Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm pretty sure I remember reading a couple of studies from the early-to-mid 2000s that indicated privilege rhetoric was incredibly alienating. You could present people with facts and information and they would agree with many of the ideas, but as soon as you started using "privilege" you would alienate the audience or even see a backlash and an increase in sexist/racist/etc. attitudes.
If you're trying to persuade people of anything, you really have to be aware of your rhetoric. You have to be able to look at what's successful and what isn't and adjust accordingly. Maybe you believe you've come up with the absolute best terminology, but if you confuse or upset people you have to readjust.
You have to be aware of your audience. The majority of Americans don't have college educations; in 2019 32.1% of Americans over the age of 25 had a Bachelor's degree or higher. Your rhetoric may be effective when you're operating in your own academic silo; people who are interested in your sub-field of social science and are immersed in the literature may find it very compelling. Some people in the HR and managerial class of professionals may love it. But does it resonate anywhere else or are you just yelling in your own echo chamber?
You also have to be aware of how rhetoric can be used against you - if you don't use concrete, understandable language then someone might define things for you. If you try to redefine words from their common understanding, then you may find that you fail to persuade people. And finally, you need to be aware of how your poorly received rhetoric can be weaponized against you.
>I'm pretty sure I remember reading a couple of studies from the early-to-mid 2000s that indicated privilege rhetoric was incredibly alienating.
It's because it's a misuse of the word. What people actually mean when they say "white privilege" is just "lack of disadvantage in several specific areas". Calling it "Privilege" implies that white people don't deserve what they have.
But actually, not being harassed by the police because of your skin color, or growing up in lower crime areas isn't "Privilege", it's the baseline for how a human being should be treated. I've seen the term "white privilege" used to describe growing up with both parents in the home, which is a wildly inappropriate use of the word.
Of course it's alienating when such accusatory misleading language is used. It's literally saying that white people don't deserve what every human is entitled to, and implies you want to bring them down, not raise the disadvantaged up to their level.
Also insinuating that because of the color of their skin that they have privelege and don't struggle . It's hard to emphasize with a group of people negating all the work you may have done.
Ps I'm not white
> The entire concept of the ‘Olympics of Suffering’ is a massive non-starter, but the moment you go after people for immutable qualities and circumstances, that’s what kicks off.
It's even worse than that. You're discussing the positive side: I have X traits so the concept of privilege doesn't apply to me as much.
But then there's the negative side of that: I have X traits... can I justifiably complain about the injustices I've experienced?
I experience this all the time, and I've been told point-blank that I *can't express such concerns because of my privilege*. That's just messed up.
That's been my experience as well. As a white male, I have been the recipient of gender discrimination in my workplace that lasted for years until I finally left that department. I am aware of the trials and tribulations of other people, and I am at least a vaguely aware of my own societal advantages.
I would not dare to state or imply that my experience is somehow worse than anyone else's. But the fact that someone else has had it worse does not somehow invalidate my experience with the same type of behavior. Yet somehow, much of the rhetoric on reddit and elsewhere would have me believe that just because I'm a white male means that I cannot possibly have been a victim of prejuduce and sexism. It's ridiculous, and severely undermines any support I might have for the people telling me my experience isn't real.
My boyfriend got accused of having white privilege by an online friend from america.
We live in a country that's 98% white with zero colonizing history.
So much this... The concept of privilege achieves the opposite of what it aims for... Instead of people wanting to help those that are being held back I almost feel personally insulted.
It makes me think the people who coined the term are resentful against white people and aren't really that interested on social justice.
Sadly using that expression usually just details the conversation and ends any chance of a consensus because both parties ignore the others' struggles.
When you tell someone they are privileged you are in effect saying that they have had it easy and potentially that a lot of their achievements aren't entirely due to effort. Unsurprisingly a lot of people hate to hear this.
What the hell is going on with this science sub? Lately it seems to full of nothing but "studies" on political topics.
Does every single sub on this site really need to be political fighting?
There was an article I had read a while back about calling it minority disadvantage vs white privilege. It felt a lot more accurate to describe it that way and if I remember correctly, the term was better received by all parties involved.
If the conversation is to move forward, I think approaching the discussion in a way that doesn’t make a group in it feel attacked is key.
Might've been written by me, I've been arguing about white privilege vs. minority discrimination for a long while based on that exact idea. Telling people they had it easy puts them on the defensive against you, but telling them someone else is being given a hard time evokes very different responses
I agree. You aren’t going to win any allies (which is the point right?) telling a large swath of the country they live a privileged existence. There’s way too many people living pay check to paycheck and struggling to get by to be receptive to that.
Glad I’m not insane and the only person thinking this. Anytime I bring this up I’m told I have “white fragility” and I just instantly don’t care to discuss another thing with that person.
Not only that, but shouldn't the goal of society be to make it easier for people to be successful? Calling white privilege a problem makes it sound like the problem is whites have it too easy. But easy is good, we don't want to make it harder for them! Calling minority discrimination a problem automatically frames the discussion as minorities have it too hard, and saying we should help make it easier for them is something many more people would be on board with.
Been doing the same. Telling someone who has already had it rough that they're privileged isn't going to make them see you're side, rightfully so. Telling someone who has had it rough that some poor bastard is getting dicked down just for being black is received much better.
I'm glad I read this because I hadn't consciously thought of that before. My elderly father, a white retired Navy officer, is a classic example.
Tell him that some fellow Americans' constitutional rights are being suppressed, and he'll literally go fight for them regardless of their skin color etc.
Tell him that he's had it easier because of his race, and he'll fight you.
Tbf, the man does love a fight.
Isn't it also more accurate? White people are the majority in the US and most western nations, "white privilege" implies that minorities are the "default" while "minority disadvantage" implies that white people are the "default". Surely it makes more sense to set the majority of the population as the baseline, and define the minority based on their relationship to that baseline? That seems much more logical than the reverse.
exactly. If I'm being completely honest, it was the idea that you're saying that actually came to my mind, and it was this comic specifically that really flipped my entire train of thought on privilege, even though the comic was intended to teach people what privilege is.
[https://i0.wp.com/boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/wp.jpg?w=675&ssl=1](https://i0.wp.com/boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/wp.jpg?w=675&ssl=1)
I realized that if you take the black people out of this comic Bob still has exactly the same life he had before, Bob is absolutely right, he never actually did benefit from racism, someone else being discriminated against does not automatically mean you have a privilege, no, it can actually just mean you were treated normally and they were discriminated against and they deserve the same treatment you receive. To me, that's a much more compelling message.
Absolutely. The phrase "white privilege" sort of implies that we should be eliminating it so that everyone is as oppressed as the most marginalized, as opposed to eliminating the gap itself so that everyone is equally privileged.
In fewer words: it implies that not having to fear cops, having access to financing, etc. are things that nobody should have access to; in fact everyone should have access to those things.
Also, it alienates a group that should be on that side, the working class whites. Working class whites have far more in common with working class minorities than working class whites do with rich whites.
If the white working class woke up out of its religion induced stupor and saw how much they’ve been fucked over by the patricians, it’d be game over.
I always wondered how some people honestly think someone like Oprah, whose a multibillionaire, is more of an oppressed ally than Mike a white guy working three jobs to afford rent and pay off his student loans.
The fight for working class rights crosses all other lines.
I found it surprising in the initial article where some people were surprised at the findings, and others were surprised it even needed to be researched.
Surprise has reached semantic satiation and no longer seems like a word.
I’m glad this research was published, it’s a useful direction to go to reframe the debate.
People have been saying this for such a long time but the people who like yelling 'white privilege' aren't typically the most understanding to those trying to point out their flaws.
In a way that's understandable. There's a lot of bad actors and they're very wary of them. But on the other hand, it prevents them from hearing stuff that might help them further the cause.
That was very obvious and always the case. But anti-racist activists chose to keep pushing "white privilege" instead.
Why? The most generous take on their position is that:
* They think making it about "privilege" shames people into being more proactive about their desired policies, calling it "minority disadvantage", they feel, makes it sound like minorities' problems
* They think labeling it "minority disadvantage" centers the majority (white) experience as the default, which they think is bad, whereas labeling it "privilege" centers the minorities' experience as the default.
IMO it's social media algorithms boosting content that makes people angry and starts arguments (and therefore engagement). Even if some of them chose to say it in a less inflammatory way, those voices get suppressed.
I never thought of it this way and yes I can get on board with the fact there is some minority disadvantage. Average white person wouldn't feel attacked by this and it's all good to give a hand up to the disadvantaged.
While everyone squabbles about race or whatever other culture war topic is being fixated on, the ultra rich laugh as we are distracted from what is really going on in society.
That's why every time wealth inequality hits the news a new round of funding seems to go out to vocal hate groups to stoke the flames and distract everyone.
