Moral instruction can be distasteful when the values+perspectives attempting to be imputed go against something in you, yeah. Which of your experiences does the concept of "privilege" go against? — fdrake

It's just not what word means, like we know what the word table means and when and where it is applicable. This has nothing to do with morality.

And no this kind of moral instruction is distasteful, not because it goes against something in me, but because it assumes that i'm in need of moral instruction in the first place... and more importantly because of the way one thinks it should be instructed, by manipulating the meaning of words. Or perhaps more specifically, the context is framed in such a way so that the desired moral behavior naturally follows.

Can't you see that this is the same mechanism that religions use to indoctrinate people... because they are stupid and can't be trusted to make up their own minds?

So the concept of privilege isn't contrary to any of your experiences. You simply feel it is patronising.

Can't you see that this is the same mechanism that religions use to indoctrinate people... because they are stupid and can't be trusted to make up their own minds? — ChatteringMonkey

So focus on the facts: do you find anything factually wrong with what material conditions accounts using the concept seeks to highlight? Privileges of able body and mind, race+ethnicity, income, gender...

but because it assumes that i'm in need of moral instruction in the first place — ChatteringMonkey

I'm sorry that the idea that other people may be able to teach you things that have a shot of making the world, and you, better offends you so much. Are we so different that you only believe what you believe based on reason and no sentiment is involved? I doubt it, we are talking about your personal feelings of offence, not about the realities associated with privilege.

What about sexism is that also based on oppression? Or specism, classism, ageism, or really any of the isms which refer to discrimination based on identity? — Judaka

In this context, yes. Are you really only just getting this?

Also, when you say most common, where is it the most common? Do all dictionaries define it as you do? What authority defines it only as you do that makes it a question of ignorance for me to not share yours? — Judaka

I didn't say it was a question of ignorance for you to not share mine. I said it was a question of ignorance to not be aware of it and the impact your use of the term would therefore have. Are we not literally talking about that exact issue with the term 'privilege'?

It's just not what word means, like we know what the word table means and when and where it is applicable. — ChatteringMonkey

My dictionary has 'privilege' meaning

an advantage that only one person or group of people has, usually because of their position or because they are rich: — Cambridge

a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor — Merriam-Webster

I'm struggling to see how it is so obvious that its use in 'white privilege' is "just not what word means". Its meaning seems quite congruent to me, it's saying that freedom from certain types of oppression and restriction, the opening of certain opportunities is an advantage which white people have.

Being able to go about one's daily business with a lower chance of being arrested or shot by your own police force in certain parts of America is an advantage afforded to white people simply because they're white is it not?

That's right there in the dictionary definition. I'm not sure what your objection on semantic grounds is.

Yes, of course. As I thought I'd made clear in my previous post, no one cares about trivial attribution errors. Racism is about the oppression of people by attributing racial generalisations. It is not just attributing racial generalisations. — Isaac

If you're upsetting a group of people that share the same skin color, then does that not qualify as oppressing them?

If you're not talking about taking away from whites, rather than simply enforcing the non-discriminatory laws that we currently have, then I don't see a problem, or any reason for whites to be upset.

The issue that is being described is characteristic of every nation that has a minority vs. majority population. The majority is represented more than the minority. The solution isn't to ensure that the minority has equal representation to the majority as that would be giving the minority a privilege in giving more weight to individuals' voices in that minority group compared to individual voices in the majority group, and there is likely more diversity in the majority group than the minority.

The solution is simply to ensure that our non-discriminatory laws are being enforced and to ensure that all minority groups are represented proportionately relative to their proportion of the population. When I watch TV, it seems to me that blacks and gays are now being over-represented, as if they are a larger percentage of the population than they actually are.

Apologies if I'm shortchanging you by not responding fully, but it feels like I would just be retreading what I've already said. — Pro Hominem

No worries. I'm under no illusions that I can convince you to change your mind about the term! At some point over the years all the discussions about it became essentially the same discussion to me. The usual reasons of "it's a bad slogan because it's divisive/pejorative", "it's a simple emotional appeal, where's the logic?", "it draws attention away from more important issues" have been around for a long time, I used to even staunchly believe the last one! So forgive me for not responding to your articulation of the points, for me at this point it's effectively an abstract structure. People super uncomfortable with the claim get more uncomfortable when the discomfort is pointed out, and super duper uncomfortable if it's psychologised. I've never had success with reason, I've sometimes got people to think using reason laced with emotional appeals. The same happened to me; what cajoled me out of the bunker I'd built with critical thought was getting fucking owned by an off the cuff comment made by a talented feminist.

