Talk:Privilege/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 26 April 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)(back)

Very confusing

The article is very confusing. Even wikipedia's article seems more coherent. What on earth does the 'shut up and listen' have to do with anything? 128.214.53.244 (talk) 10:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I think this article has content-creeped since the last time I properly looked at it. I needs a serious clean up. That whole "A mile in their shoes" section is out of place at the very least, and not excellent at explaining the core subject. ^{Don't click here} 12:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not an easy read, it rather jumps about and I'm not even sure that all (or even most) of the matter is relevant to the subject being explained. This is a field in which I claim no expertise, but even after reading the article I didn't feel particularly better informed.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 14:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I've gone and cut everything not directly related to the main topic for now. What this page needs to be is an actual explanation. It's likely to be a landing page for the concept, and if it doesn't bother to explain it but instead jumps into a tirade taken from the Social Justice Warrior's Handbook, then it'll not perform its task very well. The page should focus on the explanation of the topic at hand, and then we can look at expansion. So, the cruft is not dead, just temporarily unconscious - do not bring it back unless it can be fit into a decent article structure. ^{Don't click here} 15:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"Check your privilege" or "shut up and listen" are pretty closely related to the subject at hand. No idea what the Usenet thing was about though. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"Check your privilege" or "shut up and listen" are related. But they're not so related that they should be there before privilege is actually explained. In fact, related concepts being used to explain the central concept is backwards. But they need an appropriate place, probably towards the end where "related memes" can be put. ^{Don't click here} 11:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

A lot better, but seem to be written with only one perspective. There are little mentions about racial minorities or handicapped groups. Also the article seems to state that all privilege is one-way men over women. Should there be mention on the other instances? (Like prison population.)128.214.53.244 (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Probably needs more perspective from other issues like ethnic minorities or disabled, yes. Feel free to try if you want. Nullahnung (talk) 09:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

"all privilege is one-way men over women" - depends exactly what you mean by that. In the established theory, then as a group privilege is one-way. But that isn't the same as saying all instances are because privilege is qualitative (e.g., rich women will have a class/wealth privilege over poor men). But sex/gender and wealth-class privileges are what I know most about, so any edits I've made won't/can't go outside that. If someone else knows more about other forms, please add them or make appropriate edits. ^{Don't click here} 09:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Could you point a book about the established theory? I'd like to read more. (And it should make reference material.) 128.214.53.244 (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Bullshit

"Privilege is the benefits and advantages held by a group in power, or in a majority, that arise because of the oppression and suppression of minority groups."

Sorry, privileges never belong to a majority, or else they wouldn't be privileges, duuuhh. A privilege can't belong to a minority AND majority, or else the term would explain nothing. But this is rationslwiki, a site that isn't very rational at all, and therefore you can't expect the people here to grasp simple logic.

Seriously, if you try to push your political agenda upon other people, maybe be a little more subtle. The only thing that the privilege theory wants to acomplish, is to make a minority more privileged, by regulating the behavior of a majority.

Too bad, the civil rights movement was never about that. The goal wasn't to regulate the behavior of the majority, but to rightfully gain the rights this majority was enjoying already.^{— Unsigned, by: 82.145.217.243 / talk / contribs} 10:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

So what if the concept we were referring to was called "Sheduuckkskssk"? Your point would dissolve faster than your dictionary in an acid bath. You can't just throw out an entire concept because you disagree with its wording. And yet you call RW "irrational"? You have made the most basic fallacy that it is possible to make. ^{Don't click here} 09:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

In addition, I don't get what you mean by "regulating the behaviour of the majority". Could you please explain? DØØM MĖSSIÅH ^{Solemn strikes the funeral chime} 10:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The definition is not the only thing you can criticize. Obviously there are good and there are bad privileges. Earned privileges and unearned ones. So, if you want to be a part of the capitalist society, you have to earn the privilege to exploit other people - that would br an earned privilege, in comparission to an unearned one, like lets say, being born as a white male.

This concept should have no place within progressive politics. Also, people won't change their behavior after they 'checked their privileges', they will, for example, continue to reproduce heternormative behavior in the public, even if they offend certain miniorities with it. And why? Because their own happiness is more important to them than politics, and that is good. ^{— Unsigned, by: ‎82.145.217.99 / talk / contribs}

Another example of an unearned privilege would be to have rich parents. This is clearly a privileged minority group. Or (historically) white people in South Africa, also an obvious privileged minority. --46.239.101.25 (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing the conventional definition of "numerical minority" with the sociological definition of "minority group". Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_group . Basically, whether a group is a minority group doesn't merely come down to population numbers, but it comes down to positions of social power affected by various characteristics such as wealth or political power. Thus it's more complicated than you think, trying to call people with rich parents or historical white people in South Africa minorities. (Also, I feel like RationalWiki needs an article on "minority", it is a confusing term to your average internet browser.) Nullahnung (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

There Can Be Only One POV

As long as any attempt to add a simple links to things like "Female Privilege Checklist", "POC Privilege Checklist", "LGBTQ Privilege Checklist" - even just to let the reader see for themselves how ridiculous the concept is! - is undone, I'll keep in mind that this Wiki is under a huge censorship that has nothing to do with rationality. Many bows, and farewell. Have your Wiki the way you like it, anyone who don't can have their own. ^{— Unsigned, by: 94.72.62.217 / talk / contribs}

