Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists



- Sun, 09 Oct 2016 04:49:29 EST 2PqYhULY No.206995
File: 1476002969182.jpg -(51829B / 50.61KB, 1200x739) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Privilege
In my sociology class last week, we all lined up and took steps forward or back based on whether or not our answer to a question was privileged or not. I took the most steps forward, being a tall white male of middle class origin.
What do you think of this exercise? Has your privilege ever been checked?
Priscilla Saddlewater - Sun, 09 Oct 2016 08:51:35 EST pFY4w8XI No.206996 Reply

damn did this really happen?
I'm a sociology graduate and there's no fuckin way i'd have ever participated in something like that. Are you in the states?
Eliza Gebberdock - Sun, 09 Oct 2016 15:22:25 EST 0aDGMcny No.206999 Reply
Why? As a sociology graduate you must recognize the purpose of the exercise. What's the problem?
Matilda Gibbleket - Sun, 09 Oct 2016 17:03:23 EST aEaeNBh+ No.207000 Reply
Nice fake story faggot.

You have to go back. Back to the cancerous shithole you came from.
James Harringwill - Sun, 09 Oct 2016 18:54:44 EST 2PqYhULY No.207001 Reply
It's not a fake story. It wasn't part of the curriculum, some black adopted ham-beast brought it up and the teacher decided to try it.
Hugh Grandwater - Mon, 10 Oct 2016 18:20:18 EST 7sJ/68Ak No.207004 Reply

The problem is that it singles people out and others them for being privileged. You can discuss these things without turning it into some creepy ritual.
Ernest Snodhood - Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:21:35 EST 54PBc7Id No.207013 Reply
The Number 1 problem with checking your privilege is that, in reality, it's more like 'checking your whiteness, masculinity and success'. Everybody has privileges unique to themselves, but god knows they'll never own up to it. Ask black people or women to own up to the privileges that come with being black or being a woman, the perks to the two that us white men will never know, and they go ape shit. It's impossible to compare privilege when only one section of privilege is up for discussion and not all sections of privilege.

Like most modern activism, this is just another way to undermine the white man and claim that us white men don't deserve what we've got, even though in reality people only get what they deserve, nothing more, nothing less, and what we deserve has nothing to do with who we are or what we do, but simply luck of the draw. We can't control the environment we're born into.
Ernest Snodhood - Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:22:43 EST 54PBc7Id No.207014 Reply
Humans are stupid, petty, selfish creatures who can't help but get jealous of what their neighbor has that they don't have, yet care nothing about the things they have that their neighbors don't.
Shitting Greengold - Fri, 14 Oct 2016 04:42:12 EST aEaeNBh+ No.207037 Reply
You have to go back. Back to 4chan. With your retarded faggot fake story.

Go back. You have to go back to 4chan.
Jenny Hassledock - Fri, 14 Oct 2016 20:00:17 EST 0SaDx0CI No.207046 Reply

You should say that in /pol/.

You'd get shitposted for months.
James Dartforth - Fri, 14 Oct 2016 23:27:01 EST KHIc212+ No.207048 Reply
1476502021168.jpg -(203759B / 198.98KB, 728x700) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Can confirm. They do shit like this at my school all the time.

I mean yeah, this society definitely favors whiteness over blackness in certain ways I won't deny that. I won't deny blacks live in poverty disproportionately to whites and a lot of that has to do with slavery, discrimination, etc.

But the more you listen to these facilitators the more you see the constant contradiction in their ideology. They know what they don't like about society, but they don't know how to get there and I think they have even less of a grasp on how things are the way things are. As a result I think they've just elected to shame 'the shamers' instead. Ie. middle-class, impressionable, white college kids with guilt complexes.
In their minds, all white folk are the perpetrators because (I believe) they have made little sense of the complex predicament of being black in America.

Some examples-
  1. They claim individualism is a racist ideology by nature, because it limits white folk to empathize with blacks and its an ideology favored in Europeon society. However, they also claim that all white folk, by nature, are inherently racist and therefor any action to change the status quo would result in unconscious perpetuation of white supremacy. So all white folk can do is educate other white folk. But isn't just merely educating others an act of individualism?
  2. They said they want black folk integrated completely into white society, but they don't want whiteness involved in their own cultures.
  3. They claim that having an either/or attitude is racist. However they claim that one is either racist or nonracist. They also claim being white makes you automatically a perpetrator of racism. But isn't racist/nonracist & white = racist an example of either/or?

So yeah, I don't put too much stock into these events when we have to go to them at school. Initially they made me kind of uncomfortable, but now it just seems like a big joke to me the more I hear these facilitators talk themselves constantly into holes.

