"Privilege" has lost all meaning in today's world. It's just a word to throw around to slow how "woke" you are.
Calling our rights "privilege" is throwing out the struggle and sacrifice of everyone that fought for those rights.
You may have been Lucky to have been born in the US, but not Privileged
But isn't it the very definition of privilege, when through no effort of your own you get to enjoy the benefits for which others have "fought", "struggled", and "sacrificed"? How is it different from the privilege of being born into a rich (or just functional) family?
> You may have been Lucky to have been born in the US, but not Privileged
It looks like the word "privileged", through all these fights on social media, has got a bad rep :-) How is being privileged different than being lucky?
'a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group. "education is a right, not a privilege"'
Obviously whoever wrote that should be penalized because they mucked it up with their example, if privilege is a special right then how is education a right not a privilege?
But anyway, a privilege is something that is understood as something you have been given. The American Constitution holds that rights are something that one possesses innately, although a cynic might wonder what the difference is I think a close reading leads to the understanding that when a right is taken away it is by nature wicked that such a thing should be done, whereas the removal of a privilege would not be automatically unjust.
Thus by the American conception of things every human has the right to free speech, that China takes that away from it's citizens thus not make American's privileged - it makes China bad and its citizens oppressed for having their rights removed.
on edit: sorry about the many typos, not going to fix though as I am dealing with pneumonia and near bed time.
A priori, in a natural state, there is no "right of free speech". It was fought for, built, implemented, and maintained. We are privileged if we are born in a country with solid institutions which grant you this right. That's all there is to the initial comment, I don't see why such a fuss.
I did not say that there was A priori, in a natural state, a right of free speech. I said what the American conception of rights is generally regarded as being - some support for my claims https://www.docsoffreedom.org/student/readings/equal-and-ina... https://www.aclu.org/other/bill-rights-brief-history - many other articles on same subject available and should be easy to find.
Aside from that one can easily determine that the authors of the bill of rights were quite clear in almost every instance not to "grant rights". For example in the first amendment it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." most people say the First Amendment grants Freedom of Speech, but anyone with a decent grasp of the English language would have to say that it only makes it illegal to limit that freedom.
Now of course I am myself not quite happy with assuming inalienable rights to exist, it seems more reasonable in some ways to assume they were fought for or granted, that they came from somewhere and are not natural to humans. On the other hand I am at least as reluctant to assume a natural state and that I can know what rights, if any, might apply to that state.
So if you can expound on your knowledge of this natural state, please do so. I merely expounded on what the generally understood American conception of rights was, and did not presume to claim to know the truth of that conception.
The G&T program was basically training for grad school: indepdent study, project-based learning, access to computers and internet when they were rare, etc.
That training made a huge impact on my career (I am a post-scientist ML expert at a large internet company). I mentioned the program to some folks I went to school with and they pointed out this G&T program was not ever offered to them.
Interestingly, these kinds of systems end up being important for the long-term success of a country. but at the same time they tend to perpetuate privilege. Students who weren't in the highest level of classes weren't even given a chance to take the test
The reason this framing is despicable is that rights and privileges are not the same.
Being able to afford a Lexus is a privilege. Not everyone has it and that's OK.
Having access to clean water is a right. Not everyone has it and that's not OK.
Free speech is a right. Everyone should have it even if some people currently don't.
The US draws the line at true threats, and inciting imminent lawless action, among others.
New Zealand now draws the line at simply sharing a manifesto along with anything else decreed by the Chief Censor.
China is much more strict, but who's to say where the line should be drawn? Not even western governments agree.
We decide where the line should be drawn through argument and public debate, and by refusing to comply with weaker definitions from anyone who can't convince us using reason that where they want to draw the line is actually in the interest of the people.
Due process is a human right in a way that having a title is not.
(It's still a right by the way, as I said it can be both)
Edit: Anyway, I don't feel the need to argue this since it's just a semantic argument but the general thesis is that I found your narrow definition of privilege to be surprising compared to how I've experienced people using it but English differs over geography so idk.
When you have a right to free speech and then someone puts you in jail for exercising it, it isn't that you don't have the right, it's that your right is being infringed.
Calling it a privilege that you don't have any time someone is infringing on your rights would mean that nobody's rights could ever be infringed, since any time they were infringed it would merely mean that you didn't have them to begin with. But you do. People have human rights even when someone is violating them.
