Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Everybody has their own story and you know nothing about their life and failures and successes.

Calling people privileged is just a way to put down other people while taking NO responsibility for your own life.

Originally posted by wxyz
Everybody has their own story and you know nothing about their life and failures and successes.

Calling people privileged is just a way to put down other people while taking NO responsibility for your own life.

Alot of people have privilege by; being more attractive, intelligent, aggressive etc.

There's certainly no such thing as 'white privilege.'

juQLifY4l_0

Originally posted by wxyz
Everybody has their own story and you know nothing about their life and failures and successes.

Calling people privileged is just a way to put down other people while taking NO responsibility for your own life.
Intersectionality is the word you're looking for.

This stems more from your lack of understanding on privilege than a disagreement with privilege. From birth, you're already dealing with factors determined entirely by luck. Someone is incredibly privileged if they are born in a 1st world nation and speak English as their mother tongue, for example. They did nothing to earn these, and it was sheer luck they weren't born in North Korea or a warlord controlled village somewhere. It doesn't mean they don't work hard and it doesn't mean they never experience pain or struggle. You can be happy with the work you've done and still acknowledge the ways in which you're privileged.

Anyway, I think this qualifies as a troll thread and may get closed.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Intersectionality is the word you're looking for.

This stems more from your lack of understanding on privilege than a disagreement with privilege. From birth, you're already dealing with factors determined entirely by luck. Someone is incredibly privileged if they are born in a 1st world nation and speak English as their mother tongue, for example. They did nothing to earn these, and it was sheer luck they weren't born in North Korea or a warlord controlled village somewhere. It doesn't mean they don't work hard and it doesn't mean they never experience pain or struggle. You can be happy with the work you've done and still acknowledge the ways in which you're privileged.

Anyway, I think this qualifies as a troll thread and may get closed. Bingo!

Originally posted by StyleTime
Intersectionality is the word you're looking for.

This stems more from your lack of understanding on privilege than a disagreement with privilege. From birth, you're already dealing with factors determined entirely by luck. Someone is incredibly privileged if they are born in a 1st world nation and speak English as their mother tongue, for example. They did nothing to earn these, and it was sheer luck they weren't born in North Korea or a warlord controlled village somewhere. It doesn't mean they don't work hard and it doesn't mean they never experience pain or struggle. You can be happy with the work you've done and still acknowledge the ways in which you're privileged.

Anyway, I think this qualifies as a troll thread and may get closed. Nah. Intersectionality is about putting yourself in several restrictive boxes and having your worth judged based on how 'oppressed' or 'privileged' you are. It's a disgusting ethos and ideology and should be wiped out with extreme prejudice.

Originally posted by wxyz
Everybody has their own story and you know nothing about their life and failures and successes.

Calling people privileged is just a way to put down other people while taking NO responsibility for your own life. Sounds like individualism to me.

People are individuals and that is a good thing. And a society should be set up in a way to enable the most people to live their individual lives to a decent standard. To me that means things like free universal education, food programs for children, social safety nets that pick you up if you are not doing so well without stigmatizing ad dehumanizing you. And I think most of the societies I am familiar with fail at these things in one way or another.

As for privilege itself, I'm not a huge fan of the word as it is generally used. I do think the academic discussion of privilege is fascinating and worthwhile, but when applying it to every day life I think we are really more using it like the word "advantages".

And when it comes to advantages I think there clearly are a lot things that some people are advantaged over than others. If you have rich parents who can contribute time to your education, leave you a significant inheritance and are able to connect you with influential people that can give you career breaks in whatever field you are interested in, that is a significant advantage you have over someone that does not have these things. And I think calling that a privilege is not wrong. Similarly there's advantages that able bodied people have over disabled people, I think we can all agree that people who can see have an easier time in this world that those that can not, even though our societies have done many things to equalize that more. I think that as well is a somewhat uncontroversial form of being privileged. Other forms of privilege that are often discussed, like white privilege or cis privilege are of course heatedly debated, I presume that's the type of privilege you think does not exist.

As for intersectionality, similar to the academic discussion of privilege I see a lot of value in it. Of course people fit into different broad categories that influence how they will experience life in broad terms. But there too it is easy to find pathologies, which I assume the poster Scribble, is worried about. For example if you look at the current fights over racism in the united states, if you approach this with a limited idea of identity politics I think you'll come to the wrong conclusions. If you reduce everything to "is that person black or not", which many Democrats do, you are missing immense historical and economic aspects that play into the social situation we find ourselves in. At the same time, if you exclude race completely from the discussion, you will miss the mark.

