Yahoo pushes idea of white, male, heterosexual, and non-disabled privilege..

Started by Newjak6 pages

Originally posted by Klaw
Describe these advantages that non disabled have over disabled.

I don't think your race, or sex gives you advantages, no.

The problem is that just because you don't think race or gender give disadvantages or advantages doesn't mean it's not the case.

In short minority candidates find more success in getting interviews for jobs when they don't show their race anywhere on there resume.

This is in line with other studies that showed even having a ethnic name on resume would make it less likely for that person to get a call back.

https://www.inc.com/marcel-schwantes/why-minority-job-applicants-mask-their-race-identities-when-applying-for-jobs-according-to-this-harvard-study.html

Originally posted by Klaw
Describe these advantages that non disabled have over disabled.

I don't think your race, or sex gives you advantages, no.

Well, like a seeing person can see for example. Or like a different example, a blind person might not be able to read a letter that the local government sends them. Something like that.

Do you think your race gave you advantages in the United States before the repeal of "separate but equal"?

Originally posted by Newjak
The problem is that just because you don't think race or gender give disadvantages or advantages doesn't mean it's not the case.

In short minority candidates find more success in getting interviews for jobs when they don't show their race anywhere on there resume.

This is in line with other studies that showed even having a ethnic name on resume would make it less likely for that person to get a call back.

https://www.inc.com/marcel-schwantes/why-minority-job-applicants-mask-their-race-identities-when-applying-for-jobs-according-to-this-harvard-study.html

I've seen this before and it definitely reeks of racism.

And I'm sure white people with foreign sounding names get the same treatment?

Originally posted by Artol
Well, like a seeing person can see for example. Or like a different example, a blind person might not be able to read a letter that the local government sends them. Something like that.

Do you think your race gave you advantages in the United States before the repeal of "separate but equal"?

Your example is not about privilege so much as it is a limitation of a person.

I live in Canada, and I don't feel wither privileged or oppressed.

Originally posted by Klaw
Your example is not about privilege so much as it is a limitation of a person.

I live in Canada, and I don't feel wither privileged or oppressed.

Privilege:

- A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste.

...How is sight not a privilege to a seeing person?

You probably don't recognise your privileges because you haven't experienced disadvantages from being in a minority group (I'm assuming here, let me know if I'm wrong). Thus it's harder to understand how someone in a minority group might be affected by their status in society.

(Note: I'm not altogether happy with how the notion of 'privilege' is handled in left-wing circles, but there are other stances to take than just not believing in it at all.)

Originally posted by Newjak
The problem is that just because you don't think race or gender give disadvantages or advantages doesn't mean it's not the case.

In short minority candidates find more success in getting interviews for jobs when they don't show their race anywhere on there resume.

This is in line with other studies that showed even having a ethnic name on resume would make it less likely for that person to get a call back.

https://www.inc.com/marcel-schwantes/why-minority-job-applicants-mask-their-race-identities-when-applying-for-jobs-according-to-this-harvard-study.html

Sure. Like a homely fat man will have less success then a guy built like a movie star.

The problem with trying to "fix" something like that, is you can't really do it without taking an opportunity away from someone else.

Maybe that black guy would have gotten more call backs if not for racism. That doesn't justify quota's, or points systems, for blacks. All that does is substitute a natural injustice for a man made injustice.

Originally posted by cdtm
Sure. Like a homely fat man will have less success then a guy built like a movie star.

The problem with trying to "fix" something like that, is you can't really do it without taking an opportunity away from someone else.

Maybe that black guy would have gotten more call backs if not for racism. That doesn't justify quota's, or points systems, for blacks. All that does is substitute a natural injustice for a man made injustice.

So you shouldn't address the problem that minorities have disadvantages placed on them from a systemic racism problem?

Originally posted by cdtm
Sure. Like a homely fat man will have less success then a guy built like a movie star.

The problem with trying to "fix" something like that, is you can't really do it without taking an opportunity away from someone else.

Maybe that black guy would have gotten more call backs if not for racism. That doesn't justify quota's, or points systems, for blacks. All that does is substitute a natural injustice for a man made injustice.

👆

Originally posted by Scribble
Privilege:

- A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste.

...How is sight not a privilege to a seeing person?

You probably don't recognise your privileges because you haven't experienced disadvantages from being in a minority group (I'm assuming here, let me know if I'm wrong). Thus it's harder to understand how someone in a minority group might be affected by their status in society.

(Note: I'm not altogether happy with how the notion of 'privilege' is handled in left-wing circles, but there are other stances to take than just not believing in it at all.)

When the Left talks about privilege, they're talking white, male hetero etc.

That's what I'm disputing.

Originally posted by Klaw
When the Left talks about privilege, they're talking white, male hetero etc.

That's what I'm disputing.

