That is a good point, you pull people up not push people down for them to stand on.
I think its a worthwhile distinction to break “privilege” down here. There are different kinds of privilege, and I think there are a few different uses of the term being discussed. For example, what you said above might not seem so sensible if you consider privilege gained by immoral means. Then we would want the person of privilege to lose it...like a politician or other leader. For that matter, what about people who earned privilege? Im not sure it makes sense to always grant an under privileged equal privilege if they arent Earning that privilege...but then that's two senses of the word privilege being used isnt it?
So I think that might be leading to some disagreement.

The wisdom of the bat.

I understand this discussion is more about historic injustices but my thoughts when I read the title before clicking....

"People confuse privilege with reward earned through effort."

Basically yeah, why would someone have invented the polio vaccine, the steam engine, the lightbulb, or the computer if they could just sit around all day. One should be careful in the pursuit of equality not to devalue human effort entirely.

why would someone have invented the polio vaccine, the steam engine, the lightbulb, or the computer if they could just sit around all day. — Outlander

You shouldn't confuse your own selfish laziness for the state of all people.

Basically, yeah. Again this is more of a historic injustice thread so I wouldn't have been so blunt.

Unless you're vocalizing a presumption about me? I'm a religious philosopher. You can give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. But if you teach a man to fish... Poseidon might show up and invite you to party in Atlantis.

Anyway it's just human nature. Sometimes out of intelligence, sometimes out of laziness. You learn to work or invent something that works more efficiently... your time and efforts are maximized. And so will those of others. I mean, come on, is anyone who uses something that's not a virtual Rube Goldberg machine foolish or lazy?

This word Privilege is thrown about mainly in a virtue signalling ideological manner for political ends. Its instructive that all sense of rationality and discussion becomes pretty much obsolete when honest people oppose this vastly inaccurate and ill informed concept.
Why is it mainly academics politicians and left wing students who espouse this rhethoric with zero explanatory power?
If you believe in big govt and capitalism then you full well
should know that rich elites keep privilege and capital between themselves whilst allowing enough freedom for the non elites to be happy enough to contribute to the rigged economy and give enough support to allow govts to continue their pilfering.
Rather than direct your ire and virtue signalling at unpriviledged ordinary folk who dont agree with your ideology and branding people privileged purely on racial identity why not actually address the cause of poverty?

If one believes they weren't born with enough priviledge, perhaps they should have a stern conversation with their parents about it.

Im really talking about any kind of privilege really. However, it is true that the conversation has strayed. Let us refocuse in another example. Take this heavy rain season. Some individuals are glad to have rain and enjoy the weather. Some are having their houses flooded. Now, knowing that the second statement is true, are we then allowed to enjoy the weather and the rain, while taking notice of those affected and reaching out to help, or should we not be able to enjoy the rain because some are not?
The privilege is granted to those who want to enjoy the rain, while those who are having their houses flooded have none.

Trickling down on the unprivileged... That'll work. — Banno

I do not understand. Is that good or bad?

That is a very nice argument. If only there was an easy way to do so

I suppose I could request that "privilege" be defined, but would hate to seem pedantic preferring, as always, to seem ironical if not surpassingly wise.

Chances are someone will always be privileged if by that is meant "better off" than others. But I don't think that's a topic for serious discussion. What might be interesting to consider is the fact that there are certain folk who aren't merely better off than others, but remarkably better off than others, and are as a rule given preference, rights and benefits not granted others, especially by those in authority, for reasons unrelated to their merit, virtue, worthiness or any other reason which might arguably make them deserving of privilege.

I don't think any reasonable person can maintain that there are no such people, nor can I think of any reasonable basis for the claim that this is as it should be. I think it's very unlikely that those who are so privileged will use their privileged position to benefit others (beyond their friends and family) to any significant extent, though there may be some small number of them who will make an effort to do so.

For me, then, what should be addressed is the question--What can/should be done to change this state of affairs? It's not at all an easy question to answer, but should be addressed unless we're content to let it continue.

The privilege is granted to those who want to enjoy the rain, while those who are having their houses flooded have none.

How can the weather (or in another example, stairs) grant privilege? These sorts of objects cannot grant anything, let alone special rights and privileges. Further, I think it’s fine to say life is tough for those who get flooded, but it makes no sense to derive from that the quality of life or “privilege” from those who don’t.

