If all you want to do is promote awareness of how a lack of ramps is deeply inconvenient to people who can't use stairs then surely, you can do that without the privilege conceptualisation. "We need more ramps" people ask why you say "some people can't use stairs and it's not fair or practical for them", done. The rest is about political capital, can you convince people that this is an important issue, that they should care. The able-bodied privilege angle, you surely can't think that's a good idea. Your plan to convince people to help is to guilt and shame them? Tell them that they're ignorant of these issues because of their able-bodied privilege? Like, you tell me.

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

Agree with what? Agree how?

Are you trying to describe a problem neutrally? Then it fails. Are you trying to describe the problem in a way that makes people want to help? No, surely not. Are you trying to describe the problem in a passive-aggressive, obnoxious way? Then yes, it is good.

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. We need more ramps.

Please consider the people who aren't able to use stairs and what a big difference having ramps would make for them.

Thank you.

Getting rid of the privilege is good but I don't see any reason to talk about able-bodied people, the injustice here is how disabled people are neglected with regards to stairs. How do you explain the need for explaining that the alternative to agreeing with you is for people to be ignorant, uncaring and selfish?

Yeah, ok; I'm stuck on the bit where the reason we shouldn't use the word "privilege" because it pisses off the privileged. But I will try to take on board your point that pissing off the privileged does not help get them on side.

Let me be clear, I agree with what you have said but that is not a fair description of my opposition to the privilege framing. I have not described it as an insidious, pernicious framing simply because I am just worried that you are wasting political capital.

Yeah, ok; I'm stuck on the bit where the reason we shouldn't use the word "privilege" because it pisses off the privileged. — Banno

I don't think that was "the" reason? If you are going to paraphrase my argument like that then I don't think restating what I've already said will do me any good. I will say, you are adept at creating the narratives that suit you, it is a talent.

I agree with what you're saying about the stairs. The ability to use the stairs is a privilege. The ability to walk unimpeded is also a privilege. Even if stairs were no longer a thing, privilege still exists for those who can walk normally in a world where walking is still important. Even if the entire world were a flat, even surface those who can walk comfortably certainly still have privilege. Do you disagree?

I'm thinking, given @Judaka's replies, that talk of privilege is not about convincing the privileged of their responsibility so much as building solidarity amongst the underprivileged.

Carlos doesn't see privilege as "being about" anything than the truth, naive as it sounds. At least he is capable of articulating an argument for it though, you on the other hand... Solidarity amongst the underprivileged? How much thought did you put into that and did that thought come after you were adopted by the leftist pathology or before?

You speak for Carlos?

I spoke with Carlos, that conversation is here on this thread.

oh, good.

I have no problem with building solidarity among the underprivileged, the problem is when (or if) it descends into a kind of provincialism... all in all though a totally worthy and fine goal.

I agree.

But my own observation, especially over the last ten years or so, is that considerable progress has been made by identifying the intersection of various advocacy groups.

Privilege talk sheds light on underprivileged people. That's a good thing, if we're aiming at an equitable, free, and fair society.

Some use it as a weapon, but that does not mean that it's not good to talk about it. Some folk run stop signs too.

.

.

"Equitable" is socialist and runs contrary to values which brought about the most free rendition of society of which humanity has yet been capable. — whollyrolling

Norway? Or Sweden?

Oh, New Zealand! Of course!

"Equitable" is socialist and runs contrary to values which brought about the most free rendition of society of which humanity has yet been capable. — whollyrolling

Yes, only socialists would treat people fairly and equally. Thank God nobody does that here in His Favorite Country!

We need to have a conversation about height privilege! And what about beauty privilege?

I am ready to receive reparations from all the tall and handsome people in this world, for I have been the victim of much injustice!

Your height is something over which you have some control?

OR are you avoiding something?

Your height is something over which you have some control? — Banno

No, and neither is skin color or sex.

Good point.