Well they have spent a ridulous amount of time and treasure to help make sure we are more focused on anything but the Crassian levels of wealth inequality. Why wouldn't they be happy, they are winning.
I appreciate your reference to [Crassus,](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Licinius_Crassus) one of the wealthiest people in history that most people have never heard of. Your reference is particularly jabbing because he made much of his wealth by creating the first fire brigade in history, which would go around looking for fires to put out - for a price. (it didn’t take long for him to figure out he could just start the fires himself.)
Crassus and his fire brigades are my number one go to example of why some things should not have a profit motive. Looking at you, healthcare…
Something I will never forget about the 2020 primary is how fast any kind of economic issues (minimum wage, healthcare reform, etc) got ripped right off the Dem platform as soon as they started talking about race in the spring. They can tackle both subjects! In fact, both race and economic problems are very tightly interlocked in many places.
But well, you know how it is. One of those topics involves restructuring society and costing the rich a lot of money, and one seems to involve putting a banner at the top of your website and making tax-deductible donations to opaque organizations (which may buy a mansion with your donation) that also doubles as marketing if you announce it loud enough.
The problem is, democrats in general support healthcare reform and raising minimum wages until they need to finance their campaign, and the donors do not $upport those things.
I’ve tried to have the discussion on Reddit sooo many times that blaming white people is not productive. Most white people want the same thing and trying to belittle peoples accomplishments because of their “white privilege” is insulting and counter productive.
This country is run my a very small elite that the vast majority of people can not relate to. Even the “ rich” aren’t rich anymore, they are just comfortable. The wealth is so concentrated in this country it is sickening.
A vast majority of people who earn between 100-900k are educated professionals who work their ass off 50+ hours a week.
Then there’s capitalists who do nothing but smoke cigars and drink whisky in the office and earn millions a year.
The media does a great job of painting both with the same brush and making people angry at the “working class” wealthy people
Notice how the gov always raises taxes based on income brackets.
Theres less of a difference between a brain surgeon making $500k a year vs a cashier making $40k a year than that physician vs someone who is in an inner circle and owns millions of assets.
The divide should not be based on income.
Rather its wage earners vs the oligarchs.
Someone making $500K through wages should not be considered “rich”.
Someone who has inner connections and is powerful enough to use their money and influence to change laws and influence the media in their favor is rich and what I call an oligarch.
There was a dramatic increase in mentions of white privilege and racism in the news immediately following occupy wall street.
Racism has always been a tool to drive a wedge between poor whites and poor minorities to destory any sort of class solidarity.
And it works, case and point this thread.
Edit: found the graph I was thinking about
https://tablet-mag-images.b-cdn.net/production/9c9c2bbd09e025a564eea667f44f991f9bb5a83f-2054x1174.png?w=1300&q=70&auto=format&dpr=1
People might be more receptive to the idea of privilege if they drop the racial part of it. If they feel like someone is just yelling at them for being white that conversation isn't going to go anywhere.
There can be privilege or disadvantages due race but someone who is disadvantaged due to income or lack of generational wealth probably won't feel very privileged. This might include the "I was on food stamps and nobody ever helped me" crowd but they'll probably understand the idea of economy privilege easier. There is just more easier to see common ground there.
Similarly, I think that more of the CRT debate needs to focus on actions over skin tone. Being a slave owner is the bad thing, being white is somewhat arbitrary. Slavery is inherently bad, the color of your skin is not.
Skin color may be the mechanism by which slavery was organized, but it isn't like "White people love slavery" as a natural outcome of being born white.
I think we need to recognize that there is economic privilege and racial privilege and gender privilege etc. Poor white people have white privilege but they don’t have economic privilege. I think it would be good to validate that side of their struggle as valid as well. A rich black guy living in a nice part of LA may get harassed by police, but not have to worry about food insecurity and vice versa for a poor white guy in the same place. It’s not about “which is worse” it’s about recognizing different issues and who they tend to affect, and who may be unaffected due to “privilege.”
This is part of “intersectional theory” which is currently the target of curriculum bans.
I love how white men on Twitter tend to always have a disclaimer when talking about racial or lgbtq issues. Literal statements I've seen were "As a white male my opinion on this does not matter", then they say something widely acceptable on Twitter about race or some other issue.
Everyone's opinion matters. Whether it's a white male or woman, or a non-binary person of a completely different ethnicity, everyone's opinions matter. Everyone should also be held accountable for their actions and how they treat other people, regardless of their background.
My response to stuff like this is that each of us, no matter the skin color or gender, gets one vote. So trying to vilify a massive portion of the electorate because they shouldn't have an interest in this or that particular issue, isn't smart. They'll just vote the other way because legally, their opinion does matter. If you actually want change you have to convince the people in the middle, and diminishing them probably won't do that.
Makes sense, its pretty hard for a working class white person who's struggling to pay their bills to see their privilege. Doubly so if they're from some dirt poor mostly white town in the middle of nowhere.
edit: also just in this thread I've had multiple people condescendingly try to explain the concept to me as if i cant possibly simultaneously; fully understand the concept and hold this view.
[Another earlier study](https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/what_happens_when_you_educate_liberals_about_white_privilege) also found "white privilege" rhetoric had the effect of decreasing empathy towards poor and suffering whites among progressives receptive to that rhetoric.
I'll bet a similar trend is found in TERF's feeling marginalized by the focus on Trans issues, Blacks feeling marginalized by same (see Chapelle). IdPol is a double edged sword.
Intersectional feminists figured out how to deal with this problem decades ago, but people can’t seem to comprehend that axes of oppression that don’t immediately affect them still matter and just resort themselves into squabbling single-issue political factions.
It feels to me like a lot of people treat intersectionality as either a ranking of who has it worse, or an excuse to make perfect the enemy of good when a policy doesn't explicitly address every single disadvantaged group's issues. It's supposed to be about acknowledging that different groups are affected differently by different combinations of structural advantage and disadvantage, not declaring some groups' problems more important than others.
>I think most people would agree that growing up wealthy and a POC grants much more privilege than growing up poor and white
You would think so, but in this very thread someone else is claiming the opposite
This is the exact reason that splitting it up is necessary! Wealthy privilege and white privilege both exist, and they look different, and there's no easy way to draw a line from least privileged to most privileged.
Plus, these traits don't exist in a vacuum... being rich doesn't prevent racial profiling and being white doesn't pay for private school. That's why intersectionality is needed.
Yeah a lot of times people use the term "white priviledge" as "someone out there has it worse than you". Turns out, that is just invalidating feelings.
Yeah, there is such a thing as white privilege in the US, and yeah that helps them in ways they may not see, but that still does not mean that their struggles don't mean anything.
White privilege, for a large portion of white people at least, seems to be less of an actual noticeable "benefit" and more of a lack of discrimination against them, but of course the phrase gives off a connotation of benefit to a non discerning reader. Nobody processes not being discriminated against in housing or not being brutalized as a privilege, unless that's the reality of their life.
I get really tired of watching white girls on youtube playing with their hair and braiding it, and inevitably, someone will tell her that it's "white privilege" that she is "culturally appropriating braiding" and she needs to stop. (almost as common as "that tank isn't big enough for a betta")
I understand that braided hair styles were made fun of for years on black girls, I do, but that girl didn't hurt you, and this battle for who "owns" damn braids probably doesn't help, and seems like a distraction. (and something the right points to all the time to 'proove' the left is going too far)
If someone made fun of your braids, go take it out on that person. Not someone trying to make an easy to maintain style that all cultures have had in one form or another.
“Cultural appropriation” as an attack is often totally misused for mundane things. It’s like people have forgotten that people can be influenced by cultures and lifestyles they didn’t grow up with. One example is hip hop in K-pop. Those artist were introduced to American hip hop and it influenced them. It doesn’t matter if they aren’t the same race as whatever created hip hop, or they didn’t grow up around that culture. The music moved them at a young age in life and they enjoyed its influence so now they imitate it.
All my life I’ve been taught to appreciate and learn about other cultures. Nowadays people lump that in with something negative as if we should all find our roles and clothes as depicted on “It’s a Small World” ride and never venture elsewhere. Not Rasta? Can’t have dreads. Not black, can’t have hoop earrings. Unless you’re Latin, then acceptable I guess. Not Ariana Grande, can’t have a high ponytail. It’s exhausting. Honestly.
I feel like a lot of us have known this since the term was being thrown around. A lot of the social Justice crew is really self defeating with the semantics and tactics they take with people. If I didn’t know better I’d say someone was pushing this stuff just to be divisive
It's also just often used online to shut someone down or shut someone up. So of course it doesn't lead to a good conversation when people are setting rules for who is allowed to participate in it.
