Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Axiom_Blade]

Ultimately it is an example of adding terminology to level the status between 'normal' and 'different'. You can see other examples with gay/breeder and an endless stream of racial terms

Wait, what? "Breeder" is derogatory; "cisgender" is not.

 

[adamwho]

Wait, what? "Breeder" is derogatory; "cisgender" is not.

Have you seen how it is applied?

Regardless of how it was meant to be used "cisgender" is used as a derogatory term to level the difference between 'normal' and 'different' when it comes to gender identity.

I don't see breeder as particularly derogatory.... I happen to enjoy the activity.

 

[qwints]

I apologize if I gave the impression that I don't think class privilege exists. I would phrase the first 3 as elements of class privilege, but your point is apt. The existence of one type of privilege, however, doesn't negate the existence of another. Hence, intersectionality^WP. A person can be privileged on many different axes, and lack privilege on one or vice versa, as your example shows. I don't think this poses a problem for the concept.

Here's what I'm not understanding - you say "privilege is a valid sociological/anthropological concept" and then ask me why I don't drop that idea. Are you just trying to argue that arguments like "you have privilege, therefore you should shut up" shouldn't be used, or is there something more?

 

[Kid Eager]

Because privilege matters, and understanding that "variables" like race, gender and class affect people's everyday experiences is part of understanding how the world actually is.



Ideally, "check your privilege" is supposed to be a request for a person to examine whether their lack of experience is making them miss something about the subject. Have you seen a case where someone was obliviously opining on a subject while missing what seemed to be an obvious point? "Check your privilege" can be a special case of that phenomenon.




Having one kind of privilege doesn't mean someone has a more desirable life than someone without that privilege. It just means they have the benefits of that particular kind of privilege. It's not (or at least should't be) a thing that an individual should be proud to have or not have, it's not something that makes a person more or less valuable, and it's definitely not something that precludes empathy.



This is a critique I take seriously, but I think it ultimately fails. Recognizing that some attributes alters people's experiences doesn't change the fact that they're people. I can be motivated by someone else's negative experience even if I can't share that experience.

My problem with this viewpoint is that there's a fundamental assumption that experience trumps knowledge - or that they're one and the same.

Neither of those assumptions is valid. Experiencing something does not make you an expert in it.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Have you seen how it is applied?

Yes, I have. Do you have evidence that it is primarily used as a negative term? There's a good, well-sourced article on Wikipedia that explains the history of the word; there is no mention of its use as an insult. Additionally, there are plenty of people who self-identify as "cisgender", like me. I've never heard of anyone self-identifying as a "breeder".

The opposite of "cisgender" is "transgender". The opposite of "breeder"...um...rhymes with "maggot".

I don't see breeder as particularly derogatory.... I happen to enjoy the activity.

There are plenty of European-Americans who don't mind being called a "honky", either.

 

[RandFan]

I apologize if I gave the impression that I don't think class privilege exists. I would phrase the first 3 as elements of class privilege, but your point is apt. The existence of one type of privilege, however, doesn't negate the existence of another. Hence, intersectionality^WP. A person can be privileged on many different axes, and lack privilege on one or vice versa, as your example shows. I don't think this poses a problem for the concept.

Here's what I'm not understanding - you say "privilege is a valid sociological/anthropological concept" and then ask me why I don't drop that idea. Are you just trying to argue that arguments like "you have privilege, therefore you should shut up" shouldn't be used, or is there something more?

Outside of anthropological research or study the term has little or no use. Sure we can say the Queen of England is privileged or that any number of trust fund babies, lottery winners, people born with supreme athletic or mental prowess, are privileged but beyond that it has little to no value in a debate or discussion when it comes to the individuals involved in the debate. In fact, it is arguably detrimental to any debate. What value is there for a rich black woman to tell a poor white person to check his privilege?

One more time.

Privilege is a valid concept when we are talking about statistics and granting that all else is equal. Here's the part you don't seem to be getting, all else is seldom if ever equal. To tell someone to check their privilege is to do so in ignorance and with presumption.

There's no point to it other than a rhetorical device. A way of poisoning the well. Take RW's attack on Richard Dawkins for instance. It was just an ad hominem attack. "you are just saying that because you are a privileged white male".

