Privilege and the right to complain
- Thread starter StriderShinryu
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This is one of my biggest issues with this concept. It relies on an assumption right out of the gate. Something that we shouldn't be encouraging. It is possible to be one thing but be treated like another. For example, when I was locked up I was placed in the same area that the guards put gay people(with the sex offenders). I am not gay, but because they believed I was, I was treated as they would be treated.thaluikhain said:
The problem with invoking "privilege" is that even if they do have an understanding of the issue their position is dismissed summarily for being the wrong class of person regardless of actual experience.
I believe companies doing stuff that is wrong need to be called out, if its DLC related or connected to them never casting female mains.StriderShinryu said:
I think the people who throw up arguments "oh you have a nice life you shouldn't complain about minor things" are just shithole trolls who can't come up with anything better, or anal housed trolls who defend large companies because they can only have one console.
We want the people with more money and spending power to tell these companies off as it is, because they're more likely to see the money flow rather than opinions.
As with other topics governments should be held accountable life shouldn't be wasted and treated as poorly as it is but our world isn't a fair place luck is much of being privileged in this world.
I'd just avoid fighting with people on the internet.
Personally, I think that this sort of catch-all argument of "others have it worse" is rubbish and it works both ways. As a general thing (i.e. not just the current example of Isareli conflict) there are people who are all around less fortunate than me but might still be feeling great and there are billionaires with everything they ever needed who still have problems.
I do think it is somewhat worth keeping in mind though when you start to get really emotionally invested in what amounts to "first world problems", especially if it's something that you worry about a lot. It's one thing being annoyed about that Watch Dogs footage being misleading, it's another to spend 2 hours on a message board trying to argue how much of a travesty it is and how hard it is to be a gamer while feeling terribly sorry for yourself. This is the kind of thing I noticed a lot with the Jimquisition videos where Jim Sterling regularly seems to get genuinely, passionately outraged at things that really amount to minor inconveniences and annoyances.
Everyone gets in bad moods over things and everyone is entitled to have a little whinge about it and there's nothing wrong with that, but once you get over the initial emotional impact I do think there's some merit in trying to look at the big picture and figure out whether it's really worth getting yourself worked up about it.
I do think it is somewhat worth keeping in mind though when you start to get really emotionally invested in what amounts to "first world problems", especially if it's something that you worry about a lot. It's one thing being annoyed about that Watch Dogs footage being misleading, it's another to spend 2 hours on a message board trying to argue how much of a travesty it is and how hard it is to be a gamer while feeling terribly sorry for yourself. This is the kind of thing I noticed a lot with the Jimquisition videos where Jim Sterling regularly seems to get genuinely, passionately outraged at things that really amount to minor inconveniences and annoyances.
Everyone gets in bad moods over things and everyone is entitled to have a little whinge about it and there's nothing wrong with that, but once you get over the initial emotional impact I do think there's some merit in trying to look at the big picture and figure out whether it's really worth getting yourself worked up about it.
I think in the past, both groups(gay people , trans people, and sex offenders ) were heavy targets towards prison violence. So to "protect" them, they segregated them from the general population. Im not sure if this happens still today, but there was also the added reasoning of homosexuality /transgenderism being seen as a mental condition, although that part i am speculating on.Vault101 said:
There is a crappy movie on the topic, I think I saw in on netflix a few months ago ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-11_%28film%29 ).
Yeah it was a pretty big eye opener for me as well. Even with this having been in the mid 90's it still seemed pretty wtf to me. They refer to it as "protective custody" but it was the area they put all the sex offenders out of concern of what may happen to them in general population with the more conventional criminals. Perhaps with gays they have a similar concern. problem is that "protective custody at this facility was actually a bit more dangerous then general pop largely because of the kinds of criminals it contained.Vault101 said:
People are conflating two different lines of thought here. One concerns the concept of privilege, and the other concerns the 'fallacy of relative privation', which Cerebrawl linked to. In fact, even though Cerebrawl linked to the latter, I'm fairly sure Nomotag (who he was responding to) was actually talking about the former.
The concept of privilege is not to do with dismissing concerns because bigger problems exist. It is the idea that somebody who does not have personal experience of something negative may lack the same level of insight as somebody who does have direct personal experience. That's the concept of privilege, and it has nothing to do with appealing to larger problems.
The concept of privilege is not to do with dismissing concerns because bigger problems exist. It is the idea that somebody who does not have personal experience of something negative may lack the same level of insight as somebody who does have direct personal experience. That's the concept of privilege, and it has nothing to do with appealing to larger problems.
I think you failed to read the OP, the topic is about the fallacy of relative privation, or "whataboutism", I.E. the "why are you guys complaining about this while there are starving children in Africa". There is nothing in the topic about checking privilege or even privilege in the way you're using it.jpz719 said:
the OP didn't mention priviledge outside of the concept of people in well-off first world countries having their problems dismissed because they aren't starving third world war refugees.
