Page 1 of 1
the notion of privilege
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2026 7:38 am
by 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.
Re: the notion of privilege
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2026 8:28 am
by FlashDangerpants
Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 7:38 am
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)
Re: the notion of privilege
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2026 11:12 am
by 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.
Re: the notion of privilege
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2026 12:51 pm
by phyllo
Life is unfair and attempts to make it fair are also unfair.
Re: the notion of privilege
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2026 3:07 pm
by Impenitent
my nephew showed his llama at the fair but didn't get a ribbon
-Imp
Re: the notion of privilege
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2026 2:30 pm
by MikeNovack
mickthinks wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 11:12 am
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".
Re: the notion of privilege
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2026 4:33 am
by Cammy K
Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 7:38 am
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.
Re: the notion of privilege
Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2026 9:27 am
by Radagast
Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 7:38 am
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.
Re: the notion of privilege
Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2026 5:09 pm
by MikeNovack
Radagast wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2026 9:27 am
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.
Re: the notion of privilege
Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2026 7:10 am
by 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: the notion of privilege
Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2026 11:20 am
by Walker
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2026 7:10 am
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.
Re: the notion of privilege
Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2026 1:51 pm
by Gary Childress
Walker wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2026 11:20 am
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2026 7:10 am
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?