"check your privilege"

[JeenLeen]

Would someone explain what the idiom "check your privilege" means?
I've seen it used several times in the last year or so, and I have a vague understanding of what it means, but I'm really sure. I've never heard it in-person, but have read it a few times.

A few notes
1) I'm not being sarcastic.
2) Although this saying showed up in another thread and that reminded me of posting this, this is a question I've thought about asking for a while
3) Because of how I've usually heard it used, I have a fairly negative connotation with the phrase. It seems overly emotional, grammatically nonsensical, like a threat (probably because similar to "check yourself"), and often used in a way that feels similar to ad hominem or at least some logical fallacy. But I'm making this thread in part to separate that emotional response with actual knowledge to better understand what folk mean when they use it
4) I am likely of a group that, on average, has socio-economic advantages compared to other groups. Thus, I reckon I am one who would often be check privilege in some discussions, if I got involved with them.

Also (as an unimportant note but one I find fun to discuss): it is an idiom since that combination of words does not really mean much in a grammatical sense, akin to the phrase "check yourself", right?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Would someone explain what the idiom "check your privilege" means?
I've seen it used several times in the last year or so, and I have a vague understanding of what it means, but I'm really sure. I've never heard it in-person, but have read it a few times.

A few notes
1) I'm not being sarcastic.
2) Although this saying showed up in another thread and that reminded me of posting this, this is a question I've thought about asking for a while
3) Because of how I've usually heard it used, I have a fairly negative connotation with the phrase. It seems overly emotional, grammatically nonsensical, like a threat (probably because similar to "check yourself"), and often used in a way that feels similar to ad hominem or at least some logical fallacy. But I'm making this thread in part to separate that emotional response with actual knowledge to better understand what folk mean when they use it
4) I am likely of a group that, on average, has socio-economic advantages compared to other groups. Thus, I reckon I am one who would often be check privilege in some discussions, if I got involved with them.

Also (as an unimportant note but one I find fun to discuss): it is an idiom since that combination of words does not really mean much in a grammatical sense, akin to the phrase "check yourself", right?

It means that, in the opinion of the person using the sentence, their target has acted (or, in this forum, posted) in such a way that displays a privilege, possibly one they are not aware of possessing. For example, if Alfred was complaining about their car having broken down and Betty belittled their problem with a "just buy a new one, you cheap bastard", Betty is displaying a privilege: she is clearly well enough off she considers purchasing a vehicle a minor expense, where Alfred likely does not. She might be told to "check her privilege" - i.e. examine her own situation and how it is privileged over those she is interacting with.

As to its grammatical correctness, it seems fine to me. "Check your privilege" is equivalent to "examine your privilege" and grammatically equivalent to, say, "check your tires" - an imperative verb, and the subject of the order being given by the verb.

ETA: as to whether it is an ad hominem or a logical fallacy, I suppose it will depend on how it is used, but I would not imagine it would lend itself to either. It is not implying that the statement was wrong - Betty might be quite capable of purchasing a vehicle when her current one breaks down - as much as pointing out that the comment only applies to privileged circumstances rather than universally. I suppose that if Alfred too was quite capable, then in the example above, it would be a quasi ad hominem, since accusing someone of being inadvertently privileged when they are no more privileged than their original target would in fact be an ad hominem. As I said, will depend heavily on the context.

Grey Wolf

[Strigon]

It's basically the other person saying "you're making assumptions based on an advantage that you have, assuming everyone else does as well."
Depending on the exact context and your own interpretation, this can be anywhere from eye-opening and life changing advice, to nonsensical babbling when you say something the other person doesn't like.

[Cristo Meyers]

The best I can come up with is an example:

A well-off, middle-class person saying the solution to the issue of poverty in urban neighborhoods is for the residents to 'get a job' is likely guilty of not checking their privilege. That is, they're ignoring the realities on the ground (quality of jobs available, issues with getting the necessary education/job skills, local and systemic issues with racism for minority neighborhoods) in favor of their own experience where those systemic issues weren't present.

This also usually comes with an implicit or explicit value judgment: i.e. that the reason they don't get jobs is because they're lazy.

[Ninja_Prawn]

The other posters are pretty much on point.

What I would add is that there's an understanding, at least among certain circles, that people with less privilege, in particular people who suffer oppression or discrimination, need to be given space to speak about their experiences. That is to say, if you haven't experienced the suffering yourself, it's better to listen to people who have, rather than lecturing them about it or making the conversation about yourself (both of which are things that privileged people often do).

Certainly from my point of view, I have a lot of privilege and, when I was younger, I was definitely blind to certain issues that other people have to deal with. When you're in a privileged position it is genuinely very difficult to see how the world looks to people at the sharp end, and you have to make a conscious effort to check your privilege if you want to make a positive contribution to the situation.

[AMFV]

Would someone explain what the idiom "check your privilege" means?
I've seen it used several times in the last year or so, and I have a vague understanding of what it means, but I'm really sure. I've never heard it in-person, but have read it a few times.

A few notes
1) I'm not being sarcastic.
2) Although this saying showed up in another thread and that reminded me of posting this, this is a question I've thought about asking for a while
3) Because of how I've usually heard it used, I have a fairly negative connotation with the phrase. It seems overly emotional, grammatically nonsensical, like a threat (probably because similar to "check yourself"), and often used in a way that feels similar to ad hominem or at least some logical fallacy. But I'm making this thread in part to separate that emotional response with actual knowledge to better understand what folk mean when they use it
4) I am likely of a group that, on average, has socio-economic advantages compared to other groups. Thus, I reckon I am one who would often be check privilege in some discussions, if I got involved with them.

Also (as an unimportant note but one I find fun to discuss): it is an idiom since that combination of words does not really mean much in a grammatical sense, akin to the phrase "check yourself", right?

As a preface, this thread is very likely to become political and that is considered taboo on the forums, just as a fair warning.

Basically the idea is that certain categories of people have "privileges" that blind them to the experiences of others in worse circumstances. As a premise this is not necessarily untrue, since we're all products of our environment. The problem is when people are using this to talk about individuals based on their group. Saying for example that a person from a group that is generally financially better off can't have experience with poverty because they obviously didn't have the authentic experience, is a fallacy. Say that 95% of a group is above the poverty line, that means that some number of individuals from that group would be below the poverty line.

For example, I am part of a group that is generally considered privileged in the country in which I reside. When I was a kid, I lived for a year with no power, no running water, no heat, sharing a room with five members of my family. This would be considered extreme poverty. Later on I worked with people in poverty for about a year, and I have yet to witness conditions such as what I experienced, even in the groups that I supposedly would have privilege over. That's why this is a very poor thing to say to somebody. Because you don't know their life story. Also you're using statistics backwards. You're using statistics to try to guess at an individual case, which is where stats start to break down.

As to whether you should check your privilege? That depends entirely on your history. Certainly there is nothing wrong with evaluating if you have enough experience to comment on something. But if you do, you shouldn't let belonging to a group that might not always have your experiences deter you. That's my feeling.

[JeenLeen]

Thanks, all. That presents the statement in a fair more neutral light that I've at least interpreted it as being used.

If it's being used in a sense of "be aware of your status in comparison to others", that seems a sound statement.


She might be told to "check her privilege" - i.e. examine her own situation and how it is privileged over those she is interacting with.

As to its grammatical correctness, it seems fine to me. "Check your privilege" is equivalent to "examine your privilege" and grammatically equivalent to, say, "check your tires" - an imperative verb, and the subject of the order being given by the verb.

I think I was generally hearing "check our privilege" as a hostile statement (like "check yourself") or something kinda derogatory about the privileged person's opinion being invalid or wrong, and to be "checked" like checked baggage at the airport -- not at the discussion. Your grammatical view of it helps a lot.

EDIT: AMFV's post was written while I was writing this, and I think the fallacy he mentions is a large part of the 'bad taste' I have about the saying.

[Cristo Meyers]

EDIT: AMFV's post was written while I was writing this, and I think the fallacy he mentions is a large part of the 'bad taste' I have about the saying.

Not necessarily a bad thing. The idea can, like all things, be misused. It's important to recognize the difference between 'check your privilege' vs 'your opinion doesn't matter because you belong to a privileged group'

[Vinyadan]

Personally, I'm happy to have read this thread. I've never met anyone in person using the phrase, and the depictions I had read, as well as some cases in which it was used and were reported by the media, had given me the impression that it simply was a way to throw someone out of the discussion by saying "you aren't one of us, so your opinion doesn't count for anything, and we (= I) don't want you to speak".

[2D8HP]

Would someone explain what the idiom "check your privilege" means?
I've seen it used several times in the last year....


I've seen it as well, but only in vague generalities.


...I've never met anyone in person using the phrase...


Neither have I.

I really wonder if "check your privilege" is another phrase like "virtue signaling" that are only typed but never spoken out loud.

I'm tired of these goobelygook language innovations that aren't used face to face, and only seem to exist as copy and paste internet phrases.

[Vinyadan]

Yes, and the media report I remember talked about it after it had been used on Facebook, not in a face-to-face discussion.

[Florian]

Oh, I´ve been into discussions when that phrase has been used, each time it has been used well.

Sometimes, people just forget when they're arguing from a privileged position and don't see that they take something for granted that is only available because of that position.

[AMFV]

Neither have I.

I really wonder if "check your privilege" is another phrase like "virtue signaling" that are only typed but never spoken out loud.

I'm tired of these goobelygook language innovations that aren't used face to face, and only seem to exist as copy and paste internet phrases.

I have heard it in person. I suspect the reason you haven't is because of the crowd you're spending time with. I've heard it from college students, in a fairly serious context, and it was pretty irritating to me for the reasons I listed above. Because when somebody tells you to "check your privilege" they're making some pretty big assumptions about you and your history, in most cases based on your ethnicity, and that doesn't sit well with me.

Virtue signal is mostly a phrase used by the extreme opposite group. So it's used by even still another group.

Edit:

Oh, I´ve been into discussions when that phrase has been used, each time it has been used well.

Sometimes, people just forget when they're arguing from a privileged position and don't see that they take something for granted that is only available because of that position.

It's possible that it could be used well, but again it's important to remember that because somebody comes from a position you PRESUME to be privileged does not make that the case in absolute.

[Aedilred]

I've seen it as well, but only in vague generalities.




Neither have I.

I really wonder if "check your privilege" is another phrase like "virtue signaling" that are only typed but never spoken out loud.

I'm tired of these goobelygook language innovations that aren't used face to face, and only seem to exist as copy and paste internet phrases.

I have heard (and probably used) "virtue signalling" in real life, but generally only in the third person. "Check your privilege" is inherently used directly to the target and because of its equally inherently confrontational nature is less likely to be used in real life where people, especially people who consider themselves vulnerable, are more conflict-averse.

"Virtue signalling" used as an accusation rather than a descriptor has a similar issue but there's also the matter that it tends to refer to activities which are largely online anyway: liking and sharing posts, posting phoney outrage on social media, generally making enough of a fuss to show that you're "on the right side" without actually incurring any risk or doing anything meaningful to help. In real life, people tend to have more skin in the game to begin with and so pointless virtue-signalling is rarer.

Then there's also the issue that in real life people don't tend to hang out in environments where these sorts of things are likely to come up anyway, unless they're actively seeking them out. I'm sure there are plenty of occasions in real life where people are told to check their privilege, but most of them are probably at meetings I don't go to.

[WarKitty]

Basically the idea is that certain categories of people have "privileges" that blind them to the experiences of others in worse circumstances. As a premise this is not necessarily untrue, since we're all products of our environment. The problem is when people are using this to talk about individuals based on their group. Saying for example that a person from a group that is generally financially better off can't have experience with poverty because they obviously didn't have the authentic experience, is a fallacy. Say that 95% of a group is above the poverty line, that means that some number of individuals from that group would be below the poverty line.

I think this is one of those things that's going to depend on the group and how much you can know about it, as well. Some groups are more obvious than others - for example, looking at me you can pretty much tell I've never dealt with anything related to being a racial minority in the u.s. On the other hand, you really can't tell what someone's experienced with poverty without knowing about their background in detail.


Oh, I´ve been into discussions when that phrase has been used, each time it has been used well.

Sometimes, people just forget when they're arguing from a privileged position and don't see that they take something for granted that is only available because of that position.

An example I've used that's not quite privilege but sort of similar is when western europeans tell americans to just sell the car and use public transit and a bike. Outside of major cities, the availability of public transit is just so incredibly different that what might be a smart financial decision in one area is a terrible idea in another. (For example, where I am now, I couldn't even get a Walmart job without some sort of access to a vehicle - either someone who could reliably drop me off or pick me up or some way to drive myself.)

[AMFV]

I think this is one of those things that's going to depend on the group and how much you can know about it, as well. Some groups are more obvious than others - for example, looking at me you can pretty much tell I've never dealt with anything related to being a racial minority in the u.s. On the other hand, you really can't tell what someone's experienced with poverty without knowing about their background in detail.

But I might not be able to tell that. If you're the most common race in the general US, but you live in Atlanta, particularly in certain parts of Atlanta, you've had some of that experience. Because you have been a racial minority surrounded by a culture that wasn't necessarily yours, and had to decide between assimilation or going your own way.

After my father rejoined the military, ironically because of the period of extreme poverty that was mentioned. I went from a rural town in Washington state where there was one racial minority student in our school, and like two that were ambiguous, to a school where it was pretty matched with national demographics, to a school where I was the racial minority, and because they let kids from off-post into the school, they were not army brats but kids from a poor area outside of town, and I can say that it was a very interesting and different experience. But I definitely have experienced being attacked because of my race (physically), I have experienced having to figure out if I wanted to blend in or not, and not blending was dangerous, and you wouldn't know that by looking at me. So anything like that is a very very bad assumption to be making unless you know the person very well.

Basically it's a phrase that you could use with your friends but you definitely shouldn't use it with strangers.



An example I've used that's not quite privilege but sort of similar is when western europeans tell americans to just sell the car and use public transit and a bike. Outside of major cities, the availability of public transit is just so incredibly different that what might be a smart financial decision in one area is a terrible idea in another. (For example, where I am now, I couldn't even get a Walmart job without some sort of access to a vehicle - either someone who could reliably drop me off or pick me up or some way to drive myself.)

This is also an example of something pretty interesting. Because having a car is both a detriment and a privilege. Because while you might not be able to sell your car, or live without it, it lets you do things that the Europeans simply couldn't. I can decide that I want to go out camping 500 miles from my house in the middle of nowhere and pack for it, without much advance planning. I can move (I own a truck) without any assistance or really that much involved. But it is more money out of my pocket.

[2D8HP]

I have heard it in person. I suspect the reason you haven't is because of the crowd you're spending time with. I've heard it from college students....


That could as, except for my wife and the apprentice on the crew, I just don't talk much with college graduates, and the only time in the last two decades that I've spent more than an hour with a college student was with an intern who was tasked with drawing some piping diagrams under the restaurants at Fisherman's Wharf.

He kept insisting that he needed more time while the tide was coming in, despite my warning him that we'd have to wade and swim out if we stayed longer (we did wind up having to do that).

How close the Sea Lions get scared him (just as the did me a few months earlier).

He seemed a hard working kid, and was the first in his family to have the privilege of college (see, thread topic!) as is the apprentice on my current crew.

[WarKitty]

Basically it's a phrase that you could use with your friends but you definitely shouldn't use it with strangers.

The trouble is you kind of get into cases where there's no way to move the conversation in a productive direction that isn't potentially being rude. The fundamental point people are trying to communicate is that, sometimes you're speaking from background assumptions and you don't really get what it's like for someone in a different situation. And that's making you dismiss things that you really shouldn't dismiss or try to push solutions that don't work.

For a personal example - some of the conversations about street harassment I've been in. I've heard all the lines about how "I'd love it if women randomly hit on me, what's the big deal" or "I had a guy follow me once hitting on me and I got over it" or something. I've even seen guys get upset because they're saying something like "I can't even get any member of the opposite sex to pay attention to me, I have to do all the work and get rejected every time, and you're complaining about too much attention?"

A lot of cis men really struggle with understanding why women would care about street harassment, because they're picturing it from their experiences and those experiences just don't match up. And there's really no good way to explain it without saying, you need to stop and listen for a while and stop trying to talk from your experiences, because your experiences here are so very different. There's really no good way to say that without it being at least potentially interpreted as "your opinion doesn't matter" or "you don't know what you're talking about."

[AMFV]

The trouble is you kind of get into cases where there's no way to move the conversation in a productive direction that isn't potentially being rude. The fundamental point people are trying to communicate is that, sometimes you're speaking from background assumptions and you don't really get what it's like for someone in a different situation. And that's making you dismiss things that you really shouldn't dismiss or try to push solutions that don't work.


The first problem is that a lot of times people who have been in those same situations try to push the same solutions that people are trying to push where people assume that the other people aren't. So that's not necessarily a solid case. Also there's a point where emotionally what you feel isn't the most important thing, just because I don't necessarily understand exactly how somebody feels in a particular situation doesn't render my advice to somebody in that situation necessarily worthless, although it may make my delivery challenging.

The second problem is that when I've seen that phrase used it's NEVER used to try to move the conversation, it's to put the brakes on something that people don't want to discuss. And that's a dangerous thing to do, for a variety of reasons. As I said, you don't know the other person's experiences. I, have not lived a very privileged life by most metrics, although I'm doing fine now, but if people are just lumping me in with my ethnic group, gender, and sexual preference, they would assume I have.

The third problem is that you are mind-reading, you're inferring things about the other person's beliefs and backgrounds rather than listening to the things they're saying, and that's a big problem. For example, you might infer that a guy has never been cat-called or hit on by random women, which may or may not be the case.



For a personal example - some of the conversations about street harassment I've been in. I've heard all the lines about how "I'd love it if women randomly hit on me, what's the big deal" or "I had a guy follow me once hitting on me and I got over it" or something. I've even seen guys get upset because they're saying something like "I can't even get any member of the opposite sex to pay attention to me, I have to do all the work and get rejected every time, and you're complaining about too much attention?"

I can definitely relate to what you're having trouble with. It can be very hard to communicate something that is emotionally challenging to somebody who isn't understanding, or who is deliberately refusing to understand your position. I think that in this sort of situation, maybe trying to talk from a position that is not dependent on your personal experience might be better. Or if you want to go that route, maybe frame the question in terms of the guy's girlfriend, because that might help them.

To be fair, I have been hit on by women and it has been awkward, and I have had strangers shout comments about my appearance at me (although that's been more men than women). I imagine that that's not completely unheard of with other guys of reasonable attractiveness levels, I'm not like a supermodel or anything. But I would imagine that they probably don't think too much about it.



A lot of cis men really struggle with understanding why women would care about street harassment, because they're picturing it from their experiences and those experiences just don't match up. And there's really no good way to explain it without saying, you need to stop and listen for a while and stop trying to talk from your experiences, because your experiences here are so very different. There's really no good way to say that without it being at least potentially interpreted as "your opinion doesn't matter" or "you don't know what you're talking about."

I think that the problem is that when you say "check your privilege" it comes with a host of assumptions that are additional to the two you've mentioned. "If you were a woman, you'd understand" is possibly better. Because stating that somebody has a privilege is like stating that somebody has some kind of unearned benefit and that's problematic at the start. As a matter of fact, the latter thing might even be better to say, cause it's what you really mean when you say that.

[Nifft]

Bit of a side-topic, then back onto the main topic.

One major thing I dislike about the "check your privilege" interjection is that it seems to call a thing "privilege" which I would have called basic civil rights. This is disturbing for a variety of reasons:

- Basic civil rights ought to be rights, not privileges.

- The idea that you can and should strip someone of their "privilege" is very problematic when you realize that it's actually civil rights.


In addition to the chilling effect of demanding that someone must be an in-group member to have an opinion, I don't like the idea that civil rights are being discussed as if they were a luxury. It's true that the classes with the most access to luxuries also have the most access to civil rights, but that's not an excuse to conflate the two. Luxuries are optional, civil rights ought to be mandatory.

[Amazon]

We as humans tend to judge life using our own experiences as a medium and a lens, that doesn't work all the time because we tend to assume lots of things.

Let's say I live in a family where everyone knows how to dance tango, and dancing tango is a very common thing among my family.

If I start mocking you for not knowing how to dance tango besides being a huge jerk I'm not taking in consideration the privilege I had and I'm taking the fact that people need to know how to dance tango for granted.

So the idea of check your privilege is "Don't take things for granted"

This video may help you get the concept:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMIiIgUmarE

It's not our fault to have privilege, but it's our fault to not adimit we have.

[Rockphed]

I really wonder if "check your privilege" is another phrase like "virtue signaling" that are only typed but never spoken out loud.

I'm tired of these goobelygook language innovations that aren't used face to face, and only seem to exist as copy and paste internet phrases.

I've heard it in person. Once. I'm pretty sure the person who used it used it wrong.


The trouble is you kind of get into cases where there's no way to move the conversation in a productive direction that isn't potentially being rude. The fundamental point people are trying to communicate is that, sometimes you're speaking from background assumptions and you don't really get what it's like for someone in a different situation. And that's making you dismiss things that you really shouldn't dismiss or try to push solutions that don't work.

In general, explaining why a proposed solution or objection is invalid (e.g. "he can't afford to pay for a new steering wheel, how do you expect him to pay for a new car?") is significantly more productive than simply shooting off a "check your privilege".

[Grey_Wolf_c]

One major thing I dislike about the "check your privilege" interjection is that it seems to call a thing "privilege" which I would have called basic civil rights.
What you would call basic civil rights is irrelevant, if said circumstance is not, in fact, a universal right. Lets say that a member of an unprivileged group is having trouble with, say, unsympathetic law officers. Proclaiming that everyone is equal before the law, and thus that the problem can't be with the police, when the reality is that different groups do experience very different results from interacting with the law, comes across as both insensitive and ignorant, whether intended or not. "Trust the police" might be a perfectly valid response for you, but not for others.


In addition to the chilling effect of demanding that someone must be an in-group member to have an opinion,
The expression "check your privilege" does not "deman[d] that someone must be an in-group member to have an opinion". It simply warns the person with the opinion that said opinion is coloured, whether they are aware or not, by a privilege that the others in the conversation do not have access to, and thus that their opinion lacks applicability to the situation at hand.


I don't like the idea that civil rights are being discussed as if they were a luxury. It's true that the classes with the most access to luxuries also have the most access to civil rights, but that's not an excuse to conflate the two. Luxuries are optional, civil rights ought to be mandatory.
But they are not. And until they are, you don't get to tell people what they can't call those should-be-universal-but-are-not rights "privileges", because they are, in fact, privileges. They are using the terminology better than you are.

ETA:

In general, explaining why a proposed solution or objection is invalid (e.g. "he can't afford to pay for a new steering wheel, how do you expect him to pay for a new car?") is significantly more productive than simply shooting off a "check your privilege".
Certainly, but not everyone has the privilege, in the form of time and patience, to always chose the most productive solution to any given problem. In the same way I can ask someone in, say, the MitD thread to "read the OP, section X" than re-explain something I've already typed there, someone may just want to say in three words "your answer assumes that the person you are talking to has access to privilege X like you do, but they don't, and thus your answer is not applicable".

Grey Wolf

[WarKitty]

For example, you might infer that a guy has never been cat-called or hit on by random women, which may or may not be the case.

Sometimes it's also a discussion of what is actually relevant. For example, I'd say in a u.s. cultural context, there are some very salient differences between (assume cisgender for all the following) a man being catcalled or hit on by a random woman, and a woman receiving the same from a man. I think sometimes part of the problem is that people fail to appreciate those differences and end up trying to relate from their own experiences that actually have some major points that aren't the same.


In general, explaining why a proposed solution or objection is invalid (e.g. "he can't afford to pay for a new steering wheel, how do you expect him to pay for a new car?") is significantly more productive than simply shooting off a "check your privilege".

I'd say the problem is sometimes explaining why the objection is invalid is in itself based on experience. To go back to the sexual harassment case I used, it's very hard to explain to someone who is used to telling people to go away and having them actually go away, that telling people who are bothering you to go away often makes the situation worse. You end up going around in circles on the "right" way to tell someone to go away, when your experience tells you that there is no right way (but you have to go through every single possible variation with every single person who you talk to in order to get to that). There's also a sheer fatigue element that is a very common report but can't be separated from personal experience.

Another good example is depression and exercise. It's almost impossible to explain to someone who hasn't dealt with severe mental illness why "get some exercise" isn't really helpful. Because they haven't had the experience where you're just so far out of energy that it's a miracle you managed to shower AND eat today. So it sounds like you're just making excuses when you say that doesn't work, you can't just make yourself exercise.


Bit of a side-topic, then back onto the main topic.

One major thing I dislike about the "check your privilege" interjection is that it seems to call a thing "privilege" which I would have called basic civil rights. This is disturbing for a variety of reasons:

- Basic civil rights ought to be rights, not privileges.

- The idea that you can and should strip someone of their "privilege" is very problematic when you realize that it's actually civil rights.

I think there's two different things that might be called privilege. There are things that can be considered basic civil rights. But there's also things that literally can't exist without being unfair - if I have an advantage over someone else, I benefit from that advantage and in order for them to be on an even playing field I have to lose that. (An easy example would be being seen as more qualified than someone based on my name. I obviously benefit from that, and I obviously will lose that benefit if things are made fair.)

I would also note the privilege also often exists alongside the idea that by default, the opinions of the group with privilege are given more attention, and that the less privileged often get talked over or ignored. So it also has side of "we've heard these voices so many times and these other people aren't getting a chance to be heard." Or maybe "you may think you're trying to be an even participant, but you're actually talking over people with the same objections we've answered 20 times already."

[Amazon]

Bit of a side-topic, then back onto the main topic.

One major thing I dislike about the "check your privilege" interjection is that it seems to call a thing "privilege" which I would have called basic civil rights. This is disturbing for a variety of reasons:

- Basic civil rights ought to be rights, not privileges.


That's Ludicrous, is like if I have food and you don't and I go "Geez I have food just fine, quit complaining that's just basic civil rigths".

[Razade]

That's Ludicrous, is like if I have food and you don't and I go "Geez I have food just fine, quit complaining that's just basic civil rigths".

That isn't what he said. His point is everyone should have enough to eat, one shouldn't be shamed they've got that right. One should try to help the other attain it. What good is there in mocking or tearing down someone instead of asking for help?

[Amazon]

That isn't what he said. His point is everyone should have enough to eat, one shouldn't be shamed they've got that right. One should try to help the other attain it. What good is there in mocking or tearing down someone instead of asking for help?

But no one is mocking or tearing down someone, they are just saying "Dude you have food who are you to talk about hunger?" You have food that is your privilege, that's a fact, people are just saying facts.

[Razade]

But no one is mocking or tearing down someone, they are just saying "Dude you have food who are you to talk about hunger?" You have food that is your privilege, that's a fact, people are just saying facts.

Maybe, as others have pointed out here, they didn't have food. It's not someone else's place to tell others what their place is. That is the take away here. That's the point. I'd also contend that there ARE people mocking, tearing down or attempting to segregate people based off of "privilege". That probably will end up getting this thread locked though. Your assertion that it isn't happening is a false one, regardless.

[WarKitty]

But no one is mocking or tearing down someone, they are just saying "Dude you have food who are you to talk about hunger?" You have food that is your privilege, that's a fact, people are just saying facts.

I think it's a terms issue here. What he's saying is it sounds like "how dare you have food when other people don't!" That may not be what people mean, but it's the impression other people get.

I do think it gets confused too - for example, it would be perfectly reasonable to say "you have way more food than you need and other people don't have any at all, you need to give them your food." And sometimes that is the case.

[AMFV]

We as humans tend to judge life using our own experiences as a medium and a lens, that doesn't work all the time because we tend to assume lots of things.

Which is exactly the same negative behavior I've seen from people who tell people to "check their privilege". The assumption that these people have had an easy life because they have (if they are of similar ethnic background) or assuming that they have had an easy life based on some erroneous ideal they have (if they are of differing background).



So the idea of check your privilege is "Don't take things for granted"

It's really not used that way. I mean at least in my experience it isn't. It's not used to stop people who are mocking other people who are in worse circumstances, it's used to shut people out of a discussion. Because of their set of experiences. What's worse, it's used to shut people out of a discussion based on their race without even learning about their background or backstory or experiences.



It's not our fault to have privilege, but it's our fault to not adimit we have.

The problem is when other people start insisting that you have privileges you don't, and getting angry that you won't "admit" your privilege. I remember once a friend of mine on Facebook posted a "race" video on YouTube.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K5fbQ1-zps

I commented that I would have only been able to take two steps forward, which made the other person very angry because I was not of an ethnic background that they would have associated with that. Also I commented that the video was pretty racist, since there should be some people of each race in the front, ableit not in the same proportions. That's why oversimplifications are a big problem.


What you would call basic civil rights is irrelevant, if said circumstance is not, in fact, a universal right. Lets say that a member of an unprivileged group is having trouble with, say, unsympathetic law officers. Proclaiming that everyone is equal before the law, and thus that the problem can't be with the police, when the reality is that different groups do experience very different results from interacting with the law, comes across as both insensitive and ignorant, whether intended or not. "Trust the police" might be a perfectly valid response for you, but not for others.

But it's not always the groups you think are experiencing bad treatment that are. In my experience poor people of the majority ethnic background have quite a few problems with the police, probably in similar number to poor people of other ethnic backgrounds. The problem is when people start lumping people in with groups that they don't really belong to. Like assuming that all of the majority race are part of one giant group, which is not really something that holds true, at least not in my experience. There are too many diverse sections.

I mean say you have a majority race member, who is not using a licence plate, wearing militia gear, and is possibly armed. I bet that they would have a very different experience than somebody who looks like a businessman from a minority group. Which makes sense since "sovereign citizens" are often responsible for the worst acts of violence against police.

The problem is that "Check Your Privilege" simplifies something past where you can, and that's a big deal, and a serious issue if you're trying to deal with things in those kind of conversations.



The expression "check your privilege" does not "deman[d] that someone must be an in-group member to have an opinion". It simply warns the person with the opinion that said opinion is coloured, whether they are aware or not, by a privilege that the others in the conversation do not have access to, and thus that their opinion lacks applicability to the situation at hand.

But it is used to attempt to reduce the value of that opinion. And is often used in attempt to shut down or silence the person who is making that opinion, when it is shouted at them. And again, without proper knowledge of that person's background.


Sometimes it's also a discussion of what is actually relevant. For example, I'd say in a u.s. cultural context, there are some very salient differences between (assume cisgender for all the following) a man being catcalled or hit on by a random woman, and a woman receiving the same from a man. I think sometimes part of the problem is that people fail to appreciate those differences and end up trying to relate from their own experiences that actually have some major points that aren't the same.

True, and to be fair, it might be hard for me to look at things from the perspective of the guys you're discussing since I have had experiences where I have been hit on and it was extremely uncomfortable and awkward. Which may or may not be the same sort of experience as a woman in the same situation, but it's closer. Or at least it's close enough that I could see where you're coming with your set of complaints.

Again, this is a situation where the individual with whom you're conversing may have a different set of experiences than you are presuming they have. Barring their statement of such. It's possible that they just have interpreted those experiences differently.



I'd say the problem is sometimes explaining why the objection is invalid is in itself based on experience. To go back to the sexual harassment case I used, it's very hard to explain to someone who is used to telling people to go away and having them actually go away, that telling people who are bothering you to go away often makes the situation worse. You end up going around in circles on the "right" way to tell someone to go away, when your experience tells you that there is no right way (but you have to go through every single possible variation with every single person who you talk to in order to get to that). There's also a sheer fatigue element that is a very common report but can't be separated from personal experience.

To be fair, you've managed to separate those out pretty clearly here, and explain them without needing to really go into detail about experience.



Another good example is depression and exercise. It's almost impossible to explain to someone who hasn't dealt with severe mental illness why "get some exercise" isn't really helpful. Because they haven't had the experience where you're just so far out of energy that it's a miracle you managed to shower AND eat today. So it sounds like you're just making excuses when you say that doesn't work, you can't just make yourself exercise.

To be fair, as somebody who had severe depression at one point. Exercise can really help sometimes. It wasn't something that I could have done when I was hospitalized, but soon after I managed to start doing that and it really helped me recover. So I don't think that's necessarily a case of "checking privilege" in all cases, like for me it worked. And I was suicidal and hospitalized, so that's as bad as it gets. So it's more a case of realizing that not everything works for everybody. Of course I was also medicated which really helped there too and that came first.

[Amazon]

I think it's a terms issue here. What he's saying is it sounds like "how dare you have food when other people don't!" That may not be what people mean, but it's the impression other people get.

I do think it gets confused too - for example, it would be perfectly reasonable to say "you have way more food than you need and other people don't have any at all, you need to give them your food." And sometimes that is the case.

Not really, no one is saying for you to give up of your privilege, just be awere of that when you are talking since it can cloud your judgment.

It's like when a rich kid who never had to work before, had his parents pay for his entire college graduation, is now working on his father's company and is saying "Geez getting money sure is easy, poor people just need to get a job and shut up" that guy is not checking his privilege.

@AMFV Just because you are privileged in some areas doesn't mean you are privileged in other areas, the fact you are unable to adimit some people may have worse then you may be why people get angry, just watch the video I posted here I think that will help. They can elaborate this in a better way.

[AMFV]

Not really, no one is saying for you to give up of your privilege, just be awere of that when you are talking since it can cloud your judgment.


But it's really for you to figure out if it's clouding your judgement an outside observer can't really properly assess that, again especially if they don't know your background.



It's like when a rich kid who never had to work before, had his parents pay for his entire college graduation, is now working on his father's company and is saying "Geez getting money sure is easy, poor people just need to get a job and shut up" that guy is not checking his privilege.

Well what if somebody who was poor growing up says that? I've known a lot of people who grew up very poor and are now doing okay that have said that. At my work I've heard that statement a lot. And these are people who work for a living, very hard work. Most of them don't have a college education, and are underprivileged but they have that same opinion as your hypothetical rich snobby kid, what then?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

But it is used to attempt to reduce the value of that opinion.
No, it is an attempt to explain why that opinion doesn't have as much value as the person espousing it might think it does. Would you say your posts are "attempting to reduce the value of my opinion" right now? Or are you attempting to explain why my opinion doesn't actually apply?


