Good question, there is no real answer to this. I am not one to take a nice act as just a nice act, there are simply too many benefits to being nice, too many different motives, fueling all kinds of identities and worldviews. I also believe that people are not entirely honest with themselves, we self-deceive so that others don't see us as the socially calculative beings that we have evolved to be.

I don't think there's any circumstance where there's nothing else going on and an act can be described as just pure kindness. However, I think that while some of the reasons for being nice are in fact calculative, self-serving or with too convenient an ulterior motive - there are many reasons for being nice that don't really mean that it is no longer fair to say that you were being nice.

So for me, I can look past the nice act and see reasons why it was done beyond a person simply being nice and I can still think they were being nice. If it makes someone happy or feels good to be nice, they're still nice and so on. Deciding what kind of ulterior motives invalidate the niceness of the act and which don't can be complicated and nuanced.

Then for actually characterising someone as nice, how nice do they need to be? If someone is nice 99% of the time but then does something really horrible for the other 1% then we likely wouldn't call them a nice person but actually a really horrible person. Yet even that can be very controversial, ultimately everyone just needs to make up their own minds on it.

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

Read my posts on this page.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'm not saying everything is a privilege, I'm just asking you to acknowledge the things behind success or better treatment which are outside of our control. — BitconnectCarlos

You are totally missing the point, @Asif shows he is not missing the point and countered your characterisation with a characterisation of his own. You, on the other hand, are trying to make this into a truth issue. You're explaining to me that people are born with differences and we can rank these differences by how advantageous they seem like I'm trying to argue against that.

I have told you, this is not an issue about what the truth is, it's an issue of framing and interpretation. Just like Banno, you want to validate the framing by the fact that what you're saying is true but that's not actually a justification that explains why you choose this framing over the others... because there are many options and none of them are disputing the facts.

Again, technically speaking, white privilege isn't saying anything untrue - the statistics back up most of the claims being made. How we look at attractiveness and intelligence is changed when we describe it or even refer to it as an "unearned advantage" and in this way your framing becomes a philosophical position.

All that is clear to me is that you don't realise that and you believe you are kind of just stating facts when you're not. You're simply showing that you cannot tell the difference between facts and characterisations, interpretations and framing.

I am already significant.

I don't consider myself to be on the right. I have different opinions on different things and who I happen to agree with is not usually of interest to me.

Privilege is not a pursuit of the truth, privilege is not a truth, it is a framing and interpretation issue. Privilege does not exist in the real world, it is something we create as a characterisation of things that exist in the real world. It is a category, a group of physical attributes or social circumstances that constitute some kind of special right or benefit.

If we never used the word privilege in this context again, in what way would the "pursuit of truth" be hampered?

We can analyse the effects of intelligence and attractiveness, we do, in fact, but they're separate things, nothing is really gained by throwing them into a "privileges" category. You are treating the characterisation like it's an unpleasant truth that I want to sweep under the rug but calling every desirable attribute a privilege is so far away from a "pursuit of the truth" that you're simply kidding yourself. It is a philosophical position, an insidious interpretation of desirable characteristics that I can write on and on about all of the ways in which it promotes negativity.

I am not interested in hiding from unpleasant truths but I am also not interested in accepting unpleasant interpretations, framing or emphasises. I am sorry to rebuke you when it seems you are trying to agree with me but how can you say that categorising privileges is a pursuit of the truth?

Well, I understand where you're coming from and I'm not really saying you're wrong just that I'm not sure to what extent you're right. In any case, trivial matters, I agree with all of your arguments.

You have not accepted your position as the epicentre of your universe, you who dictate meaning and you who interpret and characterise all things. Your conceptualisation of me would be obliterated by the vast differences in our viewpoints if it somehow crossed into my consciousness. Why should I concern myself with the laws of another land? I only point out the finality of your positions in the event of your death.

Imagine you were asked to die for your ideals, you could die feeling you did what you thought was best but then nothing. Absolutely nothing, for all eternity.

