the notion of privilege

[Advocate]

It doesn't matter whether rich or poor, male or female, black or white; a person who is comfortable in the position they're in is a privileged person.

[FlashDangerpants]

It doesn't matter whether rich or poor, male or female, black or white; a person who is comfortable in the position they're in is a privileged person.

Words that could only possibly be written by an able-bodied white guy who still has his hair (but not red hair, obviously, this level of audacity is not available to soulless ginger bastards)

[mickthinks]

I am inclined to agree with Advocate here. But the point I think he may be missing is that there is more than one notion of privilege, and the one to which he is referring is far from being the notion of privilege.

[phyllo]

Life is unfair and attempts to make it fair are also unfair.

[Impenitent]

my nephew showed his llama at the fair but didn't get a ribbon

-Imp

[MikeNovack]

I am inclined to agree with Advocate here. But the point I think he may be missing is that there is more than one notion of privilege, and the one to which he is referring is far from being the notion of privilege.

Yes, I was expecting a very different discussion abut how the term "privilege" is currently used to cover "not being deprived of something" when others are being deprived of that << where that something all should have >> In other words, now often used to describe "A disadvantaged relative to B" with "B privileged over A".

[Cammy K]

It doesn't matter whether rich or poor, male or female, black or white; a person who is comfortable in the position they're in is a privileged person.

Privilege comes with breathing as a cash money being. It is God-given, as what comes from that privilege. It is privilege to luxury, to posh and granduer. There is a meeting of minds (yours and God's), and an entertainment of bliss.

Adi Shankara talked about the bliss of the Self. All pleasure comes from what is called the Self, Nirguna Brahman. The Self stems from the anus, as Sat Chit Ananda. If you've heard this term, you may not know that the Sat and Chit are descriptive of Ananda rather than things in themselves. Someone once described the term as "Eternal Conscious Bliss." As bliss, it is natually appropriate to bestow the privilege to luxury. We have Holy Origin.

[Radagast]

It doesn't matter whether rich or poor, male or female, black or white; a person who is comfortable in the position they're in is a privileged person.

A few times long ago I came across a saying (or aphorism? not sure what to call it) in print from a conservative columnist: "Everyone in their place, and a place for everyone."

Possibly it implies a social hierarchy which cares for everyone at all levels. I think it might have connected with the paternalism of the "One Nation" wing of the Conservative Party, back in the pre-Thatcher days.

However, if you think about it, while the saying sounds nice it is actually pretty horrible. It implies that not only will some people be at the bottom of a social hierarchy (and having some kind of hierarchy seems universal to human societies) but that the people at the bottom will not be allowed to raise their status by either their individual or their collective efforts.

[MikeNovack]

A few times long ago I came across a saying (or aphorism? not sure what to call it) in print from a conservative columnist: "Everyone in their place, and a place for everyone."

Possibly it implies a social hierarchy which cares for everyone at all levels. I think it might have connected with the paternalism of the "One Nation" wing of the Conservative Party, back in the pre-Thatcher days.

However, if you think about it, while the saying sounds nice it is actually pretty horrible. It implies that not only will some people be at the bottom of a social hierarchy (and having some kind of hierarchy seems universal to human societies) but that the people at the bottom will not be allowed to raise their status by either their individual or their collective efforts.

PLUS ----- You have (correctly) identified the problem even WHEN this conservative vision is functioning properly. But in reality, the latter is rarely the case. In such hierarchical societies, usually those above do not fulfill their obligations to those below, but instead exploit them. Not always, but the hierarchical societies that operate in accordance with the theory are very rare.

[Gary Childress]

Words can be daggers that enforce a hierarchy. But we live in America "the land of opportunity". There's not supposed to be a hierarchy here, at least in theory.

Hierarchy requires a 'pecking order'. Where mockery is the weapon of the privileged, solemnity becomes the defense of the less privileged.

[Walker]

Words can be daggers that enforce a hierarchy. But we live in America "the land of opportunity". There's not supposed to be a hierarchy here, at least in theory.

Hierarchy requires a 'pecking order'. Where mockery is the weapon of the privileged, solemnity becomes the defense of the less privileged.

Re: hierarchy.

Egalitarianism
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egalitarianism/

At the most fundamental level, egalitarianism is grounded in moral equality, also known as basic equality—the idea that humans have equal moral worth and all count the same. One prominent formulation of basic equality is articulated in the American Declaration of Independence, which holds as self-evidently true “that all men are created equal” (US 1776). Contemporary egalitarians take for granted a version of this premise. They mostly see their task, not as proving that we are equals, but as theorizing what it means to treat persons as such, given that we are equals.

Note: “grounded in moral equality” … rather than grounded in materialistic equality.

[Gary Childress]

Words can be daggers that enforce a hierarchy. But we live in America "the land of opportunity". There's not supposed to be a hierarchy here, at least in theory.

Hierarchy requires a 'pecking order'. Where mockery is the weapon of the privileged, solemnity becomes the defense of the less privileged.

Re: hierarchy.

Egalitarianism
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egalitarianism/

At the most fundamental level, egalitarianism is grounded in moral equality, also known as basic equality—the idea that humans have equal moral worth and all count the same. One prominent formulation of basic equality is articulated in the American Declaration of Independence, which holds as self-evidently true “that all men are created equal” (US 1776). Contemporary egalitarians take for granted a version of this premise. They mostly see their task, not as proving that we are equals, but as theorizing what it means to treat persons as such, given that we are equals.

Note: “grounded in moral equality” … rather than grounded in materialistic equality.

Are people morally equal in a hierarchy? And if so, in what way? If not, then should there be a hierarchy? Or do human societies not have hierarchies?