My life of rainbows and sunshine (the fallacy)

[Darken12]

So as I said, while I agree that there is the concept of privilege, it can be hard to determine when it comes into play.

Which is why it's necessary for it to be discussed in academic levels, by learned people, who have extensive knowledge of history, geography, sociology, anthropology and current events. The word and its applications need to be discussed more, not less, and people need not only to be less aversive of it, but to fully apprehend what it means and why it's used.

And I would agree that liberal ideas of morality are all well and good in the college classroom, but in regards to real life, the feelings of those who were systematically raped and then had their sexual attacks denied by the perpetrator being played down for some misguided sense of altruism isn't realistic nor is it moral. People in Serbia and Croatia are not going to gain a "victory" from having South Koreans suppress the feelings that their grandmothers have from being raped. Serbs and Croatians will still not like each other regardless of what South Koreans do.

So when does it end? When do we say "all right, enough atrocities and bad blood, the issue has been settled"? I'll tell you when: never, not with that attitude. This isn't a matter of "liberal morality that is well and good only in the college classroom", it's a matter of putting an end to atrocities and hatred. Eventually, we must rise above our past, or else we are always going to be chained by it. We must, somehow, put an end to the bad blood. This isn't child's play, this isn't lighthearted morality. We are talking about human lives, about war crimes, hate crimes and crimes against humanity. We must walk a razor-thin line between acknowledging the atrocities of the past and not allowing that past to justify atrocities and discrimination in the future.

Well if they want to feel disrespected, that is fine. I won't tell them how to feel, just as long as they don't try to pressure me to care about their cause.

It's possible that the issue might be a little less black and white than you make it out to be. Sometimes, when a person tries to educate you on something, they're not "pressuring you to care", they are offering you a choice to care, and while giving you unwanted information is definitely uncalled for, it's not the awful behaviour a lot of people make it out to be, particularly when this information is trying to improve society and further social progress. While I would completely agree that there are people who most certainly take it too far, we shouldn't swing too far to the other side and treat every single person who utters the word "privilege" in your presence like they're some sort of hate-spewing demon.

 

[Colour Scientist]

It's not that life is automatically a breeze for straight, white, middle-class men. It's that you generally don't experience oppression or bigotry based on your gender, race or sexual orientation. Apart from the kind of confrontations you listed above. Politics, high business positions, many professions, media, sports, movies, video games, etc... Are all dominated by and largely cater to your demographic.

Do you still have to work hard to get what you want? Of course! Can you experience prejudice based on other things, such as your social standing, sure. The defensive attitude from those groups comes from people who try to tell them that any prejudice they experience doesn't exist anymore or it isn't as bad as they think it is, that's where the resentment comes from.
You find it a lot online, where people will argue that they don't observe or experience bigotry or oppression, ergo it does not exist. This can cause the kind of attitudes that you experience within these groups.

There are assholes in every group out there and, unfortunately, the rest of us have to deal with the attitudes that are caused by their behaviour.

I was always curious about how prevalent this attitude was in Europe, because while what you said about might be true over here in the US, do you really think it applies equally so in Europe?
I mean your Irish, right? Given Ireland's history in the last 100 years, can you honestly say that being a white male allowed you to avoid oppression or bigotry? I mean it seems like the Troubles(yes I realize that is in Belfast) showed that being a white male didn't protect you from oppression or bigotry. Better yet, judging from this thread I made a while back about Glasglow football [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.385839-Green-vs-Blue-Celtics-vs-Rangers-Fenians-versus-Huns-and-Footbal-Violence-in-Glasgow#15352740], it seems as if being a white male hardly guaranteed that you wouldn't suffer oppression and bigotry. Another example that comes to mind is that I've had friends who were from the Baltic and if what they say is true, the level of ethnic hatred between Serbs and Croatians is far, far, far worse than anything a minority in America might face.

It seems that while what you said might be valid in the US, it certainly isn't reflective of the entire world.

Look, from your post and other threads you've made, not the one you mentioned, I can gather that your not as well informed on the Ireland's history as you think you are so just don't bring it into a discussion where it's not really relevant, alright?

