Louis CK on white privilege

Post Reply New Topic

Said Thomas, providing no supporting evidence.

Really?

Some (dictionary) definitions of "privilege":

noun
1. a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most:
"the privileges of the very rich."
2. a special right, immunity, or exemption granted to persons in authority or office to free them from certain obligations or liabilities:
"the privilege of a senator to speak in Congress without danger of a libel suit."
3. a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions.
4. the principle or condition of enjoying special rights or immunities.
5. any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government:
"We enjoy the privileges of a free people."
6.an advantage or source of pleasure granted to a person:
"It's my privilege to be here."

None of that implies guilt, blame, liability or shame to me. It does apply benefits and advantages.

Certainly, in a casual context, if someone says "he's lived a privileged life", I think of manor houses, trust funds and private schools, not stomping on the skulls of the poor.


I strongly disagree with the idea that it is designed to disempower and dehumanise. I sometimes see it used to disempower, again, as a thought terminating cliché, but that's far from the only use and it doesn't remote the legitimacy of the concept, any more than utopian anarchists de-legitimise fears of an encroaching state.

Well, you've heavily implied that you feel discrimination on the grounds of race is justified...

Would your thoughts on the matter changed if people magically switched from using "privilege" to, say, "advantage"?

Source?


I've never read Mein Kampf. I'm guessing it makes use of a term similar to "Jewish privilege", then?



Well, firstly, and somewhat irrelevantly, footballing ability is mostly acquired through hard work.

Secondly, I was not talking about David Beckham himself, but rather his children. By any definition of "privilege", they're it, right? Two famous, wealthy parents, and with that, almost any advantage in life you'd care to mention. Now, let's say they have OCD - are they instantly no better off than homeless orphans in Zimbabwe?


I don't think that's a fair assumption to make...

You persistently straw man and ad hom anyone who uses an arguably inaccurate phrase to save time. I think I'll pass, thanks.



Which autistic man? Which autistic woman? People are not statistics [/quote]
Oh, so now we can't use facts to support our arguments?


Oh, well that changes everything.

I believe the point of the "name on the CV" studies are to show that many people are, consciously or otherwise, biased towards white people when they hire. I believe most jobs don't hire based on a pictureless CV, but require some sort of face-to-face meeting. If someone's prepared to reject Jamal Jones because of his name alone, is John Jones going to fare any better when he walks into the interview? I don't believe that's actually been studied (it would be much harder to control - what if one of your actors is slightly taller or more charming?), but, well, prima facie...

Again, it shouldn't be necessary for people to have to pay to change their name to get a job.


Saudi Arabia needs fourth wave feminism. It shouldn't settle for being like the West in the 1950s.

Is your lack of comment on gay marriage to be taken as acceptance that "straight privilege" (or "advantage", or "non-disadvantage", or whatever you like) exists?


No, that's my point, and that of many who have come before me. It predates the notion of "intersectionality" which is best described as "Oppression Top Trumps".[/quote]
If you think that, then you don't understand intersectionality.


Well, quite.


And nobody claimed otherwise. Assuming facts relating to safety and health are the same, their homelessness must be treated equally seriously. However, it would be totally inappropriate to give the cis man help with his pregnancy and gender dysphoria.


Agreed. However, I don't think adding "white" or "male" before "privilege" guarantees that it is misapplied. (There are some situations where "female" might also be an appropriate prefix, but I am struggling to think of one where "black" or "Asian" would apply in Britain).

[/quote]
... and I've also more or less defined the phrase "check your privilege".

According to leaning-anti-feminist website "Know Your Meme", this was one of the first uses of the phrase on a feminist blog.

It is wrong when it is used to shout down people from privileged groups.



Whereas I have been stopped and searched by the police, on tenuous grounds (you boys fit the description...) on more than one occasion. These subjective experiences prove nothing of value.[/quote]
I would use statistics...

All established phenomenon point to this.

There is an endemic mistrust against police within american black communities. There is a disproportionate bias of incarcerated american blacks in prison populations. There is a disproportionate over representation of whites within the police force itself and white police on black violence with no police being prosecuted is a recurring theme. I think you're being just a tad dishonest here or at best selectively ignorant if you are denying this.

We were talking about privilege "when used in the context feminists are wont to". Divorced from from 'male', 'white', etc is how the rest of us use it. If you were paying attention, you would realise that I gave you an example of the misuse of English in feminist terminology, not a definition for a word - hence my use of "term" rather than "word".



And that would be an example of your prejudice.



The legitimacy of the concept is rendered null by its lack of value as a tool for positive change almost as much as the propensity of its use exactly as you describe. I've repeatedly seen the following justification for this usage:

"When someone tells you to check your privilege, they're not asking you to shut up, they're asking you to listen."

In practical terms, "listen" amounts to the same as "shut up". In practical terms, "listen" means "shut up, cis white male" purely on the grounds of gender and race.



If you've somehow gleaned that from what I said, the fault lies with yourself.



No, because the problem is not the meaning of the word "privilege" - a fact obviously lost on you considering your decision to paste the definition earlier. The problem lies in the coupling of privilege with generalisations such as "white" or "male". Why would replacing "white privilege" with "white advantage" change the context in any way?