It's important not to get trapped in the language here, yes the leftist framing of privilege uses the word privilege but it's not talking about what you are. The only similarity between the leftist identity politics framing of privilege and yours is that the word is applicable to both. I am not preaching to you but contextualising for you what we're talking about. When Banno asks you to "understand your privilege" he's not talking about your attractiveness or intelligence and he's not trying to, he is specifically talking about your race/gender/sexual orientation under the leftist identity politics framework. He has no interest in asking you to "check your intelligence privilege" and they have no interest in expanding the narrative, neither do I because I don't like the framing to begin with.

Now I'm sure some of the left takes interest in other privileges but there wasn't anything useful about it when it was applied here and there isn't anything useful about it applied elsewhere.

What people completely fail to understand is that the issue here is NOT the truth, everyone knows that people are born with different levels of intelligence, attractiveness and wealth. It's about characterising these characteristics, are they blessings, privileges, are they just part of who you are and what are the implications for someone who has these characteristics within each framing? Do people have a responsibility due to their wealth? That's part of what is being discussed here.

Another part is emphasis, we are creating a characterisation of your personal characteristics and putting a spotlight on it. Something everyone already knew, like that it's better to be attractive but maybe it becomes part of someone's day to day thinking when it wasn't before. Maybe someone who was happy with how they looked becomes increasingly self-conscious.

What is the benefit in sorting people into privileged and unprivileged categories? I only see spite, jealousy, discrimination, self-esteem issues, self-confidence issues and the like.

If someone wants to be proud of their intelligence or attractiveness, let them be, what's the point in insisting that it's a special privilege of theirs? It is just part of who they are anyway, it does in fact belong to them and there's nothing malicious about it.

If you want to look at how society treats characteristics then that's different, there could be improvements to be made there. Like how we are becoming increasingly superficial due to dating apps where you make a decision purely based on looks.

Once again, the actual claims being made when people are talking about privilege are not necessarily incorrect. I didn't need the facts to be made in an argument about privilege to know about them but I'm not going to argue against them, I don't dislike them, it's actually totally irrelevant. I accept that systemic racism exists but that doesn't mean I accept the concept of white privilege - because it's a terrible, insidious framing. The characterisation is not justified simply because part of the argument has unquestionable facts. This really extends to the entire conceptualisation of privilege except in perhaps the most extreme of cases such as children of the uber-rich.

I think this topic is discussed a lot because even though racism might not be something many of us encounter nor something we ourselves are guilty of, we are bothered by the senselessness and unfairness of it. Personally, I think a lot of that feeling is logically undermined by some of the solutions people employ and that includes conceptualizing race as more than it is. Race being something so important and such a potent connection that one could be culpable for what another did by virtue of being the same race. To me, that completely undermines what makes racism so wrong.

We do have a moral responsibility to stand up against racism and condemn past injustices but it is a personal responsibility as a moral person, who stands up for others and won't sit silently while evil is done. One's race is not an obstacle to participating in this endeavour to end racism, to condemn what has happened and help shape a better future.

Personally, I'm a nihilist and I don't really believe there is further legitimacy than my own opinion when it comes to moral matters. However, as a human and a pragmatist and someone who hates stupidity and senselessness, I have things I must condemn and racism is on that list. To stop racism, I must agree with OP and say that the framing around race issues is messed up and the solution shouldn't be framed using the same framing that the slavers did, whom we unilaterally condemn.

I agree with the main theme of what you had to say, though I wonder if your views aren't a bit Eurocentric, slavery also predates white supremacy. I am not really convinced that the conceptualisation of race came about because it was pragmatic or that its continuation was based off that either.

I think that society is taking an entirely incorrect approach to race because of the failure to identify that the problem is this emphasis of the importance of someone's race. There is no interest in condemning this practice, the conceptualisation of the problem seems to be that the non-white races have been treated unfairly and there is an injustice to be redressed. Sadly, this means continuing to make race one of the most significant features of a person.

Many will agree with that race shouldn't matter but are unwilling to end their role in perpetuating its importance. The moral importance of correcting past and current injustices committed against races outweigh alternatives. There is also a reticence to undermine the perceived positive features of cultures which "belong" to races.

The next problem is that another way of rejecting white supremacy has been to celebrate non-white races, giving them unique properties, a unique voice, to associate their culture and history with the race while putting a positive spin on it. All of which is identical to how racism has always functioned, I think what was called racism is being reformed into a kind of positive racism. Where races have their own unique properties but these properties must be desirable.

