privilege exists or not?

Post Reply New Topic

Obviously, but some people's families and places and times are more supportive to flourishing than other people's.

Are you really saying you would be totally indifferent towards giving up your life as an American citizen in the 21st century, in peace time, with a whole host of technological advantages and legal protections, in order to be a serf in the Middle Ages or a Coptic Christian in modern Egypt?

At the risk of being predictable, check your privilege...

Assuming they don't contribute in some other fashion.

Or if the person doesn't share with the tribe, the entire tribe could turn on that person and force the sharing.


This is the main difference between modern cultures and our hunter-gatherer ancestors-- we see the wood and fire as a commodity produced by an individual, they saw it as a product of the group itself, regardless of who actually gathered it. Same with the food provided by the hunters and gatherers of the group-- it was the pack's resource, not an individual's.

Again, if we look at society as a whole there are only products that a society produces, individuals are fairly unimportant. Example: Hendrik Lorentz was only a few steps away from what we call Einstein's "Special Relativity", he was working on expounding his own theory as Einstein proved it, his incomplete math when followed through draws the same conclusion. It would have happened regardless of who it's attributed to. Likewise, Edison and Tesla were contemporary rivals both dealing with electrical systems and drew many of the same conclusions aside from the few places they differed-- our knowledge of electrical engineering would have happened regardless. Julius Caesar dies, and now there's a power vacuum in Rome, Octavian fills that void but it just as easily could have been Mark Antony or Lepidus. By 1960 most music consumers were bored of the R&B based music they'd been hearing for over a decade, the Beatles filled that void but it just as easily could have been the Kinks-- the early work of both bands are very similar. If society has a need society will find a solution.

edit: quotational disaster. fixed.

What it seems like privilege theory rhetoric is saying, is that if there is anything about someones condition that isn't terrible, they need to give it up or hand it over to someone who does not have the same "privilege". So, it encourages selfishness and siege mentality in people. I think it brings about some of what it critiques.

And yet...wealthy people DO commit suicide.

I believe emotions such as grief, anger and fear exist in their original forms, despite wealth, although wealthy people might like to think otherwise.

That ratty rich kid who couldn't get laid and killed all those young people in Southern California is a perfect example: He had his BMW and money, but the other part of life was missing and he thought all he needed was his "old man" to give him more money and it drove him crazy.

Br happy you don't have all that money to worry about.

Well I think you've got it all wrong....its not about wanting people to have to give up everything they don't absolutely need. Its more there is a problem of a disgustingly rich wealthy elite with more than enough for 10 lifetimes, whilst you have people on the streets or barely making ends meet unable to adequately take care of basic needs let alone any wants. The idea is resources ought to be a wee bit more balanced so you don't have that vast chasm between the poorest and wealthiest with more and more people slipping into poverty. Because the wealthy elite 'takers' are hogging as much of the nations wealth/resources as they can at everyone elses expense. The failure of the trickle down theory of economics. With the amount of wealth/resources this country has you'd think there would be more to go around for everyone not just the wealthiest portion of the population.

But many would like to claim it just comes down to some immature 'but I want that to' mentality...well no its more about people not having enough in the same country you have a small segment of the population with way, way, way, way more than enough.

I do not see how what I said implies wealthy people cannot be unhappy, suffer turmoil or even commit suicide...though not all suicides come from being in a place of unbearable pain per say. Sometimes suicide is committed by people to avoid 'shame' or because they've done something they cannot live with themselves after doing. Also there are plenty of great people born into wealth, I am sure being around a bunch of stuck up greedy people could be depressing to grow up around even if you have all the nice stuff in the world. But I don't think talking about the privilege of the very wealthy is about who 'suffers' mentally more...its more about the practical things like the poor not having access to things the very wealthy take for granted, or a lack of access to basic needs whilst the very wealthy are not experiencing that. Sure the wealthy elite is a privelaged class, doesn't mean every wealthy person is a greedy pig or that none of them earned everything they have...but there are class division issues and those can't just be ignored, especially when there is a lot of corruption that goes into it.

The notion that the rich aren't really privileged is nothing short of absurd. Even with the so called "drawbacks" that comes with being rich, they will never know the disadvantages of being poor.
For the record: being a snob is hardly a drawback of wealth.

This discussion is about "privilege".

Certainly, "flourishing" is an advantage. However, you appear to think it's a privilege?

That is the leap I can't see, because "there is no free lunch".

So you believe in materialism?

ma·te·ri·al·ism
a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values.

The poor have disadvantages however ...

I agree that the point spread of life is probably somewhat less than it appears, and that folks (famous rich folks perhaps) you may envy may be less enviable than they appear, and folks you pity, may be less worse off than you than they appear. But to suggest that its all truly equal is absurd.

If you really believe that then go to Europe and tell that to all of the refugees fleeing Syria: tell them to go back to Syria because the advantages of living in a war devastated country with ethnic cleansing equals the disadvantages so "there is no privilege in being outside of Syria". The EU would love you if you could persuade those thousands to turn around and go back.

The key is to study subjects that will be both useful and profitable after graduation - STEM courses, law school, culinary arts, and construction trades, for example.

People with liberal arts degrees seem to be over-represented in the fast-food industries ...

- Those Syrian refugees probably have 0 debt, unlike many "debt slave" Westerners.
- They have more freedom since they are not tied to a job and locale.
- They are getting free stuff from people.

Many Americans would sign up for "Syrian refugee lifestyle" in a heartbeat. Just search Google, "Americans go overseas to escape debt".

No, flourishing is not a privilege, but it can be the result of a privilege.

Let's say I have two fair dice. One of them has 50 sides, 1-50. One of them has six sides, four of which are sixes.

I decide I'm going to give the dice to the first two people I see today, then get them both to roll them twice a day for the next year. If they roll a 6 then I'll give them £2000. One of them has 2 in 3 chance of winning on any given roll, another only has a 1 in 50 chance. The advantage that this person has would constitute a privilege.

Similarly, an American born today has a pretty good chance of achieving a reasonable degree of prosperity, security, and happiness. That chance is reduced if their family are poor. It is reduced if they are disabled. It is reduced if they are black. It is reduced if, rather than America, they are born in Uganda. It is reduced if, rather than 21st century America, they are born in 8th century Germany.

That is privilege.

You can say "ah yes but what if..." all you like. The fact is, some unearned advantages in life usually increase your happiness. If you think happiness is too flimsy, then your wealth and health (n.b. if you won't accept happiness as a measure, then please don't object to wealth or health on the grounds that they do not guarantee happiness). That "usual increase" as a result of "unearned advantage" is privilege.

I don't think they would. I just Googled, and it seems that "lifestyle" is followed by rich retirees with large cash reserves who go to countries with low living costs where they can be super-rich.

Syrian refugees get free cups of juice and children's toys from Germans. These things are provided by charities everywhere. The Syrian refugees are now living in tiny hotel rooms or student digs which are not really suitable for families and are much smaller than American homes. They might not be tied to a job, but if they try to move anywhere then they won't be able to find shelter or employment. Again, why don't you try it yourself if you're so sure that your current life is no better?

1. Wealth
2. Learning

I get they are advantages, but how are they privileges?

I read a whole CNN article before I posted.

See here, http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/23/pf/coll ... fugitives/



I would do it myself actually. However, it is not being offered. I would love to walk away from an under water mortgage and be debt free.

However, there are people that murder their whole family because of debt. Search google, "man murders family because of debt". You will get many many pages of it.

The Syrian refuges don't know what hardship is being debt slave.