What important truth do very few people agree with you on?

[red_pill]

Whites aren't necessarily more privileged than other races.

Men aren't necessarily more privileged than women.

Very persuasive arguments have been made asserting the opposite, and they are worthy of consideration and discussion.

I wouldn't bring this up with most people as I am a white male and would be swiftly slandered (I live in Seattle), but I think (hope) Mustachians can hear it without getting nasty.

I'm going to assume that this comes down largely to a particular interpretation of what white and male privilege are.

They don't mean that a member of one group has it better than a member of another, although it can. It specifically means that one group experiences challenges that are specific to being a member of that group that members of the other group don't experience.

You don't experience negative judgements and treatment of you because of the colour of your skin. People of colour do. Does that mean they can't transcend those particular challenges? No of course not, it just means that they deal with it and you don't. You have the privilege of not having to even think about it.

You don't have to worry about the texture of your hair being perceived as "unprofessional". It's just not something you need to think about, you can just get a normal haircut and go to an interview.

A poor white man born to addicts, who has low IQ and poor impulse control due to fetal alcohol syndrome, who was also malnourished as a child, lost his fingers to frostbite, and is addicted to meth is DEFINITELY not walking around with much privilege. But he still has white male privilege because none of his problems are *because* of his skin colour or his gender.

His issues are because he lacks
-wealth privilege
-intelligence privilege
-able bodied privilege
-social class privilege
-educational privilege
-mental health privilege

There are many different types of privilege. Don't look at it so much as the advantage that you have as a white male, just be open to understanding that there's just some crap you don't have to deal with because you aren't a person of colour or a woman.

As a white person who grew up living part time with a black family and having lived with a black man, there are just some things that I don't have to deal with that they do. That's my privilege being white. The biggest one being that I just expect police to see me as a nice, middle class lady who poses no threat whatsoever, which is exactly how police have always treated me. My ex? Not so much.

Now, my ex had all sorts of bougie privilege that I didn't growing up. He's also able bodied and I'm not. His life has overall been much, much easier than mine. But he doesn't have white privilege. He experiences particular challenges of being black that I will never have to deal with because I'm white. His life is so much easier than mine, but I never ever have police hover their hands over their guns when they see me, it never happens, ever, they smile at me and say "bonjour Madame". My life has been hard, but not *because* I'm white. His life has been pretty easy, but has certain difficulties mine doesn't *just because* he's black.
That's white privilege in a nutshell.

Does that maybe make a little sense?

This is one of the best break downs of identity politics I have ever seen, where the full possible spectrum of victimhood is on display and where it's always possible to put someone into a different group than yourself and explain why they have it better (or worse).

I feel like some folks here need to read "The Parasitic Mind" by Dr. Gad Saad.   Or watch some Jordan Peterson.

[GuitarStv]

Whites aren't necessarily more privileged than other races.

Men aren't necessarily more privileged than women.

Very persuasive arguments have been made asserting the opposite, and they are worthy of consideration and discussion.

I wouldn't bring this up with most people as I am a white male and would be swiftly slandered (I live in Seattle), but I think (hope) Mustachians can hear it without getting nasty.

Oh please, tell me more.

Sure. Regarding men vs women, men are more likely to...

- kill themselves
- be in jail
- get murdered
- overdose
- die on the job (all of the "death professions" are predominantly men)
- be homeless
- get killed in war they were forced to fight (the number of forgotten men sentenced to death via war over the course of history, including recent history, is unfathomable)
- die due to chronic illness

Regarding white privilege, Asian households have higher incomes than white households. If "systemic racism" and "white privilege" and "white supremacy" were the dominating forces a lot of people seem to believe, an obvious result (in my opinion) would be that white households would have the highest incomes.

Malcat, your theoretical white male meth addict without fingers, a low IQ due to fetal alcohol syndrome etc. sounds like he has such a miserable, disadvantaged existence that I personally don't see how, on a practical day-to-day level, there is any form of "privilege" in his life. At that point his "white male privilege" is pretty much just an abstract concept. In terms of his actual experience, his life is shaped almost entirely by disadvantages. So, practically speaking, he has no white male privilege.

To take a real life example, in Seattle, where I live, you could (pre covid) take a casual stroll through downtown, and you'd see many white people out on the streets living in squalor, but no Indian people. By contrast you'd see a disproportionate number of Indian people walking between the various Amazon buildings with their Amazon id's hanging from lanyards around their necks. I don't understand how the ideology of white privilege can thrive in a city where there are clear examples of minorities succeeding while lots of white people (mostly men) are living in total destitution.

jmwagner5, it is indeed ironic that by voicing my opinion I could lose my reputation etc. simply because I am a white male. That's an example of how being a white male is actually a disadvantage. I've had people try to silence me and claim my opinion is invalid because I am a white male and thus am too privileged to have a legitimate opinion. What's interesting is that I am half Jewish, and I recently learned that my great grandma on the Jewish side left eastern Europe in the early 20th century and went to New York. All of her siblings  stayed in eastern Europe and were killed in the Holocaust. There is a lot of trauma and dysfunction in my family, and it's difficult to know for sure but I think it's definitely possible that the obliteration of a large part of my recent ancestry played a role in that (due to an event more recent and just as ghastly as the enslavement of blacks). My dad is Jewish, which is one of the highest income demographics in America, but he was homeless when I was a child and lived in rent controlled housing for the last 20 years. The blanket assumptions made about "privileged white males" is grossly superficial and wrong.

A careful reading of Malcat's excellent response a few posts up would clear up the confusion you're still showing here.  But what the hell, I'll give summary a shot:

Privilege: a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group

White privilege simply refers to the daily advantage that a white person has when interacting with a society that still has deeply ingrained race based tendencies.  It's doesn't mean that every straight white male is better off than every woman, gay person, or minority.  It doesn't mean that being white makes you richer than an Asian person.  But having a disadvantage (of any kind) also doesn't remove white privilege.

[iris lily]

I'm curious, how socially acceptable is it for civilians in Switzerland to openly carry firearms?

Here in the Philippines, it's not normal to see ordinary civilians openly carrying, but is completely normal to have private security guards at the entrance of every establishment (banks, restaurants, malls, hospitals, schools, etc.) who openly carry shotguns or handguns.

I don’t know. Probably they don’t carry firearms often. But neither are guns scary or socially unacceptable in the general.

