Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[crazy canuck]

To me the term suggests that every white person is born into a cushier life than every black person, which is demonstrably false.

Depends what you mean by cushier.  If you mean that every white person has less of a chance of being shot by police officers when they attack congress, then yeah, demonstrably true.

[Razgovory]

So where and how would you explain white privilege to these people?

I think there has been enough explanation.

And you wonder why there is so much resistance to the Idea.

No, I don't wonder.  I have a pretty good idea why there is so much resistance to accepting the truth that white privilege exists.

Yeah, calling someone racist doesn't exactly help either.

[DGuller]

If you want to have your cake and eat it too, it actually does help a lot.  If you're a white person who did legitimately live a privileged life, you can buy privilege offset credits by droning on and on about white privilege that every white person has.  However, just like with other kinds of masturbation, it's all about the journey, reaching the destination quickly and effectively is counterproductive. 

If you drone on about white privilege in a way that is off-putting to others, you make sure that nothing actually gets done about whatever unfairness you're thinking of when you talk of white privilege.  You'll get to maintain indefinitely both your smugness, as one of the few people who gets it, and (in your case) the very real privilege.

[grumbler]

If you want to have your cake and eat it too, it actually does help a lot.  If you're a white person who did legitimately live a privileged life, you can buy privilege offset credits by droning on and on about white privilege that every white person has.  However, just like with other kinds of masturbation, it's all about the journey, reaching the destination quickly and effectively is counterproductive. 

If you drone on about white privilege in a way that is off-putting to others, you make sure that nothing actually gets done about whatever unfairness you're thinking of when you talk of white privilege.  You'll get to maintain indefinitely both your smugness, as one of the few people who gets it, and (in your case) the very real privilege.

But one of the privileges incorporated in white privilege is the privilege of saying, when pushed into a corner by one's own bullshit rhetoric about white privilege, "there has been enough explanation."  That's double-plus smugness.

[garbon]

"White privilege" is a great term to discuss the concept with people who accept it exists (not to mention how great to show you understand it), but really not good at convincing others. And convincing others matters.

In this scenario who are the others and what are we trying to convince them of?

People who mostly don't spend much time thinking about this either way, other than what they casually see on their FB feed or hear about from friends.

This being racial disparities in America?
And what specifically are we trying to convince them of?

One can argue that "privilege" is the wrong word to use but then what is the right word and how does it achieve the goal?

I view this as categorically different from defund the police.  The problem with "defund the police" is not just that it is political poison - although that admittedly is a problem.  The problem is that it is objectively a terrible idea and it is an statement that we as a society are incapable of operating functional institutions like police forces. It should be re-fund and reform the police, not defund.  Better police, not fewer and worse.

"White privilege" is not in the same category - it is not a policy proposal but a statement of fact about the world. In America it is more advantageous to be white than black.  That is a undeniable fact. And to have a categorical benefit or advantage is the very definition of privilege. So to argue against the usage of the term, is to argue that in order to reach through to people, the reality has to be sugar-coated in some way to make it more palatable to hear.  That's a possible argument to make but it requires an understanding of: (1) what group or groups one is trying to reach with the softly, softly approach, (2) what alternative approach to use and how effective it will be. and (3) what effectiveness may be lost by using a less direct approach.

Yes, all very good points.

[Berkut]

"White privilege" is a great term to discuss the concept with people who accept it exists (not to mention how great to show you understand it), but really not good at convincing others. And convincing others matters.

In this scenario who are the others and what are we trying to convince them of?

People who mostly don't spend much time thinking about this either way, other than what they casually see on their FB feed or hear about from friends.

This being racial disparities in America?
And what specifically are we trying to convince them of?

That the issue of racial based differences in outcomes is something that is real in a way that they probably have not considered before.

That there is systemic problems that need to be addressed beyond their own personnel views on race and racism.

One can argue that "privilege" is the wrong word to use but then what is the right word and how does it achieve the goal?

How did we talk about this prior to the use of the phrase "white privilege"?

I view this as categorically different from defund the police.  The problem with "defund the police" is not just that it is political poison - although that admittedly is a problem.  The problem is that it is objectively a terrible idea and it is an statement that we as a society are incapable of operating functional institutions like police forces. It should be re-fund and reform the police, not defund.  Better police, not fewer and worse.

But it you ask reasonable people what "defund the police" means, they will tell you exactly that - that it means re-allocating funding from agressive policing to social services and such. Again, it's simply a label - in this case a bad one, because

1. It suggests that it means something it does not to people who are not sure what the underlying argument is that it is labeling, and
2. It allows your opponents an easy opportunity to interpret the position in the worst possible way and then insist that is actually what you mean. Which results in shitty arguments about what you don't believe, rather then good arguments about what you do believe.

