Uh, no. You may disagree with my opinion, but that doesn’t make me unqualified to have an opinion. You simply disagree.
Again, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with challenging the meaning of a phrase. It’s done all the time here. It’s already been done on this thread, in fact, on the first page. It’s really no big deal.
No I am not. You are doing it again. I have an argument and it is legitimate. It’s not a hijack to have an opinion about the topic.
And I’m discussing the actual meaning of the phrase.
I’m not “insisting” that anyone change anything to suit me. I’m simply discussing the meaning of a word. Anyone may disagree.
The precise meaning of this term is not fully agreed on out in the real world either. It’s an academic term, after all - there will be endless discussion. In this context, the meaning of a word is just another way of discussing the concept, the implications, etc. - it’s a theory, not just a word. To discuss meaning is just one way of discussing the whole thing. It’s not like I’m challenging the meaning of the word “and” or something. I’m discussing the whole concept.
Of course it’s on-topic, Tom. The argument is that the OP’s suggestion that white people are privileged is incorrect because that’s not a useful meaning for the word “privileged” to have, or that the word “privileged” as understood by academics doesn’t cover this situation, or the like. In other words, hammering out exactly what words mean, and how language is used to shape a debate, is nearly always a legitimate approach to the debate.
Would you mind asking someone else to moderate this issue?
So, I should expect to see you objecting to the use of homophobia and antisemitism in future threads, as well?
The OP never expressed the idea that whites are “privileged.” The OP simply linked to the PSA in which the phrase was used, (with examples), in its current meaning. I have not taken any part in the various discussions of what privilege should mean in context. I have only recently responded to Lance Strongarm’s odd attacks on my posts in which he demonstrated a lack of understanding of both the term and my views. Later, when he attempted to hijack the thread, I told him to stop and have since merely responded, (without invoking Moderator authority), to his further attacks and hijacks.
Words and phrases often take meanings that differ from their constituent parts and this phrase has had a genuine and established meaning for forty years. I have not even objected to Strongarm’s desire to change the phrase, only noting that a discussion about changing the phrase is a different topic than the subject of this thread.
Marley can step in if I my Modding gets out of line.
Of course you shouldn’t. What a strange extrapolation, to suggest that because I think one particular word’s meaning is fair game in a discussion that applies that word, I ought to take a particular stance in a discussion of the meanings of completely different words.
Only because it started in IMHO, and a mod decided the OP didn’t know where his thread ought to be. Clearly the subject at hand, as indicated by thread title, is the idea that whites are “privileged.”
Appreciated. This thread is a sterling example of why mods should get other mods to mod the threads in which they’re participating.
The objection to “white privilege” is that the word “privilege” seems out of place in that context.
The objection to “homophobia” is that it indicates a hatred of a group while its literal meaning indicates a psychological fear.
The objection to “antisemitism” is that it indicates a hatred for Jews while Arabs are also Semites.
If a poster is going to decide to challenge the meaning of a phrase that has carried exactly the same meaning since it was coined over forty years ago, based on its constituent parts not seeming to convey the meaning of the whole, I am just curious as to whether I should look forward to a consistent challenge to all such constructs.
Close, but not quite. The academic construct of privilege, as mentioned by myself and others, often refers to a zero-sum game, and there’s a question of whether the concept itself is appropriate here.
Why, that certainly would be a foolish consistency. I know this seems like a good argument to you, but it’s completely absurd.
Imposing some odd claim for academic beliefs is still irrelevant to this discussion. The examples of what was considered “white privilege” were given in the PSA. Discussions of whether the word “privilege” should show up in the term are not relevant to this thread. The OP asked whether the PSA was correct, not whether someone should have coined a separate term for the phenomenon. Discussion of that topic is a hijack better resolved in a separate thread.
What argument are you talking about? I was simply curious as to whether I should look forward to more than one poster hijacking threads on these issues in the future. I am glad to see that you, at least, will not be doing that for homophobia and antisemitism. lance has already announced that he might just engage in what you have now labeled “absurd.”
