I'm sorry if I come off as that, considering I myself am in the lowest tax bracket and have had financial troubles in the near past so bad I almost declared bankruptcy, still living in my parent's home because I can't go to college and have to work a job I hate, so excuse me, princess if I sounded like I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth for sticking to my principles!
on top of that your sentence structure is atrocious
The problem is, they're not your principles. They're principles of people who want them to be your principles, despite the fact that they fly in the face of your best interests.
Let me put it to you another way; from the words you're saying, you're trying to imply that I, a "cisgendered, white, tall, straight male with good hair" (that is to say, the "typical majority") and, say, a black, transgendered, homosexual black woman have the exact same opportunities? That, on average, we're going to turn out the same?
You trotted out a few exceptional examples and acted like they're the norm. A great debating technique when you can get away with it.
No, you just sound like you're a fucking asshole. Or you're still in high school, though it's apparent that you're not.
I know I'm an asshole.
I'm sorry if I come off as that, considering I myself am in the lowest tax bracket and have had financial troubles in the near past so bad I almost declared bankruptcy, still living in my parent's home because I can't go to college and have to work a job I hate, so excuse me, princess if I sounded like I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth for sticking to my principles!
on top of that your sentence structure is atrocious
The problem is, they're not your principles. They're principles of people who want them to be your principles, despite the fact that they fly in the face of your best interests.
Let me put it to you another way; from the words you're saying, you're trying to imply that I, a "cisgendered, white, tall, straight male with good hair" (that is to say, the "typical majority") and, say, a black, transgendered, homosexual black woman have the exact same opportunities? That, on average, we're going to turn out the same?
You trotted out a few exceptional examples and acted like they're the norm. A great debating technique when you can get away with it.
I point out the exceptions because I firmly believe they should be more of the norm. As I said, the prevailing idea in the black transgendered population is that they have no mobility whatsoever, so why try? It is easy to think that, and stew in your hatred of the "rich whitey" who got all the breaks while you're stuck in a ghetto working at a 7-11. I myself have to fight the urge to say "fuck it" punch my boss and go on welfare, because I want to make something of my life, having wasted my childhood and early adult life, and squandered the opportunities my parents gave me. I believe opportunity takes work. Someone can hand you a hammer and some lumber, but you gotta build that house.
Or you're still in high school, though it's apparent that you're not.
Do we really sound that stupid to you? I mean, some of my friends have pretty odd political views, but they tend to be Marxists and Anarchists, not Social Darwinists.
Or you're still in high school, though it's apparent that you're not.
Do we really sound that stupid to you? I mean, some of my friends have pretty odd political views, but they tend to be Marxists and Anarchists, not Social Darwinists.
I have a distinct feeling I do come across as being in high school.
Or you're still in high school, though it's apparent that you're not.
Do we really sound that stupid to you? I mean, some of my friends have pretty odd political views, but they tend to be Marxists and Anarchists, not Social Darwinists.
Name a single person from the forum who's met you and been completely unsurprised that you're in high school.
Or you're still in high school, though it's apparent that you're not.
Do we really sound that stupid to you? I mean, some of my friends have pretty odd political views, but they tend to be Marxists and Anarchists, not Social Darwinists.
Not all high schoolers, but libertarianism in people tends to drop off precipitously following about a year of college. Except (from my observations) among some engineers, where it only drops off gradually.
Or you're still in high school, though it's apparent that you're not.
Do we really sound that stupid to you? I mean, some of my friends have pretty odd political views, but they tend to be Marxists and Anarchists, not Social Darwinists.
Not all high schoolers, but libertarianism in people tends to drop off precipitously following about a year of college. Except (from my observations) among some engineers, where it only drops off gradually.
Well there's my problem then, I only got a year of college at probably a more conservative school (but that'd be like comparing violet to red on the whole EM spectrum.)
Anyways, back to the argument, where you have as usual been missing the point entirely. While being successful almost always takes work (unless your parents are as rich as, say, the Romneys), you also need opportunities, and you need to be able to take risks. Opportunities are much easier to come by if your parents are friends with the right people, or you go to a private college with wealthy alumni who you can connect with. But also, if you want to found a business, it's much easier if you have some amount of assets and a decent credit rating for getting the loan. But more importantly, you need to invest a lot of work in the business before you can start making money from it, and that's much, much easier to do if you have something (or someone) to support you while you build it, because you can't easily form a business while you have to work full-time at the 7-11 just to eat. Moreover, it's so much easier when your parents are rich and can support you if you fail, which makes it actually possible to start a risky venture because you don't have to worry about literally starving if you fail.
But it's emphatically not about saying "oh, if you're underprivileged you just shouldn't try," because there is not a single person who actually thinks that. It's about correcting for the system, and saying "hey, now that we've made these corrections you can actually have a decent chance of doing what you've always wanted to do with your life."
I could believe it from the politicians if they would put it like that, Linkigi. One thing is getting investors, which can wrap back around to the malaise felt in the underprivileged because they feel nobody will like their idea enough to contribute enough money, or they feel the rich don't want them to rise up, or whatever. The other is government assistance with starting a business, which isn't inherently bad but can lead to situations like Solendra.