And is often used in attempt to shut down or silence the person who is making that opinion, when it is shouted at them. And again, without proper knowledge of that person's background.

So you say, but not in my experience. Sounds to me like you are trying to say that people are using it wrong, but it's coming across as "this expression cannot be used correctly" which is, honestly, a weird statement.

Like with, say, "Beg the question", the fact that many people may use it wrong doesn't make the phrase less correct when used in the correct circumstances.

Grey Wolf

[Amazon]

No, the main idea is that other people have to tell you... Look in your work don't you have supervisors or something? Why do they exist? Because sometimes we are so deep in our own stuff we can't see our own mistakes that's why we need an outside perspective.

I think the main idea is this:

You are white, able-bodied and straight right? The fact you are white, able-bodied and straight does't mean you won't face hardships, problems and difficulties, it just mean that the hardships, problems and difficulties you'll face won't be cause by the fact that you are white, able bodied and straight.

You will never have a problem going to the 13th floor in a building that only has stairs for exemple and that's a privilege you have over someone who uses a wheelchair. it's not about feeling guilt it's about being humple enougth to say you have an innate advantage over other people and you didn't have to do anything to get that advantage.

[Razade]

I do think it gets confused too - for example, it would be perfectly reasonable to say "you have way more food than you need and other people don't have any at all, you need to give them your food." And sometimes that is the case.

Even I think that's wrong in most cases. Who are you, or anyone, to decide how much is more than someone needs? Is there an algorithm you use to plug that in?


Not really, no one is saying for you to give up of your privilege, just be awere of that when you are talking since it can cloud your judgment.

I never claimed that either. It's so very hard to discuss this issue when you want to just spin off of things I never said. I said that just because someone has food now doesn't mean they've always had it. Or will always have it. It's not your place to tell someone to acknowledge a criteria that you think they meet when

1. It's not a criteria in the the first place

2. You don't know anything about their lives.

Telling someone who is white that they are privilaged more than someone who is black (and if you don't think this has happened then you...are living in a fantasy land frankly. Hell, google Buzzfeed and you'll find at least 20 snarky articles and 30 hours of video on this alone) in America is insulting. It says to people, regardless of whether you mean it or not, that because of their skin color they've had it easier than someone else just on their skin color.

It is a reductionist argument that fails so hard on so many levels that it's a joke.


It's like when a rich kid who never had to work before, had his parents pay for his entire college graduation, is now working on his father's company and is saying "Geez getting money sure is easy, poor people just need to get a job and shut up" that guy is not checking his privilege.


It's interesting you have to jump to the most extreme and rare case to prove your point.



You are white, able bodied and straight right? The fact you are white and straight does't mean you won't face hardships, problems and difficulties, it just eman that the hardships, problems and difficulties you face won't be cause because by the fact that you are white, able bodied and straight.

Bull. Crap. This so perfectly encapsulates my point above it's like I wrote it myself. I didn't, as you can see, but it's like I did. You don't know that. You don't know what hardships they've had and why they have had them. You're assuming, off faulty evidence, that they won't because of the criteria you've laied out. You have absolutely no method to find that out and instead of listening to the person and weighing their argument on the merits of the argument themselves, you are attempting to de-platform or lessen their voice based off outside things.

"Your argument is less valid because of your skin tone, sexual orientation and/or lack of disability". Not because their argument is unsound or flawed in any way. Merely because they were born a certain way.

[AMFV]

No, it is an attempt to explain why that opinion doesn't have as much value as the person espousing it might think it does. Would you say you are "attempting to reduce the value of my opinion" right now? Or are you attempting to explain why my opinion doesn't actually apply?

What I am doing is presenting a counterpoint to your opinion. Which should not inherently devalue it, but refute it. Or at least that's the goal.

Also again, the problem is that you are assuming privilege, again what about somebody who is in my situation, who by most metrics isn't very privileged but I'm still of the race that would make me considered privileged by most folks using that particular phrasing. So it's often used in a situation where it would not apply.



So you say, but not in my experience. Sounds to me like you are trying to say that people are using it wrong, but it's coming across as "this expression cannot be used correctly" which is, honestly, a weird statement.

I will say where the experience can be used correctly... As I have earlier, although probably not so explicitly.

1.) As an inspiration for self-reflection, since you know your own experiences you can use the phrase to examine your own life.

2.) With a close friend with whom you are intimately familiar, and even then you should be careful. Since your friend may have experiences of which you are unaware.

Edit


No, the main idea is that other people have to tell you... Look in your work don't you have supervisors or something? Why do they exist? Because sometimes we are so deep in our own stuff we can't see our own mistakes that's why we need an outside perspective.

Not quite. Supervisors are mostly there to ensure that all of the moving parts are working together.



I think the main idea is this:

You are white, able-bodied and straight right? The fact you are white, able-bodied and straight does't mean you won't face hardships, problems and difficulties, it just mean that the hardships, problems and difficulties you'll face won't be cause by the fact that you are white, able bodied and straight.

I WAS PHYSICALLY ATTACKED BECAUSE OF MY RACE. I have mentioned that before, yes? Well let's mention it again, I was attacked by three dudes who jumped me because of sitting at the wrong table and being white, in High School. I've been stopped by the police for driving in neighborhoods that weren't majority white and asked "what I was doing there", and "if I was looking for prostitutes." So maybe you can take your assumptions about me and shove them someplace, because they're clearly inaccurate.

Hell, disabled people have privileges I don't have: they can park in closer spots, they can access rides without lines at many amusement parks, in some cases they can get money without having to do anything additional. I mean those aren't necessarily bad things, they are, however, advantages.



You will never have a problem going to the 13th floor in a building that only has stairs for exemple and that's a privilege you have over someone who uses a wheelchair. it's not about feeling guilt it's about being humple enougth to say you have an innate advantage over other people and you didn't have to do anything to get that advantage.

But again, I don't have that advantage. As I said in the "Race Video" I would have only been able to take two steps forward the whole time. So... maybe not so privileged.

[WarKitty]

To be fair, you've managed to separate those out pretty clearly here, and explain them without needing to really go into detail about experience.

To be fair, as somebody who had severe depression at one point. Exercise can really help sometimes. It wasn't something that I could have done when I was hospitalized, but soon after I managed to start doing that and it really helped me recover. So I don't think that's necessarily a case of "checking privilege" in all cases, like for me it worked. And I was suicidal and hospitalized, so that's as bad as it gets. So it's more a case of realizing that not everything works for everybody. Of course I was also medicated which really helped there too and that came first.

Upon reflection, I've also found the situations where I wanted to invoke the concept of privilege to be ones where there seemed to be a certain amount of skepticism to begin with. So to use the sexual harassment example, having long discussions on the "right" way to say no in order to be listened to, even after I've said "I don't get listened to when I say no." Because the person is not really accepting what I say - it's always worked for them, so I must be doing something differently than what they're doing. Whereas I'm trying to say, no, the situation itself is different for me, so I could do the exact same thing you do any not get the same results, and I think it's because as a woman I am not seen in the same way that a man would be.


Even I think that's wrong in most cases. Who are you, or anyone, to decide how much is more than someone needs? Is there an algorithm you use to plug that in?

There are in fact such algorithms.

But that aside - I think it's a mistake to say that if we can't 100% quantify something we can't have any idea at all. I can say easily enough that, for example, most middle class americans have easy access to buy far more food than they would ever need without breaking the budget.


I will say where the experience can be used correctly... As I have earlier, although probably not so explicitly.

1.) As an inspiration for self-reflection, since you know your own experiences you can use the phrase to examine your own life.

2.) With a close friend with whom you are intimately familiar, and even then you should be careful. Since your friend may have experiences of which you are unaware.

The problem is that doesn't give you any way of fixing anything if the people causing the problems aren't close, intimate friends with the people dealing with the problems. Again, I think there are a lot of things that are real problems that can't be quantified and pinned down and separated from the personal experiences of those dealing with them. If I want to explain to a guy why he shouldn't shout "hey, looking sexy lady!" out his car window at a woman, I'm probably going to have to appeal to personal experience - that both I and many women I know experience that sort of thing as part of a pattern of objectification.

[Amazon]

AMFV But that's the the thing just becuase you have privilege in certain areas doesn't mean you are privilege in all areas you just need to be willing to adimit that just as you are underprivileged in some aspects other people are too.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

What I am doing is presenting a counterpoint to your opinion. Which should not inherently devalue it, but refute it. Or at least that's the goal.
Precisely. And "check your privilege" does the same - indicate that an argument used does not apply to the current circumstances.


Also again, the problem is that you are assuming privilege,
Excuse me? why are you making this about me? When have I, Grey Wolf, "assumed privilege"?

This, what you are doing right now, this is an ad hominem and an attempt to dismiss my opinion by creating a strawman. Think otherwise? Quote one of my posts where I have, in your opinion, "assumed a privilege". Otherwise, admit that you are crafting a strawman.

Honestly, you have done far more to politicise this topic which is about the meaning of a phrase than anyone else.


again what about somebody who is in my situation, who by most metrics isn't very privileged but I'm still of the race that would make me considered privileged by most folks using that particular phrasing. So it's often used in a situation where it would not apply.
I do not know you from Adam. For all I know, no-one has ever used this phrase talking about you, and you have just made up this argument to bolster your position. But whether you made it up or not, it fails to in any way refute my statements about the phrase itself. Instead, it relies on assuming that I misuse the phrase, to which I repeat: it is irrelevant how many people misuse the phrase. The phrase means what it means, and it can be used in a fairly common scenario. It might not be the most detailed or polite, but it does describe a common argumentative scenario where an argument may apply to others but not to the listener due to differences in privilege.


I will say where the experience can be used correctly... As I have earlier, although probably not so explicitly.

1.) As an inspiration for self-reflection, since you know your own experiences you can use the phrase to examine your own life.

2.) With a close friend with whom you are intimately familiar, and even then you should be careful. Since your friend may have experiences of which you are unaware.

Or 3) situations such as the one I used as my own example. The fact that other situations might exist do not in any way lessen the example I gave.

Grey Wolf

[AMFV]

Upon reflection, I've also found the situations where I wanted to invoke the concept of privilege to be ones where there seemed to be a certain amount of skepticism to begin with. So to use the sexual harassment example, having long discussions on the "right" way to say no in order to be listened to, even after I've said "I don't get listened to when I say no." Because the person is not really accepting what I say - it's always worked for them, so I must be doing something differently than what they're doing. Whereas I'm trying to say, no, the situation itself is different for me, so I could do the exact same thing you do any not get the same results, and I think it's because as a woman I am not seen in the same way that a man would be.


But those sort of people aren't likely to be swayed by you telling them to "Check Their Privilege" if anything that's going to make them very angry and defensive. Particularly if your assumptions about them are in some way wrong or unfounded. Since you have to make a set of assumptions about them to tell them that.



The problem is that doesn't give you any way of fixing anything if the people causing the problems aren't close, intimate friends with the people dealing with the problems. Again, I think there are a lot of things that are real problems that can't be quantified and pinned down and separated from the personal experiences of those dealing with them. If I want to explain to a guy why he shouldn't shout "hey, looking sexy lady!" out his car window at a woman, I'm probably going to have to appeal to personal experience - that both I and many women I know experience that sort of thing as part of a pattern of objectification.

I'm going to be brutally honest. If the person who you are talking to is not yourself or a close friend, and isn't listening to you already making valid points. There is not a thing you can say, and "Check Your Privilege" is likely to be the worst thing you could say.


AMFV But that's the the thing just becuase you have privilege in certain areas doesn't mean you are privilege in all areas you just need to be willing to adimit that just as you are underprivileged in some aspects other people are too.

I don't think I've ever argued that all people were privileged. Only that I, myself, was less privileged than people tend to assume, especially the people that would use that phrasing.


Precisely. And "check your privilege" does the same - indicate that an argument used does not apply to the current circumstances.

But you're not using it in good faith unless you know about the other person's privileges and that requires that the person be you or somebody you know closely.



Excuse me? why are you making this about me? When have I, Grey Wolf, "assumed privilege"?

Because if you have used the phrase then you HAVE to by definition have assumed the other person had privilege. PERIOD. Or you are misusing the phrase or incorrectly applying it. You might be psychic and able to tell other people's life story by looking at them, but I'd bet a shiny hundred dollar bill that you can't.

That when you said "Check Your Privilege" you were talking to people of whose actual privilege you were likely uncertain.



This, what you are doing right now, this is an ad hominem and an attempt to dismiss my opinion by creating a strawman. Think otherwise? Quote one of my posts where I have, in your opinion, "assumed a privilege". Otherwise, admit that you are crafting a strawman.

You admitted to using the phrase "Check Your Privilege" with people that you do not know well. Ergo you've assumed their privilege period. Are we done with weaseling here?

Edit: I mean look at Amazon, she assumed (incorrectly) that I had never had issues because of my race, sexual affiliation, or able-bodiedness and was definitely wrong on that number.



Honestly, you have done far more to politicise this topic which is about the meaning of a phrase than anyone else.

That was not my intention and I have strived to avoid doing that as best I can, but the fact is that this phrase has a strong political context, which I have tried to dance around as best as I can.



I do not know you for Jack. For all I know, no-one has ever used this phrase talking about you, and you have just made up this argument to bolster your position. But whether you made it up or not, it fails to in any way refute my statements about the phrase itself. Instead, it relies on assuming that I misuse the phrase, to which I repeat: it is irrelevant how many people misuse the phrase. The phrase means what it means.

But you have, because you have assumed a set of privileges for people against whom you used that phrase, which may not be accurate.



Or 3) situations such as the one I used as my own example. The fact that other situations might exist do not in any way lessen the example I gave.

Grey Wolf

Yes, it does. Because you are not using the phrase in good faith, because you do not know the other person's privileges or life history.

[Razade]

There are in fact such algorithms.

To be sure. It was more of a pithy comment in that even if they are, their effectiveness seems dubious at best. Even if they were 100% (which nothing is or could be) effective (and I'd wager they're not even breaking 10% on their best day) they're guidelines at best and Orwellian at worst.


But that aside - I think it's a mistake to say that if we can't 100% quantify something we can't have any idea at all. I can say easily enough that, for example, most middle class Americans have easy access to buy far more food than they would ever need without breaking the budget.


I do too. Which is why I never said it in the first place nor would I say it.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Because if you have used the phrase then you HAVE to by definition have assumed the other person had privilege. PERIOD.

For the record, I consider it valid to make assumptions made on the basis of what a person's statement reveals. If someone, as I exemplified, makes light of expensive purchases, making the assumption that said person has a monetary privilege is not somehow invalid, but instead is a perfectly reasonable deduction to make based on their own words.

That said, you are telling others they can't use a phrase because it assumes things about others beyond what you consider proper, while making assumptions about me. Your hypocrisy is quite something. I'm done with you.

GW

[WarKitty]

The worry I'm having is we're getting to the point where there simply is no way that's not seen as rude and off-putting to have any sort of important discussion about social issues with anyone you don't know intimately, unless you can put it into something you can quantify.

That is not workable. Many very important social issues can't be easily quantified. And sometimes there is no way at all to make a point to someone without saying no, your experience doesn't apply here, because you're assuming how things work for you is how they work for someone else and that isn't the case.

You cannot make a change if every way you could realistically engage with someone who doesn't understand is seen as rude.

[AMFV]

For the record, I consider it valid to make assumptions made on the basis of what a person's statement reveals. If someone, as I exemplified, makes light of expensive purchases, making the assumption that said person has a monetary privilege is not somehow invalid, but instead is a perfectly reasonable deduction to make based on their own words.

I've known people on welfare that definitely made light of expensive purchases, sometimes buying things on credit or that they could not afford. So maybe not a good assumption. Again, you are making a deduction that is not necessarily something that is borne out in practice. And that is the problem with this phrase.

Like Amazon's reference to "they should just get a job". Yes, I've heard snobby rich kids say that. But I've also heard formerly poor blue collar workers say it. So assuming that somebody has a certain background based on certain phrases is probably really not a great bet.



That said, you are telling others they can't use a phrase because it assumes things about others beyond what you consider proper, while making assumptions about me. Your hypocrisy is quite something. I'm done with you.

GW

I have not made a single assumptions. You've admitted to using the phrase. Ergo you've made assumptions about others. That is NOT an assumption, unless you are misusing the phrase that is the case.

[Keltest]

The worry I'm having is we're getting to the point where there simply is no way that's not seen as rude and off-putting to have any sort of important discussion about social issues with anyone you don't know intimately, unless you can put it into something you can quantify.

That is not workable. Many very important social issues can't be easily quantified. And sometimes there is no way at all to make a point to someone without saying no, your experience doesn't apply here, because you're assuming how things work for you is how they work for someone else and that isn't the case.

You cannot make a change if every way you could realistically engage with someone who doesn't understand is seen as rude.

I think theres a difference between dismissing somebody's idea as not workable and explaining that theyre starting from the wrong place, and casually dismissing somebody with a three word passive-aggressive phrase. Regardless of whether you mean it that way, if you tell somebody to "check your privilege" then you are basically telling them to shush and let the grown ups have their conversation. You aren't engaging anybody that way. Yeah, somebody might still come away offended from the first method, but that's as much their problem as it is yours, because you made an effort to engage them and they still decided the very idea youre espousing was offensive. But with the latter way, youre pushing them out of that conversation, telling them they cant meaningfully participate (or more precisely, that you wont let them), and that is definitely your fault if you do that.

[WarKitty]

I think theres a difference between dismissing somebody's idea as not workable and explaining that theyre starting from the wrong place, and casually dismissing somebody with a three word passive-aggressive phrase. Regardless of whether you mean it that way, if you tell somebody to "check your privilege" then you are basically telling them to shush and let the grown ups have their conversation. You aren't engaging anybody that way. Yeah, somebody might still come away offended from the first method, but that's as much their problem as it is yours, because you made an effort to engage them and they still decided the very idea youre espousing was offensive. But with the latter way, youre pushing them out of that conversation, telling them they cant meaningfully participate (or more precisely, that you wont let them), and that is definitely your fault if you do that.

I'll be honest, I've really never seen the specific phrase "check your privilege" very often by people who actually mean it (as opposed to those who are mocking the idea of privilege). When I have seen it, it's generally been in spaces where people are already on board with the idea of privilege.

But I've found no matter how you explain it, there's really no way to say "your experience is leading you to the wrong conclusion" that isn't largely read as "you're not letting me participate." And you do need a fairly quick way of saying "we're not going over your opinion right now," because in my experience the other alternative is that you will never get anything done except answering slight variations on objections from people who don't really get it, and what you actually have to say will get buried by the people who are insisting they don't want to be silenced.

[AMFV]

I'll be honest, I've really never seen the specific phrase "check your privilege" very often by people who actually mean it (as opposed to those who are mocking the idea of privilege). When I have seen it, it's generally been in spaces where people are already on board with the idea of privilege.


Which is still problematic, because again, you're still making assumptions about other people's experiences based on their conclusions and opinions. Not their actual experiences.



But I've found no matter how you explain it, there's really no way to say "your experience is leading you to the wrong conclusion" that isn't largely read as "you're not letting me participate." And you do need a fairly quick way of saying "we're not going over your opinion right now," because in my experience the other alternative is that you will never get anything done except answering slight variations on objections from people who don't really get it, and what you actually have to say will get buried by the people who are insisting they don't want to be silenced.

So you're explicitly admitting that what you want out of the situation is to silence them? Also you're not accounting for situations where somebody with a similar experience might have a differing conclusion. That's a very poor approach I think. Especially when you don't know the person you're talking to's situation.

It's a very easy leap from "you don't have the experience to make these conclusions" to "anybody with differing opinions from mine must not know what they're talking about" and that's the problem with that phrase and it's idea. I mean if your real problem is answering the same question over and over again, you can say something like "well that's already been addressed..." or so forth and so on.

[S@tanicoaldo]

I think the problem is that for this phrase to work people need to acknowledge the concept of racial inequality and some people just don't think racism is a thing so they are not "on the same page".

Is like talking about round planets to someone who thinks earth is flat, they have two diferent takes on reality so they can't have a conversation, since that conversation depends on the notion and premise that earth is round.

[WarKitty]

So you're explicitly admitting that what you want out of the situation is to silence them? Also you're not accounting for situations where somebody with a similar experience might have a differing conclusion. That's a very poor approach I think. Especially when you don't know the person you're talking to's situation.

I mean, the problem there is more that if you have a lot of people, eventually you're going to hit the point where someone will be silenced, unless you are going to sit there until literally everyone who wants to say anything has said it (and you have the energy to deal with every single person who has something to say). That's not always a realistic thing. If you're talking about an experience that's common to a group that's a minority where you are, then if you just go by everyone gets a voice what ends up happening is the majority who haven't had that experience drown out the minority who have.

There is not and cannot be a space that's open to everyone and everyone at all is allowed to share there opinion whenever and no one is ever silenced - it would be a chaos of whoever can push their opinion with the most energy. What we're saying is what's been happening is that many groups who are not privileged are the ones getting silenced, but those doing the silencing aren't noticing because they are hearing the people they know and are used to hearing.

[AMFV]

I think the problem is that for this phrase to work people need to acknowledge the concept of racial inequality and some people just don't think racism is a thing so they are not "on the same page".

Is like talking about round planets to someone who thinks earth is flat, they have two diferent takes on reality so they can't have a conversation, since that conversation depends on the notion and premise that earth is round.

The problem is that there are people who have a lot of racially charged viewpoints who don't realize that not all problems link back to racism. "Checking your privilege" assumes that people of a certain background will have it worse. Do you think that a child of Caucasian meth addicts is going to have an easier life than Jayden Smith? I mean I can tell you that is not the case. (Not from my experience in this case, but from general processing).

And wanting a more nuanced view doesn't equate to "not believing racism is a thing". It's a desire to have an actual nuanced discussion.


I mean, the problem there is more that if you have a lot of people, eventually you're going to hit the point where someone will be silenced, unless you are going to sit there until literally everyone who wants to say anything has said it (and you have the energy to deal with every single person who has something to say). That's not always a realistic thing. If you're talking about an experience that's common to a group that's a minority where you are, then if you just go by everyone gets a voice what ends up happening is the majority who haven't had that experience drown out the minority who have.

But a discussion isn't a shouting mob, or shouldn't. And the goal of discourse should be to have all viewpoints recognized and examined. You're admitting that you're rejecting things out of hand, that's not a good way to develop and is going to eventually result in solid points being bowled over and ignored.

And what's worse, again you haven't addressed the problem of the fact that asking somebody to check their privileged has to do with your assumptions about that person's background and views. And those may not be accurate. And you're then moving to silence those people based on those assumptions, that's a big deal particularly if those are predicated in something like gender or race.



There is not and cannot be a space that's open to everyone and everyone at all is allowed to share there opinion whenever and no one is ever silenced - it would be a chaos of whoever can push their opinion with the most energy. What we're saying is what's been happening is that many groups who are not privileged are the ones getting silenced, but those doing the silencing aren't noticing because they are hearing the people they know and are used to hearing.

Well no, you normally take turns stating points, or at least that's how it should be, if it's a proper discourse. Also you're making some pretty broad assumptions about what other people are or aren't noticing. And that's problematic as well.

[Rain Dragon]

I think in most contexts the phrase by itself is difficult to use because of the aforementioned problems of making an assumption that may be harmful to the conversation, making the listener feel silenced when that isn't the case and plenty more. If you're already in a heated discussion where someone isn't understanding the situation properly the phrase alone isn't likely to have an effect.

But!
I think the sentiment especially as explained in the first few posts is valuable and I've heard (and might have said) things that are roughly similar to try to come to an understanding.

Because of these things the phrase isn't one I would use over something like 'Hey, could you listen a sec to a story?' or 'I have an analogy that might help' or even 'Just imagine (blank)'.

[WarKitty]

But a discussion isn't a shouting mob, or shouldn't. And the goal of discourse should be to have all viewpoints recognized and examined. You're admitting that you're rejecting things out of hand, that's not a good way to develop and is going to eventually result in solid points being bowled over and ignored.

Well no, you normally take turns stating points, or at least that's how it should be, if it's a proper discourse. Also you're making some pretty broad assumptions about what other people are or aren't noticing. And that's problematic as well.

Who gets to be the representative of each viewpoint? Who gets to decide what counts as an individual viewpoint? Who gets to take those turns? If there are 5 men and one woman (which is far fairer than the gender roles I got in academia), that one woman's voice is going to be drowned out pretty quickly if you're insisting that everyone get an even share. And it's often made worse - there are studies that women do often get interrupted or cut off much more frequently than men, and men by and large don't notice when this is happening, so they get the idea that it's a fair discussion when it's not.

There's also a fatigue aspect. Not every discussion is without consequences. To use a completely over the top example, suppose I was regularly dealing with people arguing that I should not attend university due to my gender. And every time there was a discussion about the experience of women in the university, someone wanted to come in and present their argument as to why women shouldn't be attending university. I think you could see where the women would feel that at some point, dealing with that same argument every time prevented them from ever moving past it.

[Tvtyrant]

I think the phrase is perfectly viable between intimates. If my grandparent or a psychologist I went to told me I should check my privelege on an opinion it would provoke thoughtful discussion.

With a stranger it is worthless. We don't know anything real about each other, and it reduces human experience to categories.

[Zebalas]

Do you think that a child of Caucasian meth addicts is going to have an easier life than Jayden Smith? I mean I can tell you that is not the case. (Not from my experience in this case, but from general processing).
But economic class is also a source of privilege.

Besides imagine if that kid was black, don't you think he's going to have a even harder time?
Dealing with racism, poverty and the addiction of his parents. In that sense the Caucasian kid is "privileged" not that he has it easy but that he won't have to deal with one of the things the black kid will have to face.

[Razade]

Who gets to be the representative of each viewpoint? Who gets to decide what counts as an individual viewpoint? Who gets to take those turns? If there are 5 men and one woman (which is far fairer than the gender roles I got in academia), that one woman's voice is going to be drowned out pretty quickly if you're insisting that everyone get an even share. And it's often made worse - there are studies that women do often get interrupted or cut off much more frequently than men, and men by and large don't notice when this is happening, so they get the idea that it's a fair discussion when it's not.


Does their gender or their race have anything to do with the discussion? If the five of you are talking about building a bridge, why does it matter that the lone woman have an "unequel voice"? Should a man, regardless of the context of the conversation, count for a fraction of a woman dependent on their make up? Should those four men building the bridge be 1/4th a person so that the split in gender is even? If there were ten men and ten women would the men count as one person?

[Tvtyrant]

But economic class is also a source of privilege.

Besides imagine if that kid was black, don't you think he's going to have a even harder time?
Dealing with racism, poverty and the addiction of his parents. In that sense the Caucasian kid is "privileged" not that he has it easy but that he won't have to deal with one of the things the black kid will have to face.

And there we have it. All people are really just categories of misery, and individual experiences are unimportant.

For instance, there is no way a white kid could be savagely beaten by his hispanic neighbors for his skin color, or chased up against a fence and stoned, or be excluded from his largely latino schools' culture. It is simply categorical.

[BannedInSchool]

I think the problem is that for this phrase to work people need to acknowledge the concept of racial inequality and some people just don't think racism is a thing so they are not "on the same page".

Even before that they have to already understand what's being said, as a three-word phrase doesn't convey any of the intended meaning unless you've already been initiated into its mysteries. One might as well be saying "go @#$% yourself" because that's going to be the conveyed message without the whole context which is not necessarily shared.

[Zebalas]

And there we have it. All people are really just categories of misery, and individual experiences are unimportant.

For instance, there is no way a white kid could be savagely beaten by his hispanic neighbors for his skin color, or chased up against a fence and stoned, or be excluded from his largely latino schools' culture. It is simply categorical.
Bullying is bad sure, but we are talking about social and systemic oppression here, both are terrible but just not in the same level.

[Tvtyrant]

Bullying is bad sure, but we are talking about social and systemic oppression here, both are terrible but just not in the same level.

Sure. Like if I had comitted suicide from constant harassment it would be less awful then growing up in one of the gangs that harassed me.

[Zebalas]

Sure. Like if I had comitted suicide from constant harassment it would be less awful then growing up in one of the gangs that harassed me.

Without social and systemic oppression there would not be gangs in the first place.

[Rain Dragon]

Does their gender or their race have anything to do with the discussion? If the five of you are talking about building a bridge, why does it matter that the lone woman have an "unequel voice"? Should a man, regardless of the context of the conversation, count for a fraction of a woman dependent on their make up? Should those four men building the bridge be 1/4th a person so that the split in gender is even? If there were ten men and ten women would the men count as one person?

I think that part of the post makes the most sense paired with the example below it.

If we're talking about building a physical bridge, then gender likely doesn't help build the bridge. Being the only bridge engineer out of the five people however would.
If we're talking about womens' experience in a university then the men likely won't have the first hand experience of going to a university as a woman.

It's important then that those five people whether building a bridge or improving university life for a group listen to the different ideas and weight them properly within the context rather than try to create a universal thing for every situation.

Going back to the bridge example with four people with average knowledge of bridges and one bridge engineer, if the engineer can get across that they are a bridge engineer, this is how they'd build this bridge and this is why it improves the bridge then the other four people have learned how to build a better bridge and can spread the bridge building word after it works.
But if they say hey, the majority have said build the bridge this way without properly looking at that context then the bridge is more likely to be a worse bridge than if they could properly understand and explore the engineer's likely many ideas and experiences on building a bridge. (Not to say any of the four's bridge ideas wouldn't also improve the bridge, but that the balance doesn't have to be split exactly 1/5 in planning for there to be a balanced bridge building experience!)

[Tvtyrant]

Without social and systemic oppression there would not be gangs in the first place.
Like the poor oppressed Irish and Italian mobs? Or the systemically and socially White biker gangs? What social and systemic oppression do you believe leads to mercenaries and cartels?

Heck, Fraternities are the definition of privelege and are identical to gangs. Initiation rights, drugs, violence.

[Zebalas]

Like the poor oppressed Irish and Italian mobs? Or the systemically and socially White biker gangs? What social and systemic oppression do you believe leads to mercenaries and cartels?

Hey you are the one saying they are the same thing. You tell me.

[Tvtyrant]

Hey you are the one saying they are the same thing. You tell me.

See Frats above. Gangs are just a basic form of human organization, and are found in all classes of society. I'm going to need some evidence that their formation is from oppression when occupied by minorities but not when white biker gangs are formed.

[Zebalas]

See Frats above. Gangs are just a basic form of human organization, and are found in all classes of society. I'm going to need some evidence that their formation is from oppression when occupied by minorities but not when white biker gangs are formed.

Gang activity is very prevalent in lower income neighborhoods and ethnic ghettos where underprivileged children are often recruited. Economic hardships often fall on families with children under the age of 18. Poverty stricken adolescences commonly resort to gangs because a gang can give youth a sense of control and a way to make money. Youth that are craving a role model can seek this out in a gang.

[WarKitty]

I think that part of the post makes the most sense paired with the example below it.

If we're talking about building a physical bridge, then gender likely doesn't help build the bridge. Being the only bridge engineer out of the five people however would.
If we're talking about womens' experience in a university then the men likely won't have the first hand experience of going to a university as a woman.

It's important then that those five people whether building a bridge or improving university life for a group listen to the different ideas and weight them properly within the context rather than try to create a universal thing for every situation.

Going back to the bridge example with four people with average knowledge of bridges and one bridge engineer, if the engineer can get across that they are a bridge engineer, this is how they'd build this bridge and this is why it improves the bridge then the other four people have learned how to build a better bridge and can spread the bridge building word after it works.
But if they say hey, the majority have said build the bridge this way without properly looking at that context then the bridge is more likely to be a worse bridge than if they could properly understand and explore the engineer's likely many ideas and experiences on building a bridge. (Not to say any of the four's bridge ideas wouldn't also improve the bridge, but that the balance doesn't have to be split exactly 1/5 in planning for there to be a balanced bridge building experience!)

Right - I'm presuming a discussion where the experience and/or treatment of the minority is the topic at hand. Presumably the 5 men do in fact not know as much about the experience of women in a university setting compared to the actual woman. They may have useful things to contribute! But they may also bring a lot of stuff that's really not useful because of the perspective it's coming from (the perpetual "I don't want to be harassed" vs "how can I meet women" comes to mind).


I thought that Universities were majority women now.

In any case, since the '90's when it required a faculty or student I'D to read the books I've*wanted the University ended, and the educators sent to schools, and the books to public libraries, instead of hoarding knowledge for an elite.

Varies a lot by field. I was thinking primarily of graduate school too - there tends not to be near as much interaction between departments as well, so your particular field's statistics tend to have more effect than statistics on women as a whole.

[Zebalas]

To read books? That's absurd. Nowadays you only need ID to take books but you can read them just fine.

Denay acess to books is like contradictory to the purpose of a library.

[WarKitty]

To read books? That's absurd. Nowadays you only need ID to take books but you can read them just fine.

Denay acess to books is like contradictory to the purpose of a library.

It's the journals that are hard - a lot of them require a university login.

[Zebalas]

It's the journals that are hard - a lot of them require a university login.

That's true but I don't think people not involved in academia really want to read journals.

[2D8HP]

...I WAS PHYSICALLY ATTACKED BECAUSE OF MY RACE[...] I was attacked by three dudes who jumped me[...]in High School. I'


Not me. I was punched unconscience by a group of guys, across the street from my high school instead.

No slurs were uttered, I was sucker punched, but since they were all of a similar shade that I was not, and since I'd grown up hearing those slurs, I assume that it waa racial, but who knows?

That was the experience of most every guy I grew up with, no matter their skin shade (not the girls, they mostly didn't get punched, they suffered other forms of harassment).

The slurs and punches would come either from someone bigger, or in a group.

Thing is all my friends suffered, even the mixed kids who you'd think would be spared.

One big difference was that my black friends would get hit by grown men when they were teenagers, but for my white friends they mostly got hit by teenagers when they were kids (a lot to not miss about the '70's and '80's).

