What have you said that wasn't hostile or aggressive?

You might be; talking about employment; that you can ignore issues apart from those you list is your privilege. You get to pretend that the stairs are not the issue.

Others are not so fortunate.

The point here cuts to the bullshit of the OP. You will not recognise your privilege; it must be pointed out by those who do not share it. — Banno

Seems to me as folk won't listen to the other. — Banno

Someone... not sure who it was now... made the observation that so many of these discussions come down to trying to convince someone that they should care for someone else. — Banno

Case in point. — Banno

You might simply acknowledge that stairs prevent some folk from doing things that you do.

Or you might deny the obvious, or claim it unimportant, belittle those affected, distance yourself from responsibility, twist it so that it becomes about you, bury it in arguments about other things, put up more walls and barriers so that you don't feel uncomfortable.

It's up to you. — Banno

Curious, that "privilege' is such a trigger for some. — Banno

Besides the pernicious ideology you peddle and all of its unpleasantness, you yourself have done nothing but put a target on any who might take the option of disagreeing with you. It is character assassination, the options are "agree with me or something is wrong with you". You characterise differing opinions as belonging to the privileged who ignore the other, the selfish, the ignorant and lacking a moral compass.

There is also just a lack of any honest debate from you, what I've quoted is a majority of your contribution in this thread.

I do not know who he is trying to fool, his political prerogatives are obvious but he feigns ignorance and continues to confuse fact with opinion, honest inquiry with hostility and aggression.

That's not something I have said. — Banno

It is my characterisation of what you have said, which I think is defensible. I don't know why you are trying to play dumb. Belittling people, twisting the misfortune of others so it "becomes about you", those are nasty things Banno, you knew that, that's why you said them.

Yes, I wonder why people respond to "facts" as hostility and aggression? Very curious indeed, I wonder who is in the wrong here.

I am surprised that the UK and Germany are as close as they are in aid contribution, I wouldn't have guessed that. Thanks for displaying these graphs, as you said the US decline of US dominance is a good thing because it is caused by other countries developing economically. It is not something the US can avoid nor has been trying to avoid. The dollar is important, it's also hard to measure the soft power of the US either. Their culture is exported globally and they have a very important presence in the culture of many other countries. There's just a lot of advantages for the US and the power imbalance at the height of the West is not something anyone is striving to maintain. It is shouldn't be a concern for the US to lose some of its relative power.

It is a characterisation of what it means to be able to use the stairs, which is why when you said that "You might simply acknowledge that stairs prevent some folk from doing things that you do" I described it as a fact, even though it's pretty much the same point.

Characterisations are not facts, that you are once again trying to conflate your interpretation with the fact is again, manipulative. Evaluating your characterisation is a separate discussion, calling something a privilege has various implications that you are not unaware of. Even creating a discussion about how stairs create privilege is your prerogative and not simply a neutral discussion about stairs. It's so silly, what you're trying to do here, why can't you just acknowledge your prerogative instead of pretending like you're just dispassionately stating some facts. It is so dishonest.

I have noticed a trend with you Banno, you do this in many of the arguments you make. You take a small set of facts or reasonable points and use them to create a highly specific narrative. You are either highly adept at creating a manipulative framing or oblivious to the importance of framing, I am starting to believe it is the former. Your characterisations and interpretations aren't facts, your blurring of these differences is manipulative.

Being able to use stairs is a privilege. - interpretation

Why do we build stairs instead of ramps? Well, they are cheaper, they take up less space. They are convenient. - fact

Stairs were not invented in order to exclude folk. But it is what happened. - fact

So how will you react to this? Seems to me that you have a choice. - narrative

You might simply acknowledge that stairs prevent some folk from doing things that you do. - fact

Or you might deny the obvious, or claim it unimportant, belittle those affected, distance yourself from responsibility, twist it so that it becomes about you, bury it in arguments about other things, put up more walls and barriers so that you don't feel uncomfortable. - narrative

It's up to you. — Banno

If we just look at the actual facts, there is not much controversy here, I don't think many people are going to deny this. You are aware of that, yet when we look at the narrative, it turns very dark, very quickly. The "obvious" privilege which is not a fact, being denied, makes you just this terrible, selfish, bigoted person. This is not the first time I've seen this from you, nor will it be the last. This makes for good politics but mediocre philosophy.