OT: it's a pet peeve of mine, I know people who use it aren't actually interested in a conversation and are just telling people to shut up, but its hard to resist tearing apart that particularly stupid fallacy when it crops up.
I think the argument is usually less that the "privileged" can't complain, but that having not experienced certain things (working in a low-wage job, harassment on the basis of race/sex/transgender issues, food scarcity, etc.) they aren't able to fully understand or empathize with those who have experienced those things.
And there may be some truth to that, but it's still a lousy reason to drum someone out of a discussion or assume that they have no frame of reference or capability for empathy, to vilify them, or to assume that presumption of "deafness" puts the user beyond having to make any kind of case.
But what are the chances that someone is going to actually do something productive about all of those things at once? Isn't it likely to lead to emotional fatigue and burn-out? And doesn't it in a very real way risk the likelihood that rather than writing to Congress, boycotting an offending company, sending in a contribution, going to a protest or public forum, or any small thing that might make an actual difference, one will retreat to blogs and Twitter and Facebook (and other online forums) and the affirmations of the like-minded? Or conveniently conclude that the more tragic, distant causes are hopeless, but coincidentally their solidarity close by on more trivial issues can make "a real difference"?
And there may be some truth to that, but it's still a lousy reason to drum someone out of a discussion or assume that they have no frame of reference or capability for empathy, to vilify them, or to assume that presumption of "deafness" puts the user beyond having to make any kind of case.
In honesty, I've heard this argument before, and I'm not at all sure it should be taken as such a given. Yes, it's certainly possible that someone could care about, say, civilian casualties in Syria and voter disenfranchising laws in America and Russian aggression in Ukraine and a joke at the expense of the transgendered on a new sitcom and the rise of extremist politicians in some parts of Europe.Ten Foot Bunny said:
But what are the chances that someone is going to actually do something productive about all of those things at once? Isn't it likely to lead to emotional fatigue and burn-out? And doesn't it in a very real way risk the likelihood that rather than writing to Congress, boycotting an offending company, sending in a contribution, going to a protest or public forum, or any small thing that might make an actual difference, one will retreat to blogs and Twitter and Facebook (and other online forums) and the affirmations of the like-minded? Or conveniently conclude that the more tragic, distant causes are hopeless, but coincidentally their solidarity close by on more trivial issues can make "a real difference"?
Well, what if it pertains to censorship? A lot of the comments or arguments I've seen searching through blogs and forums usually resonate with words that one person doesn't like, black lists and therefore demands that other people not use those words for fear of hurting someone's feelings. Being politically correct almost seems like a religion anymore to a lot of people and to be honest, the ones who go about policing the activity of others and white knighting for certain groups of people can get quite annoying especially if all they do is complain about the things someone does or says passively despite the fact that they don't even know that person, nor was their conversation in anyway relevant to what these people complain about. The only reason I see people using the "there are worse things to worry about" thing is just to get the other person to shut up and leave them alone especially when neither side is going to budge from their standpoints.
"You don't need no reason or a three-piece suit to argue the truth"
There is no equality if someone is being treated unequal, regardless of race, class, etc. We all have the right to complain, and indeed we all should complain.
What we should not do is just complain about what only affects us. Complain for yourself and for others.
There is no equality if someone is being treated unequal, regardless of race, class, etc. We all have the right to complain, and indeed we all should complain.
What we should not do is just complain about what only affects us. Complain for yourself and for others.
The definition of privilege that I've always liked is "the ability to think that because something isn't a problem for you, it isn't a problem."
Alternatively, there's always "Life on a lower difficulty setting." But I think the first definition is more relevant.
Calling people out on privilege is usually predicated by the dismissal of other people's problems or objections because they have not personally experienced them, or, more likely, have experienced a pale shadow of them and call the experiences equal. For example, the experience of a white person being called a "Cracker" is not an equivalent to the kinds of societal discrimination that black people may face in their daily lives.
Or, as a guy, I'm totally cool with random women coming up to me on the street and paying me compliments because I'm not likely to feel physically threatened by them. Most women would probably not feel the same about men.
The unfortunate thing is that the word has taken on a negative connotation about the people it describes, when it really shouldn't. Privilege doesn't mean you're bad, or that you're even wrong. It means that you probably don't have the perspective necessary to fully understand the gravity of the issue or why it is important to people. It's just not something you're likely to think about because you have the fortunate privilege of not having to worry about it.
I know this is kind of off topic from the equivocation fallacy of "it could be worse", but it seems like the conversation is drifting this way anyway.
Alternatively, there's always "Life on a lower difficulty setting." But I think the first definition is more relevant.
Calling people out on privilege is usually predicated by the dismissal of other people's problems or objections because they have not personally experienced them, or, more likely, have experienced a pale shadow of them and call the experiences equal. For example, the experience of a white person being called a "Cracker" is not an equivalent to the kinds of societal discrimination that black people may face in their daily lives.