That's where I see a positive form of intersectionality being a valuable lens. For example, someone like Obama, a half white, rich lawyer will have a completely different experiences, and a shitload more advantages, than a black working stiff that may have just been fired due to the economic downturn. That latter person is black too, and that does change some things about their experience, but they are much closer in their real material situation to the white working class guy that just got laid off as well. So I think if intersectionality can be used to help people understand each other, and foster solidarity between people that are being ****ed over by the system it's valuable, when it separates us, it is not.

Ultimately both individual lenses and lenses that group people together to make them easier to discuss scientifically have value imo. Hope that wasn't too long of an answer.

Originally posted by Artol
People are individuals and that is a good thing. And a society should be set up in a way to enable the most people to live their individual lives to a decent standard. To me that means things like free universal education, food programs for children, social safety nets that pick you up if you are not doing so well without stigmatizing ad dehumanizing you. And I think most of the societies I am familiar with fail at these things in one way or another.

As for privilege itself, I'm not a huge fan of the word as it is generally used. I do think the academic discussion of privilege is fascinating and worthwhile, but when applying it to every day life I think we are really more using it like the word "advantages".

And when it comes to advantages I think there clearly are a lot things that some people are advantaged over than others. If you have rich parents who can contribute time to your education, leave you a significant inheritance and are able to connect you with influential people that can give you career breaks in whatever field you are interested in, that is a significant advantage you have over someone that does not have these things. And I think calling that a privilege is not wrong. Similarly there's advantages that able bodied people have over disabled people, I think we can all agree that people who can see have an easier time in this world that those that can not, even though our societies have done many things to equalize that more. I think that as well is a somewhat uncontroversial form of being privileged. Other forms of privilege that are often discussed, like white privilege or cis privilege are of course heatedly debated, I presume that's the type of privilege you think does not exist.

As for intersectionality, similar to the academic discussion of privilege I see a lot of value in it. Of course people fit into different broad categories that influence how they will experience life in broad terms. But there too it is easy to find pathologies, which I assume the poster Scribble, is worried about. For example if you look at the current fights over racism in the united states, if you approach this with a limited idea of identity politics I think you'll come to the wrong conclusions. If you reduce everything to "is that person black or not", which many Democrats do, you are missing immense historical and economic aspects that play into the social situation we find ourselves in. At the same time, if you exclude race completely from the discussion, you will miss the mark.

That's where I see a positive form of intersectionality being a valuable lens. For example, someone like Obama, a half white, rich lawyer will have a completely different experiences, and a shitload more advantages, than a black working stiff that may have just been fired due to the economic downturn. That latter person is black too, and that does change some things about their experience, but they are much closer in their real material situation to the white working class guy that just got laid off as well. So I think if intersectionality can be used to help people understand each other, and foster solidarity between people that are being ****ed over by the system it's valuable, when it separates us, it is not.

Ultimately both individual lenses and lenses that group people together to make them easier to discuss scientifically have value imo. Hope that wasn't too long of an answer. Good post. Although as a white , University Educated man from Britain living in Africa and working in Africa and the middle east, I see privilege in a way most never will. It's real, I've made use of it.

Originally posted by Artol
People are individuals and that is a good thing. And a society should be set up in a way to enable the most people to live their individual lives to a decent standard. To me that means things like free universal education, food programs for children, social safety nets that pick you up if you are not doing so well without stigmatizing ad dehumanizing you. And I think most of the societies I am familiar with fail at these things in one way or another.

As for privilege itself, I'm not a huge fan of the word as it is generally used. I do think the academic discussion of privilege is fascinating and worthwhile, but when applying it to every day life I think we are really more using it like the word "advantages".

And when it comes to advantages I think there clearly are a lot things that some people are advantaged over than others. If you have rich parents who can contribute time to your education, leave you a significant inheritance and are able to connect you with influential people that can give you career breaks in whatever field you are interested in, that is a significant advantage you have over someone that does not have these things. And I think calling that a privilege is not wrong. Similarly there's advantages that able bodied people have over disabled people, I think we can all agree that people who can see have an easier time in this world that those that can not, even though our societies have done many things to equalize that more. I think that as well is a somewhat uncontroversial form of being privileged. Other forms of privilege that are often discussed, like white privilege or cis privilege are of course heatedly debated, I presume that's the type of privilege you think does not exist.