Honestly, I use meta-ethical relativism to say that moral positions don't have a truth value, they're not objectively true. When I read meta-ethical universalism, it seems to be capable of saying exactly the same thing. I do disagree with having a one-size-fits-all approach to ethics but there are definitely scenarios where I would think that a universal approach is correct. Since I am learning more about the correct terms, I am not in the best position to comment deeply.

I think that morality is a conflation of our biological proclivity for thinking in moral terms, the intellectual positions that we create, the personal vs social aspects of morality. Hence, people say "you need a basis for your intellectual position to be rational" but to me, morality is not based on rational thought.

I don't believe a supercomputer A.I. can reach the moral positions that we do and for it, I think it would really struggle to invent meaningful fundamental building blocks towards morality which for us just come from our biology. When we look at people who commit really horrible crimes, they are often just dysfunctional in some way. We have psychopaths who are just wired differently and cannot understand why we think the way we do. Why would someone cry to see a stranger suffering? That doesn't make any sense but it's how many of us are.

Morality is often just you being you, the relativity of morality frames morality as being exactly that. You can be logical but your base positions aren't logical, they're just you being you. Morality is not simply an intellectual position. My reasoning is based on feelings which discount any possibility for objectivity, my feeling aren't dependant on reasoning.

Reasoning becomes a factor when we start to talk about the implications of my feelings. I may instinctively value loyalty but we can create hypothetical scenarios which challenge how strong those feelings are. I may value loyalty but we can create scenarios where my loyalty is causing me to make very bad decisions. That's the intellectual component of morality, interpretation, framing, decision-making and so on. I find all of this happens very organically regardless of your philosophical positions. Even for a normative relativist, I imagine it changes very little in how morality functions for that person.

Perhaps it means that what we should do is negotiated rather than discovered. Not sure. — bert1

Not necessarily, to intelligently talk about morality we need to break it down into smaller bits, otherwise, disagreements get bogged down in the same places all the time. Firstly, to separate how morality functions within a culture and within a person. Being passionate about your views on morality doesn't mean that others will agree with you, in fact, generally the opposite. No negotiation is required here, you have your passionate views, you may or may not be able to get others to agree/comply with your views but you retain your views and passions nonetheless.

Within a culture, negotiation is a misleading term because after all, no real negotiation actually takes place. Interpretations act like ideas, some are convincing to people and some aren't, when enough people or enough powerful people latch onto an idea (among other things), then it starts to take hold. What makes ideas convincing aren't necessarily because they're good ideas, there's a lot that goes into this process.

We have our base moral feelings, that you don't need to think about, the average, healthy person is predisposed to dislike certain acts and compelled to think in certain ways. Then we have the best way to implement those feelings. For instance, there are biological and social reasons for why in the past, society has shamed open sexuality but we can also see the other side, of allowing people to do what they want and being tolerant of difference. So we can in a sense "discover" the best way to think, given that the "best" way is something we determine. However, we are not blank slates, so the "best" way can be about discovering what works within our society (which is constantly changing) and for ourselves, given our values and all the components of our selves and lives which are not optional.

Meta-ethical relativism for me is certainly not about making morality an individual preference similar to a favourite colour. There are very powerful emotions involved, hugely important consequences and the stakes are very high. So a lot of careful thinking and experimentation has to take place before we can realise a set of moral principles that achieves the aims we hoped for.

I think it is very human to ignore a stranger's suffering, out of sight out of mind as they say. It is also very human for instance to want to minimise suffering - unless you have the power to cause it and get away with it. You say whether you feel like it isn't necessary but that's easy to say. It's like saying "I won't let anger cloud my judgement" but of course, when you actually get angry then anger clouds your judgement and with your clouded judgement, you no longer care. Or you "won't be lazy and you'll do your homework tomorrow" but then when tomorrow comes and you actually feel lazy, you don't do it and so on. This line of reasoning is unconvincing for that reason.

That is to say the "feeling" to do right is really must stronger than a belief that you must do right. The first happens naturally while the second is self-imposed. I can often tell by someone's personality what their moral stances are likely to be because there are fairly obvious correlations. Not specifically on specific topics although sometimes even that. However, who's going to be nice to the person they hate versus who's going to be cruel? I consider that to be more of a personality thing than moral stance. These things intertwine in ways that we cannot ourselves completely understand. If you are nonconfrontational then you will be nonconfrontational and your philosophies aren't going to change that. Either you will adopt realistic stances or you will not follow through with your ideals.