I'd say there's still a degree of 'privilege' to being white, male, cisgendered, heterosexual, but I really dislike the slow process of demonisation that is going on with it. I'm much more focused on class than further intersectional stuff.

But as I said before, I think that much of it stems from a system that is designed to thrive on lower classes fighting amongst themselves whilst giving evermore power to corporations.

Originally posted by Scribble
I'd say there's still a degree of 'privilege' to being white, male, cisgendered, heterosexual, but I really dislike the slow process of demonisation that is going on with it. I'm much more focused on class than further intersectional stuff.

But as I said before, I think that much of it stems from a system that is designed to thrive on lower classes fighting amongst themselves whilst giving evermore power to corporations.

I can agree with most of this. I do think the causes of modern day issues would solved with more across the board updates to our system and how the lower class is treated and limiting the upper the class as well. What would help a lower class black family would likely help all lower class people. For standards of equality in our minimum wage, universal healthcare, greatly reduced college debt, and more oversight into fair bank loan rates for everyone.

For me it is hard to ignore that these lower class burdens, through systemic racisms, still plague minorities in our country more.

Where I think systemic racism will get taken care of more is an overhaul to the justice system in our country.

Originally posted by Newjak
I can agree with most of this. I do think the causes of modern day issues would solved with more across the board updates to our system and how the lower class is treated and limiting the upper the class as well. What would help a lower class black family would likely help all lower class people. For standards of equality in our minimum wage, universal healthcare, greatly reduced college debt, and more oversight into fair bank loan rates for everyone.

For me it is hard to ignore that these lower class burdens, through systemic racisms, still plague minorities in our country more.

Where I think systemic racism will get taken care of more is an overhaul to the justice system in our country.

Yeah, America needs a couple of really important overhauls for its system to become functional for all non-economic classes. I'd say they'd be: Marijuana (and preferably all drugs) legalisation; state prisons only (no free prison labour for private enterprises); some form of workable national healthcare.

The thing about 'systemic racism' that its naysayers don't understand is that even if everybody in the US magically stopped being racist at once, many structural problems would still effect minority groups more on average than they would majority groups. I've always assumed that is what is meant by systemic racism: the system itself is 'racist', so to speak.

Even though I am a pessimist who does not believe that any real good can come of the current system — at the moment fighting for "equal rights" feels like fighting for an equal share of table scraps and breadcrumbs — there are still plenty of specific legislative battles that can be fought to make life better for the disadvantaged.

Honestly, America seems more like a form of Capitalist Feudalism to me than anything else. The 'bright side' is that capitalism is by its very nature (proudly) unsustainable, and so is destined to eventually collapse. That said, I still don't think there's much long-term hope for humanity, and the planet, unless the capitalist model collapses sooner rather than later. There is great damage being done economically, socially, not to mention ecologically, and not all of it will be able to be repaired.

Originally posted by Scribble
There's too much to fully go into just on this topic, but I'll give it a shot!

To me, Capitalism is the current ruling social and economic system / ideology. Almost all prominent modern Western(-American) perspectives are founded in capitalism, from the idea of 'rugged individualism', to how we view life through the lens of selling our labour (and having it exploited), the narrative that 'anybody can succeed if they work hard', to how we view ownership and property, etc.

It's a system that tells us that anyone can become rich and successful whilst operating in a manner that relies on and ensures most people remain underprivileged, ruled over by a class of powerful (wealthy) elites.

"From where you're kneeling it must seem like an 18-carat run of bad luck.
Truth is... the game was rigged from the start." (Fallout New Vegas, lol)

It's essentially manifested most prominently today as a network of intersecting power groups (corporations, governments, militaries, think-tanks, etc.), centred around gaining Capital in all its forms (economic, social, political, etc.) on a global scale. The military-industrial complex as you mentioned is also of course a major aspect of it and is a topic of its own.

I think capitalism was perhaps at first a step up from previous feudal and aristocratic systems, but in the end it's basically the same thing and relies on a Master-Slave dynamic, and is fast becoming unsustainable as power and resources continue to fall into the hands of a smaller and smaller group of people.

Obviously I haven't really done the question its full justice there, but I think it gets across the rough idea of what I'm talking about. I've also probably forgotten something important, but it is only 9am here, lol

I'm glad I asked you ! You're right on most of it except conflating corporatism/crony capitalism/state capitalism/fascism.

Here is the definition I find is best and excludes everything except an entity providing value to another entity.

The conflation between a free market and crony cap is why all the anti capitalistic zeal exists. To me it was a clever bait and switch via the corporations that only exist as a result of the unlimited power of the state.

Originally posted by Scribble
Yeah, America needs a couple of really important overhauls for its system to become functional for all non-economic classes. I'd say they'd be: Marijuana (and preferably all drugs) legalisation; state prisons only (no free prison labour for private enterprises); some form of workable national healthcare.