Anyway, yeah. Sucks OP. I feel ya. Uncle Charlie was right. Heltker Skelters a comin'.
Nigel Goodworth - Sat, 15 Oct 2016 04:58:31 EST aEaeNBh+ No.207050 Reply
>They claim individualism is a racist ideology by nature, because it limits white folk to empathize with blacks and its an ideology favored in Europeon society. However, they also claim that all white folk, by nature, are inherently racist and therefor any action to change the status quo would result in unconscious perpetuation of white supremacy. So all white folk can do is educate other white folk. But isn't just merely educating others an act of individualism?

Only a fucking retard would claim white people are racist by nature. Because white people are just mutant africans. White people are racist by culture.

>They said they want black folk integrated completely into white society, but they don't want whiteness involved in their own cultures.

Sounds like retarded bullshit too. Multiculturalism will always cause a blending of cultures, which goes both ways.

>They claim that having an either/or attitude is racist. However they claim that one is either racist or nonracist. They also claim being white makes you automatically a perpetrator of racism. But isn't racist/nonracist & white = racist an example of either/or?

This doesn't even make sense. You should rewrite your post, or you're just full of contradictory retarded /pol/ shit. And you just made all your examples up.
James Dartforth - Sat, 15 Oct 2016 09:21:53 EST KHIc212+ No.207051 Reply
1476537713168.jpg -(30444B / 29.73KB, 356x500) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Lol I assure you, I don't frequent /pol/.

I don't know why your getting all buttmad at my post. I'm not really taking a side in the matter. I'm pretty indifferent to it all. I just went to a few 'building empathy' workshops and the stuff I wrote is literally all stuff they said.
Except the white people racist by nature. You're right, they meant white people are racist by culture. That was a mistype on my part.

I received some handouts with all this stuff written down. I'll take some pics and post them later if you really don't believe me.
James Dartforth - Sat, 15 Oct 2016 11:04:22 EST KHIc212+ No.207053 Reply
1476543862168.jpg -(1608060B / 1.53MB, 2448x3264) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Yeah, I wrote the Charlie shit sarcastically, but in hindsight I should of omitted it. Sarcasm doesn't translate well on imageboards. Clearly I don't believe Charles Manson had anything of real value to say or believe in.

So yeah, here is an example of what we were given in the workshops.
Shitting Hunnerchork - Sat, 15 Oct 2016 16:24:11 EST FSAozKjO No.207056 Reply

This is odd

A lot of these are generally good thoughts but I fail to see how race is relevant.
Nicholas Dullerville - Mon, 17 Oct 2016 10:38:49 EST 54PBc7Id No.207066 Reply
What an utter crock of shit.
First of all, effort is worthless. If effort yields nothing, then the effort is worthless and cannot be appreciated. Whoever's effort yields little to no results needs to be fired because clearly they're not where they should be.
And fuck their anti-urgency bullshit. People have expectations. If you cannot finish something within the expected time-frame, then move the fuck over and let someone else who's faster do it, or learn to move faster. It's not rocket science.

What is this Marxist bullshit they're teaching you? These are not the philosophies of successful capitalists or successful people in general, these are the philosophies of the weak and the leeching.

Human life isn't valuable. Human effort isn't valuable. The only thing valuable is the outcome of either. And anyone who tells you otherwise is most likely a weak leech. Yet these retarded values are considered 'ethical' in academia. Fuck your ethics, academia, I want results, not a pat on the back. I want success, not acceptance of failure.
Nicholas Dullerville - Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:26:37 EST 54PBc7Id No.207068 Reply
Shouldn't you be using philosophy to argue a point?
If you think appreciating effort over results isn't Marxist, then you'd best explain why. Sarcastic remarks aren't going to help anybody's arguments here.
Nicholas Dullerville - Mon, 17 Oct 2016 13:56:34 EST 54PBc7Id No.207070 Reply
>The burden of proof is on you.
I simply stated a fact. You don't have to go around proving facts are facts. You are simply unfamiliar with these subjects. If you were familiar with Marxism, you'd understand my statement.

Marx fought for people to be rewarded based on effort, not result. Marx thought that two people working the same hours of the same job deserve the same pay, even though it is inevitable that one of them is superior at their job than the other. Then you've got systems like Capitalism where effort means nothing and results mean everything; survival of the fittest reigns supreme.

