this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025
447 points (89.3% liked)
Flippanarchy
1372 readers
6 users here now
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
-
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not sure "privilage" is the right term in this scenario. For me, the term "privilage" would be more fitting to describe rich people.
I know you have good intent, but if we go around calling straight white cisgender men "privilaged", that's just fueling the "culture war" when we really should be focusing on the class war.
Social privilege is 100% a thing. You can bet that the fact that a white person doesn't receive subconsciously ingrained doubt and xenophobia from literally everyone else pretty much ensures that a white person will be subconsciously favoured. (edit:) this doesn't mean that they will necessarily receive a cornucopia of riches, but it pretty much guarantees that they'll be first pick for the football team, so to speak.
Same goes for Maleness™ and Cis-ness (?), they are perceived as defaults, as standards. It also applies in the neurotypical-neurodivergent face-off.
In short, as long as there is any kind of "other" and one is not perceived as part of it, one is intrinsically privileged.
(edit 2:) And the only thing which trumps social privilege is money.
The question is whether privilege is the right word for this.
Privilege kinda describes something above what's deserved or something unearned.
You're describing basic human decency I think which everyone deserves
I have been arguing this for years now and all I get is the "bUt tHeY're BEtTeR oFf sO ThEy arE prIviLeGeD"
OK, and look at all the people you're calling "privileged" who don't agree with you because of your characterization of them. If changing the word gets them on your side isn't that worth it?
Well, it's an unearned advantage, isn't it? What else would you call such an advantage other than a privilege?
Basic human decency, including not having who you are used against you, isn't something people should have to earn.
I agree, that wasn't what I was arguing against.
But in how things currently are, the very point is that we are not all equally treated with decency and many do, indeed, have who they are be used against them. Thus, it's currently a privilege to be part of those who are not besieged by the above-mentioned.
That's the idea of the "other," as long as it exists, we cannot apply the average as being "decent." Because it's utterly inhuman when you average the two sides. I'd go as far as to say barbaric.
I think my point is perhaps more around semantics than politics.
Privilege as a word suggests one group has something they don't deserve. Whereas the problem I see is that the other group doesn't have what they deserve.
I'm aware this could trend dangerous close to that "all lives matter" nonsense which tried to deny the inequality and inequity of life, this is not my point at all.
My point only works if we're in agreement that the "thing" we're talking about is basic human rights, respect and dignity. If that changes then the conversation changes with it.
I understand what you mean, but I am of the opinion that arguing raw semantics in political contexts is like analysing love from a strictly neurochemical standpoint, if that makes sense.
In this specific situation I'd still call it a privilege. I agree that the default should be decency and fairness for everyone, but, again, it isn't. Because we as humans have decided to apply different standards to different groups of people. And as long as the norm isn't decency for all, existing on the "right" side of the divide is a privilege - I was born white, I didn't bleach myself to get here (I mean no offense through this).
In the hopes that my point is made clearer, I'd use an analogy (deprecated, see edit): what we have now is the equivalent of playing Monopoly with someone who's allowed to reroll their dice at least once every roll if the numbers aren't to their liking, and the process of choosing who gets to reroll is weighted by subjectively defined specifications.
Edit, because I've realised I've botched the example: it's like playing Monopoly, but one of the players has a starting handicap applied (less money distributed, weighted dice which favour smaller rolls, having to pay more for Rent on owned slots, etc.). The rest of it stays the same, in that the process of selection is purely subjective and decided by a third party for everyone else involved.
The semantic argument matters because it makes a difference in how society (or more accurately, those unfamiliar with the movement) views the movement and its goals.
These terms are often a little incorrect and inflammatory to be more meme-able which helps get things off the ground, but that works against gaining broad support from the "opponents" later on so it's kind of self-limiting. "Black Lives Matter Too" could've preempted all of the "All Lives Matter" bs that was used to inoculate people from seriously engaging with the idea.