[samanil]

Whites aren't necessarily more privileged than other races.

Men aren't necessarily more privileged than women.

Very persuasive arguments have been made asserting the opposite, and they are worthy of consideration and discussion.

I wouldn't bring this up with most people as I am a white male and would be swiftly slandered (I live in Seattle), but I think (hope) Mustachians can hear it without getting nasty.

I'm going to assume that this comes down largely to a particular interpretation of what white and male privilege are.

They don't mean that a member of one group has it better than a member of another, although it can. It specifically means that one group experiences challenges that are specific to being a member of that group that members of the other group don't experience.

You don't experience negative judgements and treatment of you because of the colour of your skin. People of colour do. Does that mean they can't transcend those particular challenges? No of course not, it just means that they deal with it and you don't. You have the privilege of not having to even think about it.

You don't have to worry about the texture of your hair being perceived as "unprofessional". It's just not something you need to think about, you can just get a normal haircut and go to an interview.

A poor white man born to addicts, who has low IQ and poor impulse control due to fetal alcohol syndrome, who was also malnourished as a child, lost his fingers to frostbite, and is addicted to meth is DEFINITELY not walking around with much privilege. But he still has white male privilege because none of his problems are *because* of his skin colour or his gender.

His issues are because he lacks
-wealth privilege
-intelligence privilege
-able bodied privilege
-social class privilege
-educational privilege
-mental health privilege

There are many different types of privilege. Don't look at it so much as the advantage that you have as a white male, just be open to understanding that there's just some crap you don't have to deal with because you aren't a person of colour or a woman.

As a white person who grew up living part time with a black family and having lived with a black man, there are just some things that I don't have to deal with that they do. That's my privilege being white. The biggest one being that I just expect police to see me as a nice, middle class lady who poses no threat whatsoever, which is exactly how police have always treated me. My ex? Not so much.

Now, my ex had all sorts of bougie privilege that I didn't growing up. He's also able bodied and I'm not. His life has overall been much, much easier than mine. But he doesn't have white privilege. He experiences particular challenges of being black that I will never have to deal with because I'm white. His life is so much easier than mine, but I never ever have police hover their hands over their guns when they see me, it never happens, ever, they smile at me and say "bonjour Madame". My life has been hard, but not *because* I'm white. His life has been pretty easy, but has certain difficulties mine doesn't *just because* he's black.
That's white privilege in a nutshell.

Does that maybe make a little sense?

This is one of the best break downs of identity politics I have ever seen, where the full possible spectrum of victimhood is on display and where it's always possible to put someone into a different group than yourself and explain why they have it better (or worse).

I feel like some folks here need to read "The Parasitic Mind" by Dr. Gad Saad.   Or watch some Jordan Peterson.

Good point. The Parasitic Mind looks like a good one, I'll put that on my list.

GuitarStv, I prefer to call it a disagreement rather than me being confused. Though I don't rule out the possibility that my perception is off--I simply need to be convinced of that by a compelling argument.

[Tass]

Your exact points have been raised and countered a thousand times before. The arguments exist, if you want to look for them. I'm bored and would rather not have them here, personally.

Incidentally, Malcat would have my vote for the smartest person on this forum, and she's certainly among the most generous commenters. I've never read a post of hers that wasn't worth reading twice.

Anyway.... I hate loud cars.......

[ysette9]

Here's mine:
Obesity is only correlated with, not a cause of, bad health - and I don't think the correlation is as big as most seem to think.

I think it's a cause of (e.g. risk factor for joint problems and diabetes) as well as correlated with but I agree that both is not as high as most people think (there's actually research backing this).
 

I think the stance on lawns depends a lot on where you are. In a place where grass grows naturally in the wild due to sufficient rainfall then a lawn might not be a crazy idea, just a missed opportunity. In drought-prone and arid areas a lawn is both an extravagant waste of a limited resource and a missed opportunity. 

Natural "grass" isn't like a lawn at all though, it's loads of different species and very beneficial to wildlife (contrarily to a lawn).
Hm, upon re-reading I think that's what you meant with the missed opportunity :)

I certainly stand out in the US with my feeling that there is almost no reason for anyone civilian to have a gun in his or her personal possession.

Something I absolutely cannot get my head around - come to Europe and you'll agree with absolutely everyone except maybe some very crazy person ;)

Funny, all of DH ‘s male relatives are required to keep a firearm in Switzerland.

Switzerland is in Europe.

What kind of firearm? My limited understanding was it was more along the lines of rifles, not handguns. Can you clarify?

[Metalcat]

Your exact points have been raised and countered a thousand times before. The arguments exist, if you want to look for them. I'm bored and would rather not have them here, personally.

Incidentally, Malcat would have my vote for the smartest person on this forum, and she's certainly among the most generous commenters. I've never read a post of hers that wasn't worth reading twice.

Anyway.... I hate loud cars.......

That's a really generous compliment. Also, I too hate loud cars ;)

[Adventine]

Good point. The Parasitic Mind looks like a good one, I'll put that on my list.

GuitarStv, I prefer to call it a disagreement rather than me being confused. Though I don't rule out the possibility that my perception is off--I simply need to be convinced of that by a compelling argument.

Many very good arguments have already been raised in this thread, from Malcat and others, but if you don't think they are convincing enough, I'm not sure if more of the same will change your mind. At this point, experience may be a better teacher.

Once international travel restrictions relax, perhaps you can consider travelling, especially in developing countries, to experience how white males are treated and regarded in the wider world, and to observe the advantages afforded to certain groups by systemic racism and patriarchal structures.

[vand]

Here's mine:
Obesity is only correlated with, not a cause of, bad health - and I don't think the correlation is as big as most seem to think.

Well, chicken & egg.. BOTH are caused - to a large extent - by crappy diet. I'm pretty sure that every N=1 experiment ever done concerning improving one's eating habits has shown this to be the case.

[Dicey]

Here's mine:
Obesity is only correlated with, not a cause of, bad health - and I don't think the correlation is as big as most seem to think.

Well, chicken & egg.. BOTH are caused - to a large extent - by crappy diet. I'm pretty every N=1 experiment ever done converning improving one's eating habits has shown this to be the case.

IMO, in the US, we don't teach enough about dietary or fiscal health. Imagine if we did.

[iris lily]

Here's mine:
Obesity is only correlated with, not a cause of, bad health - and I don't think the correlation is as big as most seem to think.