I'm not a 'right-winger who discredits Marxism'. I'm simply pointing out that what that person was being taught was Marxist and was bullshit. Karl Marx may have saved the proletariat but the system he created was completely incapable of surviving/thriving and lead to many horrible events, such as the starvation of tens of millions of Schoolns and Chinese alike in the near future under the socialists Stalin and Mao. Therefore, I am not in favor of his philosophies being taught in Academia in this day and age; teaching people techniques that have been tried and failed seems pretty retarded.
Nicholas Dullerville - Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:21:23 EST 54PBc7Id No.207071 Reply
I mean, what you said is pretty funny, but the error is that not only did you assume I was just like everyone else you see using the word 'Marxist' (right-wing shitheads) but you also tried to invalidate what I said simply by accusing me of being one of these people.

But I'll tell you why Marxism is such a buzzword right now. Marxism has been infiltrating academia for decades now, and people are extremely unhappy about it. The reason Marxism keeps dominating academic thought is because Marxism is seen as the 'nice' and 'equal' philosophy where every life is valued, where as capitalism is seen as the 'mean' 'dog-eats-dog' and 'fair' philosophy where losers crash and burn and possibly starve to death. Shallow people always prefer the 'nice' and 'equal' option over the 'mean' and 'fair' option. And yes, equality and fairness are contradictory. Fairness means paying people for what they accomplish, where as equality means paying people what everyone else is paid.

Marxist theory wants no one starving to death if it is accomplishable, where as capitalist theory wants people to starve to death if they're incapable of being productive and don't have a valid reason for it. Sure, that makes Marxism look prettier, but the truth is that Marxism significantly sacrifices progress in favor of comfort, conservativism, and a unified responsibility of the nation amongst all it's members, where as capitalism is obsessed with progress and personal responsibility, even when that means allowing humans to die off.

So which do you prefer? Everyone being held back by the losers in society just so they can all live comfortably (compared to the winners of society) or progress and personal responsibility dominating society to the point where unsuccessful/irresponsible people die off in a survival of the fittest manner?
Both philosophies involve suffering, it's just that Marxism involves suffering on a macro scale in small amounts while capitalism involves suffering on a micro level in terminal amounts.

But that being said, look at it this way; Under Marxism in history and even today, millions upon millions of people starved to death, where as the USA, a capitalist country, doesn't have any starvation at all. People go hungry, but nobody dies from it. That's why we're all so afraid of Marxism being implemented in schools.
Ebenezer Mummerwure - Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:28:09 EST FSAozKjO No.207072 Reply

>The only thing valuable is the outcome of either.

Why should I believe this? Also, what sorts of outcomes should be prioritized? What do you even mean by "outcome?"
Nicholas Dullerville - Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:39:00 EST 54PBc7Id No.207073 Reply
Here's an example I think you'll understand.

Bob wants to run a successful farm. Bob spends every hour of his life on the farm, trying to make it successful. He's constantly laboring on the farm to try to get it to work. Yet every year, Bob has yields so low that he barely stays afloat.

Then there's Joe. Joe also has a farm. Joe not only labors on the farm, but he also runs a small lab where he studies his soil and crops. Joe is an intelligent agricultural scientist, and he has found a way to get great yields from his crops by being smart about how he farms. Every year Joe makes a lot of money, so much so that he can afford farm-hands to do the labor, and because of this he has plenty of free time to himself which he uses for other ventures, conducting science, and having fun.

Under Marxist/Leninist socialism, Joe and Bob would be valued the same and would be paid the same per hour of work. That would feel great for Bob because he's dedicated himself to tons of work, but horrible for Joe who wants to work quickly and efficiently. But under Capitalism, Joe would be valued significantly more than Bob, and he'd live a much nicer life because of it and be able to further pursue his science because it is profitable and worthwhile. Then, years down the road, Joe could start a seminar for agriculture and share his scientific findings with other people (such as Bob) to hopefully make their life easier.

That's just a sort of simple example I just came up with on the spot. But the point is, in capitalism, effort is insignificant compared to success, because success is real and worthwhile where as effort is something easily wasted. Marxism is about working hard, something people don't want to do, while Capitalism is about working smart and succeeding, something people (who aren't just societal leeches) love.
Molly Nimblemedging - Tue, 18 Oct 2016 08:25:25 EST 7Jz0O/c2 No.207077 Reply

I recognise the purpose of the exercise, and I guess it might be helpful to explain and demonstrate privilege in a more visual way in an introductory level class but man, a better lecturer could have explained it without the theatrics and be able to captivate everyone listening at the same time.

