Is privilege something we should be fighting against?

[Fasc]

Privilege is about how society interacts with people on the basis of the groups they are perceived to belong to, not inherent traits possessed by those groups.

That makes privilege completely subjective and entirely a joke since society is nebulously defined. If this is what defines privilege, it is even more laughable than I previously realized given "society" is just a catch-all for other people and businesses and none of us can control their actions nor lump together their motivations.

Person A distrusts a black man because he's black.
Person B distrusts the same black man because he's a man.
Person C distrusts the same black man because Person C distrusts everyone.
Person D distrusts the same black man because Person D saw the black man steal something from a store.

Survey says: society distrusts black men!

If this is privilege...

/point
/laugh

(Wait does that mean that I'm privileged because I can disagree with you and laugh about it...?)

[Underverse]

Do you think it's right or desirable that people treat you better or worse just because of your skin color or sex or gender or whatever?

There are many sources of privilege. I would say that not all sources are necessarily good or bad. Privilege by skin color is a good example of the bad type of privilege, because it is baseless. When it comes to sex, I would say females have privileges in certain areas while males have privileges in others. The easiest dichotomy to envision here is physical strength.

[ujx]

The only people who should have a legitimate opinion are black genderqueer pansexuals. The rest of you CIS scum shitlords need to kill yourselves.

[Deleted]

The only people who should have a legitimate opinion are black genderqueer pansexuals. The rest of you CIS scum shitlords need to kill yourselves.

Nailed it.

It's when certain groups' opinions are discounted because of their "privilege" that you realise the whole idea, while appearing to make sense to people who are just not very clever, is actually very arbitrary, very judgemental, and very silly.

Privileged and non-privileged groups are not uniform; not all rich people are the same, not all black people are the same, not all women are the same.

The desire to reduce society and history to a tiering of different classes that must necessarily be engaged in class warfare, is just an unacademic and frankly embarrassingly poor reading of Marxism.

[Simulacrum]

Privilege is about how society interacts with people on the basis of the groups they are perceived to belong to, not inherent traits possessed by those groups.

So the able-bodied aren't more privileged than the non-able-bodied?

That's no definition of privilege I've ever heard.

[Kraenen]

The only people who should have a legitimate opinion are black genderqueer pansexuals. The rest of you CIS scum shitlords need to kill yourselves.

With that realm of thought I'd argue Native Americans have it worse than Blacks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQRTirco4Mg

[Reeve]

Nailed it.

It's when certain groups' opinions are discounted because of their "privilege" that you realise the whole idea, while appearing to make sense to people who are just not very clever, is actually very arbitrary, very judgemental, and very silly.

Privileged and non-privileged groups are not uniform; not all rich people are the same, not all black people are the same, not all women are the same.

The desire to reduce society and history to a tiering of different classes that must necessarily be engaged in class warfare, is just an unacademic and frankly embarrassingly poor reading of Marxism.

It's possible to accept that privilege exists without suggesting that the opinions of privileged people should be ignored, or that privileged people should feel guilty about their privilege. It's an observation of a phenomenon, not a condemnation of a group of people.

[dextersmith]

Is privilege something we should be fighting against?

No, it's why people strive for wealth. It's capitalism and the American dream.

[Anonymous1038853]

Privilege as a legitimate concept should be combated against, yes. I've discussed this at some length in previous threads on the subject: Privilege is really about the general lack of consideration pertaining to issues one personally does not face, because he or she does not experience those issues. One example might be an able-bodied person not really noticing when a building does not have an access ramp alongside its stairs. Under this definition, privilege should be rectified when possible, since it's only a matter of educating people on relevant societal issues which may fall outside of their immediate purview. Outside of that definition, no. Probably not. The bizarro-world version of privilege that's reared its ugly head in recent years is usually just thinly-veiled prejudice. Kind of like the contrived definitions of racism and sexism that create a loophole to justify overt discrimination against certain demographics (eg: White men).

[Xar226]

Is privilege an unwarranted evil? Is it something we're stuck with either way, due to the genetic component (lots of interesting ethical questions here with genome editing)? Is it a positive force that encourages the selection of beneficial cultural traits?

Both of the first two and kind of the third.

Primarily, it is what it is. People were raised the way they were raised. If that means a "privileged" background (money, social status, whatever) then there are a lot of benefits that person got that we can't, and shouldn't even try to, take away. They're likely to have a better education, more opportunities to experience things, etc. Not only do I not find that to be a problem, I find it a positive: Giving your children those opportunities is a motivating factor. It doesn't select for traits as you suggest, but it provides a personal motivation to work hard.

That doesn't mean there isn't a negative side. For starters, one negative is when you're given more on top of that simply because of it. That is, if you're given a cushy job not because of how brilliant you are with the education your family was able to provide, or your fantastic work ethic, but because your father was successful or is a big-wig at the company or knows a guy, I believe that is a problem. Picking people for a role because they have skills their parents had that made them successful is awesome; picking them because their parents had them is not.

Second, when people don't understand the privileges they've had or dismiss them, I think that is a problem as well. It's an awful lot easier to be successful when you have all of these advantages, when all doors are open to you and you have somebody pointing you through them, than it is to find your way through as somebody who grew up poor (which correlates often with race). The effects of slavery and discrimination probably aren't a primary factor keeping minorities down in 2016, but the legacy of the hurdles they have to overcome certainly contributes. Acknowledging that others have a harder road than you do isn't a bad thing.