It might be impressive for an A.I. to come to the intellectual conclusion of being nice and kind - but it doesn't make too much sense. Morality is, in fact, based on the feelings and not the intellectual position. The intellectual position of morality is a cheap imitation, evaluated as pragmatic in some way. We conflate a lot when we talk about morality, of course, morality isn't just how you feel about something. What to do as a result of your feeling, what it means to have your feeling and so on, that's all intellectual.

Hence, though I don't agree with moral absolutism, it makes sense to me that people would think this way. It is an interpretation of the meaning of the feeling.

My view is moral opinion will be exerted one way or another, there is not a possibility for its disappearance. So in essence, it is about deciding what kind of world I would like to live in and what needs to happen to make that happen. I am decidedly intolerant of people who disagree with me on moral issues, they are obstacles to the creation of my ideal world. Not much different from moral absolutism except I don't feel the need to pretend that my ideals have divine authority. Mostly I believe that when I do what is best for myself and others, the best outcome comes naturally. Then it is only about creating the correct framing and the power to exert your influence. I certainly don't agree with normative relativism.

Although nearly all replies are just arguing against moral relativism, I just wanted to show that normative relativism is not the same as moral relativism - in which inequality of moral positions can exist. Whether you refuse to acquire your position because you think it has objective truth value or because you feel the way you feel and can't change it, it's not too different.

Well I would say both descriptive and meta-ethical moral relativism is true. Nihilism has a similar problem where people project their interpretations of what it would mean if they were a nihilist to them onto you. For Nihilism, that's the "there's no point in living" type thing

In contrast, people who only do whatever they feel is morally right, just because they feel like it, don't seem like people who are actually acting out of any kind of moral duty. — Pfhorrest

Well, I think that's exactly why people are moral though I disagree with degrading it.

I agree that psychopaths can believe in morally, or rather that something like an A.I. without our biology could intellectually appreciate the idea of morality. Psychopaths do things like torturing animals which a normal person wouldn't even dream of. Even that you care about bunnies, if someone abused a bunny in front of you, I doubt you would dream to tolerate such a thing and that's something I commend. However, from you feeling that way, to me commending it, that's not moral theory, that's just you being you and me being me.

I like to think about an A.I. who doesn't have our biology but is capable of intelligence, what positions do I think they can reach? Can they be jealous? Can they feel guilt? We can see that animals besides human care about fairness, they can feel jealousy. For us humans, fairness and jealousy can be deeply intellectual but that doesn't mean they're based on reason - sometimes it's actually very obvious they're not. Morality is the same.

We all have different personalities and attitudes, your approach to morality is probably just different to others.

It's sort of the moral equivalent of people who believe things uncritically, just because they heard someone say it or read it somewhere and it seemed truthy to them. — Pfhorrest

I'm not sure, what do you mean by just feel like it?

There's a YT channel I like to watch sometimes called "the dodo" and it's just short documentaries on animals who got may have gotten adopted or developed an unusual friendship with other animals. Of course, we project our feelings a bit but the friendships can be really adorable, I can see that the people really care about these animals and really want what's best for them. I cannot imagine these feelings NOT affecting their moral positions on issues surrounding animals.

This is why I get annoyed because although the bias is fairly obvious, animal lovers wanting to protect animals, their passion and love is endearing, why shouldn't they be passionate about moral issues surrounding animals. Why shouldn't I - as someone who also likes that stuff - be horrified and angry about the prospect of their mistreatment also? Why demean this powerful feeling? I think all of this is what makes us human.

Sometimes it's not emotional, but, it's like having good manners or finding certain provocative behaviour embarrassing or respecting peoples personal space. I think just doing it is good enough, being a moral person generally just means being biologically normal and having a stress-free healthy upbringing. Whether you have very well thought-out moral positions or you just kind of do what you feel like, the end result is probably pretty similar.

What if its not our common emotions, but a common reasoning behind morality? And what if even if our emotions do not bring us disgust, there are actions that we should or should not do regardless? — Philosophim

The reason I reject "common reasoning" is that morality is not based on reasoning, a psychopath is not someone who thinks differently, they're wired differently. Just as we know killing a baby is wrong - even if we never sat down and thought about it. There aren't any serious philosophy forum threads about "is killing your baby immoral?" because we don't need to have these kinds of discussions. Why is that?