After three years of sociology you end up with a very good picture of it all anyway, so i feel its a pointless exercise
Molly Nimblemedging - Tue, 18 Oct 2016 08:31:25 EST 7Jz0O/c2 No.207078 Reply
Marxism is dominating academia but it won't last; the issue now is how we revitalise the left and the correct way forward is to read Badiou. Sociologies of emancipation over sociologies of domination- we do not need more narratives about how the system is fucking us, we need an emancipatory politics going forward, a passion for the real and a militant fidelity to a truth.

Whether that is anti-racism, anti-sexism or whatever else.

You learn Marx, you keep him in mind, and then you move forward.
Eliza Fallerbury - Tue, 18 Oct 2016 10:47:36 EST 54PBc7Id No.207079 Reply
I totally agree.

But I think it has almost nothing to do with anti-racism or anti-sexism. Racism and sexism are at an all-time low and these things hardly effect people anymore.
Self-victimization and self-fulfilling-prophecies rule the left at the moment. Paranoia and fear rule the left at the moment. They have no spirit. They think the USA, the greatest country in the world, is some sort of hell, because they've got affluenza up the wazoo. Silver Spoon Cool, yo.

The left is obsessed with bullshit. They're too busy trying to tax carbon and overthrow legitimate governments in the ME and rioting against the very few cases of police brutality in the USA to accomplish anything worthwhile.
Thomas Peddleman - Tue, 18 Oct 2016 10:52:09 EST aEaeNBh+ No.207080 Reply
>i just stated a fact


Yeah. Facts. Fuck off back to 4chan, you don't belong here.
Eliza Fallerbury - Tue, 18 Oct 2016 10:59:44 EST 54PBc7Id No.207081 Reply
Prove to me that the statement 'Effort-based reward is part of Marxism' is false or shut the fuck up.
Thomas Peddleman - Tue, 18 Oct 2016 17:46:23 EST aEaeNBh+ No.207082 Reply
Effort-based rewards is capitalist as fuck.

>wow dude you sold 120 units instead of your target of 100 units? you get a 20% bonus on your pay!
Hamilton Pezzlegold - Wed, 19 Oct 2016 00:34:01 EST 0aDGMcny No.207090 Reply
Well, 'effort-based reward' is just a meritocracy. You could theoretically have a capitalist or communist meritocracy, but you would have to do all kinds of contortions to make it fit. More accurately:
Marxism is: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" so it's need-based reward, in exchange for available effort, which could be totally unequal to one another in one direction or the other.
Capitalism is: "From each according to what you can get from them, to each according to how much they can take" So it is not reward at all, it's merely a window-dressing for might-makes-right.
Angus Turveyway - Wed, 19 Oct 2016 10:20:35 EST 54PBc7Id No.207093 Reply
That's not how effort-based rewards work. Meritocracy =/= effort-based. Your example is erroneous. Selling 20 units extra in the time it takes you to sell 100 units total is merit. Selling 20 less units in the time it takes you to make 100 but still being paid for the 100 is effort-based pay.

Might doesn't make right, but success makes right.
Hamilton Pezzlegold - Wed, 19 Oct 2016 18:04:29 EST 0aDGMcny No.207098 Reply
What makes success? Might (not necessarily physical, could be social, conceptual, positional might.)
Charlotte Turveyridge - Thu, 20 Oct 2016 09:28:41 EST 54PBc7Id No.207100 Reply
Don't simplify success. Success is success. Success is progressive, and progressiveness is all opinion-based.
Augustus Trotshaw - Fri, 21 Oct 2016 16:42:16 EST 0aDGMcny No.207105 Reply
You're an idiot. What causes success? Force (might.) You can't have an ounce of success without force. Saying we're going to reward success is saying we are going to reward people who have the force to take what they want, it literally can mean nothing else. You're trying to put success on this pedestal as some kind of pure quality. It's not. It's just a manifestation of other characteristics, a positional signifier, it's almost trivial in itself.
Beatrice Drorrylark - Sun, 23 Oct 2016 11:53:17 EST FSAozKjO No.207108 Reply

>success can only mean taking what you want


That's not even what most people mean when they use the word, nor is that true at all
Nicholas Habbertatch - Mon, 24 Oct 2016 12:48:17 EST 0aDGMcny No.207111 Reply
So for a blithely obvious source, I chose Webster's:
1: the fact of getting or achieving wealth, respect, or fame
2: the correct or desired result of an attempt