"White privilege" is not in the same category - it is not a policy proposal but a statement of fact about the world.

Neither of them are proposals or statements of fact. They are label's used to represent those things, and in either case are not the only possible labels to be used.

In America it is more advantageous to be white than black.  That is a undeniable fact. And to have a categorical benefit or advantage is the very definition of privilege. So to argue against the usage of the term, is to argue that in order to reach through to people, the reality has to be sugar-coated in some way to make it more palatable to hear.  That's a possible argument to make but it requires an understanding of: (1) what group or groups one is trying to reach with the softly, softly approach, (2) what alternative approach to use and how effective it will be. and (3) what effectiveness may be lost by using a less direct approach.

It is more advantageous to be white then black, so why does the term say "white privilege" and doesn't even mention blacks? Does that suggest it is more advantageous to be white then asian? The term doesn't have the word black in it at all. What do we mean by "white" by the way? What about native Americans? They by most measures are even worse off then blacks - so how does that term encompass them and their racial disadvantages compared to whites?

I can pick apart the claim that the term is somehow definitionally the "most direct" approach easily by pointing out that it is incredibly vague, does not actually identify who the white are privileged compared to, or even mention that it applies to only certain societies, and not always even in those societies.

It's just a label. There is nothing about it that makes it clearly the "most direct" possible label such that any other label must by definition be "sugar coating". And what in the hell is wrong with sugar coating anyway, when it comes to trying to convince people of things?

Should we insist that the pro-choice crowd not be called such a thing, because pro-fetus killers is "more direct"? Labels matter, and finding good labels for your arguments is just common sense. A good label is one that both illustrates the principle well AND is seen as being positive and not designed to make the listener emotionally defensive.

Racial advantage? White advantage? Hell, I don't know. I am no word smith.

But what I do know is that the word "privilege" raises hackles. It has a connotation of undeserved advantage, of some kind of immoral position at a personal level, that is simply going to be met with emotive resistance for many people in our society that feel anything but "privileged". If you WANT to raise hackles, then by all means, lets use it. I suspect in fact that it was in fact with exactly that intent that it was crafted. And maybe some hackles need to be raised. But as a general means of convincing people you actually want to convince to act, think, and VOTE differently than they might be inclined to do, I can't imagine much of a worse term to describe the problem. It was like someone set out to come up with a label most likely to piss off the very people you would want to convince.

[Berkut]

This articulates my objections to the term better then I can (not much of a bar to get over, to be sure):

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2016/11/15/why-its-better-talk-about-advantage-rather-privilege-essay

Now try shifting your language to that of advantages. Ask yourself, "What advantages do I have over that person over there?" That question is much easier to answer and yields more nuanced responses. If I answer for myself, I can readily see that not all advantages are inherently problematic on their face. As a tall person I am advantaged in some spaces (e.g., reaching up to grab something from the high shelf in a supermarket), and disadvantaged in others (e.g., sitting in a cramped seat on an airplane). Yet if one looks under the surface, one can see that in both circumstances my (dis)advantage is predicated on design choices that are outside of my control. They are systemic. (It is also silly to say that I am tall privileged.)

What about a wealthy high school student who scored well on their SAT? They could unpack their success by understanding their advantage, for example: "Yes, my SAT scores are higher than someone else's, but that may be because I have advantages in schooling that are predicated on the wealth of my community and/or parents. My schools are better, and I had access to tutoring. Moreover, some of that wealth is a result of oppressing people of color by historically denying them the ability to buy property in nicer areas, thus limiting their capacity to build and transmit wealth to their children. Those advantages are unearned, yet I still benefit from them. So, no, I won't get bent out of shape if someone else with lower SAT scores is admitted into this fancy college and I'm not."

[garbon]

This articulates my objections to the term better then I can (not much of a bar to get over, to be sure):

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2016/11/15/why-its-better-talk-about-advantage-rather-privilege-essay

Now try shifting your language to that of advantages. Ask yourself, "What advantages do I have over that person over there?" That question is much easier to answer and yields more nuanced responses. If I answer for myself, I can readily see that not all advantages are inherently problematic on their face. As a tall person I am advantaged in some spaces (e.g., reaching up to grab something from the high shelf in a supermarket), and disadvantaged in others (e.g., sitting in a cramped seat on an airplane). Yet if one looks under the surface, one can see that in both circumstances my (dis)advantage is predicated on design choices that are outside of my control. They are systemic. (It is also silly to say that I am tall privileged.)

