for your claims, of course, but you need not settle for a life of lazy rhetorical flourishes in pursuance of quick debate points. > Hold your position against the ad hominem, because it’s likely that when the “check your privilege” card has been played, your interlocutor has already run out of counterarguments and you’re winning.
ebiester 12y ago
http://www.derailingfordummies.com/derail-using-intellectualism/ http://www.derailingfordummies.com/derail-using-intellectual... "Check your privilege" in an argument is short for, "your experiences don't extend to those who don't have your particular skin tone/gender/sexual orientation/citizenship/etc." It is shorthand for, "for you, this is a pleasant debate. For me, this is my life and I don't have the emotional energy to give you 45 minutes of my personal experiences just to have you say that it isn't prejudice/it is justified/you didn't really experience that/ you're just unlucky." It's shorthand for "I've had this 'discussion' before and it almost always boils down to someone who is more interested in keeping their blind spots than actually listening." I've been on both sides. I would like to believe that today I actively look to acknowledge my privileges where they exist. I wasn't always like that, and the concept of knowing that I have blind spots due to my experience helps me have empathy for others. And how hard is it to go, "maybe my experience is altered because of something outside my control? I will choose to accept on face value that people have less than acceptable experiences based on things outside their control, and in the small ways that I can, not be an asshole to them." That's checking your privilege. And it's a bare minimum for being a decent human being in 2014.
- bmmayer1 12y ago
  It's absolutely table stakes to avoid being an asshole and understand you and your interlocutor's backgrounds and experiences as best you can. No one needs to, or should, diminish the life experiences of others to make their point. That's just as fallacious as employing "check your privilege." But coming to the table with a mutual understanding and respect is just the first, frankly boring part of a meeting of opposing ideas. Far more interesting is where the discussion leads in substance: an opportunity for enlightenment that everybody loses when "derailing" happens on both sides.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- thescribe 12y ago
  I find "Check your privilege" to be an ad hominem dressed up in fancy language, and I've only ever seen it used as a silencing technique. Good job questioning people's humanity, it's cool of you to include another good silencing technique.
michaelt 12y ago
“You’re white, and your built-in privilege makes it difficult for you to see how affirmative action merely levels the playing field.” THESE ARE NOT VALID ARGUMENTS. Seems to me whether low-quality argument A trumps other argument B depends on whether B is also a low-quality argument. I wouldn't take an argument about privilege over the results of high quality scientific trials. But against anecdotal evidence from someone anonymous on the internet? I'll consider it. For example, if argument A is "I've never seen a black person having trouble hailing a cab", I'd be relatively more convinced by argument B, "That's because you're a rich white guy, what would you know about getting a cab when you're black?" On the other hand, if argument A is "These peer-reviewed scientific studies, which sent black and white researchers to hail cabs in different parts of the city, and controlled for day, time, age and dress showed that problems getting a cab are independent of race" and I would be relatively less convinced by argument B. (For what it's worth, when I leave the opera or ballet, no-one has any problem getting a cab, be they black or white, male or female)
- bmmayer1 12y ago
  You make a good point, which is that many arguments devolve into a plethora of logical fallacies anyway, and then it becomes a battle over whose logical fallacy is "better." Don't know about you, but I've long since stopped bothering to participate in these...it's not really worth it.
  - sharemywin 12y ago
    As sad as it is seems like most political debates are a "plethora of logical fallacies"?
iterationx 12y ago
The author of "“Why I’ll Never Apologize for my White Male Privilege.” is Jewish and the anti-white rhetoric from the Left isn't actually targeted at Jews, it is targeted at white males. Evil white males especially Christians that oppress everybody all the time that have no culture and are non-contributing zeros. I think we've all gotten the memo.
- tthomas48 12y ago
  Do you realize that by excluding someone who considers themselves a white male from being a "white male" you're proving that the construct is entirely about privilege and discrimination?
  - iterationx 12y ago
    lol. you're not too smart.