Let's break down this definition propositionally. For definition 1, success refers to 'the fact of getting or acheiving' meaning it refers to the actual condition of being in the state (rather than hypothetically or supposedly being in the state) of gaining or having gained 'wealth, respect, or fame.' Acquisition of any of these things requires the application of various kinds of forces, including physical, social, mental, economic, etc. So by definition 1, 'successfulness' is a measure of one's ability to a.) 'actually' b.) 'acquire' c.) 'things valued' (in the case of this definition the popular notions of success.) Since the degree to which condition 'a.' is met is directly porportional to the amount of force one is able to apply to condition 'b.' then success is an indirect (but still mostly direct) measure of that force by definition 1.
Definition 2 is just the generalization of the first definition. No change in reality occurs without the application of some force. However, changes are happening all the time. And only some of the things that happen are things that we want. Thus 'successful' actions are only those that fall in the category of both being a change that 'actually' occurs and a change that we 'desire.' Since we can only change reality to be the way we want it to by applying proportional force to reality, the degree to which we fulfill both conditions and are 'successful' is thus directly proportional to the degree of force we can apply, by definition 2.

So yeah, I don't see how you people can not get this. It's pretty foundational stuff. If success wasn't determined by force, do you think just magically some people happen to be successful and some aren't? Do you think magically some scientific experiments succeed and others fail, irrespective of the physical forces applied? What do you think evolution is measuring if not the kinds of effective forces particular genes apply to an organism? Why do you think market capitalism works? etc, etc. The connection between success and force is at the root of a rational conception of the world.
Lydia Drurryhedge - Mon, 24 Oct 2016 22:26:47 EST iAquTtgI No.207112 Reply
Privilege? I thought we were all equal?
Edwin Hozzleford - Tue, 25 Oct 2016 09:37:54 EST 54PBc7Id No.207114 Reply
I'll explain to you your error. First of all, it's rude to call people names, which instantly makes them less likely to actually pay attention to your point. Second of all, you're preaching a super-simplistic view of capitalism; might makes right. Might makes right is only partially true, and cannot be considered the end-all of capitalism.

If meritocracy is just might makes right, then why did the mighty Enron get gutted?
Rhetorical question; their might was deemed 'unethical' by the justice department and society at large, and Enron was destroyed along with its executives.

Your proof isn't wrong, but your foundation is wrong via over-simplification. That's why people aren't agreeing with you.

You're just preaching what sounds like libertarianism, and people dislike libertarians because they don't integrate ideas like responsibility and ethics into their view of merit.

Edwin Hozzleford - Tue, 25 Oct 2016 09:39:04 EST 54PBc7Id No.207115 Reply
Whoops, I meant meritocracy when I said capitalism in paragraph 1, I'm just so used to talking about capitalism at this point in my life.
Isabella Fobberforth - Tue, 25 Oct 2016 16:33:12 EST 0aDGMcny No.207116 Reply
A few comments above that you told another poster to 'shut the fuck up', so don't pretend you're all high-road or that I grievously injured you by calling you 'idiot' on a chan. And you are over-simplifying what I am saying to the point that it seems like I'm actually articulating a simplistic view, but you just are totally missing the point I'm trying to make.
Might makes right is absolutely true, that's just physics. You just keep failing to notice that I'm specifying that physical force is only one kind of might, and all kinds of might contribute to success.
I'm not claiming meritocracy = anything. I'm making a claim about capitalism, not meritocracy.
Enron got gutted because it used its might to encroach on others, and angered them, such that they put into motion a series of forces (social, leading to legal and political) that had a greater force trying to disintegrate it than the amount of force it was able to apply to keep itself together, and thus naturally failed to maintain its homeostasis. Might still made right, it's just that the might of the US legal system is > than the might of one company.
Moreover, I'm not advocating this as a good thing. In fact, I'm saying it's a horrible thing, the key flaw with capitalism! It goes back to my original statement; free market capitalism is little more than a window dressing for the natural state of affairs, and in the natural state of affairs the only thing that determines the flow of economic forces (or anything else) is the forces which actors within the field are able to apply upon the field. To whatever degree we have regulation of our economy, we try to minimize the damage this causes, but the basic message that capitalism sends is the same: you will have (money, wealth, fame, power, resources: success) if and only if you have the might (requisite physical, economic, mental, social, moral, etc. forces and powers) to acquire those things, and the degree to which you have them will be directly proportional to the degree which you possess those forces. Justice has little to do with it, since our politicians are so easily bought, the justice system therefore only nominally enforces some higher ideal of justice, it really is just a manifestation of the obscurant might of other parts of society.
Personally, I should think that a more elaborate restraint of the natural condition would be beneficial, such that a minimal level of reward is re-allocated by the state on a basis independent of one's means to directly obtain it, but my political beliefs are not the subject. I was merely backing up the proposition that capitalism is effort based, but not a meritocracy, by drilling down to the core ideological implications.
And I think all of that was fairly obvious if you read the line of my posts, but again, everyone wanted to look at them in an over-simplistic way and misunderstood them out of assuming I was using my points to arguing in a direction I disavowed from the outset, and there's little I can do to help that part.
Frederick Challybury - Wed, 26 Oct 2016 14:36:37 EST 54PBc7Id No.207119 Reply
No, I fully understand what you're saying, probably more than anyone else on this board. I just whole-heartedly disagree with it. You view capitalism as if it's libertarian capitalism and you view justice as too-corrupt. I think you're letting the minor problems with capitalism and justice overshadow the glorious success of justice and capitalism. I get the feeling you don't know enough about the justice system or capitalism to have a well-educated opinion on them based on what you're saying. But I want to give you the chance to defend yourself and further explain yourself.