Also, I was never talking about the US specifically.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Look, from your post and other threads you've made, not the one you mentioned, I can gather that your not as well informed on the Ireland's history as you think you are so just don't bring it into a discussion where it's not really relevant, alright?

Also, I was never talking about the US specifically.

I'm not getting into the subject of North Ireland sovereignty, I'm asking you if you can honestly say that being a white male in Ireland or North Ireland has stopped people from suffering oppression and bigotry. I'm not asking you whether those men were Protestant or Catholic, just whether the fact that they were White men stopped them from facing bigotry or oppression.
Its completely relevant because Ireland and North Ireland are part of what I was referring to before when I said that it seems that some people want to assume that the problems that occur in the US(like who gets privilege) are reflective of the rest of the world. I was saying that problems in the US are not globally reflective, and that Ireland and North Ireland are perfect examples of the fact that being a White man doesn't guarantee that a person won't suffer bigotry or oppression.

I mean I could ask you about being a White man growing up in East Germany if you wanted, but I'm not sure about how much you know about that situation.

I am willing to accept this idea as it applies to the topic, but only if you can explain to me in what ways privilege in the USA differs from Privilege in the UK. If you cannot do this, then your rebuttal amounts to little more than a baseless assertion.

As I mentioned before, from what little I have learned about the violence that has happened at football games in Glasglow [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.385839-Green-vs-Blue-Celtics-vs-Rangers-Fenians-versus-Huns-and-Footbal-Violence-in-Glasgow#15352740\], or the Troubles of Belfast, it would appear that being a White man doesn't stop you from being the victim of bigotry and oppression.

The difference in the US is that a person can be proud that they are Irish/English/North-Irish/Catholic/Protestant and they don't put their life in risk by doing so. However, see how different the reaction is if a
Pakistani/Iranian/[Insert group of people from a Middle-Eastern country[footnote]That isn't Israel[/footnote]]/Muslim person wants to also show pride in who they are, because there is a chance that they could be putting their life at risk. So you could say that while European-Americans have the privilege of being proud of their ethnic and/or religious background, ethnic/religious minorities in the US don't have that same privilege and could face death threats, violence, or verbal harassment.

Going back to what I said before about the US not representing the entire world, from what I have heard from a friend from Serbia, it seems like willful ignorance to say that being a White man give you some kind of positive privilege. When my friend went to visit serbia wearing a t-shirt with the Serbian flag on it, he was told that he shouldn't show any signs of Serbian pride when he was on a boat crossing a lake, where Croatia was on one side, because the people on the Croatian coast will start shooting at him if he does so. Now I don't know if he was exaggerating or not, but the point is that being a White ethnic Serbian male didn't do him any favors in regards to whether the Croatians would like him or not.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Of course what these likely privileged few fail to realise is that it is not race or gender that is the true source of inequality in the world; it's class.

Yeah...no. Class results in all sorts of inequalities, yes, but you cant just point to one issue and say "this is the source of it all". All sorts of inequalities have sprung up, entwined but not the same.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Which is why it's necessary for it to be discussed in academic levels, by learned people, who have extensive knowledge of history, geography, sociology, anthropology and current events. The word and its applications need to be discussed more, not less, and people need not only to be less aversive of it, but to fully apprehend what it means and why it's used.

Sure, but there should be caution towards which crowd of "learned people" we are referring to, because what is agreed upon from a group of people from one country might be heavily disputed by a group of people from another country. Case in point, look at the concept of Human rights and the criticism that some Asian countries [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_values] have with the concept. They might agree that there is such a thing as human rights, but some Asian "learned people" might feel that there should be a stronger emphasis on collectivism, while some Western "learned people" might feel that there should be a stronger emphasis on individualism.

Clearly it seems that even "learned people" can have a difference of opinion on something if they come from different backgrounds.

So when does it end? When do we say "all right, enough atrocities and bad blood, the issue has been settled"? I'll tell you when: never, not with that attitude.