"Privilege" has the same problem because it implies a wish to dismantle things on one end instead of building up on the other. It's like trying to start a revolution and then antagonizing the general public for just existing in the system you're trying to change. You'll never grow to critical mass, and you'll likely attract some more extreme members to the group that will drag you back too.
This still sounds like a problem of contextualisation, not semantics to me. "Privilege" is an appropriate word, precisely because it is poignant and strikes at the heart of the matter.
My solution to the problem you're describing wouldn't be sugarcoating the words, but explaining why the words have been chosen. We are seeing the slow suffocation of nuance, and nuance takes more than a couple of words in order to thrive.
Plus in my opinion you're describing solving systemic issues not by changing the system, but by compromise and discourse. I ask you, do we currently have a system which would work well with compromise and discourse, or is it the very trajectory of action which gradually shifted Liberals from Center-Left to Right?
If there's one thing which therapy taught me is that sometimes growth needs radical truth and radical acceptance. Sugarcoating it just lets one simmer in their comfort zone because "eh, it's not THAT bad since you put it that way..."
I'll agree here pretty strongly, which is why it's so important to get the message across right the first time. The inoculation I was previously describing stops you from being able to later explain so it's like setting up your own roadblock.
In the case of while privilege for example, do you feel that what white people experience should be the base default for everyone regardless of race, or do they need to be dragged "down" by some amount? Privilege implies the latter, so unless that's your actual view then it being poignant (meme-able was the term I used in the previous comment) is the exact double-edged sword we're discussing.
Wouldn't it be better, knowing that the space for nuance disappears after momentum takes hold, to use language that's less poignant but more accurate?
I think the reason this doesn't happen is because it's far more difficult to gain momentum without that slight inflammatory inaccuracy that there's a selection pressure at work. I also think that this also destines the movement to failure as it'll inevitably be largely misunderstood (partly because that surface-level misunderstanding is easy to weaponize by opponents, and partly because most people don't revisit and reexamine their first impression).
That's fair, that there is relative privilege which can not be removed from the historical context, or undone, is a reasonable point
There's a man standing on a cliff, and a man hanging off another cliff by his hands, would you consider the man on the cliff to have an advantage, or the man hanging to have a disadvantage?
I can see it, you tell someone whos also living paycheck to paycheck that just because they're not queer they are "privileged", they're gonna be like, "no, im not".
We need better terminology, sticking with this one is just self serving and kind of narcissistic, don't create culture war, this still boils down to class war
This is... so not just a class war, though. It's intersectional, everything is linked to everything else, class, racism, sexism, homophobia, everything! And sugarcoating the truth just leads to the same thing, over and over and over again.
No, semantics aren't the issue here, the issue is that nobody's explaining anything anymore. Everyone just expects to have their meaning understood through five words or less, then starts arguing semantics without analysing the context.
It is a privilege to be a white male. And, yes, as long as you're not part of the 1%, you're getting shafted regardless. The two are most certainly not mutually exclusive, the privilege being that white guys get less shaft.
Semantics are everything, if you want people on your side you need to start by not using alienating terminology
No concern trolling. There's nothing wrong with the terminology.
Spoken like a true keyboard warrior
How about none of the above, how about focusing on the bastards who actually put these racist systems in place instead of focusing on any nomenclature that's literally only point is "make white cis man feel bad for being white cis man"
You're literally drawing a line in the sand and saying "this doesn't mean anything, but also you're not allowed on this side of the line" while rich ass hats build a brick wall around both parties.
You sir, are propagating a culture war, and this infighting isn't going to be tolerated much when we rise up against the rich people stepping on their common man.
I suggest you get with the times or get run over.
No one did anything to deserve a growing up safely, being healthy, inheriting money, having white skin or even growing up in a certain nation. No one starts from zero, and it's just an obvious lie if you say otherwise. We as a society, should work on making these differences less relevant, when it comes to success and life satisfaction, wheather that's through public education, social benefits or reducing racism and prejudice.