Essay:I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It's pathetic that you were taught that this is an appropriate response. If you can't see how this meme and {{drink}}! reinforce an ever-narrowing groupthink and contributes to RW's already bad image among more serious people than you are, you're among those I wish would simply leave RW and go do something else. Perhaps set up an IRC channel for the other reputation and community damaging characters RW has no will to get rid of. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I should take a break from editing then, it's not like this is something I have to do in my free time. I'd be more willing to accept your criticism if you hadn't taken to calling other editors "creepy", "self-entitled" and "mentally ill" in a previous post. Or if these topics weren't already covered before I started editing. I don't know if you're supposed to be the "more serious person" because I have no respect for somebody who goes around calling people "mentally ill" --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Great response. Right on point. I 'was' a more serious person than you are when it comes to RW's image and future. But hey, we all have opinions. Mine is in the minority, hence I've reluctantly tendered my resignation to the RMF and am doing my best to withdraw. If RW is the RMF's only project, I wish to have nothing to do with either. RW is a mission failure and nothing has improved as far as I can tell. Perhaps I'll change my opinion. That would be nice. I'm sure, as a new editor, you've got your own perspective, just as I have mine. As for whether you'd be more willing to accept my "criticism" or not, I frankly don't care. I've expressed myself, and I'm out. I'd point out that you've failed to make any argument at all, however. My "criticism" of a bad habit, which you've repeated, has nothing to do with what I say about another editor. But just FYI, one of these editors (more really, but RW isn't keeping track) is most certainly creepy, self-entitled, and mentally ill. Count yourself lucky if he hasn't emailed you a detailed story about it. RW's insistence on embracing any and all comers is part of the reason I've lost confidence in its ability to take care of its own business. Have fun. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, after having a pretty civil conversation with the IP editor before you posted your comment, I was feeling guilty about leaving the templated message anyway. I didn't need some overdramatic "former editor" to harass me, I can learn my own lessons. Also, I'm willing to accept criticism, absolutely, but not for somebody to claim that I am, as a relatively new editor, responsible for the projects coverage of gender studies, especially as this article has existed since 2010. I'm only engaging with you because you came here directly, I'm not particularly interested in whether you continue to edit or not, I don't even know who you are. Kudos for calling others "self-entitled" though --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

As a rational person, you for sure understand that there is a difference between criticizing a point of view / proving it wrong and just hunting down any mention of it in any, even directly related articles. Same as I, as a rational person, understand that people who pay for domain name and hosting are the ones who set the ultimate rules on the site. For that reason I didn't make more than one attempt to add a link to "Female Privilege Checklist". But thanks for the useful data: 1) the time that it took to apply censorship and 2) the formal reason to apply it. Be safe and healthy!

I agree, I just didn't agree with the way the argument was presented on the source, nor am I particularly fond of GirlWritesWhat as a source. In fact, I'd say previous articles by her relating to domestic abuse are enough to not use it as a link on the main article. This isn't censorship, you are very welcome to discuss the source here on the talk page, but you don't have the only say as to what is included within the article, and I, like other editors, are welcome to add, or remove content when we feel it isn't notable. If I wanted to "censor" you or your viewpoint, I would have banned your IP outright. You are welcome to add it again, I will not remove it myself this time if you'd like, I'm sure your attitude here has brought some other editors attention towards the article --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Done and thanks. Also, saying that GWW is a wrong source because "previous articles" on absolutely another topic - isn't it Ad Hominem? A woman, bisexual, divorced, mother of three, has been raped in her teen years - and still, she's not the one to speak on Female Privilege? Who is, then? I could ask her friend to compose another FPCL, she's also black and former sex worker. Will that count?

Not really, I would judge the reliability of any publication on its "previous articles" if they are particularly contentious. If it's a position or topic with real academic weight then it will be covered by writers who haven't written in support of domestic violence [1]. I have empathy for what she has gone through and your life situations definitely give you standing to write anecdotal articles but really it should be sociologists writing on larger societal trends that define subjects such as this. You're right though, I'll engage properly with the article in question when I get the chance, I've just moved house and don't have much free time --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, my congratulations on moving! And if sociologists' opinions matter - they're sick of feminist censorship on evidences of gender symmetry of DV perpetrators [2], but I still don't claim GWW a "holy maiden" and think that she overdid it in that discussion. And practically painted a target cross on her forehead. But her edition of FPCL is just the most consistent of those I've seen. And again. A person once, in a discussion (not in an article or video or a conference) confirmed her acceptance of the idea that "violence isn't right, but a slap here and there is better than the guy taking all of her nagging and exploding in such a way that he beats her within an inch of her life" (short form: violence is generally wrong, but slap is still better than severe injuries). And it makes her banned from any quoting and strips all the respect off her? Because she didn't scream in hysteria "Shut up you wife batterer apologist, violence is WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!"? Sorry. But that is either still ad hominem, or I have no idea on what ad hominem is. Her point was: claiming that women should never feel pain is acceptance of women's inherent weakness and hence, misogyny. Hope you'll find the link useful and interesting.

