privilege as a meme

yeah not knowing how to spell was a sure tell but i posted it more because i thought it was a good example of an insta-take, "seeped" in some academic language the user half-understands, without really thinking about the issue at hand

anyway i've been noticing a new meme is "(it’s always a man)"

xp 100%

May not have thought much about the issue at hand, but seems to have lucked out on a correct analysis

yeah not knowing how to spell was a sure tell but i posted it more because i thought it was a good example of an insta-take, "seeped" in some academic language the user half-understands, without really thinking about the issue at hand

― k3vin k., Tuesday, January 19, 2016 7:58 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

My brain flags this all the time but otoh I'm not here for gatekeeping everyone's exact command of grammar every time they want to express an idea they're just having. People say and write things wrong ALL THE TIME. ALL OF IT. That doesn't mean they're stupid or incapable of seeing something that's true.

definitely "steeped in". the only google results for steeped in anti-blackness are for that tweet and this thread

i agree about grammar - grammar is so often used as a way to ignore what someone's saying.

but that tweet isn't grammatically wrong, it's someone attempting to use a word when they don't actually know what the word they want to use is. that doesn't speak that well of anyone.

actually,

also could just be a typo

unforgivable

i agree about grammar - grammar is so often used as a way to ignore what someone's saying.

but that tweet isn't grammatically wrong, it's someone attempting to use a word when they don't actually know what the word they want to use is. that doesn't speak that well of anyone.

― japanese mage (LocalGarda), Wednesday, January 20, 2016 3:25 PM (46 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This is not different from using grammar to discredit ppl. Lots of people don't know what the words they want to use are, a lot of the time. You know what they're going for, just fill in the blanks and let's all move on without spraining our arms patting ourselves on the back.

I wasn't sure why the tweet was originally posted here-- just seemed like someone saying some pretty standard stuff. Seems like the writer is maybe a famous twitter persona?

yeah not knowing how to spell was a sure tell but i posted it more because i thought it was a good example of an insta-take, "seeped" in some academic language the user half-understands, without really thinking about the issue at hand

― k3vin k., Tuesday, January 19, 2016 7:58 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

My brain flags this all the time but otoh I'm not here for gatekeeping everyone's exact command of grammar every time they want to express an idea they're just having. People say and write things wrong ALL THE TIME. ALL OF IT. That doesn't mean they're stupid or incapable of seeing something that's true.

― If authoritarianism is Romania's ironing board, then (in orbit), Wednesday, January 20, 2016 8:33 AM (3 hours ago)

fwiw my comment on the spelling was just in response to hoos, that's not why i posted it. i agree spelling things wrong is ok sometimes

what is going on why are you guys talking so much about a typo in the privilege thread

Sure! Spelling, using the wrong word, not being sure how to say what you're saying...it's all fine. People still need to be listened to (or at least if you're gonna rule them out it shouldn't be for these reasons).

Everyone wants for their words to matter and to change something; I don't think this is, like, news to anyone? And they perceive that those terms etc are in some way a language of power. That people who can talk like that get listened to. So it's natural for those who don't have power to try to adopt signaling words that they think will help them be heard. It's not something bad they're doing, it's pretty normal and smart. They're just not doing it seamlessly enough for you/me/us not to notice, and I think we often resent that? It's a response I try/am trying to lose.

what academic language is that tweet supposed to be aping again

I believe the objection was to the use of "seeped in" where it should have been "steeped in."

I get where the error is, I don't get the reference to "academic language the user half-understands"

"Steeped in" is not academic language and "white ppl who use ghetto as a pejorative & love saying the n word are prob racist" is not a concept that originates in academia

Unless my ability to read has completely failed me, I don't think that's in orbit you should be addressing there?

It has, I wasn't

i just said the spelling wasn't the point!

i made that post a couple of weeks ago. the tweet showed up on my timeline in response to a drunken tarantino acceptance speech in which the word "ghetto" was used in one of the few ways that would actually not be racially problematic. i just found it emblematic of a certain trend.

anyway the point wasn't to ridicule that particular person; it was one of many such tweets. it just struck me as the kind of take you see in the twittersphere where getting your feelings out on something takes priority over actually thinking it through, and reminded me of this thread

I believe the objection was to the use of "seeped in" where it should have been "steeped in."

