StrangeSox

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 03:28 PM) I think most would agree that there is some sort of WASP privilege in the US. But that is far different than white privilege, where you are basically saying that the Irish slave was somehow privileged. The Irish weren't, but now they are viewed as white. Nobody ever said these categories are static across time and place. That a group that is now seen as white wasn't at some point doesn't mean white privilege didn't and doesn't exist. It just means that who gets included in the privilege isn't 100% static. eta: which is exactly why ss2k5's earlier racism accusations are such bulls***, because this framework explicitly rejects a people or a culture as inherently inferior.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 03:25 PM) Okay so Ive done a lot of reading and Im pretty sure the problem here is the idea of "white privilege." The reason that this is a problem is that its incorrect. When they mean "white privilege" what they actually are referring to is WASP (white anglo saxon protestant) privilege in the United States, which is a very specific issue based on very specific historical events. White privilege isn't restricted to the United States. This is covered under intersectionality and there's lots of writing and literature on it. You're taking two articles I posted as intentionally base-level, remedial "here is what this concept is" things and criticizing them for not being scholarly works. You're right, and a couple of blog posts explaining the basic concepts of what privilege is aren't trying to be a whole bunch of dissertations on the causes of and changes of privilege. You're rejecting these articles for not being something they weren't trying to be. Italians and Irish didn't benefit from white privilege at one point, but now they do because in society as a whole they're viewed as "white." Just the opposite problem happens with "one drop" disqualifying mixed racial backgrounds, or why someone of mixed racial backgrounds like Obama are going to identify as black and not white--they're going to be viewed as black by society. I don't know man, it seems like you absolutely get the subject but are attacking broad, general discussions of privilege for not being hyper-focused with historical analysis.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 04:07 PM) Jenks, The problem that most of these articles fail to address is that you cant change the playing field over night and they also dont recognize that for at least the last 100 years the playing field has become more equal. None of them seem to be saying that it can be changed overnight, or that things haven't improved in many aspects. You're projecting that into them.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 02:46 PM) Okay so I read the next article and it linked the article I just crucified. Is there not one legitimate academic article to be found? I have to imagine they will almost universally support my position that privilege is not something that can be apportioned to any race, religion or gender as depending on the time and place, you may or may not have been privileged. I looked for blog posts instead of big, boring dissertations. Nobody would disagree that what is or isn't privileged, aside from maybe wealth, is dependent on numerous factors. That's the whole point of recognizing it as a societal force--it depends on the society. Neither of those articles I linked would disagree with what you say here at all.

