I should never have downloaded The Guardian app

[Viking]

No. There is an assumption that you're missing, that you would have to confront in order to challenge the point.

The assumption is that group identity is judged towards an individual by other individuals, not by the individual itself.

If this assumption holds, then it is tautological to say that "group X is privileged statistically, therefore x is privileged".

Not sure what you are trying to say (do you mean that group membership is decided by others?).

The only assumption made is that it has not been proven that the definition of the group leads to every member of the group being privileged due to circumstances, or - leaving strict logic - at least that the probability that a random x is privileged is very high.

[Montmorency]

That is, given

group membership is decided [or minimally, confirmed] by others

then every member of a group has the same global privilege and everyone who has that global privilege is a member of that group.

Now, you could problematize that by introducing the contextual fluidity I briefly mentioned earlier, since if individuals decide group membership then it must also be the case that in a given situation a particular individual's privilege will be 'processed' given other individuals' own valuations and socializations. What this means is that privilege cannot be unmitigated or pragmatically homogeneous; furthermore, there is deep interaction between the differing privileges of group identities/statuses within a single individual. To put it succinctly, then, the consequence is that any SJW precept that all members of some group benefit or are harmed/disadvantaged in the exact same way by their privilege can't really hold.

However, it should even so be very unusual for the confluence of white malehood privilege to provide no benefit, even in a context featuring an encounter with Black Panther feminists.

Ultimately, the most useful application of the concept of "privilege" is in highlighting the difference of experiences ad valuations between groups. For instance, it might be tendentious for SJWs that whites experience racial bigotry, but not when it is acknowledged that this bigotry has very little 'sting', so to speak. The most useful way to bring it up, then, is to use it simply to point out why the grievances of other groups might not seem to make sense to them (i.e. the highest-status group-members).

[Montmorency]

An analogy to global warming might help to further illuminate the issue:

Just because it snows one day, or even if it snows more than usual one winter, it can't be concluded that global warming is bunk and that global average temperature is not rising.

On the other hand, a drought in itself does not make global warming an infallible concept without some other contributions (e.g. empirical data). Notably, it also doesn't make sense given this hypothetical drought to disestablish the biggest polluters in hopes of somehow saving the smallest polluters, who are anyway potential "big polluters" themselves.

[Viking]

That is, given

then every member of a group has the same global privilege and everyone who has that global privilege is a member of that group.

Which real groups would this apply to? Gender and skin colour are biological factors, and there is normally not much leeway for interpretation when it comes to which group an individual belongs to here, so you'd still have a fallacy - any x not experiencing the privilege is still part of X.

To give an obvious counterexample: if a man is the only human left in the universe, he cannot have any [social] privileges for being a man rather than a woman, yet he is still clearly a man.

However, it should even so be very unusual for the confluence of white malehood privilege to provide no benefit, even in a context featuring an encounter with Black Panther feminists.

What can be noticed about examples such as these, is that they are dependent on things like geographic location. If you live a place where there are no 'blacks', you have no meaningful privilege in not being 'black' any more than you have privilege in not having a fictitious skin colour that could theoretically give a disadvantage. Unlike proper privilege groups where the privilege is a constant (like rich people), it is here circumstantial. A very real risk is that privilege is assumed where it did not actually exist, something only a deeper investigation could uncover.

Ultimately, the most useful application of the concept of "privilege" is in highlighting the difference of experiences ad valuations between groups. For instance, it might be tendentious for SJWs that whites experience racial bigotry, but not when it is acknowledged that this bigotry has very little 'sting', so to speak. The most useful way to bring it up, then, is to use it simply to point out why the grievances of other groups might not seem to make sense to them (i.e. the highest-status group-members).

The problem with a focus on nebulous concepts like 'privilege', is that it invites to ignorance of complexity, which in turn invites false inferences. As per usual, not all correlations are the implications intuitively one could expect them to be. I believe in discussing separate issues separately (until a link is not just superficially plausible), because similar results can be produced by very different mechanisms.

[Montmorency]

Which real groups would this apply to? Gender and skin colour are biological factors, and there is normally not much leeway for interpretation when it comes to which group an individual belongs to here, so you'd still have a fallacy - any x not experiencing the privilege is still part of X.

As I said, internally it is a tautology.

To give an obvious counterexample

As I said, internally it is a tautology. If you don't introduce factors outside the scope of the case, and that challenge co-assumptions, then you would be getting somewhere.

If you live a place where there are no 'blacks', you have no meaningful privilege

Aha, let's say then that there are no non-whites in the area or even anywhere else - then other forms of privilege come into play, though more of ones that don't depend on particular upbringings or birth.

