Definition of privilege

[catherine]

We've had some hearty discussions about "white privilege" here, and I came across this article and definition of privilege which I think is relevant and very provocative:


My favorite definition of privilege is 'thinking something's not a problem because it's not a problem to you.'

Here's the article. (http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/my-favorite-definition-of-privilege/)I think it points to the fact that being fat and happy doesn't give us a pass in terms of trying to understand the plight of others and help however we can. Sometimes that "help" is simply being open to the possibility that your reality is not the only reality.

[Zoe Girl]

I like it, I know that just touching on privilege can be very uncomfortable. It is not about guilt about who we are but instead accepting another has a reality, and that parts of our reality are supported in media and socially in ways that another person does not have. What really helped me was taking a course online that showed how many forms of racism are institutional, they are systems that have been in place a long time and will be hard to break down.

We did a lot of work with this at our all-staff training yesterday. I work in a district that is 73% kids of color, yet our teaching staff is about 70% white. There was a large study done about the district and race 2 months ago and it came back really challenging. So we need to start looking deeply at this as a district, being open to having more voices at the table, being willing to hear different stories and respond to them.

[Alan]

What if, rather than focusing on one groups privilege, as if it were an anomaly, we focused on the dis-advantage of those perceived as non-privileged in an effort to change what we perceive as privilege to the norm. Would we lose the luxury of guilt in the process?

[catherine]

Would we lose the luxury of guilt in the process?

I don't feel guilty at all. I see it more of a luxury of gratitude rather than guilt. "To whom much is given much is expected."

[Zoe Girl]

What if, rather than focusing on one groups privilege, as if it were an anomaly, we focused on the dis-advantage of those perceived as non-privileged in an effort to change what we perceive as privilege to the norm. Would we lose the luxury of guilt in the process?

I agree with changing what is privilege to the norm, there is also with that a process of seeing things that are not part of our experience of the world much more often. So as the demographic of the country changes (the children in the US are getting to 50% minority and are the majority in many areas) we will need to adjust. We cannot make assumptions about each other, or expect that everyone will have the same experience. I am looking forward to more of that actually,

[LDAHL]

I can readily understand that some of us have problems that others do not. Some of us never had a particular problem. Others solved it for themselves. I don't think it requires a lot of wisdom or courage to agree that some of us, by luck or merit, have fewer problems than others. It's certainly childishly easy to understand "your reality is not the only reality". It can't be a groundbreaking revelation to anyone that self-centeredness exists.

What does the "white privilege" thing come to, apart from redrafting the golden rule using politically correct terminology? Easy to lecture others about. Difficult to apply in daily practice.

[jp1]

What if, rather than focusing on one groups privilege, as if it were an anomaly, we focused on the dis-advantage of those perceived as non-privileged in an effort to change what we perceive as privilege to the norm.

In a lot of cases that's exactly what people are doing. For instance I don't think BLM wants to up the number of white guys shot by cops to 3.49 times its current level (and 19 times the current level in Houston, Miami and Chicago), they want to reduce the number of black guys shot by cops to a level that's more in line with the white guy level.

[Ultralight]

What if, rather than focusing on one groups privilege, as if it were an anomaly, we focused on the dis-advantage of those perceived as non-privileged in an effort to change what we perceive as privilege to the norm. Would we lose the luxury of guilt in the process?

Do you think white privilege existed in 1955 in Mississippi?

[sweetana3]

Privilege was pointed out to me in a simple example:

A local food bank had all kinds of great food to give away. They could not understand why the "good" stuff was being ignored. Turns out when they really asked, the recipients did not have reliable refrigerators or stoves or the knowledge of how to cook the products. Some needed food they could carry and store on the counter, like peanut butter. Some could not read and products that required following instructions were beyond them. Some did not know how to cook rice or beans because no one had ever shown them.

Many who donated and worked at the food bank had to be taught this about populations and to not assume that everyone knows the same information or has a similar housing situation.

[Ultralight]

What if, rather than focusing on one groups privilege, as if it were an anomaly, we focused on the dis-advantage of those perceived as non-privileged in an effort to change what we perceive as privilege to the norm. Would we lose the luxury of guilt in the process?

Can you clarify?

[Alan]

Can you clarify?
Sure.

It's popular these days to talk about privilege in terms of race, for it seems to only be available to white people, and it seems to me that the very idea of privilege implies that it is something above the norm and the only path to parity is to diminish that status. I think it would be more productive to elevate the norm rather than diminish it, raise up the under-privileged and establish a new norm.