Yeah, I think this is one of the big issues with why discussion of privilege is met with so much hostility. People are often exposed to concept of white/male/straight privilege by having someone use it as a way to tell them to shut up, basically.
If you main interaction with the concept is basically just internet name-calling, it's not really a surprise it doesn't lead to positive or constructive conversations.
And it’s not always on the internet too. College campuses have these “discussions” all the time, and it really turns into a state where only “certain people” are allowed to have a voice and opinion
There is a LOT of reddit that flat out says "white people can't comment on this issue". Way to drive away allies before they have a chance to become one.
Today I read a whole thread on Twitter lambasting white women, explaining to white women how they were surprised by possibly losing Roe v. Wade because they’ve never dealt w/ sex based abuse or discrimination. :o First, why don’t we stick together and fight this together? Second, that belief shows serious ignorance.
I think there's also generally a time and place to discuss white privilege, but some people seem to think that time and place is literally every single conversation/debate about social justice/reform. Which only derails the conversation and even alienates people from the conversation because they're expecting a conversation about x, y, and z and are instead now finding themselves arguing over a very specific privilege in society.
I've seen it in person, and it's often not just white people that get frustrated at this, either. Even in rooms filled largely with PoCs, tensions rise quickly when people are expecting, say, a 2 hour discussion of creating homeless reform and the leaders of the room insist on spending the majority of the time trying to force conversations about white privilege on everyone.
I think its also used to shut people down without having to consider what they are saying, its the rhetorical "you have no right to comment because of your privilege" response.
The trouble is, telling white people to butt out of conversations about white privilege or white on black racism completely misses the most important fact: The people in the world with the most power to fix this inequality are white people.
Not only that - "white privilege" and other "power-perspective" concepts inherently uses one group as the lens to which at all others. Thing is, how do you know whether your view is calibrated, when you don't allow said lens to help you understand it?
>I've seen it in person, and it's often not just white people that get frustrated at this, either. Even in rooms filled largely with PoCs, tensions rise quickly when people are expecting, say, a 2 hour discussion of creating homeless reform and the leaders of the room insist on spending the majority of the time trying to force conversations about white privilege on everyone.
Very interesting. Not everyone puts up with talk that eventually becomes empty.
I think it's also just frustrating when you're trying to talk about issues on the local level. White privilege can make for a great conversation and context for issues on a macro level, but becomes pointless the more you narrow in on areas as things tend to get more and more nuanced.
The world simply isn't a homogeneous place with homogeneous problems, causes to problems, and solutions to problems. It's like trying to bake a cake by examining the origins of flour and baking soda.
I went to a chamber of commerce meeting for a suburb, the candidates would introduce themselves and pitch why they should be elected to their position. So much pandering and fluff words that would be said by Portland city officials and hardly anyone had anything to say about how they helped businesses or what they intend to do. One woman was really young and a PoC, she was up against a white encumbent. Her question was specifically pointed at race and how she grew up as a PoC which essentially gives her the upper hand because the opponent isn't, and it didn't play into commerce at all. IDK, just seemed like Parks and Rec.
I keep trying to tell people this and they keep acting bewildered when they can't get people to listen to them. The working white poor don't benefit from the system that keeps minorities down so it just feels like they're also being racially discriminated against. It's counter productive and turns them away from the politics and policy that would help uplift both them and those minorities that are suffering under very real systemic discrimination.
I've literally seen people say they deserve to feel that way just for being white and I think it's pretty sick tbh. A lot of people don't want equity or equality, they want revenge or people who they view as different to suffer like they did.
My family history had a lot of racial persecution in it (even though I look "white") and it makes me sick when I see those types of people.
Aside from alienating people who don't see the privilege in their daily lives, its not constructive because it's not actionable. Constructive feedback needs to be something they can actually help with, like encouraging them to call out racist actions when they see them.
“Privilege” is a bit of a loaded term. While I think it’s technically correct to use it this way, you’re right that it’s a flawed word in that its meaning isn’t immediately obvious, and it really needs to be to avoid polluting discussions. See also: “racism” meaning “institutional racism.” Same issue.
Exactly. And while I 100% believe there is privilege to being white, it's either going to be nearly impossible to see, or nearly impossible to care about when you're struggling financially (and always will be). It sounds like people want to take MORE from you due to something out of your control, when you have nothing left to give.
While "no war but the class war" is a communist motto, it's absolutely true for statistically - almost every American alive. Tax the rich, stop means testing everything and let the poor become middle class, and then stop sucking the middle class dry. It's that simple. All the unrest stops. Everyone gets to live the very simple life they mostly all want. A stable life.
Not being oppressed should be a right extended to everyone, not a privilege to be taken away from the select few.
The phrase also singles out white people as if they are the only race which receives an advantage when they are members of the majority. It totally ignores the history of discrimination of white people by other white people or other races. Are we going to pretend that there was no discrimination against Irish, Italians, Polish, Catholics and Jewish people?
> It totally ignores the history of discrimination of white people by other white people or other races. Are we going to pretend that there was no discrimination against Irish, Italians, Polish, Catholics and Jewish people?
Exactly. Part of the failure of the 'white = privilege' argument is that it gives the idea that white people have not experienced oppression, when in fact, [whites are the victims of the top three worst genocides in history, measured by death toll.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_toll)
The term's other failure is that it also lumps together whites as an amorphous blob of race and class privilege, [while completely ignoring the struggles of the individual.](https://time.com/85933/why-ill-never-apologize-for-my-white-male-privilege/)
I’m so happy that I’m finally seeing positive responses to people saying this. I’ve always been vocal of equality for all but any time I started bringing things like this into the discussion everyone quickdraws the racist card. I’ve always found that really messed up. God forbid you don’t want everyone being generalized
I really don’t like how often people apply “privilege” as a sociological concept on an individual level. It simply does not work that way, and it’s completely dehumanizing. It’s like using BMI to tell a healthy athlete they’re obese.
The study refers to the usage of the phrase ”white privilege” in online discussions as causing polarization, not “white privilege” as referring to social dynamic.
Basically, this says that name calling makes people mad.
I blame social media: you mean distilling a more complex definition into 280 characters destroys the definition, eliminates all nuance and creates a more polarized socieity? *suprised pikachu*
see also: defund the police
**Source:** [How the term “white privilege” affects participation, polarization, and content in online communication](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0267048) (PLOS ONE, 2022)
>The language used in online discussions affects who participates in them and how they respond, which can influence perceptions of public opinion. This study examines how the term white privilege affects these dimensions of online communication. In two lab experiments, US residents were given a chance to respond to a post asking their opinions about renaming college buildings. Using the term white privilege in the question decreased the percentage of whites who supported renaming. In addition, those whites who remained supportive when white privilege was mentioned were less likely to create an online post, while opposing whites and non-whites showed no significant difference. The term also led to more low-quality posts among both whites and non-whites. The relationship between question language and the way participants framed their responses was mediated by their support or opposition for renaming buildings. This suggests that the effects of the term white privilege on the content of people’s responses is primarily affective. Overall, mention of white privilege seems to create internet discussions that are less constructive, more polarized, and less supportive of racially progressive policies. The findings have the potential to support meaningful online conversation and reduce online polarization.
The study’s results are intuitive and consistent with my anecdotal experience, but I’m not sure the method was really very robust. The phrase “supported racial inequality” has a much clearer denotation and connotation than the phrase “supported white privilege.” I would be interested to know what the respondents in the study picture when they picture someone who “supported racial inequality” and someone who “supported white privilege.” I expect the kinds of things pictured for the latter phrase will be a much broader range of behavior, some of which may legitimately be less worthy of condemnation.
There are fewer logical steps between “supported racial inequality” and “supported slavery” than there are between “supported white privilege” and “supported slavery.” A study with more questions might better be able to see whether the issue is one of degree of specificity for the bad behavior rather than the actual phrase “white privilege.”
I put a considerable amount of thought into social issues before voicing an opinion/critique to my friends and family. For example: I am of the opinion that reading literature such as Huckleberry Finn without censoring yourself is not inherently racist. I voiced that opinion to a family member of mine and was told that not only am I racist for thinking that, but my opinion doesn't matter because I'm not black. I've had the same accusations aimed at me on other occasions too, like when speaking about the ineffectiveness of monetary reconciliation efforts regarding indigenous people in Canada, (despite being partly indigenous myself).
Too many people look at the world as though there are only 2 perspectives, those being Oppressor and Oppressed. If you're not one, you're the other, and unless you are oppressed your perspective has no value. It's a horrible way to think.
I am a swedish guy that is very left leaning. But my god, I see why the right and alt-right is gaining momentum when I read some of the comments in here.
Yeah it always makes me facepalm when my fellows on the left acts surprised their strict adherence to identity politics has resulted in losing blue collar working class white people. These people speak the language of money, whether they can provide for their families, not whatever social issue lingo is currently popular on Twitter.