Maybe this one's a little better than the first blog link I posted, lots of links and basic definitions: http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 01:56 PM) Point 1. No that is why her blog is incorrect. Privilege as used by most people, is universal. Privilege generally relates to money. A child born to a black person with a billion dollars, a white person with a billion dollars or a women with a billion dollars, would be considered privileged, regardless of their race, religion, gender. Now you can make arguments about why they may not be as privileged as someone else, but that goes against the normal and understood ideas of "privilege" and the "privileged class". Class privilege is probably the most common usage, but it's clearly not the only type. In 1950's Alabama, a black millionaire and a white millionaire are going to be the same wealth-wise, but clearly are going to have differences in how they're viewed and treated in society in general. There was a study several years back now that found people with atypical or 'ethnic' names were much less likely to be chosen for an interview than someone with a bland WASP name, that's a form of privilege. Not everything is about economic outcomes or possibilities, either. There's the social pressures homosexuals, transexuals and other non-norm people face. In fact, that most people might not even recognize or be aware of the existence of other types of privilege is central to the problem. Sure, I threw the caveat in there that if you accept religion as a true choice, then dietary restrictions aren't a good example. I don't know if the author would agree that religion is a choice, at least comparable to many other choices, and I don't really care. I'll fully accept that it's a weak case for Kosher. It was a random blog post to give some background on the concept, not some definitive dissertation on social justice. I wouldn't disagree, but privilege isn't really at the individual level like that. So in that case, wealth was a privilege. I don't think she'd disagree, and I know I don't. Before women and minorities were accepted at most colleges, being a white male was a gigantic privilege. At colleges in South Korea and on job applications, people attach photos--certain aesthetics are then greatly privileged. They also have scales and mirrors in the hallways in the highschools and a huge rate of plastic surgery. I don't know what their rate of eating disorders are, but I'd guess they're pretty high. Because of social pressures and expectations, not because of anything innate. I'll see if I can find something a little bit better as a 'primer' for social justice that's in blog- or article-form and not some academic article. I'm far from an expert but I'd say that it forms, at least in some mushy qualitative sense, the basis for a lot of my political and moral beliefs. edit: and thanks for actually engaging in a discussion even though you don't agree without instantly resorting to mockery and strawmen.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 12:40 PM) Ah yes, the old "YOU don't care as much as ME so you're the racist" bit. Nicely done. No, it's the old you've clearly demonstrated that you're not the least bit interested in a good-faith discussion to understand where I'm coming from, so I'm not going to bother.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 12:12 PM) Better yet, I would like Narcissus to explain how we make up for the several hundred billion that never went into the fund. This is why it was always a double-edged sword. Good in the short-term to boost spending and help the economy, but bad for the programs it's used to fund. I'm glad it wasn't made permanent, though it probably should have been phased in via targets.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 12:19 PM) So basically by social injustice you mean unfairness. To some extent, maybe? Thanks for showing that you have no desire to understand the viewpoint someone else is coming from. Tell me more about how I'm the real racist.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 12:14 PM) Damnit I deleted my original post so this isnt going to be half as good. She did not talk about my point, which is that where you are may determine whether you are part of a privileged sect or not. A white man may be privileged in the US, he may not be privileged in Congo. A woman may not be privileged in US, but she may be privileged in Amazon. She does not recognize that you cant be so broad and vague. That the word privilege means something, and that general definition does not mean man, woman or skin color. That is just her nonsensical and unsubstantiated life view. Put it this way, no one is going to say that Kate Middleton isnt privileged. Now maybe she isnt as much as Prince Charles, but that is all relative and why its useless. Maybe it wasn't directly covered in that short, random blog post I found, but that's inherent. Privilege is based on the norm in a given society, so if you change societies, that changes. It's not universal. If you keep Kosher or Ha'lal because that's your deeply held religious belief, it's not really as much of a choice. But like I said, that doesn't mean every form of privilege is inherently bad or needs to be 'corrected' or even could be corrected. Nor does everything map to social justice, and maybe Kosher outside of religious beliefs is not a great example. edit: whether or not keeping a religious belief is a 'choice' is a complex issue so I can agree that, if you view religion as a true choice, then we can agree that religious dietary restrictions aren't the best examples.

Congrats, you've identified that not every single contributing factor in someone's life can be mapped to social justice issues, though why their parents and homes are s***ty might be at least somewhat related. Social injustice isn't about deliberate and conscious rigging or discrimination. A lot of it is about lack of self-awareness among the privileged, like the straight white male from an upper-middle class background with good parents not realizing how much smoother his road in life has been than others.

It pretty explicitly did right near the top: I don't get what you're trying to say about eating Kosher. You don't innately assume that's our society's normal dietary choices, it's not a subconscious assumption of the norm. Anyway yeah a lot of "Social Justice Warriors" can take stuff to ridiculous levels, but I just threw that up as maybe a quick primer on the subject for those who might not be familiar with the basic concepts of social justice. There's probably a better source but, eh. And the Kosher part demonstrates that, to some extent, privileges will always exist. If a majority of people don't keep Kosher, it's going to be harder for the Kosher guy to find food. Conversely, if we mostly did keep Kosher, it'd be hard for someone with a culinary culture steeped in shell fish to find food. Nothing inherently wrong there, imo, just something that "is."