But really we were just arguing about whether might makes right. And I mean, at the end of the day, it's just a stupid quote that varies depending on your definition of might and right. What is your definition of 'right'? Because that could shed some light onto this subject. To me, 'right' is 'what's best for the over-all majority', and there are plenty of clear-cut examples where incredible might has done the opposite of what's best for the majority, therefore I will innately disagree with your might makes right claim.

But where do you stand on my meritocracy claim? That capitalism is based in merit, not effort? Can you argue that capitalism is more so based in effort, and can you offer an example?

I've got an academic background in both Economics and Law, which is why I see your statements as over-simplifications, the kind a philosopher would use to try to make sense of something they don't quite grasp.
Nathaniel Clongerstock - Tue, 22 Nov 2016 00:35:11 EST iAquTtgI No.207287 Reply
When you think about it, it's actually white men who are the least privileged.
Fanny Drimmleheck - Tue, 22 Nov 2016 00:51:31 EST 0aDGMcny No.207288 Reply
>>actually white men who are the least privileged
Aww, you feel bad? Do you need a safe space?
I see a lot of equivalation, not a lot of reasoning. Are you sure it's not your knee-jerk response to any kind of criticism that's the brainwashing?
Shit Moshshit - Tue, 22 Nov 2016 11:05:36 EST 54PBc7Id No.207291 Reply
Privilege is a necessary conversation, but it has 2 epic, massive, horrifying downfalls.
>The privileges of people considered 'underprivileged' are completely ignored compared to the privileges of successful people.
>People use the concept of privilege to dehumanize people and their opinions/feelings. Like, anyone perceived as 'highly privileged' has all their problems and successes downplayed to an extreme level.
Lillian Fanderwell - Fri, 25 Nov 2016 16:42:24 EST 0aDGMcny No.207316 Reply
You don't seem to understand that the way minorities talk to you about privilege is the result of things which happened to them, which hurt them, which you continue to benefit from. If you were in the same situation as them, you would be just as if not more incendiary in discussing the power imbalance between you.
The breakdown in communication between people at different levels of privilege isn't because of the concept of privilege, it's because of the difference in power. As the old saw goes, there can be no true communication between un-equals. The inequality is the source of the breakdown in communication, privilege is merely a tool for describing it, that was actually invented to help us move forward, rather than remain stuck at the impasse.

Moreover, if you can't separate your emotional response to interacting with an activist on any subject from your actual logical evaluation of their claims, you can't claim any political beliefs you hold are based on rational reflection -- you are instead merely reacting to your emotions on the interactions. So your 'don't know what it's like' is a special kind of circular argument, where you have set up your initial emotional response to an argument against your beliefs as so important that you're not willing to analyze if what they're saying has any logical validity. So I'm going to discount that bit outright (it must be very hard to know what you think about the world, I admit, if you think that people talking about privilege are actively discrediting you personally -- that's a bit of a persecution complex, isn't it? -- unless of course you are one of the ones actively opposing them, but then in that case what would you expect? Have you never been in an ideological debate before?)

Moving to the actual meat of your post: Show me how the 'opportunity' in 'equal opportunity' is not determined by 'situational equality'? You've already admitted that the wealthy have more opportunity than the poor, so let's just focus on that and ignore other kinds of privilege since it will serve the purpose. If wealth determines opportunity, and not everyone has equal wealth, then by definition there is no equal opportunity. Also, your present amount of wealth is not all there is. Who has wealth now versus who doesn't have wealth now has been determined by historical forces which granted more opportunity and thus more wealth to certain groups over others. Thus 'opportunity' is intrinsically situational, and since your argument rests on the distinction between 'situational equality' and 'equal opportunity' you will have to demonstrate that they are in fact distinct for your argument to hold water.