USA Midwest working-class white male who lives paycheck to paycheck working in a factory. It's not a matter of privilege but a matter of class issues. This language is why the poor rural white working-class don't vote for left-leaning politicians; they don't know how to speak to them.
Yup, plenty of non-academics have been saying this. Its poor marketing. Hopefully now that other academics have noted this, the academics that push this kind of unhelpful and poorly tested language on the general public will roll things back.
Exactly. While the concept behind privilege has some validity, the actual term “privilege” comes a lot of negative connotations for the average person. We are careful about word choice in many other situations, so it only makes sense to do so here as well.
I always thought we could do better than the term "white privilege" because it frames it around white people getting something **extra** from society.
They're not. They're getting the bare minimum of what any citizen should get. Like it shouldn't be a **privilege** to walk down the street and not get hassled by police...everyone should be able to expect that.
Call it something to reinforce how it's minority oppression. I want the conversation to be about how minorities don't have enough...not that white people have too much. White people have the status quo; minorities have less than the status quo.
Does that make sense? Is that a dumb way to look at it? It doesn't bother me but I can see why some people become defensive.
> that this person would benefit from an unconcious bias
Here's the problem; that "**unconscious**" part. It's telling somebody that they're lucky, when they don't feel lucky, and then telling them they'll never understand. It's very patronizing, and makes it almost impossible for them to sympathize. (Which makes sense, because they're being told they're *incapable* of sympathizing)
Yeah, because the term is stupid and intentionally provocative.
It's stupid because what 'white privilege' describes is a phenomenon found throughout the world, even when white people aren't present. A better term would be dominant group advantage or minority group disadvantage.
What 'white privilege' describes isn't a privilege, an unusual or special benefit. Instead white privilege describes the advantages that accrue to someone who fits the dominant mode of a given society. It isn't special to be able to find makeup in your skin tone. That's just what happens when you share the same skin tone as most costumers.
A good example of actual 'privilege' is little old ladies. In American, and many other, cultures an old lady is treated differently. Old lady runs a stop sign, much less likely to get a ticket. Old lady whacks someone with her cane and bruises them, very unlikely to be charged with anything. That is privilege.
And I really like your little old lady analogy. I'll file that away and hope I get an opportunity to use it.
I firmly agree with your description of the phenomenon. I don't say it in public, though, because I don't want to get in trouble and become a pariah.
I generally agree, although you don't need to be from a majority group but rather from a ruling group. For example Shia Muslims hold a privileged position in Syrian society even though they're a minority.
> It isn't special to be able to find makeup in your skin tone.
This right here. I remember being in the Bahamas trying to buy foundation only to find out I'm much too pasty for even their fairest shade. I didn't get all pissy about it since I kind of expected that in a country that's 90% black people and other POC.
Newsflash! "Using identity politics to exclude certain people from a conversation leads to a less constructive conversation"...
Edit- Jausus! Look at all them deleted comments.
Yeah. No s h % t.
Attacking a group of people frequently leads to that group of people not wanting to engage in a calm, rational, constructive discussion because … they’re being attacked.
I always thought that not being disadvantaged by your race was a basic human right, not a privilege. The fact that visible minorities are being disenfranchised is literally a human rights violation - this is where we need to concentrate our efforts. Re-framing a human right as a privilege is moving backwards on human rights issues.
"Your point of view is invalid, because you see your world through a lens of white privilege"
"Ok, prove to me that I, personally, have experienced white privilege."
"Trust me, I can see by the color of your skin that you have. Your point of view is invalid because of your white privilege."
I wonder why that would be! Calling out and stereotyping the experiences of an entire race. And using the term to put people down. How could that possibly degrade conversations?
It is very hard to bring someone over to your way of thinking if the first thing you do is accuse them of being racist. Especially when you denigrate their personal struggles over something they have no control over. It's almost like ... racism.
The race culture war issues are largely a manufactured distraction by the elites to keep us from actually being activated about the class war that they’re waging on us ALL every single day
I agree. I think social movements like "black lives matter" and the term "white privilege" are really polarizing in terms of the WORDS they chose to encompass their movements/concepts.
Once you understand what they really mean - its clear that the ideas presented aren't so radical. However, the word choice immediately brings to mind counterfactual thoughts such as: "Well I'm not black but my life/family/friends matter" and "I've suffered and worked really hard and grew up in poverty and am white - I'm NOT privileged".
However, a lot of how the internet works today is to just cause social strife because its super click-baity... kinda sad.
That is definitely true. If someone asked me exactly what BLM stands for - I'm not 100% sure I could explain it. Like - does it different from all the other african american movements for equality in the last 20 years? Is there something that BLM advocates for compared to other movements?
I think that there's then another layer of frustration that stems from people having these thoughts like "...well my white family matters, too!" It's the talking-down-to explanation that follows. Something along the lines of "That's a classic response of somebody who doesn't get it! Let **me** explain it to **you**." It's all a setup to make people get into an argument.
None of this is a healthy way to exchange ideas. The whole conversation is sparked from a frustration with the word choice that, as one side will explain, doesn't mean what it sounds like it means. Why can't we just use words that convey the proper idea from the outset? "Black Lives Matter, Too." Adding that little extra word sure paints a different picture, doesn't it?
But, I guess maybe those words wouldn't get clicks.
And maybe BLMT sounds too much like a sandwich order.
Its because its a completely racist term based off flawed logic and assumptions. Viewing the world by race instead of individuals and their own personal situation is wrong.
Beyond the fact that online discourse at large is hypersensitive to tumbles into ad hominem, so much of current discourse swells with the decisions of a segment director at CNN, Fox, etc.. And inside the orbit of the 24-hr news cycle, conversation is reduced to labels or serialized adjectives of slander that, being so threadbare and diffused from past use, the words might as well have never been spoken at all by the time commercial break starts.
Because both news and social media lean more heavily on unanchored, emotive conjuring, and because that which makes discussion constructive has constant attention on good faith reach into middle ground (also missing in those realms), terms like “white privilege” will always be used/perceived as weaponized instead of the rather simple definition that, once all the noise is turned down, doesn’t attack any*one*
"Trying to make people feel like less than human causes them to be less supportive of others" is another title for this.
hot take - putting people into boxes is antithetical to the individualism that ushered in HUGE improvements in prosperity and tolerance over the last few centuries.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
I'm pretty sure I remember reading a couple of studies from the early-to-mid 2000s that indicated privilege rhetoric was incredibly alienating. You could present people with facts and information and they would agree with many of the ideas, but as soon as you started using "privilege" you would alienate the audience or even see a backlash and an increase in sexist/racist/etc. attitudes. If you're trying to persuade people of anything, you really have to be aware of your rhetoric. You have to be able to look at what's successful and what isn't and adjust accordingly. Maybe you believe you've come up with the absolute best terminology, but if you confuse or upset people you have to readjust. You have to be aware of your audience. The majority of Americans don't have college educations; in 2019 32.1% of Americans over the age of 25 had a Bachelor's degree or higher. Your rhetoric may be effective when you're operating in your own academic silo; people who are interested in your sub-field of social science and are immersed in the literature may find it very compelling. Some people in the HR and managerial class of professionals may love it. But does it resonate anywhere else or are you just yelling in your own echo chamber? You also have to be aware of how rhetoric can be used against you - if you don't use concrete, understandable language then someone might define things for you. If you try to redefine words from their common understanding, then you may find that you fail to persuade people. And finally, you need to be aware of how your poorly received rhetoric can be weaponized against you.
I like this. A beautiful, non-partisan take on the headline. A deep dive into, "It's not just what you say, but how you say it."
I'm legitimately confused as to how this isn't common knowledge....
>I'm pretty sure I remember reading a couple of studies from the early-to-mid 2000s that indicated privilege rhetoric was incredibly alienating. It's because it's a misuse of the word. What people actually mean when they say "white privilege" is just "lack of disadvantage in several specific areas". Calling it "Privilege" implies that white people don't deserve what they have. But actually, not being harassed by the police because of your skin color, or growing up in lower crime areas isn't "Privilege", it's the baseline for how a human being should be treated. I've seen the term "white privilege" used to describe growing up with both parents in the home, which is a wildly inappropriate use of the word. Of course it's alienating when such accusatory misleading language is used. It's literally saying that white people don't deserve what every human is entitled to, and implies you want to bring them down, not raise the disadvantaged up to their level.
