tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post6744164372296321486..comments2024-03-25T19:48:24.624+11:00Comments on Oz Conservative: What does privilege mean for a liberal?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-78603151632581289042010-10-16T13:10:14.494+11:002010-10-16T13:10:14.494+11:00Asher wrote,
"Since I live in the US I will ...Asher wrote,<br /><br /><i>"Since I live in the US I will give examples of incommensurate "black privilege" and "white privilege".</i><br /><br />Right. But for both blacks and whites, "privilege" still, always, universally, and forever without end, means <b>access to something that another does not have access to.</b><br /><br />You, sir, are a universalist. Welcome to the club.Bartholomewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-46238102932000977982010-10-16T13:04:47.010+11:002010-10-16T13:04:47.010+11:00Great post, Mr. Richardson.
"But [the theory...Great post, Mr. Richardson.<br /><br /><i>"But [the theory of white privilege], for the reasons I've outlined in this post, ends up lacking coherence."</i><br /><br />Right, and that's because it started with a lie: Autonomy is not the ultimate good; it's one of many.Bartholomewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-13237018906534776362010-10-13T11:41:03.823+11:002010-10-13T11:41:03.823+11:00"there is an absolute human type, the masculi..."there is an absolute human type, the masculine. Woman has ovaries, a uterus: these peculiarities imprison her in her subjectivity, circumscribe her within the limits of her own nature ..."<br /><br />I wonder if Beauvoir was jumping to or jumping from the position expressed here(though that depends on whether she looks at men the same way she tried to look at women):<br /><br />http://books.google.co.in/books?id=iTOzhZ5MElYC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=man+is+only+intermittently+sexual&source=bl&ots=VtGmjsxO44&sig=d23_5Gua6Fq11e7wTqCM8MaxeiM&hl=en&ei=RdWtTJCBC4iecOCRsIIO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=man%20is%20only%20intermittently%20sexual&f=falseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-2868677520098090232010-10-13T08:11:38.164+11:002010-10-13T08:11:38.164+11:00"The point is I think that liberals when they..."The point is I think that liberals when they talk about privilege are primarily using it in the leftist sense and referring to class, rather than individual autonomy/power."<br /><br />This points up the related idea that interpersonal relations are subjective and involve preference and discretion, buttressing abstract arguments for autonomy. Social bonds at this more intimate level are essential regardless of the political philosophy of particular members; moving out to larger and larger groupings generally dilutes the relations and concrete interests of these same individuals. These broader categories are the haunt of progressive liberals and leftists-- it is where they dictate the outcome of equality of result for all, and where personal autonomy hits rough waters. Division at the class or group level is anathema to them (but it simultaneously provides the soil without which they cannot grow), whereas traditionalists recognize natural hierarchies and allegiances. <br /><br />The fact that we can "all get along" on an autonomous basis, as individuals in a multicultural community or society, does not directly translate to a corresponding natural harmony at higher levels of organization and this drives liberals around the bend.leadpbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08957439101293478340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-12440357161472168162010-10-11T08:32:41.352+11:002010-10-11T08:32:41.352+11:00Mike, I understand that in NZ there are parliament...Mike, I understand that in NZ there are parliamentary seats set aside for Maoris? So these seats and other elite jobs would be set aside for the elite within the group and corruptly controlled, all in the name of a broader class equality with whites. Roughly speaking we would say that there is less inequality over the last century, however, there is far more concern with inequality and heightened agitation at any white elite, or broadly white, advantages, as being a manifestation of inequality. In such a sense there is "privilege" inflation. Anything that makes one slightly better, for instance being the historically dominate group within a country, (you wouldn't think that would be such a big deal as the West largely lived in monocultures), is seen as an unacceptable advantage.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-88920060659300513242010-10-11T08:06:43.459+11:002010-10-11T08:06:43.459+11:00"The point is I think that liberals when they..."The point is I think that liberals when they talk about privilege are primarily using it in the leftist sense and referring to class, rather than individual autonomy/power."<br /><br />Jesse, I think you make a key point there. Modern liberals don't actually seem to be that bothered about individual inequality, only inequality between groups or classes. Overall economic inequality has actually increased since the late 60s when social progressives seized control.<br /><br />What's happened is that all the smart ambitious elements of each officially recognised group have risen up the ladder, so that we now have a feminist elite, minority elites, a gay elite, etc.<br /><br />The white male elite is still probably at the top of the pile but the top 10-15 percent or so of the all the 'marginalised' groups are doing very well.<br /><br />In other words, we have a form of representative egalitarianism, which is an extension of our representative democracy. However, for those who are not part of an official elite group there is no real egalitarianism other than an increasingly complex welfare system which takes care of extreme poverty but tends to leave people trapped on it.Mike Courtmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15226171376902020196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-83157137579224390812010-10-11T01:44:23.714+11:002010-10-11T01:44:23.714+11:00We have here a bit of a contradiction between left...We have here a bit of a contradiction between left theory, which sees things in terms of class and power relations, with whites as a dominate power class, and liberal theory which sees individual autonomy as on of the highest goods, and therefore makes class arguments more attenuated. <br /><br />For a women to say that she is treated as an "other" and defined against men arguably reduces her as both a class, she has less power then men, and as an individual, she finds herself restricted from making self defining decisions. However, when we talk about privilege aren't we really talking about class privilege? As in the left definition would trump the liberal one. Privilege means for most people largely what Asher has defined, ie better resources and more power, better schools etc. According to that whites are privileged because they as an entirety are wealthier, which gives them greater opportunities and they are "culturally richer" allowing them to dominant in leading sectors of society. As Anonymous points out affirmative action is entirely based on that understanding.