Wrong, it ends when Japanese politicians stop saying how Korean women were not forced into sex/prostitution [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1544471/Japanese-PM-denies-wartime-comfort-women-were-forced.html]. Japan has actually already apologized before [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women#Apologies_and_compensation], but it seems that the Japanese politicians just can't stop bringing the subject up again and again. I mean look at Germany, they apologized for the Holocaust and let the subject alone. They didn't have PM constantly say how the holocaust didn't happen, they admitted they were wrong and that was that. As a consequence, I have yet to hear Israel voice the kind of hate for Germany that I have heard South Koreans utter for Japan.

This isn't a matter of "liberal morality that is well and good only in the college classroom", it's a matter of putting an end to atrocities and hatred. Eventually, we must rise above our past, or else we are always going to be chained by it. We must, somehow, put an end to the bad blood.

And that could happen, but having leaders of the country that was previously the aggressor say "nah, didn't happen. Stop your complaining", only further agitates the situation. What can help solve the situation is for people like Emperor Akihito to take South Korea up on their offer of accepting an apology [http://japandailypress.com/emperor-akihito-wishes-to-visit-south-korea-will-apologize-if-necessary-2112902], and helping the two nations move on together. Your naive if you think "out of sight, out of mind" is going to stop South Korean people from hating Japan.

It's possible that the issue might be a little less black and white than you make it out to be. Sometimes, when a person tries to educate you on something, they're not "pressuring you to care", they are offering you a choice to care, and while giving you unwanted information is definitely uncalled for, it's not the awful behaviour a lot of people make it out to be,

As long as I can reply, "thank you but I'm not interested" and walk on by without them following me and demanding that I listen to them, I have no issue with them. However, if they are like some people I have met who support greenpeace, and they follow you when you politely decline to want to listen to them, then I have a problem with that.

particularly when this information is trying to improve society and further social progress.

That is their opinion.

While I would completely agree that there are people who most certainly take it too far, we shouldn't swing too far to the other side and treat every single person who utters the word "privilege" in your presence like they're some sort of hate-spewing demon.

As long as it is not used as an ad-hominem, I don't have an issue with it. As I mentioned to Devoneaux above, I fully realize that in the US, a Irish or English American can be proud of their ethnic heritage without fearing death threats or violence being inflicted upon them while a person who is perhaps Pakistani or Iranian American would have their loyalty to America called into question and they may receive death threats. Same goes for being Protestant or Catholic, a person can safely practice either one of those forms of Christianity without fearing violence will be inflicted upon them, while sadly it seems that you don't even have to be Muslim to be the target of a hate crime [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting] intended to kill innocent Muslim-Americans.

 

[f1r2a3n4k5]

I think that the ONLY reasonable way for the privileged class to partake in a discussion with the non-privileged, which is to enumerate the possible unearned benefits that you may have received.

For example, I am a male. For the same amount of work, I can expect to earn 120% that of a woman's salary. This is a privilege benefit. I receive it solely for having been born male.

Thus, in my conversations about women's rights in the workplace, I should be conscious of it. I should attempt to support any initiatives to rectify this power imbalance.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

hellasnip

I asked specifically for the UK as the poster was from UK.

And I cited the history of the violence between Catholics and Protestants in Belfast as well as the violence that occur in association with football games in Glasglow. Being a white male didn't stop people for harming each other in either case.

How people are treated in other parts of the world isn't relevant to the discussion actually.

Yes it is, because the entire time I have been saying that what may be true in the US(see:White-privilege), is not reflective of the rest of the world, hence why I brought up Ireland, Scotland, Serbia and Croatia.

Though I will say (on a mostly unrelated note) that the concept of "pride" for your ethnicity or nationality is the catalyst for racism/xenophobia and should be discouraged anyway. One should be no more proud for their gender, skin color or country of origin anymore than one should be proud of their eye color. A man or woman should be proud of his or her personal accomplishments, and not something that his parents simply gave them at birth.

That is your opinion, but I don't see the problem with it as long as you allow everybody to have their own little party. I'll give it to you that some people take it too far(Aryan Nation, Nation of Islam), but I have to laugh at the idea that you think that celebrating St. Patrick's day[footnote] Yes, I know Saint Patrick brought Christianity to Ireland but its always celebrated as a day that people are proud to be Irish or pretend that they are Irish[/footnote] and having Irish Americans being proud that they are ethnically Irish is somehow going to make the US xenophobic. If anything, most people would be too busy trying to get drunk while wearing as much green as possible while they speak in fake Irish accents.