As for intersectionality, similar to the academic discussion of privilege I see a lot of value in it. Of course people fit into different broad categories that influence how they will experience life in broad terms. But there too it is easy to find pathologies, which I assume the poster Scribble, is worried about. For example if you look at the current fights over racism in the united states, if you approach this with a limited idea of identity politics I think you'll come to the wrong conclusions. If you reduce everything to "is that person black or not", which many Democrats do, you are missing immense historical and economic aspects that play into the social situation we find ourselves in. At the same time, if you exclude race completely from the discussion, you will miss the mark.

That's where I see a positive form of intersectionality being a valuable lens. For example, someone like Obama, a half white, rich lawyer will have a completely different experiences, and a shitload more advantages, than a black working stiff that may have just been fired due to the economic downturn. That latter person is black too, and that does change some things about their experience, but they are much closer in their real material situation to the white working class guy that just got laid off as well. So I think if intersectionality can be used to help people understand each other, and foster solidarity between people that are being ****ed over by the system it's valuable, when it separates us, it is not.

Ultimately both individual lenses and lenses that group people together to make them easier to discuss scientifically have value imo. Hope that wasn't too long of an answer. Fantastic post, Artol! Far more nuanced than my admittedly reactionary response. You are correct in your assessment of my dislike of the current 'Church of Intersectionality' that I see developing in modern far-left rhetoric. I think it eschews almost all individuality and I find it very dehumanising, which isn't to say I don't think in theory that it has its merits, it's just that it's posited as absolute truth, which I find dangerous and unhelpful to discussion.

I really dislike and distrust the Oppression Olympics that has consumed much of the left in the West. It ends up with crap like this:

https://verysmartbrothas.theroot.com/straight-black-men-are-the-white-people-of-black-people-1814157214

But that isn't to say that understanding groups of people and what their advantages and disadvantages are in society isn't useful, because it is. Whilst the ideal of the 'individual' is incredibly important, seeing people just as individuals without any cultural, physical, racial (etc.) ties is to dismiss many issues that groups of people might be confronted with throughout their lives.

I feel like we're living in very 'all or nothing' times, when what we need is more nuance, more discussion, and more open-mindedness, as opposed to the fake (and abstractly conflicting) ideals of being 'woke' or 'based'.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Good post. Although as a white , University Educated man from Britain living in Africa and working in Africa and the middle east, I see privilege in a way most never will. It's real, I've made use of it. Good shout, Whirly; there are many parts of the world where one's 'privileges' are far more pronounced and have much larger impacts.

Originally posted by Scribble
Nah. Intersectionality is about putting yourself in several restrictive boxes and having your worth judged based on how 'oppressed' or 'privileged' you are. It's a disgusting ethos and ideology and should be wiped out with extreme prejudice.

Sounds like individualism to me.
That feels more like a thing restricted to certain social media warriors though. I too dislike the "Twitter mentality" I've found in some places, where they play the Oppression Olympics with their identities. I find that they often don't understand the concepts they're speaking on. They're well meaning usually, but are too caught up in identity politics to talk to without really getting to know them first.

That said, intersectionality is simply the best tool we have to discuss how our various identities converge to shape our experiences in a given social context. It's supposed to elevate individual experiences, not hide them.
Originally posted by Artol
People are individuals and that is a good thing. And a society should be set up in a way to enable the most people to live their individual lives to a decent standard. To me that means things like free universal education, food programs for children, social safety nets that pick you up if you are not doing so well without stigmatizing ad dehumanizing you. And I think most of the societies I am familiar with fail at these things in one way or another.

As for privilege itself, I'm not a huge fan of the word as it is generally used. I do think the academic discussion of privilege is fascinating and worthwhile, but when applying it to every day life I think we are really more using it like the word advantages.

And when it comes to advantages I think there clearly are a lot things that some people are advantaged over than others. If you have rich parents who can contribute time to your education, leave you a significant inheritance and are able to connect you with influential people that can give you career breaks in whatever field you are interested in, that is a significant advantage you have over someone that does not have these things. And I think calling that a privilege is not wrong. Similarly there's advantages that able bodied people have over disabled people, I think we can all agree that people who can see have an easier time in this world that those that can not, even though our societies have done many things to equalize that more. I think that as well is a somewhat uncontroversial form of being privileged. Other forms of privilege that are often discussed, like white privilege or cis privilege are of course heatedly debated, I presume that's the type of privilege you think does not exist.