I actually really like how uncomfortable it can make people; discomfort invites study and refutation from a certain kind of mind, and intellectually+emotionally engaging with the mechanisms of privilege for that curious and empathetic kind of mind is an opportunity for self discovery. Finding out where and how you fit into history and the current moment. Sand, oysters, pearls, etc.

I just hope that the dawning awareness of our own complicity that such an engagement produces also produces allies and collaborators - that righteous anger agitating towards greater freedom is all too often condemned as mere irrational sentiment. Being "possessed by an idea" as @Judaka put it; I like that, a haunting by reason and compassion. Let us hope it is a poltergeist.

I noted the lack of presence of a black voice, or of a disabled voice, or of a gay voice. — Banno

For the first at least -- don't remember reading anything about the others -- this is a thing with philosophy as an academic discipline isn't it? I recall seeing numbers that philosophy departments are even more male and more white than other academic disciplines, even than other academic disciplines (like some of the hard sciences) that have widely publicized and discussed disparities. (The whole "girls aren't good at math" thing.) Philosophy departments are off the scale.

Now, I also recall stumbling onto a website where women philosophy students presented horror stories of the hostility they faced, the direct unabashed harassment, that led them to flee the field. I'm not familiar with anything similar for people of color, but it wouldn't surprise me.

But on top of direct discrimination, another explanation occurred to me: bright young intellectuals of color (etc.) have probably been choosing other fields -- mostly in the social sciences I'm guessing -- where work on race and gender is somewhat more mainstream, and where they see lots of work on those issues that excites them and they want to be part of. I have no data on this -- it's a "just so story".

And that leaves philosophy departments mostly to students not as focused on race and gender issues. And one reason to be less focused on race and gender issues is because you can be. The everyday way of describing that sort of situation is to say that you have the "luxury" to spend your time thinking about epistemology and metaphysics because you are not constantly forced by your social interactions to be aware of your race and your gender.

The field of philosophy, as an academic discipline, is traditionally anathema to this type of discourse, and there's a reason behind it. Traditionally philosophy, and also science, are predicated on the notions that anyone can make an argument - doesn't matter the background - and that argument is to be judged on its own merits.

On the other hand, if we're talking about racial/gender/ableist etc. privilege this type of dialogue necessarily values certain types of voices over others, and not necessarily unfairly. If I'm a disabled person - which I am - I'm extremely suspicious of a non-disabled person who claims to speak to my experience. I can say with confidence that it takes years and years for a non-disabled person to really understand - assuming they ever do - the disability. I personally only see this level of understanding in experts who have worked in the field for decades.

Even within a certain disability community the question of who gets the voice and who gets the representation is a pertinent one. We're not a monolith. We'll tend to share certain general perspectives but our opinions about the disorder/disability can vary very widely.

Reminded me of this:

It seemed liked you almost agreed with me in a way here, but don't worry, I won't tell anyone. :D — Pro Hominem

No, I disagree with you. I think that your position is inherently controversial and inconsistent. First, you acknowledge the existence of institutional racism. The notion implies the institutional, systemic discrimination of a particular group of people. They are targeted and singled out as a specific community of colour.
Further, 'institutional' means the function of society's various institutions. They are culturally contextual; they are embedded in the social fabric and conventional everyday practises. It is the function of society as a whole. One may not be a racist consciously, but as a member of society, one unintentionally takes part in the discriminatory practices and benefits from their outcomes. Next, since one has not been discriminated, but has been benefited, as a member of the majority of the unjust and oppressing society, one necessarily bears responsibility for the beneficiary results of discriminatory practices. Even if you point out to the group of poor white people, it could be countered that in general, they would not have experienced the same obstacles as non-whites to achieve better financial or educational conditions.
Consequently, we come to the "white privilege" concept. You cannot embrace the notion of institutional racism and, at the same time, argue that "white privilege" is counterproductive and unnecessarily.