The difference IMHO is that in the latter two cases the people objecting to that usage are playing word games, insisting that the terms be defined in a way that most people don’t. While in the first case, at least as much of the word-gaming is from the people using the term “privilege” in a way that most people don’t.
A term that accuses people of being “privileged” even when they are eating out of garbage cans abuses the term “privilege” and the phrase “white privilege” is used in a way that tends towards both racism and sociopathy. It is used to dismiss the needs and concerns of millions of people because of their skin color, while accusing them of being automatically evil racist oppressors regardless of what they do. If homophobia was used to mean that anyone who isn’t homosexual is a anti-gay bigot and antisemitism was used to mean that anyone who isn’t Jewish is automatically a neo-Nazi then the three terms would be more equivalent.
I suspect that you need to dial back the caffeine. While there are a few rabid anti-white racists who might feel that way, that is certainly not how the phrase was coined and it is hardly the way in which it is typically used, today.
Not only is that a bullshit straw man but it’s the second time on this thread you’ve raised it.
Name one person on this thread or in the PSA who referred to “white privilege” who has “dismiss[ed] the needs and concerns millions of people because of their skin color, while accusing them of being automatically evil racist oppressors regardless of what they do.”
If what you’re claiming is true then it should be easy to provide links to people saying that so please do.
Except it’s not a separate term. “Privilege” is a centuries-old word with extant meaning, chosen deliberately to describe this phenomenon. It’s perfectly legitimate to discuss whether that choice accurately describes this phenomenon, in the same way that when discussing taxes, I might object to the term “death tax” as a term that does not accurately describe the phenomenon.
Your analogy to neologisms such as “antisemitism” and “homophobia” fails on that account.
You are ignoring or missing my point; that’s what the term “white privilege” as commonly used is about. They don’t go on to openly say that they don’t care about those people and think they are evil, because avoiding explicitly doing so is much of the point of crafting a term like “white privilege”. It allows people to engage in race and class warfare while pretending to be fighting against the evil oppressors.
Actually, I think his point is (forgive me if I’m wrong) that you ought to be providing some sort of evidence for your claim about the evil motives of folks who craft terms like “white privilege,” because without evidence, your claim is unpersuasive.
Yup - looking at the PSA, I think it is silly to argue the creators have evil intentions. You have to be off you meds to have that as the take-away.
To my mind it’s a case of good intentions gone wrong. Even though the concept behind the PSA is at base a good one, the execution in that PSA is pretty well guaranteed not to be persuasive unless you already buy into their message.
I’d summarize the issue the creators want to get across as ‘majority, be aware of the fact that visible minorities tend to suffer everyday suspicion and concerns that don’t apply to the visible majority, and to the extent you can try not to perpetuate that’. Nothing objectionable about that message. It’s a good point, one well worth remembering.
The execution, however … comes across as almost a parody of the smug, sanctimonious liberal academic POV. As someone said upthread, this PSA makes the uncommitted viewer want to give it a collective swirlie.
Please list some people who’ve actually done this or at least provide evidence that this is what we believe because I’ve never met a single person who’s used that term who feels the way you’re accusing us of feeling.
As Left Hand says, unless you can provide some evidence for this, your claim in unpersuasive.
So please, provide a cite or at least some credible evidence for insulting us and our motives the way you just did.
I used to laugh when people on the right ranted about “radical liberal academia” and the ridiculuous, radical things they allegedly believed.
Then I ran into one of those “liberal academics” myself, on a board like this one.
In academic circles, at least, terms like these are used in much more extreme ways than those of us in the real world may realize. And that can lead to confusion and abuse of the terms. It’s a legitimate issue.
Again, discussing in the concrete is more helpful than discussing in the abstract. Would you mind visiting Google Scholar and pulling up an example or two of what you’re talking about? Failing that, would you tell us some anecdotes from your life that exemplify what you’re talking about?