As for intersectionality, similar to the academic discussion of privilege I see a lot of value in it. Of course people fit into different broad categories that influence how they will experience life in broad terms. But there too it is easy to find pathologies, which I assume the poster Scribble, is worried about. For example if you look at the current fights over racism in the united states, if you approach this with a limited idea of identity politics I think you'll come to the wrong conclusions. If you reduce everything to "is that person black or not", which many Democrats do, you are missing immense historical and economic aspects that play into the social situation we find ourselves in. At the same time, if you exclude race completely from the discussion, you will miss the mark.

That's where I see a positive form of intersectionality being a valuable lens. For example, someone like Obama, a half white, rich lawyer will have a completely different experiences, and a shitload more advantages, than a black working stiff that may have just been fired due to the economic downturn. That latter person is black too, and that does change some things about their experience, but they are much closer in their real material situation to the white working class guy that just got laid off as well. So I think if intersectionality can be used to help people understand each other, and foster solidarity between people that are being ****ed over by the system it's valuable, when it separates us, it is not.

Ultimately both individual lenses and lenses that group people together to make them easier to discuss scientifically have value imo. Hope that wasn't too long of an answer.
I agree with what you said. I'm just highlighting this for discussion.

Intersectionality is what allows us to understand that different groups aren't monoliths, even if they share an undercurrent of marginalization. It's why there's been a move towards recognizing "Black Experiences" rather than "The Black Experience." There isn't only one black experience. Even if all are affected by certain social institutions, it won't necessarily manifest the same way.

"The Black Experience" became somewhat regressive, because it implied that Black = poor, when statistically, it isn't true. Being poor is further complicated by being black of course, and poor black lives are still worth empowering, but any given black person could belong to any economic class.

This could apply for trans people, or immigrants, or Mormons, or sex workers or whatever. People are still individuals, even if identity-related commonalities exist.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
There's certainly no such thing as 'white privilege.' IMO, it's reverse racism. It should be 'majority privilege', because if I was in, say, China or Ethiopia, my paleness would grant me no special status.

Like 'toxic masculinity'. Sexist, given that females can be just as toxic.

This is what the far left had best take care with, ie, substituting one double-standard for another. Revenge is not progress; it just keeps the cycle of hate and anger going.

Here's the thing about "white privilege". It only really exists if you're rich and white.



The idea of inherent advantages for middle class/lower middle class/poor whites may exist in some form or other, but I would argue are balance out by a lack of access to social services that are earmarked by race.



For example, you have an ailing grandfather who served in World War 2, is registered with the Veterans Hospital, and loses all of his independence due to a fall. His son is forced to care for him, and suffers a heart attack. The state is turned to for an aid, and is told in no uncertain terms "Look, CT isn't paying for a helper. You never heard this from me, but if your father was black, we wouldn't even be having this conversation."



So a multiple heart attack victim ended up being his sole provider, and it was almost a blessing in disguise when another fall happened and the hospitals were forced to take him (And I hate to say this, but it's true)



I'm currently seeing the exact same thing play out with another family that is white. They just called, asking for help with an old friend of my grandfathers, and tips on trying to argue his case to get help as they rejected him outright.




If you aren't rich, are white, and need help, you are on your own in America.

Rich black people have the same advantages as rich white people though. If anything, there is 'wealth privilege' irrespective of "race."

Not true, a black local person with the same qualifications as me would not get my job. Similarly we even have privilege from the School you go to, if you went to Oxford, MIT or one some colleges of University of London as I did, you have far more chances both through networking and College prestige and reputation than if you went to some no name establishment.

I think using the word "advantages" works in helping to explain privilege to folks who don't quite get it - but advantages are something you can work to obtain, where as privilege isn't.

You can work to obtain privilege/s too, though? Especially when talking of class privilege, which is the most impactful and meaningful form of privilege.

Originally posted by wxyz
Everybody has their own story and you know nothing about their life and failures and successes.

Calling people privileged is just a way to put down other people while taking NO responsibility for your own life.

Bull spit. There are certainly privileged individuals and families. Sure, an ancestor worked to get them to a life with less worries. It's not their fault they have a head start, but they are privileged.

Furthermore, societal mentalities ebb and flow. Certain groups get some limited privilege caused by majority pressures. But you can't tell me that the top 5 percenters aren't privileged. Get outta here with that nonsense

Originally posted by Scribble
You can work to obtain privilege/s too, though? Especially when talking of class privilege, which is the most impactful and meaningful form of privilege.

Sort of - for example, if I work to become super rich - that's an earned advantage over lots of other folks. But if I were to have kids, they'd be born into that privilege. It's a privilege and an advantage.

Same thing as a kid born into an absolute slum - he's at a huge disadvantage.

Artol, Scribble, and Style Time captured anything I'd say on the topic. I have nothing of value to add that hasn't already been stated.

