Well said, it is not common for me to find someone who understands this.


Are you not commenting on me bringing this up with someone who self-describes as being on the right? Not only that but I can easily find unrelated posts where I bring this up if you want me to. What type of opinion haver are you talking about? What do you think it means for me to bring it up?

What I have said does not invalidate the conceptualisation of white privilege, which is what I assume you're responding to me for. The reason I bring it up more often in this kind of conversation is that as you and I have to some extent have already realised, our understanding of social issues in America is very similar, the facts of the topic. So how else can I explain to you where our disagreement lies when I've already said that I accept your version of the facts if I don't bring up how those same facts don't justify your interpretations, characterisations and framing? It is not possible for me to do so, I am forced to bring it up.

Edit: Give me a break Fdrake, the topic is about the leftist framing of privilege which includes white privilege it's not unreasonable for me to use that as an example.


I don't really have any similar alternative framing to offer because I don't want to present any such framing for these things. They are physical attributes, part of who you are, I believe the individual should make up their own mind and there is no need to present a framing that encourages any kind of impression, I am not trying to say what you are. I was really only looking to hear a defence for the framing that others were presenting rather than just being told that I'm lacking in some way for not understanding.

Alright, well, I've made my case. I understand it might be psychologically healthier for someone to ignore the idea of privilege and the idea can certainly be used in toxic ways as we both realize, but I think on a fundamental level reality needs to be acknowledged. It's not about politics - everyone immediately realizes the privilege of a tall, good-looking man versus a guy who's like 5'4 even if he's decent looking. IMO, simply describing that as a "difference" doesn't quite do it justice given the difference in treatment between these two men.

These differences aren't always physical either - being a native English speaker is definitely a privilege in today's work environment.

In any case that's just how I see things - I know I could become bitter if I were to focus on the areas where I'm not privileged and envy those with privilege - but I have better things to do. I accept reality as best I can and try to work on myself while acknowledging the world is just patently unfair. We pursue our best selves and our goals even in the face of this reality. It wouldn't even matter if we were in the most idyllic version of a socialist utopia - difference is implicit in humanity, and from that - inequality and unfairness.

@BitconnectCarlos I think you reading to much into pure external appearance rather than the skills and abilities of a person. Some taller guys carry themselves like dweebs and some shorter guys carry themselves with charisma and confidence. Being a native speaker of English does not exclude someone learning english and becoming better than the majority of native speakers.
I would rather just appreciate different peoples talents rather than just talk about difference being inequality in some unjust unfair way.
Sure there are obstacles,there is elitism and economic inequality. But then it comes down to what you regard as success. Lots of money or freedom,personal development and a happy family.
I really there is far too much victimhood and pessimism rather than a positive go get em approach. On a practical level you cant expect govt or society to spoon feed every less talented or pessimistic person.

I don't believe we should ignore the truth for our psychological wellbeing and I don't fail to recognise that there are consequences for these things that are deeply unfair and unfortunate. I think attractiveness can be one of the most unfair things and it just seems to matter in so many contexts and often times there's really nothing you can do about it. Being the beneficiary of this versus having it as your impediment is a huge difference. I am less ignorant of this than I am hyperaware of it.

It doesn't seem like it is making much of a difference for you, whether you call it a privilege or something else. I feel attractiveness is really in a league of its own though, it's easy to paint a really bleak picture there though for some it's a bit controversial. So I am probably on your side here even though I was giving you a hard time.

@Judaka but how do you explain the people in high positions who are patently not attractive? Just look at politicians,almost without exception they are hideous yet they have wealth power privilege.
To say nothing of civil servants.
I really think a lot of people have been brought up to feel unnatractive. I mean this in a general way not just in a romantic manner. I have a male friend,6ft,PhD, fluent in chinese,punjabi,English,working scientist,very intelligent happily married children who most people would say was very handsome yet due to a bad upbringing hes not confident in considering himself handsome and he has problems with self esteem. Attitude and psychology counts for everything.

I like how you think Asif, true, it is not more important to be attractive than everything else, many things matter more. Being attractive carries many benefits but it's mostly to do with how people treat you, your dating life, some various other advantages. I think it will matter more or less depending on what kind of life you live. There is not much we can do about it but it doesn't hurt to be aware.

Are you not commenting on me bringing this up with someone who self-describes as being on the right? — Judaka

Well, the dynamic in the argument is for "privilege is a useful category in discourse" and "privilege is not a useful category in discourse". An argument strategy that highlights the fallibility of all opinion which uses data doesn't really address the issue in question.

Privilege cannot be separated from leftwing identity politics and this much is obvious — Judaka

If we agree on all the facts, then the correlation between "identity politics issues" (race, gender, disability) and economic ones (class) is absolutely there! Addressing inequalities in the identity register addresses them in the economic one to the extent their correlation is causal.

I read a good example of this today regarding snow clearing in Sweden. It used to be that snow clearing was mostly devoted to peak hours road traffic by cars - which is (and the statistics show it) by and large a form of travel that men do for work. Men travel less in other ways, too.

