I should never have downloaded The Guardian app

[Montmorency]

Yet this exactly how 'privilege' is very often applied: group X is privileged statistically, therefore x is privileged. This is a fallacy.

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".

[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.

[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.