I think it's a cause of (e.g. risk factor for joint problems and diabetes) as well as correlated with but I agree that both is not as high as most people think (there's actually research backing this).
 

I think the stance on lawns depends a lot on where you are. In a place where grass grows naturally in the wild due to sufficient rainfall then a lawn might not be a crazy idea, just a missed opportunity. In drought-prone and arid areas a lawn is both an extravagant waste of a limited resource and a missed opportunity. 

Natural "grass" isn't like a lawn at all though, it's loads of different species and very beneficial to wildlife (contrarily to a lawn).
Hm, upon re-reading I think that's what you meant with the missed opportunity :)

I certainly stand out in the US with my feeling that there is almost no reason for anyone civilian to have a gun in his or her personal possession.

Something I absolutely cannot get my head around - come to Europe and you'll agree with absolutely everyone except maybe some very crazy person ;)

Funny, all of DH ‘s male relatives are required to keep a firearm in Switzerland.

Switzerland is in Europe.

What kind of firearm? My limited understanding was it was more along the lines of rifles, not handguns. Can you clarify?

Long guns, yes.

[LovinPSDs]

Here's mine:
Obesity is only correlated with, not a cause of, bad health - and I don't think the correlation is as big as most seem to think.

Well, chicken & egg.. BOTH are caused - to a large extent - by crappy diet. I'm pretty every N=1 experiment ever done converning improving one's eating habits has shown this to be the case.

IMO, in the US, we don't teach enough about dietary or fiscal health. Imagine if we did.

just imagine.... Not sure if this is the truth people don't agree with or not, but it sure as hell needs some attention.

[BlueHouse]

Your exact points have been raised and countered a thousand times before. The arguments exist, if you want to look for them. I'm bored and would rather not have them here, personally.

Incidentally, Malcat would have my vote for the smartest person on this forum, and she's certainly among the most generous commenters. I've never read a post of hers that wasn't worth reading twice.

Anyway.... I hate loud cars.......

+100

[Dicey]

Here's mine:
Obesity is only correlated with, not a cause of, bad health - and I don't think the correlation is as big as most seem to think.

Well, chicken & egg.. BOTH are caused - to a large extent - by crappy diet. I'm pretty every N=1 experiment ever done converning improving one's eating habits has shown this to be the case.

IMO, in the US, we don't teach enough about dietary or fiscal health. Imagine if we did.

just imagine.... Not sure if this is the truth people don't agree with or not, but it sure as hell needs some attention.

If many people agreed with it, wouldn't be part of our compulsory education?

[2Birds1Stone]

9-11 was an inside job

*sees himself out of the room*


trololol

[totoro]

1.  The nuclear family model is overrated in many cases and has contributed to environmental issues.  It makes more sense, unless you don't get along with family, to live in a multi-generational household.  Growing up I saw those from Asian and Indian backgrounds make fast economic progress in my small town as they shared their resources.

2. North American food culture is a model to avoid.  This is changing somewhat but, again, Asian and Indian food cultures have done so much more with less and with much better health outcomes and, imo, taste.

3. It doesn't make sense for young adults to leave home as soon as possible, again assuming they get along with their family.   It makes way more sense to stay at home and save your money until you are ready to buy a home.

4. Early child development, relationship skills, and parenting basics should be taught in school.

5. Financial literacy classes should be mandatory in school.

6. If happiness is the goal then more people should focus on spirituality/religion. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/31/are-religious-people-happier-healthier-our-new-global-study-explores-this-question/

7.  Having kids at an earlier age is often preferable in the long-term for health, emotional and financial reasons if you have family support.  See one above and, in Canada, there are many financial supports for students with kids that make going to university and having children workable financially and via access to excellent university childcare services.

[Poundwise]

Malcat, your theoretical white male meth addict without fingers, a low IQ due to fetal alcohol syndrome etc. sounds like he has such a miserable, disadvantaged existence that I personally don't see how, on a practical day-to-day level, there is any form of "privilege" in his life. At that point his "white male privilege" is pretty much just an abstract concept. In terms of his actual experience, his life is shaped almost entirely by disadvantages. So, practically speaking, he has no white male privilege.

Samanil, this example guy's life, miserable as it is, would possibly be WORSE if he were black.

[Pizzabrewer]

That mushrooms are evil and unfit for human consumption.

[ChickenStash]

(This'll be fun)

1. If an able-bodied adult is "poor" for an extended period of time in a developed nation, the fault most likely is theirs, not society's. Here, poor means unable to get basic housing or food without gov't (society) assistance.

2. Public school is not responsible for teaching every skill a person needs to function. With the ability to read, write, and do arithmetic handled everything else is just a matter of grabbing a book, talking to someone, or hitting the internet.

3. Any loan that comes with a valid Truth in Lending statement isn't predatory.

4. Bacon is life.

[GuitarStv]

That mushrooms are evil and unfit for human consumption.

Mushrooms are my favourite non-chocolate food.  Sautéed enoki, shitake thinly sliced in stews/soups, roasted portabello, seared maitake, porcini mushrooms in risotto, or just butter fried white button mushrooms . . .


:P

[ChpBstrd]

2. Public school is not responsible for teaching every skill a person needs to function. With the ability to read, write, and do arithmetic handled everything else is just a matter of grabbing a book, talking to someone, or hitting the internet.

Ask the internet sometime:

-What happened on 9/11/2001?
-Are vaccines safe?
-Can a pill make my penis bigger?
-Can I get rich day trading?
-How does monetary policy work?

Anyone who believes what the internet says becomes dysfunctional. Given this observation, I think critical thinking should be added to the readin’, ritin’, and rithmatic list.

[Metalcat]

(This'll be fun)

1. If an able-bodied adult is "poor" for an extended period of time in a developed nation, the fault most likely is theirs, not society's. Here, poor means unable to get basic housing or food without gov't (society) assistance.

2. Public school is not responsible for teaching every skill a person needs to function. With the ability to read, write, and do arithmetic handled everything else is just a matter of grabbing a book, talking to someone, or hitting the internet.

3. Any loan that comes with a valid Truth in Lending statement isn't predatory.

4. Bacon is life.

Are you including mental health in your definition of able-bodied?