Unlike proper privilege groups where the privilege is a constant (like rich people)

Why do you think wealth has to be a constant in terms of differential privilege? There's no relevant metaphysical difference between wealth and ethnic group here.

In fact, all forms of privilege are "circumstantial".

A very real risk is that privilege is assumed where it did not actually exist, something only a deeper investigation could uncover.

I've already addressed this. Under the specified assumptions, all members of a group as judged by all relevant existing populations will have a "group privilege".

because similar results can be produced by very different mechanisms.

Go on.

[CrossLOPER]

In fact, all forms of privilege are "circumstantial".

Elaborate.

[Viking]

As I said, internally it is a tautology.



As I said, internally it is a tautology. If you don't introduce factors outside the scope of the case, and that challenge co-assumptions, then you would be getting somewhere.

I didn't use an abstraction to escape the real world, but to avoid the baggage associated with specific claims of privilege.

Aha, let's say then that there are no non-whites in the area or even anywhere else - then other forms of privilege come into play, though more of ones that don't depend on particular upbringings or birth.

It was not intended to be about whether or not you can be in a privileged position, but about how notions of privilege due to X can be misleading in cases where X does not guarantee privilege (and converesely: cases where Y does not guarantee disprivilege). Even in places where people have different levels of skin pigmentation, the concept of a 'black person' does not have to exist, just like we normally do not categorise people according to eye colour and talk about 'blue-eyed privilege' or 'green-eyed privilege'.

People's ideas about privilege depend heavily on where they are from, and this focus on 'white' vs 'black' is a typical US thing. In much of Europe (and many other places), nationality is hardly less important than skin colour.

Why do you think wealth has to be a constant in terms of differential privilege? There's no relevant metaphysical difference between wealth and ethnic group here.

There is, because wealth is relative; which is what privilege is as well. Per definition, being rich means that you have more valuable stuff than most people around you (where valuable is defined as something fundamentally desirable; such as something being able to feed you), so then you are in a privileged position. An exception would be in the scenario where you had a lot of valuable stuff, but was unable to use it for whatever reason; which would cancel out the privilege.

I've already addressed this. Under the specified assumptions, all members of a group as judged by all relevant existing populations will have a "group privilege".

I don't see what you are trying to say here.

Go on.

That's easy. Two different cultures (or sub-cultures) live within the same city, and the youth belonging to one of those cultures (A) are far more likely to end up in jail than youth from the other culture (B). In A, heavy drinking is considered normal; while in B, abstinence from alcohol is considered something to strive for. So why are the youth from B less in trouble with the law than youth from A - privilege or cultural differences?

[Montmorency]

in cases where X does not guarantee privilege

What I'm pointing it is that from the social justice perspective privilege is guaranteed - by their definition. So challenge the definition rather than equivocating.

I don't see what you are trying to say here.

See above.

just like we normally do not categorise people according to eye colour and talk about 'blue-eyed privilege' or 'green-eyed privilege'.

Importantly, it's perfectly possible - though by-the-by blue-eyed privilege is a thing, since it's typically associated with blonde whites.

There is, because wealth is relative

That's beside the point, since we're not currently preoccupied with privilege through time, its causes and trajectories, etc., excepting the following.

privilege or cultural differences?

Well, privilege per se wouldn't be a cause - it's a symptom. The cause would include culture*, but an important part of the story would be what contributed to both the privilege and the culture, which would be one group's domination over another.

*But I do agree that culture in the present day plays a significant role in the economic performance of underprivileged groups in societies, as per Max Weber. One of my biggest beefs with the social justice movement is that they attribute everything to culture except economic performance, and moreover manage to turn whites into perfect agents (taking agency as a concept for granted momentarily), stemming of the movement's libertarianism, but only when it comes to actions with respect to non-whites, who have no agency in that relationship. In all other cases, apparently, the roles are reversed, with marginalized ethnic groups having the agency. It's a true example of schizodoxia.

[Viking]

What I'm pointing it is that from the social justice perspective privilege is guaranteed - by their definition. So challenge the definition rather than equivocating.

Definition of what exactly? They are not defining men by privilege, and they are not likely to have a different definition of privilege, either.

No, this is not about definitions.

Importantly, it's perfectly possible - though by-the-by blue-eyed privilege is a thing, since it's typically associated with blonde
whites.

