My privilege as a straight, white, cisgender, middle class thin male

[Davka]

There's another way to look at this: If you had the choice to be born into any group you chose, what would you go for?

Most people would agree that White is a good idea, it's just easier.
American? Yeah, or maybe Canadian if you don't mind the cold.
Wealthy? No-brainer. Middle-class at the very least.
Cisgendered? Well, duh! Who wouldn't want to be comfortable in their own skin?
Straight? Again, it's just easier.
Thin? Another no-brainer.
Male? Might get a little pushback on this, but seriously - do you really want to deal with pregnancy and menstrual periods? Not to mention all the societal crap.

Only by growing dreads and playing street music do I have the tiniest shot at getting my fair share of abuse.

[Roxy904]

The only reason privilege are ever mentioned is to guilt trip people and make them feel bad and make the accuser seem like they know what they are talking about. You can't change your privlildges and bringing them up adds nothing to the conversation but to discredit you and imply that your opinion isn't as valid. You're a man, so you can't talk about abortion. You're white, so you can't talk about racism. You're straight, so you can't talk about homosexuality. You're cis so you can't talk about gender disphoria. You're rich so you can't talk about poverty.

I have no problem with most of your statement, but I would like to make a point. You can talk about something, even if you are not what you're talking about. However, if you're white, you haven't experienced racial discrimination against a black person, even if you have witnessed discrimination or if you haven't. Example: if someone's purse had been stolen, and you had witnessesed it happen, that doesn't mean you know what it feels like to have your purse stolen. I hope I've made sense.

[Dystopia]

There's another way to look at this: If you had the choice to be born into any group you chose, what would you go for?

Most people would agree that White is a good idea, it's just easier.
American? Yeah, or maybe Canadian if you don't mind the cold.
Wealthy? No-brainer. Middle-class at the very least.
Cisgendered? Well, duh! Who wouldn't want to be comfortable in their own skin?
Straight? Again, it's just easier.
Thin? Another no-brainer.
Male? Might get a little pushback on this, but seriously - do you really want to deal with pregnancy and menstrual periods? Not to mention all the societal crap.

Only by growing dreads and playing street music do I have the tiniest shot at getting my fair share of abuse.

This is a very good point. Regarding male I'd actually chose it because on average I'll make more money and because my chances of getting raped or suffering domestic violence outside of jail are lower. And gender double standards.

But very good point, I had never thought of it like this.

---

The only reason privilege are ever mentioned is to guilt trip people and make them feel bad and make the accuser seem like they know what they are talking about. You can't change your privlildges and bringing them up adds nothing to the conversation but to discredit you and imply that your opinion isn't as valid. You're a man, so you can't talk about abortion. You're white, so you can't talk about racism. You're straight, so you can't talk about homosexuality. You're cis so you can't talk about gender disphoria. You're rich so you can't talk about poverty.

I have no problem with most of your statement, but I would like to make a point. You can talk about something, even if you are not what you're talking about. However, if you're white, you haven't experienced racial discrimination against a black person, even if you have witnessed discrimination or if you haven't. Example: if someone's purse had been stolen, and you had witnessesed it happen, that doesn't mean you know what it feels like to have your purse stolen. I hope I've made sense.

The problem with the original quote is that it says that privilege is used to make the other part feel guilty when it's not. Simply saying "check your privilege" is a derail technique, but explaining why a certain group has privilege and providing evidence, like i.e. the number of black people shot by the police while unarmed, is perfectly valid. People need to be open to talk about privilege and not make assumptions. And privilege can be changed, it just takes a little effort specially from those who have it.

[Jackalope]

The only reason privilege are ever mentioned is to guilt trip people and make them feel bad and make the accuser seem like they know what they are talking about. You can't change your privlildges and bringing them up adds nothing to the conversation but to discredit you and imply that your opinion isn't as valid. You're a man, so you can't talk about abortion. You're white, so you can't talk about racism. You're straight, so you can't talk about homosexuality. You're cis so you can't talk about gender disphoria. You're rich so you can't talk about poverty.

I have no problem with most of your statement, but I would like to make a point. You can talk about something, even if you are not what you're talking about. However, if you're white, you haven't experienced racial discrimination against a black person, even if you have witnessed discrimination or if you haven't. Example: if someone's purse had been stolen, and you had witnessesed it happen, that doesn't mean you know what it feels like to have your purse stolen. I hope I've made sense.

You make a good point - but what we all are capable of doing is applying our sense of empathy. As a white male, I have not experienced the same discrimination that a black man may have experienced, but I do know what it feels like to be unfairly characterized for other reasons. It's not the same, of course.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think the idea that privileged people are always unaware of their privilege is wrong. The fact is "white guilt" is a well-known term in our society precisely because many of us honkies understand that we have it easier, and behave in a manner whereby we bend over backwards to demonstrate our good will. And if we don't do so, we will get called racist -- that's one of our little privileges, y'know? "He's white, he's racist" -- if I had a dime for the many times I've had that played out on me, I could go down to part-time and write my Great American Novel.

I also think that assuming a person is privileged based on their skin color is likely to get you in hot water, because you don't know what kind of upbringing they've had, don't know the difficulties they've had to cope with, and are assuming that they have benefited from the one thing you can easily see -- skin color -- while you cannot see all the myriad bad shit that can happen to a person no matter what color they are.

[Dystopia]

I think the idea that privileged people are always unaware of their privilege is wrong. The fact is "white guilt" is a well-known term in our society precisely because many of us honkies understand that we have it easier, and behave in a manner whereby we bend over backwards to demonstrate our good will. And if we don't do so, we will get called racist -- that's one of our little privileges, y'know? "He's white, he's racist" -- if I had a dime for the many times I've had that played out on me, I could go down to part-time and write my Great American Novel.