[Le North Dreamer]

(This'll be fun)

4. Bacon is life.

I would modify your 4th point - Home-made Bacon is life

[dougules]

I didn't realize there were so many people that hate lawns.  I feel like I'm the only one sometimes.  I hope to move somewhere with way less yard space after FIRE.  Here a yard is a constant fight with plant-life that is tenacious and aggressive.  For now I'm trying to get some trees going, because shade makes everything else more manageable.  A wooded yard just makes more sense in this area anyway.

I'm going to get hate for this, but I like attracting small wildlife to my yard because I have bored cats. 

[ChickenStash]

(This'll be fun)

1. If an able-bodied adult is "poor" for an extended period of time in a developed nation, the fault most likely is theirs, not society's. Here, poor means unable to get basic housing or food without gov't (society) assistance.

2. Public school is not responsible for teaching every skill a person needs to function. With the ability to read, write, and do arithmetic handled everything else is just a matter of grabbing a book, talking to someone, or hitting the internet.

3. Any loan that comes with a valid Truth in Lending statement isn't predatory.

4. Bacon is life.

Are you including mental health in your definition of able-bodied?

Yes.

[ysette9]

Malcat, your theoretical white male meth addict without fingers, a low IQ due to fetal alcohol syndrome etc. sounds like he has such a miserable, disadvantaged existence that I personally don't see how, on a practical day-to-day level, there is any form of "privilege" in his life. At that point his "white male privilege" is pretty much just an abstract concept. In terms of his actual experience, his life is shaped almost entirely by disadvantages. So, practically speaking, he has no white male privilege.

Samanil, this example guy's life, miserable as it is, would possibly be WORSE if he were black.

I’ve read that taking about privilege is a non-starter for some people for exactly what we saw here. People with legit challenges in life bristle at being told that they are privileged because they had to overcome so many obstacles. A better way to frame it is to talk about the ADDITIONAL challenges that people of color/LBGTQ/women/disabled/etc face. That is easier to swallow if the person can hear that what they faced was challenging and then can be asked to imagine additionally being more likely to be pulled over and arrested, dying at the hands of cops at a disproportionate rate, facing higher suicide rate, and so forth.

[Morning Glory]

Malcat, your theoretical white male meth addict without fingers, a low IQ due to fetal alcohol syndrome etc. sounds like he has such a miserable, disadvantaged existence that I personally don't see how, on a practical day-to-day level, there is any form of "privilege" in his life. At that point his "white male privilege" is pretty much just an abstract concept. In terms of his actual experience, his life is shaped almost entirely by disadvantages. So, practically speaking, he has no white male privilege.

Samanil, this example guy's life, miserable as it is, would possibly be WORSE if he were black.

I’ve read that taking about privilege is a non-starter for some people for exactly what we saw here. People with legit challenges in life bristle at being told that they are privileged because they had to overcome so many obstacles. A better way to frame it is to talk about the ADDITIONAL challenges that people of color/LBGTQ/women/disabled/etc face. That is easier to swallow if the person can hear that what they faced was challenging and then can be asked to imagine additionally being more likely to be pulled over and arrested, dying at the hands of cops at a disproportionate rate, facing higher suicide rate, and so forth.

"Additional challenges" is a good way to frame it:

I've gone through a lot at angst over feeling like I don't deserve to be depressed or upset about something because other people have it worse. Someone always has it worse. At least I have functioning organs.  Autism isn't the worst thing my kid can have. At least my miscarriages were in the first trimester. etc. "At least" isn't helpful.

I was tempted to tell the op on the work from home thread to check their privilege, because I work in healthcare. I decided not to because it would be just like saying "at least you have kidneys". Working in healthcare is an additional challenge, but it doesn't mean their challenge isn't real.

[chaskavitch]

"Additional challenges" is a good way to frame it:

I've gone through a lot at angst over feeling like I don't deserve to be depressed or upset about something because other people have it worse. Someone always has it worse. At least I have functioning organs.  Autism isn't the worst thing my kid can have. At least my miscarriages were in the first trimester. etc. "At least" isn't helpful.

I was tempted to tell the op on the work from home thread to check their privilege, because I work in healthcare. I decided not to because it would be just like saying "at least you have kidneys". Working in healthcare is an additional challenge, but it doesn't mean their challenge isn't real.

Oh my goodness, I have NO IDEA who said this, but I seriously copied it from the forum a few weeks ago so I could remember how it was phrased for future use.  So sorry to whoever wrote this originally!

"I agree people react poorly to being told they didn't succeed (only) because of their hard work. But if the question is convincing them to support specific policies (rather than just feel bad/guilty), in my experience this can be fixed with a simple flip of framing: "You succeeded because of your hard work, but other people work just as hard and don't succeed, because of the extra obstacles our nation put in their way." Frame it that way, an you get so much more buy in to removing whatever those specific obstacles are.

Similarly, talk to people whose own lives are hard about "privilege" and they'll have a very negative reaction. Privilege is something people shouldn't have in our nation, but if you're telling them they're privileged, it means you want to make their lives even harder. Talk about the same ideas but talk about the extra burden/handicap other people have to bear in our nation, and you get a much more positive reaction. Burdens and handicaps are also things that should be taken away, but working to raise up my neighbor makes me feel good, whereas working to tear myself down feels bad."

[Sailor Sam]

<boring things>

Well fuck me running! Turns out you actually are smarter than all those sillies who can’t analyze complex societal and socioeconomic issues and flawlessly laser in on what’s really going on. Hot damn, and you, a white ma...oh, wait.

[chemistk]

"Additional challenges" is a good way to frame it:

I've gone through a lot at angst over feeling like I don't deserve to be depressed or upset about something because other people have it worse. Someone always has it worse. At least I have functioning organs.  Autism isn't the worst thing my kid can have. At least my miscarriages were in the first trimester. etc. "At least" isn't helpful.

I was tempted to tell the op on the work from home thread to check their privilege, because I work in healthcare. I decided not to because it would be just like saying "at least you have kidneys". Working in healthcare is an additional challenge, but it doesn't mean their challenge isn't real.

Oh my goodness, I have NO IDEA who said this, but I seriously copied it from the forum a few weeks ago so I could remember how it was phrased for future use.  So sorry to whoever wrote this originally!

"I agree people react poorly to being told they didn't succeed (only) because of their hard work. But if the question is convincing them to support specific policies (rather than just feel bad/guilty), in my experience this can be fixed with a simple flip of framing: "You succeeded because of your hard work, but other people work just as hard and don't succeed, because of the extra obstacles our nation put in their way." Frame it that way, an you get so much more buy in to removing whatever those specific obstacles are.