Source?



I urge you to do so.

On a related note, consider this quote:

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

This is as refined a template for propaganda as you'll find, and it works just as well today as it did in Goering's day.



According to whom? Do you think Lionel Messi has worked any harder than Cambridge United's Josh Coulson? To excel in any sporting endeavour, one requires an innate natural ability. Self-confessed slacker, Ronnie O'Sullivan, is another perfect example of natural ability vs hard work.



You were talking about both.



No, only by an appropriate and specific definition of "privilege". The one which is unique to them.



So your argument is that neurological disorders are trivialised if your parents are multi-millionaire superstars, except earlier you used the phrase "any advantages of birth a person has". Perhaps foolishly, I thought you meant "any advantages" rather than "the wealth, social relevance and societal admiration of the Beckhams". How remiss of me to assume intellectual honesty on your part.



Provide examples of my persistent straw men and ad homs. Provide examples of non-feminist circles that use the phrase "cis white male privilege"



When you ignore the fact that boys are more likely to be born with ASDs in the first place, your argument is factually flawed.



You've again missed the point. You've been distracted by the aside.



No. And nobody is arguing that discrimination does not exist. That's not what we're discussing though. If Jamal and John are two separate entities, both with the same ethnic background, experience and qualifications, yet neither get the job, how has john's "nomen privilege" been demonstrated? How is it relevant or helpful in countering discrimination and disadvantage?



It's called progress for a reason. One cannot simply skip the necessary steps and impose wholesale change.



No. The distinction is, again, geographical. It might interest you to know that straight couples are increasingly choosing to have civil partnerships rather than marriages in Holland - to the extent that heterosexual civil partnerships are more common than same-sex pertnerships. In the UK, same-sex couples have the right to civil marriage and civil union, whereas opposite-sex couples are only entitled to marriage.

This is one area where I'm on the same page as quite a lot of feminists. I'm ideologically opposed to the concept and history of marriage, and would like to see it replaced with, rather than augmented by, superior civil partnerships. The recent change to UK law that enables couples with civil unions to 'upgrade' to a marriage might be construed as progressive on the surface, but it's actually a win for traditionalism.



And "you don't understand" rears its head yet again.

Once again, you are insisting that understanding an ideological concept can only lead to one possible conclusion. It puts me in mind of Robin Williams' park bench speech in Good Will Hunting, and for good reason. What you don't understand, evidently, is the disconnect between the concepts of privilege and intersectionality and their real world application.



I sincerely hope that this was a case of you genuinely understanding my point.



Now you're assuming help is desired, let alone necessary. But that's beside the point. This remains another example of how "privilege" has failed to be a relevant factor in producing a beneficial result.



You've already made this clear. You are yet to provide a compelling argument to support your position.



There are significant numbers of people in minority groups in the UK who consider it a privilege simply to live in Britain. I have the privilege of calling some of them friend or neighbour. These are appropriate uses of the word "privilege".

When it comes to blanket generalisations, the only appropriate use of "privilege" is when considering legal rights. The only disparities in British law are those which favour women over men - and the aforementioned one which favours homosexuals over heterosexuals.



A definition that I do not accept as valid.



What's your point? The point of the blog post seems to be that it's okay to consider a man an as*hole when he politely accedes to your wishes. After all, that was her conclusion.



The very idea that you can place people into a "privileged group" is wrong on the grounds that it denies a person's individuality. Why do you have a problem understanding this?



And in the case of police activity, you would need to compare stop and search statistics to crime statistics to even begin to get a clear picture, one limited by perspective when divorced from historical and cultural factors.

It was dishonest of me to point out that you provided no supporting evidence? You imply that my condemnation of your lack of evidence is "selective ignorance". Interesting conclusion.

You raise the point that black people don't trust the police, that black people are disproportionately represented in prison populations. How are either of these things evidence of "arbitrarily heavy handed police violence" disproportionately victimising homeless black people?

If at this point you still cant accept the long established common knowledge that the US police is fundamentally anti minority, then the problem is your unwillingness to analyse information, not due to a lack of evidence on my part.


http://mic.com/articles/96452/one-troub ... problem-is


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... -black-men


http://www.bustle.com/articles/36096-do ... absolutely

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politi ... ly-war-its

http://gawker.com/unarmed-people-of-col ... 1666672349

Watching 'Cops' on tv .. black police officers will say that Hispanic immigrants (probably Mexican/Central American) won't even look at a black officer or speak to one, because they are very racist towards black people.

Isn't the US going to become *more racist* as the US becomes more Mexican/Central American and less "white" ?

Hispanics are the majority group in several states, so is this "racism towards blacks by the majority Hispanics" happening ?

Based on the articles and your own hyperbole:

The US police are fundamentally anti-minority, yet white cops only shoot 96 black people a year.
Cops are almost ever brought up on charges, and so have ample opportunity to exercise their hatred yet the total death toll of black people shot by cops is 400 a year.
There are more than 750 thousand cops in the USA, but these hateful monsters only manage to kill a black man once a day.

I've analysed the information provided. If US police are fundamentally anti-minority, they're the worst supremacists in history.

A homeless white person is more likely to be jump and beaten up by a gang of black people in a black neighborhood than a homeless black person.