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.
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.
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…”
We are seeing the slow suffocation of nuance, and nuance takes more than a couple of words in order to thrive.
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.
“Privilege” is an appropriate word, precisely because it is poignant and strikes at the heart of the matter.
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).
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