Originally posted by wxyz
Everybody has their own story and you know nothing about their life and failures and successes.

Calling people privileged is just a way to put down other people while taking NO responsibility for your own life. if gender is just a "construct", then privilege is too.

Originally posted by Quincy
Sort of - for example, if I work to become super rich - that's an earned advantage over lots of other folks. But if I were to have kids, they'd be born into that privilege. It's a privilege and an advantage.

Same thing as a kid born into an absolute slum - he's at a huge disadvantage. idk I just feel like 'privilege' is the wrong way to look at a lot of it. Like, a privilege is something to be happy about: I'm privileged to live in a nice part of London, to not have been born into poverty, to have been given some chances to improve my life and standing in society.

I don't feel 'privileged' to be white, because that implies that I should feel good about being white and not black, which is a bad way of looking at it, and also not very reflective of life as it doesn't take anything into consideration other than skin colour. To feel 'privileged' to be white is to say that you're happy you're not black. It's understandable to be gracious and humble about being born into a stable economic situation and the like, but when that gets brought into race... I get where the idea of 'white privilege' comes from in an American context, but I think the terminology really comes across as racist in all kinds of ways.

It's possible to look at intersectional matters without bringing 'racial privilege' into the equation.

I get where you're finding a disconnect, or feel weird about privilege's use in the context of race. But the definition of privilege is maintained regardless of what the context it's being used in - it has no alignment.

I feel there is a considerable leap between admitting the existence of white privilege and being grateful you aren't black. In fact, I think someone thinking "I am privileged to be a white guy because black people get some seriously racist shit treatment in wherever wherever" is an acknowledgement of white privilege itself.

Again, there is no such thing as "white privilege" so nah, not going to "admit" something that doesn't actually exist.


If a certain race has privilege then it is black people. For example, they can say the 'N' word without fear of backlash. They have affirmative action to make it unfairly easier for them to get in college and certain jobs. White people don't get the advantages of affirmative action.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Again, there is no such thing as "white privilege" so nah, not going to "admit" something that doesn't actually exist.


If a certain race has privilege then it is black people. For example, they can say the 'N' word without fear of backlash. They have affirmative action to make it unfairly easier for them to get in college and certain jobs. White people don't get the advantages of affirmative action.

So your contribution to the school of thought is that White Privilege is fake but Black Privilege is a thing and you are shakey-fist concerned about it.

Black people can also call white people "crackers" and they suffer no serious consequences because of it. They can basically insult a white person all they want and nothing happens to them for it. If a white person insults a black person though then it's "oh shit look out, Satan has risen!" LoL.


Black people get away all the time with playing the knockout game and usually always the victims of that sick game are white people. If there was even a single incident of a white person doing that it'd be all over the news for weeks and stuck up celebrities would never stop talking about how America is soooooo racist and filled with white supremacists. It is frequently done by black people though and there is not a word about it mentioned in MSM.

Black people can go around screaming "black lives matter!" with no consequences but if a white person went around screaming "white lives matter!" he'd be branded a white supremacist and probably lose his job for it as well.


When a white person is wrongly killed by the cops there isn't a peep about it on MSM. A black guy is killed by cops and it's treated like it's the end of the world though.

I could go on... and on... and on...and on... and on... about all the privileges black people have that white people don't but I think my point has been made sufficiently.


No such this as "white privilege".

You've made a point but not the one you think.

You come off as if you are completely unable to decipher the differences behind the two statements in question: "Black Lives Matter" and "White Lives Matter" but kind of willfully? Like refusal to understand it.

Originally posted by DeadpoolXXX
if gender is just a "construct", then privilege is too.

That is reductive and misses the point. Things like gender and race may be social constructs, but they are ones in which society is heavily-invested. Even if there is no biological basis for the construct of race, i.e. racial categories are not in any sense "real," the systems built with the construct of race as a foundational premise are still real, and continue to be real even after that understanding.

Originally posted by Quincy
You've made a point but not the one you think.

You come off as if you are completely unable to decipher the differences behind the two statements in question: "Black Lives Matter" and "White Lives Matter" but kind of willfully? Like refusal to understand it.

White Privilege is certainly a thing in America. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging it and you're not automatically a racist if you're a White person and have experienced/benefited from this in your life.

Originally posted by Robtard
White Privilege is certainly a thing in America. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging it and you're not automatically a racist if you're a White person and have experienced/benefited from this in your life. it's a thing in almost every Country.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
it's a thing in almost every Country.


