Talk to anyone you don't know... and tell them what you know about them based on their race as if it is fact.
Generally, not a good way to connect, and you have a good chance of being wrong.
The reason that a majority of people in a country can be privileged is that, as the majority, they can forget that the minority exists. They can forget that they are the majority.
The minority can never, ever forget that they are the minority.
When an Asian American born in the bottom 20% is much more likely to end up in the top 20% than a white person in the same situation, how is that not “society and it’s mechanisms working in favor” of the Asian person?
> The reason that a majority of people in a country can be privileged is that, as the majority, they can forget that the minority exists. They can forget that they are the majority.
That’s just a roundabout way of saying that minorities have disadvantages. Obviously that’s true. But expressing it as “white privilege” is a bizarre rhetorical device that doesn’t reflect how normal people talk. We don’t talk about the “privilege” of being average height, we talk about the challenges of especially tall people fitting into airplane seats or of especially short people in finding suits that fit.
Besides, all those people in America talking about other people’s privilege often neglect the massive one they have - living now, in a first world country.
At the end of the day, thumping your chest saying you’re a bigger victim because x, y, z will only go so far. It will get you favor with some, but eventually people tire of being attacked.
It seems to come as shock that lots of white men don’t support people who call white men the root of all evil. There seems to be another shock that white women often support the men. I don’t know why they’re surprised. They have fathers, brothers, and sons.
Guilt by born identity is a farce. This isn’t the Bible. We don’t have original sin, and while we do have historical sins, everyone has it. everyone.
Locally we have a lot of black immigrants, they of course have a lot of challenges. They often get lumped into a "black" group.
But looking at the statistics closer indicates they are making fast progress in many areas, similarly to a local immigrant Asian population made many years ago.
However, the local African Americans generally are not making a lot educational or economic progress.
The differences are striking and really change where you think more / different resources are needed and what is going on for a given group.
I agree it signals the end of rational discussion, but not the end of the conversation. It's usually immediately followed up with all the ways privileged people need to give X, Y, and Z to everyone else, in perpetuity, to "make things even." Unsurprisingly, that's an unpopular idea.
What does that even mean? This is code for “you should feel guilty for who you are” and generally a big reason why people become combative when the term “privilege” gets brought up.
I shouldn't feel guilt because I can walk. But it's important to recognize that my experiences and my abilities might be different than others.
An architect designing a public building with only stairs or narrow doors, or a traffic planner optimizing crossing times for an average pedestrian are cases of failing to recognize their privilege in being able bodied. If, after being made aware of their privilege, they continue to design for themselves then they may be considered immoral by some people.
Middle English: via Old French from Latin privilegium ‘bill or law affecting an individual’, from privus ‘private’ + lex, leg- ‘law’.
In fact, in France privilèges have been abolished during the revolution. And it's not just the wrong word, it's kind of opposite; privilege generally meant the benefit of a minority, but here it's used to describe when the majority benefits, because they are the majority.
Descriptivism allows for expressions like, "To boldly go where no man has gone before!" which is a split infinitive, and an 'incorrect' use of language. If a native speaker would say a thing in speaking, then it's valid. Native English speakers use language in all sorts of ways that would be 'incorrect' -- from jive to rhyming slang to 1337 sp34k to adoptions from queer culture like 'shade' or 'yass'.
Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1576/
And at least according to makers of the OED, it does not define words, it describes them: https://languages.oup.com/about-us/how-we-create-language-co...
For example I have given friends advice before on how to get somewhere, and been told that it won't work for them, for reasons such as them not wanting to walk alone in a certain area/time due to being a small woman, or lack of handicap accessible infrastructure making something take longer than it would for me.
If being confronted with your own privilege makes you feel guilty, that sounds more like you are bothered that others are less privileged
>One very notable pathology is a form of argument that, reduced to essence, runs like this: “Your refusal to acknowledge that you are guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…} confirms that you are guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…}.” I’ve been presented with enough instances of this recently that I’ve decided that it needs a name. I call this general style of argument “kafkatrapping”, and the above the Model A kafkatrap.
It's part of the bizarro "privilege" narratives. In their framework, if you deny the existence of your privilege, you are proving you have it even more, because only a "privileged" person is capable of ignoring the concept of privileged/unprivileged
I see it as the same. It's one thing to say, "I don't have to worry about X because I am white" and basically the same to say, "They do have to worry about X because they are non-white".
