Calling someone privileged is equivalent to calling someone a Nazi. Privilege is an intellectually lazy "magic bullet" used when you don't agree with someone's views. Telling someone to recognize their privilege is demanding someone to agree with your specific view of the world.
I'm not conceding. It's pretty simple. I'm arguing from one worldview, Scott is arguing from another. He simply cannot see from mine and I can no longer see from his. There is no point in debate because we cannot convince each other.
And SRS didn't invent the concept. I hang out with them because they get it, not because they brainwashed me.
I'm not conceding. It's pretty simple. I'm arguing from one worldview, Scott is arguing from another. He simply cannot see from mine and I can no longer see from his. There is no point in debate because we cannot convince each other.
Then find an acceptable middle ground for the pair of you and argue there. Mutual failure to define terms or argue the same issue does not indicate that argument is impossible, it indicates you both failed to argue well. And I'm giving it to you, and not Scott, because rather than trying to correct this, you're simply fleeing while squealing privilege. Once again, this isn't SRS - Shouting that doesn't make you right around here, because we try to pride ourselves on intelligence, not how offended we are.
And SRS didn't invent the concept. I hang out with them because they get it, not because they brainwashed me.
Nobody said they brainwashed you, or that they invented the concept. Buggered if I know where you got that idea. But you do hang out in that fucking cesspit of narcissistic self-congratulation - the same thing happens in Men's rights forums, but you don't frequent those, so putting it in that context rather than somewhere you do hang out would be pointless. Even if they didn't invent it, they're fucking champions of the old Scream-privileged-and-run and Privilege-as-a-magic-bullet tricks, which probably have better names but I can't think of them off the top of my head.
I'm not telling you to stop being Offended, and I'm not telling you to stop noticing these things, or speaking up. I'm telling you to argue properly, like an intelligent, rational person, rather than "arguing" like someone from /r/srs.
There is no argument to be had. The entire "debate" hinges on us having fundamentally different worldviews; one where in my world, privilege is a real thing that has to be considered as part of a rational, intelligent consideration of viewpoints, and the world you lot are from where it doesn't exist, everything happens in a vacuum, and it's the fault of the hurt party when somebody get offended. Unless you convince me it doesn't exist or I convince you it does, there is no point.
Calling someone privileged is not morally or intellectually equivalent to Godwin's law.
It's also not necessarily intellectually lazy, and what the argument is supposed to be doing is asking you to recognize how your worldview has been shaped by never having to deal with the problems faced by people who don't fall into privileged classes. Calling someone privileged without explaining why is admittedly not a very good argument, and in the interest of the argument, I'm going to explain why your privilege is showing.
One of the wonderful things about being white/able/het/cis/male is that those classes don't really form a large part of someone's perceived identity. You can't just describe a character as "the white guy" in the same way that certain characters can be described as "the black guy" or "the flaming homosexual." With the standard white-able-het-cis-male, their identity has to be rounded out by something non-inherent to them: their job, whether or not they're rich, their hobbies, etc. This is one factor that prevents there from being negative stereotypes about those privileged classes: negative traits of one person can get dismissed because "oh, that's just because the person's a libertarian," or, since the majority of people are generally in a privileged class, you can just point to the next person over who doesn't share that trait and say "hey look, that trait doesn't apply to all white/able/het/cis/male people!" So thusly stereotypes tend not to negatively affect privileged people.
On the other hand, for someone who is part of a non-privileged group, that group tends to form a huge part of their perceived identity (not necessarily their actual identity, how society perceives them). In media, characters in a non-privileged group tend to be less common, so that, for example, when the gay character needlessly hits on other straight male characters, there aren't any other gay characters around to contradict that stereotype. This is significantly more problematic for characters with small parts, as the negative perception caused by a stereotype can be mitigated by giving a character depth and thus other facets to their personality. But all too often, that one stereotype becomes a non-privileged character's main character trait, and without other characters in the same group to counteract that, we wind up with the media making consistent negative reinforcement of stereotypes of certain non-privileged groups.
As we've said before, this is the problem with Derpy: She's entirely flat, except for her lazy eye, clumsiness, and voice. The way those played together gave the strong impression of a developmentally disabled character, and reinforcing the idea that someone with a lazy eye tends to have other problems as well, in addition to the general problem of "hey kids, it's okay to laugh at someone because of their disability!" and frankly, I expected better from Studio B.
Now, the way you guys are showing your privilege is because you can dismiss the problems with Derpy as "hey, she's only one character, and she didn't offend me," which is true but doesn't stop her from perpetuating those problems. The other dismissal is "but look at all the other times when it's been okay," which is worse, because most of those times it wasn't okay and it was just that nobody brought it up loudly enough. As members of a privileged class, you get the nice advantage of always having a counter-example to combat negative stereotypes, as well as never having to face those negative stereotypes when dealing with other people.