15 points by bmmayer1 12y ago

usually isn't this to counter an argument like "poor people think/act/do certain ways." Like they're lazy and don't want to work or other types of speculative arguments. So pointing out that someone isn't poor and probably doesn't know the motivations of another, doesn't seem like a poor argument. I'm pretty sure it's not a valid argument in court to speculate on someone else intentions. (appeal to authority.)

GHFigs 12y ago
usually isn't this to counter an argument like "poor people think/act/do certain ways" No. Privilege is by definition[1] not something you can control, ergo not something you say or do. It doesn't have to be something you're aware of[2], or that has helped you at all[3], or that has anything to do with you personally[4], or that you can shed by admitting[5], or denying[6]. To check your privilege means you acknowledge someone else's perception of you[7] and shut up[8] while they judge you[9]. [0] http://groupthink.jezebel.com/to-the-princeton-privileged-kid-1570383740 http://groupthink.jezebel.com/to-the-princeton-privileged-ki... [1] Ibid. "Privilege is when you get conscious or unconscious benefits from a demographic trait about yourself that you cannot control." [2] Ibid. "These benefits may be overt or they may be covert." [3] Ibid. "...it can simply be the lack of something negative." [4] Ibid. "You have privilege because you are part of a group that has privilege. [...] remember once again, this isn't a personal conversation." [5] Ibid. "Looking deeply at things you're offering up as the ways in which you are privileged are going to show you that you are in fact privileged in the ways that you just denied." [6] Ibid. "All you'd like to do is keep staring at Megan Kelly's breasts and being blissfully oblivious that the world is a sad, fucked up place and dealing with your feelings of guilt that you got an okay deal?" [7] Ibid. "So when someone says "check your privilege", what they mean is embrace and admit that you have preconceived notions and a specific world perspective..." [8] Ibid. "...and to set those aside for a second and just listen." [9] Ibid. "Otherwise you'll just look like a complete fucking asshole when you write a hypocritical article completely missing the point of everything."
- thescribe 12y ago
  This is why I find the concept of Privilege so laughable, it's become so divorced from the concept of freeing the oppressed.

ossreality 12y ago

Oh look, someone else who doesn't understand what privilege means and is probably mischaracterizing his experience with actual usage of the word "privilege". Shocker.

jbarciauskas 12y ago

The goal of admonishing a person to check their privilege is not to invalidate their argument from a logical standpoint. It doesn't represent an ad hominem argument, because it's not about winning the argument, at least not directly. It's merely posing questions to consider: How has my privilege potentially affected my opinion? Would I have the same opinion if I had different life experiences? A reasonable equivalent that is somewhat less loaded and suggestive, but equally less powerful, is to admonish someone to "check your assumptions". Do your assumptions include the fact that people are poor because they are lazy? Why do you assume that? Is it based on empirical evidence, or your own unwillingness to acknowledge the fundamental randomness of the circumstances surrounding your own success?

gingerrr 12y ago
I think the rephrasing "check your assumptions" is better in some senses - part of privilege is the ability to assume certain things and have them be true because you're part of a dominant segment, while others don't have the luxury of making those assumptions - e.g. myself, a white male, being able to assume that a store worker is asking if I need help to be genuinely helpful, rather than to be suspicious. "Check your privilege" doesn't make the connection to those underpinning beliefs like "check your assumptions" does.

doktrin 12y ago

> There’s a word for this logical fallacy: ad hominem. That's a bit ironic, considering this entire post is nothing but a school of red herrings. For example : > What’s weird is that this line is almost exclusively employed against those who challenge the liberal-Democratic axis of thought on political or economic issues, even though no one seems to apply the logic consistently > I’ve actually seen, in the heat of an impassioned discussion, a “check your privilege” practitioner contort their definition of privilege to include the very, very, unprivileged individual who had taken a contrary view. > To present that opinion you must have evidence and support for your claims, of course, but you need not settle for a life of lazy rhetorical flourishes in pursuance of quick debate points. > Hold your position against the ad hominem, because it’s likely that when the “check your privilege” card has been played, your interlocutor has already run out of counterarguments and you’re winning.