I find it amazing that someone who would bristle at something as patronizing as "oh you are just saying that because you are a woman" would be so blasé with "check your privilege". I don't get how you don't see the arrogance and condescension in that (even if it isn't intended). It's the equivalent of saying "oh you people" to minorities.

It's so idiotic I don't even get why there is any discussion on the matter. Nothing good can come of it.

 

[recursive prophet]

Rand Fan shoots....He scores!! Nuthin but net!!

 

[squealpiggy]

I am aware of a certain degree of privilege I enjoy as a white male with a reasonably affluent upbringing. I have lived below the poverty line and experienced some medical problems in my life and I managed to overcome them and I'm doing alright now.

However when the word "privilege" is used in Social Justice settings it is almost always used to silence dissent. When I see "check your privilege" I think "mansplaining". They're cowardly and meaningless. They're denying me a right to express my opinion in a discussion without being told why it may be wrong.

 

[rustypouch]

I am aware of a certain degree of privilege I enjoy as a white male with a reasonably affluent upbringing. I have lived below the poverty line and experienced some medical problems in my life and I managed to overcome them and I'm doing alright now.

However when the word "privilege" is used in Social Justice settings it is almost always used to silence dissent. When I see "check your privilege" I think "mansplaining". They're cowardly and meaningless. They're denying me a right to express my opinion in a discussion without being told why it may be wrong.

Yep. It seems to me that the SJW just take note of the white men in positions of power. Because of that, life for all men is great. They don't seem to care that men have a much higher rate of homelessness and workplace fatalities. The very high rate of suicide committed by white men just isn't an issue, but should at least be an indication that something is amiss.

 

[Krikkiter]

Right now the A+ sooper scribes are busy working on the Great Chain of Privilege^TM
They have been busy putting all people currently living and all those deceased into categories based on levels of privilege. Of course, being a heterosexual, white male aged around 50 - 60, puts you pretty low on the chain.

Although the details are yet to be sorted out fully, progress is certainly being made.

In fact it is rumoured that there is a black, Asian, cis-gendered woman from the slums of a Middle Eastern city, now living in the slums of an American city, who has little education and no job and is morbidly obese and suffers from a variety of physical and metal disabilities (such as psychosomatic Argyria) and who has been sexually abused and is missing a leg and a hand and an eye and an eardrum, who is allergic to air and sex and can't drink water........

I believe this person is commonly referred to by the A+ Scribes as God.

ETA: It is also rumoured that the Four Yorkshiremen are referred to as the Angelic Beings.

 

[Foolmewunz]

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4318

Here's a thread that bears watching. Chicken-**** social dynamics in action. Posted at 13:15 UT, in spite of several certified Warriors dropping in over the next few hours, the only response was from Captain Courageous who basically said, "I'm gonna let this pajama party continue but no farting under the blankets, m'kay?"

And then? Every other post is "But Safe Space has to be the most important thing!" This, in spite of the fact that the OP clearly stated,

If yes, how do we retain the safe space people value here, and what needs to get done to give us a good shot of achieving tangible SJ activist results?

No one is willing to address the multiple items in Mood2's post, so they're still waiting for one of the Illumi-Notty to start the kicking and screaming or signal that it's okay to actually try to have a lucid discussion.

If a JREFF thread, we'd already have ten people addressing different points in the OP. There? They need a signal and Eowyn and Ceepolk were too wishy washy for anyone to take that as a green light.

The Vegas line on this is Dogpile in 10 Posts. I've got the under. Anyone want to take the over?

 

[Krikkiter]

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4318

Here's a thread that bears watching. Chicken-**** social dynamics in action. Posted at 13:15 UT, in spite of several certified Warriors dropping in over the next few hours, the only response was from Captain Courageous who basically said, "I'm gonna let this pajama party continue but no farting under the blankets, m'kay?"

And then? Every other post is "But Safe Space has to be the most important thing!" This, in spite of the fact that the OP clearly stated,



No one is willing to address the multiple items in Mood2's post, so they're still waiting for one of the Illumi-Notty to start the kicking and screaming or signal that it's okay to actually try to have a lucid discussion.

If a JREFF thread, we'd already have ten people addressing different points in the OP. There? They need a signal and Eowyn and Ceepolk were too wishy washy for anyone to take that as a green light.