I don't support white guilt because I don't promote it or engage in actions that allow for discrimination of non-white people. I also dislike the racist card, but it's not about that - I'm not saying all social justice advocates propose it correctly.

I also think that assuming a person is privileged based on their skin color is likely to get you in hot water, because you don't know what kind of upbringing they've had, don't know the difficulties they've had to cope with, and are assuming that they have benefited from the one thing you can easily see -- skin color -- while you cannot see all the myriad bad shit that can happen to a person no matter what color they are.

No, but it's possible to objectively measure the quality of life of a certain group of people and observe social standards and reactions, making a judgement about the probability of the unknown average white compared to the person of colour having certain benefits. That's where I'm going to, I'm not pointing fingers to specific people or individuals I know, though I've personally witnessed differences in treatment of people because of factors I mentioned in the OP

[paulpablo]

I don't have to take into consideration demographics or statistics to see that some of your first statements were wrong.

You said JUST because you're white you won't be identified by your race.
Not that you will be identified less than other races, just that you WON'T be.

To sum it up as a formula
You + being born white within western civilization = not being identified by your race.

So you say you don't care about my personal experiences but my personal experiences proves your statement wrong.

I was born white, in western civilization, and I've been in situations where I've been identified by my race, and I know of other white, straight, CIS gender, middleclass males who have been through the same experience. So if you personally have never been identified by your race, it MUST be due to other factors other than you just being born white.
It's that simple.

Your statement can be seen as being similar to a person, let's call them subject A saying
"I'm 6ft tall and 200 pounds and JUST because of this fact I won't get bullied."

But then subject B says to them

"I'm six ft tall and 200 pounds and I get bullied because I live around people who are taller and bigger than me, and people who just use knifes and weapons so it isn't just because of your height and weight, so your statement is incorrect, it must be something else, maybe the people you live around or your personality."

Then subject A responds back by saying
"But look at the statistics and the demographics, I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, NOT LISTENING!"

[CapnAwesome]

There's another way to look at this: If you had the choice to be born into any group you chose, what would you go for?

Most people would agree that White is a good idea, it's just easier.
American? Yeah, or maybe Canadian if you don't mind the cold.
Wealthy? No-brainer. Middle-class at the very least.
Cisgendered? Well, duh! Who wouldn't want to be comfortable in their own skin?
Straight? Again, it's just easier.
Thin? Another no-brainer.
Male? Might get a little pushback on this, but seriously - do you really want to deal with pregnancy and menstrual periods? Not to mention all the societal crap.

Only by growing dreads and playing street music do I have the tiniest shot at getting my fair share of abuse.

I don't know. All those things are more geared towards the way to be most comfortable in life. Not everyone's goal in life is to be comfortable. I'd much rather be interesting

[Dystopia]

I don't have to take into consideration demographics or statistics to see that some of your first statements were wrong.

Yes you do because I'm basing myself on probability, not absolute statements (100% constant)

You said JUST because you're white you won't be identified by your race.
Not that you will be identified less than other races, just that you WON'T be.

I meant most likely. And that's a fact. I will only be identified as white in a place full of people of colour, in all other places which are the majority the situations reverses

To sum it up as a formula
You + being born white within western civilization = not being identified by your race.

Most likely not - Individual x + being born black = Frequently identified and notice because of race

So you say you don't care about my personal experiences but my personal experiences proves your statement wrong.

Personal experiences don't prove jackshit, just like a Christian who claims visions doesn't prove god. Your personal experiences proves that in some situations you lose benefits. But it doesn't disprove the general status quo

I was born white, in western civilization, and I've been in situations where I've been identified by my race, and I know of other white, straight, CIS gender, middleclass males who have been through the same experience. So if you personally have never been identified by your race, it MUST be due to other factors other than you just being born white.
It's that simple.

No, it's because I was born white and never had to live in a poor area populated by immigrants of other races - And being white makes you more likely to not live in those areas because a white family's income is on average larger

Your statement can be seen as being similar to a person, let's call them subject A saying
"I'm 6ft tall and 200 pounds and JUST because of this fact I won't get bullied."

Bullies don't target larger intimidating targets unless they're vastly superior in numbers. So yeah. But bully is not related to this, bully is not something you're born wih

"I'm six ft tall and 200 pounds and I get bullied because I live around people who are taller and bigger than me, and people who just use knifes and weapons so it isn't just because of your height and weight, so your statement is incorrect, it must be something else, maybe the people you live around or your personality."

The probability of having a large number of people living around someone with more than 6ft (I'm guessing it's 1.85m+) is highly unlikely so it's not likely to happen compared to someone smaller. And even so, your analogy is fallacious, bullying has nothing to do with this.

Then subject A responds back by saying
"But look at the statistics and the demographics, I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, NOT LISTENING!"

You are not understanding - I'm not denying that it's impossible, it's very possible, if I went to Africa I'd probably be identified because I'm white, but I'm stating that it's much less likely in western societies due to the number of black and white people and the larger income and higher social position (jobs, etc.) of white people. Understand now? This is about probabilities, not absolute statements. My phrases in the OP were categorical and meant to cause impact, I didn't remember to put that "This doesn't apply by 100% to all people because in some situations you can lose your benefits" - Apologies for not making myself clear.

[paulpablo]

Oh ok well if the statements you made aren't actually absolute statements then yeh the thread makes total and complete sense and everything's fine.

But I did tell you several days ago that the whole problem with the statements made is that they're over simplified and that's why they aren't correct then and you still continued to try and argue against what I was saying rather than just agreeing.

If you're stuck on trying to decide which to do, Make an impact vs Making sense, you should go with making sense. It will save you a hell of a lot of time.