I wish you had just left it as what you had first posted. I would argue that the husband removing himself from the situation entirely and maybe going into therapy is a better solution than "a slap here and there". Of course severe injuries are worse but abuse works on different levels. Anyway, we're not here to discuss that particular point, you said yourself that she overdid it and you are right that this is ad hominem. I find it hard to be open minded concerning someone who has made arguments like that, someone who has said things like I observed that women are typically more child-like not just in their outward appearance, but also in their processing and expressing of emotion, someone who supports overt misogynists like Paul Elam and that has argued in defense of PUAs and redpillers, but you are right. It is ad hominem. I also am not here to contest that women are not abusive towards men, I am male and spent some of my life in an abusive relationship with a woman. That doesn't change the way that I see domestic violence nor does it mean that I don't support female survivors of domestic abuse. I think many MRAs will defend anything as long as it seems Anti-Feminist and that is probably where some of GirlWritesWhat's more ridiculous arguments come from. Concerning the list itself, I'm not sure that they are all fitting and afterpost discussing "Feminists" is definitely strawmanning, but I do see the argument that stringent gender roles do harm both men and women. I wouldn't frame this as "privileges" but I suppose some would. I wanted to look at the other checklists and see if they had references or sources as OwningYourShit didn't have any but the Male Privilege and White Privilege links don't seem to be live at the moment. These things happen --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, you originally said "even just to let the reader see for themselves how ridiculous the concept is", but GirlWritesWhat seems to be arguing that the concept itself is just being misused, or that women have some privileges in society in addition to those that men do, not that privilege doesn't exist. What is it that you are arguing? That female privilege exists or that the concept of privilege is "ridiculous"? Is it really useful to include a link to her opinion piece if you don't even support what it is that she is saying? I'm not entirely convinced that the things on the checklist are "privileges" in the way that the term is used --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That checklist sucks, it's half-baked thinking at its finest. Most of the so called privileges listed are simply a result of patriarchal views of women's physical inferiority. We're not linking to some crappy MRA blog. --Marlow (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Seconded, lets take it off --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 07:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Expanding Earth (2 external links) is half-baked thinking at its finest. Flat Earth (7!!! external links) is half-baked thinking at its finest. Geocentrism (2 external links) is half-baked thinking at its finest. Female privilege (1 external link, and removed) is half-baked thinking at its finest. Okay. Drowninginlimbo, that's what I meant. "What is it that you are arguing? That female privilege exists or that the concept of privilege is "ridiculous"?" - I am arguing this: If it is rational for a reader to see the concept of female privilege as ridiculous and wrong, then it is rational to let them see the concept of female privilege in the first place. But well, seems I am wrong. 94.72.62.217 (talk) 10:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

So you added a link to the Female Privilege article onto the Wiki but your opinion of the link itself is that it is "half-baked thinking at its finest"? Why are you wasting our time? We could summarise that there is no Female Privilege with a line or two of text describing this without having to link to an MRA blog --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

My opinion on Marlow's argument that "half-baked thinking at its finest" == "remove now" is that it's irrational. But whatever, I accept that I failed at proving my point of view. Sorry for the wasted time.94.72.62.217 (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be so confrontational, it tends to be my gut reaction when somebody posts a link to an MRA blog here because I find so much about what they stand for abhorrent --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I should have chosen less triggering arguments as well, my bad. Anyway, in case I find some consistent arguments and/or academic researches on the topic, I'll let you all know, and thanks for the discussion.94.72.62.217 (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it's okay, I'm at fault really, I judged you based on the source that you posted. You're welcome here, and it isn't like this concept is without criticism, it's just that GirlWritesWhat isn't the best available source for it --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

About sources

Is twitter really source to cite from? 128.214.53.253 (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Use of social media as sources should really be contextual, I think in this instance it should probably be used as a quote at the top of the article rather than in the body of the text as it states what the person quoted says word for word --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

So what's the difference between privilege and envy?

A sees B attracts more C than A, so A, wanting to attract C as well, calls B privileged. How is that not A being jealous of B? In order to distinguish between privilege from envy, we have to accept that:

• A is permanently incapable of acquiring the properties of B
• A is permanently incapable of emulating the behavior of B
• A is permanently incapable of adopting unique attributes from B that may result in the same or better outcome than B
• A is a fixed point in space, a paragon of immutability, permanently incapable of changing itself

We must either accept that A is an immutable incompetent (in which we conclude to not bother applying any effort to A since it cannot be changed ever)...

Or a mutable being capable of changing itself (in which we conclude that there is no concept of privilege since A can acquire the properties of B, emulate the behavior of B, and adopt unique attributes from B).

In short, there is no such thing a B Privilege, only A Envy. ^{— Unsigned, by: 68.170.76.117 / talk / contribs}

Egalitarian story,bro - David Gerard (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Vapid response,bro 68.170.76.117 (talk)

Vapid is as vapid does. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't merit a real response. You're trying to use an absolutist logical classification argument on people; that's usually a good sign that you're misapplying logic. You seem to think whatever simplistic model lives in your head is going to describe the complex interrelationships of human beings perfectly and immaculately, and not only that in a way that inherently marks a specific behavior to one group, in exactly the sort of way you'd expect a bigot to do.

I'd like to deconstruct the arguments themselves, but you really don't outlay them in a way that says anything other than "I have some preconceptions about groups A, B, and C, that I'd like to disguise with prepositional logic, so I'm pretending they're perfectly generic."

One of the crucial things about formal logic, whose vestments you're desperately trying to cloak yourself in without understanding its point, is that you have to establish premises, and then derive conclusions. You fail to outline your prepositions in a clear manner, and we're certainly under no obligation to accept them. Ikanreed (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You had it right at "it doesn't merit a real response", but then you tried to give one. B0N is drawing a false dichotomy between conditions either being equal or permanently unequal, whereas real life situations very rarely correspond to either of those polar positions. It's no more complicated than that. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

And that is precisely my point. When discussing the concept of privilege, all nuance is lost. As proof of this, the article in its current form, the concept of "intersectionality" is basically dismissed entirely, indicating that an absolutist position regarding privilege must be embraced. Yet, when presented with this absolutionist position, everyone flocks back to intersectionality. You can't have it both ways, kids. A is either immutable or mutable as a fundamental premise. The position taken thus far is that its absurd to conclude that A is immutable, thus A is mutable as long as we are free to pick and choose which intersectional influences can be dismiss based on "sociology", political identity, or other types of magical thinking and subjective hand-waving. (extreme indicators of an envious observer.)