Height privilege is absolutely a thing, especially among men. Taller men are privileged.

In my mind though the existence of a privilege doesn't imply reparations though.

In my mind though the existence of a privilege doesn't imply reparations though. — BitconnectCarlos

What does it imply, then?

That's a good question. Acknowledgment would be a good first step. I don't know exactly what it implies but the fact that it exists means it should probably be acknowledged and we can go from there in regard to the individual trait we're talking about (race, class, physical difference, disability, etc.)

.

.

Irony not a thing here, then.

A white person recognising their privilege is about acknowledging how other races have it worse and so on. What's wrong with this conceptualisation? Let me start off by saying that this is an issue of framing and interpretation.

Systemic racism exists, statistics show wealth has been deeply affected by historical racism, statistics show you have better chances to be privileged as a white person than black or Hispanic. I am not arguing against these statistics. However, privilege is a warped framing with no nuance or depth, it characterises history through the oppression of groups over other groups. It is not simply saying "racism, hatred of homosexuality and sexism are wrong".

It is absolutely asking you to see individuals by the groups they belong to and in this case that is by their race, sexual orientation and gender. Which to my mind is completely fucked up, the parallels with racism and sexism are easy to make. It condemns the privileges of the advantaged groups as proceeds of a racist and sexist society. For white people would not have more if this were not true, women would be paid as much as men if this were not true... — Judaka

This is clearly an emotionally charged topic. It's best for white privilege to be clearly defined, because it seems that many people hereabouts and elsewhere have differing thought, beliefs, emotions, and subsequent ideas regarding it. The mere invocation of the term "white privilege" can instantly and completely change one's emotional state of mind, and that holds good for whites and non whites alike.

This is good. There is something very real going on here. We need to poke and prod these disturbances. We need to unpack all of the offenses. We need to parse all these subtleties out. We need to listen to one another.

So, what exactly are we picking out of this world to the exclusion of all else when we say "white privilege"? What exactly are we referring to such that everyone involved can know - as precisely as possible - what we're all talking about?

White privilege is the direct, demonstrable, and inevitable result of systemic and/or institutional racism. Put simply, it is what white people do not have to deal with on a daily basis that non whites do. It is the injury because one is non white that white people avoid suffering because they are not. The negative effects/affects that racist people, policies, belief systems, and social practices created remain extant in American society. They continue to directly impact the lives and livelihoods of the people that they were originally designed to discriminate against.

In this very real sense, the American system is not broken. To quite the contrary, it is still working to this day exactly as it was initially designed to work long ago. White privilege is but one part of the proof. White privilege affords whites the ability to avoid what blacks have to live through and think about day after day. Acknowledging the unjust suffering of blacks because of their race alone, acknowledging the lack of equal opportunity, acknowledging the everyday obstacles that blacks remain faced with to this very day because they are black, acknowledging the sheer lack of adequate representation in the American system is to acknowledge the plight of black Americans. Standing up and fighting for them and with them is to honor our black brothers and sisters.

Honoring them goes a long way towards building a movement to end racism. Ending the prevalence of racism and xenophobia(closely related) cannot and will not happen peacefully without the help of white people. Becoming aware of white privilege is one step towards acquiring knowledge of the current residual effects/affects of historical racism that remain extant in the American system to this very day.

The benefits to recognising you have been benefited by historical racism are very hard to see. What step they are in the plan to end racism is not something that can be seen, it isn't there. All I see is the encouragement of taking note of someone's race/gender/sexual orientation and making assumptions about them, their experience and their "history". It is more about hating the rich than helping the poor.

Unnuanced, vindictive and entirely unhelpful to the struggle to end racism or sexism. Yet those who argue hide behind their intent to end racism and sexism, that's their defence of it.

