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. — Judaka

Any desirable attribute is not a privilege, for instance take a professional football player. The hard work & sacrifice he's put into it isn't privilege... what's privilege is the genetics behind that or that his parents could afford football camp. Privilege is about things you don't control. If it's positive and outside of your control, yes, it could be considered a privilege. Even the absence of a negative could be considered a privilege - that's why I'm saying the modern discourse about privilege - if we're being honest with it - should be expanded tremendously. That is - if we want to work within this framework.

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. — Judaka

I don't mean for it to come across that way just like I'm not asking people who are not in chronic pain to feel guilty about that. I consider it a privilege that I'm not in chronic pain, but again it would seem ridiculous to suggest that people without chronic pain should feel guilty about not having it. I don't personally feel guilty for not having a billion different disorders. It would be like guilty overload.

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. — Judaka

Someone is still praiseworthy for turning, say, a $1 million into $5 million - it's an excellent job, but I think we'd both agree this is different from someone reaching $5 million who started out with $10. I'm not here to belittle those who were born into privilege and stayed in privilege, but someone who overcame a legitimate obstacle to achieve is super praiseworthy. There's something special about that (I deal a lot in the disability community, by the way so that's my frame of reference.)

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. — Judaka

Yep, generally speaking attractiveness is an advantage although there may be cases where it isn't. Similarly, being born into wealth or having intelligence (intelligence is largely genetic, by the way) is generally an advantage, although not always. You won't be capable of holding anything beyond an entry level position with an IQ of less than 80. They won't even let you into the military.

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. — Judaka

You can have gratitude, I have no problem with that. I can accept the gratitude line of thought. Personally, I just find the concept of privilege more interesting to explore because it has more of a social element to it. You can reject the framing of privilege all you want, but that's basically how discourse is going around today so.... if you're going to engage with a left-winger it's gonna be difficult if you just reject their concepts entirely, but each to his own.

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.

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. — Judaka

The post that followed this opening is the first critique of white privilege, from you, that I've seen. I'm still struggling to understand why you are replying with such underlying discontent about me personally. I'm not attacking you. I recognize that the notion of "white privilege" is used, quite unjustly, as an attack. I do not condone such use.

That said, the post deserves more of my attention. I appreciate it, because it seems that there's much to work with, and you may be surprised to know that there remains much agreement. Some of the issues ought be further unpacked. As you well know, the topic is nuanced... quite so.

I'm working on a more appropriate and in depth reply, because I think you've offered a good start...

:wink:

Being able to use stairs is a privilege.

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

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

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

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 Why the dichotomy? You can say it would be good to have a lift. Nothing to do with a person being able to use stairs being "privileged". This is just a sneaky way of categorizing people hierarchically and virtue signalling.
And who identifies "privilege", the govt academics and leftists? No thanks,the idea of rich elites dictating categories of humans Is hypocritical and extremely discriminatory. An appeal to emotion by elites....
You donating your next pay packet to lifts banno?

Up to you with implication you dont care if you dont agree with arguement as constructed. Sheesh! The rhethoric of the virtue signaller. Trying to guilt people for being able to walk!

I'm a "cis white male" and wouldn't place myself in a category such as "powers that be". In fact, a majority of visible minorities are doing far better for themselves than I am for myself. So I'm wondering now what it is you think you're talking about. Are you saying that, in modern times, with legislation that protects and equalizes all people based on merit--and then promotes visible minorities based on social and economic inequities and perceived inequalities--if a "cis white male" is elected to some office, any office, or given any position of authority over anyone, I'm then in a position of power by virtue of my skin colour? Is that really what you're saying here?

And do you get that what you're saying, if I understand correctly, is racist and dehumanizing?

Also, given that you believe guilt is transferable between people of a common skin colour, are you then willing to serve prison time for a stranger's crimes?

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. — Banno

...or you might ignore the facts and instead attack me.

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.

Being able to use stairs is a privilege. - interpretation — Banno

Interpretation? So the able bodied gain no advantage by being able to access buildings unavailable to others?

No; that stairs exclude some folk is a fact, not an interpretation.

The "obvious" privilege which is not a fact, being denied, makes you just this terrible, selfish, bigoted person. — Judaka

That's not something I have said. That you feel the need to augment my post in order to criticise it is interesting. I don't want you to feel guilty, I want you to recognise the need for ramps.

And again, the critique here is directed at me, not at the point I have made. But then, as soon as privilege is mentioned, folk become oddly defensive. That's curious.

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

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.