ebiester 12y ago

http://www.derailingfordummies.com/derail-using-intellectualism/ http://www.derailingfordummies.com/derail-using-intellectual... "Check your privilege" in an argument is short for, "your experiences don't extend to those who don't have your particular skin tone/gender/sexual orientation/citizenship/etc." It is shorthand for, "for you, this is a pleasant debate. For me, this is my life and I don't have the emotional energy to give you 45 minutes of my personal experiences just to have you say that it isn't prejudice/it is justified/you didn't really experience that/ you're just unlucky." It's shorthand for "I've had this 'discussion' before and it almost always boils down to someone who is more interested in keeping their blind spots than actually listening." I've been on both sides. I would like to believe that today I actively look to acknowledge my privileges where they exist. I wasn't always like that, and the concept of knowing that I have blind spots due to my experience helps me have empathy for others. And how hard is it to go, "maybe my experience is altered because of something outside my control? I will choose to accept on face value that people have less than acceptable experiences based on things outside their control, and in the small ways that I can, not be an asshole to them." That's checking your privilege. And it's a bare minimum for being a decent human being in 2014.

bmmayer1 12y ago
It's absolutely table stakes to avoid being an asshole and understand you and your interlocutor's backgrounds and experiences as best you can. No one needs to, or should, diminish the life experiences of others to make their point. That's just as fallacious as employing "check your privilege." But coming to the table with a mutual understanding and respect is just the first, frankly boring part of a meeting of opposing ideas. Far more interesting is where the discussion leads in substance: an opportunity for enlightenment that everybody loses when "derailing" happens on both sides.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
thescribe 12y ago
I find "Check your privilege" to be an ad hominem dressed up in fancy language, and I've only ever seen it used as a silencing technique. Good job questioning people's humanity, it's cool of you to include another good silencing technique.

michaelt 12y ago

“You’re white, and your built-in privilege makes it difficult for you to see how affirmative action merely levels the playing field.” THESE ARE NOT VALID ARGUMENTS. Seems to me whether low-quality argument A trumps other argument B depends on whether B is also a low-quality argument. I wouldn't take an argument about privilege over the results of high quality scientific trials. But against anecdotal evidence from someone anonymous on the internet? I'll consider it. For example, if argument A is "I've never seen a black person having trouble hailing a cab", I'd be relatively more convinced by argument B, "That's because you're a rich white guy, what would you know about getting a cab when you're black?" On the other hand, if argument A is "These peer-reviewed scientific studies, which sent black and white researchers to hail cabs in different parts of the city, and controlled for day, time, age and dress showed that problems getting a cab are independent of race" and I would be relatively less convinced by argument B. (For what it's worth, when I leave the opera or ballet, no-one has any problem getting a cab, be they black or white, male or female)

bmmayer1 12y ago
You make a good point, which is that many arguments devolve into a plethora of logical fallacies anyway, and then it becomes a battle over whose logical fallacy is "better." Don't know about you, but I've long since stopped bothering to participate in these...it's not really worth it.
- sharemywin 12y ago
  As sad as it is seems like most political debates are a "plethora of logical fallacies"?

iterationx 12y ago

The author of "“Why I’ll Never Apologize for my White Male Privilege.” is Jewish and the anti-white rhetoric from the Left isn't actually targeted at Jews, it is targeted at white males. Evil white males especially Christians that oppress everybody all the time that have no culture and are non-contributing zeros. I think we've all gotten the memo.

tthomas48 12y ago
Do you realize that by excluding someone who considers themselves a white male from being a "white male" you're proving that the construct is entirely about privilege and discrimination?
- iterationx 12y ago
  lol. you're not too smart.