― If authoritarianism is Romania's ironing board, then (in orbit), Wednesday, January 20, 2016 5:07 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

just in the interest of clarity i wasn't questioning her point at all, just confused about whether or not "seeped in" was a thing people said or not irl

so uh did Macklemore kill the whole privilege thing for good, or just for a while

or maybe in like a year everyone will think he came up with it

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/03/29/sfsu-investigating-video-of-black-woman-confronting-white-man-for-wearing-dreads/

I know not to expect better from YouTube comments but fucking hell that last para :(

Two takes on a similar topic:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/earning-the-woke-badge.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/01/28/when-white-people-admit-white-privilege-theyre-really-just-congratulating-themselves/

kind of tired of the privilege terminology, it started as a sarcastic way to address the fact non-white ppl get denied basic rights and people who take it at face value and don't believe there's difference in how people are treated think the goal is to have white people treated like everyone else, to negate the "privilege" and it fucks up the dialogue

like getting rid of "white privilege", if you take it at face value and not as a sarcastic statement, would mean white people getting pulled over or searched for no reason, discriminated against when it comes to housing, etc.

"i'm white and people treat me like garbage, too! what kind of privilege is that?"

yeah well it's not because of the color of your skin, and that's the sole determining factor a bunch of ppl use to judge

i like woke

The original knapsack essay makes it pretty clear that privilege includes things that no-one should have ("I can be pretty sure that an argument with a colleague of another race is more likely to jeopardize her/his chances for advancement than to jeopardize mine"), and stuff everyone should have ("I can be pretty sure of having my voice heard in a group in which I am the only member of my race").

It's also not sarcastic - I'm really not sure wtf you're talking about here, mh.

(tho I couldn't read kingfish's second link, sorry if the answers are in there)

The word has now been recycled by people hoping to add splashes of drama to their own inconsequential obsessions

too real

It is, or at least cynical. Not getting treated like garbage is a basic right, not a privilege, but it's one that people not perceived as "white" are denied. The meaning is meant to convey that we need to get rid of that discrepancy by making sure people are treated equally.

On the flip side, people see "privilege" not as something people should have -- "privileged" is seen as derogatory, so there is a perception that's often unstated when people claim to not have a white privilege -- they have it bad in other social, economic, or geographic ways and assume they'd be afforded status if they really had privilege.

It's a good phrase, but people taking it literally and getting angered aren't noticing that the implication of the phrase is that the baseline for how we treat fellow human beings is very low, and white privilege is, in many cases, overriding that. Obviously the solution is to fix the baseline.

We might be at an impasse - I read a fair amount of stuff that discusses privilege (admittedly filtered through the tumblrs of two or three friends) and I've never seen anyone even suggest that all aspects of privilege must be withdrawn rather than redistributed.

(I imagine DJP will be along in a minute to discuss the notion of rights that can be denied)

I guess my issue is really with it being used more generally or as a shorthand for race relations as a whole, instead of referring to subtle actions (picking a resume out of multiple job applicants that has a more white-sounding name).

which, like you say, isn't the misuse your clued-in friends would be party to!

basically:
subtle discrimination based on stereotypes or internal bias -- white privilege

systematic discrimination, on its face, is a denial of basic rights and not subtle

could just be me tiring of people misusing the phrase. I'm not articulating this well and will leave it in more competent hands

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I've never seen anyone even suggest that all aspects of privilege must be withdrawn rather than redistributed.

the closest I've seen to this is when dolts like Cenk Uygar were taking the FBI to task for not slaughtering the white Bundy militia dudes the way they presumably would have a Muslim or black group occupying a federal building

I get what mh is saying. The original knapsack essay is nuanced and explains ways privileged groups can develop blindspots, or benefit from discrimination without realizing it. This is obviously valuable. But people do sometimes talk about privilege in a way that's like, holistic rather than situational, like some people are just in general "privileged" and perhaps acceptable targets of resentment and i think it gets dodgier here. n.b. I've only seen white ivy league grad school dumbasses use the term this way, it's possible they just didn't understand the concept at all. Usually they'd admit to some sort of privilege and say they felt bad about it but then condemn people who didn't similarly admit they felt bad about being privileged. It was just a circular, unproductive kind of conversation and it seemed that way by design.

I also felt like when some of these people would go on about how "privileged" they were and isn't it so awful they were really just signalling they were rich and educated and it was basically bragging. This was probably unconscious on their part.

At a deeper level though it's a very good thing people are talking about inequality now even if the rhetoric they use has flaws and blindspots.

Weird that my 2nd link doesn't work.

Try this one:
-
"Admitting that white privilege helps you is really just congratulating yourself"

http://wpo.st/SX1W1

Which matches what Treeship was saying, sorta

Did we ever get this sorted

Guess

no, Guess jeans

Guesstures, the fun party game
from Milton Bradley