What about a wealthy high school student who scored well on their SAT? They could unpack their success by understanding their advantage, for example: "Yes, my SAT scores are higher than someone else's, but that may be because I have advantages in schooling that are predicated on the wealth of my community and/or parents. My schools are better, and I had access to tutoring. Moreover, some of that wealth is a result of oppressing people of color by historically denying them the ability to buy property in nicer areas, thus limiting their capacity to build and transmit wealth to their children. Those advantages are unearned, yet I still benefit from them. So, no, I won't get bent out of shape if someone else with lower SAT scores is admitted into this fancy college and I'm not."

The solve is to replace privilege with advantage and all would be good? His opinion piece seems a little light on showing that works in practice.

Hell his wealthy student who couldn't get into their chosen university sounds pretty implausible. They calmly look at their advantages and decide not to get bent out of shape? Meanwhile had someone pointed our their privileges they would have kicked off?

[Berkut]

This articulates my objections to the term better then I can (not much of a bar to get over, to be sure):

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2016/11/15/why-its-better-talk-about-advantage-rather-privilege-essay

Now try shifting your language to that of advantages. Ask yourself, "What advantages do I have over that person over there?" That question is much easier to answer and yields more nuanced responses. If I answer for myself, I can readily see that not all advantages are inherently problematic on their face. As a tall person I am advantaged in some spaces (e.g., reaching up to grab something from the high shelf in a supermarket), and disadvantaged in others (e.g., sitting in a cramped seat on an airplane). Yet if one looks under the surface, one can see that in both circumstances my (dis)advantage is predicated on design choices that are outside of my control. They are systemic. (It is also silly to say that I am tall privileged.)

What about a wealthy high school student who scored well on their SAT? They could unpack their success by understanding their advantage, for example: "Yes, my SAT scores are higher than someone else's, but that may be because I have advantages in schooling that are predicated on the wealth of my community and/or parents. My schools are better, and I had access to tutoring. Moreover, some of that wealth is a result of oppressing people of color by historically denying them the ability to buy property in nicer areas, thus limiting their capacity to build and transmit wealth to their children. Those advantages are unearned, yet I still benefit from them. So, no, I won't get bent out of shape if someone else with lower SAT scores is admitted into this fancy college and I'm not."

The solve is to replace privilege with advantage and all would be good? His opinion piece seems a little light on showing that works in practice.

Hell his wealthy student who couldn't get into their chosen university sounds pretty implausible. They calmly look at their advantages and decide not to get bent out of shape? Meanwhile had someone pointed our their privileges they would have kicked off?

You seem super attached to the term and very resistant to the idea that there could be a better one. I would just stick with it if I were you.

But yes, the entire point is that people do in fact react differently to ideas being presented in different ways. I know, humans are such divas. If only they were not so dramatic, like you.

[garbon]

Comment section on his piece seem to focus on how advantage is just another word for privilege and that issue with both is we should focus on disadvantages people face not "cutting down" this with advantages/privileges.

And then there was this gem:

The problem isn't "privilege" vs. "advantage", though the latter might be slightly better. The problem is "white". I've never had to think of myself as white [except in deciding what box to check on a job application] -- and I realize that is part of the whole "privilege" thing. But "white" is not really my skin color. It doesn't connect to my English-French-Irish ancestry and culture. I had no control over my ancestry. I don't really like the people who identify themselves as white -- as in "white supremacist". So to me, it feels like an epithet, an indicator that the speaker is biased and not ready for a dialogue. I'll just grin and bear it -- because equality is something I value as an American, and because I'm probably wrong about the intent.

[garbon]

This articulates my objections to the term better then I can (not much of a bar to get over, to be sure):

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2016/11/15/why-its-better-talk-about-advantage-rather-privilege-essay

Now try shifting your language to that of advantages. Ask yourself, "What advantages do I have over that person over there?" That question is much easier to answer and yields more nuanced responses. If I answer for myself, I can readily see that not all advantages are inherently problematic on their face. As a tall person I am advantaged in some spaces (e.g., reaching up to grab something from the high shelf in a supermarket), and disadvantaged in others (e.g., sitting in a cramped seat on an airplane). Yet if one looks under the surface, one can see that in both circumstances my (dis)advantage is predicated on design choices that are outside of my control. They are systemic. (It is also silly to say that I am tall privileged.)