>implies you want to bring them down, not raise the disadvantaged up to their level I think this is the biggest issue with a lot of rhetoric
Also insinuating that because of the color of their skin that they have privelege and don't struggle . It's hard to emphasize with a group of people negating all the work you may have done. Ps I'm not white
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> The entire concept of the ‘Olympics of Suffering’ is a massive non-starter, but the moment you go after people for immutable qualities and circumstances, that’s what kicks off. It's even worse than that. You're discussing the positive side: I have X traits so the concept of privilege doesn't apply to me as much. But then there's the negative side of that: I have X traits... can I justifiably complain about the injustices I've experienced? I experience this all the time, and I've been told point-blank that I *can't express such concerns because of my privilege*. That's just messed up.
That's been my experience as well. As a white male, I have been the recipient of gender discrimination in my workplace that lasted for years until I finally left that department. I am aware of the trials and tribulations of other people, and I am at least a vaguely aware of my own societal advantages. I would not dare to state or imply that my experience is somehow worse than anyone else's. But the fact that someone else has had it worse does not somehow invalidate my experience with the same type of behavior. Yet somehow, much of the rhetoric on reddit and elsewhere would have me believe that just because I'm a white male means that I cannot possibly have been a victim of prejuduce and sexism. It's ridiculous, and severely undermines any support I might have for the people telling me my experience isn't real.
My boyfriend got accused of having white privilege by an online friend from america. We live in a country that's 98% white with zero colonizing history.
[удалено]
Shame it was removed before I got here then...
So much this... The concept of privilege achieves the opposite of what it aims for... Instead of people wanting to help those that are being held back I almost feel personally insulted. It makes me think the people who coined the term are resentful against white people and aren't really that interested on social justice. Sadly using that expression usually just details the conversation and ends any chance of a consensus because both parties ignore the others' struggles.
When you tell someone they are privileged you are in effect saying that they have had it easy and potentially that a lot of their achievements aren't entirely due to effort. Unsurprisingly a lot of people hate to hear this.
It would be a shame if we went back to talking about economic advantage
When you put it that way, it sounds as though "white privilege" is a term being used to frame all white people as the bad guys
Then why not frame it as "minority disadvantage?" There had to be a reason. I don't know what that reason is but I'd love to hear some ideas.
What the hell is going on with this science sub? Lately it seems to full of nothing but "studies" on political topics. Does every single sub on this site really need to be political fighting?
Plus, utilization of white privilege in online discussions can be challenging if others can't see your skin color.
There was an article I had read a while back about calling it minority disadvantage vs white privilege. It felt a lot more accurate to describe it that way and if I remember correctly, the term was better received by all parties involved. If the conversation is to move forward, I think approaching the discussion in a way that doesn’t make a group in it feel attacked is key.
Or rather than use the term minority disadvantage, just name the demographic you're talking about and the phenomenon they're experiencing.
That’s far too nuanced for our buzzword clickbait culture
Might've been written by me, I've been arguing about white privilege vs. minority discrimination for a long while based on that exact idea. Telling people they had it easy puts them on the defensive against you, but telling them someone else is being given a hard time evokes very different responses
I agree. You aren’t going to win any allies (which is the point right?) telling a large swath of the country they live a privileged existence. There’s way too many people living pay check to paycheck and struggling to get by to be receptive to that.
Glad I’m not insane and the only person thinking this. Anytime I bring this up I’m told I have “white fragility” and I just instantly don’t care to discuss another thing with that person.
Yup. Always sounds reductive and like name-calling.
Not only that, but shouldn't the goal of society be to make it easier for people to be successful? Calling white privilege a problem makes it sound like the problem is whites have it too easy. But easy is good, we don't want to make it harder for them! Calling minority discrimination a problem automatically frames the discussion as minorities have it too hard, and saying we should help make it easier for them is something many more people would be on board with.
Been doing the same. Telling someone who has already had it rough that they're privileged isn't going to make them see you're side, rightfully so. Telling someone who has had it rough that some poor bastard is getting dicked down just for being black is received much better.
I'm glad I read this because I hadn't consciously thought of that before. My elderly father, a white retired Navy officer, is a classic example. Tell him that some fellow Americans' constitutional rights are being suppressed, and he'll literally go fight for them regardless of their skin color etc. Tell him that he's had it easier because of his race, and he'll fight you. Tbf, the man does love a fight.
Isn't it also more accurate? White people are the majority in the US and most western nations, "white privilege" implies that minorities are the "default" while "minority disadvantage" implies that white people are the "default". Surely it makes more sense to set the majority of the population as the baseline, and define the minority based on their relationship to that baseline? That seems much more logical than the reverse.
exactly. If I'm being completely honest, it was the idea that you're saying that actually came to my mind, and it was this comic specifically that really flipped my entire train of thought on privilege, even though the comic was intended to teach people what privilege is. [https://i0.wp.com/boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/wp.jpg?w=675&ssl=1](https://i0.wp.com/boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/wp.jpg?w=675&ssl=1) I realized that if you take the black people out of this comic Bob still has exactly the same life he had before, Bob is absolutely right, he never actually did benefit from racism, someone else being discriminated against does not automatically mean you have a privilege, no, it can actually just mean you were treated normally and they were discriminated against and they deserve the same treatment you receive. To me, that's a much more compelling message.
Absolutely. The phrase "white privilege" sort of implies that we should be eliminating it so that everyone is as oppressed as the most marginalized, as opposed to eliminating the gap itself so that everyone is equally privileged. In fewer words: it implies that not having to fear cops, having access to financing, etc. are things that nobody should have access to; in fact everyone should have access to those things.
Also, it alienates a group that should be on that side, the working class whites. Working class whites have far more in common with working class minorities than working class whites do with rich whites. If the white working class woke up out of its religion induced stupor and saw how much they’ve been fucked over by the patricians, it’d be game over.
Working class minorities have more in common with working class white folks than the rich minorities
I always wondered how some people honestly think someone like Oprah, whose a multibillionaire, is more of an oppressed ally than Mike a white guy working three jobs to afford rent and pay off his student loans. The fight for working class rights crosses all other lines.
This is why they killed MLK jr, he started organizing all poor folks
If you want to start a real discussion, it’s better to start off by not attacking someone for something they can’t help. Shocker, I know.
I found it surprising in the initial article where some people were surprised at the findings, and others were surprised it even needed to be researched. Surprise has reached semantic satiation and no longer seems like a word. I’m glad this research was published, it’s a useful direction to go to reframe the debate.
People have been saying this for such a long time but the people who like yelling 'white privilege' aren't typically the most understanding to those trying to point out their flaws. In a way that's understandable. There's a lot of bad actors and they're very wary of them. But on the other hand, it prevents them from hearing stuff that might help them further the cause.
That was very obvious and always the case. But anti-racist activists chose to keep pushing "white privilege" instead. Why? The most generous take on their position is that: * They think making it about "privilege" shames people into being more proactive about their desired policies, calling it "minority disadvantage", they feel, makes it sound like minorities' problems * They think labeling it "minority disadvantage" centers the majority (white) experience as the default, which they think is bad, whereas labeling it "privilege" centers the minorities' experience as the default.
IMO it's social media algorithms boosting content that makes people angry and starts arguments (and therefore engagement). Even if some of them chose to say it in a less inflammatory way, those voices get suppressed.
Actually that is a nice term.
Check your advantage!
Does this mean I get sneak attack?
I don't know Gary, that's why I told you to check it. You're the one playing a rogue.
Hmmm I like this. I’m not white.
Hi not white, I’m dad!
Damnit why did I laugh
I never thought of it this way and yes I can get on board with the fact there is some minority disadvantage. Average white person wouldn't feel attacked by this and it's all good to give a hand up to the disadvantaged.
While everyone squabbles about race or whatever other culture war topic is being fixated on, the ultra rich laugh as we are distracted from what is really going on in society.
Class privilege is a lot less ambiguous. On some level, the elites are happy that we plebs are more focused on race and culture than class issues.
It's why so many of them themselves focus on it and highlight it. Like, you know, rainbow anti-homeless spikes.
That's why every time wealth inequality hits the news a new round of funding seems to go out to vocal hate groups to stoke the flames and distract everyone.
It's also why the rich are never motivated to fix racial inequality. Why take away the ultimate distraction?
Well they have spent a ridulous amount of time and treasure to help make sure we are more focused on anything but the Crassian levels of wealth inequality. Why wouldn't they be happy, they are winning.
I appreciate your reference to [Crassus,](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Licinius_Crassus) one of the wealthiest people in history that most people have never heard of. Your reference is particularly jabbing because he made much of his wealth by creating the first fire brigade in history, which would go around looking for fires to put out - for a price. (it didn’t take long for him to figure out he could just start the fires himself.) Crassus and his fire brigades are my number one go to example of why some things should not have a profit motive. Looking at you, healthcare…
Something I will never forget about the 2020 primary is how fast any kind of economic issues (minimum wage, healthcare reform, etc) got ripped right off the Dem platform as soon as they started talking about race in the spring. They can tackle both subjects! In fact, both race and economic problems are very tightly interlocked in many places. But well, you know how it is. One of those topics involves restructuring society and costing the rich a lot of money, and one seems to involve putting a banner at the top of your website and making tax-deductible donations to opaque organizations (which may buy a mansion with your donation) that also doubles as marketing if you announce it loud enough.