Similarly, talk to people whose own lives are hard about "privilege" and they'll have a very negative reaction. Privilege is something people shouldn't have in our nation, but if you're telling them they're privileged, it means you want to make their lives even harder. Talk about the same ideas but talk about the extra burden/handicap other people have to bear in our nation, and you get a much more positive reaction. Burdens and handicaps are also things that should be taken away, but working to raise up my neighbor makes me feel good, whereas working to tear myself down feels bad."

You can't discuss privilege either because people immediately get in a tizzy about it. It's a cardinal sin to point out that people don't necessarily succeed only because they work hard. I think it's fairly obvious, but it's hard for people to understand that when they've never encountered real hardship in their lives.

I agree people react poorly to being told they didn't succeed (only) because of their hard work. But if the question is convincing them to support specific policies (rather than just feel bad/guilty), in my experience this can be fixed with a simple flip of framing: "You succeeded because of your hard work, but other people work just as hard and don't succeed, because of the extra obstacles our nation put in their way." Frame it that way, an you get so much more buy in to removing whatever those specific obstacles are.

Similarly, talk to people whose own lives are hard about "privilege" and they'll have a very negative reaction. Privilege is something people shouldn't have in our nation, but if you're telling them they're privileged, it means you want to make their lives even harder. Talk about the same ideas but talk about the extra burden/handicap other people have to bear in our nation, and you get a much more positive reaction. Burdens and handicaps are also things that should be taken away, but working to raise up my neighbor makes me feel good, whereas working to tear myself down feels bad.

Just giving credit where it's due!

[chaskavitch]

@chemistk Thanks so much!  @maizefolk I should have added your post the the "Best post I saw today" thread instead of just saving it for myself :)

[maizefolk]

Had no idea that post had left a big enough impression to be save-worthy. Thank you @chaskavitch & @chemistk!

[chaskavitch]

Had no idea that post had left a big enough impression to be save-worthy. Thank you @chaskavitch & @chemistk!

I've been having versions of this conversation recently with friends/coworkers who insist that they aren't privileged because "I worked hard to do well in HS / in college / at my job and I totally deserve where I am", and also lots of "if people really wanted to get out of (various places with few opportunities) they could totally do it if they just tried hard enough" bootstrapping conversations. 

Your post was a very well-worded version of what I've been TRYING to tell them without making them defensive.  I have trouble forming cohesive arguments on the fly, even when I know what I want to say, so it's nice to have a reference :)

[Metalcat]

Had no idea that post had left a big enough impression to be save-worthy. Thank you @chaskavitch & @chemistk!

I've been having versions of this conversation recently with friends/coworkers who insist that they aren't privileged because "I worked hard to do well in HS / in college / at my job and I totally deserve where I am", and also lots of "if people really wanted to get out of (various places with few opportunities) they could totally do it if they just tried hard enough" bootstrapping conversations. 

Your post was a very well-worded version of what I've been TRYING to tell them without making them defensive.  I have trouble forming cohesive arguments on the fly, even when I know what I want to say, so it's nice to have a reference :)

The problem with that nice, palatable explanation is that it is likely to be digested by the listener because it removes the difficult part of the discussion.

The difficult part is understanding that almost everything we have, regardless of the effort we put in to get it, is the product of inequality and comes at the expense of human dignity for others.

It's easy to accept a version of privilege where we get to stay perfectly entitled to our privilege and feel that others too should have it, but that's just fantasy.

[maizefolk]

The problem with that nice, palatable explanation is that it is likely to be digested by the listener because it removes the difficult part of the discussion.

The difficult part is understanding that almost everything we have, regardless of the effort we put in to get it, is the product of inequality and comes at the expense of human dignity for others.

It's easy to accept a version of privilege where we get to stay perfectly entitled to our privilege and feel that others too should have it, but that's just fantasy.

Ah.

So in that case you really are telling the hypothetical "white male meth addict without fingers, a low IQ due to fetal alcohol syndrome" that we as a society need to make his life even worse by taking away the privileges he still enjoys as a result of his race and gender? That is indeed a hard discussion. It is also a point I don't know that I agree with.

Yes, as hard as this hypothetical person's life as been, he is likely still stopped less often by the police than he would if he were black, and he is likely less at risk of being shot by the police than he would be if he were black. But reducing the frequency with which the police stop black people and reducing the frequency with which the police shoot black people doesn't have to mean increasing the frequency with which police stop and shoot white people, does it? He's also likely much less at risk of being a target of sexual harassment or assault than if he would be if he were a woman. Yet finding ways to reduce the number of women who are sexually harassed and assaulted doesn't have to mean making men more likely to be the target of the same harassment and assaults, does it? These shouldn't be zero sum tradeoffs.

Yet that's the message conveyed if we label the experience of not being stopped or shot the police and not being harassed or assaulted by friends, co-workers or strangers as a "privilege" rather than the baseline that everyone should be able to expect from society.*

*Even though obviously today our society falls far far short of providing that baseline to so many people.

[chaskavitch]

Had no idea that post had left a big enough impression to be save-worthy. Thank you @chaskavitch & @chemistk!

I've been having versions of this conversation recently with friends/coworkers who insist that they aren't privileged because "I worked hard to do well in HS / in college / at my job and I totally deserve where I am", and also lots of "if people really wanted to get out of (various places with few opportunities) they could totally do it if they just tried hard enough" bootstrapping conversations. 

Your post was a very well-worded version of what I've been TRYING to tell them without making them defensive.  I have trouble forming cohesive arguments on the fly, even when I know what I want to say, so it's nice to have a reference :)

The problem with that nice, palatable explanation is that it is likely to be digested by the listener because it removes the difficult part of the discussion.

The difficult part is understanding that almost everything we have, regardless of the effort we put in to get it, is the product of inequality and comes at the expense of human dignity for others.

It's easy to accept a version of privilege where we get to stay perfectly entitled to our privilege and feel that others too should have it, but that's just fantasy.

That's a good point.  I'm definitely still working through all of this myself, because I'm absolutely super privileged in my life, in so many ways, and I don't truly understand what the other side is like or how to change it.  I'm trying.

I feel like it's a good starting point.  Sometimes it's a big deal to get people to realize or admit that they have a leg up not only because of skin color or gender, but because their parents were both there, or they didn't have to work in HS, or they have a degree but no student loans, and that those things make a huge difference in how your life ends up, no matter what you want out of it. 