But a super majority of injuries and serious injuries didn't even occur on the prioritised clearing areas - which is strange, as they're supposed to be tuned to injury prevention. This opens up the question of whether it's an optimal allocation of resources. Someone came along and highlighted the gender disparity in planning - the news went apeshit about left identity politics. So then there were focus groups and research done to look at how travel differences break down by gender, and how slipping injury breaks down by gender.

Lo and behold, the data revealed that men and women in Sweden had very different travel needs, and greater emphasis needed to be placed on women's travel needs to optimise the allocation of snow clearing effort. Women "trip-chain" and go on "care trips" much more when travelling, these include walking and short car trips much more than the daily commute by car. It was then better optimized given this data, the number of injuries went way down, and it even saved public money as the predicted public health care costs from prevented slipping injuries dwarfed the public roadcare maintenance costs! The investment had a great fiscal multiplier. The snow clearing was optimised for the wrong kind of trip, which disproportionately effected women! The awareness of privilege was required for this improvement, and people still laughed it off as identity politics and virtue signalling and posturing and whatever.

So it wasn't simply a discursive intervention, it was an economic one. Imagine how much better we could do if policy was optimised by recognition of privilege (like gender disparity), then subsequent analysis and intervention used those insights. It's like making the "search space" for an optimisation problem better, you will only get improvements.

I would rather just appreciate different peoples talents rather than just talk about difference being inequality in some unjust unfair way. — Asif

I would rather appreciate people's talents too, Asif. I'd rather sit down and have a beer with someone who's very talented in some field and just enjoy a chat with them. We can talk about whatever, it doesn't matter, all I am saying here is that privilege exists.

For instance, I play chess. I've been playing chess since I was around 5 and I'm a fairly competitive player. However, regardless of how much I or a billion other people were to practice, we will simply never be as good as people whose minds work in extraordinary ways which allow them visualize and assess positions 5 or 10 moves down the line. Again, I don't spend all my time going around and complaining about that, I just want to say that it's there. Similarly, there are people who are intellectually disabled and there's nothing they did to deserve that it's just life.

@BitconnectCarlos What do you class as intellectually disabled?
As to talented people to call it privileged seems totally wrong. And talent in one field doesn't always mean talent in every field. In sports a lot of times a more intelligent champion beats the more specifically talented champ.

It doesn't really matter what I consider intellectually disabled and I don't see what you're getting at here by asking me this. Like would it really matter if I said an IQ of under 80? 70? 65?

@BitconnectCarlos I'm asking because I thought you were referring to somebody injured or something. But if you are referring to people who are just normally less intelligent then how is that unjust for them? That is what they are. Doesnt mean low intelligence means oppressed or disadvantaged. Just go to any workplace and you will see low intelligence people doing just fine economically.

But if you are referring to people who are just normally less intelligent then how is that unjust for them? That is what they are. Doesnt mean low intelligence means oppressed or disadvantaged. — Asif

Intellectually disabled people can't hold the vast majority of jobs. I know someone who's intellectually disabled (IQ of around 65) and the vast majority of jobs are beyond his capability. The military won't even accept people with an IQ under 80 to use as cannon fodder. I'm not talking about people who are a little slower than average.

@BitconnectCarlos Ok. Your talking about a particular level of Intelligence. Although I dont see how an IQ test determines your suitability for most jobs. I mean a binman or till operator dont take IQ tests. These folks still have family and welfare do they not. I find all this rather victimsplaining and over thought. And in no way should an intelligent person feel bad because lower intelligence people exist.

If we forget terminology then sure, I agree with what you're saying. I believe there are differences between men and women and taking these into account is only logical.

The wisdom is to learn.

What's evident in the replies to this thread, again, is that the privileged do not understand their privilege. — Banno

Well, some certainly do not. Some do. Thus, I'd temper the claim above while generally agreeing with it.

What's been clear here... from my vantage point anyway, is that for some reason or other, some folk hereabouts find it very troubling to openly talk about the completely unacceptable residual affects/effects of racists writing laws... systemic racism. It's not as of it is a big secret. Hence the earlier question that Judaka approached as if it was an attack on them personally, was actually aimed at the problem. It's cuts directly to the heart of the matter at hand.

We all know that being treated like that(like American black people by some of those in power) is wrong. No one of us would want to be treated like that. If it is impermissible for another to treat us like that. If we do not wish to be treated as such, then, if we care about the society we live in, we ought wish the same for our fellow black citizens, community members, family members, friends, and/or loved ones. If we will not, do not, and/or refuse to acknowledge the historical problems of racism in America, we are a part of the problem today, regardless of whether or not we are racist.

If we want to correct the issues...

We do not deliberately portray blacks in the most negative light simply because they are kneeling in peaceful protest of what we all know is happening. Peaceful demonstration is a protected American's right; a means to voice grievances. There can be no form of punishment.

...perhaps someone here can actually give a compelling argument for why it is important for people to understand their privilege and why thinking about things in this way is important or useful? — Judaka

There are many white people who agree that racism is wrong but do not understand the extent of it's historical consequences. There are many white people who feel personally attacked by the notion of white privilege. There are many who attack whites because they have benefitted from a system largely governed by rules written by racists.