The Vegas line on this is Dogpile in 10 Posts. I've got the under. Anyone want to take the over?

EowynEntwife claims that: "there are no other Internet resources for atheist/agnost/non-religious/secular/insertfavoritelabel people who need mental health related support."

I'm just wondering what's wrong with the multitude of mental health forums currently in existence? Why would being "atheist/agnost/non-religious/secular/insertfavoritelabel" hinder participation? Has she signed up and participated in one of these forums? If so, what was her experience and how did being "atheist/agnost/non-religious/secular/insertfavoritelabel" hinder her participation? If not, why not?

This just highlights how superfluous the "A" is in A+.

Also, apparently A+ is "a practical, alive SJ project". Yup. Kony 2012 was too I guess.

Last Foolmewunz, I think you should check your Vegas-privilege. I have no idea what "the under" and "the over" are. Though I would like to participate.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4318

From the first reply, in a mod box:

On a personal note, I find it really irritating when people play, "You do this thing I don't like but I refuse to give an example of it and refuse to tell you when you're doing it and refuse to help you recognize it because you know damn well what you're doing and etc!"

He's on the wrong board then, really, isn't he?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Have you seen how it is applied?

Regardless of how it was meant to be used "cisgender" is used as a derogatory term to level the difference between 'normal' and 'different' when it comes to gender identity.

So is jew a derogatory term because it is sometimes used as such? How about gay?

Just because bigoted jerks use it that way doesn't make it so.

 

[jhunter1163]

Yes, I have. Do you have evidence that it is primarily used as a negative term? There's a good, well-sourced article on Wikipedia that explains the history of the word; there is no mention of its use as an insult. Additionally, there are plenty of people who self-identify as "cisgender", like me. I've never heard of anyone self-identifying as a "breeder".

The opposite of "cisgender" is "transgender". The opposite of "breeder"...um...rhymes with "maggot".

As mod, and FYI:

The words "fag" and "faggot" are not breaches of Rule 10. They could, of course, be breaches of Rules 0 or 12, depending on usage. Carry on.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

I'd like to know that as well as [20 to 1 against] means, but I admit I'm math challenged.

 

[Jono]

And don't forget, if and when you take away someone's reason for being upset, you might just cast yourself into the role as their new, substituted, indignation.

'Cause, there is a widespread need amongst humans to scream bloody murder.

 

[kmortis]

cisgendered.

So, normal then?

 

[Mr. Scott]

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4318

Why I claim that the "mere" existence of this forum is a SJ accomplishment in itself? Because despite of searching out of my very real need, on and off, for the last six years, I have not found any other forum on the Internet where atheists with mental health problems would be welcomed and supported by our peers. Not by professional carers, parents or spouses of atheists with mental health issues, nor by interested others who have learned from books and magazines and discuss mental health from an outsider's perspective (often abstractly), but by people with lived experience of the same types of problems that we face.

Were we supposed to know this all along, that A+ or perhaps just the A+ forum was specifically for "Atheists with mental health problems?"

 

[qwints]

To tell someone to check their privilege is to do so in ignorance and with presumption.

There's no point to it other than a rhetorical device.

So, are you simply arguing that the phrase "check your privilege" is something that shouldn't be used? I think I'm confused because you seem to be making a broader claim about the usefulness of privilege that simply attacking a single rhetorical device. Check your privilege, used to say shut up because you're privileged, isn't helpful. Check your privilege, used to say examine your assumptions about a situation, can be.

Yep. It seems to me that the SJW just take note of the white men in positions of power. Because of that, life for all men is great. They don't seem to care that men have a much higher rate of homelessness and workplace fatalities. The very high rate of suicide committed by white men just isn't an issue, but should at least be an indication that something is amiss.

Having privilege on one axis doesn't mean your life is great. It doesn't mean you haven't overcome challenges. It doesn't mean that you haven't worked harder than some people who lack privilege. It doesn't even mean that the privileged group doesn't face systemic problems. After all, patriarchy hurts men too.

What it does mean is that society is set up in such a way to privilege some groups over others. Many aspects of privilege are simply a lack of systemic oppression, and none of them confer any individual guilt or fault. For example, as a man, I don't have to worry about someone choosing to not hire me because they think I'm likely to start a family because of my age. That's an aspect of male privilege.