 

[Busard]

I pretty much aknowledge i'm priviledged. I'm white, straight, male, born middle class and live in fucking switzerland. As far as lucky cards go, I picked one of the bests. If people ask me if i'm priviledged, I say "hellz yeah", I know the huge amount of luck I have because it's also important to know where you are in life and that people are not as fortunate as you.

The ONLY thing I kinda dislike though is when the "You're priviledged" argument is being used to keep me away from discussions or matters regarding the subject or LGBT or women's rights, etc...
I certainly don't have the point of view of the people concerned and don't have their experiences, but that doesn't mean I cannot contribute to a discussion, especially since some of my closest friends are either lesbians, bi, or one especially annoyingly good at soul calibur gay bloke that tries to woe me with his handsome voldo moves (Fuck you Rick, you know he's cheap when YOU use him).

I guess what annoys maybe OP and some white straight dudes when the word "priviledged" is used by some is that they interpret it as "We think of you as lesser/dumber people because you didn't go through what we did, hence without knowing you we will judge you"

 

[Nikolaz72]

hellasnip

I asked specifically for the UK as the poster was from UK.

And I cited the history of the violence between Catholics and Protestants in Belfast as well as the violence that occur in association with football games in Glasglow. Being a white male didn't stop people for harming each other in either case.

How people are treated in other parts of the world isn't relevant to the discussion actually.

Yes it is, because the entire time I have been saying that what may be true in the US(see:White-privilege), is not reflective of the rest of the world, hence why I brought up Ireland, Scotland, Serbia and Croatia.

Though I will say (on a mostly unrelated note) that the concept of "pride" for your ethnicity or nationality is the catalyst for racism/xenophobia and should be discouraged anyway. One should be no more proud for their gender, skin color or country of origin anymore than one should be proud of their eye color. A man or woman should be proud of his or her personal accomplishments, and not something that his parents simply gave them at birth.

That is your opinion, but I don't see the problem with it as long as you allow everybody to have their own little party. I'll give it to you that some people take it too far(Aryan Nation, Nation of Islam), but I have to laugh at the idea that you think that celebrating St. Patrick's day[footnote] Yes, I know Saint Patrick brought Christianity to Ireland but its always celebrated as a day that people are proud to be Irish or pretend that they are Irish[/footnote] and having Irish Americans being proud that they are ethnically Irish is somehow going to make the US xenophobic. If anything, most people would be too busy trying to get drunk while wearing as much green as possible while they speak in fake Irish accents.

Anything that leads to nationalism is bad, it always starts out with "This song praising our fields and our sanctity under god is beautiful" and leads to bad things eventually.

I mean, you have the type like my grandmother who says "This song by Hans Christian Anderson about our country is beautiful) and thats probably what you mean, and if things just stayed like that it would be ALRIGHT. Problem is, sooner or later it always leads to some nationalistic asshole going.

"The immigrants don't understand the beauty of this song, they are different from us. We need to enforce this song being taught in school as to show the REAL DANISH YOUTH how Danish they are and to emphasize the difference between us and the immigrants" Now, the problem wouldn't be that much if it was just 'one' nationalistic asshole. But when it's neigh 20% of the country, theres a massive problem. And it breeds-

Negative Stereotypes. I don't even need to explaim why those a bad, it leads to hatecrime. I've experienced it myself, it's not just against middle-eastern youth. Its just IN GENERAL. And its horrible.

Soceity has been better off ever since we started hating Nationalism. Therefor we should keep doing it, if we embrace globalism eventually the thing will run off and die in a gutter.

 

[Busard]

...

I don't -entirely- agree on the problem of nationalism. Or maybe there's some part of the discourse I wish to be picky on.

As much as I can respect other countries' cultures and traditions, I do not welcome all of them in my everyday life. There are some part of my culture that some other culture could clash with too much and I wish to keep that intact, at least at the place where it's relevant. Of course, adapting to other countries when you go there is all natural but it should be the same if they come over. It's like when people come at your place "Make yourself at home but don't forget you're in mine". There are some manners and general things to respect.