There's a second debate to be had here about the place of negative stereotypes in humor, but I'll make that wall of text after lunch.
tl;dr: hey FRCF your privilege is showing reeeeal bad.
There is no argument to be had. The entire "debate" hinges on us having fundamentally different worldviews; one where in my world, privilege is a real thing that has to be considered as part of a rational, intelligent consideration of viewpoints, and the world you lot are from where it doesn't exist, everything happens in a vacuum, and it's the fault of the hurt party when somebody get offended. Unless you convince me it doesn't exist or I convince you it does, there is no point.
The difference is that we have a world view we can and will explain and defend. Morals are subjective, and everyone has different ones. But if you ask me about my morals, I can explain exactly why I have them. I can defend myself and provide evidence and reasons for why my morality is the way it is. You are either unwilling or unable to defend your view. Either way, it's cowardice.
In addition, you freely admit you are close minded and absolutely 100% unwilling to change your view. Not so for me! I have and will gladly change my view in the face of evidence. That's why I never run away from a debate ever. Either I am right or the other person is going to provide some evidence allowing me to change from being wrong to more right. If you run away without admitting you are wrong at all, the only result you have achieved is losing respect. If you get knocked out or throw in the towel, at least you keep your dignity. If you raise the championship belt over your head after running away, you're just a tool.
I have a new moral. Anyone who runs away from a debate is a coward, and they should be punished by being held down and being pooped on. You can't argue with me! That's just my world view, and there's no changing my mind. It's pointless to argue! I don't need to defend it.
As we've said before, this is the problem with Derpy: She's entirely flat, except for her lazy eye, clumsiness, and voice. The way those played together gave the strong impression of a developmentally disabled character, and reinforcing the idea that someone with a lazy eye tends to have other problems as well, in addition to the general problem of "hey kids, it's okay to laugh at someone because of their disability!" and frankly, I expected better from Studio B.
I guess Cookie Monster should get rid of his googly eyes then.
It's real simple Scott. I believe that you cannot decide if a character is ableist because you yourself are able, the same way a white person cannot look at something that has a offended a black person and go "What's the big deal? I wasn't offended, so clearly it is not offensive." You have the privilege of not being offended, which is not the same thing as something not being offensive.
That's as simple as it is. That's the worldview difference I'm talking about. I also know this is a pointless conversation, because everything I have ever seen about you indicates you consider yourself absolute arbiter of everything.
It's real simple Scott. I believe that you cannot decide if a character is ableist because you yourself are able, the same way a white person cannot look at something that has a offended a black person and go "What's the big deal? I wasn't offended, so clearly it is not offensive." You have the privilege of not being offended, which is not the same thing as something not being offensive.
That's as simple as it is.
So I guess I can't say that Catwoman is sexist? Who died and made you king of deciding who is allowed to say what is offensive and what is not offensive? I don't see any rules here that say only people of certain classes are allowed to say what is or is not offensive.
I'm Jewish, are you? Everything you have ever said in your life is offensive to me you anti-semite! You can't argue with me because I'm Jewish. Unless you are also Jewish you have no right to judge what is or is not anti-semitic. I'm Jewish, so I'm automatically correct. You are anti-semitic. Can't argue with that because you have the privilege of not being a Jew.
... and you've missed the point entirely. It's not about who gets to be absolute arbiter of what is or isn't offensive. Rather, it's about the legitimacy of privileged people, who are not offended by something because it does not effect them, disputing if other people get to find something offensive.
Let's say I said that you jewed them out of some money, and you said "Hey, man, what the fuck?"
How would you feel about me telling you that it wasn't offensive? I didn't mean it as a slur, it's just a word, grow thicker skin!
No, I'm not. What I'm saying is you can't tell a black person that something he finds offensive, isn't. And he can't tell you to get over the honky jokes.
tl;dr: hey FRCF your privilege is showing reeeeal bad.
I'll give you credit, you tried to make an argument. The only problem is that you've fucked it all up by summarizing it down to squealing privilege, Which is absolutely equivalent to Goodwin's law, and just like shouting "Hitler!", it doesn't excuse you from making a coherent argument, nor does it guarantee that your argument is better than the other guy's.
Sketchbook is right on one point. There is no argument to be had here. But not because of differing worldviews or because the pair of you are correct - It's because you are so far failing to argue. You're stating a conclusion, and shouting privilege at anyone who disagrees with you. Even the bulk of your attempt at argument is basically "Oh yeah? Well, look how easy you have it, being all privileged as you are. You can't say this isn't offensive, because you're so Privileged!"
To repeat - Good enough for SRS, not good enough for here. Argue properly, or GTFO.