The thing about 'systemic racism' that its naysayers don't understand is that even if everybody in the US magically stopped being racist at once, many structural problems would still effect minority groups more on average than they would majority groups. I've always assumed that is what is meant by systemic racism: the system itself is 'racist', so to speak.

Even though I am a pessimist who does not believe that any real good can come of the current system — at the moment fighting for "equal rights" feels like fighting for an equal share of table scraps and breadcrumbs — there are still plenty of specific legislative battles that can be fought to make life better for the disadvantaged.

Honestly, America seems more like a form of Capitalist Feudalism to me than anything else. The 'bright side' is that capitalism is by its very nature (proudly) unsustainable, and so is destined to eventually collapse. That said, I still don't think there's much long-term hope for humanity, and the planet, unless the capitalist model collapses sooner rather than later. There is great damage being done economically, socially, not to mention ecologically, and not all of it will be able to be repaired.

I agree on your point about capitalism collapsing to save the planet. At least definitely the version that exists in modern day America.

It is unsustainable by the very nature that we currently bound to a finite world that we can't live without yet are constantly taking more from.

The only way I see some semblance of modern society and standards surviving is through a lot of the legislative points you and I are making and people taking on a responsible standard of living willingly.

That way the average person is less in raw self survival mode and more into save the species mode. Enforcing concepts like it's okay to not have children or only one or two children through more funding into things like Planned Parenthood. Basically going into a status of of advancement within our current confines. Reducing the number of products made every year. Making sure whatever we do take we rebuild before taking it again. Allowing nature to exist without us constantly asking if we can convert it for our own pleasure.

I think if these don't happen people will start to see their 'freedoms' erode more and more over time when it becomes clear it's that or the planet dies.

Here's a definition of privilege.

https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-privilege/

Originally posted by Klaw
There's no such thing as privilege.

This is very wrong. Privilege does exist in just about every society, if not all, Could be because of your skin tone, please of birth, religion, wealth, class, sex, physical ability etc.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Here's a definition of privilege.

https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-privilege/

Does anyone want to read this ? No, guess not. Shrug/

Source: Sensoy, Ozlem, and Robin DiAngelo. Is Everyone Really Equal?: An Introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education, first edition. Teacher’s College Press: New York, 2012, p. 57.

From a critical social justice perspective, privilege is defined as systemically conferred dominance and the institutional processes by which the beliefs and values of the dominant group are “made normal” and universal. While in some cases, the privileged group is also the numerical majority, the key criterion is social and institutional power.

Source: McIntosh, Peggy. “White privilege and male privilege: A personal account of coming to see correspondences through work in women’s studies.” Working Paper 189. Center for Research on Women, Wellesley College, 1988.

“I have come to see white privilege as an invisible package of unearned assets that I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was ‘meant’ to remain oblivious.”

Source: https://educatenotindoctrinate.org/glossaries/race-equity-glossary-of-terms/

White privilege: Refers to the unquestioned and unearned set of advantages, entitlements, benefits and choices bestowed on people solely because they are white. Generally white people who experience such privilege do so without being conscious of it.

New Discourses Commentary
In Critical Social Justice, privilege is viewed as the set of structural advantages that “dominant groups” are bestowed as a result of being dominant and yet that are denied to “oppressed groups” by virtue of their status of (structural) oppression (see also, systemic power). Privilege is deemed to be unearned and unquestioned, and often it is assumed that members of dominant groups are generally unaware of the privilege. People with privilege not only take their privilege for granted, under Theory, but also they are motivated to maintain it and legitimize it by perpetuating the structures and systemic power dynamics that allegedly keep it in place (see also, racism, sexism, ableism, heteronormativity, cisnormativity, white comfort, white equilibrium, white innocence, and epistemic oppression). They are also generally unaware of it and defensive of it (see also, internalized dominance, white fragility, colortalk, privilege-preserving epistemic pushback, white ignorance, active ignorance, pernicious ignorance, willful ignorance, racial contract, white solidarity, white talk, and white complicity).

Under a critical approach, one of the key objectives is to make people more aware of the Theorized “realities” of systemic power and oppression, which often falls under a heading of “consciousness raising.” Developing a “critical consciousness” (see also, wokeness) is the objective of this endeavor, in general, and this roughly means to become aware of the way one’s demographic group-based identity positions them with relationship to the systemic power dynamics of their society. This can be understood in terms of becoming more aware of both privilege and oppression, and in terms of privilege often entails generating increasing awareness of how one has unearned advantages that should be accounted for (see also, white innocence, racial stress, and antiracism, and also, individualism, universalism, human nature, and meritocracy). This is (part of) the meaning of the phrase “check your privilege,” which is (in part) meant as a reminder to be conscious of and acknowledge it (i.e., take on and operate from a critical consciousness).