By late July, me and the other neighborhood kids, 3/4's of which were not my skin shade, would all play elaborate games of hide and go seek, tag, and pretending that we were members of the same team of dubbed Japanese heroes that we all watched on "Captain Cosmic" where we would climb fences all over the block (sometimes having to run from dogs), and there was little racial strife (except for music sometimes).

Sweet summer days.

Come September, and school and the strife would start.

Not with kids from the block, and seldom with kids in the same class, but other classes?

Yes.

The bigger the school, and the more strangers, the more you had to "mind the territories"

Eventually I walked out of high school forever and woukd go to first the public library, and then two miles up the road to the University libraries instead (when I was big enough to pass for a college student).

How I envied the college students books and bathrooms with stall doors and paper.


[...]For a personal example - some of the conversations about street harassment I've been in. I've heard all the lines about how "I'd love it if women randomly hit on me, what's the big deal"[..]


Those guys are ignorant idiots, who lack basic empathy and imagination, memory, and maybe eyes?

My friends who were girls were already getting followed and "flashed" in 6th grade, and I remember when me and a friend (another teenager) were waiting for the BART train and some old guy would "hit on" her while I was right there, plus the times when creepy old guys would hit on me as well.

How can those guys your talking about think that would be welcome?

Did they came from all boys schools in small towns?


[...]The second problem is that when I've seen that phrase used it's NEVER used to try to move the conversation.


I'm guessing that "Check your privilege" is like calling someone a "SJW", or "virtue signaler" and is a way of announcing tribal affiliation, and telling someone of the "other tribe" to be silent.

I mean, except for an elite group, the vast majority of people are struggling too hard to get what they have to feel very privileged, even when they see others getting a worse deal.


We as humans tend to judge life using our own experiences as a medium and a lens, that doesn't work all the time because we tend to assume lots of things....


I sure do!


I've heard it in person.


I must be privileged than, because I haven't.



The worry I'm having is we're getting to the point where there simply is no way that's not seen as rude and off-putting to have any sort of important discussion about social issues with anyone you don't know intimately, unless you can put it into something you can quantify.

That is not workable. Many very important social issues can't be easily quantified. And sometimes there is no way at all to make a point to someone without saying no, your experience doesn't apply here, because you're assuming how things work for you is how they work for someone else and that isn't the case.

You cannot make a change if every way you could realistically engage with someone who doesn't understand is seen as rude.


Um... progress is always seen as rude, otherwise it would already happen, many examples come to mind, but....


Virtue signal is mostly a phrase used by the extreme opposite group. So it's used by even still another group....


Different "tribe" otherwise much the same type of usage, AFAICT.


Who gets to be the representative of each viewpoint? Who gets to decide what counts as an individual viewpoint? Who gets to take those turns? If there are 5 men and one woman (which is far fairer than the gender roles I got in academia), that one woman's voice is going to be drowned out pretty quickly if you're insisting that everyone get an even share. And it's often made worse - there are studies that women do often get interrupted or cut off much more frequently than men, and men by and large don't notice when this is happening, so they get the idea that it's a fair discussion when it's not.

There's also a fatigue aspect. Not every discussion is without consequences. To use a completely over the top example, suppose I was regularly dealing with people arguing that I should not attend university due to my gender. And every time there was a discussion about the experience of women in the university, someone wanted to come in and present their argument as to why women shouldn't be attending university. I think you could see where the women would feel that at some point, dealing with that same argument every time prevented them from ever moving past it.


:confused:

I thought that Universities were majority women now.

In any case, since the '90's when it required a faculty or student I'D to read the books I've wanted the University ended, and the educators sent to schools, and the books to public libraries, instead of hoarding knowledge for an elite.

EDIT:


...Varies a lot by field. I was thinking primarily of graduate school too - there tends not to be near as much interaction between departments as well, so your particular field's statistics tend to have more effect than statistics on women as a whole.


That makes sense.

Still it's hard for me to see anyone who gets to be a University student as anything other than privileged, a privilege I wish we all could enjoy.


To read books? That's absurd. Nowadays you only need ID to take books but you can read them just fine.

Denay acess to books is like contradictory to the purpose of a library.


Nope, ID to enter, besides I'd like those books to be fully available to everyone, like most public library books.

To me Universities are the privileged making their children (and a very few tokens) more privileged.

I hope I'm not overstepping, but I'd like education (and the time and safety to get one) be a common birthright.

Let kids have a quiet and safe place to read, and maybe teachers who teach things besides organized violence!


It's the journals that are hard - a lot of them require a university login.


That's true but I don't think people not involved in academia really want to read journals.


So say the knowledge hoarders.

Some of the happiest moments of my life were at the Doe library, and the Morrison reading room, and the bastards took that away so that only a selected elite could use them.
FURTHER EDIT:
Check YOUR privilege

Sorry Zeblas, though was rude of me, and I assumed that local conditions apply elsewhere.

For all I know maybe Universities in your area teach the public and allow people to read the works they contain.

[WarKitty]

Still it's hard for me to see anyone who gets to be a University student as anything other than privileged, a privilege I wish we all could enjoy.

Nope, ID to enter, besides I'd like those books to be fully available to everyone, like most public library books.

To me Universities are the privileged making their children (and a very few tokens) more privileged.

I hope I'm not overstepping, but I'd like education (and the time and safety to get one) be a common birthright.

Let kids have a quiet and safe place to read, and maybe teachers who teach things besides organized violence!

Privilege is a relative concept. So I can (an am) be privileged by being born in a middle class family where I had the education and backing to get into university. At the same time I definitely got the sense that once I was there, there were distinct disadvantages for me as a woman. And I know of women who were driven out by sexual harassment.

Privilege is very rarely an all or nothing thing. It's more like there's a bunch of different axes and you can be more or less privileged on any given one, but they're also interconnected in weird ways.

[2D8HP]

Privilege is a relative concept. So I can (an am) be privileged by being born in a middle class family where I had the education and backing to get into university. At the same time I definitely got the sense that once I was there, there were distinct disadvantages for me as a woman. And I know of women who were driven out by sexual harassment.

Privilege is very rarely an all or nothing thing. It's more like there's a bunch of different axes and you can be more or less privileged on any given one, but they're also interconnected in weird ways.


Your right about women being harassed enough to fear being outside alone, I heard the tales and even saw it happen to my friends.

Boys get bullied and harassed as well, but that doesn't change that it's mostly males doing the punching.

It would've been nice if adults would stop the punching instead of organizing it.

[Vinyadan]

The worry I'm having is we're getting to the point where there simply is no way that's not seen as rude and off-putting to have any sort of important discussion about social issues with anyone you don't know intimately, unless you can put it into something you can quantify.

That is not workable. Many very important social issues can't be easily quantified. And sometimes there is no way at all to make a point to someone without saying no, your experience doesn't apply here, because you're assuming how things work for you is how they work for someone else and that isn't the case.

You cannot make a change if every way you could realistically engage with someone who doesn't understand is seen as rude.

Isn't that how it should be? It's one thing to discuss matters, but it's a different thing to try and convert people to abandon their ways. Assume that someone came to you and told you "you aren't a good xxxxxx, because..." The first thing I would think is "What does he want? He knows nothing about me or my life!"

Making a discussion in general and then asking, "do you recognize yourself in this?", sounds much better to me, because, this way, you are letting the other person talk about the subject that she undoubtedly knows better than you: herself. And then you can explain that it isn't like that for everyone.

[Florian]

It's possible that it could be used well, but again it's important to remember that because somebody comes from a position you PRESUME to be privileged does not make that the case in absolute.

I think I can understand what you're trying to say there. Correct me if I'm wrong: "Don't presume that any white cis male has privileges because he is a white cis male". If I'm right, then I generally agree with you.

But also keep in mind that debating culture and hot topics are very different between the U.S. and the EU and a lot of the stuff that swaps over is simply.... odd.

For example, something that comes up in local public discussions a lot lately, is the question "What's up with the east?" (referencing to eastern Germany, the former DDR, alternatively to the eastern EU member states). This is generally asked from a privileged position, because the underlying question really is "Why is the east not like us?". So "check your privileges" is the correct answer to it.



Privilege is very rarely an all or nothing thing.

Depends on the scale of things. I am privileged to have grown up in a functioning democracy. I know that because a good third of my fellow countrymen have grown up in what was basically a dictatorship.
I am privileged because I grew up in a country with free universal healthcare and free universal education, but also with the option to switch back and forth to a privately paid version of both. I know that because I've been in countries that have either/or, but not both.

This are very real privileges that actually matter and that some people are so used to, they forget they have them.

[Razade]

If we're talking about building a physical bridge, then gender likely doesn't help build the bridge. Being the only bridge engineer out of the five people however would.

Barring any metaphysical bridges you want to bring into the situation, with you 100%.


If we're talking about womens' experience in a university then the men likely won't have the first hand experience of going to a university as a woman.

Right. Now here's the follow up. Does that disqualify those four men from speaking about the issue? Because unlike building a bridge, you don't have to go to university to be a woman in a university. Meaning, there's no classes for it. It's just a state of being and maybe one or all four of those men have known OTHER women in OTHER universities and feel they have some feedback to give. Are they allowed? Do they have to check their privilege of being a male while giving advice other women have given them? Because it's all anecdotal at this stage of the game right? It's all personal experience so does Women A's experiences trump Man B's mother's experiences that he witnessesed and discussed with her?

Where do we draw the line. Obviously not one for every situation but that's what at lot of people are proposing. Not you. You're not proposing that but people like AMVF are discussing those people.


It's important then that those five people whether building a bridge or improving university life for a group listen to the different ideas and weight them properly within the context rather than try to create a universal thing for every situation.

Indeed, that's certainly reasonable. I won't ask you to answer for people proposing a universal setting.


Going back to the bridge example with four people with average knowledge of bridges and one bridge engineer, if the engineer can get across that they are a bridge engineer, this is how they'd build this bridge and this is why it improves the bridge then the other four people have learned how to build a better bridge and can spread the bridge building word after it works.

Sure, the person has more qualifications maybe. But they can still be wrong. Experiences doesn't make one an expert. So to de-couple this. Just because a woman is a woman in a University that doesn't mean a man isn't wrong when giving a solution or weighing in on options to help improve the situation. So why check their privilege if their suggestion is correct?


But if they say hey, the majority have said build the bridge this way without properly looking at that context then the bridge is more likely to be a worse bridge than if they could properly understand and explore the engineer's likely many ideas and experiences on building a bridge. (Not to say any of the four's bridge ideas wouldn't also improve the bridge, but that the balance doesn't have to be split exactly 1/5 in planning for there to be a balanced bridge building experience!)

Right but what if it's the reverse like asked above? What if the one person is wrong and they're just talking out their butt? Or adding qualifications they don't have or their experiences don't align with reality or any other number of variables.


Being a woman doesn't inherently make you the spokesperson of all women's issues in a University. It just makes you the spokesperson of you.

[Rain Dragon]

Does that disqualify those four men from speaking about the issue?
Do they have to check their privilege of being a male while giving advice other women have given them?

Where do we draw the line. Obviously not one for every situation but that's what at lot of people are proposing.

I apologise in advance for all the snipping but I just want to quickly answer your questions before leaving this thread be. :smallsmile:

For the first question, no not at all. It does however mean one should consider this concept in the conversation just as one should for example consider confirmation bias exists and whether one is accounting for this.

I definitely agree that more people of a group (ideally all) can and often do contribute to solutions, peace and/or whatever else the goal was.

I don't agree the check your privilage idea should be used to permenantly silence and/or exclude.
I do agree the check your privilege idea should be used to ensure everyone can come to an understanding.

[S@tanicoaldo]

So say the knowledge hoarders.

Some of the happiest moments of my life were at the Doe library, and the Morrison reading room, and the bastards took that away so that only a selected elite could use them.
FURTHER EDIT:
Check YOUR privilege

I think this illustrate the idea well, both 2D8HP and AMFV didn't go to college(I think AMFV went to but didn't finish) and you both seem to come from struggling economic backgrounds (Sorry to assume satuff).

So we can say you two are unprivileged in the education and economic aspect compared to me and WarKitty who are both born in a middle class familly and able to go to college.

That doesn't mean we are better then you two it just means we had different oportunities, we didn't work for this oportunities, we were giving those advantages automatically.

So if we started saying "People who didn't go to colllege are lazy" or "People who didn't get a college degree are not as smart" I bet you guys would have stuff to say to us, one of those is "Check your privilege" even if you don't use that specific expression, becuase your perspective is different and you are better qualified to talk about how a person who was not able to go college feel or is.

So I think that's the idea behind the expression.

[thorgrim29]

Like most of the current social justice culture war thing I feel like this is a case of basically sound principles being misunderstood and misapplied (intentionally or not) and used as cudgels in conversations with people who will take them as insults because they are basically used as such.

In this case the principle is that you should be introspective enough to realize that not everybody lives in the same situation as you and that they might have lacked some of the advantages that you have had in life, often based on physical and mental ability, family and socio-economic background and "membership" in a minority group. Therefore you should let that awareness colour your judgement of and interactions with others.

A classic example of really well-meaning people not considering their privilege is tax credits for poor families with children. The idea is to help out poor people but they typically miss the mark because poor people generally don't do their taxes so you end up just helping middle class people, but this is really hard to wrap your head around if you're the sort of person working on tax policy.

I do think that "check your privilege" might work as a shorthand when you're talking to people who understand the underlying principle but it's extremely counter-productive when you're trying to convince somebody who is not already on-board because even if you have all the good faith in the world they will have probably run into it being used as basically "hur dur you're a white man therefore your opinion is worthless so shut up" and by uttering those 3 words you will shut down any possibility of getting somewhere.

[WarKitty]

Isn't that how it should be? It's one thing to discuss matters, but it's a different thing to try and convert people to abandon their ways. Assume that someone came to you and told you "you aren't a good xxxxxx, because..." The first thing I would think is "What does he want? He knows nothing about me or my life!"/QUOTE]

I mean, part of the thing that's often happening is you're trying to say "your ways are hurting other people, and you're not seeing that because of where you're coming from." People aren't talking about matters for funsies - they're talking about them because they think something bad is happening and people need to change what they're doing in order for the bad thing to not be happening.

For an obvious example, I obviously want the guy shouting out his car window about how he wants to touch me to change his ways.

[QUOTE=Razade;23077514]Right. Now here's the follow up. Does that disqualify those four men from speaking about the issue? Because unlike building a bridge, you don't have to go to university to be a woman in a university. Meaning, there's no classes for it. It's just a state of being and maybe one or all four of those men have known OTHER women in OTHER universities and feel they have some feedback to give. Are they allowed? Do they have to check their privilege of being a male while giving advice other women have given them? Because it's all anecdotal at this stage of the game right? It's all personal experience so does Women A's experiences trump Man B's mother's experiences that he witnessesed and discussed with her?

I've found this generally isn't the case where people are wanting to invoke privilege.

A more common example, and something I've actually seen happen - women want to talk about sexual harassment and how certain behaviors make it harder for them to be taken seriously and feel like they can be safe and accepted. However, there are more men than women, and what many of the men want to talk about is how it's hard for them to get a date and how the women wanting to focus on work is preventing them from getting a date. And the conversation ends up by sheer numbers being far more about the romantic difficulties of the men involved (because from their perspective that's what's important) than the women's desire to feel safe and like their romantic choices aren't going to affect their ability to do their jobs.

That's a case where privilege is going to be invoked, because it's clear that since the men in question haven't experienced the subject under discussion, they're not taking it seriously. And if the conversation ends up staying focused on how men can't get a date, the women's objection is going to be effectively shut down because they don't have the voice to keep pushing it against what the majority want to talk about.

[Aedilred]

Bit of a side-topic, then back onto the main topic.

One major thing I dislike about the "check your privilege" interjection is that it seems to call a thing "privilege" which I would have called basic civil rights. This is disturbing for a variety of reasons:

- Basic civil rights ought to be rights, not privileges.

- The idea that you can and should strip someone of their "privilege" is very problematic when you realize that it's actually civil rights.
I'm glad I'm not the only person who has this problem with the phrase as commonly used.

[Zen]

You don 't know anything about a persons life just because you know their sex, race, gender or sexuality.

So don't assume you do.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yiv9ay1TLPM

[Liquor Box]

Without social and systemic oppression there would not be gangs in the first place.

Do you have any basis for that remark?

There are examples of gangs that belong to the dominant race and gender, who come form relatively wealthy backgrounds. The only people they have been oppressed by (as far as I can see) is legitimate law enforcement.


Gang activity is very prevalent in lower income neighborhoods and ethnic ghettos where underprivileged children are often recruited. Economic hardships often fall on families with children under the age of 18. Poverty stricken adolescences commonly resort to gangs because a gang can give youth a sense of control and a way to make money. Youth that are craving a role model can seek this out in a gang.

Gangs may be more prevalent where people are relatively poor (although poor does not necessarily equal oppressed), but that is not the same thing as your earlier comment that there would not be gangs without oppression.

[Zebalas]

So say the knowledge hoarders.

Some of the happiest moments of my life were at the Doe library, and the Morrison reading room, and the bastards took that away so that only a selected elite could use them.
FURTHER EDIT:
Check YOUR privilege

Sorry Zeblas, though was rude of me, and I assumed that local conditions apply elsewhere.

For all I know maybe Universities in your area teach the public and allow people to read the works they contain.

No need to apologize, but yeah I never went to university, I did get a scholarship but had to quit to take care of my Mom who got very sick.

After that my brother passed away and I became the guardian for his sons. So I never had time for that.

But I did help around the kids when they were in college and I love going to university events.

But me? I'm a humble metalworker.


Do you have any basis for that remark?

1. Gordon, R A. (2004). Antisocial Behavior and Youth Gang Membership: Selection and Socialization. Criminology, 42(1), 55-89.
2. Joseph, J. (2008). Gangs and Gang Violence in School. Journal of gang research, 16(1), 33-50.,
3.Stretesky, Paul B. and Pogrebin, Mark R. 2007 "Gang-Related Gun Violence: Socialization, Identity, and Self" Journal of Contemporary Ethnographyvolume 360 (issue 1): Pages 85-114 (Retrieved from Database Illumina on August 6, 2009)
4. Shields N., Nadasen K., Pierce L. The effects of community violence on children in Cape Town, South Africa (2008) Child Abuse and Neglect, 32 (5), pp. 589-601.
5. Feinstein, Diane. "Gang Violence: An Environment of Fear." U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein. 2006. 13 Aug 2009 <http://feinstein.senate.gov/06speeches/s-gang-violence1023.htm>.
6. Malec, Danny(2006)'Transforming Latino Gang Violence in the United States',Peace Review,18:1,81 — 89
7. Miller, W.B.. " Violence by Youth Gangs and Youth Groups as a Crime Problem in Major American Cities." 1977 Web.13 Aug 2009. <http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=137446>.
8. Stephan, James. "State Prisons Expenditures, 2001." Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report (2004): Print.
9. Huff, R.C. "Crime and Delinquency: Youth Gangs and Public Policy" 1989; 35
10. McCorkle, Richard C. and Miethe, Terance D.(1998)'The political and organizational response to gangs: An
examination of a “Moral panic” in Nevada',Justice Quarterly,15:1,41 — 64


There are examples of gangs that belong to the dominant race and gender, who come form relatively wealthy backgrounds. The only people they have been oppressed by (as far as I can see) is legitimate law enforcement.

I was not talking about those types gangs.


Gangs may be more prevalent where people are relatively poor (although poor does not necessarily equal oppressed)

Do you have any basis for that remark?


but that is not the same thing as your earlier comment that there would not be gangs without oppression.

I was talking about one specific type of gang. The type where youth feel that uniting as a gang is a way many oppressed individuals can overcome prejudices. A gang can offer its members a sense of protection and belonging. Many of the inequalities that gang members fight against stem from racism and from the fact that they are of a minority group. In this nation there is a high value placed on being "white". Ore claims that inequality stems from the values we as a society attach to the differences we see between us and other people. The key way that gangs lash out against this inequality is through violence. Violence has become a standard operating procedure with in gangs. The violence has essentially become a culture. Guns give gang members a false sense of power and importance because of the drastic impact guns can make.

[Razade]

I've found this generally isn't the case where people are wanting to invoke privilege.

Cool, lucky you. I might point out that perhaps men don't generally feel like they have a right to invoke privilege because when they do they're told they're already the top of the food chain. Just...just a thought. It also could be that there is a global patriarchy and men just have this awesome "get out of crap" free card. Reality doesn't bare that out in most of the world (not denying there are some patriarchies still hanging on) but ya know. I find most people who do invoke privilege checking don't actually live in the reality I find myself inhabiting anyway so it's moot.


A more common example, and something I've actually seen happen - women want to talk about sexual harassment and how certain behaviors make it harder for them to be taken seriously and feel like they can be safe and accepted.

I can't speak to the validity of the first statement and I'd challenge you to back up the assertion you're making about the commonality of your example. Wow...that..came off snooty. How's this. Hitchen's Razor. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Moving on.

I'm not saying that doesn't happen and it's a real issue. But to say men have a lesser voice or no voice at all just because they're men is....laughable at best and misandrist at worst.


However, there are more men than women,

Sorry to pick this out of a larger narrative but...wher. Where are there more men than women? Globablly that's not the case and it hasn't been the case in the United States Univisity scene for almost a decade. So where are there more men than women? In like...high paying jobs? Because that's true of some jobs. Please be specific. That, frankly, is one of the things frustrating me in this conversation. People (you weren't until just now) are talking in broad strokes and I'm trying to be very precise and specific on terminology and examples.

So. Clarify, if you could please.


and what many of the men want to talk about is how it's hard for them to get a date and how the women wanting to focus on work is preventing them from getting a date. And the conversation ends up by sheer numbers being far more about the romantic difficulties of the men involved (because from their perspective that's what's important) than the women's desire to feel safe and like their romantic choices aren't going to affect their ability to do their jobs.

I can't say much to this because that's honestly not my experience. My experience is a lot of women claim to have been sexually assaulted. The men in question (or man) have their lives ruined, are almost thrown into prison and then it turns out the woman was lying. Then nothing happens to the woman outside of just misfiling a police report. The man still has to live with the stigma of being a rapist/molester though. It never leaves them. Even though they didn't. Which makes their lives really rather hard.

Or, and this is an even more prevalent problem I have encountered, the constant crowing that men can't be raped. Or male rape is less bad than female rape because it only happens to convicts. Or that men can't suffer domestic, or any, abuse because they're not a minority or any other justification. Even though we know that men on average suffer just as much domestic and familial abuse as women but it's far less reported and even far less believed.

None of the above, mind, is to take away from the issue of harassment and rape and all the other stuff women have to deal with. Just pointing out we're approaching this, it seems, from two very different walks of life. Which just illustrates my point as to why the phrase is useless.


That's a case where privilege is going to be invoked, because it's clear that since the men in question haven't experienced the subject under discussion, they're not taking it seriously.

Well no...it's not clear...nothing you said indicated that they hadn't been abused or harassed. You left that out. In your example are the men doing the harassing or abusing not victims of the same? Because we know that people who are abused and harassed have brain chemistry changes and are more likely to also abuse and harass people. Are you saying that because they're not taking it AS seriously as you'd like them to that's evidence that they haven't? I was held at gunpoint and had my car stolen. I was seconds away from death, as far as I knew in the moment and still pretty sure I got damn lucky to walk away. I've had three attempted suicides, all very lucky to have come out of them. I talk about killing myself all the time in pretty light hearted manners. Just because I'm laughing about it doesn't mean I don't think it's serious. Sometimes, that's a coping mechanism.

And I think, rather honestly, that it says more about you than it does about me that you'd leap to the conclusion that a person couldn't have been the victim based on whatever criteria you're basing it off of instead of asking if they had. Or that you'd set up a scenario to prove a point and then omit the very real possibility that at least one or two men in the scenario hadn't gone through the same. Because if it's the former...shame on you. If it's the latter...you're being dishonest and I see you very clearly. I don't particularly care which of the two it is. Neither look good.


And if the conversation ends up staying focused on how men can't get a date, the women's objection is going to be effectively shut down because they don't have the voice to keep pushing it against what the majority want to talk about.

Again, I haven't had this experience and I think it's...well. It's weird. Because most guys I know don't care about that kind of thing. They aren't so thirsty as to focus on that when someone claims they've been harassed. None of that mitigates the above though. Because maybe they're so focused on wanting a date is because they feel some kind of pressure to be in a relationship. There's a lot of variables. You're setting up a scenario, and the more you talk about it the more I think it's the latter of the above and not the former, where the woman is in the right by default and the men are just pigs.

Which, again, is not very honest or fair of you.



I was talking about one specific type of gang. The type where youth feel that uniting as a gang is a way many oppressed individuals can overcome prejudices. A gang can offer its members a sense of protection and belonging. Many of the inequalities that gang members fight against stem from racism and from the fact that they are of a minority group. In this nation there is a high value placed on being "white". Ore claims that inequality stems from the values we as a society attach to the differences we see between us and other people. The key way that gangs lash out against this inequality is through violence. Violence has become a standard operating procedure with in gangs. The violence has essentially become a culture. Guns give gang members a false sense of power and importance because of the drastic impact guns can make.

It's rather unfair of you to say "there wouldn't be gangs if" and then when people point out that that's not the case you say "Well only these kind of gangs, in this exact situation I wish to define". That...that's very bad form.

[AMFV]

Going back to the bridge example with four people with average knowledge of bridges and one bridge engineer, if the engineer can get across that they are a bridge engineer, this is how they'd build this bridge and this is why it improves the bridge then the other four people have learned how to build a better bridge and can spread the bridge building word after it works.
But if they say hey, the majority have said build the bridge this way without properly looking at that context then the bridge is more likely to be a worse bridge than if they could properly understand and explore the engineer's likely many ideas and experiences on building a bridge. (Not to say any of the four's bridge ideas wouldn't also improve the bridge, but that the balance doesn't have to be split exactly 1/5 in planning for there to be a balanced bridge building experience!)

The problem is that experiencing adversity is not the equivalent of earning how to build a bridge. Experiencing adversity might give you a better insight into the framing of the problem. But it doesn't necessarily give you a proper insight in how to solve it. In fact when people try and solve problems often they hire outside consultants because the fact that they are not already emotionally invested in the way things are can give them insights that people who have had a great deal of experience might have.


Privilege is a relative concept. So I can (an am) be privileged by being born in a middle class family where I had the education and backing to get into university. At the same time I definitely got the sense that once I was there, there were distinct disadvantages for me as a woman. And I know of women who were driven out by sexual harassment.

Privilege is very rarely an all or nothing thing. It's more like there's a bunch of different axes and you can be more or less privileged on any given one, but they're also interconnected in weird ways.

This is true, and is the core of why I'm saying that you shouldn't assume a stranger's privilege or probably even a friend unless you're very close. Because privilege is not a simple thing, and really "checking your privilege" is most suited to personal introspection, where it is actually important and useful, but for you to tell that to somebody else, that's a big assumption, and not necessarily ones that are positive. I mean look at the "racing" example video, where people with privilege are basically framed as cheating in the race of life.


I think this illustrate the idea well, both 2D8HP and AMFV didn't go to college(I think AMFV went to but didn't finish) and you both seem to come from struggling economic backgrounds (Sorry to assume satuff).[

You don't have to apologize, that isn't an assumption I've said as much. Although not finishing college was a choice for me, not a forced situation. Also I didn't have to pay a cent for college, since it was already being paid for since I'd been in the military for five years. So there is that aspect of things as well. Again the actual situation is more complex than "I'm part of the 'poor' group"

After my father rejoined the Army, I was pretty comfortably middle class, and then upper middle class for the end of my teenage years. My experiences with extreme poverty had definitely given me a different sense of things, but I wasn't poor forever. That's a big problem with using categories like financial wellbeing to assess people's life experiences, it just doesn't work, because real life is complicated. Although I will admit that I am unusually complicated example. But just because somebody is well off now doesn't mean they have no experience with poverty, and just because somebody is poor now doesn't mean that they've always been so.



So we can say you two are unprivileged in the education and economic aspect compared to me and WarKitty who are both born in a middle class familly and able to go to college.

But again, I am from a middle class family, I just wasn't always. When I turned 18 and left for the Marines, my family would probably have been considered upper middle class, or on the edge of that, at least in the region where I lived. See again, you can't make assumptions because life is complicated, and people are complicated.



That doesn't mean we are better then you two it just means we had different oportunities, we didn't work for this oportunities, we were giving those advantages automatically.

Well I had a free ride to college and chose not to finish. So you've worked a little there at least. At least worked to take advantage, no? Again boiling it down to, "I just got a degree," is a little bit unnecessarily self-demeaning, at least to my line of thought.



So if we started saying "People who didn't go to colllege are lazy" or "People who didn't get a college degree are not as smart" I bet you guys would have stuff to say to us, one of those is "Check your privilege" even if you don't use that specific expression, becuase your perspective is different and you are better qualified to talk about how a person who was not able to go college feel or is.

Actually I would counter with examples rather than claiming that as somebody who doesn't have a degree I have inherently more and better knowledge on the matter. Ergo, I'd use proof rather than dogmatic, and probably false statements, which is much better for moving discussion forward.



I mean, part of the thing that's often happening is you're trying to say "your ways are hurting other people, and you're not seeing that because of where you're coming from." People aren't talking about matters for funsies - they're talking about them because they think something bad is happening and people need to change what they're doing in order for the bad thing to not be happening.

For an obvious example, I obviously want the guy shouting out his car window about how he wants to touch me to change his ways.

That's fair, but unless you are a having conversation with him specifically, it's not really going to do much.



I've found this generally isn't the case where people are wanting to invoke privilege.

A more common example, and something I've actually seen happen - women want to talk about sexual harassment and how certain behaviors make it harder for them to be taken seriously and feel like they can be safe and accepted. However, there are more men than women, and what many of the men want to talk about is how it's hard for them to get a date and how the women wanting to focus on work is preventing them from getting a date. And the conversation ends up by sheer numbers being far more about the romantic difficulties of the men involved (because from their perspective that's what's important) than the women's desire to feel safe and like their romantic choices aren't going to affect their ability to do their jobs.


I think that there is something to be said though for discussing the men's romantic situations in this conversation. Not because it's super critical but because if you're trying to look at a big sexist mess, you can't exclude a big aspect of it.



That's a case where privilege is going to be invoked, because it's clear that since the men in question haven't experienced the subject under discussion, they're not taking it seriously. And if the conversation ends up staying focused on how men can't get a date, the women's objection is going to be effectively shut down because they don't have the voice to keep pushing it against what the majority want to talk about.

A.) You are making a lot of assumptions about how the men are taking this, and you're making a pretty broad statement that the men in question have never experienced sexual harassment, which may or may not be the case. Since males are discouraged from reporting sexual harassment or even bringing it up. So you're acting on a pretty clearly shaky assumption from the start.

B.) If you are in an environment where shouting somebody down is an option, you aren't convincing anybody, that's just a shouting match. And you shouting back at them, doesn't help anything. Even if it's a cutting remark about their privilege, which again you are likely in actually not really all that aware of.

C.) I mean if they feel uncomfortable talking about it, maybe that's a sign that they aren't really sure of how to proceed. Fixing societal problems is incredibly hard, sometimes impossible. Getting Larry a date, that's a solvable problem right there. That's much easier to talk about.

[Zebalas]

It's rather unfair of you to say "there wouldn't be gangs if" and then when people point out that that's not the case you say "Well only these kind of gangs, in this exact situation I wish to define". That...that's very bad form.

I can see how that comment in a vacuum would give that idea but in the context of the conversation it makes sense, Tvtyrant was referring to gangs from lower income neighborhoods and ethnic ghettos not all forms of organized crime, all you need is some text interpretation skill to see that.

[WarKitty]

That's fair, but unless you are a having conversation with him specifically, it's not really going to do much.

We're back to the same problem here though. Unless you can sit down and have a personal conversation with everyone who's causing the problems (many of whom don't have that kind of relationship with the people they're causing the problems for), you can't really make any changes at all or get your message across.


I mean if they feel uncomfortable talking about it, maybe that's a sign that they aren't really sure of how to proceed. Fixing societal problems is incredibly hard, sometimes impossible. Getting Larry a date, that's a solvable problem right there. That's much easier to talk about.

Honestly, I can't fix that it's uncomfortable. What I'm saying is if 90% of people have one problem, and 10% of people have a different problem, if you give everyone a fair share you're going to end up pretty much entirely talking about the problem the 90% have and the problem the 10% have is going to get drowned out.

Usually this isn't done by shouting match. It's done by a polite, ok I hear what you're saying, but if men have to worry about harassment won't it mean that we can't get a date? Isn't it unfair that it's so hard for a man to get a date? And that happens over and over and over again. So you're faced with choice of either being rude and alienating and saying "look, we're not talking about your problems right now" or spending all your time answering what the majority sees as the problem they want to talk about.

There's a related concept called tone policing. Basically it's the idea that there's a point where asking a minority to be polite and respectful of everyone and include everyone's feelings and only then will you listen means that you're never going to listen. Because unless someone has infinite time and energy that simply can't be done.

There's also an issue that, if you're used to your needs being the most important ones, it's going to feel like you're being neglected. That's just being human. If we bake a pie together, and I've been getting 2/3 and you've been getting 1/3, then my initial reaction to trying to make it more fair is likely to be "hey, why are you trying to take my pie away from me?" And some things - time and attention being some of them - are limited resources.

[AMFV]

I can see how that comment in a vacuum would give that idea but in the context of the conversation it makes sense, Tvtyrant was referring to gangs from lower income neighborhoods and ethnic ghettos not all forms of organized crime, all you need is some text interpretation skill to see that.

You have no idea where TVTyrant is from. He's referring to gangs that bullied him as a kid. There are plenty of places where those are white supremacist groups, there are plenty of places where those are not strictly speaking composed of minorities. You are reading things into the comment that may not be there.

It's a big ****ing leap to "gangs from lower income neighborhoods and ethnic ghettos" when what he said was "Like if I had comitted suicide from constant harassment it would be less awful then growing up in one of the gangs that harassed me." That's a pretty big jump. Without a lot of contextual support for it. I mean you can mention that he mentions hispanic gangs harassing white youth, but he doesn't specifically reference that this is the case for him.