The only time we ever have to think about it is precisely the instances where we have either a moral conundrum like you have given, or there is a struggle between acting morally versus some other desire. We may have to extrapolate our base moral instincts to a more complicated topic as well.

I don't think any such situation will be avoided or be made easy by any approach to morality, not in reality at least.

I agree that moral relativism shouldn't mean the dissolution of moral importance, I am really not sure how many people advocating moral relativism are meaning it in this way.

I see.

Normative moral relativism just seems to be an interpretation of what to do because of moral relativism. I have complained in the past that for either descriptive relativism or the meta-ethical relativism often include (like nihilism) interpretations about what it means to agree with descriptive relativism or meta-ethical relativism.

Here's an example.

https://tinyurl.com/y42zp3za

"Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles. It’s a version of morality that advocates “to each her own,” and those who follow it say, “Who am I to judge?”"

I can get behind the first sentence, not exactly what I would have said but whatever it's a reasonable attempt. The second sentence is clearly an interpretation of what to do as a result of the first sentence. If when I say I believe in moral relativism I am saying that I am advocating a "who am I to judge?" mentality then this is pretty annoying. Is this kind of cultural interpretation of relativism a component of the definition?

Fair point, I view all characterisations as subjective and moral or immoral are there too. I don't believe the distinction matters for the topic but you were right to point out this difference. Do you think the distinction matters within this context or were you just pointing out my inaccuracy?

There are certainly a lot of people who confuse US social issues with a geopolitical downfall. The GDP of the US keeps increasing, which means a more powerful military, more money for aid and so on. However, this wealth is not being utilised well to deal with social issues. The US GDP is on par with the entirety of Europe, forget individual countries. They are still a geopolitical juggernaut with allies across the world and this doesn't look like it's going to change anytime soon. I think everyone can see that the rest of the world is catching up to the US but we're not there yet and won't be for some time.

In the context of the cold war, the US are still enjoying the rewards of "winning", NATO grows, Japan, Germany, SK are all strong allies. Really only China poses any kind of challenge but I don't think they'll ever overtake the US in its influence, only economically and militarily.

US leadership isn't based on its paragon status, it's based on economic, geopolitical and military might, which it still has.

He really is the definition of a bigot, a word which has used a lot where it shouldn't be but its apt here. That quote you've given is definitely one of the worst things I've read on the forum. Now reading his argument to @A Seagull it is so fallacious, rude and classless. The OP is literally about how philosophy is about being good-intentioned and reasonable, I'm once again left astonished by what I'm seeing from @tim wood.

You disagree with me and then validate me, it is rather bizarre. You are simply mediocre, all you can do is angrily raise your fists at me and nothing else. To expect civility from me while you are throwing mud, it is a bit much. I can see based on how you are responding to others in this thread that this is what you like to do. Look at how you respond to people @A Seagull posted a fair opinion and you bring up Nazi Germany, it's disgraceful.

If suffering is objectively bad and someone disagrees then you are saying that they are factually incorrect. If the person who disagrees approaches suffering in a way that enables them to cope with it in a better way to you, they're still factually wrong. So they have a better approach to suffering than you but you're correct and they're wrong. Do you agree this could happen and if you do agree, doesn't this framing make the initial question of whether suffering is objectively bad rather pointless?

Tim wood, I have posted honestly and you have insulted, mocked and judged me unfavourably. You cannot reasonably disagree with my position if you do not understand it. It is simply proving my point that despite your behaviour here, you can see yourself in a positive light and me as a villain. What is trolling is defined by you, it includes your biases and your perspective, your experiences and your biology all play a role. To deny this and pretend like you are a being ruled by rational thought is simply delusional. You decide what is philosophy and what is not, you give status to your own views while degrading the views you disagree with and this is further showing how your philosophy (about philosophy in this case) is really far more complicated than you simply trying your best to be logical, fair and well-intentioned.

I think all of the problems I pointed out with your OP, you are showing are valid. Because you have framed philosophy as all of these great things, logical, rational, sensible, reasonable - you have created a perfect structure to demonise the views you dislike. It has become a personal weapon for you - which ignores your subjectivity and gives you a god-like status to give your judgement from a higher place.

What do you think I am trying to say there? Do not ask for clarification, that question comes before judgement not after.

All that is clear to me is that you don't understand what you're arguing against, there is no possibility of you accurately paraphrasing my opinion, which makes your opposition to it unreasonable.

