Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Member Since 07 May 2003
Offline Last Active Today, 05:35 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: USC Canceled Video Game Panel For Too Many Men

Today, 01:37 PM

So would black privilege exist in the black community?

Is the black community the dominant culture?
Does the black community value white people less than non-white people?

I'm confused. If not North America then where?

I was thinking of Europe, with its mishmash of ethnic groups, many of which have fair skin, and the myriad ethnic conflicts that exist there.

Yes, but don't you see that white people oppressing other white people obviates the notion of white privilege and requires us to invent the idea that it only started happening after the 1940s?

No, that's a fallacious argument. Again: privilege is not a binary concept, it's a relative one. It's possible to be white, oppressed by other white people, and still be more privileged than someone who isn't white.

And why would only coming into effect after the 1940s obviate the concept? We're talking about today. If some groups started being more privileged than others after a certain time, it makes sense to refer to them as such after that time?

In Topic: USC Canceled Video Game Panel For Too Many Men

Today, 01:10 PM

This would imply that there is "black privilege." I have not heard this argued in the broad at all.

No, it wouldn't. Perhaps I should clarify - if the dominant culture of a place values black people more than white people, then "black privilege" would exist.

Which means its value is highly suspect in discussing American history and present and we have every right to be critical of it. Consider:

I said "in some places." I was not actually referring to North America. In any case, white people oppressing other white people doesn't obviate the notion of privilege; nor does it obviate the idea that at this point in time, in North America, white people are privileged over non-white people.

If we say that white people in general are privileged over black people, then saying that the English are privileged over the Irish doesn't refute the former.

If it can be demonstrated that large groups within the supposedly privileged group do not enjoy the privilege, then applying it to the group as a whole is incorrect

Except that no such thing has been demonstrated. Saying that some white people are privileged over other white people does NOT mean that those other white people are not also privileged over non-white people. Privilege is not a binary, it is a relative term. One can be less privileged than someone and more privileged than someone else.

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for societal privileges that benefit people identified as white in Western countries,

Are you implying that people with white skin don't live in non-Western countries? ;)

In Topic: USC Canceled Video Game Panel For Too Many Men

Today, 10:39 AM

Females can choose to either stay at home full time or work full time, most choose a mix of both.

And men can't?

in that mothers tend to have an extremely strong connection to their children more often then men

I don't dispute that this is often the case, but I don't see any need to invoke biology here. In fact, I think it's a myth perpetuated by our cultural narrative concerning gender roles that women are inherently more connected to their children. If you to stay home with your kids - and women in our culture are conditioned to believe that this is their role - you're going to have a stronger connection to them than if you don't. Do you have some sort of proof showing that men who stay home with their kids from a young age while the mother is working have weaker connections to their children?

It doesn't seem rational to attribute to biology what is more easily attributed to a difference in social conditioning.

In Topic: USC Canceled Video Game Panel For Too Many Men

Today, 09:11 AM

So we have a demonstrable case of white people who did not enjoy white privilege? So we must allow then that not all people enjoy white privilege, in which case, what good is white privilege as a lens for viewing the world?

If you argue that white privilege is somehow temporally located then it must be a relatively recent phenomenon where the Irish are concerned. In the US that would be the 1940s.

"Privilege" is just a label to hang on groups that are considered more valuable in a particular culture than others, so which group is privileged necessarily depends on your culture. In the US, the privilege goes to white people; but in other places, "white people" are minorities and are not privileged. In some places, some white people are privileged over other white people.

Who has claimed otherwise?

However the rest of what you said basically backs up my point and my position - I'm a white male, I can't say ANYTHING without someone taking it wrong and The Mob turning up.

I wouldn't put it that way. We can still offer critique, it's that the problem is usually with the manner in which the critique is offered. If you post your professional opinion in such a way that it suggests that the woman needs aspects of her profession explained to her, that is not good. It's always condescending to treat another professional as if they don't know what they're talking about. If you post it in such a way that she interprets it as gender-based, then no matter what your intent really was, you failed to take into account how your comments might be perceived.

Everything we say or do affects others, for better or for worse. We should always take the identity of our interlocutor (if available) into account when making our points. Ideally it wouldn't be relevant - and often it isn't - but for some groups certain kinds of interactions are charged because of their history, so the same words will mean different things to different people. As a "systemizer" type thinker I would really like to pretend otherwise, but real life is messy and complicated and there are a lot of special cases.

There was no need for a mob; a reply of 'this is work in progress' would likely defused the situation nicely and is a discussion.

I agree, there's no need for a mob even for mansplainers, I'm just pointing out that it is a thing, and that some women encounter it so constantly that I think it should be called out. I say this as someone who has been caught mansplaining - it's never intentional, and it's difficult to catch oneself in the act.

I'm sorry, where the FUCK did you get 'mocking' from?
Don't even THINK about reframing the argument to 'mocking'.

Well, without the tweet in question handy, it's easy to read all kinds of things into your description. "Mocking" is not the word I would have chosen, either. "Condescending" is what I had assumed, given the reaction.

In Topic: USC Canceled Video Game Panel For Too Many Men

Yesterday, 05:22 PM

The stockbroker has to be very smart to do what he does, though. Go ahead and simulate day trading for a few months, see how well you would do.

Still a second-rate mind, by a very wide margin, compared to the guy/girl that cures cancer. Not to mention those actually do something incredibly useful.

But guess who's closer to the money.

"Working smart" isn't the same thing as "being smart" or even "working in a field that requires thinking." Working smart means efficiency - it means finding ways to get the same outcome for less time or effort.

Taking a great big array of numbers and adding them by hand is working hard.
Taking a great big array of numbers and adding them with a spreadsheet program is working smart.

I'm pretty sure my point still stands; the researchers that cure cancer probably work much more efficiently than a stockbroker or an advertiser that sells sugar water, considering the nature, depth and scope of the problems they solve - but do they usually make the same amount of money, or even close?

What is your metric, here, and how did you derive it? We can't have a meaningful comparison unless we have a metric that applies meaningfully to all cases, or some equivalence between metrics for each. Cancer researchers, stockbrokers, and advertisers perform very different kinds of work.

Supposedly, money is supposed to represent the value of labor; therefore, in an ideal world, an individual would get paid according to the value of their labor as an individual. One could argue that we don't currently have this ideal, either, but I suggest that "provide value" is better advice than both "work hard" AND "work smart" with the way things really work. It also provides the explanation for why some individuals receive lower pay despite rendering the same services as other individuals - those individuals are considered less valuable, as individuals, by those in control of the money.

So, to tie this back into the thread: when a judgment of people of a certain identity class becomes sufficiently ingrained in society that individuals unconsciously follow that judgment, and said judgment causes one to be perceived as more valuable, then one is benefiting from "privilege."