The concept of privilege as used in Critical Social Justice seems to be a dramatic expansion of the more common usage that refers to economic privilege, which has long been reserved for the extremely wealthy. This usage carries the same mix of connotations now familiar from the usage in Critical Social Justice, a pejorative and shaming connotation that indicates disconnection from the harder realities of life when used by those accusing someone of having it (e.g, “he’s just a privileged ass”) and a rather humbling or even self-effacing connotation when used by people with it (e.g., “I know I have been very privileged in my life”). Thus, the term carries rather heavy moral valence.

Critical Social Justice has expanded this usage to include not only the aristocratic and extremely wealthy, but anyone of above-poverty means and, more crucially and often more relevantly, to the alleged relatively high social capital and larger set of opportunities that Theory insists comes with belonging to certain (dominant) identities and not others. Thus, someone can be deemed privileged for being able to own a modest home, in the economic sense, and for being straight, white, and/or male, in the identity sense (among others). The expansion of the term privilege in this way tends to make having or having access to relatively ordinary things and opportunities into moral transgressions unless they’re totally universal things (which is often impossible, especially on short timescales). In this sense, the critical notion of privilege looks at opportunity through the wrong end of the telescope.

Functionally, privilege operates in a nearly indistinguishable way from the religious concepts of Original Sin and Depravity. Original Sin is a stain one is born with and cannot escape, and it is the reason that each individual is fundamentally corrupt and in need of engaging in a spiritual life and finding atonement. Privilege works this way as well, though the spiritual system in question is that of systemic power dynamics as understood through critical theories, and the spiritual life/work expected comes as a result of developing a critical consciousness (which is deemed as a “lifelong commitment to an ongoing process”) and taking up the related activism (see also, antiracism).

The parallelism to the (Calvinist) religious concept of Depravity is nearer to the mark with regard to the functional meaning of privilege in a “faith system” of critical consciousness. Depravity is, in brief, the desire to sin. It is having a corrupted nature that desires to sin (as a result of the corrupting influence of Original Sin), and this fundamentally fallen nature is often understood as existing outside of one’s conscious awareness. With privilege, Theory insists that people with privilege want to maintain, perpetuate, normalize, legitimize, etc., that privilege and exhibit a remarkable array of defense mechanisms to prevent having to confront it head-on (specifically, and only, by developing a critical consciousness and taking up activism).

As is seen in Calvinism, where a spiritual life is encouraged by getting people to live up to the example of the Elect, who are fated for Heaven, spiritual life among the Woke is encouraged by encouraging them to work on behalf of the oppressed in allyship and/or solidarity and to “do the work” of antiracism (through an intersectional “practice” of engaging positionality constantly and intentionally). As we read from Ozlem and Sensoy, “It is always the primary responsibility of the dominant group members to use their positions to interrupt oppression” (p. 153). One is absolutely expected to become aware of one’s privilege to use it in a critical way to disrupt the forces of systemic evil in society.

This shines an interesting light on one of the simpler meanings of the term “intersectionality,” which is “to be aware of and analyze ways in which we are all both privileged and oppressed.” In this light, intersectionality is a tool by which the sin-like stain of privilege has to be reckoned with by all (but, perhaps, the Theoretically most oppressed person). To wit, see the first example below.

Non-disabled privilege lmao.

Do black people have a certain level of privilege over whites because we are largely better athletes? Makes it easier for us to go pro in sports and makes millions of dollars.

Originally posted by Trocity
Non-disabled privilege lmao.

Do black people have a certain level of privilege over whites because we are largely better athletes? Makes it easier for us to go pro in sports and makes millions of dollars.

I'm going to post as a lefty

No because blacks were bred during slavery to be more athletic, therefore their supremacy in sports was a specialized pre determined niche, developed with supremacist eugenics.
This means blacks will focus on professional sports, a vocation that is the one of the most competitive in the world, which ensures only a tiny fraction of the black population will be successful. Many professional athletes also don't do very well after they retire.
The professional athletes are then tokenized as a beacon of potential they can aspire to, which takes the focus off of the white man's further clandestine machinations. A sort of mythology that is aspirational, this room for ostensible upward mobility keeps them for revolution.

Thus, examples of black people doing well isn't proof that blacks have real upward mobility; it is in fact proof that white supremacy runs deeper than we ever could imagine.

Originally posted by Robtard
This is very wrong. Privilege does exist in just about every society, if not all, Could be because of your skin tone, please of birth, religion, wealth, class, sex, physical ability etc.

I disagree.

Everyone has their own story and we have no idea what their struggles have been.

So in that case, I choose to believe in their choices and hard work unless evidence shows the opposite.

Originally posted by Klaw
I disagree.

Everyone has their own story and we have no idea what their struggles have been.

So in that case, I choose to believe in their choices and hard work unless evidence shows the opposite.

Your platitudes don't alter reality. You can be wrong though.