I also cynically believe that many who prefer to focus on the idea of white privilege rather than other's empowerment do so in order to feel better about themselves, in some cases it's almost like "I know I'm better than you but I feel sooooo bad about it, doesn't that make me a wonderful person?"

I think we'd be better off focusing on dis-enfranchisement. It would be much more productive.

[ctg492]

There is a line from a song, "Got me Feeling guilty for being white".
Sometimes that is what some of this talk sounds like.

[Zoe Girl]

I did a wonderful privilege exercise on a retreat weekend for mindfulness teachers. Since we would be teaching a variety of people it was important to talk about what it means. What I loved about this was there were many categories and ways to describe privilege of socio-economic class, gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, country of birth, etc. It is more complicated than simply race, even though unfortunately race can be the first thing we see.

Some of the economic ones were eye opening, if you have a job where your shift changes often or you are not guaranteed a certain number of hours that is recognized compared to a regular hours job that you can plan childcare and bills around. Another for me was religion, I go along with the Christian holidays because you can hardly get out of it but I am Buddhist in an Orthodox Jewish neighborhood. It is more invisible, no one is going to notice these things by looking at you however it does have an affect on what you are able to take advantage of.

[iris lilies]

...Another for me was religion, I go along with the Christian holidays because you can hardly get out of it but I am Buddhist in an Orthodox Jewish neighborhood. It is more invisible, no one is going to notice these things by looking at you however it does have an affect on what you are able to take advantage of.

what does this mean?Christians have less privelege than non- Christians?

I often think that around Christian holidays when we are off work, and they have to go to church and I get to go out for Chinese food and to a movie.

[printslicker]

In a common definition, I understand that a "Privilege" is a good grant or a benefit given to an individual to his or her advantage.

[jp1]

Since I'm not running for president nor do I live in the Deep South I don't find my non Christianity to be much of a hindrance. Although I do wish Christians would only play their Christmas music in the privacy of their homes and churches instead of forcing it on the rest of us relentlessly for months leading up day... :-)

[sweetana3]

I suspect more than would even admit it start to hate the materialistic run up to the Christmas season. So much has been lost.

[Miss Cellane]

Since I'm not running for president nor do I live in the Deep South I don't find my non Christianity to be much of a hindrance. Although I do wish Christians would only play their Christmas music in the privacy of their homes and churches instead of forcing it on the rest of us relentlessly for months leading up day... :-)

So do many of us Christians. There's no need for the Christmas music and decorations to appear before Thanksgiving.

[catherine]

There is a line from a song, "Got me Feeling guilty for being white".
Sometimes that is what some of this talk sounds like.

Again, this is not about feeling guilty. It's not about taking away anyone's privilege.

[Zoe Girl]

what does this mean?Christians have less privelege than non- Christians?

I often think that around Christian holidays when we are off work, and they have to go to church and I get to go out for Chinese food and to a movie.

I think part of the exercise was realizing how much of a particular culture is portrayed in the media and how. So the relentless Christmas music is annoying, argh. Not necessarily about privilege. Having school programs around a religious holiday is a medium issue. I hear in the south they have afterschool programs that really should be in a church. It can also be that you make connections through a church and people help you get jobs through those connections. But getting your religious holidays off work without a problem is an actual thing. I think where I work I could ask for different days off for a holiday and it wouldn't be a problem. I am very open where I am at now about my practices, I share about as much as I hear other people share that they went to church. I read the environment, if co-workers have up religious symbols or quotes I may put up one thing of my own. I haven't had a problem where I am at now so I wouldn't count that personally but I have lived in places where it would not be okay at all.

[Ultralight]

Again, this is not about feeling guilty.

I disagree.


It's not about taking away anyone's privilege.

And I disagree again.

[Chicken lady]

two views of priveledge - one is that a right is something that you just have because you exist and it should not be taken away, but a priveledge is something you are given or earn and it can be taken away by the entity granting it.

or, a priveledge is something you have that not everybody has, so if we give it to everybody, we have in fact, effectively taken away your priveledge.

american culture does in fact, grant certain priveledges to those who are white, Christian, male, youngish, able bodied, straight, cisgender, English speaking, financially comfortable, born into certain families or locations, and/or willing to conform to cultural norms. Some of these are earned and others are given.

[catherine]

I disagree.



And I disagree again.

You feel we should feel guilty?

You feel we should dismantle privilege?

[Ultralight]

I am just being realistic. Some people, those who purposefully perpetuate and create an unjust system, should feel guilty.

And I think for privilege to be redistributed equally then some who have tons of it will have to give up some privileges.