I'm disappointed in the pair of you. You are better than this.
No, I'm not. What I'm saying is you can't tell a black person that something he finds offensive, isn't. And he can't tell you to get over the honky jokes.
But that's not what's happening here. What's happening here, essentially, is that you are - to borrow your own analogy, though it's not the best and doesn't work as an analogy to the situation - telling the black person they should be offended by something, and they're a bad person for not being offended. Or to make it a little more personal, it's like you're telling me I should find the documentary Crocodile Dundee offensive, and I'm a bad person because I'm not offended. EXTRA BAD because I find it funny. Which is essentially exactly what you're complaining about, except with the exact opposite sentiment.
I likewise have a similar opinion. You are dismissing our legitimate argument as Godwin's Law! When we try to explain what we mean by privilege and how it is specifically impacting your arguments, you put your hands over your ears and go "Lalalala, stop calling us nazis!"
I likewise have a similar opinion. You are dismissing our legitimate argument as Godwin's Law! When we try to explain what we mean by privilege and how it is specifically impacting your arguments, you put your hands over your ears and go "Lalalala, stop calling us nazis!"
No, I'm dismissing your failure to argue as failing to argue, try again. For me to be dismissing your legitimate argument, you'd have to have one in the first place.
Yes, you explained privileged, good job, we really didn't know anything about it before because we're clearly stupid and horrible people because we're not offended. The problem is, you basically went "Here is what privileged is, By the way, I'm right."
What, you expect a pat on the head and a gold star just because you're offended by something? I fear you've clicked the wrong bookmark in your browser.
You want me to take your arguments seriously? Make a legitimate one. I don't think I'll be holding my breath while waiting for you to start, considering you're still congratulating yourself for leaping over the bar set at the SRS level, which is somewhere between being lower than a snake's dick, and buried underground.
Jesus christ, sketch, I'm starting to think you'd look at Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron, and consider it a victorious tale of a truly progressive society being publically attacked by a privileged bigot.
I likewise have a similar opinion. You are dismissing our legitimate argument as Godwin's Law! When we try to explain what we mean by privilege and how it is specifically impacting your arguments, you put your hands over your ears and go "Lalalala, stop calling us nazis!"
No, I'm dismissing your failure to argue as failing to argue, try again. For me to be dismissing your legitimate argument, you'd have to have one in the first place.
Yes, you explained privileged, good job, we really didn't know anything about it before because we're clearly stupid and horrible people because we're not offended. The problem is, you basically went "Here is what privileged is, By the way, I'm right."
What, you expect a pat on the head and a gold star just because you're offended by something? I fear you've clicked the wrong bookmark in your browser.
You want me to take your arguments seriously? Make a legitimate one. I don't think I'll be holding my breath while waiting for you to start, considering you're still congratulating yourself for leaping over the bar set at the SRS level, which is somewhere between being lower than a snake's dick, and buried underground.
Jesus christ, sketch, I'm starting to think you'd look at Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron, and consider it a victorious tale of a truly progressive society being publically attacked by a privileged bigot.
So far, your only argument has been to tell me my argument is invalid. I simply don't want to do this anymore. I don't want to hate you guys. So I concede; people who thought the scene was offensive just want to feel smug.
Comments
And SRS didn't invent the concept. I hang out with them because they get it, not because they brainwashed me.
That pretty much covers all I feel ever needed to be said on the topic.
I'm not telling you to stop being Offended, and I'm not telling you to stop noticing these things, or speaking up. I'm telling you to argue properly, like an intelligent, rational person, rather than "arguing" like someone from /r/srs.
It's also not necessarily intellectually lazy, and what the argument is supposed to be doing is asking you to recognize how your worldview has been shaped by never having to deal with the problems faced by people who don't fall into privileged classes. Calling someone privileged without explaining why is admittedly not a very good argument, and in the interest of the argument, I'm going to explain why your privilege is showing.
One of the wonderful things about being white/able/het/cis/male is that those classes don't really form a large part of someone's perceived identity. You can't just describe a character as "the white guy" in the same way that certain characters can be described as "the black guy" or "the flaming homosexual." With the standard white-able-het-cis-male, their identity has to be rounded out by something non-inherent to them: their job, whether or not they're rich, their hobbies, etc. This is one factor that prevents there from being negative stereotypes about those privileged classes: negative traits of one person can get dismissed because "oh, that's just because the person's a libertarian," or, since the majority of people are generally in a privileged class, you can just point to the next person over who doesn't share that trait and say "hey look, that trait doesn't apply to all white/able/het/cis/male people!" So thusly stereotypes tend not to negatively affect privileged people.