My dictionary has 'privilege' meaning

an advantage that only one person or group of people has, usually because of their position or because they are rich:
— Cambridge

a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor
— Merriam-Webster

I'm struggling to see how it is so obvious that its use in 'white privilege' is "just not what word means". Its meaning seems quite congruent to me, it's saying that freedom from certain types of oppression and restriction, the opening of certain opportunities is an advantage which white people have.

Being able to go about one's daily business with a lower chance of being arrested or shot by your own police force in certain parts of America is an advantage afforded to white people simply because they're white is it not?

That's right there in the dictionary definition. I'm not sure what your objection on semantic grounds is. — Isaac

You're going from 'advantage', 'right', 'favour' in the definitions to 'freedom from oppression' in your description, how is that not a shift in meaning?

Anyway the meaning of the word becomes quite clear if you look at its etymology, privi lege... private law. A law is generally applicable to everybody without exception. Privi leges then are private laws or rights that specifically only apply to certain individuals or small groups. The majority of whites don't have privileges in that sense... so it's just not accurate to say they do.

↪ChatteringMonkey

So the concept of privilege isn't contrary to any of your experiences. You simply feel it is patronising. — fdrake

The thing you are looking to describe with the concept privilege is not contrary to my experience. The concept however don't correspond with the thing that your are looking to describe. And yes, it does feel patronizing that you seem to think that this slight of hand with the meaning of the concept is necessary for me to adjust my behaviour.

Can't you see that this is the same mechanism that religions use to indoctrinate people... because they are stupid and can't be trusted to make up their own minds?
— ChatteringMonkey

So focus on the facts: do you find anything factually wrong with what material conditions accounts using the concept seeks to highlight? Privileges of able body and mind, race+ethnicity, income, gender... — fdrake

No, as I said above, I don't disagree that the phenomenon that your are looking describe is a thing. I just don't agree with the terminology being used.

but because it assumes that i'm in need of moral instruction in the first place
— ChatteringMonkey

I'm sorry that the idea that other people may be able to teach you things that have a shot of making the world, and you, better offends you so much. Are we so different that you only believe what you believe based on reason and no sentiment is involved? I doubt it, we are talking about your personal feelings of offence, not about the realities associated with privilege. — fdrake

Yeah I don't exactly come here to receive moral instruction, but to have conversations with people about all things broadly philosophical. And ideally I can learn some things from that, yes... but is it that unreasonable to expect that we let people decide for themselves on a philosophy board?

Very valuable points, thank you.



That's pretty funny, and I'm not going to go anywhere the issues raised in that story.

If you want to have a serious debate about whether your definition is standard, I'd be more than happy have it. It is not an argument you are going to have success in unless you care to appeal to some kind of authority. Your definition is barely coherent, race transcends any political structure, the white race doesn't belong to any country nor the black race to only America. The "power" structure behind racism would make being racist in a multinational forum such as this very difficult. Banno, streetlight, myself, we're not even American. The power structures that you're talking about - we don't even have access to them. A black American has far more resources in the political structure in America than any of us. Calling Banno a racist because he "oppresses" who? Black Americans?

Your definition would make the principal factor not the nature of the logic being used but the effect that it has and whether it oppressed someone. Which I'll tell you, is a very controversial word to be applying to a random citizen of a country. I was not unaware of your definition, which I always considered to be an ideological one based on leftist identity politics theory. Even on this forum, however, which is almost an ideological hub, I would have no pains finding more example of people here using my definition than yours.

Your logic of my "plan" makes no sense either, I made it clear from the start that I was calling Banno due to his comments about white people, whom by your ideologically informed definition, is a nonsense way to call someone a racist to begin with.

Systemic racism has far stronger connotations to oppression, at least that is clearly defined to be contained within a singular political structure.

Regardless of the definition of racism, your personal belief may be that "no one cares" about what I accused Banno of. Once again, I am worried for you, you don't have any idea that what you're talking about. Outside of the extreme left, people absolutely care. I care too and I don't give a shit whether Banno is "oppressing" someone or not. His comments were egregious examples of discrimination based on race, I'm embarrassed for him and angry at him for making such comments.

