Check Your Priv...Hatred And Demeaning Of Others Because Of The Groups They Fall Into
There are terms for this sort of thing -- this demeaning of people because of their color or race -- and they are "racism" and "sexism." And, no, that doesn't change when you're sneering at an individual because they're white and male.
At FEE.org, Tricia Beck-Peter writes:
On the college campus, individuals were viewed and judged in the context of whatever privilege they were perceived to have. Privilege was a score weighted through all the lenses of intersectionality. Race, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity were the most easily identifiable variables of privilege, but even the minutiae were considered. If your parents were still married, you were privileged. If you took out student loans, you were oppressed. Each layer of your identity contributed to your privilege score.Your privilege score determined what you could discuss in polite company. Pro-life male students were silenced under the "no uterus, no opinion" doctrine. Discussion of racial issues was only permitted if the party being condemned was white. Questioning any aspect of Islam by a privileged party was instantly classified as Islamophobia. I was once called a racist for saying that a company has a right to deny service to people who won't pay for it because the people in question were poor, black South Africans. "Check your privilege" was not an invitation to reflect on the lasting effects of prejudice. It was a gag order.
"Check your privilege" was not an invitation to reflect on the lasting effects of prejudice. It was a gag order. Privilege became a system to redistribute free speech to groups who had historically been oppressed, but like all systems of redistribution, it was built on theft. Rather than opening up the forums for all to speak freely, unencumbered by their ancestry, "check your privilege" and its accompanying rhetoric made minority opinions heard by silencing the majority.
The racism and sexism of intersectionality are as anti-individualist, anti-personal responsibility as they come.
People are individuals and can -- and should -- only be responsible for their own behavior.
Though I'm an atheist, one thing I find great about Judaism, compared with Christianity, is that there's no "original sin." You don't come into the world with black marks on your report card -- thanks to events before you were even born (if they happened at all); you are responsible only for your own behavior going forward.
As it should be.
I personally love the check your privilege debates, the looks they get on their face when you use their own argument against them is fantastic
lujlp at December 20, 2018 11:54 PM
The key word: perceived
> On the college campus, individuals were viewed and judged in the context of whatever privilege they were perceived to have.
So literally as shallow and ignorant as can be.
Literally stereotyping, and proud of it.
So any person's actual real life non-observable advantages and disadvantages (born rich or poor, health problems, domestic violence, impacts from prejudice the observer doesn't realize,) all of that matters nothing to the stereotype the social justice warriors "assign" you.
"Assign" in the same way SJW's complain of gender "assigned" at birth.
> I personally love the check your privilege debates, the looks they get on their face when you use their own argument against them is fantastic.
And that's the thing, I always welcome a check your privilege contest. If folks knew the shit I've seen (https://imgur.com/gallery/02Xco9M....)
jerry at December 21, 2018 1:03 AM
I don't see her videos so much any more on Facebook (because every time her videos are shared, she gets ridiculed mercilessly), but there is a Dr. Robin DiAngelo who apparently subscribes to the belief that "If I speak very slowly and distinctly, and use very simple words, as if I'm a kindergarten teacher addressing my classroom, I will sound intelligent and authoritative."
She also promotes the idea that racism is something only white people can be, under the mistaken idea that racism is institutional racism. Her world is literally black and white. Institutional racism is, according to her, something only white people can practice and benefit from.
She's apparently never heard of Black Student Government on campuses, Black Student Clubs, BET, the Black Caucus in Congress, or Affirmative Action.
Patrick at December 21, 2018 5:45 AM
DiAngelo is the author of White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard To Talk To White People About Their Racism, which title would be funny if it weren’t more ironic. Presumably (haven’t read it), she explains why you’re a bad person on the basis of views you may not even hold because of your skin color or sex. She is a grotesque, an example of the worst sorts of prejudice masquerading as virtue.
Rob McMillin at December 21, 2018 6:06 AM
Also, the “racism = prejudice + privilege” is a prescriptivist Kafka trap. Conveniently, it also gets the speaker off the hook for their very real prejudice (under the commonly accepted definition of the word) by defining away the problem. That nobody outside the academy and the politically motivated uses their definition troubles them not at all.
Rob McMillin at December 21, 2018 6:10 AM
Because men contribute only "genetic material" to a fetus and, therefore, have no right to a say in what happens to it, but let a man try to walk away from it when it becomes a baby and see what happens.
That you may have learned something about Islam in your study of religion means nothing. On the other hand, go ahead and criticize Christianity from any seat in the house, because evangelicals, ugh!