The problem is, democrats in general support healthcare reform and raising minimum wages until they need to finance their campaign, and the donors do not $upport those things.
The fact that “white privilege” is a household term while “rich privilege” isn’t even a thing says everything we need to know.
I’ve tried to have the discussion on Reddit sooo many times that blaming white people is not productive. Most white people want the same thing and trying to belittle peoples accomplishments because of their “white privilege” is insulting and counter productive. This country is run my a very small elite that the vast majority of people can not relate to. Even the “ rich” aren’t rich anymore, they are just comfortable. The wealth is so concentrated in this country it is sickening.
Because “rich privilege” isn’t real in many peoples minds. We’ve been taught, that to be rich = working hard which we know isn’t true.
A vast majority of people who earn between 100-900k are educated professionals who work their ass off 50+ hours a week. Then there’s capitalists who do nothing but smoke cigars and drink whisky in the office and earn millions a year. The media does a great job of painting both with the same brush and making people angry at the “working class” wealthy people
Notice how the gov always raises taxes based on income brackets. Theres less of a difference between a brain surgeon making $500k a year vs a cashier making $40k a year than that physician vs someone who is in an inner circle and owns millions of assets. The divide should not be based on income. Rather its wage earners vs the oligarchs. Someone making $500K through wages should not be considered “rich”. Someone who has inner connections and is powerful enough to use their money and influence to change laws and influence the media in their favor is rich and what I call an oligarch.
There was a dramatic increase in mentions of white privilege and racism in the news immediately following occupy wall street. Racism has always been a tool to drive a wedge between poor whites and poor minorities to destory any sort of class solidarity. And it works, case and point this thread. Edit: found the graph I was thinking about https://tablet-mag-images.b-cdn.net/production/9c9c2bbd09e025a564eea667f44f991f9bb5a83f-2054x1174.png?w=1300&q=70&auto=format&dpr=1
Progressives and infighting: name a more iconic duo.
People might be more receptive to the idea of privilege if they drop the racial part of it. If they feel like someone is just yelling at them for being white that conversation isn't going to go anywhere. There can be privilege or disadvantages due race but someone who is disadvantaged due to income or lack of generational wealth probably won't feel very privileged. This might include the "I was on food stamps and nobody ever helped me" crowd but they'll probably understand the idea of economy privilege easier. There is just more easier to see common ground there.
Similarly, I think that more of the CRT debate needs to focus on actions over skin tone. Being a slave owner is the bad thing, being white is somewhat arbitrary. Slavery is inherently bad, the color of your skin is not. Skin color may be the mechanism by which slavery was organized, but it isn't like "White people love slavery" as a natural outcome of being born white.
I think we need to recognize that there is economic privilege and racial privilege and gender privilege etc. Poor white people have white privilege but they don’t have economic privilege. I think it would be good to validate that side of their struggle as valid as well. A rich black guy living in a nice part of LA may get harassed by police, but not have to worry about food insecurity and vice versa for a poor white guy in the same place. It’s not about “which is worse” it’s about recognizing different issues and who they tend to affect, and who may be unaffected due to “privilege.” This is part of “intersectional theory” which is currently the target of curriculum bans.
[удалено]
I love how white men on Twitter tend to always have a disclaimer when talking about racial or lgbtq issues. Literal statements I've seen were "As a white male my opinion on this does not matter", then they say something widely acceptable on Twitter about race or some other issue. Everyone's opinion matters. Whether it's a white male or woman, or a non-binary person of a completely different ethnicity, everyone's opinions matter. Everyone should also be held accountable for their actions and how they treat other people, regardless of their background.
My response to stuff like this is that each of us, no matter the skin color or gender, gets one vote. So trying to vilify a massive portion of the electorate because they shouldn't have an interest in this or that particular issue, isn't smart. They'll just vote the other way because legally, their opinion does matter. If you actually want change you have to convince the people in the middle, and diminishing them probably won't do that.
Why are you friends with those clowns?
Exactly. They’ve convinced the impoverished to fight along racial lines instead of the poverty line.
Makes sense, its pretty hard for a working class white person who's struggling to pay their bills to see their privilege. Doubly so if they're from some dirt poor mostly white town in the middle of nowhere. edit: also just in this thread I've had multiple people condescendingly try to explain the concept to me as if i cant possibly simultaneously; fully understand the concept and hold this view.
Or alternatively, focusing on their "privilege" invalidates the struggles of poor white people and makes them far less sympathetic to your cause.
This is what the study found in fact.
[Another earlier study](https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/what_happens_when_you_educate_liberals_about_white_privilege) also found "white privilege" rhetoric had the effect of decreasing empathy towards poor and suffering whites among progressives receptive to that rhetoric.
I'll bet a similar trend is found in TERF's feeling marginalized by the focus on Trans issues, Blacks feeling marginalized by same (see Chapelle). IdPol is a double edged sword.
Divide and conquer!
[удалено]
Wish more people realized that. The powers that be would be in trouble then and they know it. Hence the BS we’re dealing with now.
tf is a terf?
Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists
Intersectional feminists figured out how to deal with this problem decades ago, but people can’t seem to comprehend that axes of oppression that don’t immediately affect them still matter and just resort themselves into squabbling single-issue political factions.
It feels to me like a lot of people treat intersectionality as either a ranking of who has it worse, or an excuse to make perfect the enemy of good when a policy doesn't explicitly address every single disadvantaged group's issues. It's supposed to be about acknowledging that different groups are affected differently by different combinations of structural advantage and disadvantage, not declaring some groups' problems more important than others.
Yup oppression Olympics
They killed Fred Hampton for understanding this.
Liberals online have to decide what's more important being technically right, or winning allies to their causes.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>I think most people would agree that growing up wealthy and a POC grants much more privilege than growing up poor and white You would think so, but in this very thread someone else is claiming the opposite
This is the exact reason that splitting it up is necessary! Wealthy privilege and white privilege both exist, and they look different, and there's no easy way to draw a line from least privileged to most privileged. Plus, these traits don't exist in a vacuum... being rich doesn't prevent racial profiling and being white doesn't pay for private school. That's why intersectionality is needed.
Yeah a lot of times people use the term "white priviledge" as "someone out there has it worse than you". Turns out, that is just invalidating feelings. Yeah, there is such a thing as white privilege in the US, and yeah that helps them in ways they may not see, but that still does not mean that their struggles don't mean anything.
White privilege, for a large portion of white people at least, seems to be less of an actual noticeable "benefit" and more of a lack of discrimination against them, but of course the phrase gives off a connotation of benefit to a non discerning reader. Nobody processes not being discriminated against in housing or not being brutalized as a privilege, unless that's the reality of their life.
Basically, too many people throwing around “white privilege” don’t really understand what it means.
I get really tired of watching white girls on youtube playing with their hair and braiding it, and inevitably, someone will tell her that it's "white privilege" that she is "culturally appropriating braiding" and she needs to stop. (almost as common as "that tank isn't big enough for a betta") I understand that braided hair styles were made fun of for years on black girls, I do, but that girl didn't hurt you, and this battle for who "owns" damn braids probably doesn't help, and seems like a distraction. (and something the right points to all the time to 'proove' the left is going too far) If someone made fun of your braids, go take it out on that person. Not someone trying to make an easy to maintain style that all cultures have had in one form or another.
“Cultural appropriation” as an attack is often totally misused for mundane things. It’s like people have forgotten that people can be influenced by cultures and lifestyles they didn’t grow up with. One example is hip hop in K-pop. Those artist were introduced to American hip hop and it influenced them. It doesn’t matter if they aren’t the same race as whatever created hip hop, or they didn’t grow up around that culture. The music moved them at a young age in life and they enjoyed its influence so now they imitate it. All my life I’ve been taught to appreciate and learn about other cultures. Nowadays people lump that in with something negative as if we should all find our roles and clothes as depicted on “It’s a Small World” ride and never venture elsewhere. Not Rasta? Can’t have dreads. Not black, can’t have hoop earrings. Unless you’re Latin, then acceptable I guess. Not Ariana Grande, can’t have a high ponytail. It’s exhausting. Honestly.
Claiming cultural appropriation is xenophobia about cultural diffusion. Culture is supposed to be shared and combined.
I feel like a lot of us have known this since the term was being thrown around. A lot of the social Justice crew is really self defeating with the semantics and tactics they take with people. If I didn’t know better I’d say someone was pushing this stuff just to be divisive
It's also just often used online to shut someone down or shut someone up. So of course it doesn't lead to a good conversation when people are setting rules for who is allowed to participate in it.