Privilege isn't really about "victims," and I haven't said that disprivileged people lack any form of agency. I've argued that people with privilege have an easier time doing something than people without privilege, and that that privilege often goes completely unnoticed. You covered this in your first sentence, though you might have missed it, when you said "even though the majority of society can." The majority of society (generally speaking) are the ones with the privilege, the 'norm' group. You later say that you figure things out on your own all the time using the library or the internet. Those are resources that are not equitably distributed. You were also educated (presumably) in good schools with good libraries and have had familiarity with the internet since you were a kid. Knowing how to teach yourself, knowing how to do research is a skill in and of itself. As I said before, this goes beyond race and class, e.g. heterosexuality is the privileged norm because the default expectation is that you're straight. Being openly gay is still an issue, still something that gay people have to deal with that straight people don't. The argument is that there's some level of injustice inherent in our society that makes it easier for some and not for others. That isn't saying that "society needs to help them because they can't help themselves," it's saying that our society should be changed so that it isn't unfairly more difficult for certain groups. At no point have I made the argument that they are helpless and need some white savior.

I'd be surprised if the bullpen phone was anything but an internal/closed-circuit system, more like an intrabuilding intercom. What would they need an actual phone for, ordering pizzas mid-game?

I don't think you can actually make a case for the interpretation you're accusing me of. However, as I'm actually concerned about privilege, I would like to know if a good case can be made that I actually am saying something along the lines that you've claimed so that I can examine what assumptions and background I was coming from that lead me to say or believe those things.

In the mean-time, if you want to try to understand the rhetorical background on privilege I'm coming from, you can read over this: http://nymbp.org/reference/WhitePrivilege.pdf or maybe this, a condensed version: http://brown-betty.livejournal.com/305643.html I'm probably using shorthand or terminology or phrasing that, if someone isn't familiar with it, could be misinterpreted or misunderstood to mean something else. I'm not always the best communicator.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 11:07 AM) Nonetheless, we were all just taking the piss until larry literal came in to try and act all high and mighty. go back to england

Then you are plainly misunderstanding. Can you lay out a more detailed argument to back up those conclusions or readings of my posts?

No, I think you really don't understand what's being said and what you're reading into it isn't what anyone else is actually saying. Noting that someone who grows up in a community or family where few people if any have gone to college is going to have a harder time navigating applications/student loans than someone who grew up in a family with lots of college graduates isn't making a judgement on any individuals or their inherent or innate abilities. It's understanding that things are easier with familiarity and help and reinforcement, and that someone who grows up with that help and reinforcement likely doesn't recognize the privileges they've benefited from. Likewise, I don't have any entrepreneurs in my family. If I wanted to start my own business, I'd be starting at square one without someone I know to turn to. Someone who grew up in a family that had entrepreneurs wouldn't be starting from square one, and they may have the value that starting your own business is a good and desirable thing ingrained to them throughout the upbringing. There's no moral judgement here, no statement or implication that one person is actually inferior to another. It isn't limited to race or economic class, either, but between any majority 'norm' group and an outside group-religious, gender, sexuality and more. Now, can you actually explain what's supposed to be racist about that? Where anyone is calling someone else dumb?

That's a good conclusion to draw, especially after several longish posts about the perils of cultural imperialism and outsiders telling a community/group/culture/etc. they know best. What's sad is that I think you honestly believe that a discussion about privileges really is racist and really is saying some group or another is dumb and inherently inferior.

Food for the proles? Surely you jest, brother!

I don't know that we should expect a cellphone to be more reliable than an internal phone line.

I don't see any reason to go away from a hard-wired phone. It's not like most people don't have phones on their desks at work. Even if they're IP phones, they're still plugged into something. It's just an advertising gimmick.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 07:14 PM) Someone is a little touchy. I never said any of those things that you are implying. I resent the fact that you are trying to paint me as someone who would even says that about someone. You really need to take it down a notch and respond in a civil fashion. You're right, you never said those things. Others were and it was unfair of me to conflate them with you. I apologize.

The PhD in sociology was an slight exaggeration to illustrate that you should do an awful lot of work trying to understand a problem if it's not in your community and your background before you presume to start telling them how to solve their problems.