Human rights are defended when we as humans refuse to stand idly by while they are violated. Which is why it's still important to identify the lines that are not to be crossed.
Muddling the fundamental safeguards that allow a free society to exist with the petty jealousy of who has a bigger house is only a boon to the despots who would tear those safeguards down.
The common usage is to describe an unfair inequality. One person is feeding steak to their dog while another is starving. The spirit of the accusation is that the better off person is too well off and we need to even it out by knocking them down -- since we can't feed steak to every dog, since we can't give everyone a private jet and a mansion and a harem, the people who have those things are contemptible for not giving them up to help the less fortunate.
Human rights don't work like that. It isn't the case that people in free countries could help out people in authoritarian countries by giving up some of their free speech if only they weren't so greedy and selfish. They're not using up all the free speech so that nobody else can have any.
It's possible for more people to have free speech, and due process, and clean water, without taking any of it away from anybody who currently has it already.
Which makes the relativistic comparison counterproductive. It isn't a zero sum game. China should have it independent of whether or not New Zealand or America does, and they could all fully have it at the same time.
> The spirit of the accusation
Yes, this is indeed the common usage, which I find extremely puzzling. The word "privilege" has become somewhat of a pejorative term — an accusation rather than a statement of fact. It seems to have a stronger negative connotation than the word "luck", or the word "advantage", although it has a very similar semantics. I wonder how long this has been the case. Has this bundle of negative connotations come to be associated with this word during the latest culture wars (and if so, I would like to push back against this automatic "spirit of accusation" against those who happen to be in the privileged position), or is there a much longer tradition of such usage?
> It's possible for more people to have free speech, and due process, and clean water, without taking any of it away from anybody who currently has it already.
Of course it is. I am surprised that the presupposition is that a privileged person is necessarily taking something away from an unprivileged one.
Next South Park should do an episode that shows how greedy western leaders running opium/heroin for the better part of now two centuries, turned the most populous country into a paranoid dictatorial hellhole for the Chinese people.
US introspection would be too on the nose?
You ever ask yourself what percentage of the heroin/opium supply would be pulled off the market if China could extradite people from HK? More than 50%... and who gets hurt by that?
We need to all band together to fight this or we will lose all of our privileges and rights.
Let's just discuss what your ancestors did to my ancestors! Because holy crap! That'll definitely fix our current day problems! No better cure for the present than to yell at each other about things that happened a few hundred years ago! Maybe if we turn it into a card game, we can have tournaments and see who's the most oppressed every year. As a Polish-Jew, I wonder where I'm going to be in the rankings in historical oppression. Oh wait, it doesn't matter. I'm going to focus on today instead.
The point to that statement, instead of trying to use this as a situation where America is to blame, because it always is, let's stick to the discussion at hand with China and their CURRENT atrocities. Because no country is innocent, no country is heaven sent. We're all trying to live in a world where this shit doesn't happen anymore. If we just look around and go "Well you're ancestors did this!" "And your ancestors did that first!", we're going to get no where.
Privileges are things granted to you, often conditionally, by someone else. Using the word often sounds quasi-religious to me: "Thank Privilege for this meal we are about to eat, and our safe home, ...".
most people didn't do anything do get whatever rights they are enjoying - they were just born into these rights while many other people don't have those rights. Pretty much definition of privilege.
> Calling our rights "privilege" is throwing out the struggle and sacrifice of everyone that fought for those rights.
That argument works for the Lords Privileges in England too - the ancestors of those Lords were brutal knights who fought bloodily to become the Lords and to get and enjoy the Privileges themselves and by their descendants.
"Being born "into" these rights" is close to accurate, but misses the point. You (and everyone else) are born with a basic set of natural rights which exist regardless of how much or how little you can/do exercise them. People have been struggling for hundreds of years to avoid having those rights infringed upon, not to "create" them.
Privileges on the other hand, derive their authority from a secondary source. Driving, public education, etc are good examples of "Privileges" where society builds/pays for something, and members of that society are granted the privilege of its use. Compared with your right to free speech, which doesn't disappear because someone/something infringes upon it.
There is no such thing as the "natural rights" except may be for the right to die (and even that is contested by many governments (and super-government-powerful organizations of the past like the Church was for example)). Any rights are created as a result of an [usually temporary] equilibrium between various participating forces established and supported by violence or a credible threat of a such.