Are we not literally talking about that exact issue with the term 'privilege'? — Isaac

Yes, and I would feel comfortable disagreeing with a definition for privilege that you gave, regardless of how confident you sounded while saying how right yours was. It as likely, however, for me to stop using my definition of racism as it is for you to stop using yours. Which like I said, I am very happy to have a debate about which one is more common.

I think the direction you were taking the discussion about privilege was a good one and I'd be more than happy to have a similar debate about our definitions for racism. I see your definition as emphasising the importance of race, different rules apply to you based solely on your race and knowing your white privilege seems necessary, even just for knowing whether you're being racist or not. I'd likely be far more sympathetic to the white privilege framing if I agreed with your definition of racism. Of course, that would mean giving up the idea of being colour blind and judging peoples ideas on their merits rather than their identity.

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.
— creativesoul

↪Pro Hominem

That's it.

:smile:
— creativesoul

Ok, I understand what you are saying. I believe that the effect you are describing is real. Please keep that in mind - I am not saying that the effects of what you are describing don't exist.

Here are my concerns:
1. I see this as inexact. Specifically overbroad. It assumes that the experiences of all white people are more or less the same, it assumes that the experiences of all non-white people are more or less the same, and it assumes that the experiences of whites and non-whites are mutually exclusive - one cannot have the experience of the other. I think that individual experiences of racial prejudice are usually much more specific than this - one is mistreated for being black, or latin, or asian, etc - as opposed to the generalization of non-white. But that is in the realm of individual racism. In terms of systemic oppression, I think it is far more complicated than this model, which glaringly excludes economic factors and ignores that on the broadest scale, race is simply a tool of the oppression, not its object. — Pro Hominem

"White privilege" can be effectively used to shed light upon each and every injury suffered by non white individuals because they are non white. White people avoid suffering such injury because they are not non white. That exemption from liability, that immunity... is white privilege. This holds good regardless of any further particular discrimination.

Names assume nothing. They are not the sort of thing capable of doing so.

Semantic quibbles such as charges of "inexact" and "specifically overbroad" simply will not do here. They are just plain wrong on their face. All black, latin, and asians are non white.

Beside that, the very attempt to further discriminate between non whites is - in and of itself - prioritizing further discriminating based upon race. That renders you guilty of doing precisely and exactly what you're arguing against below.

...This statement is in itself racist, and supports a racially derived view of the world. I mean racist here in the sense of prioritizing race above all other factors... — Pro Hominem

Aside from the special pleading, hypocrisy, self-contradiction, and/or double standard being employed here...

Statements are not the sort of things that are capable of devaluing another group of people based upon the color of their skin(race) alone.

...It's a hard sell... — Pro Hominem

Perhaps for people who do not draw and maintain the actual and meaningful distinction between being racist and talking about race. Seems that such individuals abound.

"White privilege" when used in the best way, puts a white in the shoes of non whites...

Is that what's meant - or close at least - to perspective-taking?
— creativesoul

In strict logical terms, however, this is a fallacy - appeal to emotion (pity). I would also note that this type of argument is explicitly forbidden in legal proceedings because it is so often misleading and prejudicial.

I will admit that in ordinary social settings it can be persuasive, but it is still a play on the person's emotions, and not an appeal to their reason. If all you're trying to do is indoctrinate someone, it can work, but that person won't be able to effectively articulate their beliefs without further education. This is basically what Fox News spends all its time doing. — Pro Hominem

When one actually takes the time to fill in(properly understand what is meant by) "white privilege" they do so solely by virtue of taking into account injury sustained because one is non white. The sheer quantity of actual events is daunting, to put it mildly. To compare this to the sheer amount of misunderstanding and deliberate misinformation pervading Fox news is very insulting to many of those who you claim to share a goal with. With friends like that... who needs enemies?

Yet another performative contradiction...

By the way BLM also does exactly what you're arguing against doing on the one hand... I'm failing to see a coherent(lacking self-contradiction) position when I closely examine your language use.

What I find sad is that creativesoul argues that the white privilege framing is necessary to understand racism, meanwhile, it is the foundation for your discrimination. I am very interested creativesoul what do you think about Banno's comments, is this something you support? — Judaka

I've not read all of Banno's comments here. What I know about Banno is that he is very good at keeping things as simple as they can possibly be in order to make his point. If his point is that privileged people can take offense at being called "privileged", then it's made as soon as one who is privileged takes offense at being called "privileged".