From the article currently: Basically, there is no linear scale of privilege you can move up and down on, instead there are different types of privilege.

Summarized: Basically, there are absolute categorizations of privilege that can be absolutely quantified down to the particle and applied to all people in all conditions at all time. That's effectively what is being stated, despite the rabid protestations of this current discussion in favor of the opposite 68.170.76.117 (talk)

TL;DR: You can't clamor for fluid privilege while systematically denying it exists. 68.170.76.117 (talk)

"quantify down to the particle" Umm no, just because it's been stated that there are different types of privilege doesn't mean you can simply quantify them as you would quantify a quantity... that would be absurd. I realise you basically believe all findings of sociological studies are equivalent to subjective hand-waving because they are not "hard science", so I suggest that you either be prepared to re-examine your stance on that or accept that this isn't going anywhere. Nullahnung (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You: There's no hard quantification of privilege categories despite the current article unmistakably saying so.

You: We can make these categories up as we go along real fast and loose to fit any situation we desire. (And people can move in between these categorizes partially based on rules that we are also inventing on the fly)

You: Sociology is about hard science, even though we can make up categorizations of identity on the fly with no peer review or expectations of repeatability... and you should come to that conclusion, too, because RationalWiki

Me: Did the person who created this site's name misspell ReligiousWiki? 68.170.76.117 (talk)

You're strawmanning. Nobody's saying they can make up categories willy nilly or that sociology is about "science with no peer review or repeatability". Nullahnung (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm paraphrasing to point out the hellbent child-like wish to have infinite flexibility of definition while refusing to address the absolutism rife within this article. 68.170.76.117 (talk)

I was going to say something to the effect of "you can't expect to describe relationships between groups of different social status by categorising them as either 'situation improvable, so just do it yourself instead of being jealous' or 'unimprovable, so there's no point in even trying', there are shades of 'difficult to improve' between those two extremes", but Weasloid said it close enough. So... this ^ Nullahnung (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Garbage in garbage out. --Marlow (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It isn't going to work that way. I have problems with the idea, myself. It does seem to take probably valid ideas about social inclusiveness or distance, and comfort or discomfort, and then tries to shoehorn in an explicitly political framework about being put down by the Man. But that just isn't going to work; Envy, besides being a sin, is too elusive a butterfly to get boxed into a syllogism. Neither is the valid part of this, which frequently "intersect" many other factors besides the standard categories of identity politics. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 04:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Missing the point...

You're going to have to tell me quite how the race, gender, and socioeconomic background of an Angelman syndrome patient matters; aside from my anecdotal experience, you can simply read the linked article. It's not "missing the point" to say that one very extreme factor such as this can totally override the others, it's pointing out reality. If it's your argument that "a white Angelman syndrome patient still has more privilege than a black Angelman syndrome patient" then you're not even wrong; neither one can be considered in any way the beneficiary of any privilege. I suppose it's not easy to understand if you haven't worked with these people, although the linked article can give you a good sense. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Privilege isn't about how individuals experience having privilege, it's about how society treats you based on certain traits/backgrounds associated with you. For example, in an overtly racist society, the government might pay for the care of white Angelman syndrome patients while refusing to do anything for black patients. The former group in this example could then be said to be privileged compared to their black counterparts. It doesn't mean that their existence is necessarily more enjoyable or something. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

(EC) It's already explained within the section of the article you're editing. Group privilege such as white privilege belong to broad demographics and the fact that some individuals within that demographic have it tougher than others doesn't "cancel" this. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I had been thinking about what the affected person experiences; they themselves aren't going to know or care in any way about such things, as they lack the awareness to do so. In any event, my first effort definitely wasn't ideal; I completely reworked my point to reflect what I was trying to say and I'm happy to try again, it sometimes takes me a while to get the words I need out the way I want them to (autism can be a hell of a pain sometimes). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I'm finally getting the words, so here goes; basically I'm trying to demonstrate that in contrast to Obama, someone from what would typically be considered a privileged background can end up having a remarkably underprivileged life. And so I don't need to deal in a hypothetical I'll point to the case of Genie, a straight white woman who has had a uniquely horrifying life. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but is anybody actually saying "all white people have a charmed life"? Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

(Bear with me, as I'm struggling a bit with words again) No, and that's not what I'm trying to argue against. As far as I can tell the article doesn't highlight Obama's success because anyone is saying "all black people don't have a charmed life", it's simply to point out how the existence of an extremely successful black person doesn't invalidate the entire concept. All I'm trying to do is illustrate the opposite scenario, that pointing to the existence of one extremely unfortunate and underprivileged white person also doesn't invalidate the concept. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, you could add "Likewise, some white people leading very unfulfilling and marginalized lives doesn't disprove white privilege." behind the Obama example. Though it seems a bit redundant to be honest. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. I just think it's helpful to show how people can misuse individual examples in either direction, but I'll wait a little while and see what, if anything, anyone else has to say. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

10%?

The claim "as much as 10% may be gay, etc." in the article is technically plausible (since anything less than 10% confirms it), but misleading. It seems to support the 10% estimate from the Kinsey report which, as I understand it, is generally regarded as an overestimate these days.

I don't think an accurate estimate of the percentage of gay people is necessary for the article. I will rewrite that portion. Phiwum (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Privilege is when...

I removed the twitter quote "Privilege is when you think something is not a problem because it's not a problem to you personally." because I felt it both A. Attempts to redefine what was already said in the two paragraphs above it, and B. Is a description of privilege blindness, not privilege.

To the person who undid the edit, using this quote as a "working definition" does not work, as it is not a correct definition.