[LDAHL]

And I think for privilege to be redistributed equally then some who have tons of it will have to give up some privileges.

How would you go about enforcing the "have to give up some" part?

[Ultralight]

How would you go about enforcing the "have to give up some" part?

Not sure. But the good news for you is that there will be no enforcement! :)

[LDAHL]

Not sure. But the good news for you is that there will be no enforcement! :)

Great. I'll be able to keep my ill-gotten pelf!

[peggy]

How would you go about enforcing the "have to give up some" part?

Off the top of my head I think religious privilege should be taken away. Hobby lobby shouldn't be allowed to ignore health care requirements for the women working for them. They are conducting business in the US. Benefiting from everything doing business in the US brings. They are not a church. No religious privilege for them. Same for pharmacist. They shouldn't be allowed to refuse to fill a birth control script just because they don't believe in it. Or the Kim Davis types. She should have been fired for refusing to do her job.
And any hospital receiving any public money shouldn't be allowed to refuse to properly treat based on their beliefs. Again, women who need a D&C or abortion to save their life.
*Do any of you notice how most religious privilege centers around subjugating and discriminating against women. It's always about controlling women and their bodies and behavior.

Another example of privilege (as defined by "As go I so goes the world" ) are the people who think that because there may be plenty of jobs/opportunity in their little corner of the world, this is true everywhere. This type of person, when told that certain jobs are hard to come by, glibbly replies, "Well, there are lots of these jobs here", or 'why don't they simply retrain/go back to college/move/whatever'. This same type often says the person in the not so great job should simply 'get a better job'.

Privilege says there is NO problem with states closing polling places/license offices/early voting/draconian voter ID in certain places. These people, OF COURSE, can simply drive to the polling place, get the required ID, or take off work to vote. And the college students can SIMPLY return to their home state to vote.

These are just a couple of examples i can think of right now. there are many many more out there. But of course 'Privilege' will deny them all because, well, privilege.>8)

[peggy]

We've had some hearty discussions about "white privilege" here, and I came across this article and definition of privilege which I think is relevant and very provocative:



Here's the article. (http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/my-favorite-definition-of-privilege/)I think it points to the fact that being fat and happy doesn't give us a pass in terms of trying to understand the plight of others and help however we can. Sometimes that "help" is simply being open to the possibility that your reality is not the only reality.

'thinking something's not a problem because it's not a problem for you"
I like this definition.

[bae]

'thinking something's not a problem because it's not a problem for you"
I like this definition.

It is remarkably clarifying, and may be a good way of communicating the concept to some folks.

[LDAHL]

Off the top of my head I think religious privilege should be taken away. Hobby lobby shouldn't be allowed to ignore health care requirements for the women working for them. They are conducting business in the US. Benefiting from everything doing business in the US brings. They are not a church. No religious privilege for them. Same for pharmacist. They shouldn't be allowed to refuse to fill a birth control script just because they don't believe in it. Or the Kim Davis types. She should have been fired for refusing to do her job.
And any hospital receiving any public money shouldn't be allowed to refuse to properly treat based on their beliefs. Again, women who need a D&C or abortion to save their life.
*Do any of you notice how most religious privilege centers around subjugating and discriminating against women. It's always about controlling women and their bodies and behavior.

Another example of privilege (as defined by "As go I so goes the world" ) are the people who think that because there may be plenty of jobs/opportunity in their little corner of the world, this is true everywhere. This type of person, when told that certain jobs are hard to come by, glibbly replies, "Well, there are lots of these jobs here", or 'why don't they simply retrain/go back to college/move/whatever'. This same type often says the person in the not so great job should simply 'get a better job'.

Privilege says there is NO problem with states closing polling places/license offices/early voting/draconian voter ID in certain places. These people, OF COURSE, can simply drive to the polling place, get the required ID, or take off work to vote. And the college students can SIMPLY return to their home state to vote.

These are just a couple of examples i can think of right now. there are many many more out there. But of course 'Privilege' will deny them all because, well, privilege.>8)

You've provided a list of people you dislike, but how would you proceed to extirpate their "privilege" in practical terms?

[Zoe Girl]

I think one thing that has attracted a lot more attention recently is the voting laws and new restrictions. I am happy to see that many judges are starting to say that the restrictions that are designed to combat 'voter fraud' are trying to solve a non-existent problem and therefore are striking them down. For example asking for certain documentation from Native Americans can exclude them from voting when they may not have the birth certificate or the reservation does not have the kind of address that meets the standards. Also saying that it is 'easy' to get an ID has been shown untrue for some groups. The locations to get an ID are not in every neighborhood accessible by bus. It is like a food desert, it is considered a food desert if you cannot get to a full grocery store with produce in under a mile or one bus ride. I think that is reasonable standard to be able to get an ID or vote as well.