Having people not get angry at the beginning of these discussions because I'm "downplaying their achievements" or whatever definitely helps.

[Metalcat]

The problem with that nice, palatable explanation is that it is likely to be digested by the listener because it removes the difficult part of the discussion.

The difficult part is understanding that almost everything we have, regardless of the effort we put in to get it, is the product of inequality and comes at the expense of human dignity for others.

It's easy to accept a version of privilege where we get to stay perfectly entitled to our privilege and feel that others too should have it, but that's just fantasy.

Ah.

So in that case you really are telling the hypothetical "white male meth addict without fingers, a low IQ due to fetal alcohol syndrome" that we as a society need to make his life even worse by taking away the privileges he still enjoys as a result of his race and gender? That is indeed a hard discussion. It is also a point I don't know that I agree with.

Yes, as hard as this hypothetical person's life as been, he is likely still stopped less often by the police than he would if he were black, and he is likely less at risk of being shot by the police than he would be if he were black. But reducing the frequency with which the police stop black people and reducing the frequency with which the police shoot black people doesn't have to mean increasing the frequency with which police stop and shoot white people, does it? He's also likely much less at risk of being a target of sexual harassment or assault than if he would be if he were a woman. Yet finding ways to reduce the number of women who are sexually harassed and assaulted doesn't have to mean making men more likely to be the target of the same harassment and assaults, does it? These shouldn't be zero sum tradeoffs.

Yet that's the message conveyed if we label the experience of not being stopped or shot the police and not being harassed or assaulted by friends, co-workers or strangers as a "privilege" rather than the baseline that everyone should be able to expect from society.*

*Even though obviously today our society falls far far short of providing that baseline to so many people.

Lol, you know full well that that's a ridiculous twisting of my words pushed through leaps and bounds of logic that I never said. In no way does acknowledging the way in which people benefit from the injustice of others mean that we shouldn't try to improve the circumstances of those injustices. That makes no sense.

Nor am I able to or willing to try and evaluate the exact individual effects of various privilege on the individual.

What I'm saying is that not acknowledging the part of the privilege equation where those of us talking about it *do* benefit at the expense of others is IMO, an incomplete picture.

That's not to say that there isn't value in just breaking through someone's defenses, and that usually does require a more palatable, baby stepping process. What often happens though is that people just end there, at the point where it remains comfortable.

Making sweeping changes to improve all of the circumstances you described above requires a fair amount of discomfort.

[maizefolk]

Lol, you know full well that that's a ridiculous twisting of my words pushed through leaps and bounds of logic that I never said. In no way does acknowledging the way in which people benefit from the injustice of others mean that we shouldn't try to improve the circumstances of those injustices. That makes no sense.

Now I'm the one who isn't sure how you got what you are saying from what you wrote. I am saying we should try to improve the circumstances of those who suffer from unjust treatment in our society and that remedying an injustice doesn't inherently impose new injustices on those those who don't experience a particular injustice today.

The effort to lift everyone up to the level of "privilege" that those of us who have it consider the regular everyday way that everyone should be treated in the world doesn't seem like a fantastical goal to me (an extremely hard one yes, but not inherently impossible or contradictory), yet in your previous post that is what I understood you to mean by saying that "It's easy to accept a version of privilege where we get to stay perfectly entitled to our privilege and feel that others too should have it, but that's just fantasy."

If I misunderstand what you meant by that statement, I apologize. However, if so, I also remain confused with regard to your intended meaning.

[Metalcat]

Lol, you know full well that that's a ridiculous twisting of my words pushed through leaps and bounds of logic that I never said. In no way does acknowledging the way in which people benefit from the injustice of others mean that we shouldn't try to improve the circumstances of those injustices. That makes no sense.

Note: here I wasn't disagreeing with your points, I was disagreeing with your interpretation of mine

Now I'm the one who isn't sure how you got what you are saying from what you wrote. I am saying we should try to improve the circumstances of those who suffer from unjust treatment in our society and that remedying an injustice doesn't inherently impose new injustices on those those who don't experience a particular injustice today.

The effort to lift everyone up to the level of "privilege" that those of us who have it consider the regular everyday way that everyone should be treated in the world doesn't seem like a fantastical goal to me (an extremely hard one yes, but not inherently impossible or contradictory), yet in your previous post that is what I understood you to mean by saying that "It's easy to accept a version of privilege where we get to stay perfectly entitled to our privilege and feel that others too should have it, but that's just fantasy."

If I misunderstand what you meant by that statement, I apologize. However, if so, I also remain confused with regard to your intended meaning.

Yeah, we're kind of talking past each other.

My point is that a lot of action necessary to lift others up will come at the cost of those in positions of comfort. If people can't grasp their positions of privilege as being largely at the expense of others, they'll naturally resist changes that would uplift those others when those changes erode their own privilege.

That is absolutely NOT the same as saying that everyone should be stripped of every possible privilege that they can possibly have. That's some dystopian Vonnegut-style hell.

[maizefolk]

Yeah, we're kind of talking past each other.

My point is that a lot of action necessary to lift others up will come at the cost of those in positions of comfort. If people can't grasp their positions of privilege as being largely at the expense of others, they'll naturally resist changes that would uplift those others when those changes erode their own privilege.

That is absolutely NOT the same as saying that everyone should be stripped of every possible privilege that they can possibly have. That's some dystopian Vonnegut-style hell.

Okay, gotcha. Yes I completely agree with you that people in positions of comfort necessarily will be discomforted (and have to sacrifice things) in order to achieve real change. I'm certainly one of those comfortable people myself.

The place where we are talking past each other (and I really do apologize for this) is me proceeding on the assumption that, like some other folks I've seen discussing this same issue,* you see belonging to a privileged group as synonymous with an individual themselves being in such a position of comfort. It is the people who already are getting an extremely short end of the stick in society, regardless of their race and gender, where I think using the word "privilege" is actively counterproductive because it creates the deceptive impression that they are being asking to give things up, rather than lify their fellows up to a more level playing field with whatever sacrifices need to be made to achieve that end goal coming from people like me, not people like them.

*For example the hypothetical person I used came from a discussion between samanil and poundwise up thread about how such the hypothetical person still benefits from privilege on the basis of their race/gender, so I tried to imagine what giving up that "privilege" would actually look like.