Perhaps it should be changed to "Privilege BLINDNESS is when you think something..." or even, "Some of the societal issues that spawn from privilege are: 1) privileged people believing something to not be a problem based solely on their inability to experience said problem..." or something like that. Using it as a definition for privilege is incorrect, as it is an example of the effects of privilege, not the entire concept.

It has a place in the article, but not in it's current place. ^{— Unsigned, by: 135.0.109.13 / talk / contribs} 21:03, 10 June 2015‎ (UTC)

Seems reasonable enough, but I'd personally rather have an exact quote that's technically incorrect on a minor detail than gloss over something important. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, when someone considers something a non-issue because it's not a problem that affects them personally, they're just being a self-centered ass. There's plenty of privileged self-centered asses to go around, but being self-centered doesn't automatically make you privileged. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

It's extremely simplistic & there are loads of counterexamples. For example, the whole concept of first world problems, which comers up regularly in discussions about privilege, is about overprivileged people overreacting to trivial problems. If I hear somebody complaining about missing about an episode of a TV show they watch or their local supermarket not stocking a gourmet food product they want, I could write it off as first world problems (i.e. a whiny frustration about something not terribly important). On the other hand, if we adopt the simplistic motto that "privilege is when you think something is not a problem because it's not a problem to you personally", this would mean that I (thinking these things are not that big a deal) am the privileged party and the person freaking out about some minor challenge to their entitled lifestyle is in fact a marginalised minority. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Privilege Blindness is a perfect example of a gratuitous political concept. Human beings have a ubiquitous or genotypical tendency to ignore the emotional turmoil of those outside their personal family group. The emotion of sympathy balances this tendency for the greater needs of a larger society or tribe but cannot overcome the individual need to shelter oneself from the excesses of common emotional trauma. Privilege Blindness is just this non-response to the problems of others politically defined to narrowly refer to material privileges only, as if that were a natural object for useful study. We all feel grateful or privileged that our wives survived childbirth or that our children were not molested by strangers.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Isn't this article on "privilege"...

...the sort of thing that we usually make fun of on this site. It appears to be meaningless woo.

I thought we were against woo. --Horace (talk) 09:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

According to our page on woo:

"Woo generally contains most of the following characteristics:

1. A simple idea that purports to be the one answer to many problems (often including diseases)
2. A "scientific-sounding" reason for how it works, but little to no actual science behind it; for example, quote mines of studies that if bent enough could be described in such a way to support it, outright misapplication of studies, or words that sound scientific but make no sense in the context they are used in
3. It involves the supernatural and paranormal (not necessarily)
4. A claim of persecution, usually perpetrated by the government or the pharmaceutical, medical, or scientific community
5. An invocation of a scientific authority
6. Prefers to use abundant testimonials over actual scientific research
7. A claim that scientists are blind to the discovery, despite attempts to alert them
8. A disdain for objective, randomized experimental controls, especially double-blind testing (which are kind of what makes epidemiology actually, y'know, work)
9. And, usually, an offer to share the knowledge for a price."

So, no, it's absolutely nothing like woo. It is a sociological concept that has nothing to do with natural science, and nobody's trying to make a quick buck off of it.

If there is something in particular about the concept you find suspicious, perhaps you should elaborate. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 10:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Very well, I'm not sure if suspicious is the right word but I am happy to attempt to elaborate.

I think the heart of the problem is that the article takes a word that has a perfectly well known definition and attempts to make a concept out of it that appears to add no value to the word that we already know.

The fact that some people are privileged compared to others is not a revelation. The fact that some (or even many) of those privileged people don't recognize their privileged position compared to others is not a revelation. In fact neither concept is in any way surprising or even interesting.

If we are going to have articles on such banalities then what's next? An article on the fact that rich people have more money than poor people or an article on how fat people weigh more than thin people?

The central problem here is that the concept is hollow and of little value. My apologies if that doesn't fit the definition of woo. I should be more precise. --Horace (talk) 11:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Privilege is a prominent enough concept on its own (existing separately from its more widely known meaning, I mean!) for us to talk about. It's used a lot in the context of social justice. Wikipedia's own article on it ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_(social_inequality) ) seems to be surprisingly lacking compared to ours. That's a first... Some of our article's authors should totally go over there and polish that thing up! Nullahnung (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not hollow or of little value. This is very very tangible stuff. The fact that controlled studies show how ethnic minorities with criminal records get fewer job offers than counterparts with identical CVs and criminal records demonstrates it. The fact that a woman can be raped but the male perpetrator is the one that is sympathised with demonstrates it. The fact you can go through life as a male and female married couple and never get jeered at and never have to actually fight or protest for the right to do so demonstrates it. This is not hollow, this is very real and very significant for people to learn and get into their heads. ^pathetic 13:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

"The fact that some people are privileged compared to others is not a revelation." True, but unfortunately not as widely accepted as it ought to be. Because, by gum, if you just try hard enough and pull yourself up by your bootstraps, anything is possible. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The concept of 'privilege' as set forth in the article is a "simple idea that purports to be the one answer to many problems", inherently invokes a claim of persecution, relies heavily on anecdotal evidence and testimonials, and necessarily includes and strongly features the idea that most people are "blind to the discovery, despite attempts to alert them". It is also particularly annoying passive-aggressive cant, signals the end of productive discussion, and is the excuse you were looking for to stop caring. I still think it's the sort of thing that wants debunking rather than endorsement. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Smerdis, you are literally the only person I have ever heard interpret privilege this way. It's not supposed to make people stop caring, it's supposed to make them stop talking about things that they don't understand that they don't understand. (Doubling intentional, not a typo.) Also, it's not an answer to a problem, it's a new name for an existing problem. We're still working on the solution. Also, "anecdotal evidence and testimonials" generally don't get published in sociological journals.