Obviously, it is possible. What to take note of, is that what is advantageous varies from place to place. It is to say that 'X privilege' is an inaccurate concept (at best) since X might not be advantageous (in a non-trivial manner) or give the same or similar advantages in other places. So if you want to be accurate, you need to specify a place (society) where this privilege is supposed to exist, because even if a trait were beneficial in all known societies, this benefit is not likely to be uniform, but vary a lot.

That's beside the point, since we're not currently preoccupied with privilege through time, its causes and trajectories, etc., excepting the following.

? Time was not invoked.

[Gilrandir]

Gender and skin colour are biological factors

The former is wrong. Sex is a biological factor, gender is a social construct.

Even in places where people have different levels of skin pigmentation, the concept of a 'black person' does not have to exist

In the former USSR countries where no "native" blacks are in evidence, the term "black" was derogatorily referred to Georgians, Armenians, Azerbaidjanians and other inhabitants of the Caucasus. Curiously, "black" (referring both to the above mentioned nationalities and afrowhateverians) has a derogatory and offensive connotation, while "Negro" is considered to be neutral.

[Viking]

The former is wrong. Sex is a biological factor, gender is a social construct.

Some use the word gender to refer to a social concept, others to refer to a biological concept. No bonus points for correctly guessing which group I belong to will be given.

[Montmorency]

Viking, you're using privilege in a different, more general, sense. In your usage, it is correct to say that privilege (i.e. advantage) is highly contextual.

In the SJW terminology, it is contextual as well, but it has a different sense. For them, privilege is not merely an advantage or disadvantage incurred related to some group membership. Rather, it wholly covaries with the group membership in itself, since the emphasis here is on the assumptions those with or without privilege carry, which in the case of (group-)powerful contributes to net advantage as well as certain mindsets. Succinctly put, SJW "privilege" is simply the other side to the coin of (group) power.

I have already explained how this kind of usage can be improved upon.

I've just been trying to point out how usages vary, and how this should be taken into account when criticizing some view. For example, as HT was fond of pointing out, "estimate" has a popular usage and a technical-mathematical usage. I really don't want this to come to an argument over what X really means, or an in-depth look at SJW ideology, since one is an invalid, quasi-psychoanalytic question, and the other isn't something I care too much about.

[Papewaio]

Of course it is important who says what.

I hazard a guess that everyone here would have a different feeling about the following statement depending on whom said it, either your mum or your girlfriend:
"What to have sex with me"

So be honest, does the same statement from a different (I hope they are different) people make you react differently? If so welcome to the real world, if not I have some real estate in Tasmania I can offer you...

[a completely inoffensive name]

I hazard a guess that everyone here would have a different feeling about the following statement depending on whom said it, either your mum or your girlfriend:
"What to have sex with me"

I think I would be concerned for both cases considering that sentence doesn't make sense. /joke

[Viking]

In the SJW terminology, it is contextual as well, but it has a different sense. For them, privilege is not merely an advantage or disadvantage incurred related to some group membership. Rather, it wholly covaries with the group membership in itself, since the emphasis here is on the assumptions those with or without privilege carry, which in the case of (group-)powerful contributes to net advantage as well as certain mindsets. Succinctly put, SJW "privilege" is simply the other side to the coin of (group) power.

I still don't see what kind of mechanism this is supposed to be. No group membership carries infinite weight or remains unmodified in the company of other group memberships. Simply put, in real life, you can hardly ever simply be a man (or anything else), unless you are e.g. described anonymously in a news story - but even then you are likely to have an age or something else describing you.

[Montmorency]

Er, but I even said that.

[Viking]

Which is another way of saying that membership of X does not guarantee any statistical privilege associated with X.

[Ironside]

Which is another way of saying that membership of X does not guarantee any statistical privilege associated with X.

Yes, but privilege also means that you can suddenly find yourself in situation where it's active without you doing anything to create a personal reputation. Say that police stops you and treats you very different depending on what race/gender/class you belong to.

[CrossLOPER]

Yes, but privilege also means that you can suddenly find yourself in situation where it's active without you doing anything to create a personal reputation. Say that police stops you and treats you very different depending on what race/gender/class you belong to.

That can mean anything, so it means nothing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Some use the word gender to refer to a social concept, others to refer to a biological concept. No bonus points for correctly guessing which group I belong to will be given.

No, gender is actually a social construct, different people fit the construct to differing degrees (and that's biological) but under a different gender construct those people would fit differently. For example, in a highly homosocial society homosexuality is a norm and men who are mildly intersex become objects of desire (as they are less threatening to Alpha males) whilst highly feminine women become less desirable than more "boyish" ones. Conversely, we live in a society which has normalised heterosexual relationships and constructed highly differenced genders in support of this which means that intersex people are naturally threatening.