[Metalcat]

Yeah, we're kind of talking past each other.

My point is that a lot of action necessary to lift others up will come at the cost of those in positions of comfort. If people can't grasp their positions of privilege as being largely at the expense of others, they'll naturally resist changes that would uplift those others when those changes erode their own privilege.

That is absolutely NOT the same as saying that everyone should be stripped of every possible privilege that they can possibly have. That's some dystopian Vonnegut-style hell.

Okay, gotcha. Yes I completely agree with you that people in positions of comfort necessarily will be discomforted (and have to sacrifice things) in order to achieve real change. I'm certainly one of those comfortable people myself.

The place where we are talking past each other (and I really do apologize for this) is me proceeding on the assumption that, like some other folks I've seen discussing this same issue,* you see belonging to a privileged group as synonymous with an individual themselves being in such a position of comfort. It is the people who already are getting an extremely short end of the stick in society, regardless of their race and gender, where I think using the word "privilege" is actively counterproductive because it creates the deceptive impression that they are being asking to give things up, rather than life their fellows up to a more level playing field with whatever sacrifices need to be made to achieve that end goal coming from people like me, not people like them.

*For example the hypothetical person I used came from a discussion between samanil and poundwise up thread about how such the hypothetical person still benefits from privilege on the basis of their race/gender, so I tried to imagine what giving up that "privilege" would actually look like.

Actually, that hypothetical person was generated by me in my first response on the subject, which is why I responded the way I did. By you invoking that example, I saw it as a direct response to the content I've written all along, not as a reply to only my last post in isolation.

Easy mix up.

[samanil]

Your exact points have been raised and countered a thousand times before. The arguments exist, if you want to look for them. I'm bored and would rather not have them here, personally.

Incidentally, Malcat would have my vote for the smartest person on this forum, and she's certainly among the most generous commenters. I've never read a post of hers that wasn't worth reading twice.

Anyway.... I hate loud cars.......

I know that these arguments exist--I read them in popular books. The prompt of this thread is what important truth do few people agree with you on--not what truth do you know that doesn't exist outside your mind. Sure, some people agree with what I am arguing. But in some circles, especially in academia, these ideas are regarded as offensive and heretical. People's reputations and careers have been ruined over these kinds of ideas (very unfairly). Jonathan Haidt expounds on this in his book The Coddling of the American Mind. So I think what I said fits the prompt. The fact that you don't want these arguments here ironically shows that they belong here! Indeed, so many people find these ideas so incredibly intolerable (again very unfairly), that free speech itself is being undermined. Jonathan Haidt, who considers himself either liberal or centrist, talks about this in his book. Others like Sam Harris, Steven Pinker, and Jordan Peterson all talk about this as well.

I appreciate the input I've gotten from Malcat here and in another post I did. She's clearly smart. But that doesn't automatically mean I agree with her :)

[samanil]

Good point. The Parasitic Mind looks like a good one, I'll put that on my list.

GuitarStv, I prefer to call it a disagreement rather than me being confused. Though I don't rule out the possibility that my perception is off--I simply need to be convinced of that by a compelling argument.

Many very good arguments have already been raised in this thread, from Malcat and others, but if you don't think they are convincing enough, I'm not sure if more of the same will change your mind. At this point, experience may be a better teacher.

Once international travel restrictions relax, perhaps you can consider travelling, especially in developing countries, to experience how white males are treated and regarded in the wider world, and to observe the advantages afforded to certain groups by systemic racism and patriarchal structures.

I've been to a dozen or so countries, quite a few of which were developing, including the Philippines.

One country I went to was Israel, where men have to serve a mandatory of 3 years in the army. Women only have to serve 1 or 2 and it's easier for them to get into non combat positions. That's a clear example of men having it worse than women. If you are a man born in Israel, the official rules put you at greater risk of being killed in war. And that has been the dynamic pretty much everywhere for all of history. How many women lived because men in their society died defending them, whether they wanted to or not? No one can answer this question, but the number is certainly immense.

I'm not arguing that one sex had it better or worse. But I am arguing against the concept of "patriarchy". In ancient Rome they had a practice called "1 in 10" where all of the (male) deserters were rounded up, and 1 in 10 of them were publicly clubbed to death to discourage deserting. Sure, Rome was ruled by powerful males. But there were countless forgotten men who were sentenced to death via war by those powerful men. The concept of "patriarchy" just looks at the elite men, and ignores all the forgotten ones who died for the benefit of others, including women.

This is a disagreement and a debate (which is great, I love debates)--not necessarily a situation where I need a "teacher" to enlighten me. It may be, but where I am coming from is informed by powerful teachers.

[Adventine]

Good point. The Parasitic Mind looks like a good one, I'll put that on my list.

GuitarStv, I prefer to call it a disagreement rather than me being confused. Though I don't rule out the possibility that my perception is off--I simply need to be convinced of that by a compelling argument.

Many very good arguments have already been raised in this thread, from Malcat and others, but if you don't think they are convincing enough, I'm not sure if more of the same will change your mind. At this point, experience may be a better teacher.

Once international travel restrictions relax, perhaps you can consider travelling, especially in developing countries, to experience how white males are treated and regarded in the wider world, and to observe the advantages afforded to certain groups by systemic racism and patriarchal structures.

I've been to a dozen or so countries, quite a few of which were developing, including the Philippines.

One country I went to was Israel, where men have to serve a mandatory of 3 years in the army. Women only have to serve 1 or 2 and it's easier for them to get into non combat positions. That's a clear example of men having it worse than women. If you are a man born in Israel, the official rules put you at greater risk of being killed in war. And that has been the dynamic pretty much everywhere for all of history. How many women lived because men in their society died defending them, whether they wanted to or not? No one can answer this question, but the number is certainly immense.

I'm not arguing that one sex had it better or worse. But I am arguing against the concept of "patriarchy". In ancient Rome they had a practice called "1 in 10" where all of the (male) deserters were rounded up, and 1 in 10 of them were publicly clubbed to death to discourage deserting. Sure, Rome was ruled by powerful males. But there were countless forgotten men who were sentenced to death via war by those powerful men. The concept of "patriarchy" just looks at the elite men, and ignores all the forgotten ones who died for the benefit of others, including women.

This is a disagreement and a debate (which is great, I love debates)--not necessarily a situation where I need a "teacher" to enlighten me. It may be, but where I am coming from is informed by powerful teachers.

