And entirely true, so stated.
So she’s listening to music on her headphones, staring out at the window, and admittedly ignoring everything going on around her.
All the while, she has her bag on the empty seat next to her not allowing anyone to sit in it.
Yeah, this woman is totally inconsiderate and full of shit.
I mean, “check your privilege String, you have all the benefits in life, why should you expect common decency from a black woman you racist shithead”
I am not sure what you mean.
I never tire of being amused by people who are absolutely sure they know the motivations behind the views and actions of their political opponents. Sorry, to the applicable conservatives, but you probably don’t really have any idea what liberals mean when they are discussing “privilege”. There’s not much point in guessing. If you really want to know what motivates a liberal, or how a liberal thinks, than ask – your assumptions are almost always going to me invariably wrong.
Actually, you’re right. She’s hysterical and pathetic, rather than funny.
She is not hysterical or pathetic. She is saying things to which everyone should listen.
Well? He’s right, isn’t he?
I am still confused. Of course I am right about not knowing what you mean; I am the world’s leading expert in knowing what Mr. Nylock does not understand. I guess I have to infer that by “he” you mean “she.” If you read the thread you will see that all I am doing is asking what her sources were - the conversation at that point was just a mundane technical one about the sources of Sven’s information. I had not even taken a firm stance on the point we were discussing.
There is nothing to indicate I was trying to weave some sort of narrative. Sven even apologized for the comment; the only reason I bring it up is to add to the conversation clarity about the sentiment expressed in term “check your privilege.”
Personally, I did not like the fact that my race had to be brought into the conversation; but I do have a lot of respect for Sven for apologizing and acknowledging that it was a comment that may have gone too far.
It’s not even ignoring. It’s a pretty common dick move to put the headphones on and pretend to not hear people when they ask you to move your stuff on the crowded train. What takes an amazing amount of entitlement is to then write an article about it blaming the entitled race of people who point out that you don’t get two seats.
I am skeptical of this claim.
I work at university in New England. It gets used in eye-rolling frequency. It always means shut up.
We need to make anthropology and sociology required credits for getting past 10th grade.
Why should they?
That’s what it means? I usually interpret it to be “shut the fuck up”. I respond in kind.
They may not actually mean that, but I don’t care. If someone were to say that to me in real life and not obviously mocking the stupidity of that statement, I’d look at them like they had two heads and comfortably assume that they were assholes to be ignored. It makes the same assumptions about others as it condemns. It’s like proudly bathing in ignorance and hypocrisy at the same time.
There are two things going on in my opinion.
Many Liberals in the US are very fixated on race. They feel guilt at being white due to the sins of their ancestors. People on this board, for instance, will comment in a thread about Game of Thrones how they were very uncomfortable with a white character being called “mother” by black characters.
Many Conservatives are fixated on how it’s becoming increasingly difficult to maintain a middle class existence in the US. Taxes are high and wages have stagnated for many people. Meanwhile, there is an ever growing pool of people who take advantage of the system to get handouts in one form or another. Public sector workers seem except from the hardships faced by those in the private sector. There are toll collectors making six figure incomes. Also, many people have learned ways to live off the system. There are record numbers of disabled people in the US, since SS Disability has become the new welfare. Many people know a friend or family member who doesn’t have anything wrong with them, but are “disabled” or otherwise on the dole.
These two things are unrelated. But I can see how someone outside the US might think that between these two concepts there is a fixation on entitlement here. But they really are two different ideas.
Because the things she is saying are very true and very important.
Others have debunked the false equivalence you posit between two very different “fixations.” I’ll focus on the desire among some right-wingers that the poor not get more than they are “entitled to.”
First note that it is NOT simple fear that the poor getting more of a fixed pie means others will get less. This is most clear in opposition to national health plans, where the facts that insuring more people will lead to lower average costs are dismissed! Right-wingers don’t worry that with only a finite number of doctors their elective surgeries will become more expensive with greater access, just that it “isn’t fair” that the needy get anything for free.
The issue ties closely to understanding the role of income inequality in society.
Consider that some rich celebrities get great pleasure from flaunting their wealth. Wearing thousands of dollars of gold and diamond baubles would have little value except to incite envy. To some extent it is power over, and the contrast with, “normal” people that provides pleasure from wealth. Queen Elizabeth I was one of the most powerful and wealthiest persons of her day, but how would her personal wealth compare in practical terms with even an ordinary American today? She had no access to electronic gizmos or even modern fabrics. Just taking a hot shower or hot bath was much more involved than today. With low hygienic standards, the Queen probably suffered from medical disorders (e.g. infestations of fleas, lice) much like today’s needy people do. Yet she was surely happy because of her wealth and power!
None of the right-wingers will admit this of course, and it will apply only slightly to many of them. But keeping the poor poor is one real way for the rich to derive pleasure from their wealth.
She said “You white people…need to give money to the Urban League and the SPLC.”
How is that very true? Please back up your claim.
And note, if someone said “You black people need to do X”, it would be offensive in every situation I can imagine. She poisoned the well at the beginning of her silly little rant.
I am totally convinced and persuaded by this content free declaration!
I disagree. I’m a White male whose ancestors fought on the winning side in the Civil War. I carry no guilt. But I do understand the concept of inequity. Believe it or not, there are people who hold an advantage – ‘privilege’ – simply because of their socio-economic status. Often, they are unaware that they are privileged.