Edit: Also if all gangs come from systemic oppression how do you explain Neo-Nazi gangs?

[Razade]

I can see how that comment in a vacuum would give that idea but in the context of the conversation it makes sense, Tvtyrant was referring to gangs from lower income neighborhoods and ethnic ghettos not all forms of organized crime, all you need is some text interpretation skill to see that.

Yeah no, I've been following the conversation this whole time. Telling me I need to learn to read doesn't get you off the hook. TvTyrant didn't bring in income. Not even once. He didn't mention ghettos. His examples were, I thought, rather clear. You're the one who made a broad sweeping statement to what he said. Several times in fact. First he brought up racial profiling of a white kid in a largely hispanic area. You assumed that he meant that that was low income. Which...doesn't speak well for you does it. To just assume that because they're hispanic they have to be low income. How gross.

Second, he re-itereated when you wanted to chalk that up to "just bullying" even though that's actual profiling and racism...which was his point...he then asked about suicide being less bad because of it. To which you countered back, without even discussing what he said, that without scocio-econimic issues there wouldn't be gangs. No clarification on what you meant by that because a gang doesn't require poverty.

Don't believe me? Here, here's the whole discussion chain. Full context.


But economic class is also a source of privilege.

Besides imagine if that kid was black, don't you think he's going to have a even harder time?
Dealing with racism, poverty and the addiction of his parents. In that sense the Caucasian kid is "privileged" not that he has it easy but that he won't have to deal with one of the things the black kid will have to face.


And there we have it. All people are really just categories of misery, and individual experiences are unimportant.

For instance, there is no way a white kid could be savagely beaten by his hispanic neighbors for his skin color, or chased up against a fence and stoned, or be excluded from his largely latino schools' culture. It is simply categorical.


Bullying is bad sure, but we are talking about social and systemic oppression here, both are terrible but just not in the same level.


Sure. Like if I had comitted suicide from constant harassment it would be less awful then growing up in one of the gangs that harassed me.


Without social and systemic oppression there would not be gangs in the first place.

There ya go. People can check what you were responding to if they want and they can determine if I'm arguing in good faith here. I certainly think I am but ya know....bias is a pesky thing. For clarity, AMVF mentioned meth heads vs Jaden Smith. Zebalas immediately brought in socio-economic issues which...had nothing to do with anything. Once again, Zebalas sees "Drug problem" and immediately goes for them being poor. Because only poor people do drugs.



Edit: Also if all gangs come from systemic oppression how do you explain Neo-Nazi gangs?

That doesn't fit their narrative so they don't classify that as a gang they're talking about. Zebalas is only talking about one very specific type of gang. Now. Now they're only talking about one very specific type of gang. They didn't want to be so specific before. Being held to the fire tends to do that though.

[Zebalas]

Can you please not Quote me on stuff I didn't said? I said no thing about Neo-Nazis, now you are just being treacherous and dishonest.

[AMFV]

Can you please not Quote me on stuff I didn't said? I said no thing about Neo-Nazis, now you are just being treacherous and dishonest.

I think that was probably an honest mistake. That was my statement. I still ask the question there. If you're stating that all gangs result from systemic oppression how do you explain a gang (admittedly on the decline) that recruits largely from people that are not in groups that would considered to be systematically oppressed. I mean they're the same type of gang as most of the others. Drug trafficking, petty crime, that sort of thing.

[Razade]

Can you please not Quote me on stuff I didn't said? I said no thing about Neo-Nazis, now you are just being treacherous and dishonest.

No one quoted you saying stuff about Neo-Nazis.

AMFV addressed a question to you about Neo-Nazis.

[Zebalas]

No one quoted you saying stuff about Neo-Nazis.

AMFV addressed a question to you about Neo-Nazis.

https://78.media.tumblr.com/c64f51e8984176b282ce6b13d55a9ae0/tumblr_p8wgolCFmk1veme87o1_1280.jpg

[Razade]

https://78.media.tumblr.com/c64f51e8984176b282ce6b13d55a9ae0/tumblr_p8wgolCFmk1veme87o1_1280.jpg

Yeah, that's clearly an editing issue and he fixed it even before you posted.

[Zebalas]

Yeah, that's clearly an editing issue and he fixed it even before you posted.

But... It was you the one who did it. :smallconfused: And if it was an editing issue can you please fix it?

[Razade]

But... It was you the one who did it. :smallconfused: And if it was an editing issue can please fix it?

Ah, I see. It was and it's fixed. It was indeed an editing error. :smallredface:

[Liquor Box]

1. Gordon, R A. (2004). Antisocial Behavior and Youth Gang Membership: Selection and Socialization. Criminology, 42(1), 55-89.
2. Joseph, J. (2008). Gangs and Gang Violence in School. Journal of gang research, 16(1), 33-50.,
3.Stretesky, Paul B. and Pogrebin, Mark R. 2007 "Gang-Related Gun Violence: Socialization, Identity, and Self" Journal of Contemporary Ethnographyvolume 360 (issue 1): Pages 85-114 (Retrieved from Database Illumina on August 6, 2009)
4. Shields N., Nadasen K., Pierce L. The effects of community violence on children in Cape Town, South Africa (2008) Child Abuse and Neglect, 32 (5), pp. 589-601.
5. Feinstein, Diane. "Gang Violence: An Environment of Fear." U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein. 2006. 13 Aug 2009 <http://feinstein.senate.gov/06speeches/s-gang-violence1023.htm>.
6. Malec, Danny(2006)'Transforming Latino Gang Violence in the United States',Peace Review,18:1,81 — 89
7. Miller, W.B.. " Violence by Youth Gangs and Youth Groups as a Crime Problem in Major American Cities." 1977 Web.13 Aug 2009. <http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=137446>.
8. Stephan, James. "State Prisons Expenditures, 2001." Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report (2004): Print.
9. Huff, R.C. "Crime and Delinquency: Youth Gangs and Public Policy" 1989; 35
10. McCorkle, Richard C. and Miethe, Terance D.(1998)'The political and organizational response to gangs: An
examination of a “Moral panic” in Nevada',Justice Quarterly,15:1,41 — 64

Before I look at any of those, can you just confirm that you think they prove your statement that without oppression there would not be gangs at all?


I was not talking about those types gangs.

What sort of gangs were you talking about?


Do you have any basis for that remark?

Which remark? That "Gangs may be more prevalent where people are relatively poor"? It came from your statement that "Gang activity is very prevalent in lower income neighborhoods". I used the word 'may', because i was only allowing that your statement might be true, not endorsing the statement myself.


I was talking about one specific type of gang. The type where youth feel that uniting as a gang is a way many oppressed individuals can overcome prejudices. A gang can offer its members a sense of protection and belonging. Many of the inequalities that gang members fight against stem from racism and from the fact that they are of a minority group. In this nation there is a high value placed on being "white". Ore claims that inequality stems from the values we as a society attach to the differences we see between us and other people. The key way that gangs lash out against this inequality is through violence. Violence has become a standard operating procedure with in gangs. The violence has essentially become a culture. Guns give gang members a false sense of power and importance because of the drastic impact guns can make.

Ahhh, so when you said "without oppression there would be no gangs", you meant "without oppression there would be no gangs that formed from people who joined a gang because of oppression"? Surely you can see that that is about as meaningful as saying that "without jet engines there would be no aeroplanes that are propelled by a jet engine"

Even without oppression and any gangs that form only because of oppression. there would still, of course, be lots of other violent gangs.

[Mith]

So this thread is a bit of a mess to sort out on a phone, but I find that in untangling the knots, one can find a gold coin or two (plus you now have some free rope!)

My general perspective (so it could have more holes than substance) on check your privileges is that the original intention is to say:

"It sounds like you are making an assumption or personal bias is unfairly colouring your argument in a way that is not conductive to this discussion. Compare your experience, and the history of those with similar experiences, with those that are like us."

^That is a mouthful to say, and it isn't nearly as quippy. But this case, the phrase is boiled down to something that has lost it's...potency, for the lack of a better word. However, it is exhausting and time consuming to do the full Socratic Method on breaking down everything for people who in the end may not be arguing in good faith. So when they try and join in on the conversation with an argument that is viewed by the group to be unproductive from group experience, they are asked to try and work through the potential issues on their own time.


Ramble/Confession:

I will admit that I take the coward's way out, but that is because I don't have enough personal energy to argue with people who (to me), are starting from a point so different from my own. Plus, the only way I can see a way to truly sway viewpoints is to start from points so far removed and work foreward, that my discussion will have eaten up any desire to humour me long before I get back to the original point. Does this make me a bad philosopher, or a good one?

On the Subject of Gangs:

The Ideological gangs such as Neo Nazis, from my understanding, still have some roots in lower economic class (gods I hate that term), with the higher class representation probably stemming from the synergy of self validation with the all to slow decline of the Classic Western power dynamics.

That's my two pennies on the thread so far. Which given the current value of the coin, gives you an accurate estimate of it's worth. :P

[2D8HP]

I think this illustrate the idea well, both 2D8HP[..]

[..](Sorry to assume stuff)[..]


No need to apologize, you're assumptions are close enough (in my case).


[...]part of the thing that's often happening is you're trying to say "your ways are hurting other people, and you're not seeing that because of where you're coming from." People aren't talking about matters for funsies - they're talking about them because they think something bad is happening and people need to change what they're doing in order for the bad thing to not be happening.

For an obvious example, I obviously want the guy shouting out his car window about how he wants to touch me to change his ways[..]

[...]A more common example, and something I've actually seen happen - women want to talk about sexual harassment and how certain behaviors make it harder for them to be taken seriously and feel like they can be safe and accepted. However, there are more men than women, and what many of the men want to talk about is how it's hard for them to get a date and how the women wanting to focus on work is preventing them from getting a date. And the conversation ends up by sheer numbers being far more about the romantic difficulties of the men involved (because from their perspective that's what's important) than the women's desire to feel safe and like their romantic choices aren't going to affect their ability to do their jobs[...]


Grown men not boys?

Sadly, if they're like this as full adults, I'm not sure there's anything that may be done until they witness someone they care for being harassed, if even that works for them to grow some basic empathy.


We're back to the same problem here though. Unless you can sit down and have a personal conversation with everyone who's causing the problems (many of whom don't have that kind of relationship with the people they're causing the problems for), you can't really make any changes at all or get your message across[...]


It's contradictory, but if someone has had an experience in their past that helps them relate to the suffering of others, but is distant enough that the scars have healed, that helps them have empathy, that is if they were beaten once long ago, but not recently (because then they'll only focus on their own pain).

However, if they grew up repeatedly abused they often become abusers themselves.

What's worked in the past to get people to become more inclusive is to have felt their own circumstances to have been improving, and to feal lucky about it (so boom times) and to witness the suffering of others (visual media).

If however times are tough, then people often become more exclusive rather than inclusive.


Usually this isn't done by shouting match. It's done by a polite, ok I hear what you're saying, but if men have to worry about harassment won't it mean that we can't get a date? Isn't it unfair that it's so hard for a man to get a date? And that happens over and over and over again[..]


Really?

When I worked at the motorcycle shop I heard a fellow 20-something coworker who complained to me one-on-one about not having "a girl", but otherwise I've not heard it.

Maybe it's an older blue collar thing, but the standard attitude is that you're supposed to pretend to want to be alone so you can have more time to devote to fixing up old cars, eating buffets at casinos, drinking alcohol, fishing, watching sports, and sometimes hunting until you somehow have kids, at which point your interests become coaching sports (baseball, basketball, and football for your sons, basketball and soccer for your daughters), and teaching fishing, you may also talk about music education for your daughters, but not your sons (that will get you mocked), and if your an immigrant you may praise your kids academics without being mocked.

When I was union jobsite steward one of the young apprentices didn't know the social cues and did complain about never having a date, and also how many bullets he fired ever week in his target shooting hobby, which got him shunned, I took him aside, explain to him to never complain again about lacking the attention of women, and to make up a story about bringing home a deer that he "only had to shoot once", that he put in his freezer and "cooked in a crock-pot",.he did so and became accepted, for the record, I never had any of those hobbies, except for occasional drinking, and some fishing with my father and stepdad, and it was a running joke about how the only sports I watched was beach volleyball, which I volunteered when asked, "Well what do you watch?", otherwise my tales of motorcycling, and how terrible tasting my Dad's attempts at cooking what he hunted sufficed for "guy talk", unless I was asked for union news, and I was considered a bit odd for reading during lunch. Still, somehow I had an instinct for what to suggest to the apprentice to get him unshunned, which latter benefited me when he not only became a Journeyman, but a Foreman!
Long story short, I've never heard a group of men complain about a lack of dates in earshot of each other, and despite the sterotypes of "locker room talk", when I worked construction if women were mentioned mostly they bragged about "She was into me", complained about how much their divorce cost them, and sometimes bragged about their daughters accomplishments. With City workers, among the older guys it's pretty much the same as construction work, but the younger guys show each other pictures of singers and ladies they say they're going "to hook up with", but I still haven't heard them complain about not having dates, and unless I miss my guess they would be mocked if they did (though the younger crew members are pretty much always mocking each other, to the amusement of we older ones).

Sounds like the men where you live WarKitty are just different than what I'm used too, so I don't really know what advice to give to get them to change their behavior. The yelling out the window thing in particuliar sounds like someone inviting being kicked repeatedly to me.

[WarKitty]

Grown men not boys?

Sadly, if they're like this as full adults, I'm not sure there's anything that may be done until they witness someone they care for being harassed, if even that works for them to grow some basic empathy.

Usually I've seen it in the "just legal" age group. So they are technically adults, but maybe not all the way there yet.



Really?

When I worked at the motorcycle shop I heard a fellow 20-something coworker who complained to me one-on-one about not having "a girl", but otherwise I've not heard it.

Maybe it's an older blue collar thing, but the standard attitude is that you're supposed to pretend to want to be alone so you can have more time to devote to fixing up old cars, eating buffets at casinos, drinking alcohol, fishing, watching sports, and sometimes hunting until you somehow have kids, at which point your interests become coaching sports (baseball, basketball, and football for your sons, basketball and soccer for your daughters), and teaching fishing, you may also talk about music education for your daughters, but not your sons (that will get you mocked), and if your an immigrant you may praise your kids academics without being mocked.

When I was union jobsite steward one of the young apprentices didn't know the social cues and did complain about never having a date, and also how many bullets he fired ever week in his target shooting hobby, which got him shunned, I took him aside, explain to him to never complain again about lacking the attention of women, and to make up a story about bringing home a deer that he "only had to shoot once", that he put in his freezer and "cooked in a crock-pot",.he did so and became accepted, for the record, I never had any of those hobbies, except for occasional drinking, and some fishing with my father and stepdad, and it was a running joke about how the only sports I watched was beach volleyball, which I volunteered when asked, "Well what do you watch?", otherwise my tales of motorcycling, and how terrible tasting my Dad's attempts at cooking what he hunted sufficed for "guy talk", unless I was asked for union news, and I was considered a bit odd for reading during lunch. Still, somehow I had an instinct for what to suggest to the apprentice to get him unshunned, which latter benefited me when he not only became a Journeyman, but a Foreman!
Long story short, I've never heard a group of men complain about a lack of dates in earshot of each other, and despite the sterotypes of "locker room talk", when I worked construction if women were mentioned mostly they bragged about "She was into me", complained about how much their divorce cost them, and sometimes bragged about their daughters accomplishments. With City workers, among the older guys it's pretty much the same as construction work, but the younger guys show each other pictures of singers and ladies they say they're going "to hook up with", but I still haven't heard them complain about not having dates, and unless I miss my guess they would be mocked if they did (though the younger crew members are pretty much always mocking each other, to the amusement of we older ones).

Sounds like the men where you live WarKitty are just different than what I'm used too, so I don't really know what advice to give to get them to change their behavior. The yelling out the window thing in particuliar sounds like someone inviting being kicked repeatedly to me.

I think it's different circles. I actually when I worked retail and backroom stuff, you didn't hear near as much of that crap. There's a certain sort of behavior among those who want to appear like they're the cultured intellectual. Realistically, it's almost always brought up as a response to a perceived wrong on the part of women - for example, the idea that the fear of sexual harassment will keep men from being able to approach women with romantic intentions.

In my experience going from the university setting, to retail work (especially unloading and janitorial), to call center stuff, there's some very different social rules.

[ve4grm]

Ah, I see. It was and it's fixed. It was indeed an editing error. :smallredface:

Right, so if we're accepting that editing errors can be made, and sometimes people aren't as clear as they want to be, can we also just accept that zebalas was (from context clues, such as the ability to "grow up in" a gang of that type) pretty clearly talking about youth gangs, but communicated it inadequately?

.

This thread is fully off topic, has verged (and will inevitably verge even more) into real-world economics and socio-political discussion. I think everybody needs to back up before the mods shut it down.

The initial questions was answered. The fact that some people use the phrase in bad faith doesn't change the intended meaning of the phrase in the first place.

[Liquor Box]

Right, so if we're accepting that editing errors can be made, and sometimes people aren't as clear as they want to be, can we also just accept that zebalas was (from context clues, such as the ability to "grow up in" a gang of that type) pretty clearly talking about youth gangs, but communicated it inadequately?

Except some youth gangs are not made up of the oppressed either. There are youth gangs made up predominantly of people who are not oppressed in any apparent way - for example youth skinhead gangs.

Zebalas has clarified what he or she was actually talking about when he/she said that without oppression there would be no gangs - that is gangs that arise from oppression, so he/she was excluding all the gangs that don't arise from oppression. It as sensible as me saying "all people are asian", then defending by saying that I was only talking about those people who are asian, and not those who are not.



Anyway, the original point (from TVTyrant) was that white people do sometimes experience racial abuse at the hands of minority groups (and in quite a sustained way when the minority is actually the majority in a microcosm of society, like a particular school). So it is not correct to assume that white people have had the privilege of never experiencing sustained and serious racism. I think that point holds true (subject to points about institutional vs individual racism) despite Zebalos's assertion that there are some gangs where perceived oppression plays a part in their formation.

[WarKitty]

I think people do really miss the aspect - time is not infinite. People's energy is not infinite. And most people's listening ability is not infinite.

And talk isn't necessarily something that's harmless. I think this comes up a lot with LGBT issues - there are a lot of people who simply aren't comfortable with trans people. And there comes a time where the argument turns into how trans people should modify what they do because it makes cis people uncomfortable. There has to be a way of saying, look, your discomfort with not having people fit into how you think gender works is not on the same level as a trans person's right to be able to live their lives as themselves without being considered a joke, threat, or trick.

That's a common problem in these discussions - they're not just theoretical discussions where you pick a representative of each side and have a nice, even, moderated talk and everyone goes home with no hard feelings.

[AMFV]

I think people do really miss the aspect - time is not infinite. People's energy is not infinite. And most people's listening ability is not infinite.

But they aren't as limited as you're describing. A person can listen for a good deal of time to somebody with whom they have fundamental disagreements. Even somebody whose views they find abhorrent. And if you can't instead of shouting somebody down with the idea that they're overprivileged maybe a better route would be to tell them that you can't really deal with the conversation that's happening, putting the blame for the conversational avoidance where it really belongs.

You should save a little listening energy for voices you disagree with, actually you should spend a great deal of your listening energy on that. Because listening to a choir of voices you agree with and silencing the others, can push people to very dangerous conclusions.



And talk isn't necessarily something that's harmless. I think this comes up a lot with LGBT issues - there are a lot of people who simply aren't comfortable with trans people. And there comes a time where the argument turns into how trans people should modify what they do because it makes cis people uncomfortable. There has to be a way of saying, look, your discomfort with not having people fit into how you think gender works is not on the same level as a trans person's right to be able to live their lives as themselves without being considered a joke, threat, or trick.


Well if your'e discussing societal level solutions to something like that, somebody is going to have to be uncomfortable. And it can't ALWAYS be the non-LGBT folks. That's not a very fair way to handle things. There are parts of my life that I do not live in public. Because it would make other people very uncomfortable. So that's worth discussing, even if you don't necessarily agree with what they're saying. Even if, especially if what they're saying is not comfortable for you. Not because you should agree with them, but because you should listen to them. You should have the same listening focus for their group as you do for the others, because otherwise you're restricting your viewpoints to those from specific groups.



That's a common problem in these discussions - they're not just theoretical discussions where you pick a representative of each side and have a nice, even, moderated talk and everyone goes home with no hard feelings.

True, but resorting to attempting to literally silence a large group, as you've admitted is the goal here. Is not productive in any discussion, moderated or not. And very likely is even unethical :smallsigh::smallsigh:

[WarKitty]

But they aren't as limited as you're describing. A person can listen for a good deal of time to somebody with whom they have fundamental disagreements. Even somebody whose views they find abhorrent. And if you can't instead of shouting somebody down with the idea that they're overprivileged maybe a better route would be to tell them that you can't really deal with the conversation that's happening, putting the blame for the conversational avoidance where it really belongs.

You should save a little listening energy for voices you disagree with, actually you should spend a great deal of your listening energy on that. Because listening to a choir of voices you agree with and silencing the others, can push people to very dangerous conclusions.

My experience is it usually doesn't end up being "a little energy." It ends up being pretty much all your energy and then some and you'll STILL be told you're silencing the voices of people you disagree with. Because your life, your right to just plain old wear clothes and exist in public, these make people feel uncomfortable and if you don't listen to every single voice that wants to explain how you wanting to be treated as an equal human being is a problem for them, you are silencing them.

Because it's not just a fundamental disagreement. It's for me literally been "is it ok for me to exist in public and speak to men and not have sex with them and not have to constantly defend my right to freaking read a book on the way to work without it being a big deal." Or does a trans person have the right to, you know, be trans in public and wear clothes and go to the bathroom without being obligated to defend themselves against people who find the existence of trans folk uncomfortable. That takes a lot of energy in part because you're ALREADY dealing with those objections on a regular basis simply by living your life where other people can see you, and that's tiring.

Should it really be on me to be the one who's "avoiding the conversation" when the conversation is in the first place about my right to be a full member of society who gets treated with the same basic respect that the people I'm talking to get?

That last part is a lot of what we're trying to say with privilege. These objections are in our faces on a regular basis simply by trying to live our lives. We can't choose to not spend our energy on them. In fact we're already spending a great deal of energy on them because we don't have a choice, sometimes even when we don't have a lot of energy for ourselves. But in order to be seen as being fair, we're often expected to give over the lion's share of our energy and the discussion time to those same objections repeated over and over and over again, very commonly at the expense of our own voices being heard.

Part of privilege is saying that, if you're coming from a place of privilege, what you're seeing as "fair" often isn't actually fair. That's what I was trying to get at - a lot of times what's seen as "fair" is actually heavily biased in terms of the voices of those with privilege being able to be heard over the voices of those who aren't, but if you're used to that being the case than being told you need to listen, not just talk, feels very unfair and like you're being silenced.

That's why a lot of feminist spaces will say "but what about the men?" is a problem. Because if you start letting that in, what actually happens is women's issues don't get addressed. Because if you don't stop talking about women's issues and start talking about men's issues, you're accused of silencing. And there will never be an end to the men's issues that you're expected to talk about - you won't have any time and energy left for your own once you're done, and when you give out it will still not have been enough to address everyone who's showing up with a concern.

[Amazon]

AMFV, Liquor Box and Razade the defenders of the white cis male guy. :smallamused:

I'm surprised that Donnadogsoth didn't shown up yet.

[AMFV]

My experience is it usually doesn't end up being "a little energy." It ends up being pretty much all your energy and then some and you'll STILL be told you're silencing the voices of people you disagree with. Because your life, your right to just plain old wear clothes and exist in public, these make people feel uncomfortable and if you don't listen to every single voice that wants to explain how you wanting to be treated as an equal human being is a problem for them, you are silencing them.

I think that the problem here is that you're assigning them roles and then potentially jumping to conclusions about their perspectives. Like when you assumed that none of the men you've been discussing harassment with have ever been harassed which is not a safe assumption to make. When you're having a great deal of implied conversation that's not actually happening, that makes things a great deal more exhausting.

And maybe if that winds up burning up all of your energy, then you shouldn't discuss those topics. If you aren't able to give a fair shake to all people involved in the conversation, you shouldn't be having that discussion. Because it isn't a discussion... it's a sham. It doesn't matter if you don't think that their voices deserve to be heard.

And you shouldn't have to listen to points constantly being rehashed, but that's not been my experience in most discussions. It's possible that it's yours. But I'll tell what has been my experience, when people have a pre-established viewpoint of the other side, they start to "alter" their words in their mind until it fits that pre-established ideal and that is when problems start to arise. Now that may not be the case for you, but what you've described discussion wise is not something I've observed, and I worked in places that probably had much laxer rules as far as discussion goes.



Because it's not just a fundamental disagreement. It's for me literally been "is it ok for me to exist in public and speak to men and not have sex with them and not have to constantly defend my right to freaking read a book on the way to work without it being a big deal." Or does a trans person have the right to, you know, be trans in public and wear clothes and go to the bathroom without being obligated to defend themselves against people who find the existence of trans folk uncomfortable. That takes a lot of energy in part because you're ALREADY dealing with those objections on a regular basis simply by living your life where other people can see you, and that's tiring.

Here I'll answer for the men involved. "It's okay for you to exist in public and speak to men without having sex with them, it's also cool if you want to read a book." But, if you want to go through life without ever being harassed that isn't going to happen. Everybody gets some level of unwanted public interaction. As I've said, I've experienced that, and it is uncomfortable. There is no obvious solution to people being *******s, and if the people you're talking to aren't *******s lumping them in with the *******s is naturally going to make them defensive, that's the logical reaction. Saying "if you don't agree with my exact social policies you're part of the group that's harassing people," is going to make people upset, and quite reasonably so.

As far as trans people, I've had a lot of discussions with them, and generally the problem is that most of them are not willing to listen at all to any notion that they might have to compromise things. And that's problematic, if you're trying to solve something, both sides have to be willing to accept that they might have to shift boundaries or accept a compromise, otherwise discussion and moving forward is impossible.



Should it really be on me to be the one who's "avoiding the conversation" when the conversation is in the first place about my right to be a full member of society who gets treated with the same basic respect that the people I'm talking to get?

I don't think any member of society avoids getting messed with in public in some respect. And YOU DON'T FREAKING KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE RESPECT THOSE MEN GET. Sorry, but this has been stated so many times and you have glossed over it and ignored it every time. You don't have their experiences, you don't know if they've been ignored or harassed or what's been happening to them, you are making assumptions based on a flawed narrative. That's the problem, you're assuming that as people in the group they're in, they have fundamentally a more charmed and less problem filled existence than you, and that may not be the truth, because that assumption is coming straight out of your backside.



That last part is a lot of what we're trying to say with privilege. These objections are in our faces on a regular basis simply by trying to live our lives. We can't choose to not spend our energy on them. In fact we're already spending a great deal of energy on them because we don't have a choice, sometimes even when we don't have a lot of energy for ourselves. But in order to be seen as being fair, we're often expected to give over the lion's share of our energy and the discussion time to those same objections repeated over and over and over again, very commonly at the expense of our own voices being heard.

But you don't have any way of knowing that those men don't face similar problems. You're assuming they don't. And that is the problem with asking people with whom you are not intimately familiar with to "check their privilege" you don't have any idea what their actual privilege is. You have an assumption based on their race or gender, and that's a really poor place to start. And worse yet, that assumption is causing you to ignore what they're saying. And to try to publicly silence them, that's abhorrent.



Part of privilege is saying that, if you're coming from a place of privilege, what you're seeing as "fair" often isn't actually fair. That's what I was trying to get at - a lot of times what's seen as "fair" is actually heavily biased in terms of the voices of those with privilege being able to be heard over the voices of those who aren't, but if you're used to that being the case than being told you need to listen, not just talk, feels very unfair and like you're being silenced.

But I don't think that those voices are heard at the volume you believe or the frequency. I don't think that men are living in a life that you imagine. They have a lot of problems that you don't realize and have not personally experienced, problems that you are now dismissing out-of-hand. And you're silencing them based on what you expect them to say, or because they have drawn different conclusions. If you don't have the energy to have a discussion you shouldn't have one. But if you want to have a discussion, make a genuine discussion not a sham.



That's why a lot of feminist spaces will say "but what about the men?" is a problem. Because if you start letting that in, what actually happens is women's issues don't get addressed. Because if you don't stop talking about women's issues and start talking about men's issues, you're accused of silencing. And there will never be an end to the men's issues that you're expected to talk about - you won't have any time and energy left for your own once you're done, and when you give out it will still not have been enough to address everyone who's showing up with a concern.

I don't think that women's groups should have to solve men's issues. But their reaction isn't usually "We don't have time or energy to solve that, why not form your own group". Their reaction is much more typically "But you're privileged men, you don't have any real problems" or when men do form groups they label them as being misogynist sexist groups, which is not always accurate.

I'm going to share a video that I think captures where you are coming from if I'm not mistaken, and shows some of the problems with it, it's a TED talk by a lady who was interviewing men's rights groups. And it shows a lot of the value of listening to the other side even when you don't fundamentally agree with them.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WMuzhQXJoY


AMFV, Liquor Box and Razade the defenders of the white cis male guy. :smallamused:

I'm surprised that Donnadogsoth didn't shown up yet.

Actually I haven't been "defending" anything that the "Cis Male Guy" may have said, only the fact that you should listen to all participants in a discussion you're in. Period. Or else you're being an ass, and that's a problem. I also like how you're lumping people having fairly rational discussion in with somebody who may not have intended that or wanted that.

[WarKitty]

I just want to address this idea of compromise here.

No, "everyone should be willing to compromise" is not the right solution to everything. I learned that fast in my personal life - that there are some people you can't compromise with, because what they want inherently infringes on someone else's needs or rights. If I'm talking to a guy who thinks me wanting to read a book in public makes me rude and stuck-up because I'm not giving him a chance, and I owe it to him to chat with him and maybe go out on a date because he thinks I'm pretty and that he deserves to have a chance with me, what should the compromise be?

That's totally a realistic argument I've had a lot of times. And I've definitely got the "you're not willing to compromise" accusation, because frankly I can't think of an acceptable compromise. And I have had plenty of people - always men - come in and say, well, sure, you deserve not to be harassed, but you have to understand that it's hard to get a date and maybe if women didn't insist on wanting to read instead of talking to men and were more willing to go out with guys they weren't really interested in men wouldn't feel the need to harass women.

Heck, I've had guys who actually say that rape is a real issue, but if women would compromise more by being willing to have sex more often it wouldn't be such a problem. I'm honestly not even sure how to reply to that one, because "have consensual sex so you don't get raped" (this was discussing especially date/partner violence) isn't even a logical thing. So I'm really not even sure how I'd include that in a discussion. And again, I'm pulling all this stuff from actual conversations.

Privilege isn't assuming that the privileged person has led a life free of all problems - it's assuming that, by and large, people in a certain group don't have specific experiences. I have yet to meet a man in the western world who has, on the order of several times a week on average, been harassed and pestered by people who want to go out on a date with him and refuse to take no for an answer, especially not when they are almost all bigger and stronger than him and in a context where it's very frequent that third parties will assume he brought it on himself by being too sexy. Somehow that's getting twisted into "I'm assuming no man I'm talking to has been harassed by anyone ever," which frankly I've never said. I am saying, even if you've been harassed at some point, that's not necessarily a comparable experience for various reasons.

[AMFV]

I just want to address this idea of compromise here.

No, "everyone should be willing to compromise" is not the right solution to everything. I learned that fast in my personal life - that there are some people you can't compromise with, because what they want inherently infringes on someone else's needs or rights. If I'm talking to a guy who thinks me wanting to read a book in public makes me rude and stuck-up because I'm not giving him a chance, and I owe it to him to chat with him and maybe go out on a date because he thinks I'm pretty and that he deserves to have a chance with me, what should the compromise be?

This is true, but if you aren't willing to alter your position, then discussion is pointless. Because discussion is intended to bring both sides closer to the truth and bring both sides to a better understanding. It's not that compromise is required in all situations, but that achieving the closest thing to the truth should be the goal of a discussion, and the inherently requires being willing to alter your position from it's starting point. Otherwise it's pointless. Which isn't the worst thing, but it should be mentioned.

Did you talk to that guy? Or are you talking to other people whose likely commonality with that guy is that they're guys? Because those situations are completely different. And in neither of them would telling somebody that they need to check their privilege be useful or move the discussion forward. That's the issue, you have to make rude assumptions about people and then you do something that's going to kill the discussion, that's just counterproductive on all sides.



That's totally a realistic argument I've had a lot of times. And I've definitely got the "you're not willing to compromise" accusation, because frankly I can't think of an acceptable compromise. And I have had plenty of people - always men - come in and say, well, sure, you deserve not to be harassed, but you have to understand that it's hard to get a date and maybe if women didn't insist on wanting to read instead of talking to men and were more willing to go out with guys they weren't really interested in men wouldn't feel the need to harass women.

I'm not sure that I would buy that it's "plenty" of people. I've heard that argument, but it was always from pretty lonely losers, and that's not a majority of men. I don't think that necessarily a compromise in terms of your actions is what's called for here. Maybe a compromise in terms of figuring out a way that a man can approach a woman in whom he has an interest and get accepted or rejected without having negative consequences beyond the rejection. You're trying to solve a big problem, and lumping all the men together is a horrible first step.

And the fact that it's hard for men in modern society to find a date, is increasingly becoming an issue, and likely is part of what might cause an upswing in frustrated harassment. I'm not saying that they're complaints are as significant as yours but those are valid complaints and they are part of the same issue. You can't tackle one side of a thorny issue by ignoring half of the people involved



Heck, I've had guys who actually say that rape is a real issue, but if women would compromise more by being willing to have sex more often it wouldn't be such a problem. I'm honestly not even sure how to reply to that one, because "have consensual sex so you don't get raped" (this was discussing especially date/partner violence) isn't even a logical thing. So I'm really not even sure how I'd include that in a discussion. And again, I'm pulling all this stuff from actual conversations.

