I’m just so fucking sick of anti-white racism, which is liberalism essentially.
Because I’m white, that means I’m a Hitler incarnate and responsible for enslaving black people. Yep, all white people are the same.
Check yo privilege, whitey!
Fuck you, I work hard for what I get in life, probably a lot harder than the average gang banger selling crack on the street to feed his baby mommas. I’m white, so I’m automatically responsible for Nazism and Southern black slavery??? No, fuck off.
Sorry, I’m ranting, but you liberals can see my point. Don’t try to pass your white guilt off onto all white people.
You are getting angry about something which no one has ever said to you, here or anywhere else. And everyone knows it. Neither me nor anon are stupid enough to be baited like this.
Your attempt at trolling was poor and has failed. Time to give it up.
Smart kids can live shitty lives coming out of public schools with poor parents.
Dumb kids in private schools with rich parents have problems, but not the kind the poor kids have.
So I think if you think that how hard you work has more to do with where you end up than where you came from does, then you’re just wrong.
Like the single best indicator of how much money a person will make in their lives is how much their dad made. It has almost nothing to do with intelligence or hard work.
So yeah, it’s hard to deal with it and I imagine the way a person must feel who has to face that they haven’t really accomplished the things they’ve taken the prizes for. It has to be a terrible feeling. But I’m sure it’s balanced by the stability and leisure that comes as a result of privilege.
I do think it’s a corny saying. Like yolo.
So we should boycott it. But not because it isn’t true, but because it’s corny.
I’m not arguing that privilege doesn’t mean anything. Obviously it does. I have a landlord who went to Harrow who is trying to evict me from my home because it is ‘causing him financial hardship’ to have me live here. In the U.K. we basically now have a two tier class system: those who can afford to own houses and those who can’t. If you own a house outright in the U.K., you are basically free from financial hardship.
Still, I’m saying that ‘check your privilege’ is an ineffective form of argument. Untrue statements are not untrue because of who said them. ‘Privileged’ people can make valid points/arguments concerning issues about the under-privileged. So if they make invalid points, its the points that have to be addressed.
I might put more weight on this if I thought that the ‘CYP’ meme was actually about causing genuine reflection, rather than an attempt at ‘opinion top trumps’. The way I’ve seen it used, its the latter not the former.
I come from Britain, my partner is Vietnamese. I fully realize that everyone from a Western country is privileged. He has to fight to get the right to stay in England or risk being deported back to a country where he has no freedom of speech, rights or job prospects. His parents had their $90 a month pension illegally cut and now he uses his scholarship money to fund his entire family. We live on rice and vegetables to pay the difference. He had to pay for a $1500 operation for his dad, if he hadn’t paid his father would have been left to die, and if he didn’t fund his sister’s degree, she would have no education at all. He has to work 30 hours a week on top of his full time studies to help pay for this stuff. I help too, but obviously for me its not a necessity, so I get the feel good factor without the stress.
So yeah, we are all lucky, privileged people who can waste away our time on a philosophy forum whilst others have no option but to work their assess off 24/7. This is ‘checking my privilege’, but what is it achieving? I’ve thought about these things constantly for the last four years. Has it changed my views on things? Yes, profoundly, but not in the way that people using ‘cyp’ would probably expect.
It depends how the argument is used, whether it is ad hom or not. If someone is saying, you are wrong because priviledge has led you to the wrong conclusion, that would be ad hom. But if they are simply saying, perhaps the reason this seems to be the case to you is due to the limits on your experiences and also how such a belief might benefit you, it need not be ad hom. One can be correct, but have arrived at a correct position, for example, due to skewed perception. If it is a call to consider the possibility that self-benefit and position might skew your views, that isn’t ad hom. If it is an argument for why the person must be wrong, that is ad hom.
Sure, and if that is what this is all about, then it is ad hom. But if it is an interpersonal call for introspection and reevaluation, but not an argument about why one must be wrong, then it is not an ad hom.
I Think they actually should have reworded it, since it is not simply priviledge that could skew one’s views. Those receiving social aid, those in any category, will tend to be influenced by their category and experiences, including those with no priviledge or Power at all. Any class or category can have their view skewed by self-interest and sense of self and limited experience.
I hate this term “privilege”. I was once told I had no right to criticise Islamic attitudes to women, because of my “white privilege”. And this was on a feminist discussion board of all places.
“A blogger (Laurie Penny) commented that black people shouldn’t rise to what she called ‘race baiting’ and should ignore the comment, rather than giving the original author what he (in her opinion) wanted (an argument over potentially racist terms, maybe just for more recognition). She was told to ‘check her privilege’, meaning that she should listen to what black people think rather than making comments from her own opinions.”
But this is an important consideration, brevel. The problem is in the use of the saying to shut someone up. That’s a problem. But such considerations aren’t about truth and untruth, they’re about understanding and dealing with others, one’s values… a real world of real people in all its complexity.
Sounds to me like a misuse of the concept, rather than an example. Unless we’re truly discussing two different ideas as if they are one. I think we are, maybe.
I agree. Also, the responsibility to understand others’ points of view, get involved, and realize you aren’t fundamentally superior. Judging others from one’s armchair is just aggression, and isn’t actually very effective - which is exactly why unthoughtfully throwing around this little pocket phrase is such poor form.
I don’t know if the software you use reads out text in JPEG images, but basically it is a score chart for privilege. Being gay, for example, gives you -150, being good looking +10, being retarded gives you -200, but being blind gives you -750. I think it’s supposed to be a satire of the ‘CYP’ meme, but judging by the facebook comments most people think that its real and many are taking it very seriously. So maybe you might be able to shut someone up for a while
My screen reader doesn’t recognise text in images unfortunately, but that sounds quite amusing, -750 is definitely a “good” score, lol. What are some of the other ones?
Just for fun, we could get everyone on this thread, or maybe this whole forum, to post their own score, and in any argument the person with the lowest score automatically wins.