Wouldn't the world be wonderful if all 7 billion people had free speech?
when it is had by everyone then it is a right. Until that it is a privilege. For example voting in US was in the past a privilege of white male property owners, and today it is pretty much a right (if one discounts voter suppression state laws, etc).
Another example - free speech can, in theory, be had by everyone in Russia or China, yet it is really far from everybody having it there. Thus it isn't a right there despite that "can, in theory".
But the reality is that as a white middle class male in the US, I do have the privilege to say things and do things in public that people who aren't white or middle class can't. The freedoms we have aren't equally distributed due to systemic racism and sexism.
I'm pretty anti-woke, actually, I hate the term.
And I think there are plenty of things that are "privileges", but it's based on the idea that it is impossible to extend it to everyone. Being admitted to a top school is impossible to extend to everyone by the definition of a top school. Being believed in a court of law when it's just your word over someone else's, but being more trusted because you belong to a particular group is a privilege. Being let off with a warning at a traffic stop because you have the right face is a privilege. Living in the "good" part of town is a privilege.
Surviving a traffic stop without being shot by the cop should not be called a privilege. Being able to receive a competent education should not be called a privilege. These are things that can be extended to everyone and the words should reflect it, so that it's clear which things we should be fighting for, vs the things that are impossible for everyone to have.
This all sounds like a confusing semantics game.
A right gains its power from people's belief that it should be universally granted, and that they will stick up for others when that right gets breached. Once a thing gets redefined as a privilege there is no expectation for people to stand up for other privilege.
The left has tried to redefine harm to include "unequal result or outcome," which makes the entire principle meaningless.
In addition, I am not viewed by a certain portion of the population as a oppressor based on my skin color.
If anything, sometimes I feel sorry for my white friends and am happy for my minority privilege of not being held responsible for things my ancestors did long before I was born.
If you’re a female, it’s more difficult to be taken seriously or heard in meetings, and people constantly talk over you.
If you’re basically anything that’s not white, people will embarrassingly coddle or patronize you, if they’re not prejudicing you.
I never really thought about specific examples until I read this comment, but this is what came to mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia required Supreme Court to override laws that violated the constitution.
If that's your standard for "least oppressed", I think your standards are very low.
What is ridiculous is to think that is an argument against the truth of parent's statement.
I question your definition of "objectively" in this situation
"Least oppressed society in HISTORY", this reads like a Trump tweet. Sure is some egregious lack of self-awareness.
To clarify - this is via them losing access to representation by being deemed a felon, and a lot more African Americans are sentenced with drug possession or intent to distribute than any other racial group proportionally.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/black-people-more...
Not great, and certainly unacceptable, but not equivalent to not being able to "simply leave the house".
On another note, when did Caucasian become a term for white people? As an actual Caucasian, having immigrated to the US from a region near Caucasus, I don't get why people use the term so loosely. The debate is about skin color, just use skin color.
You: "yeah but I grew up in so and so and I never saw anything like that, plus I have a friend who is black and bla bla bla"
Come on...
Go ahead and reduce my argument to a strawman and put words into my mouth, but don't act like you're contributing to the conversation.
Ha! Gets me chuckling during every intense race-relation debate. I can't not hear it, now!
These are just two incidents that immediately spring to mind to counter your cherry picking. White people are not free from the danger of being shot by police. In fact, there is evidence [3] that white people may be more vulnerable than black people in any given scenario, because scrutiny on police use of force has been applied disproportionately in cases of black victims.
1. https://reason.com/2012/06/12/family-of-west-point-graduate-...
2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/12/0...
3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2016/04/27...
This could all be in my head, but based on reporting and anecdotes from friends, I firmly believe that if a cop's being a dick and I call him/her on it, the cuffs will go on much more slowly than if I were another color or lived in a different neighborhood.
They shoot innocent, unarmed men to death as a matter of course, and get off with a few months' suspension, but somehow you think you can charge a cop for a "hate crime" for getting pulled over (conveniently concluding then that it's the black folk who are "privileged").
It gets thrown around a lot, but it absolutely has a meaning.
Ever know anyone who says that "they ignore politics"? In many cases, those people come from a place that they can do that because it doesn't affect them that much, and certainly not as much as other people.
For instance: today the supreme court in the US is deciding whether it's ok to fire people for merely being gay.
To not have to worry about that is 'privilege'.