Most of that wiki is idealism, narratives which emphasise the preferences of those philosophers. Perhaps it is indispensable to a form of philosophy but not philosophy in general, such a view only excludes certain types of philosophies a status. Seems like you are just stating your preferences.

I am not really sure, I think reason is reason even if it's not called reason. So, of course people still use reason outside of circumstances where empirical observation is applicable. Morality, politics and so on. No? Philosophy also, is philosophy, regardless of whether people call it by another name.

I don't think there's any situation that requires me to choose between the two.

I did say that philosophy is not about reason when I meant to say philosophy is about more than just reason. I'll take responsibility for that.

What kind of situation requires me to choose between the two?

Are you saying you read what I wrote as "I reject reason"?

What?

Clowns know they are playing the role of a clown. I never think of people here representing their views as clowns. — ssu

I didn't put that much thought into my insult.

Sorry, I lost your argument. Could you put this in another way? — ssu

History is paraphrased for convenience, to be used in arguments or positions in a way that makes the argument or position stronger. If you're focusing on the quality of the racial group's "intellect and spirit" then we need to create a narrative that supports this. The governments of Germany and Japan went from their respective ideologies to modern Western democracy. If this transition is to be held up as a template that Iraq should follow then logically we need to talk about what exactly happened in post-war Germany and Japan and whether Iraq could economically, politically, geopolitically, culturally, geographically do something similar.

Most of these things to the average person are too complicated and useless except a few - culture, race, people. It becomes the perfect target for advocating for your cultural superiority or a developing country's cultural inferiority. The narrative is created, disparaging comments of the culture or race are justified.

I think you and I both know that comparing modern Iraq with post-war Japan is pretty ridiculous but certain similarities make these comparisons useful. I think understanding a country like modern Iraq fairly is just so unbelievably difficult that easier and more self-serving narratives are an appealing option.

I dictate what is good-willed and what isn't, I dictate when reason is appropriate and when it isn't, reasonableness is what I say it is. My views, strong and robust, in my mind, won't be reviewed in that way by others. I am not validated by agreement or invalidated by disagreement. The way I see myself and my place in the world is reinforced by my actions, interpretations and understanding. You just have to accept that whenever you discuss something with someone, you don't know what you're getting yourself into, you barely even understand what they're talking about - whether you see it that way or not.

I disagree, philosophy is not about reason and this fixation on reason causes people to misunderstand themselves. Your opinions, preferences, moral views, values, perspectives, your psychology, biology, emotions, desires and all that constitutes the lifeblood of your philosophical views are not ruled by reason. Reason is just a component of some of these things but people do not create philosophy with reason alone. And reason itself can be a characterisation defined by your individual preferences, for truth is a vector for logic to go in many different directions. Depending on how the truth is managed, perceived, what our goals are, what our identity is and the list goes on.

Philosophy is about developing an understanding of really any topic and then using that understanding for really any purpose. Any attempt to dictate how a topic should be understood or what that purpose should be is just more philosophy.

I don't believe it is a belief in destiny or karma, I believe it is an issue of how framing can create nonsensical causal arguments. "Americans are doing great while middle easterners aren't" this is why I keep saying that the "truth" doesn't justify framings, because yeah, that framing isn't completely untrue but it's also wildly simplistic and very misleading. Without filling in the details - or knowing them as I know is the case with forum clown @tim wood any narrative can be created. So America, superior culture, better people, with a great moral compass and ideas and whatever else. The narrative can only be created in hindsight and if we look at tim's successful "defeated people" doing well, again, the intricate details of the recovery of Japan and Germany are overlooked in favour of a narrative which will never be able to predict the success of future peoples because its nonsense but as an explanation for what happened within the simplistic framing it makes sense, it's business as usual.

It's hard to take the views too seriously, they're only possible from a position of absolute ignorance.

You = consciousness and it is an imaginative or theoretical exercise. I think you = consciousness is untrue but that I agreed with you and paraphrased the position I am disagreeing with so idk why ur giving me grief.

I agree with what you have said.

I disagree with @Philosophim, there are in fact profound differences in one's psychology based on how they answer whether they could have been someone else or not. It is not about "wishing" for something, it's about recognising that there's a lot of life, you exist but since seemingly no difference between two consciousnesses at their inception, hence interchangeability.

I don't really wish to talk about what it implies because the question is too large and there's a lot of "maybe" to it, since people don't usually cite it in their reasoning.