Now, ultra nationalism ("Our country is better than yours") of course is silly. But I don't see really anything wrong with having love for a country where you live and trying to uphold it's values in a sensible way.

Then again, I might've gone in a hyperbole regarding the thing you meant.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Anything that leads to nationalism is bad, it always starts out with "This song praising our fields and our sanctity under god is beautiful" and leads to bad things eventually.

I mean, you have the type like my grandmother who says "This song by Hans Christian Anderson about our country is beautiful) and thats probably what you mean, and if things just stayed like that it would be ALRIGHT. Problem is, sooner or later it always leads to some nationalistic asshole going.

"The immigrants don't understand the beauty of this song, they are different from us. We need to enforce this song being taught in school as to show the REAL DANISH YOUTH how Danish they are and to emphasize the difference between us and the immigrants" Now, the problem wouldn't be that much if it was just 'one' nationalistic asshole. But when it's neigh 20% of the country, theres a massive problem. And it breeds-

I'm going to be quite honest with you here, this fear of "patriotism=nationalism=bad" seems to be something I repeatedly hear Europeans voice, while generally I don't hear other people don't feel as strongly about it and I have to say, the rest of the world isn't like you guys. Yes, other countries have gone to war and still go to war over patriotism/nationalism. Yes, I realize that European nationalism caused WWWI and WWI[footnote]Hitler combined with article 231 in the Treaty of Versailles[/footnote], but that doesn't mean that the rest of us always take it as far as Europe. Say what you will about America, but you don't see us taking our patriotism so far as to threaten England in this day and age. Yet it always seems like there is a European person telling me how "horrible" it is that America is patriotic and how we shouldn't have our nations flags out during Fourth of July. It's rediculous and its nonsense.

The same goes for St.Patrick's day, because you can't seriously believe that this....


...is somehow going to result is some Irish-American nationalism. It is complete and utter nonsense. Next you will be telling me that Cinco de Mayo will lead to Mexican-American nationalism. No..no it will not and do you know why? Because people do the exact same thing on St. Patrick's day that they do on Cinco de Mayo, pretend that they are Irish/Mexican and use it as an excuse to get as drunk as possible while they wear green or a stereotypical sombrero.

Soceity has been better off ever since we started hating Nationalism. Therefor we should keep doing it, if we embrace globalism eventually the thing will run off and die in a gutter.

As I said before, Europe may feel this way about nationalism and patriotism, but the rest of the world sure as hell doesn't agree.

 

[Nikolaz72]

...

Snip

No, you had it largely right. When you are in someone elses house you respect the rules of their home, problem is our country isn't our home to the same extend that our house is. And that's what Nationalists want to enforce, the rules of their home onto the entire country.

That can include anything from religious tradition to weasel-stomping day. And having a vegetarian move into your country and trying to force her to participate in weasel-stomping day or mark her as someone refusing to assimilate to your norms and therefor as someone that should be thrown out, I mean. That's just wrong, and silly. And, (I cannot emphasize this enough) Dangerous.

The government should not enforce any culture or tradition or religion onto the people of a country (Which is what Nationalism does). It should be the individuals own choice whether they want to have certain traditions or beliefs.

Now ofcourse this doesn't extend to practical things such as taxes, language, or general law. But you get the point, enforcing culture by law is barely a step above, or about the same as enforcing Religion by law. So just as you shouldn't mix state and Religion, you should not mix Culture/Tradition with State.

 

[Nikolaz72]

Anything that leads to nationalism is bad, it always starts out with "This song praising our fields and our sanctity under god is beautiful" and leads to bad things eventually.

I mean, you have the type like my grandmother who says "This song by Hans Christian Anderson about our country is beautiful) and thats probably what you mean, and if things just stayed like that it would be ALRIGHT. Problem is, sooner or later it always leads to some nationalistic asshole going.