Lastly, oppression exists, and it has a net negative effect on the utility of the world. Taking for granted your claim that either poor people or rich people must be oppressed (i.e. assuming the world is a zero sum game, which it's not, but I will accept for the sake of this argument) wealthy people, by the fact of their wealth, are intrinsically more resilient to oppression, whereas the poor have no recourse when oppressed. (Moreover, the number of poor vastly outstrips the wealthy, so the amount of utility belonging to each group is not balanced.) Thus, if someone must be oppressed, oppressing the rich will have less of a negative impact on the world's utility than oppressing the poor, both because they already have the resources to adapt and there are far fewer of them, and thus we must favor oppressing the rich over the poor in this zero-sum scenario from a utilitarian perspective (of course, the reality is much more complex because the world is far from a zero sum game, but if you cannot accept this minimal logic, I must assume you have other reasons for wanting to put the wealthy first.)
Nathaniel Criffingshaw - Fri, 02 Dec 2016 16:53:55 EST 0aDGMcny No.207366 Reply
The fact that sometimes people make an issue about privilege when it's not doesn't absolve you of responsibility for doing something about situations where your personal utilization of privilege harms others. That's all that is being requested. The fact that you are trying to draw in politics and politicize the issue, delegitimizing it in the process by claiming it's not real and just made up to support the left, poisons the well on a genuinely rational response to any given situation.

>>get rid of public education
Fuck no. Jesus I can't believe how you could think this makes sense. 'I want everyone to be well educated so I'm going to make sure only those who can pay are educated' private schools are fucking bullshit, you are guilty of a 'grass is greener' fallacy. I went to private school, it was nonsense, the education wasn't really any better and it came with a heavy dose of religious and cultural indoctrination that probably took up a good 25% of total class time. Nevermind that there simply aren't private schools in many jurisdictions, and those that are can refuse anyone if they don't match their religious, cultural, whatever requirements. Eliminating public education would leave a huge number of children without even a school to go to, would prevent more from getting accepted into any of the schools available to him, and at the end of the day the education isn't of any better quality and also usually comes with indoctrinatin. Fuck - that - shit.
Basil Nommledock - Sat, 03 Dec 2016 16:58:28 EST NVy0l6tC No.207376 Reply
1480802308583.png -(137248B / 134.03KB, 300x377) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
But how exactly do you NOT hurt people with privilege? If you combine it with the concept of microaggressions, where merely saying the wrong thing can be seen as an act of oppression? Do you have any idea what sort of thing can do to a person who has severe anxiety AND crippling OCD?

It'd be one thing if I was just a freak outlier, but I've seen the discourse over the years who felt like they can't do anything around someone they think is underprivileged in fear of oppressing them to the point where they simply decide it's not worth interacting and them and encouraging segregation. And these are the type of people who could probably benefit them by being kind. The real bigots aren't going to give a shit if their inconveniencing the underprivileged will hurt them. Or even worse, we'll get people who think they are Hitler incarnate and end up spamming image boards with Trump memes.

There's no way you can't convince me that there isn't something wrong with how the discourse of privilege is handled. There are flaws that the bigger voices who are talking about it simply refused to acknowledge over the years, and the real bigots are taking full advantage of that to get people to join their ranks, even if they had no intention of ever actually helping them. HINT, HINT.
Emma Wattingstone - Sat, 03 Dec 2016 21:00:38 EST hvs4h/ox No.207377 Reply
yes but eventually your anxiety and ocd is going to work itself out of that concept.

It may take years, but eventually you may call those years...your twenties.

You'll probably get into some even weirder thoughts.

If your mind eventually wanders to abstract matters that same anxiety can be seen in logics and concepts such as the butterfly effect.

Like every little move is going to make a difference. You're specifically attuned to the fact that whatever part of people's psychology buys into and expresses such concepts exerts this fact.

But with anxiety and ocd you are hoping to behave in such a way. To put your actions in accord with what was once a peaceful whole to you.

You'll be fine, but you will come to realize, that alot of your dread is actually a valid reflection and that society is not as rational and reward and punish feedback is actually able to be existant in irrational oppressive means.

The reason that is is because of unfairness rather than an exceptional intuitionalism.