I don't know, other Brits I talk with insist the vitriol is strictly a US thing.



One English gent even said there's no friction with the Irish, despite the Irish Potato Famine and resulting mass deaths.

Originally posted by Scribble
I wouldn't say that because I can try to make an effort to discern the difference between the individual and their ideology.

However, I think a lot of people on the left, and a lot of people I know, would probably assume I'm racist if I said that 'white privilege doesn't exist', and that to me is more than enough to show me that this ideological well is toxic.

I think the way we approach matters is often more important than the end goal. If we cannot achieve peace and harmony in a constructive and peaceful way, then we never will. I refuse to accept the current narrative of 'white privilege' even though I think its goals are noble (and that it is pertinent), because it is too entrenched in toxic ideology, and because it asks me to act in a way that I consider racist in an apparent effort to stop racism.

I think if your desire is to communicate that you think the term "privilege" is problematic, because you see it as elevating yourself over black people and you say the term "white privilege doesn't exist" to that end, you are failing to communicate your meaning to them. That's not what most people will understand when you say that, what they will believe you said is "white people have no advantages over black people and black people do not face racist obstacles that I do not face".

I have many issues with Jordan Peterson, but one of his better advice is to be precise with your language, and I think if you come at it from an explicatory angle, rather than what I think most people would consider a slogan, you might be more successful in communicating your feelings to your friends.

I always think it's best to take people at the headspace they are in and try to communicate with them on that level, even if you have very different preferences in terminology.

Originally posted by Artol
I think if your desire is to communicate that you think the term "privilege" is problematic, because you see it as elevating yourself over black people and you say the term "white privilege doesn't exist" to that end, you are failing to communicate your meaning to them. That's not what most people will understand when you say that, what they will believe you said is "white people have no advantages over black people and black people do not face racist obstacles that I do not face".

I have many issues with Jordan Peterson, but one of his better advice is to be precise with your language, and I think if you come at it from an explicatory angle, rather than what I think most people would consider a slogan, you might be more successful in communicating your feelings to your friends.

I always think it's best to take people at the headspace they are in and try to communicate with them on that level, even if you have very different preferences in terminology. Oh, I just don't talk to people in real life about politics, it's way too touchy these days, considering that most of my friends are increasingly vocal leftists. I just don't like the fact that there are people I know posting stuff on social media that says "If you don't take part in this BLM stuff and accept your privilege, you're not my friend." Leftist rhetoric is poison right now, and that includes the discussion of privilege; everything has to be taken on their terms, and I'm not willing to play part in skewed political games like that.

I'm happy to discuss the pros/cons of being white in America, or the West in general, but not whilst things are as they are right now as I don't have trust in people to be responsible about it. I also resent America's problems being wholesale applied onto UK society when things aren't even close to what they're like over there.

Originally posted by Scribble
Oh, I just don't talk to people in real life about politics, it's way too touchy these days, considering that most of my friends are increasingly vocal leftists. I just don't like the fact that there are people I know posting stuff on social media that says "If you don't take part in this BLM stuff and accept your privilege, you're not my friend." Leftist rhetoric is poison right now, and that includes the discussion of privilege; everything has to be taken on their terms, and I'm not willing to play part in skewed political games like that.

I'm happy to discuss the pros/cons of being white in America, or the West in general, but not whilst things are as they are right now as I don't have trust in people to be responsible about it. I also resent America's problems being wholesale applied onto UK society when things aren't even close to what they're like over there. 100% agree.

Originally posted by StyleTime

I think if people would stop treating their privilege like an accusation, we could all work through this way faster. Having, say, heterosexual privilege, doesn't mean you're a shit human being. It just means you lucked out and won't encounter the same obstacles a gay person would in similar environments.

I think I see the disconnect here. The problem isn't acknowledging white privilege, or even saying you're happy to be white. These two statements aren't the same.

"I'm sure glad I'm not black because I get to avoid many of the problems they face in our society, although I hope we as a society stop marginalizing non-white people"

"I'm sure glad I'm not black because black people are inferior."

One is racist. One is an acknowledgement of privilege. As long as you're not doing the second one, I don't see the problem.

I would say Marxist theory does emphasize the primacy of economic class though, and that extends to Marxist Feminism or Marxist views in Race theory. It's just that class is further complicated by race and such. This is my problem, though: acting as you "lucked out" by being straight is to say that it's better to be straight. That's just such a horrible way to look at it.

Both of those above statements are racist. I don't think black people should feel like they were "born unlucky" because they are black.