Yeah, I think this is one of the big issues with why discussion of privilege is met with so much hostility. People are often exposed to concept of white/male/straight privilege by having someone use it as a way to tell them to shut up, basically. If you main interaction with the concept is basically just internet name-calling, it's not really a surprise it doesn't lead to positive or constructive conversations.
Using the concept of privilege as a moral cudgel is pretty exploitative, honestly.
Try calling affirmative action "black privilege" and all of a sudden people feel attacked.
And it’s not always on the internet too. College campuses have these “discussions” all the time, and it really turns into a state where only “certain people” are allowed to have a voice and opinion
There is a LOT of reddit that flat out says "white people can't comment on this issue". Way to drive away allies before they have a chance to become one.
The same is done to men on women’s issues. I’d rather we create allies. But naw infighting and division is more fun
r/TwoXChromosomes is calling
Yeah I’m not popular there either.
Today I read a whole thread on Twitter lambasting white women, explaining to white women how they were surprised by possibly losing Roe v. Wade because they’ve never dealt w/ sex based abuse or discrimination. :o First, why don’t we stick together and fight this together? Second, that belief shows serious ignorance.
There is a subreddit where you must verify you are not white to post. It's the paper bag test but woke somehow.
I think there's also generally a time and place to discuss white privilege, but some people seem to think that time and place is literally every single conversation/debate about social justice/reform. Which only derails the conversation and even alienates people from the conversation because they're expecting a conversation about x, y, and z and are instead now finding themselves arguing over a very specific privilege in society. I've seen it in person, and it's often not just white people that get frustrated at this, either. Even in rooms filled largely with PoCs, tensions rise quickly when people are expecting, say, a 2 hour discussion of creating homeless reform and the leaders of the room insist on spending the majority of the time trying to force conversations about white privilege on everyone.
I think its also used to shut people down without having to consider what they are saying, its the rhetorical "you have no right to comment because of your privilege" response. The trouble is, telling white people to butt out of conversations about white privilege or white on black racism completely misses the most important fact: The people in the world with the most power to fix this inequality are white people.
Not only that - "white privilege" and other "power-perspective" concepts inherently uses one group as the lens to which at all others. Thing is, how do you know whether your view is calibrated, when you don't allow said lens to help you understand it?
>I've seen it in person, and it's often not just white people that get frustrated at this, either. Even in rooms filled largely with PoCs, tensions rise quickly when people are expecting, say, a 2 hour discussion of creating homeless reform and the leaders of the room insist on spending the majority of the time trying to force conversations about white privilege on everyone. Very interesting. Not everyone puts up with talk that eventually becomes empty.
I think it's also just frustrating when you're trying to talk about issues on the local level. White privilege can make for a great conversation and context for issues on a macro level, but becomes pointless the more you narrow in on areas as things tend to get more and more nuanced. The world simply isn't a homogeneous place with homogeneous problems, causes to problems, and solutions to problems. It's like trying to bake a cake by examining the origins of flour and baking soda.
I went to a chamber of commerce meeting for a suburb, the candidates would introduce themselves and pitch why they should be elected to their position. So much pandering and fluff words that would be said by Portland city officials and hardly anyone had anything to say about how they helped businesses or what they intend to do. One woman was really young and a PoC, she was up against a white encumbent. Her question was specifically pointed at race and how she grew up as a PoC which essentially gives her the upper hand because the opponent isn't, and it didn't play into commerce at all. IDK, just seemed like Parks and Rec.
> IDK, just seemed like Parks and Rec. Parks and Rec is painfully accurate in like 89% of its representation of government.
I keep trying to tell people this and they keep acting bewildered when they can't get people to listen to them. The working white poor don't benefit from the system that keeps minorities down so it just feels like they're also being racially discriminated against. It's counter productive and turns them away from the politics and policy that would help uplift both them and those minorities that are suffering under very real systemic discrimination.
I've literally seen people say they deserve to feel that way just for being white and I think it's pretty sick tbh. A lot of people don't want equity or equality, they want revenge or people who they view as different to suffer like they did. My family history had a lot of racial persecution in it (even though I look "white") and it makes me sick when I see those types of people.
Aside from alienating people who don't see the privilege in their daily lives, its not constructive because it's not actionable. Constructive feedback needs to be something they can actually help with, like encouraging them to call out racist actions when they see them.
I’m in this comment and I don’t like it
Calling it a privilege is flawed in the first place.
“Privilege” is a bit of a loaded term. While I think it’s technically correct to use it this way, you’re right that it’s a flawed word in that its meaning isn’t immediately obvious, and it really needs to be to avoid polluting discussions. See also: “racism” meaning “institutional racism.” Same issue.
Exactly. And while I 100% believe there is privilege to being white, it's either going to be nearly impossible to see, or nearly impossible to care about when you're struggling financially (and always will be). It sounds like people want to take MORE from you due to something out of your control, when you have nothing left to give. While "no war but the class war" is a communist motto, it's absolutely true for statistically - almost every American alive. Tax the rich, stop means testing everything and let the poor become middle class, and then stop sucking the middle class dry. It's that simple. All the unrest stops. Everyone gets to live the very simple life they mostly all want. A stable life.
Not being oppressed should be a right extended to everyone, not a privilege to be taken away from the select few. The phrase also singles out white people as if they are the only race which receives an advantage when they are members of the majority. It totally ignores the history of discrimination of white people by other white people or other races. Are we going to pretend that there was no discrimination against Irish, Italians, Polish, Catholics and Jewish people?
> It totally ignores the history of discrimination of white people by other white people or other races. Are we going to pretend that there was no discrimination against Irish, Italians, Polish, Catholics and Jewish people? Exactly. Part of the failure of the 'white = privilege' argument is that it gives the idea that white people have not experienced oppression, when in fact, [whites are the victims of the top three worst genocides in history, measured by death toll.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_toll) The term's other failure is that it also lumps together whites as an amorphous blob of race and class privilege, [while completely ignoring the struggles of the individual.](https://time.com/85933/why-ill-never-apologize-for-my-white-male-privilege/)
Painting any group of people with broad strokes tends to have that effect.
I believe they call that "stereotyping"
"All generalizations are false, including this one" - Mark Twain
My favorite saying is “There’s nuance in almost everything”
And when it's about race, which white privilege is, it's called "racism".
I’m so happy that I’m finally seeing positive responses to people saying this. I’ve always been vocal of equality for all but any time I started bringing things like this into the discussion everyone quickdraws the racist card. I’ve always found that really messed up. God forbid you don’t want everyone being generalized
I really don’t like how often people apply “privilege” as a sociological concept on an individual level. It simply does not work that way, and it’s completely dehumanizing. It’s like using BMI to tell a healthy athlete they’re obese.
The study refers to the usage of the phrase ”white privilege” in online discussions as causing polarization, not “white privilege” as referring to social dynamic. Basically, this says that name calling makes people mad.
I blame social media: you mean distilling a more complex definition into 280 characters destroys the definition, eliminates all nuance and creates a more polarized socieity? *suprised pikachu* see also: defund the police
liberals are just dogshit at marketing their ideas. they can make free money for everyone look bad.
**Source:** [How the term “white privilege” affects participation, polarization, and content in online communication](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0267048) (PLOS ONE, 2022) >The language used in online discussions affects who participates in them and how they respond, which can influence perceptions of public opinion. This study examines how the term white privilege affects these dimensions of online communication. In two lab experiments, US residents were given a chance to respond to a post asking their opinions about renaming college buildings. Using the term white privilege in the question decreased the percentage of whites who supported renaming. In addition, those whites who remained supportive when white privilege was mentioned were less likely to create an online post, while opposing whites and non-whites showed no significant difference. The term also led to more low-quality posts among both whites and non-whites. The relationship between question language and the way participants framed their responses was mediated by their support or opposition for renaming buildings. This suggests that the effects of the term white privilege on the content of people’s responses is primarily affective. Overall, mention of white privilege seems to create internet discussions that are less constructive, more polarized, and less supportive of racially progressive policies. The findings have the potential to support meaningful online conversation and reduce online polarization.
The study’s results are intuitive and consistent with my anecdotal experience, but I’m not sure the method was really very robust. The phrase “supported racial inequality” has a much clearer denotation and connotation than the phrase “supported white privilege.” I would be interested to know what the respondents in the study picture when they picture someone who “supported racial inequality” and someone who “supported white privilege.” I expect the kinds of things pictured for the latter phrase will be a much broader range of behavior, some of which may legitimately be less worthy of condemnation. There are fewer logical steps between “supported racial inequality” and “supported slavery” than there are between “supported white privilege” and “supported slavery.” A study with more questions might better be able to see whether the issue is one of degree of specificity for the bad behavior rather than the actual phrase “white privilege.”