> If these advantages were as powerful and prevalent as you suggest, there wouldn't be more millions of white people in poverty.
I don't think anyone who believes in white privilege believes that it is a monolithic escalator to success. It makes some things easier. But there also exists privilege due to class, health, access to education, gender, climate, family support, etc.
There are many, many types of privilege, and being white is just one of them that has an interaction with the others. (e.g. is it more advantageous to be white and able bodied or white and not able bodied? Is it more advantageous to be white and poor or black and poor? etc.)
> It's used to attribute individual excellence to generalized advantages of a certain group of people.
If you believe that individual excellence is the only factor, then how would you explain the demographic data about fortune 500 CEOs? One hypothesis is that privilege played a role -- that they had advantages due to race, class, gender, health, etc. that combined with their individual achievement resulted in their success. If privilege didn't play a role in their success, is it just a coincidence that the demographics overwhelmingly skew white male?
Also if you search reddit for whether trans women or trans men possess male privilege you will find people arguing as if their life depended on it. And these people seem to very involved in movements where the use of the term is the most frequent so should be the most acquainted with it's use and definition.
Also, you wouldn't use the word privileged to talk about regimes in places with oppressive governments. You'd use the word oppressive.
Maybe there's a useful parallel to folks arguing that climate change isn't real when there's a bad winter (particular event vs the overall trend).
White privilege is having your application go through the first time because your name is spelled how webdevs expect.
White privilege is your assigned recruiter giving the extra 0.x seconds of time to look over your resume if they consider you as one of their tribe and "deserving" of placement. These judgments, while often rationalized consciously post-hoc, really mostly happen at the subconscious level before we're even aware that we're thinking about it.
White privilege is knowing where to start to achieve your goals because there are people in your community that can provide mentorship who have probably benefited from white privilege to the point that they can point you in the right direction and even give you some connections to break onto the scene.
etc.
Your "useful parallel" is relying on tokenism as a sort of reverse no-true-Scotsman attack.
- Having well educated parents able to help me with my school and putting an large emphasis on its importance
- Having both parents in the house
- Having access to, and the ability to participate in extracurriculars in school
Those are all correlated with my race, but there are also white people who lack them. Those are the many factors I was talking about. They are specific and identifiable.
The useful parallel is that people do a poor job of identifying trends, when counter examples to the trend exist.
No true Scotsman again. The counter examples do not negate the overwhelming influence of the causes to which the trend is attributed.
Your definition of "white privilege" assumes a complete homogeneity of experience that is absolutely not the case. Do you actually believe that all white people experience life in the exact way you described?
It is a given and openly acknowledged that not all white people have the same chances. But it doesn't seem particularly accurate to assert that a difference in equity is insignificant between folks who only differ in race because of some pre-existing intra-race variance.
Not all white people, but a large majority of white people, have it better off than most minority folks, with some notable exceptions.
I've seen it used most often to
- deride a person or group of people
- describe oneself in a funny way
- describe oneself in a way that is serious but ultimately in a positive light
Specific recent examples from my Facebook is whether voting for Biden is privilege or not voting for him is privilege or whether being pro quarantine is a privilege or anti quarantine is a privilege. The subtext is always you REALLY don't want to be on the side of the privileged.
Every single time it seems to make the argument dumber and nastier.
Would you prefer it to be rephrased? Should we spend the time to shield egos or should we encourage egos not to be so fragile?
"No matter how thoughtful your opinion that differs from mine, I'm going to regard it as invalid because you're white" is how it comes down to many people. Which side is the one with the fragile ego there? The one that takes offense at having their ideas dismissed on such a basis, or the side that has to use such an excuse to not listen?
Personally, I quite easily give my opinion unasked (like here), and do feel rejected if it isn't listen too. Likely, because I grew up the way, that my opinion matters.
I would imagine, the experience would be quite a different one, if your thoughtful opinion would be voiced after being asked for it.
It essentially asserts that the person saying something is to be disqualified and/or the opinion is inferior without any logical proof. And it suggests "my position is inherently more correct than yours" because I'm not privileged. It signals the end of rational discussion.
Is it any wonder that many people (when their private opinions are polled, rather than asked to join shouting in a crowd) actually dislike the tactic?