How are people not understanding how this entire way of thinking is awful? Nobody should feel lucky they were born one race or another. We can accept the difficulties or racism that black people (or other minorities) face without starting this whole idea of "luck" and "privilege". As I have said, I think the goal is noble, but the tactics are toxic and bad for long-term race relations, because if we do eventually level out society and black people don't face these discriminations, we'll all have conditioned 'privilege' into our psyches, and it won't just go away. It will create dissonance, resentment and various other pathologies.

It's the wrong way of looking at it, and I'm still not subscribing to it.

I have friends on the right who aren't racists etc. Then I have others who are further right whom I am polite to but, they're not my friend in my mind anymore.

*has not happened many times


Stupid KMC not letting me edit posts with quotes in

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
too many on here are would be too far right for me in real life. KMC is broken. If I ever did make a sock account here, I think I would call it tumbleweed. You have to remember that people online are often more unrestrained and willing to exaggerate their views than in real life. I think if there were to be a KMC meetup, a lot of people's personalities would be borderline unrecognisable, and most people would get along just fine

Originally posted by Scribble
You have to remember that people online are often more unrestrained and willing to exaggerate their views than in real life. I think if there were to be a KMC meetup, a lot of people's personalities would be borderline unrecognisable, and most people would get along just fine to a point, i am probably more outspoken offline because position (privelege), physical size and reputation allow me to be. People talk back less if a 6ft 1" brick shithouse, who has more weight economically is talking to them in real life.

Originally posted by Scribble
You have to remember that people online are often more unrestrained and willing to exaggerate their views than in real life. I think if there were to be a KMC meetup, a lot of people's personalities would be borderline unrecognisable, and most people would get along just fine


And you have to remember that, to pooty/whirly, anyone who merely supports Trump or voted for Brexit is"far right" in his delusional mind. So is anyone who doesn't agree with his crazy, shitty Marxist ideology.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
And you have to remember that, to pooty/whirly, anyone who merely supports Trump or voted for Brexit is"far right" in his delusional mind. So is anyone who doesn't agree with his crazy, shitty Marxist ideology.

I hate to break it to you but the USA could probably take lessons on a more balanced system then our praise capitalism over all................more pieces of socialism would be massively better then our system that essentially is a snake swallowing its own tail.

Just like trickle down economics is just average folks getting pissed on while the bulk of our functional economy is driven by average folks consuming goods, not the stock market.

Originally posted by snowdragon
I hate to break it to you but the USA could probably take lessons on a more balanced system then our praise capitalism over all................more pieces of socialism would be massively better then our system that essentially is a snake swallowing its own tail.

Just like trickle down economics is just average folks getting pissed on while the bulk of our functional economy is driven by average folks consuming goods, not the stock market. Yeah, American corporatism is a form of tyranny and borderline feudalism, and is anathema to 'true' capitalism, imo

Originally posted by snowdragon
I hate to break it to you but the USA could probably take lessons on a more balanced system then our praise capitalism over all................more pieces of socialism would be massively better then our system that essentially is a snake swallowing its own tail.

Just like trickle down economics is just average folks getting pissed on while the bulk of our functional economy is driven by average folks consuming goods, not the stock market.


....and I hate to break it to you, dude, that capitalism will always be far superior to Marxism no matter how much snowflakes claim otherwise.

So sorry I triggered you by talking bad about such a shitty ideology. Even though I knew you were anti-Trump, I at least didn't think you were one of those Marxist crazies... don't worry, won't make that mistake again.

Capitalism is far from perfect but it's still the best economic system in the history of the world. Marxism certainly doesn't hold a candle to free market capitalism.

Originally posted by Scribble
Yeah, American corporatism is a form of tyranny and borderline feudalism, and is anathema to 'true' capitalism, imo


You do realize that "true capitalism" as you put it is prevalent in America, right? Corrupt corparitism isn't the only kind of capitalism in the country. And LoL if you think corparitism only exists in America.


I really hope you don't turn into pooty. He is always pathetically bashing the United States every chance he gets (obviously because he's jealous that it is far superior to his shitty country lol).

Originally posted by Quincy
Sort of - for example, if I work to become super rich - that's an earned advantage over lots of other folks. But if I were to have kids, they'd be born into that privilege. It's a privilege and an advantage.

Same thing as a kid born into an absolute slum - he's at a huge disadvantage.

Well said.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Again, intersectionality is the word you're looking for. In certain spaces, your identities could combine in such a way that normally privileged statuses like "white" or even "rich" could work against you. It's hard to discuss that though, when we have to convince you that something like male or white privilege exists at all. We get caught on this point and the talk never goes anywhere.

