<p>Another question: how would anybody’s views of this issue change (if at all) if the phrase we were discussing was not “check your privilege” but “that’s easy for YOU to say.”?</p>
<p>But there are people of the same sex, race, or whatever who do not have those benefits so how do they directly correlate to those particular designations? There are also people in the complaining groups who are doing just fine, usually including the most vocal complainers.</p>
<p>My view of it would change substantively, as indicated by my post that is 3 back from your latest one, Hunt.</p>
<p>Hunt,
I think apprenticeprof said it best a page or so back (sure wish we had post numbers! ) This has become an issue of economics (as has been mentioned several times in this thread). I remember the good ol’ days when there was plenty of legroom in steerage for everyone. But I also remember when they had a little piece of paper that separated the smoking from the non smoking section. Thank heavens thats gone, but should those poor souls addicted to nicotine be outraged that they cannot smoke on flights? As for the airline president, its unlikely that even if he/she was 6’6" and 300 lbs that they would change the seating in coach, if the airline wants to stay in business. As others have said, some of this is a matter of economics, not entitlements.</p>
<p>Hunt to be honest…my response would be different if I were sitting at the breakfast table having coffee and a philosophical discussion than it would be if someone of non-privileged size just sat next to me on a sold out flight, raised the arm rest and stated ‘now we will both be more comfortable’.</p>
<p>
I understand all that, which is why I added option #5. That’s a sensible reason. But wouldn’t you think somebody who said, essentially, “let them eat cake,” would be pretty clueless, and insensitive?
But this isn’t really true. All white people get the benefit of being white, at least when it comes to things like not being followed around in a store. Black people, even if they’re doing just fine in most ways, don’t get that benefit. Or to put it another way, to avoid the objection that suspicious-looking white people might be followed around–when people who are the same except for their race (or sex, or whatever) are treated differently, that constitutes a “privilege” for the group that is treated better. This might be based on invidious discrimination–which is probably the case if store employees are following a well-dressed black person. But it might be based on something else–nobody is really prejudiced against the left-handed, but there still may be plenty of situations in which left-handed people are disadvantaged.</p>
<p>Let me just add here that to some extent, this dispute is the result of remarkable success in eliminating many of the most obnoxious forms of discrimination based on race and sex in our country. During the civil rights era, nobody would have wasted time talking about all of these “microaggressions.” Fire hoses and dogs are not microaggressions. I think we’re in an era now where there are more subtle forms of bias and discrimination, and they’re harder to address. Personally, I don’t think focusing on microaggressions is the best way to do it, but I understand that those who do think they are indicators of the more subtle bias that still exists.</p>
<p>I think people can be clueless and insensitive about a lot of things. But I also think some people have a frequent chip on their shoulder and expect the world to change to cater to their needs/wants. Isnt that privilege?</p>
<p>I agree with your last paragraph that you just added, Hunt. But for those who equate the microaggressions with the larger injustices, it just deflates the real issues because it becomes easier for some to discount the trivial stuff and throw the baby out with the bathwater.</p>
<p>
Maybe. But this may also be a way to brush off valid complaints. Drawing the line is the challenge.</p>
<p>Yes, drawing the line is the challenge, as individuals have different thresholds.</p>
<p><a href=“Which%20is%20also,%20Bay,%20the%20answer%20to%20your%20question%20of%20whether%20I%20would%20say%20the%20same%20thing%20to%20a%20black%20person%20as%20a%20white%20person%20in%20such%20a%20conversation–what%20should%20I%20assume%20from%20the%20fact%20that%20you%20felt%20the%20need%20to%20ask%20this%20question?”>quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My question, that you notably dodged, was about voicing opinions about welfare, not handed-ness, since that is what Tal Fortgang talked about when he got privileged-checked.</p>
<p>You said that with only the knowledge that a speaker was white and male, who repeated statements similar to “More people who are currently receiving welfare should be working,” without providing credentials to your satisfaction, you would tell him, “check your privilege.”</p>
<p>I asked whether you would do the same to a black woman in the same situation, and you didn’t answer. I believe it is because you would never in a million years use those words to her in such a situation. Your use of the phrase is race and/or gender based, which makes it…?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>and kirian, you keep missing my point, which I have stated over and over. I didn’t say being white is the only privilege, I said the PHRASE, “check your privilege” is offensive. I don’t care whether you think it is not “bad.” People are offended by the phrase and have repeatedly said so (hello, that is the subject of the news article that started this thread.) So please stop using it, thank you.</p>
<p>Bay, one might reasonably infer that she isn’t missing your point, she is ignoring it., dontcha think?</p>
<p>So, what is the appropriate phrase to use when some schmuck keeps on ignoring the fact that others don’t have their privilege? What’s the appropriate phrase for emeraldkity’s daughter when faced with the guy who keeps suggesting expensive outings she can’t afford? What’s the appropriate phrase when hypothetical Fortgang keeps saying that nobody gets followed around stores by security, or gets stopped when driving in white neighborhoods, unless they’re acting suspiciously? </p>
<p>My question is not about the first time someone does this. I’m talking about the fifth time.</p>
<p>CF,</p>
<p>To our knowledge, Fortgang never said those things, and the fact that you and others on this thread attribute comments like that to him is irresponsible.</p>
<p>And really, it sounds kindergartner-ish to me that adults are asking what they should say to annoying people, other than one single offensive phrase. Really?</p>
<p>What is your answer to my question? What is the appropriate phrase to use when someone repeatedly demonstrates that they don’t realize other people have bad experiences that they are not exposed to because of their privilege?</p>
<p>What he said was that more people on welfare should work. That simple statement of fact should not even be controversial. imho.</p>
<p>Do you have a suggestion CF? Perhaps the point is that there are some who, unfortunately, are not going to “get it”. But responding to one insensitive comment with another is not likely to be beneficial, though it might make the person saying “check your privilege” feel a little better. Or morally superior. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That sounds pretty damn offensive to me, because I have looked at the unemployment rate, and watched my son take a couple of months of intensive job search to get a minimum wage job. Where are these jobs? It’s not like jobs are going begging, and people on welfare are turning them down.</p>