<br /><br />The point is I think that liberals when they talk about privilege are primarily using it in the leftist sense and referring to class, rather than individual autonomy/power.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-24189540705977644602010-10-10T20:07:54.503+11:002010-10-10T20:07:54.503+11:00"The average young black man's access to ..."The average young black man's access to sex is far less dependent on his ability to earn money than is that of the average white man's. That is "black privilege"."<br /><br />That's the best you could come up with?<br /><br />HELLO, affirmative action....<br /><br />Does anyone here honestly think that when whites become a minority in 50 years or so that people of other races will extend ANYTHING to whites, let alone race-based hiring quotas?<br /><br />HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Forget it.<br /><br />The truth is that whites are the only group of people who suffer any sort of consequences whatsoever when engaging in racist activities. When the New Black Panther Party said they wanted to "kill cracka babies", what happened? Nothing. There was some quibbling back and forth but no riots, no lynchings, NOTHING.<br /><br />Now imagine a white guy advocating killing "nigger" babies. Imagine the OUTRAGE. If you are old enough to remember what happened with Rodney King,OJ Simpson,et al, I'm sure you are picturing whole cities burning to the ground right now, because that would be what would actually ensue. And WHITES are racist? Rubbish.<br /><br />You know what happens to whites who talk about getting other whites together to do ANYTHING? They get laughed at. Blacks get armed thug militias.<br /><br />"The dubiousness of most of these so-called white privileges can seen in the way that white society treats those who identify as white nationalists.<br /><br />White nationalists argue that whites should explicitly favour one another in social relations, yet in mainstream white society white nationalists are ostracised and face significant social disadvantages."<br /><br />BINGO.<br /><br />Where's the evidence for this "white male privilege"? Oh yeah, the handful of people with most of the money are white males.<br /><br />Big deal. I'm sure a couple of them are closet transvestites too, I guess transvestites have all the power.<br /><br />I'm white as a bedsheet and I've been poor all my life, nobody's ever given me a damn thing because I'm a white man. I took my girlfriend with me to apply for jobs once, she'd never worked a day in her life, you know what happened? They hired HER, and she quit a week later.<br /><br />I was the broke one, and they hired HER to meet the "minority" quota.They gave her a job that I would have busted my ass in for YEARS, and had to hire someone else because she takes the fact that she will get another job FOR GRANTED.<br /><br />White male privilege is RUBBISH.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-71657883748830419502010-10-09T20:02:18.608+11:002010-10-09T20:02:18.608+11:00The dubiousness of most of these so-called white p...The dubiousness of most of these so-called white privileges can seen in the way that white society treats those who identify as white nationalists.<br /><br />White nationalists argue that whites should explicitly favour one another in social relations, yet in mainstream white society white nationalists are ostracised and face significant social disadvantages.<br /><br />The only white nationalists who have significant social success are a few WN talking heads like Jared Taylor, and someone with his qualities (high intelligence, confidence, upper middle class background etc) would likely make a highly successful mainstream elite anyway.<br /><br />If whites do favour each other then it can only be at the unconscious level, and people can't be blamed for behaviour which they aren't consciously aware of.<br /><br />Also note how the author has a binary attitude to racial privilege which doesn't mention that white people may have different views of different races in different circumstances.<br /><br />For example, some Whites may generalise that Maoris tend to be late for meetings but don't apply this generalisation to Indians or East Asians. Similarly Whites may also make negative generalisations about their own race relative to others - for example assuming that East Asians study harder or that Indians have more interesting cuisine.Mike Courtmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15226171376902020196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-77174314314727016802010-10-09T17:37:25.155+11:002010-10-09T17:37:25.155+11:00After posting the last comment I decided to give a...After posting the last comment I decided to give an example of what I mean by differing privileges. Since I live in the US I will give examples of incommensurate "black privilege" and "white privilege".<br /><br />The average young white male has greater access to higher paying jobs and careers than the average black man. That is a "white privilege".<br /><br />The average young black man's access to sex is far less dependent on his ability to earn money than is that of the average white man's. That is "black privilege".<br /><br />Only a sliver of people, even those highly educated, are actually aware of the autonomy theory core of liberalism. Because of this, arguing relativistically absolutely eviscerates absolutist claims of privileges.Ashernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-5715265154999524762010-10-09T17:28:09.513+11:002010-10-09T17:28:09.513+11:00there is only on internally coherent meaning of th...there is only on internally coherent meaning of the term:<br /><br />access to something that another does not have access to.<br /><br />Note, that this resembles the leftist notion of privilege. However, it lacks the universalist, absolutist connotations of that version.<br /><br />I would point out that leftism and Christianity are merely different univsalisms fighting for supremacy. If one forgoes universalism then one bypasses this entire issue. The left, feminists in particular, use the term "Male Privilege", which is really a metaphysical essence.<br /><br />The proper rejoinder is that there are "male privileges" and "female privileges" that stem from the real differences between male and female. But note that this is a relativistic, not a universalist, sort of privilege.<br /><br />The problem is with the universalism at the core of both leftism and Christianity.Ashernoreply@blogger.com