You just won't have that effecting you because your functions both expressive and conceptual and actioned and ethic will be aligned by an abstract meter.

don't hate on being a neet and don't hate on the conceptual pattern of the leech or the parasite, he's designed to flip behavioral scripts and create views that exist like loops or feedback patterns. If you have a job there is nothing wrong with being a neet at this stage even in your routinely self critical appraisal of self through identiy. Which if you will notice is usually antithetical or leeching of your own view.
Hamilton Wockledale - Sun, 04 Dec 2016 01:21:52 EST ySNjg48e No.207378 Reply
The issue with this argument stream, as it has always been, that this is completely subjective and at times is not as logical as 'being civil.' Because the argument is assumed to be so 'easy' and 'simple' people take this as a license to shut down things like creative works, lest you oppress a minority by drawing a caricature of their religious motifs. My issue with this argument is that it's exceptionally lazy.

The only line in the sand for when someone of a localized majority to be oppressing another is when the oppressed has internet access and says 'you are oppressing me'. We have some legal issues which are struggling which dance around the same general concept, examples being sexual harassment or regular harassment (bullying). It's a case by case stance and it is not as simple as you are pretending it is. This topic is massive and an example is the inherent complexity of cultural ownership.

Can North American/European people to use the religious symbolism of non white people's in their own creative works? The answer is no as that is cultural misappropriation.

By this definition, a disney movie using hawaiian religious history is cultural misappropriation and within the framework of this argument is an example of one privileged group oppressing another. So we have to ask, when is it acceptable for anyone to use anyone elses religious beliefs in the form of a creative work without generating this oppression? Well you need permission, per the article above

"Taking intellectual property, traditional knowledge, cultural expressions, or artifacts from someone else’s culture without permission. "

But permission by who? If I want to write a book which has a religious theme based on the Noth American Lakota, do I need the entire Lakota tribe to get together and approve of my representation? If I get 99% of the Lakota tribe to agree is that acceptable? What about 51%. Even within the Lakota themselves they do not all agree on the same perception of their religious system, and yet, they are allowed the power to shut down creative works based on it merely by their racial make up. At what point and by which authority and method do we ascribe to the definitive stance that one act is a case of a privileged group oppressing another, cultural ownership just being one small facet of this overarching framework.

With the exception of some very rare, uber isolated communities, there is no racial or ethnic group on this planet which has not culturally misappropriated another group in order to generate its own religious belief system. The likelihood of native americans generating their own belief system uniquely is only considered to be higher due to the fact that we have so little data about them. The ancient Maya stole from the Olmec people, the Bantu Africans from the Pgymy (who they continue to subjugate), the Arab from the Berber peoples, etc. etc. etc. Yet now we attempt to ascribe this standard which is worded very broadly in a deceptive attempt to get people to think it's 'color' neutral but it is not.

"Use common sense, don't be a jerk" is exactly what the problem is with this argument. There is a very weak logical framework upon which this entire edifice is based and people seem completely unwilling to do much about it other than to say you are a terrible person and should feel bad for challenging this world view because we care more about the oppressed than you do. I can wrap up any bigoted and self-serving philosophical framework under the sun and serve it fresh to you with the same wrapper, it is no shield.
Simon Mabbleville - Sun, 04 Dec 2016 21:12:36 EST 0aDGMcny No.207386 Reply
I think your criticism is reasonable, but I think that the breakdown in communication over this issue results from a misunderstanding of intent of the other side, exacerbated by a misunderstanding of intent and will to hop onto a hate-train within each side. I get that you feel powerless to control the fact that you are a beneficiary of privilege, which is why you equate it with a concept like original sin. That's ok, only a lunatic would attack you personally over something you don't have control over. People who are asking you to do that you can discount automatically because they are asking you to do something that's logically impossible.
You say you haven't heard an argument on how it's possible to NOT exert oppression if you're white and/or male. This is where there is a misunderstanding of intent. There isn't! It's not possible to be white and male and not exert oppression, because whether you act or don't act you are the beneficiary of those privileges. And no one (who isn't a lunatic) is asking you to do otherwise; how could they, there is no 'otherwise' you could do.
Privilege is what is exerting the oppression, not you personally, and reasonable commentators on the subject recognize that. What you do have control over, and what they are asking you to look at, is whether you exert that privilege voluntarily or involuntarily, with or without knowledge about the origins and impacts of that privilege, and whether you look to minimize your utilization of it or exploit it to maximum effect. From that people can indirectly infer your 'intent' which is again, not the root of the sin, but the privilege itself.
Privilege traps and oppresses the people in the 'privileged' category just as much as it traps the oppressed, and that's why it itself is a useful concept because it allows us to attack that category itself and dismantle it for the benefit of people of privilege as well as the un-privileged (and pretty much everyone falls into both categories in some regard.)

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.