Nothing curious here mate.
It's obvious your agenda when you talk about privilege.
It's not a neutral word. And your low key dispassion and feigned curiosity is totally disingenuous. Judaka described you well.
You are A politician not a philosopher. To be a philosopher
requires honesty.

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.

Triggered.

hostility and aggression. — Judaka

Where? What did I say that was hostile or aggressive?

Quote me.

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.

@Banno What is this particular building you are referring
to which is so important for everybody to access?
Most public buildings I know have ramps and lifts anyway.
Yours is the typical political sophistry. Blow up and highlight a simple specific issue then categorise and shame anyone who disagrees with your crass generalisations and political ideology.
It's like charities that try to shame people into donating .
@Judaka Its expressly obvious how banno operates yet even with all these quotes you highlighted he will try to weasel his way out,obfuscate and make others seem in the wrong.
Typical gaslighting nonsense. I really enjoy his posts as they highlight the psychology of the sophist the ideologue the politically correct dogmatists.
Banno did not have sexual relations with that woman!!!!
If only banno knew my skin color and economics,His arguments about "privilege" would then be self refuting.

Oh, my goodness. No wonder you were so upset. Indeed, I have written such stuff as may upset, as you say, "the privileged who ignore the other, the selfish, the ignorant and lacking a moral compass".

But I can live with that.

What a disingenuous reply! Took Judakas words and changed the obvious meaning of his sentence.
Then virtue signalling to finish.
Ah,honesty,would that people valued that!

When did the discussion ever become about what @Banno can or can't live with? Was that something of interest to you?

@Judaka, can we re-start the conversation? I'm genuinly interested in your view, but have been too self-indulgent on my replies.

Perhaps we could look for places of agreement. I suspect that we both disagree with the OP's suggestion that privilege should be renounced.

Do you think we might agree that it is not a bad thing to acknowledge privilege?

@Judaka :rofl: I think sir banno made this into his personal political soapbox. Oh bannos life and death struggle is riveting!

@Judaka or would replacing the word "privilege" with the word "advantage" better suit you?

Okay.

Finding agreement is easy Banno, you will find that on this forum I have argued for dramatically increased economic redistribution, argued against racism and discrimination, I am anti-Trump, I am against the mass incarceration. I believe the US has a lot to learn from some of these Scandinavian countries, that's the future of capitalism and if it isn't then it will be a dystopia where countries keep getting richer but that wealth is concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people. We probably want many of the same changes.

I am not the person you have made me out to be, let's start with that, so I can avoid a pointless line of inquiry.

When you talk about privilege we need to separate facts from interpretation, interpretation from the consequences of those interpretations. If you can't do that, we cannot actually discuss this together, since that's where the disagreement lies. In a sense, by how I have acknowledged economic inequality, the existence of systemic racism, the statistics which show inequity between the races, that some disabled people can't use stairs, I have already acknowledged this aspect of privilege. If that is all you want to hear then that's that, I acknowledge reality.

Privilege is a narrative about this reality, it is not as simple as agreeing to the above. There are so many ways to characterise the injustices about our world and of all the ways, acknowledging the privilege of straight white men might be one of the worst. You are playing into the very injustices that we are both angry about. Economic issues, social issues, these are due to the American political system being a disaster, past iterations were openly racist and sexist and now Trump, Trump of all people is president. Do I think some rich white kid using the "white privilege" framing is going to do anything about that? No.

Actually, the leftist approach to dealing with these issues is so counterintuitive and nonsensical that I cannot even begin to imagine how many people like me, have been turned off by it. The ideology is so identity-orientated, it's so prejudicial, it's so angry and hostile. By acknowledging privilege, it means that someone is getting themselves into that, I've seen it enough to know that's a fair assessment. My disagreement lies in matters beyond the privilege, it's about the ideology behind it and how privilege is characterised in fanciful and aggressive ways.

Well, thanks for that. Ive spent some time thinking about what you said, and I remain confused.

I have acknowledged economic inequality, the existence of systemic racism, the statistics which show inequity between the races, that some disabled people can't use stairs, I have already acknowledged this aspect of privilege. — Judaka

I had not noticed this in your writing. I appreciate your saying so.

We agree that some folk have an advantage, but you are objecting to the use of the word privilege here; that you see this word as part of a framing of the various problems that is itself problematic:

The ideology is so identity-orientated, it's so prejudicial, it's so angry and hostile. — Judaka

The anger and hostility felt, say, by marginalised Blacks, will not be removed by re-framing the question. Nor is that anger the merely the result of a selective interpretation of the facts. It would be disingenuous to suppose that those who are disadvantaged, on recognising their disadvantage, would or even should not react with anger and hostility.