The word 'just' is an indicator for me. When people say 'just' do something that tells me it is easy for them, they do not have a significant barrier. However they may not be aware of a barrier for another person. We can't know all the ways that something can be a barrier so I look for the times I am frustrated and want to say 'just do X' as a time I need to possibly learn more. I had staff this summer that I had to learn more about what their barriers may be. Meanwhile with my oldest daughter I get very frustrated because all the barriers she is erecting for herself are not ones she needs to have with the family support system around her. Meanwhile I know how maddening it was to hear 'just do X' from people who felt my life situation was excuses and not reasons.

[peggy]

You've provided a list of people you dislike, but how would you proceed to extirpate their "privilege" in practical terms?

Really? LOL How so? You asked for examples of 'privilege' and how they should be fixed. I told you. How about we just keep it real simple. No religious privilege. Tax the churches and don't allow businesses to enjoy special privilege in interpreting their responsibility to US workers in the US. Or, as in the case of that gov employee, decide which of her duties she would perform. In fact, don't let any business redefine US laws according to their personal beliefs. I may believe pot should be legal but that doesn't mean my employees can light a joint at work. I can also believe green eyed men shouldn't be paid anything over a dollar an hour, but I can't go to court to force that. And I'm guessing the courts wouldn't allow Jehovah Witness bosses to deny blood transfusions to their workers.

Hey, while we are on the subject of privilege, how about that 'rich oil company privilege' we seem to be granting that company who wishes to seize Native lands for their pipeline? Or the Koch Bros. privilege for their pipeline?

Want to see privilege in action? Just follow the golden rule. (He who has the gold, rules)

The golden rule kind of applies in these red states who are desperate to rig the election by draconian voter rules and gerrymandering. In these states, the privilege goes to the republicans.

[Alan]

Really? LOL How so? You asked for examples of 'privilege' and how they should be fixed. I told you. How about we just keep it real simple. No religious privilege. Tax the churches and don't allow businesses to enjoy special privilege in interpreting their responsibility to US workers in the US. Or, as in the case of that gov employee, decide which of her duties she would perform. In fact, don't let any business redefine US laws according to their personal beliefs. I may believe pot should be legal but that doesn't mean my employees can light a joint at work. I can also believe green eyed men shouldn't be paid anything over a dollar an hour, but I can't go to court to force that. And I'm guessing the courts wouldn't allow Jehovah Witness bosses to deny blood transfusions to their workers.

Hey, while we are on the subject of privilege, how about that 'rich oil company privilege' we seem to be granting that company who wishes to seize Native lands for their pipeline? Or the Koch Bros. privilege for their pipeline?

Want to see privilege in action? Just follow the golden rule. (He who has the gold, rules)

The golden rule kind of applies in these red states who are desperate to rig the election by draconian voter rules and gerrymandering. In these states, the privilege goes to the republicans.

Damned Republicans!

[LDAHL]

Really? LOL How so? You asked for examples of 'privilege' and how they should be fixed. I told you. How about we just keep it real simple. No religious privilege. Tax the churches and don't allow businesses to enjoy special privilege in interpreting their responsibility to US workers in the US. Or, as in the case of that gov employee, decide which of her duties she would perform. In fact, don't let any business redefine US laws according to their personal beliefs. I may believe pot should be legal but that doesn't mean my employees can light a joint at work. I can also believe green eyed men shouldn't be paid anything over a dollar an hour, but I can't go to court to force that. And I'm guessing the courts wouldn't allow Jehovah Witness bosses to deny blood transfusions to their workers.

Hey, while we are on the subject of privilege, how about that 'rich oil company privilege' we seem to be granting that company who wishes to seize Native lands for their pipeline? Or the Koch Bros. privilege for their pipeline?

Want to see privilege in action? Just follow the golden rule. (He who has the gold, rules)

The golden rule kind of applies in these red states who are desperate to rig the election by draconian voter rules and gerrymandering. In these states, the privilege goes to the republicans.

I agree with you that someone who takes a job as a municipal clerk should either administer the law as written or resign.