Well there are some pretty strong logical responses to that, all of which would be superior to basically telling them "shut you don't understand". But the first thing you need to do is listen to their complaint and their part of the discussion. For a man, not having sex when you are aroused can be physically painful. No that doesn't justify rape or harassment, but it's something that you haven't had to experience, largely because in Western Culture at this time, sex is much more readily available to women than it is to men. Now that doesn't mean that you should accept any argument that's as full of **** as those are, but understanding where those arguments are coming from that's key to having a useful discussion.

If something "isn't even a logical thing" then pointing out the flaws in the reasoning is much better than attacking the character of the other people involved in the argument is. That would be a good first step. Maybe talk about ways that men can approach women that are less creepy, and ways that women can not assume that guys who approach them are always creeps. Because that's all enmeshed, not that you should give actual creeps a chance, but understanding them is important to any kind of way to solve the problem that you're discussing.



Privilege isn't assuming that the privileged person has led a life free of all problems - it's assuming that, by and large, people in a certain group don't have specific experiences. I have yet to meet a man in the western world who has, on the order of several times a week on average, been harassed and pestered by people who want to go out on a date with him and refuse to take no for an answer, especially not when they are almost all bigger and stronger than him and in a context where it's very frequent that third parties will assume he brought it on himself by being too sexy. Somehow that's getting twisted into "I'm assuming no man I'm talking to has been harassed by anyone ever," which frankly I've never said. I am saying, even if you've been harassed at some point, that's not necessarily a comparable experience for various reasons.

That is true. But you're still making assumptions based on what you believe their experiences to be rather than assumptions based on what their experiences actually are. And you don't know their experiences. You've never had the same set of bad experiences that they have. So they might be worse than yours. You have no idea. You're making assumptions based on your own set of experiences.

Let's flip the script a little here: I am a big scary looking dude, I'm a construction worker, I was a Marine, I weigh well over 200 lbs and I workout a lot. I don't harass women, and I don't have to be afraid of most physical confrontation. But I have to be very afraid of making sure that I don't make people around me uncomfortable. That is something you have never had to experience. And I can guarantee that sometimes when I have tried to talk to women, they've felt uncomfortable, sometimes even when I was doing everything I could to not make them so. I'm not saying that this is the case for the people doing actual harassment, but what I'm saying are the men you are talking to aren't likely going around harassing people, but I bet they're afraid people will think they are.

No set of experiences is comparable, which is why you should let everybody talk in a discussion, because those different experiences are often useful in coming closer to actual truth of things, which is hard to do, and painful.

Edit: Also did you watch the video, I think it really helps encapsulate why listening to others is important if you think their views are not good on the outset.

[Amazon]

You've never had the same set of bad experiences that they have. So they might be worse than yours. You have no idea. You're making assumptions based on your own set of experiences.

Said the slaver to the slave.

[Strigon]

Said the slaver to the slave.

And with that, the last hope of recovery for this thread was lost. Given the title of this particular one, I'm surprised it even lasted this long.

See you all next week for an exciting new episode of "Inflammatory thread titles", everybody. Whose turn is it to host the next one, anyway?

[Amazon]

And with that, the last hope of recovery for this thread was lost. Given the title of this particular one, I'm surprised it even lasted this long.

See you all next week for an exciting new episode of "Inflammatory thread titles", everybody. Whose turn is it to host the next one, anyway?

My point still stands, sometimes we don't need to hear both sides, sometimes a compromise is not a solution.

[WarKitty]

AMFV, I'm not currently on hardware capable of watching a video, just FYI.

[AMFV]

AMFV, I'm not currently on hardware capable of watching a video, just FYI.

Well I can try and summarize some of it as best I can, it's definitely worth watching when you have the capability. Basically the lady involved was a feminist she did a documentary on MRA folks. When she was doing the initial interviews she had to let them talk, cause that's what you do as a documentarian. But she was still adding an undertone of sexism to what they were saying, she didn't catch it until she was re-examining the interviews later, that she was adding things to what they were saying rather than listening. And that's a big part of this, I think.

What (I suspect) is happening is that when you complain about the harassment, the men start complaining about what to them is a related issue, that they aren't able to get the interest of women without seeming like a creepy harasser and that a lot of men are very frustrated by that. So that's I would imagine why that topic comes up when you bring up harassment, because it is a related topic. And while it might not seem like it is to you, or that it's that big an issue, you should still see what you can glean from it, because that'll get you closer to the truth of the matter, and the closer you are to that the better you can deal with anything.

And because I'm not able to as eloquently sum it up as I think the lady herself does:
https://singjupost.com/meeting-the-enemy-a-feminist-comes-to-terms-with-the-mens-rights-movement-by-cassie-jaye-transcript/

There is the transcript of the video.


Said the slaver to the slave.

If that relationship were accurate then why would I allow you to be having this extensive formal discourse on the subject, wouldn't it be in the best interests of the oppressing class to prevent that from taking place? I mean discourse is where freedoms have historically developed. And most oppressing groups and oppressive societies take steps against that because of that.

That's something you should definitely consider when you're trying to silence a group or a viewpoint. Silence and denial of speech is the weapon of the oppressor not the oppressed. That's historically been always true to the best of my knowledge. So when you find yourself siding with that, siding with the idea that speech should be rigorously controlled, then that's a negative.


My point still stands, sometimes we don't need to hear both sides, sometimes a compromise is not a solution.

You always need to hear both sides, because how in the world could you know you didn't have to hear both sides if you didn't hear them both? If you refuse to listen to something you have no way of knowing that it's bad, or that it's devoid of useful meaning.

And you certainly can't even begin to state that "compromise isn't a solution" if you have no idea what kind of compromise they want because you haven't listened and worse you haven't allowed them to speak.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

For a man, not having sex when you are aroused can be physically painful.
Those people can jerk it, and then visit a doctor.


in Western Culture at this time, sex is much more readily available to women than it is to men.
There are roughly as many women as men, so straight sex is at least on average pretty evenly divided. Also there are way more hookers for men. (*Availability may vary depending on your location.)

Wait, I don't want to get any more of this discussion on me do I, if that's the random first paragraph I land on?

[AMFV]

Those people can jerk it, and then visit a doctor.


There are roughly as many women as men, so straight sex is at least on average pretty evenly divided. Also there are way more hookers for men. (*Availability may vary depending on your location.)

Wait, I don't want to get any more of this discussion on me do I, if that's the random first paragraph I land on?

I think you may have missed ALL of what I was saying to focus on something you found offensive. I wasn't saying that what they were saying had merit. What I was saying is that dismissing their problems as being somehow insignificant out of hand is not really a good way to go and is likely to be very inaccurate. Which is what I said in all the sections around the sections you cherry picked quotes from.

Frankly, we aren't even hearing the arguments that Warkitty is talking about, we're hearing her renditions of them, and then using those to smugly attack the people making them, while saying that they should be silenced. That's not a way to have productive discourse that's not a way to move the conversation forward, that's a way to polarize and to basically get a bunch of people potentially falsely represented.

I'm not arguing that women should be required to have sex with men, I am saying that I have met a lot more men that complain about poor sex lives than women. I mean there's whole entire cultures on the internet dedicated to men who can't get laid. There isn't that for women, which suggests to me that more men are not getting laid than women.

Secondly, your argument about the equality of numbers doesn't work here. Because some large percentage of women could be having encounters with a small percentage of men. Which is, I suspect, the case.

[Amazon]

You always need to hear both sides, because how in the world could you know you didn't have to hear both sides if you didn't hear them both? If you refuse to listen to something you have no way of knowing that it's bad, or that it's devoid of useful meaning.

So we must always hear both sides? The side of the oppressor? The side of the slaver? The side of genocide defender?


And you certainly can't even begin to state that "compromise isn't a solution" if you have no idea what kind of compromise they want because you haven't listened and worse you haven't allowed them to speak.

Sometimes compromise is not a solution. Sometiems we have to take a stand.

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/semicontrolled_demolition.png

[AMFV]

So we must always hear both sides? The side of the oppressor? The side of the slaver? The side of genocide defender?

Yes, you should listen to all sides, even ones that are abhorrent. For a few reasons:

First, because you may be assigning abhorrent views to somebody that may not really have them, if you aren't listening to what they have to say or you're adding additional things to their statements that they aren't really saying... you're creating a problem. It's like how many people get associated with abhorrent movements nowadays who are not part of those movements, and who do not share those views. If you are claiming that all "Cis White Men" are part of the oppressors, and that all of them share the same viewpoints, you are categorically wrong. That's why listening is important, and not just listening, honest listening.

Second, because you want to understand their perspective even if it is an abhorrent one. If somebody is an oppressor or a slaver, or somebody who commits genocide (I'll even one up you on that one), I want to be able to understand why they would do that. This is for a variety of reasons, first, because that gives me the ability to talk to others and convince those who haven't made up their mind of the actual abhorrent views of that person, if I just spew bull**** then it doesn't work, because people recognize that. And because that gives me an honest chance to discuss things with the oppressor or the slaver or the genocidal, and potentially convince them to stop that. The best way after all to make those things stop is to get the people who are doing those things to stop that, and the best way to do that is honest forthright discussion.

Third, because you want to figure out the truth, and you can't figure out the truth when you're filtering out discussion, even if it's abhorrent or offensive or awful. Because you need all the facts for this. All of them. Listening to somebody is not equivalent to agreeing with them. But if you're silencing them then you have no idea what they stand for and that's a serious problem.



Sometimes compromise is not a solution. Sometiems we have to take a stand.

This is true. But that's why listening to people on the other side is critical because you can't know when those moments are and what you're standing up against unless you listen to them. If people had taken a particular 20th century dictators' words more seriously and listened to what he said, they'd have realized what a monster he was. But they decided not to do that, that he was exaggerated or BSing, and thus we fell into a problem where nobody tried to stop him earlier, because we had not given credence to what he said.

This is why listening and discourse is crucial, because unless you listen to people you don't know when it is time to take a stand, you'll stand up and fight when you don't need to, and beat on people that don't deserve it, or get beaten; or worse, you'll sit down when you should be standing up.

[Amazon]

There is stuff that we simply don't have to hear why? History.

Every time a guy comes and start talking sh** to a minority we can just invalidate that, been there done that, we can't give a plataform to hate, that's counter productive.

Just as we don't curse in a church you don't bring hate and orpession to a conversation, that's just how it is.

Why debate with someone who wants to remove rigths? Why give space on a debate to someone who wants to end debates? It's poitnless and dumb.

We know what the opressor want, they want to opress.

[The Extinguisher]

Funnily enough, the idea that you should always listen to all sides is one of incredible privilege. I dont need to listen to the voices of people who hate me during a discussion, cause theyre screamimg their views at me all the time anyway.

Its all really telling the kind of people that feel the need to insert their opinion into every discussion and insist that all sides should be listened to. Men, during discussions of womens issues. White people, with issues affect people of colour. Straight people and queer issues, cis people and trans issues, wealthy people and poor issues, and so on and so forth on basically any axis of oppression.

Maybe we can all take a minute and think why that might be the case?

[AMFV]

There is stuff that we simply don't have to hear why? History.


Well I guess that is true. Every single thing that a "White Cis Guy" might add to a conversation we already know because we can use history to perfectly predict Human behavior... Wait no can't. So no you can't ban an entire gender from participating in certain conversations because of "history".

First, not all "White Cis Males" have been a part of that history, and they don't all share equally in it, or in it's ideologies. Most of the people you would talk to were not alive for most of the oppression you are discussing. So maybe they'll have some insight you won't even imagine.

Second, are you making the claim that everybody who belongs to a certain race shares the same exact views? That everybody of one gender does? Because that's the only way you get to ignore them because of "history" and that's pretty much bull**** of the highest order.



Every time a guy coems and start talking sh** to a minority we can just invalidate that, been there done that, we can't give a plataform to hate, that's counter productive.

Why is it counter-productive though? If hate is given a platform people will see it at it's worst and reject it. That's the idea, or you'll be able to counter it's ideas more directly, which is better than not having any idea what they're saying as you don't and being unable to effectively combat those things.



Just as we don't curse in a church you don't bring hate and orpession to a conversation, that's just how it is.


Well you still need to be able to converse with people that do. Just the same way that I don't beat up people who curse in a Church. And it's important, because you can bring them out of hate and oppression by convincing them of the wrongness of those things, not by shouting at them.



Why debate with someone who wants to remove rigths? Why give space on a debate to someone who wants to end debates? It's poitnless and dumb.

You do know that you are arguing on the side of removing debates here?



We know what the opressor want, they want to opress.

No, people are not cartoon characters, they aren't Snidely Whiplash, twirling their mustaches. And certainly not all people from one gender or one race are "oppressors". Period.


Funnily enough, the idea that you should always listen to all sides is one of incredible privilege. I dont need to listen to the voices of people who hate me during a discussion, cause theyre screamimg their views at me all the time anyway.

So you're declaring that you know what one person says because you've heard what a different person says, that isn't logical or reasonable. Also that means that you're grouping people who are not jerks together with jerks, because you're silencing more people than just the jerks using the "check your privilege" thing. Unless you're claiming that all people of majority groups are jerks, in which case you're a bigot, and you should stop that.



Its all really telling the kind of people that feel the need to insert their opinion into every discussion and insist that all sides should be listened to. Men, during discussions of womens issues. White people, with issues affect people of colour. Straight people and queer issues, cis people and trans issues, wealthy people and poor issues, and so on and so forth on basically any axis of oppression.

Maybe we can all take a minute and think why that might be the case?

Maybe it's because all sides SHOULD be heard in any issue, regardless of one side's privilege. Also most of the issues you're describing don't affect just one group, they're always complicated and multifaceted and the solutions often affect all of those groups as well, which means that you should listen to them. Not that you should agree, but that you should listen.

[Amazon]

Second, are you making the claim that everybody who belongs to a certain race shares the same exact views? That everybody of one gender does? Because that's the only way you get to ignore them because of "history" and that's pretty much bull**** of the highest order.

Yes, just as when people say that all politicians are corrupt they literally mean all politicians. :smallsigh:


Why is it counter-productive though? If hate is given a platform people will see it at it's worst and reject it. That's the idea, or you'll be able to counter it's ideas more directly, which is better than not having any idea what they're saying as you don't and being unable to effectively combat those things.

You seem to be uncritical, unquestioning, overvaluing and overestimating people's abillity to be logical, don't know what a demagogue is?


Well you still need to be able to converse with people that do. Just the same way that I don't beat up people who curse in a Church. And it's important, because you can bring them out of hate and oppression by convincing them of the wrongness of those things, not by shouting at them.

But you don't simply allow them to curse at their leisure that's why we have laws against Holocaust denial, some ideas don't need to be discussed becuase some ideas go againts the very foundation of freedom itself.


You do know that you are arguing on the side of removing debates here?

No, I'm not. I'm saying that some things are not relevant and should not be discussed is not the same as using violence to say that ideas must not be discussed.


No, people are not cartoon characters, they aren't Snidely Whiplash, twirling their mustaches. And certainly not all people from one gender or one race are "oppressors". Period.

It's not about the person it's about the system, you don't oppress people but you partake on a system that does, the least you can do is realise and admit that.


So you're declaring that you know what one person says because you've heard what a different person says, that isn't logical or reasonable. Also that means that you're grouping people who are not jerks together with jerks, because you're silencing more people than just the jerks using the "check your privilege" thing. Unless you're claiming that all people of majority groups are jerks, in which case you're a bigot, and you should stop that.

http://www.badveganlady.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Menaretrash.jpg


Maybe it's because all sides SHOULD be heard in any issue, regardless of one side's privilege. Also most of the issues you're describing don't affect just one group, they're always complicated and multifaceted and the solutions often affect all of those groups as well, which means that you should listen to them. Not that you should agree, but that you should listen.

Why must we give voice to someone who says vaccines will turn your kids black?

[The Extinguisher]

Giving hate a platform doesn't stop the spread of that hate. Obviously. People who already think that hate is bad dont need to hear the hate to think its bad. All that giving hate a platform does is increase its range towards people who share that hate, and lets them know that "you're not alone in this hate" and gives them the ability to work together to further spread that hate. If you want to stop an idea, spreading that idea is the worst thing you can do.


I've never seen a discussion, for example, of trans people talking about gatekeeping in access to medical care that was improved by a cis person chiming in with their two cents even when those cis people agreed.



Also, AMFV, if you hear "I dont want to hear the voices of people that hate me" and then think "what you dont want to hear my voice!" then thats on you, not me.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I think you may have missed ALL of what I was saying to focus on something you found offensive.

I'm usually pretty good at seeing different sides and understanding why seemingly minor annoyances can be a big deal. So I get that your point is that we should do that. But something does have to make sense for me in at least some way for me to stay good at it. There might be more paragraphs in this thread that get the same response from me, but I landed on yours.

[AMFV]

Yes, just as when people say that all politicians are corrupt they literally mean all politicians. :smallsigh:

BUT YOU ARE SAYING THAT. You are making the argument that because some men have said things that you found abhorrent, all men should have their ability to speak in certain contexts reduced or removed. So basically you are saying that any man who disagrees with a woman on woman's issues is not only de facto to be considered wrong, but that they should shut the hell up. That's not a very solid ground to stand on, especially if you're only basing that on how other people of the same category have acted.



You seem to be uncritical, unquestioning, overvaluing and overestimating people's abillity to be logical, don't know what a demagogue is?

And telling a demagogue to "check their privilege" will never work. But disproving them in public might work. It has a lot better track record than your approach. Which has often led to people who were trying to silence people for the public good becoming the oppressors themselves. Because silencing people based on racial or gender categories is a tool of oppression. It's only a tool of oppression.



But you don't simply allow them to curse at their leisure that's why we have laws against Holocaust denial, some ideas don't need to be discussed becuase some ideas go againts the very foundation of freedom itself.

I would argue that restricting somebody's speech for ANY reason goes the foundation of freedom itself. And I would say that the laws you mention are wrong, categorically and should not exist. And also arguing that something is morally correct because it is ensconced in law is a really shaky ground to be standing on, since by that same logic slavery would be considered moral.



No, I'm not saying that some things are not relevant and should not be discussed is not the same as using violence to say that ideas must not be discussed.

But it's only one step away. Especially since you've admitted that you are silencing people based on broad categories and you aren't willing to listen to a single objection they might have. Or to even listen to what they're saying, since you're assuming that all people of large categorical groups have identical opinions. Do you not see how that's deeply concerning and troubling.



It's about the person it's about the system, you don't oppress people but you partake on a system that does, the least you can do is realise and admit that.

I LIVED WITHOUT POWER FOR A WHOLE ****ING YEAR, IN THE UNITED STATES. I WAS PHYSICALLY ASSAULTED BECAUSE OF MY RACE IN THE UNITED STATES. I've met and worked with poor people of color, and they did not experience poverty that was as bad as the poverty I experienced when I was a kid. So how has that system benefited me? I mean I had to join the military to pay for college, I had to go to war to pay for college. For most of my life my family was poor enough that if we went out to eat it was one choice off the dollar menu.

So if that system is oppressing people to elevate me, it is sure doing a ****ty job of that.



Why must we give vocie to someone who says vaccines will turn your kids black?

Because they have a voice, and you can disprove that. See the thing is that this is probably about the most easy thing to disprove that you mentioned. "I've had vaccines, I'm not black" Ergo "Vaccines don't turn people black". Boom, logically disproved statement without having to silence the speaker. Then the speaker has to either clarify their meaning, go into more detail, or accept that they're wrong. That's how discourse works. You use logic, not bludgeoning, not threat of violence, not threat of censorship. If you can't use logic to support your ideas, then you should take a LONG look at those ideas.

Edit:


Giving hate a platform doesn't stop the spread of that hate. Obviously. People who already think that hate is bad dont need to hear the hate to think its bad. All that giving hate a platform does is increase its range towards people who share that hate, and lets them know that "you're not alone in this hate" and gives them the ability to work together to further spread that hate. If you want to stop an idea, spreading that idea is the worst thing you can do.

A.) I'm not spreading hateful ideas, I'm just not silencing ideas I have never heard and ASSUMING that they're hateful because of their origin as you and others are doing.

B.) Hateful people seek out hateful ideas. Period. So they'll find these people regardless of how much you protest them and how aggressively you silence them. So you should maybe expose their ideas to the light so that people who are more moderate can see both the ideas and the arguments against in a public forum. Because that's what helps. Again, if you can't logically defend your ideas then you should take a LONG look at them.

C.) Again you're assuming that ideas are hateful because of their origin when you say "check your privilege" and you're often not even listening to said ideas.



I've never seen a discussion, for example, of trans people talking about gatekeeping in access to medical care that was improved by a cis person chiming in with their two cents even when those cis people agreed.


And that is true, because one person in a group has said something that means that nobody else from that group can ever add to a discussion. Oh, wait no, that's bigoted bull****.



Also, AMFV, if you hear "I dont want to hear the voices of people that hate me" and then think "what you dont want to hear my voice!" then thats on you, not me.

That's because people here are saying that all men should be banned from participating in certain conversations. My voice hateful or not is part of that. All Cis people should be banned from discussions of medical gatekeeping, again, my voice hateful is part of that. You're saying I'm hateful because of my gender, my orientation, my identity, and my race. Which sounds an awful lot like bigotry to me.


I'm usually pretty good at seeing different sides and understanding why seemingly minor annoyances can be a big deal. So I get that your point is that we should do that. But something does have to make sense for me in at least some way for me to stay good at it. There might be more paragraphs in this thread that get the same response from me, but I landed on yours.

Yeah but you have to actually read the surrounding stuff instead of ripping things out of context. Which you did. And I addressed your objections in greater detail since you did that.

[Amazon]

That's not how demagoges work, or people infleucned by them, they would just say that you are part of the conspiracy, brainwashed by media, a paw a sheeple who just need to wake u---

Wait...

Did you just compared laws against Holocaust denial with slavery??? I think we are done here.

Good luck with your life.

Hope not to interact with you again. Sorry if this is melodramatic.

[AMFV]

That's not how demagoges work, or people infleucned by them, they would just say that you are part of the conspiracy, brainwashed by media, a paw a sheeple who just need to wake u---

I think that you may need to do some research on demagogues. They tend to work best when free speech is silent, not when it's working against them. And they go well out of their way to silence free speech. Which is again why silencing free speech is such a bad thing. Any kind of silencing is a big problem.



Did you just compared laws against Holocaust denial with slavery??? I think we are done here.\.

No, I did not ****ing do that. I compared your argument using the fact that something is a law to argue that it's the right moral thing to the same argument used with laws with which you disagree.

[The Extinguisher]

A.) I'm not spreading hateful ideas, I'm just not silencing ideas I have never heard and ASSUMING that they're hateful because of their origin as you and others are doing.

B.) Hateful people seek out hateful ideas. Period. So they'll find these people regardless of how much you protest them and how aggressively you silence them. So you should maybe expose their ideas to the light so that people who are more moderate can see both the ideas and the arguments against in a public forum. Because that's what helps. Again, if you can't logically defend your ideas then you should take a LONG look at them.

C.) Again you're assuming that ideas are hateful because of their origin when you say "check your privilege" and you're often not even listening to said ideas.



And that is true, because one person in a group has said something that means that nobody else from that group can ever add to a discussion. Oh, wait no, that's bigoted bull****.



That's because people here are saying that all men should be banned from participating in certain conversations. My voice hateful or not is part of that. All Cis people should be banned from discussions of medical gatekeeping, again, my voice hateful is part of that. You're saying I'm hateful because of my gender, my orientation, my identity, and my race. Which sounds an awful lot like bigotry to me.




No one is talking about banning people from contributing from discussions just that a particular viewpoint might be unnecessary or irrelevant or actively harmful. The reason that language might get aggressive is because you cant seem to think that your perspective might be anything other than the most important thing being said.

You really have no idea how ideology spreads do you? You can't seek out similar ideology if you dont know where to look for it. Giving a platform to that ideology gives people a place to look.
Relatedly, moderates who need debate to realize whether, for example, genocide is wrong or that you shouldnt force women to have sex with men aren't actually moderates at all.

And im not calling you hateful at all. But if i was, it wouldn't be because of your gender or race or whatever. It would be because of the hateful things you have said in this thread

[AMFV]

No one is talking about banning people from contributing from discussions just that a particular viewpoint might be unnecessary or irrelevant or actively harmful. The reason that language might get aggressive is because you cant seem to think that your perspective might be anything other than the most important thing being said.

Actually, some of the people arguing in favor of the checking your privilege have explicitly said that this was intended to prevent people from participating in conversations. I mean with good intentions, but, that's what I'm arguing against. You even implied as much in your first post in this thread, when you said that you didn't have to listen to people who were hateful.

Also, all perspectives being heard is pretty important. Especially when they're ones from people with differing life experiences. The more insular you get, the more you isolate your viewpoints to those from people who have similar lives to yours, the less true and more idiomatic they become. That's a serious problem.

I'm not saying that my voice needs to be heard. All that I was saying initially was that, if somebody is assuming I've had a particular kind of life because of my ethnic group or my gender or my identity, then they're probably wrong. And that that kind of assumption is very likely to be wrong and is dangerous.



You really have no idea how ideology spreads do you? You can't seek out similar ideology if you dont know where to look for it. Giving a platform to that ideology gives people a place to look.

You're wrong. Flat out. People find other hateful people. Hell there has been an entire industry of White Supremacist music, that no music stores will sell, that can't be advertised and people were finding that stuff and buying BEFORE the internet was a thing. So yes, people are good at finding ideologically similar people.

That's why you don't want to hide your extremists, you want to confront them. And the way to do that is with logic.



Relatedly, moderates who need debate to realize whether, for example, genocide is wrong or that you shouldnt force women to have sex with men aren't actually moderates at all.

I don't believe that we've had those particular issues brought up as subject for debate. And they still should be able to be debated. Because that's how you get to the truth.



And im not calling you hateful at all. But if i was, it wouldn't be because of your gender or race or whatever. It would be because of the hateful things you have said in this thread

I don't think I've said a single hateful thing. Not one. The only thing I've said is that you shouldn't judge people to be privileged based on their race, gender or identity. And that people should listen to what other people say in discourse, to get to the truth. Not that people should agree with everything said, but that listening to more perspectives is always better than listening to less.

[The Extinguisher]

You're wrong. Flat out. People find other hateful people. Hell there has been an entire industry of White Supremacist music, that no music stores will sell, that can't be advertised and people were finding that stuff and buying BEFORE the internet was a thing. So yes, people are good at finding ideologically similar people.

That's why you don't want to hide your extremists, you want to confront them. And the way to do that is with logic.



Wow your right. Its surely just a coincidence that the rising tide of white supremacists is happening at the same time that white supremacists are being giving increasingly larger platforms. Cant be related because people use to buy music in the past.


I can't argue on anything else right now because they all seem centered around the idea that all opinions are equally important to hear which is absolutely wrong. Its dangerously wrong.

But i will point out that "group X shouldn't participate in a discussion" is not the same as "group X is not allowed to participate in a discussion" like you are implying and the fact that its centered around what i said about not wanting to hear hate is a real bad look for you

[S@tanicoaldo]

Mother: Help! Help! My daughter is sick!

Woman: What is wrong with her?

Mother: She has XXXXX.

Woman: Oh, my grandmother used to apply this herb on people who had that and they got better.

Mother: Really? What you guys think fellow village member?

Man: I say that’s witch talk.

Woman: What?

Man: I think we must burn her!

Mother: AMFV do something!

AMFV: Wait! Let him talk, maybe he’s onto something here... We must be fair and let everyone talk and you know, have a fair judgment! We sure don’t want to oppress anyone.

Woman: I’m not a witch!

Man: I say she is! I can smell witches!

AMFV: It seems we are in impasse here let’s have the people decide!

Old guy: Burn her!

Other guy: She’s a Witch!

Woman: She cursed my baby!

Kid: I just like to see people die! Burn her!

AMFV: Well the people have decided. Justice is once more done, AMFV away!

Once Again the Day is Saved Thanks to The PowerPuff Girls AMFV's allowing everyone to participate in a discussion!

[AMFV]

Wow your right. Its surely just a coincidence that the rising tide of white supremacists is happening at the same time that white supremacists are being giving increasingly larger platforms. Cant be related because people use to buy music in the past.


There isn't such a tide. I mean at the national convention for them they weren't even able to get 300 people. That's not a rising tide, that's a dying gasp. Hell, even organizations who are pretty much invested in the idea that hate groups are a thing have been arguing for them



I can't argue on anything else right now because they all seem centered around the idea that all opinions are equally important to hear which is absolutely wrong. Its dangerously wrong.

Again, that is completely untrue. How can you know something is wrong unless you hear it and evaluate it? Like using logic and reasoning. That's the step you guys keep glossing over.



But i will point out that "group X shouldn't participate in a discussion" is not the same as "group X is not allowed to participate in a discussion" like you are implying and the fact that its centered around what i said about not wanting to hear hate is a real bad look for you

Because when somebody says "Check Your Privilege" the goal of the person saying that is to stop the other person from participating in that discussion. Regardless of privilege. This is what I've been saying this whole time.


Mother: Help! Help! My daughter is sick!

Woman: What is wrong with her?

Mother: She has XXXXX.

Woman: Oh, my grandmother used to apply this herb on people who had that and they got better.

Mother: Really? What you guys think fellow village member?

Man: I say that’s witch talk.

Woman: What?

Man: I think we must burn her!

Mother: AMFV do something!

AMFV: Wait! Let him talk, maybe he’s onto something here... We must be fair and let everyone talk and you know, have a fair judgment! We sure don’t want to oppress anyone.

Woman: I’m not a witch!

Man: I say she is! I can smell witches!

AMFV: It seems we are in impasse here let’s have the people decide!

Old guy: Burn her!

Other guy: She’s a Witch!

Woman: She cursed my baby!

Kid: I just like to see people die! Burn her!

AMFV: Well the people have decided. Justice is once more done, AMFV away!

Once Again the Day is Saved Thanks to The PowerPuff Girls AMFV's allowing everyone to participate in a discussion!

Yeah that's totally what I was arguing for, not ****ing logic. What is wrong with you people here. I'm arguing that all perspectives should be heard and then evaluated with logic. Not mob rule, not prejudice. Like that's all I've said why on earth are you so invested with twisting my words and my perspectives?

So if you were being honest it would go like this:

Woman: Here try this herb?

Man: She's a witch!

AMFV: Let's hear him out what evidence do you present that she's a witch, and as for you what evidence do you have that the herb is going to help?

At which point debate and discourse happen and we find out through logic and reasoning if she is a witch or if the herb can help.

[2D8HP]

I think people do really miss the aspect - time is not infinite. People's energy is not infinite. And most people's listening ability is not infinite....


Feels very true right now.


...I think this comes up a lot with LGBT issues...


I just don't have the energy to unpack so much of this thread right now, but when it comes to LGBT+ issues, I have two slur using Cis, etc co-workers in mind, one of which became verbally compassionate and LGBT+ rights advocating, the other, well basically a sadist who thankfully I don't work with anymore.

If the thread somehow continues I'll post some details, but for now I'll say that basic human empathy is why one became compassionate, the other is a psychopath who grew up being beaten.


....Why must we give voice to someone who says vaccines will turn your kids black?


Off topic, and I know that there's pills that do that, but such a vaccine would be pretty cool as a melanoma preventative.

[The Extinguisher]

There isn't such a tide. I mean at the national convention for them they weren't even able to get 300 people. That's not a rising tide, that's a dying gasp. Hell, even organizations who are pretty much invested in the idea that hate groups are a thing have been arguing for them


Yikes


But okay lets say i humor you for a moment? How do you propose ideology spreads? You say that people seeking out similar viewpoints will happen but how does it happen?

[AMFV]

Yikes


But okay lets say i humor you for a moment? How do you propose ideology spreads? You say that people seeking out similar viewpoints will happen but how does it happen?

In terms of groups like that. Normally they have recruiters that look for people who are young. They put flyers up in certain spots. It's all wonderfully low-tech. But generally if you're looking for something like that it can find you, or you can find it. They used to have rallies and such, they occasionally have festivals. And they do have speakers that attract people. But at the same time, that sort of thing is incredibly fleeting nowadays.

And even yet, I think that the danger of silencing people who might not be involved because of a suspicion of involvement is far worse. You're shouting down people who are possibly not involved in this sort of thing. That's a problem. Especially when as I said earlier insular viewpoints become increasingly idiomatic and that's a problem. You want to hear as much input as you can. Now you don't have to take all the viewpoints with equal weight, but you should know them so that you can properly evaluate.

[Razade]

AMFV, Liquor Box and Razade the defenders of the white cis male guy. :smallamused:

It's incredibly telling that instead of actually discussing the things we've said, you go into hyperbole and absurdity. Likening any one of us to an anti-vaxxer or an anti-trans/racist person is frankly beyond the pale and so grossly out of order I'd feel personally insulted if I gave even two bent dimes about your opinion in the first place.


I'm surprised that Donnadogsoth didn't shown up yet.

As a frequent and (incredibly vocal) critic of Donnadogsoth's views and opinions I find this a rather hilarious statement.

You can paint me however you'd like. As an Anti-Trans person, a racist, a Cis, Straight, White Male (which...you've no evidence for any of those things and I'm at the very least not one of those on the list) or anything of the like. I think my positions are rather clear from the people I take issue with.

But you, Amazon, are uncomfortable with different opinions. You want to live in an echo chamber. Like The Extinguisher and many other people on this forum. I'm not with AMFV where I think we need to listen to all sides. On the contrary, there are sides we should roundly ignore. For many, varied reasons.

But, and I am putting this separate, the idea that the human race is just some group of boxes to be checked off in some disgusting abuse olympics is an absurd one and the idea that there are groups who need to sit down, shut up and keep anything they have to say out of the public sphere because they've had their time or they're oppressors (as you Amazon so happily chimed "said the slaver to the slave") and thus anything they have to say is invalidated.

Well. That's disgusting. It's absurd. I will challenge this cult of victimhood when and where I can because it matters. I will not eagerly rush to recreate segregation with a rallying cry of tolerance and acceptance. "Only Black Spaces/Only Trans Spaces/Only Lantio spaces" is still Separate But Equal, regardless of how and why they come about.