So I wonder, if these issues were framed in terms other than of privilege, would the anger disappear? And I think the answer is obvious.

There's much more to be said here, but I will leave that for after your reply to this post. Small steps.

We agree that some folk have an advantage, but you are objecting to the use of the word privilege here; that you see this word as part of a framing of the various problems that is itself problematic: — Banno

That is a good summary of my position. I would only caution against trying to equate the narrative of privilege with reality, I do not wish to conflate interpretations and narratives with facts.

The anger and hostility felt, say, by marginalised Blacks, will not be removed by re-framing the question — Banno

There is injustice and so there should be anger. I don't want people to tolerate injustice, that's how it continues. Hostility and aggression are perhaps, topics to revisit but the main issue here is what people should be angry about versus what privilege encourages people to be angry about. What re-framing should be trying to achieve is to emphasise the moral importance of combatting injustice without creating unnecessary tension between people. Characterising injustice in contemporary terms as opposed to being embittered about the past. The mass incarceration of blacks is happening right now, people shouldn't be thanking their lucky stars to not be black, they should be challenging how such an unjust system can exist in the supposed leader of the free world.

American exceptionalism and patriotism are obstacles to productive change, the American dream which characterises the poor as lazy and the rich as deserving, treating drugs as a crime issue instead of a health issue. Actual perspectives causing real problems, just examples, there's a long list.

I'm not saying nobody is tackling the real issues, they are but the conceptualisation of privilege is a complete distraction. There is no place for the real issues, which get drowned out, in a sea of anger towards inequity between the races, of which almost nothing can be done. Privilege isn't merely a neutral, ineffective framing, it is a distraction, it divides people senselessly, it emphasises the importance of your race and the race of others, encourages discrimination and anger towards identity groups.

The ideal framing would challenge the injustices where it hurts, without dividing people based on their race but uniting them. Encouraging discussion about issues that can be resolved as opposed to how advantaged or disadvantaged the race you were born as is.

An interesting read.

The problem, then, is that some folk get upset when folk point out that they are better off than some other folk. Inevitably, the remedy will involve the removal of this edge. As you say,

The ideal framing would challenge the injustices where it hurts — Judaka

An ungracious reply might suggest that the solution necessitates those who are better off to "suck it up".

...I do not wish to conflate interpretations and narratives with facts. — Judaka

Yeah, well, that's quite problematic. But let's leave that to one side for now.

There is basically no step in the process of ending the advantages that you are talking about that fits anything like the description of "recognising your privilege". The focus shouldn't be on deleting these advantages in the first place. Where inequity between the races is a result of the past, it is due to past injustice allowing only people of certain races to prosper and wealth travels down the family line, the towns, the cities and so on. Where inequity between the races is being perpetuated, that is real racism, real oppression, real problems that need to be dealt with.

Most of those who are "better off" are still peons in the political apparatus, what are you hoping to achieve by asking for shame, guilt or to have them acknowledge their privilege? There are two aspects to why privilege is a poor conceptualisation, the first is that it doesn't actually help in any way and the second is that it is harmful in many ways. If it was helpful in some ways and then hurtful in others, we could talk about whether "better off should suck it up" but I've yet to hear anyone defend it. That's the issue.

I would much prefer it to not talk about the differences between narratives and facts and focus on the outcomes of the conceptualisation and evaluate these outcomes. I can't do that, however, because the only counterargument I've ever heard is that the narrative is the truth and there is no need to explain why the truth should be known by people. If you stand by the argument that your narrative is in fact, merely the truth and you shouldn't have to defend it then the discussion can only become about why that isn't the case. To explain how you have arranged the facts in such a way, characterised them in such a way, interpreted them in such a way, that it creates a highly specific narrative and whether you make this narrative is something you can choose.

There is basically no step in the process of ending the advantages that you are talking about that fits anything like the description of "recognising your privilege". — Judaka

So... seeing that the bloke with a walking frame can't get into the building, but that I can, is not pat of replacing the steps with a ramp? Maybe. But perhaps noticing, as you happily hop up and down the stairs, that there is someone who cannot join you...that might be a part of solving the problem. Recognising that there is a problem has to be a step on the way to solving that problem, If your attention is never drawn to the chap with the walking frame, you will never notice that it's an issue. Hence,

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

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

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

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

So if I leave the first line out of that post, do you agree with it?