Well, that is true based on your experience... the very thing that will end once you die. What you believe while you're alive can be evaluated in any number of ways, take your caring about the future for instance. You feel hopeful, excited, passionate and I think this makes your belief a good one. For all your logic and argumentation, you are what decides whether your belief is good or not. I hope you can live and die believing humanity will continue, none of it will matter afterwards.

There is no great revelation to be had by knowing the conceptualisation of privilege in so far as people are born with advantages over others. This is absolutely obvious, however, that is not what privilege is about. Privilege cannot be separated from leftwing identity politics and this much is obvious. When I read you, I imagine you may be talking about intelligence, attractiveness, access to resources, talents, etc. It doesn't matter how or why you have these things but that you do and since it is very human to value these things, it'd be an odd case for someone to not want them.

If all privilege was saying was that some individuals are born into better circumstances than others then who can argue with that? Even if you want to conceptualise that within a country, who can argue with that?

Privilege does not do this and has absolutely no interest in privileges that do not fit into leftist identity politics theory. The narrative is that your privilege is based on your gender, sexual orientation and race. Your race is advantaged or disadvantaged based on which races were historically oppressors vs oppressed. Men oppressed women, whites oppressed everyone, cis straight oppressed other.

Your experience in this world is shaped by your gender, sexual orientation and race. 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.

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.

There is no existential nihilism here, I am happy to live in the world the way it is but my truth must take precedence over fantasies and other conceptualisations. Your truth is that anyone but you can die and life goes on but when you die all that you ever perceived will be perceived by you no more. Your narratives only exist to entertain and inspire you while you're alive, it's a story that you tell yourself, a story that ends with you.

When you die the universe will be sucked into the abyss and nothingness will reign for eternity.

No, it quite clearly isn't going anywhere, virtuous things are virtuous end of story.

I'm interested to hear this argument, I've yet to.

Err true, it is the antithesis of OP, I got confused between posters.

What kind of argument is that Banno, the conceptualisation of privilege is good because recognising one's privilege is virtuous?

Pity, I thought you could do better.

Truth vs Framing vs Interpretation, it is not a matter of listening, recognising and understanding. Leftist wrap themselves in their sympathies, compassion, indignation and knowledge and are satisfied that what they are saying is both righteous and true, good enough. However, it's not, those things do not justify any kind of framing and any kind of interpretation nor any kind of solution that you see fit. Of course, when I say you, I mean the ideology you subscribe to.

I don't doubt that you can defend your sympathies, compassion, indignation and that you know more or less the facts surrounding the issues you want to talk about. What I would like to hear is a defence of your framing and interpretation, that is "privilege" because that's actually what needs to be defended. OP can say people should "renounce privilege" like a moron but 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?

The question isn't an implied accusation? Then it is simply a terrible question, it is like asking "would you like to be harassed and unfairly imprisoned?"

Your point of view doesn't have a monopoly on sympathy towards the oppressed or hatred towards unfairness. You are not in a position to question my sympathies towards the victims of systemic racism, I believe your purpose is insidious.

I know of no solution to systemic racism that benefits from the concept of privilege, you have no moral highground, you just have an ineffectual approach and that's me being kind.

I am aware.

That's pretty much the same question I just refused to answer.

Yes, why don't you spell out for me what your question is trying to insinuate?

That's not a serious question, it's a dishonest one.

How to refer to the groups of race, gender and sexual orientation? They're characteristics and relatively meaningless ones at that. Their meaning, their importance, opinions on them, a responsibility given to them, issues blamed on them, all of it is senseless. There's not much that you can reasonably say about a person based on their skin colour and I don't think races mean much at all in any context.

Groups are really difficult because characterising them is very subjective and the leftist characterisation is particularly malicious. It promotes the senseless discrimination I despise and there's no payoff.

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

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

Admitting you are depressed isn't that different from saying that you have a kind of physical wound, of course, people are going to recommend that you get it treated or offer you aid. Depression isn't an intellectual position, it's a mental illness that nobody would choose for themselves and someone in this state of mind either has ideas helping to cause their depression (which is bad) or has ideas shaped by their depression.