Lastly, the line on "blindness" (I thank you for not bringing up the "ableism" thing again) is a remarkable equivocation. With the actual definition of "woo," the line was about scientists being blind to the discovery--as in, "the people who actually know what they're talking about won't listen to us, waaaah!" Privilege, by contrast, is an idea expounded by professional sociologists. The only people who are "blind" to the idea of privilege are people who don't want to examine their privilege, because when you've got life easier than others, it feels better believing that it's because you're awesome rather than because the deck is stacked in your favor. This is the equivalent of scientists in the field producing and testing a hypothesis that some laypeople happen to dislike for political, personal, or moral reasons.

I stand by what I said above, which (if I may hope to express myself more clearly this time) is that (a) most people who get upset about privilege don't like the idea of having to consider other peoples' points of view; (b) you, Smerdis, already consider other peoples' points of view; (c) you are misinterpreting the idea that "you don't automatically understand how privileged you are" as "you can never understand how privileged you are"; and lastly (d) the main reason you're opposing it is because you feel that the misrepresentation in (c) amounts to people ignoring your professed empathy in (b). Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 22:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing: There are some lefties out there (ordinary people, not professional sociologists) who do represent this concept poorly. (I'm looking at you, tumblr, and I even added you to our to-do list just now.) These people may indeed claim that privilege means "you can never understand how privileged you are". They are wrong. Just like how some of the loonier supporters of evolution claim it disproves God, which you and I both know is complete nonsense. It's also not what the professionals who work on these ideas actually claim. So don't let the nuts on the street trick you into thinking that all privilege is nuts. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 22:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Come on. The 'ableism' edit was precious. It also underlines the real issue: this is one of a host of ideas whose purpose is to persuade people to perceive, recognize, and concentrate on reasons to be angry with their neighbors. It's "consciousness raising"; i.e. the deliberate cultivation of grievance. My consistent opinion is, that never helps. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of the sundry theories of "privilege" — viz., to serve as a secular analogue of original sin — is fairly transparent and often stated openly by the pinkos who concocted them. That is not, however, the "real issue," just as the fact that Galileo was using heliocentrism as a rhetorical battering ram has no bearing on whether the earth moves or not. A more relevant aspect for us is the fascinating array of ways in which the concept of "privilege" is used fallaciously. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Peggy McIntosh was one of the first writers to address the topic of privilege head-on. Her essay "Unpacking the Knapsack of White Privilege" was an exploration of how she as a white woman experienced privilege in some ways (because she was white) and disadvantages in others (because she was a woman).

If the point of privilege were to silence or to shame the privileged, this essay would have been grounds for silencing her, because she's white. Instead it opened the door to the very discussion of the concept. It is also worth noting that Ms. McIntosh was, and is, not a communist.

I don't generally like to be blunt, but you are both quite wrong. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 07:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It does not rely "heavily on anecdotal evidence and testimonials". There are actual studies showing this. The kind of study that if it was saying something you agreed with like "homoeopathy was bunk" you'd be all over as some great proof. ^moral 09:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Good God, Armondikov, it's even worse than I thought! Anybody who thinks "we fixed racism for good" needs to read that. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 23:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, to Smerdis, regarding a supposed "deliberate cultivation of grievance": John Scalzi, professional science fiction writer and straight white male who doesn't feel personally aggrieved every time he hears the word "privilege", wrote: "when people point out the things straight white men get on credit (or don’t have to deal with), the unspoken part of that is not “and that’s why we plan to burn all you bastards in a big screaming pile when the revolution comes,” it’s “hey, just so you know.” Because you should know. It’s not about blame, it’s about knowledge. Stop assuming it’s about blame. Paranoid and hypersensitive is no way to go through life." Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 00:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"One dude said it" is not an actual argument. --188.238.211.10 (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't supposed to be; I just found that he expressed what I was trying to say but couldn't. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 07:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

And, as I mentioned above, it's echoing the same sentiment (that privilege is not an excuse for hating your neighbor but for addressing heretofore unexamined social issues) expressed by one of the first sociologists to treat the concept directly. Her analysis does carry significant weight, as do the systematic studies that Armondikov cited. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 07:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It strikes me that the difference between "addressing heretofore unexamined social issues" and "deliberate cultivation of grievance" strikes me as a matter of pure rhetoric or spin. And likewise, the problem with 'privilege' rhetoric is again a matter of rhetorical (in)effectiveness and (counter)productivity: rather than inviting people to find common ground to solve common problems, 'privilege' is part of a mindset that involves underlining differences, like the closely related counting coup of "intersectionality". It encourages people to tune out other viewpoints by its very nature, whether it's supposed to or not. It isn't like academics are immune to prevalent nonsense, fads or passing intellectual fashions, either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Did you read any of the links Armondikov and I posted? I am honestly curious. I posted a link to a formative essay on this topic that showed a sociologist not laying blame, not pointing fingers, not doing anything that you attribute to this whole movement. She spends half of the goddamn paper considering other people's viewpoints. If people are encouraged by papers like this to ignore others' viewpoints they need to actually read the damn things. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 00:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, seriously, a) read those studies or similar ones and b) actually read what intersectionalists have to say. That is all. ^sshole 10:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I do get the impression you're ignoring my lived experience here. Jeezus, what a snotty, passive-aggressive thing to say; but if it's all about somebody subjective experience, it may as well be about mine. Actually, I did read the links. One of them seemed to suggest a fairly strong argument in favor of approved name lists like Iceland and France (used to?) have; parents who name their kids 'B'Juan' or 'Dweezil' or other unwholesome inventions ought to bear at least some of the blame. That, at least, is a way forward, which is more than I can see from most invocations of the notion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Privilege actually appears to be very much like a woo word: Woo generally contains most of the following characteristics:

A simple idea that purports to be the one answer to many problems (often including diseases): yes. Much of the latest feminist theory is based on the concept of privilege, which is nothing more than a theoretical class system, based on the haves and the have-nots. It doesn't matter that a poor white male cis-gendered person is impoverished and homeless, he still has "theoretical privileges."