What if me, a privileged and slow individual, trade $50 with anyone that teaches me how to run faster and win? I still have my privilege, I am not renouncing it, but now I am using it as a tool from which someone else may benefit. — Alejandro

So, you, a slow runner, keep track of the guy who does not have your advantage but still almost beats you, and give him $ 50,-- you wouldn't have had without your headstart so he can teach you how to run faster, and so that in the next race, he'll have an eaven harder time catching up. He may get bitter, and since he now has $ 50,-- his motivation to run hard drops a little. However, all the others will race each other (not you), so the fastest of them can have $ 50,-- from you. You get $ 50,-- with each race, and expand your advantage, until you're good enough that your investment is just a charity holdover to flaunt your status, with lots of guys behind you to think: "That should have been me."

That's not a solution; that's the problem.

Not the weather itseld, but being able to enjoy it rather to save your house

That was a step up from what I had in mind, thats for sure. Yeah, I understand what you are saying and it really is the problem. But focus on only one race, one game if you like game theory. It is a fact that I have a headstart and that I am initially slow. Eliminating my headstart can only be done by me right? This indeed leads to everyone having the same opportunity. However, if I do it, I will lose the race because I do not have the same abilities that the others may have. So why would I let go of my advantage, in which not only me but another individual can benefit from, in the first place?

But focus on only one race, one game if you like game theory. — Alejandro

I'm not sure how to deal with that example, though. Sharing the cash is a stop-gap measure at best, and flaunting your priviledge at worst.

A few other things:

Eliminating my headstart can only be done by me right? — Alejandro

Generally, no, you can't eliminate your head start. It's baked into the system. In your example, you can walk back to the starting line, sure. In real life, you can't stop being a male, white, or straight.

And if you hadn't said what I quoted right now, I'd probably not have realised it but: the headstart you get isn't your priviledge. You get the headstart because of your (unnamed) privileadge (I'm guessing it's shoe size, am I right?).

However, if I do it, I will lose the race because I do not have the same abilities that the others may have. — Alejandro

Right. Now you're underpriviledged, and the headstart is "affirmative action". You're doing the right thing by investing in your skills. Affirmative action will cease once you catch up (or so the theory goes). Except it's only one race, so it's pretty pointless to invest. (And anyway, it's your example. You could have been an excellent runner with a headstart, who can afford to take it easy.)

Finally, if it's only one race, and you're slow (and thus underpriviledged), and you don't get a headstart, that's all right, too, since one of the winners might give you 50 dollar to teach him you're expertise.

It's not about one race. It's never about one race. It's about a repeated and systematic pattern across many, many races. So I don't really know what to say about solution, other than it doesn't change much (and in some cases it might be better to keep the money so you're not the well-meaning but cluesless guy who rubs salt into a sore wound by offering a trifle).

And if you hadn't said what I quoted right now, I'd probably not have realised it but: the headstart you get isn't your priviledge. You get the headstart because of your (unnamed) privileadge (I'm guessing it's shoe size, am I right?). — Dawnstorm

Eh, I'm not sure that's quite right. I'm having second thoughts. It's mostly a terminology problem, but I'm pretty sure priviledge is attached to a factor, but it's not quite the individual advantage either.

(What's the etiquette for such a case, where I have amendments to make, and I'm still the last post. Editing my post? Quoting myself?)

Depends whether you like showers of gold.

I tend to agree with this. The problem as I see it, is that the word "privileged" has an air of classism to it, suggesting some aristocratic upbringing, which is why it's probably the wrong term to describe what I think is meant by it. What I think is meant by it, in a neutral sense, is that there are some people better off than others, in particular, when it comes to race. Assuming that true, I certainly don't feel like nobility simply because I'm white, and to be called "privileged" does in fact minimize my accomplishments, as if my pedigree is the true cause of my success. That's not to say other races might not have been denied those things I take for granted, but that speaks to their being treated unfairly as opposed to my being treated specially. I suppose it's a matter of semantics to debate whether I am privileged or whether other races are under-privileged, but it certainly feels like a derogatory comment to suggest I've received special benefit when, in truth, I haven't. I just haven't received sub-standard treatment as some others have.