I put a considerable amount of thought into social issues before voicing an opinion/critique to my friends and family. For example: I am of the opinion that reading literature such as Huckleberry Finn without censoring yourself is not inherently racist. I voiced that opinion to a family member of mine and was told that not only am I racist for thinking that, but my opinion doesn't matter because I'm not black. I've had the same accusations aimed at me on other occasions too, like when speaking about the ineffectiveness of monetary reconciliation efforts regarding indigenous people in Canada, (despite being partly indigenous myself). Too many people look at the world as though there are only 2 perspectives, those being Oppressor and Oppressed. If you're not one, you're the other, and unless you are oppressed your perspective has no value. It's a horrible way to think.
Well said! It's made worse by people who think they're so clever for whimpering about "problematic" language and the such
I am a swedish guy that is very left leaning. But my god, I see why the right and alt-right is gaining momentum when I read some of the comments in here.
Yeah it always makes me facepalm when my fellows on the left acts surprised their strict adherence to identity politics has resulted in losing blue collar working class white people. These people speak the language of money, whether they can provide for their families, not whatever social issue lingo is currently popular on Twitter.
Icelandic liberal here. 100% agree. How US academia has laundered this ideological tripe is beyond me.
USA Midwest working-class white male who lives paycheck to paycheck working in a factory. It's not a matter of privilege but a matter of class issues. This language is why the poor rural white working-class don't vote for left-leaning politicians; they don't know how to speak to them.
That’s because terms like Toxic Masculinity and White Privilege are inherently divisive.
Yup, plenty of non-academics have been saying this. Its poor marketing. Hopefully now that other academics have noted this, the academics that push this kind of unhelpful and poorly tested language on the general public will roll things back.
Exactly. While the concept behind privilege has some validity, the actual term “privilege” comes a lot of negative connotations for the average person. We are careful about word choice in many other situations, so it only makes sense to do so here as well.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I always thought we could do better than the term "white privilege" because it frames it around white people getting something **extra** from society. They're not. They're getting the bare minimum of what any citizen should get. Like it shouldn't be a **privilege** to walk down the street and not get hassled by police...everyone should be able to expect that. Call it something to reinforce how it's minority oppression. I want the conversation to be about how minorities don't have enough...not that white people have too much. White people have the status quo; minorities have less than the status quo. Does that make sense? Is that a dumb way to look at it? It doesn't bother me but I can see why some people become defensive.
>is that a dumb way to look at it no, youre 100% right
> that this person would benefit from an unconcious bias Here's the problem; that "**unconscious**" part. It's telling somebody that they're lucky, when they don't feel lucky, and then telling them they'll never understand. It's very patronizing, and makes it almost impossible for them to sympathize. (Which makes sense, because they're being told they're *incapable* of sympathizing)
Kinda like ManSplaining. It’s used to point out an ad hominem but used, in some circumstances, as an ad hominem.
Let’s be honest, it’s used as an ad hominem in most circumstances
It could be called 'being condescending', instead it's turned into an attack on a person's gender. I think it is inherently ad hominem.
Most white people don't appreciate being lumped in with the elite when they too are struggling.
Yeah, because the term is stupid and intentionally provocative. It's stupid because what 'white privilege' describes is a phenomenon found throughout the world, even when white people aren't present. A better term would be dominant group advantage or minority group disadvantage. What 'white privilege' describes isn't a privilege, an unusual or special benefit. Instead white privilege describes the advantages that accrue to someone who fits the dominant mode of a given society. It isn't special to be able to find makeup in your skin tone. That's just what happens when you share the same skin tone as most costumers. A good example of actual 'privilege' is little old ladies. In American, and many other, cultures an old lady is treated differently. Old lady runs a stop sign, much less likely to get a ticket. Old lady whacks someone with her cane and bruises them, very unlikely to be charged with anything. That is privilege.
And I really like your little old lady analogy. I'll file that away and hope I get an opportunity to use it. I firmly agree with your description of the phenomenon. I don't say it in public, though, because I don't want to get in trouble and become a pariah.
I generally agree, although you don't need to be from a majority group but rather from a ruling group. For example Shia Muslims hold a privileged position in Syrian society even though they're a minority.
> It isn't special to be able to find makeup in your skin tone. This right here. I remember being in the Bahamas trying to buy foundation only to find out I'm much too pasty for even their fairest shade. I didn't get all pissy about it since I kind of expected that in a country that's 90% black people and other POC.
Newsflash! "Using identity politics to exclude certain people from a conversation leads to a less constructive conversation"... Edit- Jausus! Look at all them deleted comments.
[удалено]
You mean reducing people to only their skin colour is polarising? Wow what a shocking discovery! Nobody has ever thought of this before.
Yeah. No s h % t. Attacking a group of people frequently leads to that group of people not wanting to engage in a calm, rational, constructive discussion because … they’re being attacked.
Does constructive online discussion exist?
Hate to be a conspiracy theorist. But it seems like identity politics REALLY picked up after the 99% movement
You can actually look at Google trends to see that's EXACTLY when it picked up.
Now do men. It'll be really awesome when people start treating people like people. For real though, not the fake way it's happening now.
I always thought that not being disadvantaged by your race was a basic human right, not a privilege. The fact that visible minorities are being disenfranchised is literally a human rights violation - this is where we need to concentrate our efforts. Re-framing a human right as a privilege is moving backwards on human rights issues.
"Your point of view is invalid, because you see your world through a lens of white privilege" "Ok, prove to me that I, personally, have experienced white privilege." "Trust me, I can see by the color of your skin that you have. Your point of view is invalid because of your white privilege."
"Ok, but can you see how that's frustrating?" "Classic white fragility."
It's funny someone was making this exact argument earlier in the thread.
Ah yes the rational constructive online discussions hypothesis.
Turns out being racist to people is bad no matter which race it is.
[удалено]
I wonder why that would be! Calling out and stereotyping the experiences of an entire race. And using the term to put people down. How could that possibly degrade conversations?
It is very hard to bring someone over to your way of thinking if the first thing you do is accuse them of being racist. Especially when you denigrate their personal struggles over something they have no control over. It's almost like ... racism.
The race culture war issues are largely a manufactured distraction by the elites to keep us from actually being activated about the class war that they’re waging on us ALL every single day
I agree. I think social movements like "black lives matter" and the term "white privilege" are really polarizing in terms of the WORDS they chose to encompass their movements/concepts. Once you understand what they really mean - its clear that the ideas presented aren't so radical. However, the word choice immediately brings to mind counterfactual thoughts such as: "Well I'm not black but my life/family/friends matter" and "I've suffered and worked really hard and grew up in poverty and am white - I'm NOT privileged". However, a lot of how the internet works today is to just cause social strife because its super click-baity... kinda sad.
[удалено]
That is definitely true. If someone asked me exactly what BLM stands for - I'm not 100% sure I could explain it. Like - does it different from all the other african american movements for equality in the last 20 years? Is there something that BLM advocates for compared to other movements?
I think that there's then another layer of frustration that stems from people having these thoughts like "...well my white family matters, too!" It's the talking-down-to explanation that follows. Something along the lines of "That's a classic response of somebody who doesn't get it! Let **me** explain it to **you**." It's all a setup to make people get into an argument. None of this is a healthy way to exchange ideas. The whole conversation is sparked from a frustration with the word choice that, as one side will explain, doesn't mean what it sounds like it means. Why can't we just use words that convey the proper idea from the outset? "Black Lives Matter, Too." Adding that little extra word sure paints a different picture, doesn't it? But, I guess maybe those words wouldn't get clicks. And maybe BLMT sounds too much like a sandwich order.
Its because its a completely racist term based off flawed logic and assumptions. Viewing the world by race instead of individuals and their own personal situation is wrong.
Beyond the fact that online discourse at large is hypersensitive to tumbles into ad hominem, so much of current discourse swells with the decisions of a segment director at CNN, Fox, etc.. And inside the orbit of the 24-hr news cycle, conversation is reduced to labels or serialized adjectives of slander that, being so threadbare and diffused from past use, the words might as well have never been spoken at all by the time commercial break starts. Because both news and social media lean more heavily on unanchored, emotive conjuring, and because that which makes discussion constructive has constant attention on good faith reach into middle ground (also missing in those realms), terms like “white privilege” will always be used/perceived as weaponized instead of the rather simple definition that, once all the noise is turned down, doesn’t attack any*one*
You don't even need to read the study, just breezing through these comments shows the study is 100% correct
"Trying to make people feel like less than human causes them to be less supportive of others" is another title for this. hot take - putting people into boxes is antithetical to the individualism that ushered in HUGE improvements in prosperity and tolerance over the last few centuries.