Or, as a guy, I'm totally cool with random women coming up to me on the street and paying me compliments because I'm not likely to feel physically threatened by them. Most women would probably not feel the same about men.
The unfortunate thing is that the word has taken on a negative connotation about the people it describes, when it really shouldn't. Privilege doesn't mean you're bad, or that you're even wrong. It means that you probably don't have the perspective necessary to fully understand the gravity of the issue or why it is important to people. It's just not something you're likely to think about because you have the fortunate privilege of not having to worry about it.
I know this is kind of off topic from the equivocation fallacy of "it could be worse", but it seems like the conversation is drifting this way anyway.
Everyone has to deal with problems that make life uneasy and uncomfortable. It may be come in different forms and reasons pending the individual, but it happens to everyone. There's a reason why everyone you probably know complains because it's a universal experience. That's why it's a bit of a fallacy, and also rude, to assume and use someone's identity, personal life, or whatever as a means to tell them that their problems essentially don't matter because they coincidentally happen to be part of a group that tends to have it a little easier, "tends" being the operative word here and not "always". While it's important to keep in mind that society, and the greater world, is askew when it comes to fairness, it's also important to keep in mind that life can suck of pretty much anyone at one point or another. Saying something like "check your privilege" is essentially saying that your problems and feelings don't matter while expecting that very same person to sympathize with your cause or your problems.
It's a fallacy, it's rude, it's inconsiderate, and there's better ways to raise awareness about humanitarian disasters without putting dialogue to a stop, which has never helped anyone, ever.
It's a fallacy, it's rude, it's inconsiderate, and there's better ways to raise awareness about humanitarian disasters without putting dialogue to a stop, which has never helped anyone, ever.
It all depends on whether or not their argument is based on personal experience. If it is, the relevance of that experience is certainly open to scrutiny.
For example, take the affirmative action debate. A common refrain (usually from white people) is, "I was poor, but I worked hard, got good grades, and nobody helped me one bit."
That may be perfectly true. However, a black student might be poor, work hard, get good grades, but because he's black, people judge his work to be inferior to his white counterparts.
However, lets say the black guy makes it big and when talking about world wealth inequality says, "I was poor and discriminated against, but I worked hard, got good grades, and made something of myself. The system is fair." He's got privilege too, because despite all this, he had the wonderful privilege of living in the U.S., an advanced first world country, as opposed to being a poor, minority student in, say, Burma.
Privilege means you don't notice those sorts of things. It means that your experience, even with all of its struggles, may still be considerably easier than the experiences of others, solely due to the status conferred by your race, religion, sex, gender, orientation, or even what country you live in.
It's not a discounting of experience. It's saying that your experience isn't the only one out there.
For example, take the affirmative action debate. A common refrain (usually from white people) is, "I was poor, but I worked hard, got good grades, and nobody helped me one bit."
That may be perfectly true. However, a black student might be poor, work hard, get good grades, but because he's black, people judge his work to be inferior to his white counterparts.
However, lets say the black guy makes it big and when talking about world wealth inequality says, "I was poor and discriminated against, but I worked hard, got good grades, and made something of myself. The system is fair." He's got privilege too, because despite all this, he had the wonderful privilege of living in the U.S., an advanced first world country, as opposed to being a poor, minority student in, say, Burma.
Privilege means you don't notice those sorts of things. It means that your experience, even with all of its struggles, may still be considerably easier than the experiences of others, solely due to the status conferred by your race, religion, sex, gender, orientation, or even what country you live in.
It's not a discounting of experience. It's saying that your experience isn't the only one out there.
Ya, I don't see how my problems, or right to complain about them, should be affected by completely unrelated people I don't know in the other side of the globe. I live in a first world country, shouldn't I judge things based on the standards of a first world citizen?
We might as well judge every game by comparing it to ET for the Atari and every song by comparing it to Rockstar by Nickelback.
That being said.
If people around you or directly associated with you are going through problems much worse than yours, it's pretty dickish to complain about your own much smaller issues when you're around them. Mind your audience.
We might as well judge every game by comparing it to ET for the Atari and every song by comparing it to Rockstar by Nickelback.
That being said.
If people around you or directly associated with you are going through problems much worse than yours, it's pretty dickish to complain about your own much smaller issues when you're around them. Mind your audience.
I think anyone who talks about privilege is just being whiny really.
Yeah, sure, it's "Terrible" something that'll happen maybe once every few months causes irrational offence to you.
However, there are so many more legitimate things to worry about.
Essentially it seems like people inventing or inflating problems for the sake of attention and pity.
Yeah, sure, it's "Terrible" something that'll happen maybe once every few months causes irrational offence to you.
However, there are so many more legitimate things to worry about.
Essentially it seems like people inventing or inflating problems for the sake of attention and pity.