I was born in a very poor section 8 district right outside of Philadelphia city. My parents were neglectful and abusive, so I went outside and roamed the town alone as a small child. I was beaten senseless multiple times by fellow kids. I asked them why and their reply was always because of the color of my skin and that their parents told them to hate my kind. Eventually I stopped trying to go outside or make friends because I was socially ostracized everywhere I went.
Nobody wants to hear about my traumatic experiences with racism or xenophobia that lead to long term damage to my social skills, or upbringing in a broken home never experiencing an ounce of love, or living with extreme poverty having to work for every scrap. Im white so it doesn't fit their narrative. My experiences are automatically invalid because of the color of my skin. Its socially acceptable to hate on white people because we 'deserve it'. All of us must be so privileged, come from middle or upper classes, never experiencing an ounce of suffering for the color of our skin or if we do its fair and deserved.
Many people don't want equality or peace for all, what many really want is vengeance and retribution for themselves even if it perpetuates the cycle of hatred. They want to be the new protected class.
This kind of shit is why the left keeps driving people away and is losing. This used to be called discrimination. It was easy to understand and uncontroversial. So of course the left had to reframe the issue, play stupid word games and try to alienate as many people as possible.
I'm well aware of the history. You know who isn't? The 90+% of the population who don't consider themselves leftists or progressive. If you have to tell them, ”It's not as bad as it initially sounds, let me spend several paragraphs explaining”, then you have already lost them. If they don't know the precise academic definition and read something like "even homeless white people are privileged", they're going to think you're insane. Why give yourself that handicap when you can just choose different words to convey the same ideas?
If you want to prioritize feeling superior, go for it. Just don't be surprised when the left continues to be impotent and ignored.
No, it was always privilege. Discrimination is something else. Also you're concern trolling and you gotta stop that now.
They're two ways of framing the same issue. Privilege is the absence of prejudicial discrimination. Those who are discriminated against lack privilege.
The difference is that every single time I've seen privilege discussed in the last 20 odd years since I noticed it become a popular term in leftist spaces, someone gets alienated because they take offense at being called privileged despite having a shitty life. It's happened in this very thread.
And I'm not concern trolling. We're about to have a fascist in the White House and several other countries are very likely to fall to them in the near future. We need to be discussing how to convert people to the left, because what we've been doing has not worked.
"don't talk about these subjects because it will drive potential allies away" is the definition of concern trolling
Absolutely there is social privilege, and Im sure white trash living in a trailer park are loving their social privilege of being shit on by everyone and assisted by no one.
Stop this racist, sexist, heterophobic thinking.
What you're thinking of is 'majority privilege' not 'white' privilege. A white person would experience the same things elsewhere in the world. It's natural for communities to want some sense of normalcy and to strive for most of their populace to conform. And "cis" being the default state of things is why you were born in the first place to spout these stupid shitty ideas. You come from a long long line of cis-gendered people. Being straight is the default. It will always BE the default. It's a requirement for the survival of the species.
This is an interesting discussion, because my understanding of "whiteness" suggests that it isn't limited to anglos. It's more of a bias in favor of lighter or fairer skinned individuals in any and all cultures. I believe it's due to the expectation that darker skinned individuals work outside for a living (e.g. the fields), whereas lighter skinned individuals have less sun exposure due to not needing to work outdoors (due to wealth).
This occurs in numerous societies around the globe. In areas where darker complexions are rather common (africa, india), skin lightening treatments are apparently quite popular.
There's some truth to your statement (such as white farmers in south africa having their land repossessed post apartheid), but i think it's a more complex bias than most realize.
Three different arguments against that:
Why wouldn't bi people be the "default"?
Who says the survival of the species needs to be the standard by which we decide what is default?
You're ignoring technology like artificial wombs. Assuming technology continues to advance, I could see the population thriving even if 100% were gay.
Let's do, indeed, stop with the racism and sexism, and heterophobia, I think, is not the thing most people who argue against Cis privilege encompass.
Honestly, sounds to me like YOU need to have a default more than nature does.