Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[Valmy]

So basically the so-called ™White Privilege™ is actually being able to enjoy human rights as would say Tania de Montaigne here:

Yeah it is not a big deal at all unless you don't have it.

[Josquius]

All White Privilege means is that you don't have to put up with the shit of being black (or whatever) in the United States. It doesn't mean your life hasn't been horrible or you haven't spent 20 years in prison for a crime you didn't commit or you haven't lived in poverty with no legs or whatever. But I constantly see people on both sides of the identity politics divide thinking it means every white person has a trust fund and their own helicopter or something.

Yeah. It's annoying how many people don't get this.
I see it basically like a character sheet. You get various buffs and debuffs for privelege. E.g. +20 for having rich parents, - 5 for being black, etc... And there's also lots of stuff on the perks where you get smaller or bigger bonuses when faced with people with different perks.

If I was ever to do a sociology PhD (I'm not) I'd love to try and quantify these numbers.

[DGuller]

If the phrase "white privilege" is pissing off reasonable white people, then maybe it's a sign that this phrase is counter-productive.

[Valmy]

If the phrase "white privilege" is pissing off reasonable white people, then maybe it's a sign that this phrase is counter-productive.

I agree and like I said not just white people find it confusing. But nobody consulted me. But this is not unusual when words from academia go out into the wild. Like "institutional racism" which is probably well understood and agreed upon in the ivory tower but confusing outside it.

[Maximus]

I guess it depends on whether its purpose is to make people feel comfortable.

[The Larch]

If the phrase "white privilege" is pissing off reasonable white people, then maybe it's a sign that this phrase is counter-productive.

Or maybe those people were not as reasonable as they thought.

[Tamas]

Yes but I am not sure how much we can expect people to understand the subtle difference of saying that they led a relatively privileged life compared to minorities vs. saying they had no challenges to overcome and had it too easy. Such a subtle difference between a valid point and an unjust personal insult is not a good way of driving a point across.

[The Larch]

Yes but I am not sure how much we can expect people to understand the subtle difference of saying that they led a relatively privileged life compared to minorities vs. saying they had no challenges to overcome and had it too easy. Such a subtle difference between a valid point and an unjust personal insult is not a good way of driving a point across.

That is not a subtle difference IMO. It is consciously or inconciously misinterpreted, and people tend to overreact out of defensiveness, be it reasonable or not.

[merithyn]

Yes but I am not sure how much we can expect people to understand the subtle difference of saying that they led a relatively privileged life compared to minorities vs. saying they had no challenges to overcome and had it too easy. Such a subtle difference between a valid point and an unjust personal insult is not a good way of driving a point across.

The easiest way that I've seen this done is to ask a white man if he would happily change places with a black woman.

[DGuller]

If the phrase "white privilege" is pissing off reasonable white people, then maybe it's a sign that this phrase is counter-productive.

I agree and like I said not just white people find it confusing. But nobody consulted me. But this is not unusual when words from academia go out into the wild. Like "institutional racism" which is probably well understood and agreed upon in the ivory tower but confusing outside it.

I think there are three big problems with "white privilege":

1)  Even if there is some truth to it, the messaging is completely counter-productive.  Everyone was born to different circumstances, and thus different levels of head start in different ways.  Some people won the lottery in most of the ways that matter, and thus it's much more likely that they will go on to have a successful life.  If you want such people to empathize with the less fortunate one, hitting them in the face with the hammer of "duh, it was easy for you" is not the effective way to get them to empathize.  This is less about truth and more about effective human communication; sometimes the only way to get the point across is to gently nudge people to get them to see it your way.

2)  Even if you're born to favorable circumstances, you still have to execute on them.  Therefore, people who still executed on them well but now have those achievements dismissed might be a little miffed.  Perhaps human beings with human emotions would be more receptive to messaging of the "it's harder for people in difference circumstances" kind than they would be to "it was easier for you".  Mathematically it's identical, but unfortunately people do not evaluate statements mathematically.

3)  It's racist.  If making generalization about races is wrong, then it is wrong regardless of race.  If making generalizations about genders is wrong, then it is wrong regardless of gender.  If something that you say would sound horrible if you substitute "black" for "white" or "female" for "male", then it actually sounds horrible to at least some reasonable people and thus should be avoided.  If you think that history made bigotry against some okay but not against others, then stop arguing against bigotry, as it's confusing how you can be arguing against it while supporting it.  Bigotry is wrong because it strips individuality from people and reduces them to identities, and white people are just as much of individuals as others.

[Eddie Teach]

If the phrase "white privilege" is pissing off reasonable white people, then maybe it's a sign that this phrase is counter-productive.

To what?

A peaceful society, maybe.

[merithyn]

Our country is racist. Period. So until that changes, we have to acknowledge that it exists, and that it factors into how people are treated.

[Eddie Teach]

Yes but I am not sure how much we can expect people to understand the subtle difference of saying that they led a relatively privileged life compared to minorities vs. saying they had no challenges to overcome and had it too easy. Such a subtle difference between a valid point and an unjust personal insult is not a good way of driving a point across.

The easiest way that I've seen this done is to ask a white man if he would happily change places with a black woman.

Don't be cis-phobic.

[Oexmelin]

Everyone was born to different circumstances, and thus different levels of head start in different ways.

But the thing is, as a statistician knows well, that one's very individual circumstances actually shares a lot of things in common with quite a few number of different people, including things we like to imagine to be unique to us. And all societies are organized around categories that do group people together; people are happy to belong to groups that provide invisible advantages precisely because it magnifies their own accomplishments. In a society that glorified collective accomplishments, that may be frowned upon. But in the US (and elsewhere), the myth of the self-made individual is especially strong, with considerable deleterious effects. 

[Josquius]

3)  It's racist.  If making generalization about races is wrong, then it is wrong regardless of race.  If making generalizations about genders is wrong, then it is wrong regardless of gender.  If something that you say would sound horrible if you substitute "black" for "white" or "female" for "male", then it actually sounds horrible to at least some reasonable people and thus should be avoided.  If you think that history made bigotry against some okay but not against others, then stop arguing against bigotry, as it's confusing how you can be arguing against it while supporting it.  Bigotry is wrong because it strips individuality from people and reduces them to identities, and white people are just as much of individuals as others.

Fair points on the others to some extent, the second rings some bells of those people who insist everything is down to decisions and psychology isn't a thing, but I'm sure its not what you meant.

On this one though.... No.
Its not racist at all.
Imagine you, as you are, everything exactly the same, expect black.
You would have faced more struggles in your life, you would have had whatever things you had against you in the real world plus the added negatives that came from racism.
Same too with a female version of you. Imagine everything is the same then add the sexism on top.

None of this is to say a rich black woman is somehow less privileged than a poor white guy. But comparing like with like these are negative factors in our current society.