|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jul 28, 2017 16:58:27 GMT
In a perfect world, it wouldn't be. Rights and societal status would be more uniform.
In reality, however, it's far far from "the norm". I suspect if you were on the bottom end of the societal ladder you'd find that status, for you an everyday normality, quite special indeed. The fact that it IS special, in that sense, is precisely why the conversation exists.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 28, 2017 17:07:06 GMT
In a perfect world, it wouldn't be. Rights and societal status would be more uniform. In reality, however, it's far far from "the norm". I suspect if you were on the bottom end of the societal ladder you'd find that status, for you an everyday normality, quite special indeed. The fact that it IS special, in that sense, is precisely why the conversation exists. Do you believe Asian Privilege exists in the US? How about Female Privilege?
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jul 28, 2017 17:18:55 GMT
In a perfect world, it wouldn't be. Rights and societal status would be more uniform. In reality, however, it's far far from "the norm". I suspect if you were on the bottom end of the societal ladder you'd find that status, for you an everyday normality, quite special indeed. The fact that it IS special, in that sense, is precisely why the conversation exists. Do you believe Asian Privilege exists in the US? How about Female Privilege? If you apply the word "privilege" to connote any form of differential treatment in any category ( for instance, in employment, you can make the case that women are exposed to less risky jobs, although you'd need to acknowledge that this is founded on their previously having been banned from working them and their presence in those fields has grown since they gained the option). But generally, in the US, the context of the term addresses large scale disparity in societal status and treatment across the board. We had this conversation on the old forum if I recall. I don't think we agree on this topic. Just from a historical perspective (I know you're not from the US and I'm speaking towards a US mindset) the whole notion that blacks here didn't even get the vote until '65 but there's no systemic disparity NOW just boggles my mind.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jul 28, 2017 17:31:30 GMT
In a perfect world, it wouldn't be. Rights and societal status would be more uniform. In reality, however, it's far far from "the norm". I suspect if you were on the bottom end of the societal ladder you'd find that status, for you an everyday normality, quite special indeed. The fact that it IS special, in that sense, is precisely why the conversation exists. This is one of the main problems that comes with this re-defining of words.... It's based on somebody's view... not based on how things really are... Hell... It's actually based on somebody's view of somebody's presumed view. Cine is a white guy telling you how black people might feel. Sure, a guy in a wheel chair might view walking as special.... but, generally, it's not really viewed as such... But, we now have a walking guy telling us that reality is defined by how he thinks the guy in the wheel chair might think. And if you don't check your "Walking Privilege" then you don't have concern for those who can't... ....And he doesn't care how people who can walk feel.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jul 28, 2017 17:32:06 GMT
You literally just analogized the notion of racial disparity using two car crash victims.
Seriously, man, you're not even capable of understanding the function of language. I just... I feel bad for you. Creating public appeals about being a "laughing stock", insisting analogies aren't actually analogous ... it's just pitiful.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jul 28, 2017 17:40:04 GMT
Do you believe Asian Privilege exists in the US? How about Female Privilege? Just from a historical perspective (I know you're not from the US and I'm speaking towards a US mindset) the whole notion that blacks here didn't even get the vote until '65 but there's no systemic disparity NOW just boggles my mind. Are you trying to speak for the whole US???
Once again... You choose a narrow view to define reality... where it's not really applicable.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jul 28, 2017 17:47:15 GMT
"Creating public appeal" You really are just a dumb c*nt. I'm not "insisting analogies aren't actually analogous ", dipsh*t.... Just that you missed the point of the analogy... Like you miss the point of most things... You focus on the wrong sh*t. And, as far as the analogy being the laughable train wreck that you think it is... So far, you're the only one who says it was. I trust your view as about as much as I trust a state fair carny.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jul 28, 2017 18:09:17 GMT
Dear lord... 1) Minorities are more than "black people" and... 2) There are REAMS of publications, studies on the disparities, and huge movements literally telling you and everyone else how those involved "feel", which you'd know if you actually had even the slightest inkling of what you're trying to argue about. Hell, a truckload were linked on the old forum. You're just hiding from information. I leave you to your car crash metaphors, discomfort with semantics and cringingly needy public appeal threads.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jul 28, 2017 18:19:20 GMT
Dear lord... 1) Minorities are more than "black people" and...2) There are REAMS of publications, studies on the disparities, and huge movements literally telling you and everyone else how those involved "feel", which you'd know if you actually had even the slightest inkling of what you're trying to argue about. Hell, a truckload were linked on the old forum. You're just hiding from information. I leave you to your car crash metaphors and discomfort with semantics. 1) Once again... Still kinda missing the point... I know, I know... You speak for Mexicans, too.
2) PREACH ON, WHITEY!! I know actual black people speaking on YouTube doesn't really counter the white guy on IMDBv2.0... But... Oh well. I know.. It was soooooo off base.. I have received soooo many dislikes from one person.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 29, 2017 0:57:33 GMT
Do you believe Asian Privilege exists in the US? How about Female Privilege? If you apply the word "privilege" to connote any form of differential treatment in any category ( for instance, in employment, you can make the case that women are exposed to less risky jobs, although you'd need to acknowledge that this is founded on their previously having been banned from working them and their presence in those fields has grown since they gained the option). But generally, in the US, the context of the term addresses large scale disparity in societal status and treatment across the board. We had this conversation on the old forum if I recall. I don't think we agree on this topic. Just from a historical perspective (I know you're not from the US and I'm speaking towards a US mindset) the whole notion that blacks here didn't even get the vote until '65 but there's no systemic disparity NOW just boggles my mind. Isn't it true that Asian Americans do better than any other demographic in terms of average earnings and education levels? Also aren't they less likely to be arrested?