That's the issue with illnesses that affect the mind, it is disrupting one's thoughts and interfering with one's ability to think clearly.

Moral relativists have complete freedom, there are no real logical conclusions that can be drawn from it. It is absolutely possible to be the most bigoted, aggressive moral relativist who believes in the righteousness or pragmatism of their ideas and will want the harshest penalties for offenders.

I can dislike PC without liking the practices of other people who dislike it, I see what you're saying but PC has real meaning, that meaning to me hasn't been eroded by what you're talking about. There's clearly a lot of baggage around the term but I didn't join up with anyone by disliking PC and identity politics, I can think for myself.

PC is just a term for an ideology, closely linked to identity politics, generally held by the same people and I really dislike both but I didn't come to represent someone other than myself.


When we are talking PC, there's a specific kind of offence that is measured by a specific philosophy. It's not egalitarian, it's about identity politics and protecting the disadvantaged groups in society. It's about placing a priority on sparing people from getting offended or triggered rather than stopping actual racism and sexism. It's about acknowledging racial histories and the history of female disenfranchisement and seeing modern people in the light of those stories. And of course, assuming every second person is a racist and sexist even if they say they're not.

I don't think my interpretation of racism and sexism has a place, I think anyone besides the far left is not going to feel represented by it. That's the problem with it.

Yes, but is morality nurtured by cultures and philosophy from nothing or is morality a component of human nature?

I am not sure morality is something that is undermined by nihilism, only many philosophies surrounding morality are.

Identity politics has real meaning, political correctness has real meaning, as does the term progressive, the rest are just slurs and not real terms.

If you want to look at political correctness with rose-tinted glasses then the aim is to reduce racism, sexism and bigotry. It's the very process I advocate for dealing with these things, I want people to call others out on their racist and sexist views and insults because that's how it's stopped.

If you're going to describe PC as something different then you need to also accept that what is being criticised is not your version of PC but something else. Political correctness is deeply related to the far left and identity politics and that matters for peoples' perception of it. It also matters for how PC exists, how and where it's enforced.

I don't know why other people dislike PC, that's got nothing to do with me. I see that you're on the left and will characterise your political opponents in the way that makes them look the worst just as you will be characterised by your political opponents in the way that makes you look the worst. You'll say people dislike PC because they want to be assholes, they'll say you like PC because you're a snowflake. It's not less unsophisticated, juvenile bullshit just because the other side does it.

I'm not going to get into a debate about the public perception of PC and whether it's fair or not, of course, it's all politics.


No, I disagree, I think being courteous doesn't need a synonym, be courteous to be courteous. Even criticise others for being discourteous, that's fair. The problem with PC is that it's extremely political, unlike being courteous.

PC is more than just the concept of PC, it's about how it's implemented, by who, where and for what?

Morality can be philosophised about - like anything but do you believe morality is a philosophical position, is that what morality is? Is it a belief that can be undermined by nihilism?

That's a question less to do with political correctness as an ideology and more as political correctness as a force that can exert influence over me. To which the answer is that it has none. See, I really don't want to hyperbolise the issue of political correctness, which I feel you're asking for with your question.

Political correctness is tied to identity politics in, where the sex/race differences are emphasised dramatically and some groups are privileged while others are disadvantaged. If you want to criticise issues that can be linked to disadvantaged people (everyone except white men) then be careful.

Whether it's Islam, immigration, "cultural appropriation", multiculturalism etc or equality of outcome, the gender pay gap, the experiences of the oppressed. Really, any topic that you want to talk disparagingly about which can be in someway linked to an oppressed group is going to come under scrutiny, why? Because you risk offending the disadvantaged peoples. I can't really believe that you're just totally unaware of this aspect of political correctness.

What's the bad side of being courteous towards other human beings? Nothing. What's the bad side of political correctness? Controlling language, cancelling events, virtue signalling, emphasising sex/race differences, imposing ideological stances on others, shutting down debates, it's a significant component of outrage culture.

It's less about the cases where someone being "politically correct" is being courteous, big deal, everyone should be courteous.

What do you think morality is? A philosophical position? A psychopath is someone who just disagrees with normal philosophical stances people decided on?