I'm not privileged as I see it, but I do recognize others are having their rights violated. It's not a privilege to be treated as an equal with dignity and respect. It's a right, which is precisely why we refer to them as civil rights and not civil privileges .

There is an Australian television show called "Q and A" in which various experts are placed before a live audience, to answer questions. In one memorable episode a young white male audience member in a private school uniform insisted that he was not privileged; his claim was that he and his family had earned their position.

He was laughed down. An entirely suitable rebuttal, I think.

The interesting thing about the advantages that are labeled "privileges" is that those poor souls who suffer privilege are pretty much unawares. Hence the utility of the "stairs" example given earlier, which shows that it is necessary to take the perspective of an other in order to recognise one's privilege.

The role of discussions of privilege is not in deciding what can or should be done to change this state of affairs. It is in seeing one's position from the perspective of the other, and so recognising that there are changes that need to be made.

I'm not privileged as I see it, but I do recognize others are having their rights violated. It's not a privilege to be treated as an equal with dignity and respect. It's a right, which is precisely why we refer to them as civil rights and not civil privileges . — Hanover

Well said.

The role of discussions of privilege is not in deciding what can or should be done to change this state of affairs. It is in seeing one's position from the perspective of the other, and so recognising that there are changes that need to be made. — Banno

Give the nature of the beliefs of far too many here in our Glorious Union regarding their "rights" and the nature of "tyranny," I fear that intelligent discussion may no longer be possible, and that the last thing many Americans want to do is see anything from the perspective of anyone different from themselves in the slightest respect.

Indeed; and yet, it was never so important.

Well said.

Often the claim of “privilege” is used as a cudgel or snarl word rather than an accurate description of one’s standing, especially when it is used in an accusatory fashion against a race or gender or class, no matter the lives of the flesh and blood human beings it is meant to describe. Then it becomes routine prejudice and bigotry. Like you said, one’s standing or upbringing does not preclude him from recognizing injustice or the violation of another’s rights.

The way I see it, virtually everybody is privileged in some ways and un-privileged in others. Many feminists today pride themselves on being "intersectional" which really just means they consider a number of factors that extend well outside of race - class, gender, disability, and we can even go further with that - looks, health, hair, etc.

I definitely consider myself privileged in some ways and unprivileged in others. Thankfully I don't have any serious health issues and I don't live everyday in chronic pain (I know people who do.) This is absolutely a privilege; some people are just born with terrible ailments which cause them pain throughout their lives.

I have no problem admitting privilege in certain regards and non-privilege in others. Someone calling me "privileged" as an insult always rings hollow. You can call them privileged right back even if they're black and poor and female.

"Privilege" is quite simply a far-leftist framing that doesn't make too much sense without the leftist brand of identity politics. Where gender, race and sexual orientation must includes for any interpretation of any social issue. The solution has to be within addressing inequity between groups and it has to be about groups recognising their group advantages. Even reading OP, you can see how he talks about groups as though they are living, thinking actors who can do things and have opinions on things.

Without making a person the groups they belong to, it is nearly impossible to see any benefit to this approach.

The solution has to be within addressing inequity between groups and it has to be about groups recognising their group advantages. Even reading OP, you can see how he talks about groups as though they are living, thinking actors who can do things and have opinions on things. — Judaka

How refer to "groups" then? Or, perhaps, there are no groups, or the word "groups" cannot be used?

There is an Australian television show called "Q and A" in which various experts are placed before a live audience, to answer questions. In one memorable episode a young white male audience member in a private school uniform insisted that he was not privileged; his claim was that he and his family had earned their position.

He was laughed down. An entirely suitable rebuttal, I think. — Banno

How do you know that he and his family hadn't earned their position? Had he been black, would he have been similarly laughed down? I don't ask that rhetorically, but it's a real question. I can't imagine that every prep school kid was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

I think it's very unlikely that those who are so privileged will use their privileged position to benefit others (beyond their friends and family) to any significant extent, though there may be some small number of them who will make an effort to do so. — Ciceronianus the White

You really think so? I believe that if the approach is correct, as in those who do not have the privilege ask to work together instead of demanding to strip the privilege of others, a lot could be accomplished

Agreed. To assume that something was granted instead of earned only damages the cause of having everyone to have the same opportunities