[Vinyadan]

I remember once reading an article in which a feminist explained real problems for men, and then ended with something like "well, DIY, because we are not campaigning for you". I remember finding this a huge let down. The article could have ended with a request for things to change. That would have already been campaigning, since it was in a huge newspaper. It felt really awkward.

Warkitty, I'm sad to say this, but you have to expect problems with convincing people. It's hard enough to try and explain them stupid things. People aren't happy at being mistaken and having to admit mistakes, and some will rise a wall. Actually, many will. I'm not saying that the things you ask for are a wrong hope, but they are a misplaced expectation. If things will change, it will be over decades, both for the many and in the individuals.

[S@tanicoaldo]

AMFV: Let's hear him out what evidence do you present that she's a witch(...)

And I rest my case.

[AMFV]

And I rest my case.

Poorly though, since I would require actual evidence to believe that somebody was a witch. And logical proofs. But I don't dismiss that out of hand, because I don't dismiss any idea out of hand, if I can help it. That way leads only to problems. The only way to find the truth is by being willing to explore most ideas, even things that are inherently absurd.

Of course, you can't just believe something that's not true, but before you've investigated something you can't make statements about the truth.

[2D8HP]

I can't resist:

Well she did turn me into a newt!

I um, got better.

See if she weighs the same as a duck!

[JadedDM]

Poorly though, since I would require actual evidence to believe that somebody was a witch. And logical proofs. But I don't dismiss that out of hand, because I don't dismiss any idea out of hand, if I can help it. That way leads only to problems. The only way to find the truth is by being willing to explore most ideas, even things that are inherently absurd.

Your way, then, is to waste time. This is what Warkitty was trying to say before. If everyone has to spend time debunking nonsense, nothing ever gets done.

Imagine a council of scientists. Let's say, quantum physicists. Now every time this council gets together to discuss quantum physics, they are required to give equal time to any layman who happens upon them. Even though these laymen have no working knowledge or understanding of quantum physics, so their theories and opinions on the subject range from misguided to absurd. So every week the council meets, but they never get around to actually discussing quantum physics, because they have to field every question, patiently explain why people who have no idea what they are talking about are wrong, and allow the laymen completely dominate the discussion.

And this is a good thing, in your mind? This is productive?

[S@tanicoaldo]

I can't resist:

Well she did turn me into a newt!

I um, got better.

See if she weighs the same as a duck!

\o\ \o/ /o/


Poorly though, since I would require actual evidence to believe that somebody was a witch. And logical proofs. But I don't dismiss that out of hand, because I don't dismiss any idea out of hand, if I can help it. That way leads only to problems. The only way to find the truth is by being willing to explore most ideas, even things that are inherently absurd.

Of course, you can't just believe something that's not true, but before you've investigated something you can't make statements about the truth.

The notion that someone can be a withc just because she uses herbs is absurd.

"Just because there are two sides to an issue doesn’t mean they’re equally deserving of an audience. Your responsibility as is not to simply defer to this “both sides” platitude as a defense of trotting out any fascist crackpot. You have to exercise discretion about what views are worthy of being heard."
- By contra points.

Source: LINK (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPa1wikTd5c). Warning: Surreal imagery that makes even me uncomfortable.

[AMFV]

Your way, then, is to waste time. This is what Warkitty was trying to say before. If everyone has to spend time debunking nonsense, nothing ever gets done.

Imagine a council of scientists. Let's say, quantum physicists. Now every time this council gets together to discuss quantum physics, they are required to give equal time to any layman who happens upon them. Even though these laymen have no working knowledge or understanding of quantum physics, so their theories and opinions on the subject range from misguided to absurd. So every week the council meets, but they never get around to actually discussing quantum physics, because they have to field every question, patiently explain why people who have no idea what they are talking about is wrong, and letting the laymen completely dominate the discussion.

And this is a good thing, in your mind? This is productive?

We aren't discussing science though. We're discussing morality, ethics, and philosophy. Those are muddier. And also the people we've talked about aren't laypeople dominating the discussion... or the equivalent, because enduring hardship does not necessarily give you a moral high ground with regards to that. Nor does it give you an insight into solutions regarding that.

What is troubling about Warkitty's way of doing things, is that she is implying that she wants people to be quiet based on their characteristics on on what she assumes they will say based on that. That's problematic at best. Particularly since she doesn't know what people's personal backstories are. So she may even be wrong in that assumption.

But again, your analogy breaks down, because of the difference in subject. And because all of the examples we've discussed are things that were relevant to the discussion at hand in some way. And yes those need to be dealt with, because we're dealing with philosophy and ethics, which are fields in which the method of examination is very different than it is in quantum physics.

Edit: And I didn't state that all ideas should have equal time, but that they all should be heard in this case. Nobody is an expert here, because again, enduring something does not make you an expert on it. I'm not an expert in how to solve extreme poverty because I experienced it as a child. I'm not an expert in preventing wars because I was in one. So again, your analogy breaks down.

Edit 2:

The notion that someone can be a withc just because she uses herbs is absurd.

Right which is why I would require a higher standard of proof than "she uses herbs". But I wouldn't mind if somebody had such evidence, I mean if they did and i ignored them, then we might all get bewitched, and who would want that?



"Just because there are two sides to an issue doesn’t mean they’re equally deserving of an audience. Your responsibility as is not to simply defer to this “both sides” platitude as a defense of trotting out any fascist crackpot. You have to exercise discretion about what views are worthy of being heard."


Right, you can exercise discretion about what views you choose to listen to. And if you want to limit yourself by not listening to everything you can, and learning everything you can on a topic, that's on you. But you certainly can't expect to come very close to the truth doing that. Period.

[S@tanicoaldo]

I'm curious then, what sort of evidence would make you kill the woman?

[AMFV]

I'm curious then, what sort of evidence would make you kill the woman?

Evidence that she had previously harmed others and intended to do so in the near future (like the next ten minutes). That would be the only situation in which I am legally allowed to harm people, in self-defense or defense of others. If I were a judge the amount of evidence that would be required would depend on my own moral compass and legal history.

I would imagine the first thing I'd need proven would be that witches are real.

[S@tanicoaldo]

Evidence that she had previously harmed others and intended to do so in the near future (like the next ten minutes). That would be the only situation in which I am legally allowed to harm people, in self-defense or defense of others. If I were a judge the amount of evidence that would be required would depend on my own moral compass and legal history.

I would imagine the first thing I'd need proven would be that witches are real.

Indeed, that just proves that she's a criminal, how would they prove she's a witch?

[JadedDM]

Nor does it give you an insight into solutions regarding that.
Surely it gives one more insight than someone who has no experience in it. A person living in poverty may not be an expert on how to solve poverty, but I'd be much more interested in hearing their insight on the problem than a rich person who has never had to work a day in their life.


I'm not an expert in preventing wars because I was in one.
I've never been in a war. I was never a soldier. I've never even been in a fist fight before. Ergo, if we were discussing how to prevent wars, does your opinions or insights on the matter not weigh more than my own? What if laymen such as myself keep interrupting the discussion with ridiculous or terribly misguided advice, like, "What if we just ban all war?" What if I keep demanding to be given equal time to yourself because I've, like, played a lot of RTS video games? What if the laymen vastly outnumber people who actually know about war, either from studying it or having actually been involved in one, and so you never get the chance to actually talk about the problem because we keep drowning you out?


Evidence that she had previously harmed others and intended to do so in the near future (like the next ten minutes). That would be the only situation in which I am legally allowed to harm people, in self-defense or defense of others. If I were a judge the amount of evidence that would be required would depend on my own moral compass and legal history.
And to be clear here, you would do this every single time someone accused someone of being a witch? That would be pretty pointless and a waste of people's time and money.

[AMFV]

Indded, that just proves that she's a criminal, how would they prove she's a witch?

I don't know. I've not seen any compelling proof that witches are real, so I would need to see that first. Recordings would be a good start. Maybe an expert on the subject could be there. Since I've never had the existence of witches proven to me, I don't know that I could envision what a compelling proof would be.

Again, they would need to first prove that what witches are real. Then they would need to prove that she is one of them. It's pretty improbable that both those proofs would exist simultaneously. But if they did and there was evidence that she was trying to harm somebody and I could stop her from doing that by killing her, then I would.

Edit:


Surely it gives one more insight than someone who has no experience in it. A person living in poverty may not be an expert on how to solve poverty, but I'd be much more interested in hearing their insight on the problem than a rich person who has never had to work a day in their life.

I'd like to hear their insight into the problem. But frankly there are rich people who were once poor, wouldn't they have an even better insight, since they've solved poverty at least on a microscale. But you would never get to hear their opinions because all rich people need to "check their privilege" when poverty is brought up.

And no, it doesn't necessarily give you better insight into solutions, when you've experienced it. Just better insight into the nature of the problem. That's why if I were looking to figure out what to do to help poverty, I would want to hear their opinions as well. But I wouldn't want to silence the others, absolutely not.



I've never been in a war. I was never a soldier. I've never even been in a fist fight before. Ergo, if we were discussing how to prevent wars, does your opinions or insights on the matter not weigh more than my own? What if laymen such as myself keep interrupting the discussion with ridiculous or terribly misguided advice, like, "What if we just ban all war?" What if I keep demanding to be given equal time to yourself because I've, like, played a lot of RTS video games? What if the laymen vastly outnumber people who actually know about war, either from studying it or having actually been involved in one, and so you never get the chance to actually talk about the problem because we keep drowning you out?

Again, if you can drown me out, then we aren't going to be in an environment where we can have a proper discussion. And the whole thing is pointless.

But no, my opinion shouldn't weigh any more than yours on that. The opinions should be judged on their own merits, not on from whose mouth they are spewing. Now you can use that to weigh them in some ways, but that's still important.



And to be clear here, you would do this every single time someone accused someone of being a witch? That would be pretty pointless and a waste of people's time and money.

Well you don't get to continue repeating yourself in a discussion or you shouldn't. Also whose money are we wasting? And also we'd want to have proven that witches exist, so you'd need to prove that first before you could accuse anybody of being such. Otherwise the response would be "Witches aren't real!" which is simple and doesn't waste much time at all.

[S@tanicoaldo]

I don't know. I've not seen any compelling proof that witches are real, (...) Since I've never had the existence of witches proven to me, I don't know that I could envision what a compelling proof would be.

Maybe... Just maybeeeeee... Hear me out here, that is the case because women being witches is an absurd idea that should never be taken in consideration in the first place? I know it sounds like crazy talk but hey this is the free market of ideas is it not? Just indulge me.

[AMFV]

Maybe... Just maybeeeeee... Hear me out here, that is the case because women being witches is an absurd idea that should never be taken in consideration in the first place? I know it sounds like crazy talk but hey this is the free market of ideas is it not?

Well, it depends, if witches are real, then not taking that into consideration would be pretty ridiculous. I don't think it's very likely they are, but if that is true, then we should investigate it. And the only way I can know for sure that it isn't is listening when somebody presents me with a proof that witches are real. If I don't listen to them, how can I know that I'm right?

Edit: Also as soon as you start dismissing one idea out of hand, it's easier to dismiss another, until you're dismissing something that is no longer absurd, but merely disagreeable.

[S@tanicoaldo]

Well, it depends, if witches are real, then not taking that into consideration would be pretty ridiculous. I don't think it's very likely they are, but if that is true, then we should investigate it. And the only way I can know for sure that it isn't is listening when somebody presents me with a proof that witches are real. If I don't listen to them, how can I know that I'm right?

Edit: Also as soon as you start dismissing one idea out of hand, it's easier to dismiss another, until you're dismissing something that is no longer absurd, but merely disagreeable.

So you just do what people tell you to do?

[2D8HP]

Please,
The term is metaphysically gifted women (we do not use the "w" word anymore) (http://lovelybike.blogspot.com/2012/10/they-dont-make-em-like-they-used-to.html?m=1).

It's a fun link

[AMFV]

So you just do what people tell you to do?

Where are you getting that? I don't 'do what people tell me to do'. Nothing I've said is even close to that. Nothing. I just said I would listen to evidence. In what world does being willing to listen to ideas and evaluate them using logic mean that I'm just doing what other people tell me?

Again, I'm not killing a woman because somebody says she's a witch. I'd need solid evidence that she was about to harm somebody. Because that's the evidence that I'd need to kill somebody in normal circumstances. If somebody was claiming that she would use witchcraft to do that, then I'd some pretty solid proof that witchcraft existed. I mean if she started shooting fire from her hands at somebody that would be probably be sufficient, but otherwise there probably wouldn't be time.

[S@tanicoaldo]

Never mind that I think I get you. Forgive me if I'm wrong.

You fear people considering some ideas unworthy and think that ideas are harmless. People who complain are cry babies.

But ideas are not harmless. And we don't need to go to nazis to see how ideas can kill.

Here is a exemple:

My ex-boyfried's mom was a really sweet old lady. She baked pies and cookies and was always happy and kind.

One day she got cancer. And it was a really bad case too. She never liked going to doctors so the cancer was advanced.

Luckly the treatmeant was working and she was getting better.

One day while watching tv a tele evagelist said that doctors only poison people and if you had cancer all you needed to do was donate money to him and he would pray the cancer away. She did. And she got worst. And died as she refused to go to the hospital.

Do you really think that guy's opinion that doctors poison people and giving him money cures cancer is as valid as go to doctor and take care of your health?

Do you really think he has the rigth to spred miss information like that and profit on the gullible and desesperate?

[AMFV]

Never mind that I think I get you. Forgive me if I'm wrong.

You fear people considering some ideas unworthy and think that ideas are harmless. People who complain are cry babies.

You don't get me. I don't think either of those things. And the third one is just silly. I don't think that all ideas are worthy. Or that ideas are harmless, ideas can be very dangerous. What I do think though is that an idea should not be considered less worthy because of its source, in a field where there are no experts. Such as in matters of societal or philosophical import.

Not listening to an idea because it comes from a white person in a discussion of race relations would be what I'm against. Saying that somebody should not speak because of their race. That's what I'm against.

Ideas can be very dangerous. And instead of complaining against an idea you should attempt to disprove it. That's a lot more powerful, ideas that are pushed down and hidden can fester and gain a lot more power than ideas that are confronted. If you complain about ideas you aren't confronting them.



But ideas are not harmless. And we don't need to go to nazis to see how ideas can kill.

Yes, I would say the Nazis are a very good example of a place where ideas are dangerous. But much more dangerous if they aren't taken seriously. I can't go into the history on that, but in the 1920s, people didn't take them seriously and they used that. That's a dangerous pattern.



Here is a exemple:

My ex-boyfried's mom was a really sweet old lady. She baked pies and cookies and was always happy and kind.

One day she got cancer. And it was a really bad case too. She never liked going to doctors so the xancer was advancing.

Luckly the treatmeant was working and she was getting better.

Obe day while watching tv a "priest" said that doctors only poison people and if you had cancer all you needed to do was donate money to him and he would pray the cancer away. She did. And she got worst. And died as she refused to go to the hospital.

Do you really think that guy opinion that dictors poison people and giving him money cures cancer is as valid as go to doctor and take care of your health?

Do you really think he has the rigth to spred miss information like that and profit on the gullible and desesperate.

I don't think that he has the right to spread misinformation like that without having it challenged. But I don't think that he shouldn't be denied free speech. I do think that he should have to deal with the consequences of his speech. Lawsuits and the like, if he's giving false medical advice then he should be sued. That's the system we have for that.

As far as the lady, I think that if she wants to listen to somebody who gives her bad advice, she should be allowed to. She should not be forced to go the hospital if she doesn't want to. That's part of being free is the ability to make decisions that aren't the best for you. If you can only make decisions that are the best for you, then you aren't free.

[S@tanicoaldo]

Ok. I see your point now. That's reasonable. A true american you are :)

I will pester you no more. But I don't think nazis got in power because no one was paying attetion.

[AMFV]

Ok. I see your point now. That's reasonable. A true american you are :)

Where speech is concerned, very much so.



I will pester you no more. But I don't think nazis got in power because no one was paying attetion.

I don't think that was the only thing that got them into power. But I do think that helped. And I do think it stopped international interference from happening prior to their militarization and buildup to power.

[JadedDM]

I'm pretty sure they came into power by people making the same assertions that AMFV is making now. "Hey, let's hear them out. Everyone deserves to be heard. Let's give them platforms and debate their ideas on whether certain types of people are sub-human or not in the open."

[AMFV]

I'm pretty sure they came into power by people making the same assertions that AMFV is making now. "Hey, let's hear them out. Everyone deserves to be heard. Let's give them platforms and debate their ideas on whether certain types of people are sub-human or not in the open."

I think that if you'd do actual research you'd find that wasn't the case. There's even an editorial in the New York Times, I believe where they discuss how Hitler wasn't serious and that his racism was like a quaint affectation rather than something genuine. Which would not be possible as an assertion had they read any of his speeches or any of the documents he published, certainly not possible if they'd read Mein Kampf, although that would not have been possible, since that was not yet published.

Then we had the European powers, who were confident that his plans described in Mein Kampf, to invade France and the Soviet Union were mere fantasy and that now that he was in power that he'd abandon them.

As you can see more damage was caused by not taking his ideas seriously than had they. If they had taken his ideas seriously then France would have likely invaded in 1932 and removed him from power. Which would have likely been a better outcome.

[JadedDM]

I was speaking, specifically, of the Germans. Had they just banned that sort of hate speech, the Nazis wouldn't have been able to so easily get into the spotlight and get their ideas out there. Incidentally, they are banned now. But I suppose you think that's a horrible blow to freedom.

[AMFV]

I was speaking, specifically, of the Germans. Had they just banned that sort of hate speech, the Nazis wouldn't have been able to so easily get into the spotlight and get their ideas out there. Incidentally, they are banned now. But I suppose you think that's a horrible blow to freedom.

I do, and they still have supremacist groups, despite the ban. I mean they put Hitler in prison, and he was still able to rise to power. Do you think that telling people that his speech was illegal would have hindered him in any way? I doubt it. The environment that let the Nazis come into power would still have existed and would have still given them plenty of opportunities even if they'd made such speech illegal.

Interestingly enough the US, who had free speech and a much darker more racist backstory at that time, had Nazi sympathizers but they weren't able to rise to power. I suspect that's because in the US we are much more willing to challenge ideas and we had a fundamental democratic system that makes Nazism less appealing. So maybe freedom is a better solution than restrictions on it?

I mean part of the reason the Nazis were able to seize control is because the previous Chancellor had passed a series of laws restricting free speech. This was an attempt to control the Nazis, but they used those laws on their adversaries as soon as they came into power.

[Zendy]

Because of this "all ideas are equally valid" mentality we now have people who genuinely believe earth is flat and want to be taken as serious as astronomists.

I swear we are devolving. Losing sigth of basic truths.

[AMFV]

Because of this "all ideas are equally valid" mentality we now have people who genuinely believe earth is flat and want to be taken as serious as astronomists.

I swear we are devolving. Losing sigth of basic truths.

Where are you people getting "all ideas are equally valid". I haven't said that, I haven't implied that, I don't believe anybody else has. I mean it's a convenient strawman to attack. What I (and others) have said is that ideas should be confronted properly, with better ideas, not with jackbootery and silencing tactics.

There are many proofs to disprove somebody who says that the earth is flat, so you present them with those, if they're rational they'll listen, if they aren't then it wouldn't matter what you said anyways. So the point is that you counter their ideas with better ideas, you don't silence them because you don't like what they say. You silence them by pointing things out that silence their ideas.

Basically the point is that unless you listen to ideas you can't know if they're valid. That's why it's important to listen to all ideas so that you can properly assess them.

[Goaty14]

Because of this "all ideas are equally valid" mentality we now have people who genuinely believe earth is flat and want to be taken as serious as astronomists.

So you take them as seriously as an astronomist and then you prove them wrong? Heck, if we're assuming you have to continually prove wrong a bunch of "laymen" who continually try to think they're right, then all you'd have to do is disprove all of their claims, and then refer them to such a response if they have nothing new to bring to the table. Keep in mind that as a serious "astronomist", they have to have evidence that they're right in the first place.


I swear we are devolving. Losing sight of basic truths.

Like how you get a bunch of oppressive governments when you start to forcibly stop people from thinking the "right" way?

EDIT: I'm here because I like arguing :smallamused:

[Anymage]

Because of this "all ideas are equally valid" mentality we now have people who genuinely believe earth is flat and want to be taken as serious as astronomists.

I swear we are devolving. Losing sigth of basic truths.

Of course. The earth is self-evidently round, as befits the sphere's place as the perfect form of nature. And it's similarly self-evident to all the learned experts that the heavens rotate around the earth in spherical orbits of their own. Who has time to listen to nonsense about the earth not being the center of all of creation?

I could rattle off a long list of times when the expert consensus was wrong, especially when the issue was less one concretely testable issue and more a fuzzy policy point. Given how many points in our history we've been embarrassingly wrong - and how many of those points have happened in our recent history - I'd be really careful trying to say that only opinions popular in the current zeitgeist have merit.

[Mith]

While I can appreciate the idea of "Initially treat all ideas as valid, then run them through logical tests to see which are valid." is a good concept, it rests on the idea that at least a significant majority of people can be swayed by logic, and any passionate screed can be picked apart and defused to impotence.

Historically speaking, this rarely, if ever happens. Populist ideas stay popular until a critical mass is reached and the whole thing implodes on itself. However, until such a time, these ideas can still cause a lot of harm, and like an old plague, can rise back to prominence due to complacency.

Right now, on a lot of issues being discussed for "check you privleges", these issues are not ones that have been settled by logical discourse and are rising back to the surface. These are ideas that have been pushed under by the inertia of the norm coming out and having their say. And it's is and going to be an awesome mess until we can pick up the pieces.

You don't kick someone when their down, or when they are just coming to their feet.

[WarKitty]

One related issue here is when you're used to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

They actually did some studies in academia. There were several results:

One was that when they had a third party review recordings who was specifically looking for it, women were interrupted and cut off far more often than men and had their points responded to less often - sometimes even having cases where a man made a similar point later and was taken more seriously and credited with making the point. Participants in the discussion, especially men, were generally unaware of this and were of the belief that everyone was participating equally.

There was another that measured over a semester how much men and women talked in class. The men talked more. But when they made some efforts to have the women speak up more, the men felt that the women were dominating the discussion and they weren't getting a chance to speak. Again, when someone reviewed the recordings and measured, the men were still speaking more than the women, but those same men perceived that they were being silenced because they weren't getting to speak as much as they were used to.

That's going to be part of the complication - if someone is used to being able to spend most of the time with the attention focused on them, and perceiving that as equality, then someone coming in and saying it's not equal and they're being neglected and need to be able to speak up too, is going to be perceived as silencing. That was my point with the pie example upthread. If there's only so much pie, and I'm asking to have an equal share, it's going to be natural for you to think "why are you trying to take my pie away from me?"

[AMFV]

While I can appreciate the idea of "Initially treat all ideas as valid, then run them through logical tests to see which are valid." is a good concept, it rests on the idea that at least a significant majority of people can be swayed by logic, and any passionate screed can be picked apart and defused to impotence.

Well, first, why are you attempting a discussion with somebody who is not going to be swayed by logical discourse? That seems like a huge waste of your time and energy. Second, if you resort to "Check Your Privilege", you're going to alienate people who could be convinced by logic and reasoning, especially if you have not correctly assessed their privilege which certainly is often going to be true if you're only looking at the broadest possible categories. Third, you'll devolve the discussion into a shouting match, which is going to make look you just as ridiculous as the person with whom you are arguing.



Historically speaking, this rarely, if ever happens. Populist ideas stay popular until a critical mass is reached and the whole thing implodes on itself. However, until such a time, these ideas can still cause a lot of harm, and like an old plague, can rise back to prominence due to complacency.

The problem is that not all old popular ideas are inherently bad ones, even ones that result in some discomfort for some groups. They have to be evaluated and examined, to see if they're bad for everybody or if they're particularly oppressive. Also with this kind of thinking you ignore ideas that sound similar because you assume they are, and you don't give them full credit.



Right now, on a lot of issues being discussed for "check you privleges", these issues are not ones that have been settled by logical discourse and are rising back to the surface. These are ideas that have been pushed under by the inertia of the norm coming out and having their say. And it's is and going to be an awesome mess until we can pick up the pieces.

You don't kick someone when their down, or when they are just coming to their feet.

We're not kicking anybody though, listening to an idea is not equivalent to putting it into practice.


One related issue here is when you're used to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

The issue is that oppression also feels like oppression. In your example I bet that there were men who had not spoken as much as other men. Maybe some who hadn't spoken at all. When the women started to participate more, those men were just as silenced as they had been before, just as oppressed. But that would be the group you'd be telling to check their privilege. That's the big problem, you don't know somebody's individual history. You're making assumptions and every knows what those do to you and I.

So unless you have some very solid proof that the person was privileged and usually people using that phrase don't. This is an even worse set of assumptions, it's like saying "Well you were privileged before now you're just being petty" Which is even worse to say than "Check Your Privilege" and likely often as unfounded, since you're trying to basically associate an individual with an entire group, and in the case of White or Male, a huge incredibly diverse group with all kinds of people in it.



That's going to be part of the complication - if someone is used to being able to spend most of the time with the attention focused on them, and perceiving that as equality, then someone coming in and saying it's not equal and they're being neglected and need to be able to speak up too, is going to be perceived as silencing. That was my point with the pie example upthread. If there's only so much pie, and I'm asking to have an equal share, it's going to be natural for you to think "why are you trying to take my pie away from me?"

Well the problem is that a lot of guys haven't had any pie yet. You're saying "Well you're the same group as the group that had pie, so that means that you don't get any because there won't be enough for this other group." Which is a SERIOUSLY problematic statement.

[georgie_leech]

Well, first, why are you attempting a discussion with somebody who is not going to be swayed by logical discourse? That seems like a huge waste of your time and energy. Second, if you resort to "Check Your Privilege", you're going to alienate people who could be convinced by logic and reasoning, especially if you have not correctly assessed their privilege which certainly is often going to be true if you're only looking at the broadest possible categories. Third, you'll devolve the discussion into a shouting match, which is going to make look you just as ridiculous as the person with whom you are arguing.

So let's put it this way. Can you see how what you are arguing for can look a lot like "spend time and energy discussing things with people that won't be swayed by logic" given different experiences?

[AMFV]

So let's put it this way. Can you see how what you are arguing for can look a lot like "spend time and energy discussing things with people that won't be swayed by logic" given different experiences?

Right, but initially hearing ideas, knowing what people think and have to say is in my opinion NEVER a waste. It might not always be the most edifying thing, but it's useful. Because you have to share the world with these folks. So hearing an idea is always good, evaluating an idea for it's merits, is always good. Can you not see how that would be very different from a continuous state of argument with somebody that you are not going to convince?

Hell, even racist and abhorrent ideas are useful to hear, because they show you what is racist and abhorrent first of all, because without actually being exposed to that sort of thing, it's often poorly defined, which is why you see people accusing people of prejudice when there clearly is very little if any, because they aren't familiar enough with actual prejudice to recognize it. And it can be useful because you can figure out what the root of those bad ideas are, and you can't help a problem without finding its root, and a lot of people don't know its root. I think that listening to what people have to say, honestly listening is the most useful way to get closer to what is actually true.

Of course, that's challenging since honest listening requires that you avoid your prejudices, that you don't put words into somebody's mouth to fit your narrative, that's what I was talking about in the TED talk transcript I linked. Because that's very easy to bring about. So you have to make a conscious effort on that, just like you should probably make a conscious effort to recognize the place you're coming from, your privilege as it were. But nobody else can really recognize that for you, only you are the custodian of your own biases and experiences.

[WarKitty]

Well the problem is that a lot of guys haven't had any pie yet. You're saying "Well you're the same group as the group that had pie, so that means that you don't get any because there won't be enough for this other group." Which is a SERIOUSLY problematic statement.

Again, privilege is relative, and you can have privilege in one group and not another. So you can benefit from being a man even when you simultaneously lose for being poor. "I've been poor, so I should have a right to have my voice heard over women trying to talk about being sexually harassed as women" doesn't work.

There is also an issue where some people might not even recognize the privilege they have. I used the job example upthread - if you have a better chance of getting a job because someone else is assumed to be less competent based on their name, you may not even know that you're getting that extra bit of the pie.


So let's put it this way. Can you see how what you are arguing for can look a lot like "spend time and energy discussing things with people that won't be swayed by logic" given different experiences?

One thing I'll also say is that this is going to look different depending on the setting. For example, if you're in a university environment and putting something out to the public, you simply cannot have everyone who wants to have a say be able to talk. The logistics won't work. So if you want, say, LGBT+ issues to be highlighted, it makes perfect sense to say "we're going to prioritize the voices of those who are part of the community talking about discrimination over the voices of straight/cis folk." Because you're going to have way too many people who want to have a say than you can actually hear out, and LGBT+ folk are statistically a minority. In that situation you're going to have to say "we've been hearing from S/C folk a lot, this is specifically to focus on LGBT+ people so everyone else gets to hear them too."

It's going to look very different if you're in an individual discussion or a small group.

[Goaty14]

There was another that measured over a semester how much men and women talked in class. The men talked more. But when they made some efforts to have the women speak up more, the men felt that the women were dominating the discussion and they weren't getting a chance to speak. Again, when someone reviewed the recordings and measured, the men were still speaking more than the women, but those same men perceived that they were being silenced because they weren't getting to speak as much as they were used to.

How about instead of separating people divisively with racial/gender/etc lines, and then appropriating people in such a group to "talking less" or "talking more" the researchers instead just put the people who talk more into the "talk more" group, people who talk less in the "talk less" group, and then proceed to target the people in the "talk less" group to talk more? Sure, naming each individual in a research study takes more work than grouping them by physical features, but it'd give more accurate results.

Even then, it could still be silencing because well after "equality" is reached, then whoever is pushing the "talk less" group might not stop trying to encourage them, thus causing a flipped imbalance. There is no legal definition of what "equality" is exactly, and when it has reached or not.

[georgie_leech]

Right, but initially hearing ideas, knowing what people think and have to say is in my opinion NEVER a waste. It might not always be the most edifying thing, but it's useful. Because you have to share the world with these folks. So hearing an idea is always good, evaluating an idea for it's merits, is always good. Can you not see how that would be very different from a continuous state of argument with somebody that you are not going to convince?

Hell, even racist and abhorrent ideas are useful to hear, because they show you what is racist and abhorrent first of all, because without actually being exposed to that sort of thing, it's often poorly defined, which is why you see people accusing people of prejudice when there clearly is very little if any, because they aren't familiar enough with actual prejudice to recognize it. And it can be useful because you can figure out what the root of those bad ideas are, and you can't help a problem without finding its root, and a lot of people don't know its root. I think that listening to what people have to say, honestly listening is the most useful way to get closer to what is actually true.

Of course, that's challenging since honest listening requires that you avoid your prejudices, that you don't put words into somebody's mouth to fit your narrative, that's what I was talking about in the TED talk transcript I linked. Because that's very easy to bring about. So you have to make a conscious effort on that, just like you should probably make a conscious effort to recognize the place you're coming from, your privilege as it were. But nobody else can really recognize that for you, only you are the custodian of your own biases and experiences.

Sure, so what happens when from one perspective it's about a sharing of ideas, and from another it's about arguing with someone that won't be convinced otherwise? Different people have different standards for what ideas merit attention. Like, to borrow a twist on a joke I've heard, if someone wants to discuss with me whether the moon exists or is actually a government hologram, they need to lead with significant evidence beforehand, otherwise my priors are that the conversation isn't going to lead me closer to any kind of truth.

[AMFV]

Again, privilege is relative, and you can have privilege in one group and not another. So you can benefit from being a man even when you simultaneously lose for being poor. "I've been poor, so I should have a right to have my voice heard over women trying to talk about being sexually harassed as women" doesn't work.

But that's not what I'm arguing for. At all. Like ever in this thread. I'm arguing that if I am in a conversation about sexual harassment and it's an honest one, I expect that all parties in the conversation are going to listen to what I have to say and take it in and evaluate it, the same as they would any other participant in the conversation. Everybody should be respectful to everybody in discourse. That's how it works.

Because again, you experiencing harassment, doesn't make you an expert on it. It does give you some better perspective on how to frame the problem. But you aren't an expert, you don't know how to solve the problem, any better than the men involved. And the men's perspective is important, because the people who are doing the harassing are often their peers, and they have a better understanding of the psyche of their peers than you do. So their voices should be heard on this topic.

And again that's how a discourse should work, you want to hear everybody who might have a good idea. Not silence anybody unless they're breaking down the discourse, and shouting at somebody to "check their privilege" is as surely breaking the down discourse as shouting "she was asking for it". Those are both ways to stop the conversation from moving forwards. Because they aren't logically reasonable things to say. Again, privilege is tricky. As I've said I've been harassed, and you have no way of knowing if that was by somebody who might be a physical threat to me, I mean there are some scary women about, and men harass other men on occasion. So again, you're forced to make assumptions based on the group I belong to and that's bigotry.



One thing I'll also say is that this is going to look different depending on the setting. For example, if you're in a university environment and putting something out to the public, you simply cannot have everyone who wants to have a say be able to talk. The logistics won't work. So if you want, say, LGBT+ issues to be highlighted, it makes perfect sense to say "we're going to prioritize the voices of those who are part of the community talking about discrimination over the voices of straight/cis folk." Because you're going to have way too many people who want to have a say than you can actually hear out, and LGBT+ folk are statistically a minority. In that situation you're going to have to say "we've been hearing from S/C folk a lot, this is specifically to focus on LGBT+ people so everyone else gets to hear them too."

Well "putting something out to the public" isn't something you should do when you're in the infant stages of a discussion, rather the time to do that would be when you have several options and solutions in mind and you want to see if there's a general consensus on those issues. The same way that we have discussion of a small group then a larger group then the general public for ballot measures. Because logistically there isn't really a way to have a productive discussion in a large group setting like that. And tribalism makes that even less likely.