What about a wealthy high school student who scored well on their SAT? They could unpack their success by understanding their advantage, for example: "Yes, my SAT scores are higher than someone else's, but that may be because I have advantages in schooling that are predicated on the wealth of my community and/or parents. My schools are better, and I had access to tutoring. Moreover, some of that wealth is a result of oppressing people of color by historically denying them the ability to buy property in nicer areas, thus limiting their capacity to build and transmit wealth to their children. Those advantages are unearned, yet I still benefit from them. So, no, I won't get bent out of shape if someone else with lower SAT scores is admitted into this fancy college and I'm not."

The solve is to replace privilege with advantage and all would be good? His opinion piece seems a little light on showing that works in practice.

Hell his wealthy student who couldn't get into their chosen university sounds pretty implausible. They calmly look at their advantages and decide not to get bent out of shape? Meanwhile had someone pointed our their privileges they would have kicked off?

You seem super attached to the term and very resistant to the idea that there could be a better one. I would just stick with it if I were you.

But yes, the entire point is that people do in fact react differently to ideas being presented in different ways. I know, humans are such divas. If only they were not so dramatic, like you.

I think if one is going to posit that the term is what is preventing progress, one better have some good evidence. A quick word substitution highlighted by an implausible change in thought supported by...? Isn't really that.

If we go back to our 'poor whites' how does telling them they have advantages change anything? What bridges them to accepting that being one gives them those advantages?

[ulmont]

I think if one is going to posit that the term is what is preventing progress, one better have some good evidence. A quick word substitution highlighted by an implausible change in thought supported by...? Isn't really that.

Yeah, I have a strong suspicion that any other word for "privilege" is going to quickly suffer the same objections as "privilege."  Much like moron / cretin / idiot / mentally retarded all became pejorative pretty quickly after their introduction.

The fundamental problem is that it's tough to convince someone that their life would be worse if they weren't white while their life sucks.  I've got no solution for that, although I think that working on universal programs might help somewhat.

[grumbler]

"Minority tax" works in the sense that it is something we want to get rid of, as opposed to the idea that we don't want anyone to have what the "whites" have.  I think that, in fact, we would want everyone in the world to have the "white privilege" of good schools, lack of prejudice against them, economic opportunity, etc.

[Razgovory]

I think if one is going to posit that the term is what is preventing progress, one better have some good evidence. A quick word substitution highlighted by an implausible change in thought supported by...? Isn't really that.

Yeah, I have a strong suspicion that any other word for "privilege" is going to quickly suffer the same objections as "privilege."  Much like moron / cretin / idiot / mentally retarded all became pejorative pretty quickly after their introduction.

The fundamental problem is that it's tough to convince someone that their life would be worse if they weren't white while their life sucks.  I've got no solution for that, although I think that working on universal programs might help somewhat.

Honestly, I think you could convince quite a few people if you sat them down and explained what you are talking about.  These people are for the most part not racist.  They simply don't know that other people are treated differently.  They've never been pulled over for driving black, or followed around in a store by clerks or preserved their receipts because someone may accuse them of stealing or any of the other routine indignities that black people face on a regular basis.

Explaining this by shouting slogans through a bullhorn or posting memes isn't an effective means of persuasion.  This is part of a larger problem in the American left.  The answers seem so self-evidently true to leftist that they don't bother to explain why they are true.

[garbon]

I think if one is going to posit that the term is what is preventing progress, one better have some good evidence. A quick word substitution highlighted by an implausible change in thought supported by...? Isn't really that.

Yeah, I have a strong suspicion that any other word for "privilege" is going to quickly suffer the same objections as "privilege."  Much like moron / cretin / idiot / mentally retarded all became pejorative pretty quickly after their introduction.

The fundamental problem is that it's tough to convince someone that their life would be worse if they weren't white while their life sucks.  I've got no solution for that, although I think that working on universal programs might help somewhat.

Honestly, I think you could convince quite a few people if you sat them down and explained what you are talking about.  These people are for the most part not racist.  They simply don't know that other people are treated differently.  They've never been pulled over for driving black, or followed around in a store by clerks or preserved their receipts because someone may accuse them of stealing or any of the other routine indignities that black people face on a regular basis.

Explaining this by shouting slogans through a bullhorn or posting memes isn't an effective means of persuasion.  This is part of a larger problem in the American left.  The answers seem so self-evidently true to leftist that they don't bother to explain why they are true.

What? The issue is the left never wants to explain anything? I think it is more likely to be said that many want it to be an easy slogan, something quick and are turned off my attempts of the left to accomodate that.

Also, if only these people had the ability to learn things without needing non-white people to explain it to them. If only they could learn things online rather than using the internet to post stupid memes about how they aren't privileged.