Understanding white privilege corrects all these misgivings and results in solidarity.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8482/does-systemic-racism-exist-in-the-us

Read my posts on this page.

It doesn't seem like it is making much of a difference for you, whether you call it a privilege or something else. I feel attractiveness is really in a league of its own though, it's easy to paint a really bleak picture there though for some it's a bit controversial. — Judaka

Yeah, call it whatever. If you're not comfortable calling it privilege then I don't really care.

Attraction does matter, I agree.... I don't know if I would say that it's in a league of its own though. By "attraction" I'm referring more to the physical part of it. Part of the reason why so many people understand the "privilege" (or whatever you want to call it) of being attractive is that it's basically universal - everyone falls somewhere on the attraction scale. If you want to talk about attraction I'm happy to hear your thoughts on it.

There's a billion things we don't think about though, and that's a privilege. For instance, I started watching a streamer with tourettes syndrome lately and it's allowed me to familiarize myself a little more with that reality. Tourettes is a neurological condition and there's no real reason my brain couldn't have been like that and I can imagine it would have been extremely difficult and scary to not control what comes out of your mouth. Thankfully, I don't have to worry about that. That's privilege.

↪creativesoul
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8482/does-systemic-racism-exist-in-the-us

Read my posts on this page. — Judaka

That page was completely absent of any particular posts clearly attributed to Judaka.

There were none. So...

Do black lives matter to you?

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.

↪creativesoul
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. — Judaka

Read enough to be pleasantly surprised...

Struggle to grasp how you've arrived at the belief that discussions of "white privilege" are not helpful.

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?

What have I said that leads you to believe that I've made any conclusions about you as a person, aside from noting that the idea of "white privilege" seems extremely offensive to you?

How is it harmful?

White privilege is in fact a racist term. That's the harm.
I agree with Judaka on the need to not regard people as races or cohesive groups but as individuals.
Real inequality is economic and this is maintained by Plutocracy. How about mega rich privilege? Because the govt actually do constitute a real group of wealth and elitism composed of various sexes and colours.

It's like you think privilege is just this totally neutral, meaningless word. — Judaka

Then call it something else, I don't care. The gist is that it's an unearned advantage - it's something you don't need to worry about. Would it be okay with you if we didn't call it privilege and just called it something beneficial that you didn't earn through hard work? Maybe call it a perk? Unearned advantage? Maybe even just "lucky." Like "I'm lucky that I don't...."

EDIT: It's definitely not about making you feel guilty either. For instance, if you don't have chronic pain you have a "privilege" or a "perk" or whatever you want to call it - but nobody is saying that people without chronic pain should feel guilty for not having it - that's ridiculous. Nor is the implication that people without chronic pain should drink bleach and damage their organs in order to have it and be "equal."

The insistence of seeing this as a racial issue, as a race problem than a class problem simply makes things worse.

With class we can do something about it (as class doesn't mean caste): there is social mobility. We also understand the importance of fair wealth distribution especially through wage income. Promoting race to be the most important issue is not only an accusation racism, but also something people cannot do anything about once we start categorizing them by race. And even if in the case of the US there is a valid point in reminding that discrimination under law ended just 60 years ago or so, the narrative then is fixated in things like racial quotas, compensations based on family heritage, promotion of various issues through the lens of race. Treating people as individuals is seen as naivety or some kind of disguised racism itself.

Coming from country were people of color make 1,34% of the population, has no history of slavery and colonization, I can still observe similar societal problems than are discussed in the US narrative. It's not white privilege (as the vast majority of people are "white"), it's simple upper class and upper middle class privilege. It's not only that the wealthy have even here better schools, better services, better job opportunities, it's also things like lifestyle and attitudes. Your family background, your parents education and income does matter. Crime goes in hand with this: those who commit crimes in Finland, half of them have an income below 10 000 euros, whereas the average income is 29 500 euros. Many of those who commit crimes come from families that have been on welfare for a long time. Both the political left and right do understand and agree on the problem even if they obviously differ just on what would be the cure.

And in the end, the insistence on race and white privilege simply divides poor people by race and creates tension inside a group that has so much in common to fight for. It genuinely benefits those prospering from the present when people are divided by another way than being rich or poor.

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

@ssu Excellent post. Its really not that hard to see whose privileged and who is not. And it highlights that even in a country like yours with very few coloured people the same problems exist. Structural classicism exists everywhere.
I've said this time and again how are poor white people privileged compared to upper class black people?
I see this politically correct terminology as a deliberate tactic by parties and govts to cause friction and to garner votes based on falsehoods.
People must be treated as Individuals and free speech respected. First principle of Liberty and civilisation.

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.

@Judaka Both excellent posts.
It's really bizarre how an Individuals positive qualities are regarded as some kind of unfairness or based on an arbitrary group definition.
I once had a Nietzschean leftist tell me " not everyone is as self assured as you". And he revelled in the fact that he could be try to be a spokesman for the less self assured.
Nothing to do with empathy or equality but all to do with him being an elite saviour.
The elites want this narrative as reinforces their narrative of saviourhood and keeps folks divided for political purposes.
Folks need to take responsibility for their own success and stop blame shifting.