All of that said, there is an important fact left:

Privilege is a pretty bs term the way it's used today.

The term is definitely overused, it's loaded beyond all belief, and it shouldn't be used as a pejorative. We should work to mitigate its more sinister effects, not put others down with it. As I said at the open, the reality is it's likely to always be there in some form or another. Our job should be to keep the positives and marginalize the negatives.

[Deleted]

It's possible to accept that privilege exists without suggesting that the opinions of privileged people should be ignored, or that privileged people should feel guilty about their privilege. It's an observation of a phenomenon, not a condemnation of a group of people.

I'll just rephrase that sentiment thusly:

"It's possible to accept that black people have lower IQ without suggesting that their opinions should be ignored, or that black people should feel bad about their lower IQ. It's an observation of a phenomenon, not a condemnation of a group of people."

The goal is to stop categorising people around groups like race / gender / privilege, and to see all people as individuals.

This is why categorising people according to "privilege" is not just counterproductive to combat racism/sexism/etc - it pretty much is racism/sexism/etc

Racists never see themselves as racists just like SJWs don't realise they're the bigots

[ujx]

With that realm of thought I'd argue Native Americans have it worse than Blacks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQRTirco4Mg

Nobody on Earth has it worse than African Americans. They are being slaughtered in droves every single day by the police for sport. They are being ignored by the Academy Awards for their outstanding works of art like Straight Outta Compton, Star Wars, Creed, and every Kevin Hart movie. The world is against them, it's impossible for them to succeed in this racist world. African Americans deserve reparations.

[Deleted]

If you think you have the right to more than others then you are inadequate yourself.

[Deleted]

The concept of privilege seems to be more loaded/contentious in the US than in the UK - presumably because of racial tensions there and disagreement over what should be done to redress the legacy of past racial policies. For a Brit (well, me, anyway) the word 'privilege' generally just conjures up an image of rich, posh people who went to elite, fee-paying schools (epitomised by the current Prime Minister and the people with whom he surrounds himself).

I'd say it's a no-brainer that we should be 'fighting against' it, if by that we mean ensuring that the availability of opportunities is not contingent on being privileged. This need not and should not in any way require the demonisation of those who are privileged.

Privilege is something we should be aware of, but not ashamed of. Take the advantages you can get, but be aware that not everyone has those advantages.

Absolutely this.

[Simulacrum]

It's possible to accept that privilege exists without suggesting that the opinions of privileged people should be ignored, or that privileged people should feel guilty about their privilege. It's an observation of a phenomenon, not a condemnation of a group of people.

Well, condemnation of the privileged does seems pretty integral to privilege theory. Pretty much all the writings you'll read on it go out of their way to attack whites and males for not properly recognizing their privileges; for possessing unearned advantages. It also often mixes in attacks on institutions that the privileged are majorities in, condemning what it calls the myth if meritocracy, which it alleges is actually just a made up thing the privileged use to hide the racism and sexism they engage in to keep everyone else out of their fancy institutions.

Overall, what you can take away from it is that if you reject any of their assertions then you're probably an evil person.

My statement does not imply that.

You're right, it doesn't imply it... it's explicit about it.

[Reeve]

I'll just rephrase that sentiment thusly:

"It's possible to accept that black people have lower IQ without suggesting that their opinions should be ignored, or that black people should feel bad about their lower IQ. It's an observation of a phenomenon, not a condemnation of a group of people."

The goal is to stop categorising people around groups like race / gender / privilege, and to see all people as individuals.

This is why categorising people according to "privilege" is not just counterproductive to combat racism/sexism/etc - it pretty much is racism/sexism/etc

Racists never see themselves as racists just like SJWs don't realise they're the bigots

Pretending that racism and socioeconomic advantages don't exist is a good way to make sure that those situations never improve.

We can recognize general societal problems while still treating every person as an individual.

[Simulacrum]

Pretending that racism and socioeconomic advantages don't exist is a good way to make sure that those situations never improve.

We can recognize general societal problems while still treating every person as an individual.

Treating racism and socioeconomic advantages as a good thing when they happen to the right people is also a good way to make sure those situations never improve.

[Reeve]

Treating racism and socioeconomic advantages as a good thing when they happen to the right people is also a good way to make sure those situations never improve.

Wait, what?

[Kraenen]

Pretending that racism and socioeconomic advantages don't exist is a good way to make sure that those situations never improve.

We can recognize general societal problems while still treating every person as an individual.

Not really. As an individual you have little control over those things, so pretending they don't exist doesn't suppress their improvement.

[Alvito]

'Privilege' to me is when people have a statistical advantage due to traits they are born with and have no influence on.

I don't think that is bad.
I don't think we can fix that.
But I do think it's something we should acknowledge and try to understand.
It's nothing more than a number, a statistic. That's it!

Based on that definition of it, then it is also why people work hard. We have all seen first hand or heard about people busting their ass so their family will have a better or easier life then they did. So in this case privilege is others reaping the benefits of others hard work, good fortune or whatever it is. So it would seem like privilege is a good thing. We should aspire towards passing it on to our loved ones.