Yep, doesn't look like you're budging from your position any time soon, then, and no amount of internet debate will seem to change your mind. I wish you well, but this particular conversation is no longer useful or productive for me to continue.

[samanil]

My point is that a lot of action necessary to lift others up will come at the cost of those in positions of comfort. If people can't grasp their positions of privilege as being largely at the expense of others, they'll naturally resist changes that would uplift those others when those changes erode their own privilege.

Could you flesh that out with some real world examples? You seem to be arguing that human flourishing is a zero-sum game, which I don't believe to be the case at all. A person can go from uneducated, unproductive, and unmotivated, to the opposite, and consequently their life can improve immensely, without someone else needing to give anything up.

Entire cultures have gone through huge positive transformations, simply because their values and ways of thinking changed. This is what happened throughout Europe and America during the Enlightenment.

Mustachianism itself is based on the idea that our own values and actions, which are thoroughly editable, determine whether we will have lives of happiness and abundance, or the opposite. When I decide to ride my bike instead of drive a car, I am benefitting in myriad ways from that decision, especially when compounded over years. Not just that, but everyone else in my society benefits too--less pollution, less traffic, etc.

[Tass]

The prompt of this thread is what important truth do few people agree with you on--not what truth do you know that doesn't exist outside your mind.

Your take is controversial, but not rare. I was hoping we could move on to cover a variety of interesting topics instead of rehashing this one for a whole page. There are other places to hold debates. Feel free to start a thread!

[samanil]

Good point. The Parasitic Mind looks like a good one, I'll put that on my list.

GuitarStv, I prefer to call it a disagreement rather than me being confused. Though I don't rule out the possibility that my perception is off--I simply need to be convinced of that by a compelling argument.

Many very good arguments have already been raised in this thread, from Malcat and others, but if you don't think they are convincing enough, I'm not sure if more of the same will change your mind. At this point, experience may be a better teacher.

Once international travel restrictions relax, perhaps you can consider travelling, especially in developing countries, to experience how white males are treated and regarded in the wider world, and to observe the advantages afforded to certain groups by systemic racism and patriarchal structures.

I've been to a dozen or so countries, quite a few of which were developing, including the Philippines.

One country I went to was Israel, where men have to serve a mandatory of 3 years in the army. Women only have to serve 1 or 2 and it's easier for them to get into non combat positions. That's a clear example of men having it worse than women. If you are a man born in Israel, the official rules put you at greater risk of being killed in war. And that has been the dynamic pretty much everywhere for all of history. How many women lived because men in their society died defending them, whether they wanted to or not? No one can answer this question, but the number is certainly immense.

I'm not arguing that one sex had it better or worse. But I am arguing against the concept of "patriarchy". In ancient Rome they had a practice called "1 in 10" where all of the (male) deserters were rounded up, and 1 in 10 of them were publicly clubbed to death to discourage deserting. Sure, Rome was ruled by powerful males. But there were countless forgotten men who were sentenced to death via war by those powerful men. The concept of "patriarchy" just looks at the elite men, and ignores all the forgotten ones who died for the benefit of others, including women.

This is a disagreement and a debate (which is great, I love debates)--not necessarily a situation where I need a "teacher" to enlighten me. It may be, but where I am coming from is informed by powerful teachers.

Yep, doesn't look like you're budging from your position any time soon, then, and no amount of internet debate will seem to change your mind. I wish you well, but this particular conversation is no longer useful or productive for me to continue.

Well no one has even responded to the fact of men being butchered en masse throughout history against their will, and how this challenges the concept of "patriarchy", so I have no reason to change my opinion.

But if you have no interest in the debate, that is your choice of course.

[samanil]

The prompt of this thread is what important truth do few people agree with you on--not what truth do you know that doesn't exist outside your mind.

Your take is controversial, but not rare. I was hoping we could move on to cover a variety of interesting topics instead of rehashing this one for a whole page. There are other places to hold debates. Feel free to start a thread!

It is rare in certain circles. Sorry I wasn't intending to muck up the thread with a heated debate, but I did feel like it had stirred up a discussion and wanted to respond to people.

Edit: I guess I don't really know the etiquette on this forum, as I'm pretty new here. I didn't know if this was a "say your idea and let it go" thread or a "say your idea and debate it with people" thread. I'm a natural debater and enjoy it, but if it's not appropriate for the thread I apologize.

[Metalcat]

The prompt of this thread is what important truth do few people agree with you on--not what truth do you know that doesn't exist outside your mind.

Your take is controversial, but not rare. I was hoping we could move on to cover a variety of interesting topics instead of rehashing this one for a whole page. There are other places to hold debates. Feel free to start a thread!

It is rare in certain circles. Sorry I wasn't intending to muck up the thread with a heated debate, but I did feel like it had stirred up a discussion and wanted to respond to people.

Edit: I guess I don't really know the etiquette on this forum, as I'm pretty new here. I didn't know if this was a "say your idea and let it go" thread or a "say your idea and debate it with people" thread. I'm a natural debater and enjoy it, but if it's not appropriate for the thread I apologize.

Welcome to the forum, we argue pretty much everything and then bitch about the arguing.
You'll get used to it.

I'm getting bored of this topic though, so I'm not going to engage on it further. That's also not unusual on the forums.

Don't worry about it, we're all here shooting the shit. Take from it what works for you, and don't get too worked up the rest.

It's the internet.

[Poundwise]

Well no one has even responded to the fact of men being butchered en masse throughout history against their will, and how this challenges the concept of "patriarchy", so I have no reason to change my opinion.

But if you have no interest in the debate, that is your choice of course.

I'll bite. We were talking about modern civilization, so your bringing up ancient Roman civilization doesn't seem relevant.  Though in the Roman Republic a man could legally kill his wife or daughter if they questioned his authority... all things being equal I'd rather have been a man in that society, preferably a free, rich one of course.

When you discuss privileges/additional burdens, you need to consider them with as many other factors staying equal as possible. So it doesn't make sense to compare a white male warehouse worker in Seattle to a female Indian American engineer, and say, "look, that Asian American woman is richer so minority discrimination doesn't exist!"  No, you need to compare a white male warehouse worker to an Asian American male warehouse worker... who gets paid more, who gets promoted for equal performance? Or compare the hiring, promotion, and pay of a female engineer to that of a male engineer of the same race and age.