It's like sociopathy, it's only a bad thing if your particular sociopathic tendencies are considered negative in your society.

[Ironside]

That can mean anything, so it means nothing.

Murder can mean anything, since unlawful can vary (it has been quite a bit of people who has been literally incapable to commit murder, no matter how many people they personally killed), so it means nothing. Thus we don't have murder, or any other form of crime.

Female journalists get on average more harassment, in particular of the sexual violence kind. A native has way less risk of having their work application thrown away after someone simply looked at the name, compared to the foreigner.

That doesn't mean that there are exceptions, but those does not nullify the existence of privilege.

The term comes from that since the "norm" doesn't experience the extra difficulties, it often doesn't even occur for the "norm" that those difficulties exist at all.

[Viking]

Yes, but privilege also means that you can suddenly find yourself in situation where it's active without you doing anything to create a personal reputation. Say that police stops you and treats you very different depending on what race/gender/class you belong to.

This is where the fact that any individual belongs to a whole lot of different groups enters the picture: the effects of a disprivileged group membership can more than cancel out the effects of a privileged group membership. For almost any group that is privileged on average would you be able to find members who in sum are less privileged than members of a disprivileged group. The only way to make sure that you end up with a truly privileged group, is to define the group by the members being privileged in some way; in which case gender, skin colour and similar categories are too broad and arbitrary.

To give an example, a foreign male can easily be less privileged than a native female (no difference in physical appearance between the foreign male and native males is needed).

In terms of the so-called male privilege, it is interesting to note that in almost every country (including Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia), female life expectancy is higher than male life expectancy, typically by several years.

You'd expect disprivilege to have a negative impact on health, so why does the supposedly most privileged gender end up dead earlier? On the surface, it does in no way add up. This is obviously not to say that women in countries like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia are on average disprivileged in many aspects, but it is to say that men in those countries (and almost any other country) may be disprivileged in aspects that have the potential to shorten lifespans; which would be a fundamental disprivilege.

No, gender is actually a social construct, different people fit the construct to differing degrees (and that's biological) but under a different gender construct those people would fit differently. For example, in a highly homosocial society homosexuality is a norm and men who are mildly intersex become objects of desire (as they are less threatening to Alpha males) whilst highly feminine women become less desirable than more "boyish" ones. Conversely, we live in a society which has normalised heterosexual relationships and constructed highly differenced genders in support of this which means that intersex people are naturally threatening.

It's like sociopathy, it's only a bad thing if your particular sociopathic tendencies are considered negative in your society.

I guess I wasn't clear enough: I am using the biological definition of gender (which some people insist on referring to as sex), which is based on the production and/or presence of germ cells.

This most basic definition describes something that is invariant with culture, even when given some natural extensions in the case of infertility (if you had what looked liked egg cells or sperm cells (and were fully capable of delivering them/having delivered to them), but were incapable of producing offspring with other humans due to an incompatibility of the germ cells, you'd be neuter according to the most basic definition; as biological gender forms a pairwise binary by compatibility of germ cells and delivery mechanisms (or, in theory at least: a higher order system, such as a trinary or a quaternary)).

[Gilrandir]

if you had what looked liked egg cells or sperm cells (and were fully capable of delivering them/having delivered to them), but were incapable of producing offspring with other humans due to an incompatibility of the germ cells, you'd be neuter according to the most basic definition

So pensioners are neuter gender, I see.

[Viking]

So pensioners are neuter gender, I see.

This is relates to the natural extensions I mentioned (though most male pensioners are still fertile, so it's not necessary for them...). Even if the reproductive organs were completely removed, most big organisms would still have plenty of secondary gender characteristics that would make it meaningful to talk about male and females. Some common examples are size, physical strength, colouring, shape and what they feed on.

[Gilrandir]

Some common examples are size, physical strength, colouring, shape and what they feed on.

Again, seniors tend to show great similarity in the aspects you enumerated, at least in physical strength, shape and food they consume.

[Ironside]

This is where the fact that any individual belongs to a whole lot of different groups enters the picture: the effects of a disprivileged group membership can more than cancel out the effects of a privileged group membership. For almost any group that is privileged on average would you be able to find members who in sum are less privileged than members of a disprivileged group. The only way to make sure that you end up with a truly privileged group, is to define the group by the members being privileged in some way; in which case gender, skin colour and similar categories are too broad and arbitrary.