A "scientific-sounding" reason for how it works, but little to no actual science behind it: supported by blatant appeals to authority and little else in the Women's Studies sector of academia. A claim of persecution, usually perpetrated by the government or the pharmaceutical, medical, or scientific community: patriarchy.

An invocation of a scientific authority: by way of Woman's Studies academics.

Prefers to use abundant testimonials over actual scientific research: general complaint against theoretical feminism.

A claim that scientists are blind to the discovery, despite attempts to alert them: general complaint against theoretical feminism. A disdain for objective, randomized experimental controls, especially double-blind testing (which are kind of what makes epidemiology actually, y'know, work) And, usually, an offer to share the knowledge for a price.": Selling women's studies at University.

Yes. Definitely Woo. Ariel31459 (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Posting the same stuff two years later next to a debunking that you don't even try to address? PRATT, definitely a PRATT. At least the first person did a better job of describing it and didn't base it seemingly alone on women studies classes based on...well, no data but repeating the first claims. If this is shitty woo, your lackluster "debunking" failed to even measure up to the support it has. Doing worse at supporting your ideas than the "woo" you claim to be debunking is actually kind of sad and lazy. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

This is exactly how I would describe those who support this concept of Privilege: sad and lazy. It's woo alright. Ariel31459 (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

That's nice darling, the researchers still did more work in supporting their ideas then you have...so what does that make you? :-p Adding the same unfounded assertions and insults doesn't help with that whole proof thing or addressing issues from the original posting you seem to be missing. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

This branch of human folly or rationalized "knowledge" is descriptive only. There is no proving it. It either provides accurate descriptions of real cases or it does not. Evidently it does not. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

And here we have what is called "crass denial". ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

And such is crass approval.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing crass about the points others have made above, regardless of their final assessment. Boring hands-on-ears nuh-uhing just concedes the actual point of the conversation while having a pro forma disagreement. Pointless, dumb, but you're not particularly concerned about that. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The theory of Privilege is extraordinarily crass. It takes the notion of underprivileged and turns it upside down. Stupid is as stupid does. Ordinary people are not privileged because they have the advantage of not being disadvantaged. That's just stupid talk.The point is to help the underprivileged, not antagonize everyone else. -C.

MRA doesn't understand how arguments work and ignores counter-points and presents pro-forma responses that regurgitate your original statements in a manner that happens to incorporate words they've seen in the counter-arguments, hoping to disguise your complete lack of consideration of them. Surprise level: 0. You've not read the article, you've got at best a semantic argument about whether to use the word frequently, not rather it's a valid construction. And you painfully feel that, in spite of how vacuous your position is, you've found a hyper-rational point that completely obliterates your opponents. It's kinda sad, dude. Also, please lookup the meaning of the word "crass". It doesn't mean "bad". ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

This is the kind of bipolar thinking that appears too often in RW. Nobody has been discussing MRA subjects. Privilege, as a concept is independent of gender consoderations. It appears somewhat retarded to claim that MRAs don't understand something as a class. How about stamp collectors? Care to make a condescending statement about philatalists? It is not surprising, son, and "crass," means insensitive and even ignorant, so I would ask for my money back if you paid someone to teach you how to be a mind reader. Ariel31459 (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

First: a final aside about your misunderstandings of the word crass. A thesaurus is not a dictionary. Ignorant is a closely related word with completely different connotations. When an argument is called crass, it suggests that it is simplistic, fails to consider the complexity of a debate, and instead often relies on bare assertions(indeed it often seems to come from an uneducated or ignorant place, hence the thesaurus entry). This isn't even a prescriptivist/descriptivist thing. No one uses crass to mean just "insensitive" or "ignorant". That usage just isn't there.

Now, setting all that aside, yes, I'm happy to generalize about MRAs, they're overwhelmingly loud-mouthed regressive with an understanding of issues shallower than a puddle. Stamp collectors, rather than obsessing over the marginalization of a largely empowered group, often as a thinly disguised excuse to hate on a genuinely marginalized group, keep little pieces of paper, and thus don't tend to highlight deep and abiding character flaws as a identifying factor. Buuuuuuut that's me. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Crass means what I stated. Simple Definition of crass:having or showing no understanding of what is proper or acceptable : rude and insensitive (Merriam Webster). Good luck with your future education.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Is this sat ire?

I honestly can't tell. This reads like a parody of feminist extremism. I'm not trying to make a joke. I genuinely cannot tell if this article is satire or if this is actually a position RationalWiki has taken. I'm going to assume satire until proven otherwise. ^{— Unsigned, by: 100.37.62.17 / talk / contribs}

Because "privilege" is an extremist feminist concept. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my point. Is this satire of feminist nazi movement? Because it reads like it's making fun of it. There are better ways to critique feminism than to portray all feminists as man-hating bigots. This should be edited. ^{— Unsigned, by: 100.37.62.17 / talk / contribs}

Because noting gender-based inequalities is being a man-hating bigot. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to reply, may I suggest at least doing the unsigs for the IP within the same edit? (I've done it now, but in future.) Also, drop the stupid sarcasm, that tends to lead to miscommunication as annoyingly demonstrated in this very thread. Nullahnung (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Still can't tell if satire or genuine extremism here. ^{— Unsigned, by: 100.37.62.17 / talk / contribs}

Privilege is not actually something that's just invented by extremist feminists. It's a concept used to describe social inequalities from academic research in the field of sociology, the story and development of which you can read about on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_(social_inequality) Nullahnung (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful and informative first comment, Nullahnung! FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 11:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you parodying anti-feminists or are you just that ignorant? I honestly can't tell. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 12:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

"Is this satire?" Oh the irony...The theory of privilege is nothing more than taking the original concept of the Underprivileged, and turning it on its head. People who are underprivileged look at the rest of society with often justifiable resentment. It seems like parody to take the normal ones and reflect upon the privileges that make them so very ordinary. No. the object should be about helping the underprivileged and pointing fingers at folks who have the advantage of not being disadvantaged, won't do shit.