Additionally (source): - Your skin color and gender do not make you the enemy; that is not the argument being made. You are in a unique position to acknowledge and challenge your privilege from a privileged standpoint. Guilt is not productive, but being receptive to questioning one’s own privilege is. - When people lash out about privilege, they are not lashing out at you personally or even privileged people in general, but at a societal hierarchy that favors people for aspects of themselves that they cannot control. You may feel personally attacked, but it is not the responsibility of random marginalized people to make you feel comfortable. Marginalized people are reduced to single characteristics and stereotypes all the time, and oftentimes are not going to have the patience to sugarcoat the situation for privileged people. - Pointing out that X are privileged in no way denies that bad things happen to X. Being privileged does not mean X are given everything in life for free; being privileged does not mean that X do not work hard, do not suffer.
I have all these things and now i have to move them into a well built insulated house with geothermal heating and UV filtered water!!!! Why sky wizard? Why have you cursed me so???????
Shouting Privilege is not an argumentative master stroke. It's not even an argument. It's a characteristic some people have, and using it as an Ad hominem attack is not only pointless, it's actually precisely contradictory to what you're trying to achieve.
Anyone who can't help themselves, I cordially invite you on behalf of the social justice movement to fuck right off, because you're not actually helping.
I add, as a seperate point -
The Social justice movement and Feminist movement have problems. Big Problems, ranging from open sexisim, to trans and homophobia from some, to puritanical perversion of a freedom-based movement by some(ie, the "Women should be free to choose as long as I like those choices" feminists, like Gail Dines), Blind idiocy and baseless ideological loyalty without a shred of thought, and more. For example, I know that a journo/writer down here is being attacked because she called out Germaine Greer on her bullshit. She's being attacked as anti-feminist, as a "Special Snowflake", "ignorant privileged white female" and so on.
Why? Oh, because she happened to call out a leader of the Feminist movement, when said leader not only made a variety of insulting and degrading comments based on gender about the prime minister, but also saying any women who need the morning after pill should be and deserve to be "Embarrassed and Ashamed", and advocating the legalization of Female Genital mutilation. I'm not even fucking kidding.
Why is she being attacked? Because of blind defense of a leader of the feminist movement, regardless of the horrible fucking things she was saying. Which is ludicrous stupidity, and frankly, if anyone deserves to be Embarrassed and Ashamed, it's the Knee-jerking Pseudo-social justice fuckwits attacking her for bloody rightfully calling out Greer.
Comments
Let me put it to you another way; from the words you're saying, you're trying to imply that I, a "cisgendered, white, tall, straight male with good hair" (that is to say, the "typical majority") and, say, a black, transgendered, homosexual black woman have the exact same opportunities? That, on average, we're going to turn out the same?
You trotted out a few exceptional examples and acted like they're the norm. A great debating technique when you can get away with it.
But it's emphatically not about saying "oh, if you're underprivileged you just shouldn't try," because there is not a single person who actually thinks that. It's about correcting for the system, and saying "hey, now that we've made these corrections you can actually have a decent chance of doing what you've always wanted to do with your life."
Now I'm leery of the Huffington Post, but that's on par with Todd Akin's comments and is a fine example of victim blaming.
1. In the game of life, SWM == easy mode
2&3. Two excellent privilege checklists
4. A few interesting statistics
5. An essay
Additionally (source):
- Your skin color and gender do not make you the enemy; that is not the argument being made. You are in a unique position to acknowledge and challenge your privilege from a privileged standpoint. Guilt is not productive, but being receptive to questioning one’s own privilege is.
- When people lash out about privilege, they are not lashing out at you personally or even privileged people in general, but at a societal hierarchy that favors people for aspects of themselves that they cannot control. You may feel personally attacked, but it is not the responsibility of random marginalized people to make you feel comfortable. Marginalized people are reduced to single characteristics and stereotypes all the time, and oftentimes are not going to have the patience to sugarcoat the situation for privileged people.
- Pointing out that X are privileged in no way denies that bad things happen to X. Being privileged does not mean X are given everything in life for free; being privileged does not mean that X do not work hard, do not suffer.
Shouting Privilege is not an argumentative master stroke. It's not even an argument. It's a characteristic some people have, and using it as an Ad hominem attack is not only pointless, it's actually precisely contradictory to what you're trying to achieve.
Anyone who can't help themselves, I cordially invite you on behalf of the social justice movement to fuck right off, because you're not actually helping.
I add, as a seperate point -
The Social justice movement and Feminist movement have problems. Big Problems, ranging from open sexisim, to trans and homophobia from some, to puritanical perversion of a freedom-based movement by some(ie, the "Women should be free to choose as long as I like those choices" feminists, like Gail Dines), Blind idiocy and baseless ideological loyalty without a shred of thought, and more. For example, I know that a journo/writer down here is being attacked because she called out Germaine Greer on her bullshit. She's being attacked as anti-feminist, as a "Special Snowflake", "ignorant privileged white female" and so on.
Why? Oh, because she happened to call out a leader of the Feminist movement, when said leader not only made a variety of insulting and degrading comments based on gender about the prime minister, but also saying any women who need the morning after pill should be and deserve to be "Embarrassed and Ashamed", and advocating the legalization of Female Genital mutilation. I'm not even fucking kidding.
Why is she being attacked? Because of blind defense of a leader of the feminist movement, regardless of the horrible fucking things she was saying. Which is ludicrous stupidity, and frankly, if anyone deserves to be Embarrassed and Ashamed, it's the Knee-jerking Pseudo-social justice fuckwits attacking her for bloody rightfully calling out Greer.
Also, click through to see the comments. They're totally worth it.
Also, does this mean Nuri got a high-powered law job to fund the construction of the matrimonial mead hall?