It's also worth noting that BLM and "white privilege" are not mutually exclusive and/or incompatible. It's not as if one has to choose between the two. The implication is so wrong minded. Rather, one who is otherwise ignorant of systemic racism, but is not racist can be convinced to support BLM simply by virtue of becoming aware the different injuries(besides the flagrant shootings/murders) suffered by individuals because they are non white.

I don't think that was his point and I'm not sure what made you think it was.

I'm not sure who or what you're referring to. Care to fill me in, so I know?

If you're talking about Banno, then I would have to do a review of your conversation with him...

I am not asking you to comment on his comments to me. If a white person disagrees with the white privilege framing, is it fair to characterise them as "begging for the term not to be used because it offends them" regardless of what they say? Isn't that kind of discrimination something you told me the framing wasn't about?

We are seeing the unpleasantness of the white privilege framing rear its ugly head. Why wouldn't people oppose the term with ambassadors like @Banno demonstrating their own brand of racial discrimination while advocating for it? It's the same as usual, the same people who use the term inevitably demonstrate what makes it problematic.

Injury sustained by individuals because they were non white took place long before the name "white privilege" was first coined. They continue happening even as we speak. White people are exempt from such injury. In this very real sense...

"White privilege" simply picks out and further describes the exemption from such injuries. White privilege is extant in today's modern world as a result of a long standing system of public policies aimed at increasing the flourishing of white people and oppressing non whites. It is the result of systemic racism that we all know about.

Perhaps Banno is beside himself that people would be offended at this?

I find nothing in Banno's comments here that warrants calling him a racist. He is admittedly a grumpy old goat and a dick at times... that ought not be used by you as a means to continue being offended by a name.

"White privilege" is a name.

I've been in your shoes, on the other side of a debate with Banno. Had I allowed my personal offense stemming from his comments about me personally to cloud my judgment about something that was not about me personally, I would have missed so so many very good points that he is capable of making... I've learned a lot from Banno over the past decade or so. He's pissed me off a number of times...

If a white person disagrees with the white privilege framing, is it fair to characterise them as "begging for the term not to be used because it offends them" regardless of what they say? — Judaka

That takes it a bit farther than I would. Being offended by talk of "white privilege" is very shaky ground for denouncing it. People use "white privilege" as a weapon to belittle and/or attack someone. Such people are not using it in the way that I find best. With that in mind, it does not make much sense to denounce all uses based upon those, for those uses do not get it right to begin with.

It seems that much of the objections you came into this discussion with involve what you've called "leftist identity politics". You draw a direct correlation between "white privilege" and leftist identity politics. I'm assuming that you reject "identity politics" and perhaps a large part of your personal distaste for "white privilege" is based upon the strongly held belief that it is a kind of, or typical of, such leftist politics...

Is that about right(pardon the pun)?

Using the term "white privilege" doesn't give you a monopoly over opposition towards racism, you realise that right? There is no use trying to tell me "oh, didn't you realise this happens to non-whites, now you're finally beginning to understand" don't be deluded. I condemn it regardless of the skin colour of the person who does it and regardless of the skin colour it's being done to.

Yes, yes, I am well aware of simple you think the white privilege framing is. Banno is openly discriminating against white people using his prejudices and you're cool with it. It is pointless for me to look for common ground with someone like that. The exact same logic is applied but based on your race, Isaac may refrain from calling it actual racism, I can't look for common ground with someone who thinks like that.

There's really nobody in this thread who I disagree with who seems to have a similar condemnation of racism. The interpretative relevance of race is something to be maintained, the individual is to be understood through their identity.

Leftist identity politics just helps explain why certain people are so focused on race/sex/sexual orientation. Why the oppressor/victim narrative so central to understanding history for certain people. To understand the rules followed by certain people about how you can/should talk to or talk about someone from a "marginalised group". If you wrongly think that someone is coming to these conclusions on their own, by thinking honestly, then you miss the point. It's ideological possession, how else can you describe it? It is not natural for thinkers to have such similarities and such focuses in such specific contexts.