What good is coming from the use of "white privilege" when it comes to ending systemic institutional racism? — Judaka

The questions posed above are actually very relevant questions to be asking. However, it's not very helpful to begin introducing "rich versus poor" with a nuanced assessment and/or analysis of white privilege. Not all blacks are poor and not all whites are rich. While there is tremendous overlap between these considerations, until white privilege is better understood, it only adds unnecessary confusion to introduce "rich versus poor".

White privilege can result in one's being rich, but even the poorest of whites do not have to suffer the results of racist policies and practices. That is the white privilege in it's most basic 'form'. That is how it is instantiated.

...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

Effectively ending racism requires understanding both it's motivations and it's effects/affects.
White privilege is an effect/affect of racism.
Effectively ending racism requires understanding white privilege.

It can be the case that "white privilege" is used unfairly against any and all successful white people. It is sometimes used as a slight, implying that the only reason the individual is successful is because of white privilege(because they started off with the advantage of being white in a system designed to benefit whites). Some non whites not only say such things, but they strongly believe them as well. In this way, "white privilege" is often used as a weapon to personally attack white individuals, and/or deny any actual effort that that particular individual may have had to put forth in order to attain the success that they enjoy. That approach denies that that individual deserves their success. In America, given the popular idea that if one works hard, they can be successful, such an approach causes great personal offense to one who has worked hard for their success.

Not suffering from racist policies and practices does not guarantee a white individual's success, even if it does make things a bit easier. Convincing a white individual who has worked very hard to be successful to stand alongside non whites and fight racist practices is much more difficult to do if they are actually being attacked because they are white.

Some white people do have to work hard to become successful, particularly those born into much less fortunate socio-economic circumstances. While such people do not have to deal with racism and it's practices like non whites do, we cannot deny them their own personal dignity and expect for them to remain willing and able to stand up for and fight alongside non whites. If they feel like non whites are attacking them personally because of the fact that they are white, it is very hard to convince them that those non whites are not racist, regardless of whether or not they actually are.

Such frameworks using white privilege do not promote the kind of cohesion that's necessary for ending racism. It does little to create solidarity between people of different races to stand up and fight for one another. In fact, it can have quite the opposite affect/effect. It can lessen the desire to stand up for and fight alongside those who suffer from racism, because it ends up feeling like those people are fighting against the white individual because they are white.

There are many white people who openly say and actually believe that racism is not acceptable and it ought be removed from American society. Some of these white people come from areas in the country where there is very little ethnic and/or racial diversity, so they have had little to no personal experience and/or interactions with non whites. Rural America in particular simply does not have the degree of diversity that is common in the larger cities, particularly along the coastlines. Not everyone in these areas holds strong and clear racist belief against non whites, even if they come from a community where those remain in practice. They see racism when it's undeniably open and public, they know it's wrong, but they do not recognize the subtlety of white privilege. That takes someone else to show them in a manner that they're open and able to understand, which does not include personal attacks because they are white, as well as a white who is capable of listening to another's plight because they are not. It takes mutual respect.

The history of systemic and institutional racism was not in all American history books. So many white Americans are clueless regarding it, even if they know that racism is still prevalent, and they openly admonish it. However, many of the common misconceptions born of racism still pervade American society, and such people are constantly being bombarded by different soundbites, misleading statements and statistics all of which further perpetuate false belief about non whites(blacks in particular). Those different misleading notions are used to deny that racism still effects/affects our society.

These aforementioned people have been and remain key to turning the tide in favor of ending racism. Appealing to these people's sensibility is key as well. It takes mutual respect. So many already know racism is wrong. However many times when non whites begin talking in terms of "white people" they are guilty of the exact same gross overgeneralization fallacy that underlies white racist mentality about non whites. Multiplying the error does not serve to correct the underlying problems. Rather, it further reinforces deep seated racist beliefs rather than helping to defuse them.

Putting white privilege to good use as a means to help end systemic racism takes mutual respect of the participants in the discussion about racism and it's effects/affects. Shedding light on white privilege does not require attacking whites because of it.