I think that when you investigate how power functions, the types of narratives that @tim wood is peddling start to fall apart. I think it is due to a lack of appreciation for how oppressive power can be, how centralised it can be and well, pretty much always is. Perhaps within some childish view of democracy, an American can see themselves as part of the winning team but within the middle east, we're talking theocracies, dictatorships and monarchies, it is really astonishing to listen to people who give power and responsibility to groups that include all various components of society - like racial groups or as citizens of a nation, or just people who live in the region!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending OP, he can take care of himself. Your earlier post is ludicrously stupid, the way you approach history is worse than that of a child. You have 4.9k posts, how can someone think so much to end up with so little?

Even within America, a supposed democracy, your impact is unnoticeable. What accomplishments would you like to be accredited with? What atrocities do you wish to claim responsibility for? As an American.

We know the outcome of the past but we know the outcome was reached by people making decisions. I wonder if the future could be viewed this way?

Quite an extraordinarily asinine post. This is the quintessential example of how racial histories justify racism. When you can't see individuals as individuals, this is the consequence.

The language you use has implications outside of the control of your intent, yet nobody has the final say on what the consequences of your language are. So you can say things like "you can have gratitude" but to a large extent, you lose control over that. Most people don't take "unearned advantages" within competitive contexts well at all. Can you not see how being grateful for intelligence (a blessing) and being grateful for intelligence (an unearned advantage) are different? One is virtuous and one is nearly ill-intentioned, that's my interpretation at least.

The interplay between privileges could very well undermine the entire purpose of the conceptualisation and I think this would happen. You point out how going from $1m to 5m is different than going from $10 to 5m and I agree, I think most people would agree but in this example, you haven't acknowledged any other privileges besides wealth. I think the introduction of other privileges could create any narrative - given including all of the privileges is impractical due to how many there (and because it mightn't be convenient for the narrative we are trying to make).

What bothers me most of all is that for you, the justification is truth, while I am here trying to consider the pros and cons of the framing. How would it be used, by whom and for what? I arrive at unpleasant answers. I believe that your dedication to truth is misplaced here, for your characterisation of the truth has its own consequences and because of this, we can easily see that your characterisation is something separate from the truth. Hence we must evaluate your characterisation through different means than by whether it is true. This equally applies to framing.

Generally speaking, I prefer to look at these kinds of things on a case-by-case basis and how they affect the individual. In your case, I see no problems, your conceptualisation of things isn't causing you any undue negative feelings, it's not getting in the way of positive feelings and there are no effects that I can interpret as negative. If your framing operated only as it operates through you then I might not have an issue with it but that is not my expectation.

I don't really care what everyone else is thinking or doing and convincing others of anything usually requires status, authority, them having a certain perception of you, something. Convincing someone who has no reason to believe you except because they accept your logic, you rarely see it.

I don't even know what we're talking about anymore because you before said you didn't want to call just any desirable attribute a privilege but now you are calling the lack of an undesirable attribute a privilege and so I assume anything goes now. It doesn't matter what you call it, you are focusing on this "unearned" conceptualisation but seeing as most of these things are literally unearnable, it seems redundant.

I think Asif is right in saying that you are in a sense by asking intelligent people to view their intelligence as an unearned advantage, you are asking for things like guilt and shame. Let us go back to OP's example of the "race of life" where people get headstarts due to their privileges. When someone does well in the race, it feels like the first thing I want to know is "well where did they start?" How much of an advantage did they receive? And if someone did receive a huge advantage and now they're proud of a good placing, what a prick. Of course, you did well, you have all these unearned advantages.

Is it ethical to feel "blessed" or "gratitude" for unearned advantages? Doesn't that sound stupid? "I feel grateful for how much more advantaged I am over everyone else". You have turned a characteristic into an advantage, you are creating a narrative. In some circumstances, you could make an argument for this. Dating, for example, I am sympathetic here because it is inherently competitive and being attractive is an advantage, period. Your characterisation seems apt here, you are not creating competition, it already existed.

Let me briefly touch on your suggestion of "lucky", this is not something I would give you grief over but you have to see how different this is compared to "unearned advantage". There is no competition, there is no hierarchy, there is only gratitude, it is a very positive perspective and I can't really find fault in it. I still don't see why we need to group these things, what you are trying to achieve.