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Jul 29, 2017 8:13:29 GMT
From my post "Now it is undeniable that in some circumstances men have advantages, the problem is that any example of this given ignores any situation where women have advantages and ignores the men who don't benefit." But why is "male privilege" the only one talked about? Yes, women had to fight for equality, just as men had to fight before that to achieve the freedoms we all now have. Does the term "Female privilege" exist? Of the things I listed as male disadvantages, they are verifiably true. Most of the "Male Privileges" are based on feelings. For example, the one about "feeling safe walking alone at night" Women may well feel more at risk, but they aren't, so what exactly are men supposed to do about it? You're a clever person, one of the ones I respect most, but even here you seem to feel compelled to defend the concept. Why is that? I'm a liberal, a true liberal, not one of the current crybabies who riot when they don't get their own way. This means I have to judge every individual based on that individual, so the concept of applying "privilege" to an entire demographic is alien and wrong. And making an argument about one group having advantages while ignoring their disadvantages is just dishonest. RE "from your post:" I think the gist of my post was that what you point out is not a problem. If there are situations where men have the advantage and these can be remedied socially, they should be; if there are situations where women have the advantage and these can be remedied socially, they should be the. The existence of either doesn't invalidate the other. It reminds me of arguments between lovers/spouses where one side will point out a fault of the other, and the other will point out a fault right back. The solution is that both should remedy the faults, not that one negates the other and should be ignored. If male privilege is more talked about I'm guessing it's because feminism has such strong academic support, and there's thus a longer tradition now of women recognizing areas where they've gotten the short-end of the stick. I'm honored that you respect me, but if I feel "compelled to defend the concept" it's only to the extent that I've outlined above: where there are social imbalances for certain groups, we should endeavor to right those imbalances. If you admit there are imbalances against women, then they should be remedied; if there are imbalances against men, they should also be remedied. What I dislike is the notion that when the former are mentioned someone feels compelled to mention the latter as typically a way of shutting down the conversation. It shouldn't be "our ills are worse than yours so shut about yours," it should be "we both have ills so let's try to fix them." You think Christianity is true because a lot of people have been believing it for a long time.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jul 29, 2017 8:41:01 GMT
RE "from your post:" I think the gist of my post was that what you point out is not a problem. If there are situations where men have the advantage and these can be remedied socially, they should be; if there are situations where women have the advantage and these can be remedied socially, they should be the. The existence of either doesn't invalidate the other. It reminds me of arguments between lovers/spouses where one side will point out a fault of the other, and the other will point out a fault right back. The solution is that both should remedy the faults, not that one negates the other and should be ignored. If male privilege is more talked about I'm guessing it's because feminism has such strong academic support, and there's thus a longer tradition now of women recognizing areas where they've gotten the short-end of the stick. I'm honored that you respect me, but if I feel "compelled to defend the concept" it's only to the extent that I've outlined above: where there are social imbalances for certain groups, we should endeavor to right those imbalances. If you admit there are imbalances against women, then they should be remedied; if there are imbalances against men, they should also be remedied. What I dislike is the notion that when the former are mentioned someone feels compelled to mention the latter as typically a way of shutting down the conversation. It shouldn't be "our ills are worse than yours so shut about yours," it should be "we both have ills so let's try to fix them." You think Christianity is true because a lot of people have been believing it for a long time. Yeah man, porkbelly skyscraper watershed tap dance.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jul 29, 2017 8:43:26 GMT
It's good to see that Youtube videos still trump academics.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jul 29, 2017 8:50:06 GMT
Responding to "countless studies have been linked..." with Youtube token vids feels like something I'd post while lampooning him. Missed my window I guess.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 29, 2017 8:51:42 GMT
It's good to see that Youtube videos still trump academics. Here, let me fix that for you. Fixed.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jul 29, 2017 8:53:46 GMT
It's good to see that Youtube videos still trump academics. Here, let me fix that for you. Fixed. Which of the ones discussed on the IMDB of yore do you think were... er... "gangster"? And why?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 29, 2017 9:01:03 GMT
Here, let me fix that for you. Fixed. Which of the ones discussed on the IMDB of yore do you think were... er... "gangster"? And why? There were several, but "global warming" holds a special place in my heart because of the well-funded and so-called scientific evidence provided by "progressive" Internet talking heads every time the topic came up. Hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 29, 2017 9:51:33 GMT
Not read the entire thread yet, but one point is worth commenting on. Work comfortably (or walk down a public street) without the fear of sexual harassment Walk alone at night without the fear of being raped or otherwise harmed So now lets look at a few areas where women have it better. Men are more likely to be murdered Men are more likely to be assaulted Men are more likely to be robbed Men make up the vast majority of workplace deaths. These areas where men have it worse are not examples of female privilege, they are a consequence of male privilege. In fact, those listed above. When women are expected or forced to stay home and not get a job, then of course they will be less likely to be mugged or murdered by strangers, or have workplace deaths. If you have the freedom to do something, and this something comes with risks: Is not being exposed to these risks a privilege of those who are denied the freedom to do that something? I say no.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jul 29, 2017 10:03:26 GMT
It's good to see that Youtube videos still trump academics. Here, let me fix that for you. Fixed. Yeah, I'm sure you've already forgotten that i proved your "gangster science" bullshit was nothing but the impotent ramblings of an imbecile.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 29, 2017 10:13:44 GMT
Here, let me fix that for you. Fixed. Yeah, I'm sure you've already forgotten that i proved your "gangster science" bullshit was nothing but the impotent ramblings of an imbecile. The only thing that you have proved is that you have proved nothing. And perhaps you shouldn't try to fill Cinemachinery's shoes, especially when you can't even fill your own.
|
|