This is one of those fundamental misunderstandings I see when discussing things with folks of a particular political persuasion. It's the same folks that belueve we shouldn't consider outcomes when evaluating processes. There's just something different about the way they think, I guess.

When someone says "check your privilege", they're saying that you've done something wrong and should feel guilty.

This shouldn't be downvoted. It's become a socially acceptable insult, in some circles (which basically means the receiver is less empathic / socially aware than thou) -- or at the very least, a thought-terminating cliché.

I know there's a bunch of nice and wholesome stuff it's supposed to mean (like the sibling commenter points out); but the way it's typically bandied about in modern discourse (as an STFU signal, more or less) -- it isn't what it really means.

See also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_cliché

It has nothing at all to do with guilt.

Yes, they are. "Check your privilege" is often used to say "you didn't do that."

Even if you assume that "privilege" is a big reason why you had an opportunity, there are almost always many people with the same "privilege" who didn't do said thing.

Moreover, it's almost always some skin color argument. There are many "don't look white" people who had privileges that I didn't have but I'm supposed to "check my privilege."

The trope of “he’s black and rich, and I’m white and poor” is irrelevant, as there are different kinds of privilege. In rural Alabama, being white and poor is going to lend you a much closer set of relationships than being black and rich. In SF, it may be the other way around - the point is everyone should simply be aware of how various privilege has helped them.

And again: this takes nothing away from hard work. It simply acknowledges that another person who worked just as hard but had a different set of lived experiences and privileges may not have the same result. That’s not bad; just fact.

And again: it has nothing to do with guilt. You shouldn’t feel guilty about it; ~everyone has some kind of privilege. But ignoring it or pretending it doesn’t exist is the exact opposite of the point, which is, at the end of the day, an exercise in empathy.

It's telling that you really want to say that no black person has privilege. You'd certainly never tell one to "check your privilege."

How much time have you actually spent in rural Alabama?

I say that because the most racist places in the US are urban, the NE and the coasts, not the south. Yes, there are racists everywhere, but the only places where blacks and whites interact productively at scale are in the south.

Firstly, I never implied or said that no black person has privilege.

Second, my entire point that you seem to be missing is that everyone should recognize what privilege they do have and have benefited from.

I’ve spent plenty of time in the South; I am not implying there is no way for a black person to interact productively with white people in the South. I am suggesting that, generally, in a lot of rural areas of the South, being white lends you more “immediate credit” than being black.

And, to your point, that was but one example. I could have said “inner cities,” and made the same point. That does not, in any way, change the point; it only serves to reinforce it.

And, you've yet to explain what good comes from said "recognition". What, exactly, do you want me to do differently because I benefitted from succeeding in a situation that actually was available to many? (I'm pretty sure that you won't be satisfied with me just saying "hey, I built on stuff that had happened before.")

Yes, there are lots of places where being white lends you more credit than being black. Similarly, there are lots of places where being black lends you more credit. So what?

My point is that the south tends has more successful interaction than the north. That's actually more true in the rural areas.

But, for what it’s worth, I’m certainly not trying to be any kind of “knight.” I’m just trying to have a calm and open discussion.

You've repeatedly said that "check your privilege" is used in ways that it isn't used and denied that it is used the way it is used. My "ground" is reality.

> The good that comes from recognition is being able to place yourself in someone else’s shoes and empathize better with their lived experiences, thus enabling you to better understand their situation.

That's all well and good. The reality is that it has nothing to do with how "check your privilege" actually works.

I note that you didn't both to come up with anything other than your opinion to support your interpretation. Meanwhile, I've provided cites showing that you're wrong, by proponents of "check your privilege".

There's also the Atlantic article.

Can you point to ANYONE who interprets "check your privilege" the way that you do? (In fact, even you don't, as your refusal to use it with POC demonstrates.)

Guilt is too strong of term. But it is very much used as a kind of penalty box, or way of distancing the receiver from the speaker. And as far as enlightening those who supposedly need uplifting to the higher, more evolved plane that the speaker inhabits -- it just doesn't do much.

But it’s misuse shouldn’t change the meaning of its intent. At least I hope it doesn’t, because I believe there is still value in empathy.

The use is the intent. And it's used as a weapon.

Notice when it's used, and when it isn't. (You'd never say it to a black or brown person. Did I have "privilege" when I lived in a labor camp?)

> At least I hope it doesn’t, because I believe there is still value in empathy.

There is value in empathy, but "check your privilege" isn't empathy.

You know nothing about my "privilege". You have no basis for telling me to "check my privilege" and saying that only proves that you not only have no empathy for me, you have no interest in me except to accomplish your political goals.

I didn’t say anything about your privilege. Were I to, I would be asking. There is nothing here to be defensive about.

I have no political goals here. We’re having a non-political discussion.

"This is not a political discussion" when in fact it's about one of the most hot-button political topics ever devised?

I'm lost.

Use whatever phrasing you want, and it doesn’t have to be politicized. But when describing an experience, and particularly when trying to provide advice to others to do similarly, or when trying to glean information from your experiences that might be applicable to others… yes, check your privilege to see how said privilege may not apply to others’ lives.

That is all. What we’re discussing isn’t, at its core, a “hot-button political topic.” You are making it that.

The phrase was invented as a political tool. Disagree? Provide cites.

I'll start - https://checkyourprivilege.co/ , https://www.amazon.com/Check-Your-Privilege-Live-into/dp/099... , and https://www.amazon.com/Check-Your-Privilege-Lean-discomfort/... .

Actually we were specifically discussing the "check your ..." phrase in current usage, expressed as an imperative. Not privilege as a general concept.

And yes, the "phrasing of phrase" is the whole point of the phrase. Along with of course, who is saying it and to whom. Especially when the recipient most likely wasn't asking you to "provide advice" to them in the first place, now were they.

BTW here's what seems to be the definitive article on its origin:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/what-th...

You are making it that.

It wouldn't hurt you to check the button-pushy, "you're the problem" vibe on that statement. If you don't mind a bit of advice.

I teach people how to do things and "privilege" doesn't come into it. It is neither necessary nor sufficient.

There are always lots of folks with "privilege" yet the only thing that actually matters is whether you can do the work and actually do.

It is rare, extremely rare, to meet someone with absolutely no privilege, and that isn’t a place to aspire to.