"The immigrants don't understand the beauty of this song, they are different from us. We need to enforce this song being taught in school as to show the REAL DANISH YOUTH how Danish they are and to emphasize the difference between us and the immigrants" Now, the problem wouldn't be that much if it was just 'one' nationalistic asshole. But when it's neigh 20% of the country, theres a massive problem. And it breeds-

I'm going to be quite honest with you here, this fear of "patriotism=nationalism=bad" seems to be something I repeatedly hear Europeans voice, while generally I don't hear other people don't feel as strongly about it and I have to say, the rest of the world isn't like you guys. Yes, other countries have gone to war and still go to war over patriotism/nationalism. Yes, I realize that European nationalism caused WWWI and WWI[footnote]Hitler combined with article 231 in the Treaty of Versailles[/footnote], but that doesn't mean that the rest of us always take it as far as Europe. Say what you will about America, but you don't see us taking our patriotism so far as to threaten England in this day and age. Yet it always seems like there is a European person telling me how "horrible" it is that America is patriotic and how we shouldn't have our nations flags out during Fourth of July. It's rediculous and its nonsense.

The same goes for St.Patrick's day, because you can't seriously believe that this....


...is somehow going to result is some Irish-American nationalism. It is complete and utter nonsense. Next you will be telling me that Cinco de Mayo will lead to Mexican-American nationalism. No..no it will not and do you know why? Because people do the exact same thing on St. Patrick's day that they do on Cinco de Mayo, pretend that they are Irish/Mexican and use it as an excuse to get as drunk as possible while they wear green or a stereotypical sombrero.

Soceity has been better off ever since we started hating Nationalism. Therefor we should keep doing it, if we embrace globalism eventually the thing will run off and die in a gutter.

As I said before, Europe may feel this way about nationalism and patriotism, but the rest of the world sure as hell doesn't agree.

Doesn't agree doesn't mean it Isn't true. What about American Nationalism during the Cold War, the mass killings and arrestations of communists and the fact that it almost caused Thermonuclear war? Oh wait, that Isn't an issue. Because in the end it didn't so thats alright.

What about Nationalism in Africa, Asia, Russia? What about Nationalism in Australia?

All theese places hundreds, no thousands, no Millions. Have died.

Aye, the most well known is Europe. But it sure as hell Isn't the only place that Nationalism has ruined shit.

Nationalism is a disease, (a stubborn diease, and one that wont die easily because some will always believe it's a force of good) and the only cure is globalization. The fact that you post what you do. Only goes to prove that true.

Unless you are racist you will realize that all humans are the same, and if something happends in one place like you say (Mind you to a smaller or larger extend it's happened and is happening -everywhere in the world-) it could happend everywhere else (Already does)

And you should probably listen to the just warnings of those with experience, rather than just dismiss it and wait for the next big massacre/war/genocide to roll by.

 

[Darken12]

Sure, but there should be caution towards which crowd of "learned people" we are referring to, because what is agreed upon from a group of people from one country might be heavily disputed by a group of people from another country. Case in point, look at the concept of Human rights and the criticism that some Asian countries [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_values] have with the concept. They might agree that there is such a thing as human rights, but some Asian "learned people" might feel that there should be a stronger emphasis on collectivism, while some Western "learned people" might feel that there should be a stronger emphasis on individualism.

Clearly it seems that even "learned people" can have a difference of opinion on something if they come from different backgrounds.

Obviously, I thought that was implied by my earlier comment about how the conception of privilege was cultural and therefore subject to different applications as cultures vary in space and time. Ideally, the concept of privilege should be debated by a fair and balanced group of people (within each culture) from different backgrounds, political/ideological inclinations and education levels, so as to apply the concept as neutrally and fairly as possible in that particular culture.

Wrong, it ends when Japanese politicians stop saying how Korean women were not forced into sex/prostitution [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1544471/Japanese-PM-denies-wartime-comfort-women-were-forced.html]. Japan has actually already apologized before [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women#Apologies_and_compensation], but it seems that the Japanese politicians just can't stop bringing the subject up again and again. I mean look at Germany, they apologized for the Holocaust and let the subject alone. They didn't have PM constantly say how the holocaust didn't happen, they admitted they were wrong and that was that. As a consequence, I have yet to hear Israel voice the kind of hate for Germany that I have heard South Koreans utter for Japan.