Campus privilege scoring is nothing more than the SJW way of knocking someone out of the debate without giving them a chance to speak. It's the SJW equivalent of sticking one's fingers in one's ears and humming loudly to drown the other person out. You've formed your rationale and don't want anyone coming along to rain on your parade with logic and common sense.
Conan the Grammarian at December 21, 2018 6:36 AM
It's also a misuse of the commonly understood definition in the English language.
If you were to meet someone in the U.S. who religiously studied communism, devoured the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and believed that communism was the best possible form of government and the only reason it apparently failed is because those nations that implemented it just didn't do it right and if communism were just done right, it would be best form of government known to man, and that every nation in the world should adopt communism, you'd say he was a communist, right?
He wouldn't say, "Oh, I can't be a communist, because communists have never been in power in the United States. I would have to live under a communist form of government to be a communist."
He'd say, "Hell, yeah! I'm a communist!"
He's a communist, because he believes in communism. By the same token, a racist does not have to live under a racist form of government that benefits him to believe in racism. Even if we accepted this academic definition of racism (which is institutional racism), it's entirely possible for black people to be racist.
Do they believe that black people are entitled to 230 points added to their SAT scores? Do they believe in affirmative action, the black caucus, black student governments, segregated dormitories on college campuses, safe spaces, BET etc.?
Then, under this academic definition that they insist is the only definition of racism, they are racist.
Patrick at December 21, 2018 7:27 AM
Conan, I call that the "keep your mouth shut and your wallet open" trap.
I R A Darth Aggie at December 21, 2018 7:34 AM
Privileges are earned.
If you and your ancestors don't have "privileges" - such as being expected to solve everyone else's problems, pay taxes, register for the draft, etc. - or you aren't in charge, chances are you haven't earned them.
Radwaste at December 21, 2018 7:53 AM
These idiots/students will be running for Congress in a few years. We are doomed !
Nick at December 21, 2018 8:13 AM
Darth, I agree that men, as a group, should not be told to shut up regarding anything that I can think of, offhand.
But there's a reason that even most anti-abortion types (and other people) will not support a man's "right" to abandon a child once it's born. (Namely, most people say kids have the right to be supported, and most taxpayers feel their rights surmount unwilling fathers' "rights.")
If men can't stand the idea of condoms or vasectomies, they could, at least, privately beg their DOCTORS to campaign for better male birth control. What risk is there in letting their doctors know what they want?
lenona at December 21, 2018 9:06 AM
But there's a reason that even most anti-abortion types (and other people) will not support a man's "right" to abandon a child once it's born.
______________________________________________
Of course, most people don't support a man's "right" to abandon a pregnant woman either.
However, even in the 1970s, men could and did sue for custody and then demand child support.
lenona at December 21, 2018 9:32 AM
My daughter has been going through this at her school. It started with orientation and is apparently a big element of their student activities.
She's already recognized that it results in two things: Everyone tries to portray themselves as a victim to be seen as special. And then they start segregating into their victim groups.
Sheila at December 21, 2018 9:35 AM
The theory that you can’t make laws unless they affect you directly is a fine idea, and I look forward to the day when only people who are being taxed — in direct proportion to the amount they are expected to pay — get to vote on whether they should be so levied, or when oil companies and only oil companies should be able to regulate their refinery operations. I have proposed this to several of the “unless you have a uterus, you can’t write laws about abortion” types, who immediately scratch their heads, as if they don’t understand the principle they actually seek to apply.
Rob McMillin at December 21, 2018 10:35 AM
If you doubt that blacks can be racist, guess what happens to Korean store owners during black riots?
How about we reserve "institutional racism" for things like problems with the justice dept and keep "racism" for people hating on each other? Of course this would undermine SJWs, so they will never go for it.
cc at December 21, 2018 12:04 PM
If you doubt that blacks can be racist, guess what happens to Korean store owners during black riots?
The store owners arm themselves and start shooting looters?
While I'm sure there is a certain amount of animosity towards non-black owned businesses in the 'hood, it's more a function of can we get free shit without getting into too much trouble or shot? As we saw in Ferguson, MO, the Free Shit Army will cheerfully loot black-owned businesses and then burn them to the ground if the rewards are good and the risks minimal.
I R A Darth Aggie at December 21, 2018 12:32 PM
It's silly to debate this folks. the privilege hierarchy isn't intended to remedy racism and discrimination. It's meant to institutionalize and promote racism and discrimination. Look at what it does and what it's used for. That is the purpose. The rest is just propaganda.
Noah at December 21, 2018 1:10 PM
I would also say it's because black activists pathologically need to make sure no one threatens their place at the very top (or should I say bottom?) of the victimized hierarchy.
Patrick at December 22, 2018 1:05 AM
Leave a comment