Edit:


Sure, so what happens when from one perspective it's about a sharing of ideas, and from another it's about arguing with someone that won't be convinced otherwise? Different people have different standards for what ideas merit attention. Like, to borrow a twist on a joke I've heard, if someone wants to discuss with me whether the moon exists or is actually a government hologram, they need to lead with significant evidence beforehand, otherwise my priors are that the conversation isn't going to lead me closer to any kind of truth.

You are WRONG, it can lead to all kinds of truth. Truth about the person to whom you are speaking. Truth about conspiracy theories, and truth about the sort of thing that somebody might find compelling. Hell, depending on the person involved, you might find a lot of truths about mental illness in that conversation as well. And that's just me spitballing without actually hearing any of it.

[georgie_leech]

You are WRONG, it can lead to all kinds of truth. Truth about the person to whom you are speaking. Truth about conspiracy theories, and truth about the sort of thing that somebody might find compelling. Hell, depending on the person involved, you might find a lot of truths about mental illness in that conversation as well. And that's just me spitballing without actually hearing any of it.

And if you've had that type of conversation before? If I discussed that with Bob the day before, am I obligated to speak with him about it today, and tomorrow, and the day after? Am I obligated to see learning about Bob as some inherent good, or is it alright to be more concerned with other things?

That is, at what point to I get to decide that it's closer to arguing with someone that won't listen to logic than to a discussion?

[AMFV]

And if you've had that type of conversation before? If I discussed that with Bob the day before, am I obligated to speak with him about it today, and tomorrow, and the day after? Am I obligated to see learning about Bob as some inherent good, or is it alright to be more concerned with other things?

I think that you could learn those same truths differently from having a similar conversation with different people. Since you're again learning truths about the person involved and why they might believe something which on its face is absurd. If you're still having a productive discussion with Bob, I can't see why you wouldn't want to continue that discussion. I mean I have never had a discussion that was exclusively repetition, and it's possible that the more time and the more empathy you invest in that discussion the more likely you are to have Bob see what is more likely the actual truth.

As far as "obligated", you aren't obligated to do anything. Your decision on whether or not to listen to Bob should have to do with how much you are interested in learning and finding the truth of things. And if Bob has become not a good avenue for that, you can probably move on to other conversational partners. HOWEVER, what you ought not to do is to A.) Try to silence Bob in group discussions because you've no further learning to be had from him, and B.)Try to prevent him from talking to others. The problem is that "Check Your Privilege" is intended to do both of those things. And again, you don't know Bob's background and history, without having a conversation with him, so you can't appropriately tell him to check his privilege without having a really solid grasp on Bob, which you'd need to have a lot of discussions to attain.

[georgie_leech]

I think that you could learn those same truths differently from having a similar conversation with different people. Since you're again learning truths about the person involved and why they might believe something which on its face is absurd. If you're still having a productive discussion with Bob, I can't see why you wouldn't want to continue that discussion. I mean I have never had a discussion that was exclusively repetition, and it's possible that the more time and the more empathy you invest in that discussion the more likely you are to have Bob see what is more likely the actual truth.

As far as "obligated", you aren't obligated to do anything. Your decision on whether or not to listen to Bob should have to do with how much you are interested in learning and finding the truth of things. And if Bob has become not a good avenue for that, you can probably move on to other conversational partners. HOWEVER, what you ought not to do is to A.) Try to silence Bob in group discussions because you've no further learning to be had from him, and B.)Try to prevent him from talking to others. The problem is that "Check Your Privilege" is intended to do both of those things. And again, you don't know Bob's background and history, without having a conversation with him, so you can't appropriately tell him to check his privilege without having a really solid grasp on Bob, which you'd need to have a lot of discussions to attain.

Right. So let's say you were trying to have a discussion about something else. Say, what the various crater depths suggest about the early stages of the of the solar system, when Bob inserts himself as part of the conversation. You didn't set out to have that conversation, but someone else intervened and made it that way. But It's not a big loss, you can have the conversation you wanted to have another time.

Then the next time you try to talk about lunar craters, Bob chimes in again. And again. Each time, there is an effort being made by them to divert the conversation from what you want to have, into another one. You can see how in this context, this kind of thing would be frustrating and unhelpful for the discourse you're trying to have, right?

[Florian]

Ok, let me give you a very German perspective on this topic:

We actually do know how it looks and feels when a democracy is being dismantled and we also know how it looks and feels like when you're forced to restructure your society as a whole. Been there, done that, one of the few "great" countries that this actually happened.

We actually have experience when it comes to cutting "freedom (of speech)" and when to enforce that, when it comes to dismantling a democracy.

Thing that this discussion shows, and partially tries to disguise as that fundamental topic, is that our "western" societies begin to fall apart, disintegrate at the seams. A democratic society works based on a commonly shared consensus, not on a "winner" dictating what is "truth" or not, forcing the "losers" to follow. That never really worked, in n democracy, starting with the bronze age....

Someone once told be that they'd prefer an absolute monarchy over a functional democracy, because in the later, change happens in a glacial speed and always includes compromises.

[Anymage]

And if you've had that type of conversation before? If I discussed that with Bob the day before, am I obligated to speak with him about it today, and tomorrow, and the day after? Am I obligated to see learning about Bob as some inherent good, or is it alright to be more concerned with other things?

That is, at what point to I get to decide that it's closer to arguing with someone that won't listen to logic than to a discussion?

You're not obligated to engage. If you don't have the time or emotional energy, you can either beg out or just ignore.

However, if your engagement with people who disagree with you often sounds like "STFU, rich boy" or "I'm going to go out of my way to tell you how little I regard your opinion", I'm going to be skeptical as to how much your arguments are logically sound, vs. how much they boil down to annoying the other person until they give up in exasperation. In practical use, people who use "check your privilege" tend to fall into the latter category.


How about instead of separating people divisively with racial/gender/etc lines, and then appropriating people in such a group to "talking less" or "talking more" the researchers instead just put the people who talk more into the "talk more" group, people who talk less in the "talk less" group, and then proceed to target the people in the "talk less" group to talk more? Sure, naming each individual in a research study takes more work than grouping them by physical features, but it'd give more accurate results.

Even then, it could still be silencing because well after "equality" is reached, then whoever is pushing the "talk less" group might not stop trying to encourage them, thus causing a flipped imbalance. There is no legal definition of what "equality" is exactly, and when it has reached or not.

Okay. Complicated gender talk time.

Assume for a moment that one group of people is regularly told that the value they bring and the support they can expect is tied directly to the resources and status they manage to personally garner. Some other group finds that people will support them and take their side just for being them. Which group do you think will fight harder and dirtier in order to get prestigious, high salary positions? Which one do you think will sacrifice more in order to bring home more bacon at the end of the day?

To then be told that members of the first group are only overrepresented in top positions because society hates other people is grossly simplistic, and seems designed to cherry pick data towards a wanted interpretation instead of trying to gain a clearer picture of the underlying causes.

For a fantasy example, consider halflings in a human city. Halflings have a hard time living in a place made for people much larger than them, but then halflings can also get by spending a lot less money (on space, on food, on anything where quantity of material is an important element of cost), allowing them to have more discretionary income towards their goals.

If all the halflings do is talk about human privilege while all the humans do is talk about halfling privilege, one gets the sense that they're more concerned with earning cheap debate points than they are getting a better sense of the other's positions and all the complicated, interrelated systems tradeoffs that happen in this racial situation.

[AMFV]

Right. So let's say you were trying to have a discussion about something else. Say, what the various crater depths suggest about the early stages of the of the solar system, when Bob inserts himself as part of the conversation. You didn't set out to have that conversation, but someone else intervened and made it that way. But It's not a big loss, you can have the conversation you wanted to have another time.

Well then you have to steer the conversation back to where it was. Knowing how to do that is an important part of discourse, and if Bob is as ridiculous as you describe eventually the other people involved will pull the conversation back to the point where it was.



Then the next time you try to talk about lunar craters, Bob chimes in again. And again. Each time, there is an effort being made by them to divert the conversation from what you want to have, into another one. You can see how in this context, this kind of thing would be frustrating and unhelpful for the discourse you're trying to have, right?

I can see how that could be frustrating and how it might be perceived as unhelpful. That's if Bob is just repeating himself. But moving the discussion to someplace else would be probably the best solution. However there is a pretty marked difference in this sort of thing from the whole privilege discussion, since that isn't necessarily repetition and arguing that all people from the same group don't need to be listened to is pretty frustrating.

The problem with your example is that it's extreme hyperbole and it doesn't translate that evenly to the situation we're discussing. Now it's possible that Bob isn't that useful a part of discussion. In which case in a formal discussion you should have time limits, Bob can speak his piece, then his time is up and everybody else can discuss craters. That would be the fair way to do it. Yes, having Bob there may make things take longer, but it's also possible that he might have an insight that you wouldn't, his mind is obviously very different.

So again, the trick here is to have the conversation be more formal and less of a situation that can devolve into a shouting match or something, that kind of conversation you can't control. And definitely telling Bob to "Shut the **** up" is not going to help. That's the biggest issue. Bob isn't going to shut it cause you told him too, he's more likely to become more agitated and louder.

So not only is the idea of calling somebody out on their privilege frustrating in terms of the assumptions you have to make about somebody and unethical in that you're viewing somebody only in terms of their race or gender, but it's likely completely ineffective.

Edit:


Ok, let me give you a very German perspective on this topic:

We actually do know how it looks and feels when a democracy is being dismantled and we also know how it looks and feels like when you're forced to restructure your society as a whole. Been there, done that, one of the few "great" countries that this actually happened.

We actually have experience when it comes to cutting "freedom (of speech)" and when to enforce that, when it comes to dismantling a democracy.

Thing that this discussion shows, and partially tries to disguise as that fundamental topic, is that our "western" societies begin to fall apart, disintegrate at the seams. A democratic society works based on a commonly shared consensus, not on a "winner" dictating what is "truth" or not, forcing the "losers" to follow. That never really worked, in n democracy, starting with the bronze age....

Someone once told be that they'd prefer an absolute monarchy over a functional democracy, because in the later, change happens in a glacial speed and always includes compromises.


Right, which is why we don't have formal true democracy in any place. We have small groups who are able to reach a consensus and then share that with the masses who get to decide if the composition of the groups change based on that. Which is a much better system.

[Poiuytrewq]

I'm partially in AMFV's side here.

To dismiss people's ideas outright is kind of a horrible thing, but it's a thing that happens nonetheless.

We don't need to hear the average Joe's opinion on quantum physics, sure maybe one day an average Joe may bring a huge break thought but that's rare enough for us to dismiss it most of the time and leave quantum physics to the specialists.

But we never know, MC Echer make great math discoveries and he was "just" an artist.

Still despite the fact that there exceptions most of the time we can just ignore certain opinions after we found out they are worthless, but for that we have to hear them first! And I think that’s where the confusion is happening.

I don’t think anyone is saying that certain people can’t express their ideas, maybe they have great insights, it’s just that since they are not the “Specialists” they don’t get as much credit.

So when a guy starts talking about women’s right he’s the average Joe and women are the specialists, a backlash is natural. Just as when women start talking about video games a thing that is most predominately male, guys hate that they act like they don’t know what they are talking even if they do because that’s how things are.

There are exceptions of course, some women’s rights activists were male and there is the case of transsexuals but most of the time guys should not be talking about women’s rights because that’s not where we belong, unless you have a major insight and even then you need to be humble enough to wait for your turn and know that your views will be taken with a greater grain of salt.

[WarKitty]

How about instead of separating people divisively with racial/gender/etc lines, and then appropriating people in such a group to "talking less" or "talking more" the researchers instead just put the people who talk more into the "talk more" group, people who talk less in the "talk less" group, and then proceed to target the people in the "talk less" group to talk more? Sure, naming each individual in a research study takes more work than grouping them by physical features, but it'd give more accurate results.

Even then, it could still be silencing because well after "equality" is reached, then whoever is pushing the "talk less" group might not stop trying to encourage them, thus causing a flipped imbalance. There is no legal definition of what "equality" is exactly, and when it has reached or not.

Because it's not always that simple.

For one issue - sometimes part of the problem is that one group has less numbers than another. So that comes up with LGBT+ issues a lot. If you're trying to address those issues specifically, you can't just encourage everyone to talk evenly because LGBT+ folk are a minority of the population. If you try to focus on every person's opinion individually, you'll be spending most of your time on how cis/het folk feel about LGBT+ issues and not a lot on how LGBT+ people are managing.

Two, sometimes there are traits that have significant correlations with gender/race/etc., and you can't address the issue without addressing that. For example, one problem that's been cited is that women are more likely to be negatively stereotyped for putting themselves out there. This comes up a lot with workplace salary issues. More men negotiate for salary than women, and people who negotiate are more likely to get more money for the job. But women specifically who negotiate are more likely to be viewed negatively in ways that are detrimental to them getting future advantages compared to men, even in studies where the men and women used the exact same script. So you can't just encourage those who are quiet to speak up more - you also have to address the perception that when they speak up more they're out of line.


Well then you have to steer the conversation back to where it was. Knowing how to do that is an important part of discourse, and if Bob is as ridiculous as you describe eventually the other people involved will pull the conversation back to the point where it was.

Part of the problem we're saying is, when privilege is involved, that doesn't happen. Because there might be a half-dozen Bobs around who ALL want the discussion to be about what they want instead.


Still despite the fact that there exceptions most of the time we can just ignore certain opinions after we found out they are worthless, but for that we have to hear them first! And I think that’s where the confusion is happening.

I don’t think anyone is saying that certain people can’t express their ideas, maybe they have great insights, it’s just that since they are not the “Specialists” they don’t get as much credit.

So when a guy starts talking about women’s right he’s the average Joe and women are the specialists, a backlash is natural. Just as when women start talking about video games a thing that is most predominately male, guys hate that they act like they don’t know what they are talking even if they do because that’s how things are.

The other thing is that even if an idea is new for you, it might not be new to the discussion.

That's part of why I mentioned the "but what about men getting dates" in the example of sexual harassment. Because it might be a new idea to the guy saying it. But there's always a couple of guys with that new-to-them idea every time the subject comes up. And you end up not getting much done unless at some point you say, no, we're not talking about this because this, right now, is not about you.

[Florian]

@WarKitty:

It´s never simple. The wants and needs of a person, living in a complex system, mostly will never match up with the wants and needs of a tribe/society and is something you can never truly solve.

[WarKitty]

@WarKitty:

It´s never simple. The wants and needs of a person, living in a complex system, mostly will never match up with the wants and needs of a tribe/society and is something you can never truly solve.

No, it's not. We're never going to get perfect fairness. But sometimes the best way to get closer is to focus on one group to try to bring them up, even if it's not addressing everyone individually in a perfect way. Because we don't live in a society where people are regarded as just themselves regardless of their race, sex, gender identity, orientation, economic status, and so forth.

If we could completely live in a society where everyone was regarded solely as an individual on their own merits, then we wouldn't need to be talking about privilege at all.

[AMFV]

So when a guy starts talking about women’s right he’s the average Joe and women are the specialists, a backlash is natural. Just as when women start talking about video games a thing that is most predominately male, guys hate that they act like they don’t know what they are talking even if they do because that’s how things are.

The thing is that to use the bridge analogy a woman who has been harassed is not an expert on how harassment works, she's like somebody who has driven over a bridge. Which might give her a better perspective than somebody who has never seen a bridge. But she isn't a bridge engineer. Or the equivalent. She doesn't have better understanding of the workings of it, necessarily, barring some additional study.

I mean I lived in extreme poverty, I don't know how to fix poverty, except for what's worked for me. I've been to war but that doesn't give me any specific insights in how to to fix the issues of war. It's the same sort of thing.




Part of the problem we're saying is, when privilege is involved, that doesn't happen. Because there might be a half-dozen Bobs around who ALL want the discussion to be about what they want instead.

Again, if you are in a place where a shouting match can happen you aren't going to have any productive discussion if you are confrontational.

Also again, how is trying to shout down all the dudes going to help? You're not going to make them less likely to drown you out by doing that. The opposite in fact. So saying "check your privilege" is probably going to be not very effective.

Lastly, there is only ONE Bob, there can be other people of the same class or with similar viewpoints. But they all have different experiences and different perspectives. You're the one who is lumping them all together. That's the problem, that's the issue with "check your privilege" because you're putting them all into a box.



No, it's not. We're never going to get perfect fairness. But sometimes the best way to get closer is to focus on one group to try to bring them up, even if it's not addressing everyone individually in a perfect way. Because we don't live in a society where people are regarded as just themselves regardless of their race, sex, gender identity, orientation, economic status, and so forth.

If we could completely live in a society where everyone was regarded solely as an individual on their own merits, then we wouldn't need to be talking about privilege at all.

Again, telling somebody to "check their privilege" without intimately knowing them is making this worse. You're looking at people only by their race, or in the case of your discussion point, gender. Not their experiences, not the merit of their ideas. Nothing but their gender.

[WarKitty]

Any time there is a social interaction, there is a way to shout people down, even if you're being polite about it. The only possible way to prevent some people from being pushed aside is to tell others it's not their time to talk. It's just that most people don't notice if they or people like them are doing the talking.

The point with "bob" is, even if everyone is a unique individual with a unique viewpoint, they can and often are collectively making discussions about issues that effect them by demanding to be included. They are still creating a situation where the focus is on them and minority issues don't get addressed unless you tell them to stop talking.

[AMFV]

Any time there is a social interaction, there is a way to shout people down, even if you're being polite about it. The only possible way to prevent some people from being pushed aside is to tell others it's not their time to talk. It's just that most people don't notice if they or people like them are doing the talking.

If you're shouting people down, then you aren't going to be able to have a discussion that's productive. That's the long and short of it. And you aren't going to be able to out shout all those dudes, they're the majority. Again, you telling them to "Check Their Privilege" is not going to be effective if they already weren't politely taking turns in discussion. It's just going to make you look bad, because it's not a well-reasoned statement.

Normally in conversation people take turns talking if it's polite conversation. If that's the case you'll eventually get to state your piece. You might not get as much of a percentage of the conversation, but if what you say is compelling and well-reasoned, the conversation should shift around it. If people aren't using reasoning or concerned with what is compelling then you aren't going to convince anybody of anything, and it's just social chatting, not discourse.

And again, I know I'm repeating myself but you haven't addressed this, telling people to be quiet does not quiet them down, almost ever. Unless you're in a situation where you have some kind of authority or power over them. In my case it gets me angry, and that's hardly an atypical reaction.



The point with "bob" is, even if everyone is a unique individual with a unique viewpoint, they can and often are collectively making discussions about issues that effect them by demanding to be included. They are still creating a situation where the focus is on them and minority issues don't get addressed unless you tell them to stop talking.

They aren't "collectively making decisions" they aren't the Borg. They aren't a bunch of networked machines or clones. They're individual people. I mean you can tell them to stop talking, but that doesn't work. I mean look at this thread. I've made dozens of responses, even when by your metric I should fall silent. And I'm not doing that. So what do you do when the person you think is privileged won't shut up? I mean that's a much more likely answer when you tell somebody they're privileged. In fact the common response is "No I'm not, I'm not privileged" and then you're even further away from what you wanted to discuss.

Also sexual harassment is not exclusively a women's issue. Again, women are not de facto experts on it. In your case you might have more significant experience with it. But experiencing something does not necessarily give you additional insight into how to solve it. Period. And again, the men are peers with the people who are doing it. Maybe some of them have done that in the past, before they realized the error of their ways, maybe they're currently doing it. Don't you think listening to their insight would be pretty useful in figuring out how to solve those kind of problems?

[WarKitty]

If you're shouting people down, then you aren't going to be able to have a discussion that's productive. That's the long and short of it. And you aren't going to be able to out shout all those dudes, they're the majority. Again, you telling them to "Check Their Privilege" is not going to be effective if they already weren't politely taking turns in discussion. It's just going to make you look bad, because it's not a well-reasoned statement.

Normally in conversation people take turns talking if it's polite conversation. If that's the case you'll eventually get to state your piece. You might not get as much of a percentage of the conversation, but if what you say is compelling and well-reasoned, the conversation should shift around it. If people aren't using reasoning or concerned with what is compelling then you aren't going to convince anybody of anything, and it's just social chatting, not discourse.

Yeah, no. Just, no. That's what I'm saying - that is usually not what happens. What most people listen to is not based on what's well-reasoned or whatever, but on what meets their personal needs the most and resonates with their own experiences the most. And what counts as "well-reasoned" already has so much privilege woven through it, so that a person without privilege saying something is already treated as less reasonable and less compelling because of who they are.

So the vast majority of the time, unless someone is already convinced of what is being said, the conversation drifts right back away from what the minority is saying, no matter what, because to the majority it doesn't fit with how they see the world and what's important to them. You have to appeal to people's emotions, to get in where they can't push you aside because it's not interesting to them, because those pure reason conversations eliminate 95% of the actual discussion that have any potential to get through to anyone.


And again, I know I'm repeating myself but you haven't addressed this, telling people to be quiet does not quiet them down, almost ever. Unless you're in a situation where you have some kind of authority or power over them. In my case it gets me angry, and that's hardly an atypical reaction.

Neither does letting them blather on because they think shutting you up, as usual, is completely fair and you've totally gotten to speak your piece when they've talked over and ignored you. Because the whole point of privilege is that it makes it so people aren't looking at things fairly and rationally, and you can't just reason through that without first finding a way to make them stop talking enough to listen to you.

Because it's simply not possible to challenge the status quo and not make people angry. It's not possible to go and say, hey, this isn't fair to me, and have a calm rational discussion with no one getting upset or angry in any sort of widespread way that has any hope of making social change.

I don't believe intimate, individual discussions spark social change - someone has to get out there and make a fuss and make it so they can't be ignored. That's how they have in fact occurred in history, with speeches and protests and shouting and a collective refusal to be ignored by people who would rather ignore them because it's comfortable.


They aren't "collectively making decisions" they aren't the Borg. They aren't a bunch of networked machines or clones. They're individual people. I mean you can tell them to stop talking, but that doesn't work. I mean look at this thread. I've made dozens of responses, even when by your metric I should fall silent. And I'm not doing that. So what do you do when the person you think is privileged won't shut up? I mean that's a much more likely answer when you tell somebody they're privileged. In fact the common response is "No I'm not, I'm not privileged" and then you're even further away from what you wanted to discuss.


That's the very definition of privilege. That a bunch of people are making their own individual decisions and all of them making their own individual decisions means other people get silenced and get treated badly and the people with privilege DON'T SEE IT because they're only dealing with them and themselves whereas the people without it have to deal with it from a ton of different people every day and can't walk away from it. Because privilege is being able to treat your actions as reflecting on you and you alone.

That's the basic concept. That each of us makes our decisions in a social framework, and affects that framework. And hundreds of people making individual decisions is what shapes society. "Sexual harassment" isn't an issue because there's some borg that decided to harass women, but because of this man and that man and that man each making the choice to do so, and this other man making the choice that it's not that big a deal and he'll laugh at his buddy, and another saying you shouldn't listen because it's not a big deal...and it all works out that all those men make it so many women don't want to go out and deal with them and don't get that choice.

[AMFV]

Yeah, no. Just, no. That's what I'm saying - that is usually not what happens. What most people listen to is not based on what's well-reasoned or whatever, but on what meets their personal needs the most and resonates with their own experiences the most. And what counts as "well-reasoned" already has so much privilege woven through it, so that a person without privilege saying something is already treated as less reasonable and less compelling because of who they are.

I can tell you that when I am having a discussion I do not consider a person's race, sex, or gender to be something that would add any value to their sentiments. That's true in either direction. And of course people are going to act out in ways that suit their self-interest. To expect other than that is absurd in the extreme. Of course people are going to judge things by their own experiences, it would impossible not to.

But that doesn't mean that reasoning is a bad thing, or somehow prejudiced. That's absurd. Reasoning is the best system we have to come to the truth of something and that's what's important in figuring the best solution to anything. Now some people might not be as good at it, but that doesn't mean anything here, because there is no better system. Certainly not using bigotry to shut out people based on their race or larger category.



So the vast majority of the time, unless someone is already convinced of what is being said, the conversation drifts right back away from what the minority is saying, no matter what, because to the majority it doesn't fit with how they see the world and what's important to them. You have to appeal to people's emotions, to get in where they can't push you aside because it's not interesting to them, because those pure reason conversations eliminate 95% of the actual discussion that have any potential to get through to anyone.

And that's how you get awful, terrible things. That's how lynch mobs start. That's how people get so terrified that they become a violent mob and push people out of a city because of their race. Emotional appeals are extremely dangerous. Particularly when they are being made by people who only understand one part of the problem. If you are unwilling to listen to the side of the men involved in this conversation, then you are making it so that you can't hear the whole of the problem.

So you are attempting to rile up an emotional mob on a problem that you are unwilling to have a rational discussion on, unwilling to learn everything you can about first. That's not going to solve anything, and the negative effects of that sort of things are a serious problem. That's a big issue.



Neither does letting them blather on because they think shutting you up, as usual, is completely fair and you've totally gotten to speak your piece when they've talked over and ignored you. Because the whole point of privilege is that it makes it so people aren't looking at things fairly and rationally, and you can't just reason through that without first finding a way to make them stop talking enough to listen to you.

Well normally if you're having a discussion everybody should be taking turns, if you're not doing that, you aren't having a formal discussion and you aren't going to accomplish anything. Shouting will make people angry and likely make you look poorly. And worse it'll make them less likely to take whatever you say positively even if it's later said by other people.

If people are talking over you, then you aren't having a proper discussion, and what you're talking about is social bull****. Which is fine, but it's not the sort of thing that's going to change anything and getting angry there is a serious danger to your cause.



Because it's simply not possible to challenge the status quo and not make people angry. It's not possible to go and say, hey, this isn't fair to me, and have a calm rational discussion with no one getting upset or angry in any sort of widespread way that has any hope of making social change.

That's true. But what you're doing is trying to make changes without knowing all of the facts. What's worse you're trying to force a solution on people when you are deliberately ignoring large sections of the population for reasons that amount entirely to bigotry. I'm sorry but that is what you're doing. You aren't looking at "Men that haven't been harassed" You're saying "No man could have EVER been harassed as badly as I have." Which is BS, there have been men who have been raped, who have been molested. That seems pretty bad.

Also, it's not super productive to say "well you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs so the men being angry is cool". Because lots of people being angry is also a sign that what you are doing might be not a positive thing. And since males aren't the Borg, they aren't all part of the problem in that way, they aren't all rapists. If you are making men angry who are not harassing women, who are not part of the problem... Then maybe you should evaluate if what you're doing is actually going to be good in the end. Because you've silenced men who might have objections. And they might have valid objections to your particular brand of solutions.



I don't believe intimate, individual discussions spark social change - someone has to get out there and make a fuss and make it so they can't be ignored. That's how they have in fact occurred in history, with speeches and protests and shouting and a collective refusal to be ignored by people who would rather ignore them because it's comfortable.


You mean like committee meetings that then decide what might eventually become law? That's how we do things. Lobbyists have their courses set by meetings of small numbers of individuals. And that's what decides things. Yes, speeches can get things started, but typically congressional committees are made up of 20-40 people, the Supreme Court is made up of 9, political action group committees are probably 6-12. So it's in small groups that things are decided, not large mobs. And that's by design, because mobs are dangerous.



That's the very definition of privilege. That a bunch of people are making their own individual decisions and all of them making their own individual decisions means other people get silenced and get treated badly and the people with privilege DON'T SEE IT because they're only dealing with them and themselves whereas the people without it have to deal with it from a ton of different people every day and can't walk away from it. Because privilege is being able to treat your actions as reflecting on you and you alone.

Are you arguing that in the context of your discussion that the men in your discussion NEVER hear what women say at all? Like there are more women than men, and I'm sure that they have to interact with them in some way. And yes, your actions only reflect on you. If I harass a woman, that's on me, if I tolerate somebody harassing a woman, that's on me. Period.



That's the basic concept. That each of us makes our decisions in a social framework, and affects that framework. And hundreds of people making individual decisions is what shapes society. "Sexual harassment" isn't an issue because there's some borg that decided to harass women, but because of this man and that man and that man each making the choice to do so, and this other man making the choice that it's not that big a deal and he'll laugh at his buddy, and another saying you shouldn't listen because it's not a big deal...and it all works out that all those men make it so many women don't want to go out and deal with them and don't get that choice.

But that still doesn't explain why you'd exclude men from any discussion of solving that problem. Especially since as I pointed out, being harassed does not make you an expert on harassment solutions.

[WarKitty]

That's true. But what you're doing is trying to make changes without knowing all of the facts. What's worse you're trying to force a solution on people when you are deliberately ignoring large sections of the population for reasons that amount entirely to bigotry. I'm sorry but that is what you're doing. You aren't looking at "Men that haven't been harassed" You're saying "No man could have EVER been harassed as badly as I have." Which is BS, there have been men who have been raped, who have been molested. That seems pretty bad.

And this is what I'm saying. No one in this thread has said anything CLOSE to that. But you're hearing it anyway. You're talking about logical, rational discussion, but you're also answering back against an exaggerated form, even when I've repeatedly said that's not what I'm saying.

That's the problem with the "rational discussion" idea. It doesn't matter how logical what you're saying is unless someone else is hearing and responding to what you're saying.

[AMFV]

And this is what I'm saying. No one in this thread has said anything CLOSE to that. But you're hearing it anyway. You're talking about logical, rational discussion, but you're also answering back against an exaggerated form, even when I've repeatedly said that's not what I'm saying.

That's the problem with the "rational discussion" idea. It doesn't matter how logical what you're saying is unless someone else is hearing and responding to what you're saying.


I am saying, even if you've been harassed at some point, that's not necessarily a comparable experience for various reasons.

Here in that post you explicitly said that a man being harassed was not comparable to a woman being harassed. That seems pretty close to what I said, although I did exaggerate slightly for effect, I admit. Mostly because I had repeated that objection about six or seven times and had it glossed over.

So either a man can be subjected to all the same kinds of harassment that a woman can, up to even being raped. Or he can't. I would argue that it is entirely possible a man could suffer harassment that is worse than what you've suffered. Although I don't think it's likely that I have in that case.

[kitanas]

@amfv: I would argue that "incomparable" is closer to different than worse. And, as a guy, I agree with warkitty that society treats sexual harassment of men and of women differently. I also want to point out that you are interpret incomparable as worse because of the gender of the speaker, something you explicitly said you do not do.

[AMFV]

@amfv: I would argue that "incomparable" is closer to different than worse. And, as a guy, I agree with warkitty that society treats sexual harassment of men and of women differently.

The thing is that they aren't necessarily incomparable. The only way that Warkitty could know that they are is if she had experienced harassment both as a woman and as a man. Since that is impossible, she cannot categorically say that is true. She can't know. Which was pretty much the whole of my point here, that she has no idea what the experiences of men are vs. her own, because she only has access to one of the variables. That was pretty much my point, the only person whose privilege you can know with any surety is your own.

Also how society treats the harassment after the fact isn't the most relevant thing in a discussion about that harassment and how to correct it. Also society treats men who have been harassed MUCH worse than women, this is pretty much generally accepted. At least you can find a lot of information that will show that. Which means that harassed men are a MORE marginalized group, not a less marginalized one.



I also want to point out that you are interpret incomparable as worse because of the gender of the speaker, something you explicitly said you do not do.

No, I did not. She is the one who implied that male harassment was lesser. Because she stated that even men who had been harassed should still have to "check their privilege" in discussions about harassment. Because it was not comparable you see. Which is only a logical statement if the woman's harassment is worse or completely different. We know that it is completely different, because we can draw clear comparison points. So therefore it is the fact that it is worse that is the implication here.

So again, I was only following her implicit and explicit statements. I don't think that harassment is worse or better because of the gender of the parties involved.

Edit: Also if you'll reread the entirety of the quoted post she lists several reasons why she believes it's worse for women, such as feeling physically threatened.

[WarKitty]

Here in that post you explicitly said that a man being harassed was not comparable to a woman being harassed. That seems pretty close to what I said, although I did exaggerate slightly for effect, I admit. Mostly because I had repeated that objection about six or seven times and had it glossed over.

So either a man can be subjected to all the same kinds of harassment that a woman can, up to even being raped. Or he can't. I would argue that it is entirely possible a man could suffer harassment that is worse than what you've suffered. Although I don't think it's likely that I have in that case.

No. That's not even remotely close at all to what that means.

It's saying there are different factors that make it a different experience, and that there are specific gendered factors that affect the issue. "Not comparable" doesn't mean better or worse, it means different.

The trouble is when you turn everything into a challenge of who, objectively, has it the worst, you can't get anything done. There are discussions about rape that involve both men and women. There are also important discussions that focus on women and how it's specifically a threat that affects women's behavior. There are also important discussions on male victims and how cultural ideas of masculinity specifically hurt male victims (and those discussions should prioritize the voices of male victims).

Edit: The trouble with rational discussion is there's no way to do it in part because people tend to read and respond to what they think the implications are, or how they think you should respond, or their stereotypes of you. And especially if you have multiple people repeating what they think you said (which is often biased), it can be almost impossible for what you actually said to be heard.

[AMFV]

No. That's not even remotely close at all to what that means.

But it was what you said. You listed factors that would make it worse for a woman, frequency and physical threat were two. I didn't quote the entirety because it was a long paragraph, would you like me to? I can bold the section where you mention why it would be worse for a woman. If you would like.



It's saying there are different factors that make it a different experience, and that there are specific gendered factors that affect the issue. "Not comparable" doesn't mean better or worse, it means different.

That would be true if not for the rest of the paragraph.



Privilege isn't assuming that the privileged person has led a life free of all problems - it's assuming that, by and large, people in a certain group don't have specific experiences. I have yet to meet a man in the western world who has, on the order of several times a week on average, been harassed and pestered by people who want to go out on a date with him and refuse to take no for an answer, especially not when they are almost all bigger and stronger than him and in a context where it's very frequent that third parties will assume he brought it on himself by being too sexy. Somehow that's getting twisted into "I'm assuming no man I'm talking to has been harassed by anyone ever," which frankly I've never said. I am saying, even if you've been harassed at some point, that's not necessarily a comparable experience for various reasons.