Your conversation is taking on a very green ink style. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 22:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"Taking"? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

All in good order--C. To answer the question, "Is this Satire"? No. But it could be. At this level of ludicrosity it is hard to tell.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Something possibly relevant

See this. Basically it talks about the perils of getting obsessed with labeling various things as "privilege", and how it leads to some bizarre conclusions about "social justice". A little discussion about how people focus on "privilege" as a means of drowning out discussion, instead of actually addressing the point, would seem to be in order, and the above link is a starting point. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Cathy Young concern-trolling? Cool story bro - David Gerard (talk) 08:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

And there is no Cathy Young article. Maybe someone should make one? (I just thought about doing it, then I realised I couldn't be bothered.) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It's on the to-do list - David Gerard (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

So the idea is to shove our heads up our asses and pretend this sort of thing doesn't happen? The official party line, then, would be that being a white man wasn't exactly what got Steven Pagones caught up in the Brawley case and what made it so hard for him to get himself out of it, which is so ludicrous it's hard to know where to start. My argument wasn't that it was common, it's that it happens; the reality-based community, at least, can see that. Put another way, I don't walk through life obsessively tracking how much more or less "privilege" I have in relation to the people I interact with (autistic white guy), I just live my life. When people tell me I should get a girlfriend, I don't scream "YOU IGNORANT PRIVILEGE BLIND FUCKTARD CAN'T YOU STOP THINKING OF THE WORLD WITH YOUR PRIVILEGE!!!!"; I say that's not how I seem to be wired, and that I don't expect people to understand it any more than I get their way of doing things. Despite the fact that the house definition of "privilege" would encompass this, in my mind that sort of thing has nothing to do with "privilege"; it's just a different way of thinking, that's all. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone still doesn't seem to get that privilege isn't some absolute property that is exclusive to particular demographics. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

That 1. is wrong and 2. addresses the specific point above... how exactly? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It was more in reference to the part you added to the article (and apparently removed again). 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah; I self-reverted, I just wanted people to be able to see what I had in mind so they didn't have to guess. The point was that sometimes people actively weaponize perceived privilege against someone, which to me seems just as bad as using another person's (real or perceived) lack of privilege against them; Pagones had no business being punished simply for being a well-educated white man in that case, which is what people tried to do, any more than black men deserve to be convicted of crimes and serve longer prison sentences for being black men. My own thinking is that it's good to try to explain as a (again real or perceived) less privileged person where you're coming from, it's not OK to contemptuously shout someone's argument down simply because you consider them privileged relative to you or, in the extreme case, attempt to destroy their lives due to the same (i.e. I explain my way of thinking to my coworkers so we can get past misunderstandings, I don't accuse them of being insensitive and try to get them fired over it). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Under this heading, it seems fitting to point out there is some question as to whether the context of this particular use of the word privilege is scientific or religious. The entry begins ”Much will be required from everyone to whom much has been given. —Luke 12:48" Not being a Christian, may I assume I can safely ignore what follows?Ariel31459 (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC) .

Loaded language

This article seems to be consistently implying that lack of a disadvantage constitutes an advantage when in fact, barring some extraordinary factor in the opposite direction, it is neutral; neither advantaged nor disadvantaged. ^{— Unsigned, by: 64.121.6.113 / talk / contribs 09:30, 7 February 2016‎}

Given that there's no non-arbitrary neutral point, a lack of disadvantage is exactly equivalent to an advantage. In fact, the very meaning of the word 'advantage' is terms of one state relative to another. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 11:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of non-arbitrary neutral points. For race, it would be someone not caring about your race (as with most white people).TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Referring to a neutral point as arbitrary is missing the main thrust of the argument: neutral points are essentially points about which the affect of individuals is seen as being as near to zero as might be expected.They are never arbitrary--they are relativistic. Using arbitrary in this sense is like referring to the air temperature as arbitrary. Ariel31459 (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The construct is entirely loaded. The word underprivileged was originally a euphemism for failure. Privileged is the equivalent of successful in the Darwinist sense. This use of language to attempt to engage public sympathies is interesting but, I think, doomed to failure. These are human beings we are talking about: there will always be failures, just as there will always be unsympathetic responses to failure.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Ariel: what? you agree with that view? Anyway there are different type of disavantage, some which are not controlled, being gay, a woman in certain areas, black and have to do with how a part society interacts and react with that trait in itself, regardless of knowing that person. So what does it have to do with success or failure if such privileges or absence of discrimination have nothing to do with personal merits or skill. Why the need to saccently downplay it with an appeal to a supposed darwinian nature, which btw is a naturalistic fallacy.--78.15.214.119 (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Fallacies apply to logical arguments, not descriptions and definitions, which may be simply wrong. My description may be inaccurate as I do not regard the underprivileged as failures. One can talk about the difficulties involved in belonging to non-privileged sets of people without being censorious towards an entire compliment. I like the word "typical." It's a matter of style really.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)