Let me put it this way. A female Saudi Arabian minister knows more about being a woman in Saudi Arabia than the average very poor Saudi Arabian man living on the streets. Agreed? So that means that the average man in Saudi Arabia doesn't know much about being a woman there. So when he's talking about women, he'll talk from an uninformed position and will miss tons of details that are obvious for a Saudi Arabian woman and that affects them negatively. Now change that poor man to a man in power. He'll know about as much and as an extra bonus will make laws about women he knows very little about.

Privilege as a term is all about that matter. It's a term about things you can't normally know through first hand experience since it will never happen to you. But for the other group it's common knowledge. Basically the term originates from white poor people knowing all about being poor, but they still know nothing about being black and living under Jim Crow laws. They might think they do, but they don't.

It's also a vector word, rather than a summary. Male privilege is on a different scale than native privilege, with poverty as a third, etc.

The term "check your privilege" is basically a term for maybe your base assumptions, made from your experiences, might not match the reality (for the group you're talking about, as an example). And since its origin and what is most interesting for a certain type of social studies are about groups with notable weaker power than the norm, that will be the focus of the term.

[Viking]

Let me put it this way. A female Saudi Arabian minister knows more about being a woman in Saudi Arabia than the average very poor Saudi Arabian man living on the streets. Agreed? So that means that the average man in Saudi Arabia doesn't know much about being a woman there. So when he's talking about women, he'll talk from an uninformed position and will miss tons of details that are obvious for a Saudi Arabian woman and that affects them negatively. Now change that poor man to a man in power. He'll know about as much and as an extra bonus will make laws about women he knows very little about.

Privilege as a term is all about that matter. It's a term about things you can't normally know through first hand experience since it will never happen to you. But for the other group it's common knowledge. Basically the term originates from white poor people knowing all about being poor, but they still know nothing about being black and living under Jim Crow laws. They might think they do, but they don't.

This describes a different and unrelated concept relative to the most basic definition of privilege. The female would not know what life is like for the male, either. She would only be able to make assumptions. This lack of knowledge is invariant with a group's privilege.


(a privilege by law is also a rather different beast than privilege by general socialisation)

The term "check your privilege" is basically a term for maybe your base assumptions, made from your experiences, might not match the reality (for the group you're talking about, as an example).

Many of those who speak about privilege are themselves from the supposed privileged groups, which becomes problematic from this perspective: they do not know what they are talking about any more than those who are sceptical of the presented concepts of privilege, but simply make other sorts of assumptions - perhaps based on a different set of anecdotes.

[Ironside]

This describes a different and unrelated concept relative to the most basic definition of privilege. The female would not know what life is like for the male, either. She would only be able to make assumptions. This lack of knowledge is invariant with a group's privilege.

(a privilege by law is also a rather different beast than privilege by general socialisation)

That's because everyday speech is different from social studies speech. Its focus is entirely on how weaker groups relate to the norm, and the disadvantages the weaker group has by deviating from the norm. And those belonging to the norm doesn't notice those disadvantages and don't have them and are thus privileged.

Many of those who speak about privilege are themselves from the supposed privileged groups, which becomes problematic from this perspective: they do not know what they are talking about any more than those who are sceptical of the presented concepts of privilege, but simply make other sorts of assumptions - perhaps based on a different set of anecdotes.

It depends of course. You can be very well read about the issues another group has, and it's possible to know more about the general issue than the average person belonging to that group (the specific issues are another matter).

It's also possible to talk positively about terms you never really got.

[Montmorency]

the most basic definition of privilege.

That's because everyday speech is different from social studies speech.

I've just been trying to point out how usages vary, and how this should be taken into account when criticizing some view. For example, as HT was fond of pointing out, "estimate" has a popular usage and a technical-mathematical usage.

lol

[Viking]

That's because everyday speech is different from social studies speech. Its focus is entirely on how weaker groups relate to the norm, and the disadvantages the weaker group has by deviating from the norm. And those belonging to the norm doesn't notice those disadvantages and don't have them and are thus privileged.

Not really relevant; it's an observation of how such a phenomenon cuts both ways. This may have non-trivial consequences; such as both exaggeration and underestimation of disprivilege.

lol

Not relevant here.

But I and my 200 000 friends could define 'Nazis' as those who disagree with us; and if some people object to our usage of that term, we can just say "well, we define 'Nazi' that way, so go eat a biscuit". You specifically mentioned 'SJWs' in that post you quote, and they are generally not academics. They also use these terms intentionally outside of their own circles; just as it was used in the article that sparked this topic.