It's why I avoid bringing them up sometimes. People will acknowledge all manner of personal privilege right up until we get to the hot buttons: gender, race, and maybe religion. Then suddenly, normally sensible people scream "WOAH MAN! WHITE PRIVELEGE? STFU. I WORK HARD!"

No one is accusing you of being evil human beings. We're talking about systems and structures.

Of course there are toxic women. Toxic masculinity is still a thing though.

It just got coined as a term at a different time than "toxic femininity" so they wound up with different names. Most critical theory would place "toxic femininity" under "benevolent sexism", which got its name earlier. There are spaces which enable negative female behavior from women who would take advantage of it. Female led **** shaming, for example.

The problem is, I generally only see this raised in response to toxic masculinity. It feels like an effort to silence criticism of problematic masculinity, rather than a genuine concern over problematic femininity. "Toxic masculinity? GTFO. Women are demons!"

I must agree with Sarah Haider when the comes to that. I think the reflex to jump to the aid of marginalized groups is a good thing. I think all of it stems from that, and I've found those same people are much more understanding in person. I just think social media, especially short-form platforms, are terrible places to have those discussions. You must be adept at condensing complex issues into a few words, and most are bad at it.


Hey, I agree with you.


Activism for a cause, I have nothing against. It's the horse and pony bs you get on network news, or the "activism" of overprivileged kids at universities who never wanted for anything in their lives I can't stand (And I especially hate how spineless supposed "authority figures" are in these settings. When an angry mob tells you to move, you tell the mob "No. YOU move."

And more then anything else, I can't stand the political weaponizing. The "Just call then a racist", or "Call them a socialist".


Literally no one breaks ranks and says "Ok guys, lets be fair about this." Everyones complicit, from the actors to the apathetic audience.

Originally posted by Scribble
This is my problem, though: acting as you "lucked out" by being straight is to say that it's better to be straight. That's just such a horrible way to look at it.

Both of those above statements are racist. I don't think black people should feel like they were "born unlucky" because they are black.

How are people not understanding how this entire way of thinking is awful? Nobody should feel lucky they were born one race or another. We can accept the difficulties or racism that black people (or other minorities) face without starting this whole idea of "luck" and "privilege". As I have said, I think the goal is noble, but the tactics are toxic and bad for long-term race relations, because if we do eventually level out society and black people don't face these discriminations, we'll all have conditioned 'privilege' into our psyches, and it won't just go away. It will create dissonance, resentment and various other pathologies.

It's the wrong way of looking at it, and I'm still not subscribing to it.

No, it is acknowledging that straight people are better off than sexual minorities in a heterosexist society.

I would not trade places with a black man, even a rich one, not because there is something wrong with being black, because America is racist.

That is where intersectionality comes in. A wealthy black man may have class and gender priviledges that confer advantages to him in certain situations. But in the context of racial profiling, those priviledges are entirely negated.

Wealthy black men are routinely harrassed for driving their own cars or entering their own homes, because people with racial biases cannot conceive that a black man can legitimately own those things. And in those instances, his wealth and his gender did not insulate him from the consequences of racism.

We do not create a more equal society by ignoring that inequality exists.

Originally posted by Scribble
This is my problem, though: acting as you "lucked out" by being straight is to say that it's better to be straight. That's just such a horrible way to look at it.

Both of those above statements are racist. I don't think black people should feel like they were "born unlucky" because they are black.

How are people not understanding how this entire way of thinking is awful? Nobody should feel lucky they were born one race or another. We can accept the difficulties or racism that black people (or other minorities) face without starting this whole idea of "luck" and "privilege". As I have said, I think the goal is noble, but the tactics are toxic and bad for long-term race relations, because if we do eventually level out society and black people don't face these discriminations, we'll all have conditioned 'privilege' into our psyches, and it won't just go away. It will create dissonance, resentment and various other pathologies.

It's the wrong way of looking at it, and I'm still not subscribing to it.
Adam covered everything I could say, and it seems like you're willing to critically engage with the ideas, which is fantastic. We're not judging the inherent worth of any given identity so much as highlighting how a bigoted society stratifies those same identities.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Capitalism is far from perfect but it's still the best economic system in the history of the world. Marxism certainly doesn't hold a candle to free market capitalism.
...and mixed economies shit on both, which is why we use that now.

And hopefully, we continue to evolve as we learn more.

A lot of people worded their position much more clearly than I have, I need to learn more on the topic of intersectionality as it came up a lot.