On the other hand, for someone who is part of a non-privileged group, that group tends to form a huge part of their perceived identity (not necessarily their actual identity, how society perceives them). In media, characters in a non-privileged group tend to be less common, so that, for example, when the gay character needlessly hits on other straight male characters, there aren't any other gay characters around to contradict that stereotype. This is significantly more problematic for characters with small parts, as the negative perception caused by a stereotype can be mitigated by giving a character depth and thus other facets to their personality. But all too often, that one stereotype becomes a non-privileged character's main character trait, and without other characters in the same group to counteract that, we wind up with the media making consistent negative reinforcement of stereotypes of certain non-privileged groups.
As we've said before, this is the problem with Derpy: She's entirely flat, except for her lazy eye, clumsiness, and voice. The way those played together gave the strong impression of a developmentally disabled character, and reinforcing the idea that someone with a lazy eye tends to have other problems as well, in addition to the general problem of "hey kids, it's okay to laugh at someone because of their disability!" and frankly, I expected better from Studio B.
Now, the way you guys are showing your privilege is because you can dismiss the problems with Derpy as "hey, she's only one character, and she didn't offend me," which is true but doesn't stop her from perpetuating those problems. The other dismissal is "but look at all the other times when it's been okay," which is worse, because most of those times it wasn't okay and it was just that nobody brought it up loudly enough. As members of a privileged class, you get the nice advantage of always having a counter-example to combat negative stereotypes, as well as never having to face those negative stereotypes when dealing with other people.
There's a second debate to be had here about the place of negative stereotypes in humor, but I'll make that wall of text after lunch.
tl;dr: hey FRCF your privilege is showing reeeeal bad.
In addition, you freely admit you are close minded and absolutely 100% unwilling to change your view. Not so for me! I have and will gladly change my view in the face of evidence. That's why I never run away from a debate ever. Either I am right or the other person is going to provide some evidence allowing me to change from being wrong to more right. If you run away without admitting you are wrong at all, the only result you have achieved is losing respect. If you get knocked out or throw in the towel, at least you keep your dignity. If you raise the championship belt over your head after running away, you're just a tool.
I have a new moral. Anyone who runs away from a debate is a coward, and they should be punished by being held down and being pooped on. You can't argue with me! That's just my world view, and there's no changing my mind. It's pointless to argue! I don't need to defend it.
That's as simple as it is. That's the worldview difference I'm talking about. I also know this is a pointless conversation, because everything I have ever seen about you indicates you consider yourself absolute arbiter of everything.
I'm Jewish, are you? Everything you have ever said in your life is offensive to me you anti-semite! You can't argue with me because I'm Jewish. Unless you are also Jewish you have no right to judge what is or is not anti-semitic. I'm Jewish, so I'm automatically correct. You are anti-semitic. Can't argue with that because you have the privilege of not being a Jew.
Let's say I said that you jewed them out of some money, and you said "Hey, man, what the fuck?"
How would you feel about me telling you that it wasn't offensive? I didn't mean it as a slur, it's just a word, grow thicker skin!
That's exactly what you're doing right now.
The conversation should continue here.
Sketchbook is right on one point. There is no argument to be had here. But not because of differing worldviews or because the pair of you are correct - It's because you are so far failing to argue. You're stating a conclusion, and shouting privilege at anyone who disagrees with you. Even the bulk of your attempt at argument is basically "Oh yeah? Well, look how easy you have it, being all privileged as you are. You can't say this isn't offensive, because you're so Privileged!"
To repeat - Good enough for SRS, not good enough for here. Argue properly, or GTFO.
I'm disappointed in the pair of you. You are better than this. But that's not what's happening here. What's happening here, essentially, is that you are - to borrow your own analogy, though it's not the best and doesn't work as an analogy to the situation - telling the black person they should be offended by something, and they're a bad person for not being offended. Or to make it a little more personal, it's like you're telling me I should find the documentary Crocodile Dundee offensive, and I'm a bad person because I'm not offended. EXTRA BAD because I find it funny. Which is essentially exactly what you're complaining about, except with the exact opposite sentiment.
Mood Whiplash in this video.
Yes, you explained privileged, good job, we really didn't know anything about it before because we're clearly stupid and horrible people because we're not offended. The problem is, you basically went "Here is what privileged is, By the way, I'm right."
What, you expect a pat on the head and a gold star just because you're offended by something? I fear you've clicked the wrong bookmark in your browser.
You want me to take your arguments seriously? Make a legitimate one. I don't think I'll be holding my breath while waiting for you to start, considering you're still congratulating yourself for leaping over the bar set at the SRS level, which is somewhere between being lower than a snake's dick, and buried underground.
Jesus christ, sketch, I'm starting to think you'd look at Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron, and consider it a victorious tale of a truly progressive society being publically attacked by a privileged bigot.
(´･_･`)
squee.
Squee indeed.