Emphasis mine, you can see how you are clearly framing the harassment that women have experienced as being categorically worse for three reasons in this case. And you may not know that a man has experienced that level of harassment, because men generally are discouraged from discussing harassment, and you are discussing further ways to exclude men (including those who have been harassed) from that discussion.



The trouble is when you turn everything into a challenge of who, objectively, has it the worst, you can't get anything done. There are discussions about rape that involve both men and women. There are also important discussions that focus on women and how it's specifically a threat that affects women's behavior. There are also important discussions on male victims and how cultural ideas of masculinity specifically hurt male victims (and those discussions should prioritize the voices of male victims).

The discussions should not prioritize any voices because of your first section here. There is no way to figure out who has it worse. Due to the subjectivity of experience, there really is no way to know that even people with nearly identical experiences won't necessarily experience one thing more poorly.

And just because there's a discussion focusing on women, doesn't mean that you should only have female voices. Again you should hear all of the voices involved in the discussion because there are insights that you cannot have if you are a woman, who has never considered harassing another woman, or who has never intimately known somebody who has harassed somebody. That's why you want to have men there, so that you can hear all the aspects of everything.



Edit: The trouble with rational discussion is there's no way to do it in part because people tend to read and respond to what they think the implications are, or how they think you should respond, or their stereotypes of you. And especially if you have multiple people repeating what they think you said (which is often biased), it can be almost impossible for what you actually said to be heard.

No, I responded to your actual words, you can see in bolded quote were I quote the entirety of what you said. Which is pretty clear. The point being that when you do misread something, like if that wasn't your intent to say, then I accept your clarification and would state that men should be able to participate in those discussions.

[WarKitty]

AMFV, I honestly have no clue how you're getting what you're claiming is obviously what I'm saying from what I'm saying.

[AMFV]

AMFV, I honestly have no clue how you're getting what you're claiming is obviously what I'm saying from what I'm saying.

You described harassment that happens to men and that happens to women as being not comparable. This was in the same paragraph as you had just listed a series of reasons why, at least to my reading, you described harassment that was happening to women as being in your own experience much worse. I mean you can surely see how that could be read as you describing how harassment occurring to women is worse.

And to boot, you can't really they're incomparable because you haven't experienced one of them. Only the harassment that's been aimed at you. Which makes the whole thing a kind of moot point. Also in a conversation about harassment it would be useful to have both perspectives. Particularly if they are dissimilar.

[georgie_leech]

Uh, things can be dissimilar enough to not be comparable but still be valuable in their own right. For instance, the lack of support structures in place for males suffering harassment or abuse, due to masculine ideals implying they shouldn't be needed, is a real problem, but not wholly relevant to a discussion on, say, women being excluded from the workplace.

And not every discussion needs to be all encompassing. On the scientific side, how stars form and the orbits of particular planets are both governed by Relativity, but that doesn't mean that attempting to predict the orbit of Mercury means we need to consider how old the sun is.

[AMFV]

Uh, things can be dissimilar enough to not be comparable but still be valuable in their own right. For instance, the lack of support structures in place for males suffering harassment or abuse, due to masculine ideals implying they shouldn't be needed, is a real problem, but not wholly relevant to a discussion on, say, women being excluded from the workplace.

Again, in the same paragraph she described how men had it easier. While now I'm not sure that was her intention, but that is definitely how it reads if you say, "Here are three reasons men have it easier when it comes to harassment in my experience. It's definitely comparable" Which is a pretty close paraphrase to what she said. That was where that came from.

But men are important to include in a discussion on women being excluded from the workplace. First, because they are the ones being accused of exclusion, so they should be able to appropriately explain their behavior and learn how to rectify their behavior if necessary. Second, because women are not given any special insight into the workplace, so they don't qualify as experts over those men in that discussion. Third, because men might have some ideas that could be amazingly useful here, because again, the same amount of expertise on the matter.

The same holds true of discussions of men being oppressed.



And not every discussion needs to be all encompassing. On the scientific side, how stars form and the orbits of particular planets are both governed by Relativity, but that doesn't mean that attempting to predict the orbit of Mercury means we need to consider how old the sun is.

Well the thing is that you are describing a different type of discussion. Scientific discussion is very narrow in scope. Philosophical, ethical, and moral discussion is much less narrow in scope. Because you have to define big premises prior to having any useful discussion.

And the thing is: The example that we've been given by Warkitty, that women's unavailability increases male harassment, is not an irrelevant topic. Now it might not be something that can be solved or should be the focus, but it definitely is something that's a contributing factor. The equivalent in your science discussion would be discussing the mass of mercury in predicting it's orbit, it's not exactly what you're looking for, the answer, but it is a useful thing to evaluate.

[WarKitty]

Couple of things here:

One, the whole concept of racism and sexism and other isms being societal problems is that they cannot be addressed solely on an individual level. Because they are cases where the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Bad things happen to everyone, but significantly more bad things of a certain type happen to people with a certain trait, by and large, and that creates a widespread unfairness. But if you insist on only addressing things on an individual level, you can't talk about that at all.

Two, part of the concept is that people engage in these behaviors without realizing it (and it's actually MORE common from people who claim they don't care about race or sex at all). So for example, a hiring manager may explicitly believe that race and sex don't matter, but when you give a bunch of them resumes that are identical except for the names, Daniel is rated as more competent than Susan or Jayden. And we're saying that also happens in discussions - people say and believe that they want a fair discussion, but their idea of fair is warped by being used to being the one in the spotlight when race/sex/etc comes up. So they may actually be talking over others and interrupting them and dominating the conversation and making it all about them and still fully believe that they are being fair.

Three, discussion that "treats everyone as an individual" in the way you're suggesting really doesn't work outside of very small groups (which always have some form of official or unofficial curation of who counts anyway). I've been trying to describe what happens - you get a large number of people who want the discussion to be about them and want to change it to that. Each one is convinced they have a new thing to add, even if it's largely the same as the last person. Emotions will run high on these topics no matter what. That was the point with my example about women being harassed versus men getting dates. If you try to run some sort of public or semi-public discussion on the topic of women being harassed in a mixed space, and open it up like you're suggesting, I guarantee that 95% of the time the discussion will end up being focused on how hard it is for men to get dates, with a good mix of how women are too sensitive anyway and most men would love to be harassed.

Four, people aren't saying no man can ever express an opinion on women's issues, or whatever. We're saying, for example, men don't get to tell women that they shouldn't be upset because it's a compliment. Or change the conversation about how hard it is to get dates. Or just plain old tell women it can't possibly be that bad because they've never seen it. And we are saying that if we spent the time to answer and dialogue individually with every man saying that, we'd never have any time for anything else.

[georgie_leech]

As an example of the "whole greater than the sum of the parts," skip to about 10 minutes in. (https://youtu.be/toap7iPpTbs) An individual "marry me" comment is fairly innocuous; it gets significantly creepier when, well, there are that many.

[Goaty14]

For one issue - sometimes part of the problem is that one group has less numbers than another. So that comes up with LGBT+ issues a lot. If you're trying to address those issues specifically, you can't just encourage everyone to talk evenly because LGBT+ folk are a minority of the population. If you try to focus on every person's opinion individually, you'll be spending most of your time on how cis/het folk feel about LGBT+ issues and not a lot on how LGBT+ people are managing.

This is not what I was addressing. What I was saying is that the researchers of the study assumed that men spoke more because a large amount of them spoke more and women spoke less because vice versa. What they should've done is to not assume how an individual would act based on their gender and instead group them as appropriate for the study (in order to find out how effective their encouragement was, they should've measured the growth of those who spoke less -- not the growth of women).


Two, sometimes there are traits that have significant correlations with gender/race/etc., and you can't address the issue without addressing that. For example, one problem that's been cited is that women are more likely to be negatively stereotyped for putting themselves out there. This comes up a lot with workplace salary issues. More men negotiate for salary than women, and people who negotiate are more likely to get more money for the job. But women specifically who negotiate are more likely to be viewed negatively in ways that are detrimental to them getting future advantages compared to men, even in studies where the men and women used the exact same script. So you can't just encourage those who are quiet to speak up more - you also have to address the perception that when they speak up more they're out of line.

1) Ok, but that specific issue isn't applicable in all circumstances, in which the notion should be removed. I suppose you're right if that was the researcher's original mission statement, though.

2) "The exact same script" at the exact same place, in the exact same circumstances, with the exact same mood, and different results? I suppose I should believe these people if they manage to pull that off, but the woman who just started her minimum-wage job vs a 15-year male worker using the exact same script and getting different results isn't surprising.

[georgie_leech]

2) "The exact same script" at the exact same place, in the exact same circumstances, with the exact same mood, and different results? I suppose I should believe these people if they manage to pull that off, but the woman who just started her minimum-wage job vs a 15-year male worker using the exact same script and getting different results isn't surprising.

Part of statistical analysis, precisely because you can't control for those other factors, is to repeat the thing a bunch so that they average out. Sometimes good moods, sometimes bad, etc. And when they do that, it looks an awful lot like Jayden doesn't get hired as often as Daniel. Though the study I know of actually used Jamal and Greg for the male names.

[Mith]

2) "The exact same script" at the exact same place, in the exact same circumstances, with the exact same mood, and different results? I suppose I should believe these people if they manage to pull that off, but the woman who just started her minimum-wage job vs a 15-year male worker using the exact same script and getting different results isn't surprising.

When they run the experiment, they get as close as possible to the same parameters as possible. There is a known bias towards women and people of colour in the work place. They have submitted the same resume/applications to and employer changing the name based on gender or ethnicity, and have found that the white male names get picked significantly more regularly than the others, even though the resumes are the same.

While I haven't read the studies in question, unless there is a specific conspiracy out for people playing the victim card unecessarily, it is known that women are pressured to not speak out and be assertive in many professions. What gets a man called "assertive and confident" gets a woman called a "cold hearted, selfish bitch".

We know that women have a fundamentally more hostile work environment then men do. It's documented through reports and by paying attention to how people in your work talk. How then is it surprising that this manifests in pressure against wage negotiations?

[Florian]

The whole sub-discussion actually goes to show how deeply divided a society can be and also the raw merit the experience of losing can give (more on that later).

I´m a member in a progressive political party, so I know quite well how frustrating it can be to have to fight for things that I know by heart are right, again and again.
But I'm also a firm believer in the correct function of a representative democratic system and the importance of fact finding and discourse that will turn into consensus, then law. Rudi Dutschke of 68er movement fame once coined the term "the long marsh through the institutions".

So, while I understand the intentions, I strongly disapprove of some of the methods that´re currently being used and advocated, because they're basically mob justice, especially when using tactics that preemptively silence any opposition.

[WarKitty]

2) "The exact same script" at the exact same place, in the exact same circumstances, with the exact same mood, and different results? I suppose I should believe these people if they manage to pull that off, but the woman who just started her minimum-wage job vs a 15-year male worker using the exact same script and getting different results isn't surprising.

It was a controlled study where they brought hiring managers in, had them either read a script or watch a scripted interaction, and then asked them to rate the candidate. They were not told the studies were about sex. Statistically, when the written script had a female name or there was a female actor involved, the ratings were consistently lower. More specifically, the women were rated as unfriendly and difficult to work with.

There's also a lot of anecdotal stories from trans folk, that they were consistently treated differently once transitioning depending on the sex that people perceived them as. For example, reports from trans women that after transitioning they were perceived as "unfriendly" or even "hostile" when using the same approach they had used as men.

On the other study, the point was to measure perception of who spoke more versus reality. So a large part of the point was that the women were perceived as dominating the conversation at a point where they spoke more than usual but still less than equally. That's going to have implications for fair discussion, if certain parties are perceiving what is unfair in their favor to be unfair to them.


When they run the experiment, they get as close as possible to the same parameters as possible. There is a known bias towards women and people of colour in the work place. They have submitted the same resume/applications to and employer changing the name based on gender or ethnicity, and have found that the white male names get picked significantly more regularly than the others, even though the resumes are the same.

I believe they've done that with housing as well. Not so much with sex, but finding that ethnic names on a rental application tend to have a harder time getting housing. Certain accents have the same effect on the phone.

[Liquor Box]

AMFV, Liquor Box and Razade the defenders of the white cis male guy. :smallamused:

I'm surprised that Donnadogsoth didn't shown up yet.

This sounds a lot like "I can't actually refute the points being raised by these people, but they contradict my general point of view so they must be bad even if I don't know why".

[Liquor Box]

Its all really telling the kind of people that feel the need to insert their opinion into every discussion and insist that all sides should be listened to. Men, during discussions of womens issues. White people, with issues affect people of colour. Straight people and queer issues, cis people and trans issues, wealthy people and poor issues, and so on and so forth on basically any axis of oppression.

Maybe we can all take a minute and think why that might be the case?

It's funny (by which I mean hypocritical) that you take this position, because one of the most recent times I saw you arguing in a thread, you were arguing that there should be greater representation of asexual people. You did not identify yourself as asexual, and you completely ignored the opinion of the one person who did identify themselves as asexual in that thread (whose opinion was that asexual representation should be proportional to asexual representation in real life).

It seems that your opinion that only people in the category being discussed should comment, only applies when you consider yourself to be in that category. Perhaps it would be more honest and accurate for you to say that the only people whose opinions you think need to be heard are those whose opinions are similar to your own.

[Liquor Box]

When they run the experiment, they get as close as possible to the same parameters as possible. There is a known bias towards women and people of colour in the work place. They have submitted the same resume/applications to and employer changing the name based on gender or ethnicity, and have found that the white male names get picked significantly more regularly than the others, even though the resumes are the same.



I honestly don't understand why large employers don't have a practice whereby one person (who is not the person who vets the applications) redacts those parts of a resume/application that identifies a person's age, sexuality, gender, ethnicity etc - and then hand that redacted information on to another person to vet and shortlist the candidates for interviews. I accept it wouldn't solve the whole problem, but it seems to me to be a solution for part of it.

[WarKitty]

I honestly don't understand why large employers don't have a practice whereby one person (who is not the person who vets the applications) redacts those parts of a resume/application that identifies a person's age, sexuality, gender, ethnicity etc - and then hand that redacted information on to another person to vet and shortlist the candidates for interviews. I accept it wouldn't solve the whole problem, but it seems to me to be a solution for part of it.

There's actually a fun little real-world variant on this, in music. They did exactly what you said, but they also set up the auditions so the candidate did not speak to the judges and was behind a screen so they were not visible. Basically the race and sex of the candidate were completely removed from the process. And the number of women and minorities who got jobs shot way up.

This is obviously not practical for most jobs, but it does suggest that even in the absence of widespread explicit bias there are effects.

Of course, the other hard part in resumes would be redacting some information would be hard. For example, I did my college degree at a religious school and was for a time employed at a religious institution. Both have names that I would expect most americans to identify as explicitly religious immediately.

[Liquor Box]

There's actually a fun little real-world variant on this, in music. They did exactly what you said, but they also set up the auditions so the candidate did not speak to the judges and was behind a screen so they were not visible. Basically the race and sex of the candidate were completely removed from the process. And the number of women and minorities who got jobs shot way up.

This is obviously not practical for most jobs, but it does suggest that even in the absence of widespread explicit bias there are effects.

Of course, the other hard part in resumes would be redacting some information would be hard. For example, I did my college degree at a religious school and was for a time employed at a religious institution. Both have names that I would expect most americans to identify as explicitly religious immediately.

the suggestion itself is real world, it has happened at an organisation I worked at without any apparent negative effect.

It's not perfect. In addition to your religious example, the amount of work experience a person has will suggest their age - so discrimination against older workers will not be prevented. But it seems to me to be something that would help, even if it does not resolve more issues.

[AMFV]

Couple of things here:

One, the whole concept of racism and sexism and other isms being societal problems is that they cannot be addressed solely on an individual level. Because they are cases where the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Bad things happen to everyone, but significantly more bad things of a certain type happen to people with a certain trait, by and large, and that creates a widespread unfairness. But if you insist on only addressing things on an individual level, you can't talk about that at all.

They can't be solved entirely on an individual level. But it's really important to remember that groups are composed of individuals if you solve the problem for enough individuals then you're going to make a pretty big dent in it in terms of larger groups. The other problem is that the groups "white", or "male" are so diverse that no one solution is likely to correct any sort of problem in that entire group. Also say "women" the reasons and methodology of harassment to use your example still, are pretty diverse as well. The problem is so complex because of each group involved that once you get on the macro level it is frankly insolvable. You can make dent in much smaller group environments, that's why that should be the focus.

Also to reuse the earlier bridge example, suffering as a result of prejudice does make you an expert in solving it any more than being on a collapsing bridge makes you an expert in fixing bridges. Now a bridge expert could probably use your account to figure out what happened or what steps could be taken to help that in the future. But being the victim does not make a person an expert in that field. I'm not an expert in poverty because I was poor. I'm not an expert on war because I was in one.



Two, part of the concept is that people engage in these behaviors without realizing it (and it's actually MORE common from people who claim they don't care about race or sex at all). So for example, a hiring manager may explicitly believe that race and sex don't matter, but when you give a bunch of them resumes that are identical except for the names, Daniel is rated as more competent than Susan or Jayden. And we're saying that also happens in discussions - people say and believe that they want a fair discussion, but their idea of fair is warped by being used to being the one in the spotlight when race/sex/etc comes up. So they may actually be talking over others and interrupting them and dominating the conversation and making it all about them and still fully believe that they are being fair.

Which is why I was fine with using "check your privilege" as a self-reflection exercise. I think that's actually a really good thing to do. But while that study may have been conducted, you can't assume that if somebody is rating you as less competent it's because of your gender or race. Because you aren't a mindreader, and you certainly can't jump to the conclusion that that is what's motivating somebody. So it's pretty meaningless for another person to use. Again self-reflection that's fine and good.

Also, were all of the researchers, peer reviewers, and professors who interacted in that study female, of a minority race, or the like? Because I bet they weren't, which shows that there's something to be said for people who are not in those groups contributing particularly those who are knowledgeable in those subjects.



Three, discussion that "treats everyone as an individual" in the way you're suggesting really doesn't work outside of very small groups (which always have some form of official or unofficial curation of who counts anyway). I've been trying to describe what happens - you get a large number of people who want the discussion to be about them and want to change it to that. Each one is convinced they have a new thing to add, even if it's largely the same as the last person. Emotions will run high on these topics no matter what. That was the point with my example about women being harassed versus men getting dates. If you try to run some sort of public or semi-public discussion on the topic of women being harassed in a mixed space, and open it up like you're suggesting, I guarantee that 95% of the time the discussion will end up being focused on how hard it is for men to get dates, with a good mix of how women are too sensitive anyway and most men would love to be harassed.

It is not possible to have a discussion on the scale you're describing. There's a reason that we don't have actual democracy in most places and we have representatives. Because you can't work through things in large groups. Hell, in large groups you have logistical issues like not even being able to hear everybody, because of physical limitations. Also discussions in mixed and public spaces with strangers are a horrible way to solve anything, you want to have knowledgeable people talking.

Also back up your 95% claim. Seriously. That's bull****. I call bull****. We've had several people here, who have never heard that claim. I have only heard it on the internet. I'm not doubting that you've heard it. But I doubt it's the common thread between men. Especially not men who have any kind of self-value, since you know they'd probably have dates.



Four, people aren't saying no man can ever express an opinion on women's issues, or whatever. We're saying, for example, men don't get to tell women that they shouldn't be upset because it's a compliment. Or change the conversation about how hard it is to get dates. Or just plain old tell women it can't possibly be that bad because they've never seen it. And we are saying that if we spent the time to answer and dialogue individually with every man saying that, we'd never have any time for anything else.

You don't get to tell other people what they can say. Period. You can decide not to listen or to leave, or to not invite them to the discussion next time. You don't get to quash other people's opinions that way, no matter how much you dislike them. And if the people engaged in the discussion are actually familiar with the topic, which if you're having a good discussion on it, they should be, they should know better.

Lastly, it is useful to examine absurd or ridiculous positions, even ones that are abhorrent. That's why playing devil's advocate is such a useful thing in philosophy and debates, because it can help you understand the position in a way that you could otherwise not.

[georgie_leech]

You don't get to tell other people what they can say. Period. You can decide not to listen or to leave, or to not invite them to the discussion next time. You don't get to quash other people's opinions that way, no matter how much you dislike them. And if the people engaged in the discussion are actually familiar with the topic, which if you're having a good discussion on it, they should be, they should know better.

Lastly, it is useful to examine absurd or ridiculous positions, even ones that are abhorrent. That's why playing devil's advocate is such a useful thing in philosophy and debates, because it can help you understand the position in a way that you could otherwise not.

You seem to have missed the point that these people are not always invited.

[WarKitty]

So here's what I think the most important thing is: Small, private discussion will never reach the vast majority of people who think the status quo is ok and that all this talk is not a big deal. A large part of the goal isn't even yet getting to a solution - it's getting people on board with the idea that there's a problem that needs a solution. But those small discussions, those are largely only taking place between people who are already convinced, because a lot of other people are sitting back and thinking "That's boring, let's go back to talking about video games. We already know it's not that big a deal, so why should we listen?"

It takes a bit of jarring, a bit of getting in your face, to get those people to stop and think, hey, just because this isn't a problem for me and my friends, doesn't mean it's not a problem for someone else. There's a saying that the moderate is often the enemy of progress - the person who says, I really do believe in equality, but I don't understand why minorities need to cause all this ruckus. Why can't they just be more patient? Even when patience has lasted for generations and made no change.

And if any legal change is to happen in a democracy, that is also critical, to get the attention of the moderate, not just those already familiar and on board.

[Goaty14]

or to not invite them to the discussion next time.

You seem to have missed the point that these people are not always invited.

I think he did. It only takes one sour experience for them not to get invited next time...


It takes a bit of jarring, a bit of getting in your face, to get those people to stop and think, hey, just because this isn't a problem for me and my friends, doesn't mean it's not a problem for someone else.

So then what's your philosophy on converting people to your side? In particular, I don't think a large portion of the screaming and shouting looks convincing as it is. I haven't read the whole thread if you've already said it, though.

[AMFV]

You seem to have missed the point that these people are not always invited.

You have people bursting into your political action group meetings and shouting at you? You should consider hiring security. Or like coming into your home and shouting at you?

You seem to have missed the point that right to invite people only exists in a private space. The right to exclude people only exists in private spaces. If you're in an area that is public and people can enter without any invitation then you don't get any rights to exclude and you shouldn't have the right to do so.

And even if you do have that right, you shouldn't exclude people with varying viewpoints, you should make an effort to hear from as many viewpoints as possible. Even those you're likely to reject, because it is edifying. Now that doesn't mean that you need to invite the jerk who keeps talking about how women should view it as a compliment to every discussion, but you should invite them to a few, so that you can properly understand.


So here's what I think the most important thing is: Small, private discussion will never reach the vast majority of people who think the status quo is ok and that all this talk is not a big deal. A large part of the goal isn't even yet getting to a solution - it's getting people on board with the idea that there's a problem that needs a solution. But those small discussions, those are largely only taking place between people who are already convinced, because a lot of other people are sitting back and thinking "That's boring, let's go back to talking about video games. We already know it's not that big a deal, so why should we listen?"

There are formats for formal discussion that can reach larger audiences. Debates, YouTube, newspaper articles. Once you have formulated you argument then you can present in a formal setting. That would be the next step. And again political action groups begin with small private discussion. Legislation begins with small private discussion. Change starts with coherent rational discussion, that is if it is to be good change.

As far as your other point, the video games one? I disagree with you vehemently, you have not convinced me, I was not already convinced. I am here on an internet forum having a discussion with you on this topic, which I don't think is too terribly informal. So your point falls apart. The people who would rather discuss video games are just going to go along with things anyways, and also would likely not be involved in the political process where change is enacted, in developing culture where change is enacted, and so that's not a meaningful area to be having your conversation.



It takes a bit of jarring, a bit of getting in your face, to get those people to stop and think, hey, just because this isn't a problem for me and my friends, doesn't mean it's not a problem for someone else. There's a saying that the moderate is often the enemy of progress - the person who says, I really do believe in equality, but I don't understand why minorities need to cause all this ruckus. Why can't they just be more patient? Even when patience has lasted for generations and made no change.

But I'm not saying any of those things. I'm saying that you should listen to those people as much as you should listen to the loud folks who are getting in people's faces. But you shouldn't get in people's faces, that makes them defensive. And can lead to nasty counterreactions. Like when somebody who formerly didn't care decides that because you were such an ass they're now on the other side. And that can be very bad.

Also there has been a HUGE amount of change in the treatment of minorities over generations. Are you ****ing serious? Like you know the 60s were literally like one generation ago, my parents were born in the 60s, most people my age had parents born in the 40s and 50s, who might have actually experienced segregation, possibly as adults. I mean maybe there's still problems but "no change" that's horsecrap, like actual horsecrap. And that's offensive, like you're diminishing the contributions of every person who brought about that change by basically denying its existence.



And if any legal change is to happen in a democracy, that is also critical, to get the attention of the moderate, not just those already familiar and on board.

This is true, which is why political action groups exist. They're much more effective than shouting at people generally. Normally you use ads.

[WarKitty]

Also there has been a HUGE amount of change in the treatment of minorties over generations. Are you ****ing serious? Like you know the 60s were literally like one generation ago, my parents were born in the 60s, most people my age had parents born in the 40s and 50s, who might have actually experienced segregation, possibly as adults. I mean maybe there's still problems but "no change" that's horsecrap, like actual horsecrap. And that's offensive, like you're diminishing the contributions of every person who brought about that change by basically denying its existence.

No my point is, those minorities got out. They didn't sit down and have polite discussions with those who were oppressing them. They marched, they shouted on the streets and from the steps, they got in people's way, they made it so people who had been quietly ignoring them had to see them. They didn't turn their protests over to have equal discussion time with those who wanted things to stay the same - they ignored them, they shouted them down. They got out and shouted over the noise so people had to hear them and would hear and see that there was a real problem, that the way things were was not ok and they wouldn't just go back to being quiet and civil.

[georgie_leech]

Also there has been a HUGE amount of change in the treatment of minorities over generations. Are you ****ing serious? Like you know the 60s were literally like one generation ago, my parents were born in the 60s, most people my age had parents born in the 40s and 50s, who might have actually experienced segregation, possibly as adults. I mean maybe there's still problems but "no change" that's horsecrap, like actual horsecrap. And that's offensive, like you're diminishing the contributions of every person who brought about that change by basically denying its existence.



This is true, which is why political action groups exist. They're much more effective than shouting at people generally. Normally you use ads.

You're undercutting your point a bit when that particular era had a rather famous black rights activist making a stir and drawing attention to the plight of black minorities. Martin Luther King Jr was many things, but quiet is not one of them. Going further into details would likely fall afoul of no politics.

[WarKitty]

You're undercutting your point a bit when that particular era had a rather famous black rights activist making a stir and drawing attention to the plight of black minorities. Martin Luther King Jr was many things, but quiet is not one of them. Going further into details would likely fall afoul of no politics.

He's also the source of the comment I paraphrased about moderates.

[georgie_leech]

He's also the source of the comment I paraphrased about moderates.

Mm, I wanted to make the allusion a bit more explicit.

To be clear (for other readers), his message was not about demonizing moderates or the uninformed. Rather, it was about being loud enough to be heard by the uninformed, and that a "wait and see" attitude was enabling abuse and oppression. Such a movement is about changing the political realities that underlie what counts as rationalism in the halls of power; cynical rationality enabled Jim Crow, but It's as vulnerable to changes in society as anything else.

[AMFV]

You're undercutting your point a bit when that particular era had a rather famous black rights activist making a stir and drawing attention to the plight of black minorities. Martin Luther King Jr was many things, but quiet is not one of them. Going further into details would likely fall afoul of no politics.

He was making a stir, but he wasn't excluding people who wanted to support him who were not of his racial group. He included them in his discussions. And that was a big part of his success, he was willing to involve more people and have a better more reasoned discussion than some of his peers, who I will not name to avoid that.

I'm not saying that making a stir is a bad thing. Making a stir at specific groups and excluding people is a bad thing. That way always goes bad. If you're saying "I have a dream that we can solve these problems together" that's different than saying "This race is bad, it is oppressive, they are the enemy" That's a different thing.

What I am saying is that making a stir without being very sure of what you are talking about is dangerous, it can lead to fascism, totalitarianism, mob rule, that sort of thing. That's why you have rational small discussions first. That's why you outline the problem. That's why you need all groups involved in discussion of the solutions, so that no group is being oppressed by your solutions, which can certainly happen.


He's also the source of the comment I paraphrased about moderates.

That's a considerable bit of paraphrase there. And in any case, the fact that you paraphrased him and then ignored his contributions is pretty shocking to me, that seems considerably more insulting than had you been unaware of his contributions.

Edit:


No my point is, those minorities got out. They didn't sit down and have polite discussions with those who were oppressing them. They marched, they shouted on the streets and from the steps, they got in people's way, they made it so people who had been quietly ignoring them had to see them. They didn't turn their protests over to have equal discussion time with those who wanted things to stay the same - they ignored them, they shouted them down. They got out and shouted over the noise so people had to hear them and would hear and see that there was a real problem, that the way things were was not ok and they wouldn't just go back to being quiet and civil.

Martin Luther King DID NOT EXCLUDE PEOPLE. You're thinking of a different far less effective set of people who did that, and wound up being vilified and creating greater problems. The problem is that your foundation is bad. And the discussion the thinking the careful examination of ideas, that's the foundation.

I mean in France in the 1700s, they had oppressed people go out into the streets and protest, and we know how that ended. In a Reign of Terror. Because they didn't sit down and think about things properly first. They didn't evaluate that's extremely dangerous.

[Fiery Diamond]

Here's my two cents:

1) You should never exclude someone from a conversation based on what they are.
2) It's perfectly acceptable to exclude someone from a conversation based on what they say.

Unlike AMFV, I think there are plenty of viewpoints and opinions that aren't worth giving even a cursory thought to. A pro-slavery or anti-women's rights stance, for example. But you should never assume that someone will have those views and therefore exclude them just based on the fact that they belong to a group that you've experienced other members of having those views. Let people speak, and if what they say is nonsense or trash, tell them that and move on.

[AMFV]

Here's my two cents:

1) You should never exclude someone from a conversation based on what they are.
2) It's perfectly acceptable to exclude someone from a conversation based on what they say.

Unlike AMFV, I think there are plenty of viewpoints and opinions that aren't worth giving even a cursory thought to. A pro-slavery or anti-women's rights stance, for example. But you should never assume that someone will have those views and therefore exclude them just based on the fact that they belong to a group that you've experienced other members of having those views. Let people speak, and if what they say is nonsense or trash, tell them that and move on.

You don't think that if you're fighting for women's rights, it might be useful to understand people who think that women should have less rights? That seems counterproductive.

[Fiery Diamond]

You don't think that if you're fighting for women's rights, it might be useful to understand people who think that women should have less rights? That seems counterproductive.

No, I don't. If they themselves cannot be convinced, they should be steamrolled right over in the effort to effect change. If someone is willfully being an oppressor, I don't need to understand the inner workings of their minds, they are an acceptable target for being treated as inferior if they are unwilling to change. If you think you can change their minds, then sure, talk to them. But that's a completely separate conversation than the larger conversation aimed at the moderates in order to effect change. They have no place in that larger conversation. Period.

[AMFV]

No, I don't. If they themselves cannot be convinced, they should be steamrolled right over in the effort to effect change. If someone is willfully being an oppressor, I don't need to understand the inner workings of their minds, they are an acceptable target for being treated as inferior if they are unwilling to change. If you think you can change their minds, then sure, talk to them. But that's a completely separate conversation than the larger conversation aimed at the moderates in order to effect change. They have no place in that larger conversation. Period.

The thing is that if you want the best change, you want change that a large group of people aren't going to resent. That way can lead of bad things. Like civil war, in one instance. Vicious militant hate groups in others. And sometimes those are not from the group that was doing the oppressing in the first place. So this is why it's critical that you humanize even the worst here. If you're really looking to make social change. Because they aren't asphalt, they're people. Even if they have ideas that are bad.

[WarKitty]

I want to correct one thing.

No one is saying that these discussions should never ever include anyone who isn't part of the oppressed group, or that anyone who isn't part of that group is part of the problem and can't be helpful. We are saying a couple of things:

(1) By and large, the oppressed group are the experts on their own life experiences. Therefore their stories in their own words should be taken more seriously than what outsiders are saying about them. A common feature of oppression is that the oppressing group insists on telling their own narratives about how the oppressed group is thinking or feeling.

(2) The conversation should be and stay focused on fixing the problems of those who are the oppressed group working for change, and this will necessarily de-emphasize the discomfort of those outside. It is unfortunate, but too much pressure to be conciliatory and consider everyone often turns into asking those who have been oppressed to cater to those who are merely uncomfortable with change.

(3) Not every discussion is for and about everything. Changing the subject to be about you is just plain rude, even if you have a legitimate problem.

[Fiery Diamond]

The thing is that if you want the best change, you want change that a large group of people aren't going to resent. That way can lead of bad things. Like civil war, in one instance. Vicious militant hate groups in others. And sometimes those are not from the group that was doing the oppressing in the first place. So this is why it's critical that you humanize even the worst here. If you're really looking to make social change. Because they aren't asphalt, they're people. Even if they have ideas that are bad.

As has been brought up on these forums by me before, I don't think all people deserve to be treated equally at all times regardless of their behaviors. I think we all have the same inherent value, but that there are certain actions people can take that devalue themselves and we should respond accordingly. We strip away certain rights from criminals, for example. I can't really go into any specifics on historic or present day examples with my personal opinions on how certain people should have been/should be treated without violating the forum rules on politics, but suffice to say that I think the negative, violent groups spawned from the no-longer-in-power-oppressors should be brutally crushed. If you perform enough of certain very bad actions, then no, you don't get to qualify as human anymore.

[Douglas]

The Mod Radiant: As much as I think this issue deserves discussion, it just got very clearly political and I don't think that's likely to change. Thread closed.