The white privilege framing starts to make sense when you buy into these narratives, the unfairness faced by marginalised groups needs to be addressed and the culprit is white people or as Banno says, "straight cis white males". Spend enough time on this forum and maybe you start to believe that's just the only way to think. It's another, new brand of discrimination and when using it, the white privilege framing doesn't sound so bad. I mean you can't even be racist to white people so what is the problem.

Anyway, I don't think I've made any progress with you since my first comments, we're back to "omg, you don't realise there's racism?!" I was interested to see if you actually applied what you preached but besides seeing you don't, I have not much interest in continuing a conversation.

I have not much interest in continuing a conversation. — Judaka

Well, I thought we were having an ongoing one. However, you've just (mis)attributed a slew of different ideas, sayings, emotions, and beliefs to me that actually came directly from, and live inside of... you. That reply is chock full of things that I've never said. You vehemently describe attitudes, beliefs, and all sorts of other thoughts that I do not have, nor have I expressed here...

I can only tell you that you've misunderstood.

If white privilege is to be viewed as a fact, and one denies facts, can it be called anything but ignorance? What else can I conclude but what I have?

Using the term "white privilege" doesn't give you a monopoly over opposition towards racism, you realise that right? — Judaka

Of course. Never believed otherwise. Have no idea why you felt the need to ask me such a question...

There is no use trying to tell me "oh, didn't you realise this happens to non-whites, now you're finally beginning to understand" don't be deluded. I condemn it regardless of the skin colour of the person who does it and regardless of the skin colour it's being done to. — Judaka

Again, what makes you think that that description of my approach towards you is accurate? Those words have not been written here by me about you.

Banno is openly discriminating against white people using his prejudices and you're cool with it. — Judaka

That's not an accurate depiction of my attitude. In fact, I'm not even sure what makes you think that he's openly discriminating against white people. Discriminating against white people is to devalue and/or hold the fact that someone is white against them. That's simply not taking place Judaka.

The interpretative relevance of race is something to be maintained, the individual is to be understood through their identity.

Leftist identity politics just helps explain why certain people are so focused on race/sex/sexual orientation. Why the oppressor/victim narrative so central to understanding history for certain people. To understand the rules followed by certain people about how you can/should talk to or talk about someone from a "marginalised group". If you wrongly think that someone is coming to these conclusions on their own, by thinking honestly, then you miss the point. It's ideological possession, how else can you describe it? It is not natural for thinkers to have such similarities and such focuses in such specific contexts.

The white privilege framing starts to make sense when you buy into these narratives... — Judaka

I've not mentioned any of these other things you're railing against. In fact, I suspect I'd join you in railing against at least a few of them. The way that I use "white privilege" makes perfect sense all by itself.

Set those notions aside...

The immunity from being injured because one is non white is something that only whites have. That's just the brute fact of the matter. Actually, that could use a bit of further qualification, because there are cases where white individuals have suffered harm from being mistaken as non white. However, those exceptions actually prove the rule, and trust me, it takes little to convince those whites that white privilege is real.

I mean you can't even be racist to white people so what is the problem. — Judaka

Here again is something that is not true. I've not said, nor do I support it's being said. Yet it's being used as though I have? That idea works from an emaciated notion of racism. Not all whites are racist. Not all racists are white.

Racism is devaluing another group of people because of the color of their skin(race) alone.

Anyway, I don't think I've made any progress with you since my first comments, we're back to "omg, you don't realise there's racism?!" I was interested to see if you actually applied what you preached but besides seeing you don't, I have not much interest in continuing a conversation. — Judaka

Here again, you're arguing with your own imagination; against your own thoughts about what mine are. Problem is that the words you use are neither the one's I have used nor ones that I would.

Perhaps. I ran into this issue with you earlier where you asked me if I wanted to be treated like black people are known to be treated by police and you said this was an innocent question with no implications. Which is not an easy thing to believe but I supposed it was the truth. I'll accept I've misinterpreted you. However, Banno is clearly holding pro hominem's whiteness against him, he is clearly devaluing pro hominem by insinuating that he is not capable of giving an honest moral opposition to the white privilege framing, he must be just upset about having his privileged called out. I do not know why you say that is not taking place, I am really surprised to have seen such an overt example and in this thread no less, if this isn't discrimination then I don't know what is.