And that could happen, but having leaders of the country that was previously the aggressor say "nah, didn't happen. Stop your complaining", only further agitates the situation. What can help solve the situation is for people like Emperor Akihito to take South Korea up on their offer of accepting an apology [http://japandailypress.com/emperor-akihito-wishes-to-visit-south-korea-will-apologize-if-necessary-2112902], and helping the two nations move on together. Your naive if you think "out of sight, out of mind" is going to stop South Korean people from hating Japan.

I have no idea how we ended up discussing this, but this is both largely outside my expertise and irrelevant to the topic at hand. I stand by my previous statement and I neither agree nor disagree with anything you're stating here (because I am not informed enough to form an opinion on the subject).

As long as I can reply, "thank you but I'm not interested" and walk on by without them following me and demanding that I listen to them, I have no issue with them. However, if they are like some people I have met who support greenpeace, and they follow you when you politely decline to want to listen to them, then I have a problem with that.

I'm pretty sure most people let you walk on after you've declined to listen. The problem is that we tend to remember those who don't (and therefore stand out) instead of those who do.

That is their opinion.

Yes, indeed, just like the examples you cited above regarding what you think would end hostilities between two countries. We all have opinions, more or less grounded in facts and solid logic.

As long as it is not used as an ad-hominem, I don't have an issue with it. As I mentioned to Devoneaux above, I fully realize that in the US, a Irish or English American can be proud of their ethnic heritage without fearing death threats or violence being inflicted upon them while a person who is perhaps Pakistani or Iranian American would have their loyalty to America called into question and they may receive death threats. Same goes for being Protestant or Catholic, a person can safely practice either one of those forms of Christianity without fearing violence will be inflicted upon them, while sadly it seems that you don't even have to be Muslim to be the target of a hate crime [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting] intended to kill innocent Muslim-Americans.

Yes, we have repeatedly established that privilege is culture-dependent and varies in terms both of time and space. Nobody is arguing that. Please stop tilting at windmills.

 

[Colour Scientist]

Look, from your post and other threads you've made, not the one you mentioned, I can gather that your not as well informed on the Ireland's history as you think you are so just don't bring it into a discussion where it's not really relevant, alright?

Also, I was never talking about the US specifically.

I'm not getting into the subject of North Ireland sovereignty, I'm asking you if you can honestly say that being a white male in Ireland or North Ireland has stopped people from suffering oppression and bigotry. I'm not asking you whether those men were Protestant or Catholic, just whether the fact that they were White men stopped them from facing bigotry or oppression.
Its completely relevant because Ireland and North Ireland are part of what I was referring to before when I said that it seems that some people want to assume that the problems that occur in the US(like who gets privilege) are reflective of the rest of the world. I was saying that problems in the US are not globally reflective, and that Ireland and North Ireland are perfect examples of the fact that being a White man doesn't guarantee that a person won't suffer bigotry or oppression.

I mean I could ask you about being a White man growing up in East Germany if you wanted, but I'm not sure about how much you know about that situation.

I'm not touching your understanding of the North because that's all over the place but let's just take Ireland's struggle with England as an example. I'm talking about this in broad, baby terms.

No being a white male in Ireland didnt exempt you from the oppression but you weren't SEEN as a straight white male. They were seen as culturally inferior. They weren't oppressed because they were white, they weren't oppressed for being men, they were oppressed because they were Irish. Again, this is at a very, very basic level but that's the crux of the issue.

Also, these examples you're bringing up are totally irrelevant considering they're a world away from the situation today, culturally, ideologically, etc... You're comparing early-mid 20th century Europe to modern-day America, your arguments really don't stand up and, to be honest, are pretty silly.

 

[Ickorus]

I can hardly believe some of the replies here, so willing to display what the OP was venting about.

Thing is, if you're willing to believe based on our gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation, that we somehow have a better life than you (When you have literally NO knowledge of who we are other than those three descriptors) and are then willing to act with hostility towards us because of it then YOU are PART OF THE PROBLEM yourselves and no better than the people you claim to be fighting against.

And you should be ashamed of yourselves since you are the people that should know better.