All you have done so far is respond to my critique of white privilege by reiterating that black people have been/are unfairly treated and asking me whether black lives matter. You say that there's nothing to that, I disagree, to me, it says a lot. It is like saying "oh wow you don't think white privilege is a good conceptualisation? Do you not realise that black people are mistreated or do you just not care?" It is just a bullshit response which puts words in my mouth.

To go in-depth of what makes white privilege so wrong I will talk about some of the many issues.

You say some white people feel attacked by the conceptualisation of white privilege and attacked is too strong a word but the implications aren't pleasant either. If we conceptualise life as a game or competition, white people have an unfair advantage summed up as white privilege, when a white person succeeds you want them to remember "btw you had an unfair advantage" which is a particularly unpleasant response to whenever a white person finds success. It is not unreasonable at all that people find the idea of white privilege unpleasant, not because it's true but because it genuinely is unpleasant and would be for anyone.

White privilege covers nearly all of a person's life, your job, your education, your neighbourhood, your social interactions, the opportunities you get, your wealth and so on. Not only have you made nearly every aspect of life a race issue but you are characterising peoples' lives by their race. When you make race the central and most important aspect of someone's life, you emphasise that the correct way for a person to identify themselves and others is through their race.

There are strong, unifying humanitarian approaches to the problems that we both recognise, that don't alienate people based on their views on race, that don't emphasise the importance of race and that allow for more participation and allow us to focus on real issues. I really don't want to go through every single problem with white privilege when you have barely said anything but there's way more than just this, it's really one of the worst framings I know of.

You say you are promoting solidarity but open your eyes, this is a divisive framing, pitting races against each other and dividing people on views on race.

@ssu & @Asif agree

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8870/on-racial-essentialism

Here's a nice thread discussing some of those reasons. In this thread, I have been discussing the importance of framing. You don't get to choose an infinite number of framings, you only get to pick a few. White people are people, black people are people, I do not like white privilege because I want to abandon the importance of race. I don't want people to discriminate based on race for any reason, I want people to be seen for their individual self, personal merits and flaws. I don't want people to be seen as components of the groups they belong to.

Poor black people are poor people and I believe there is a great moral importance in addressing wealth inequality, it's sad to see how little is done in the US, relative to what is possible.

The mass incarceration is wrong, the prison sentences are messed up, police brutality needs to be addressed, racial profiling needs to be condemned and so on. We probably agree on all of the specific problems that need to be fixed.

As I said before, white privilege is not technically saying anything incorrect but I fail to see how it is helpful whatsoever in any way. Nowhere in what we both agree needs to be fixed, is there ever a requirement for the conceptualisation of "white privilege", I think it actually makes things harder to fix. You would meet a lot less resistance to your ideas if you dropped the white privilege garbage.

You encourage group-based thinking, you perpetuate the importance of race, you aren't alone but I am not singling you out, I condemn it where I see it. The way you talk, quite frankly, I hate it. The way you talk about "white" people, it disgusts me. I have asked for just an attempt of a defence of it and I just get called ignorant, part of the problem, uncaring and whatever else. I really struggle to grasp how you believe the conceptualisation of "white privilege" is helpful whatsoever, I only see it as harmful. Why don't you give explaining it a go without relying on presumptions of my ignorance and moral shallowness?

I thought you didn't want to call every positive physical attribute a privilege? I think Asif is right when he says intelligent people shouldn't be made to feel guilty and less intelligent people shouldn't be made out to be less than intelligent people. It's like you think privilege is just this totally neutral, meaningless word.

You say there's no real reason your brain couldn't have been like that but well, that's probably not true. You are not a pre-existing consciousness who inhabited a random body, unless your parents had the genetic proclivity for it then I'm not sure if it's possible for you to have had Tourettes. I think you are you, if your parents didn't have you, then you're not around. The whole "what if I was born as.." is just an imaginative exercise.

Seems to me that you say "oh I wouldn't like to have Tourettes, better throw that into the privilege pile" and that's you being honest and truthful. Actually, it's a complicated philosophical position - whether you put much thought into it or not. Yet you just kind of say "its the truth!'" as if you're just calling it how it is. Even if I agreed with your interpretation, I don't like the idea of separating people into privileged and unprivileged categories. So far, you've stuck to your guns and just said that privilege is the truth but it's really a choice and if that choice causes harm and brings about nothing good then to me, that is a very important - maybe even the most important consideration.


Really? I guess it did for me and I thought maybe it would be the same for others, go back to the link and read page 24.