It's less clear to me that a Catholic institution, for instance, should be compelled to participate in practices it finds morally abhorrent at the whim of the political class. As government intrudes into more areas that were formally the preserve of private choice, we will see more conflicts like this. I don't see a Henry VIII style Act of Supremacy working well in the long run. You can try using the IRS to save America from the scourge of private charity and try to characterize the exercise of personal conscience a "privilege" (which I suppose, to an extent, it is). I think the result would be a sort of vapid statist monoculture.

[peggy]

I agree with you that someone who takes a job as a municipal clerk should either administer the law as written or resign.

It's less clear to me that a Catholic institution, for instance, should be compelled to participate in practices it finds morally abhorrent at the whim of the political class. As government intrudes into more areas that were formally the preserve of private choice, we will see more conflicts like this. I don't see a Henry VIII style Act of Supremacy working well in the long run. You can try using the IRS to save America from the scourge of private charity and try to characterize the exercise of personal conscience a "privilege" (which I suppose, to an extent, it is). I think the result would be a sort of vapid statist monoculture.

See here's where a lot of people have a problem. When you call it 'private choice' and 'personal conscience', it makes it sound so clean and wholesomely American. Who could possibly disagree with that? But what if my 'private choice' is to tell all black people to sit in the back of the bus, or my 'personal conscience' tells me to not serve Hispanics in my diner, or rent to them? My personal conscience says pregnant women shouldn't drink coffee so I'm not serving coffee to any pregnant people who come into that diner. And forget serving women who wear a hijab cause of my personal beliefs about that.
'Private choice' and 'personal conscience' are really just code words for being a d*ck, which is how most of those who enjoy, and/or expect special privilege appear to the rest of us. There will always be those who enjoy and expect special privilege (the Kim Davis types, or that woman who interviewed for the job bare headed then expected her employer to bend the dress code for her head scarf). I think they are just suddenly surprised that we are recognizing it and calling them out on it.

Now I don't have a single problem with charities. They have to file forms to be tax exempt, along with making their books 'open' so to speak. Churches do not. Churches are NOT the same as charities. I believe we should tax churches. (Gee, that money could go to, you know, feeding the poor and helping the indigent. Kind of what churches say they want to do, after all) But, individual churches could file for non profit status if in fact they do all that good doing. I don't mean the headquarters covering everyone, but individual churches. Then that small country church which really is helping their community would be covered.

[peggy]

Damned Republicans!

You're right about that Alan! Cause, you know, it isn't democrats/liberals who are trying to make it harder and harder to vote. We want everyone to vote. Everyone, even republicans. See, we are even angered by the republicans making it harder for older people to vote, and they vote overwhelmingly republican! (it must be the dementia);)

[Zoe Girl]

'Private choice' and 'personal conscience' are really just code words for being a d*ck, which is how most of those who enjoy, and/or expect special privilege appear to the rest of us. There will always be those who enjoy and expect special privilege (the Kim Davis types, or that woman who interviewed for the job bare headed then expected her employer to bend the dress code for her head scarf). I think they are just suddenly surprised that we are recognizing it and calling them out on it.


Thank you, a lot of PC language is just not being an a**. I am tired of putting that disclaimer that some people appear to go too far, the vast majority are just trying to be nice!

[LDAHL]

Well, this conversation has certainly descended below the belt.

[Gardenarian]

I'm rather admiring the French who are saying NO to burkinis, and insisting that if you want to be French, you have to adapt to French culture.

In may sound oppressive to Americans, but it may help prevent the ghetto-ization of immigrants and, in the long run, create more equality for everyone.

No accommodation for race or religion (including Christianity - no crosses or other religious objects allowed in school.)

I don't think we could have that kind of homogeneity in the U.S., and it would probably be pretty ugly if we did (as well as unconstitutional.) But France does have a unique culture and language, and they want to keep it that way.

(I'm aware of the prejudice against Algerians there, and I'm not saying it's utopia - just a different way of dealing with "otherness.")

[Mary B.]

I'm rather admiring the French who are saying NO to burkinis, and insisting that if you want to be French, you have to adapt to French culture.
...

No accommodation for race or religion (including Christianity - no crosses or other religious objects allowed in school.)



Lots of photos of French Christian nuns walking on beaches have appeared on my Facebook feed, complete with veils and mid-calf skirts. So some accommodation, anyway, since there so far have been no images of the police forcing them to disrobe.

[LDAHL]

I'm rather admiring the French who are saying NO to burkinis, and insisting that if you want to be French, you have to adapt to French culture.

In may sound oppressive to Americans, but it may help prevent the ghetto-ization of immigrants and, in the long run, create more equality for everyone.

No accommodation for race or religion (including Christianity - no crosses or other religious objects allowed in school.)

I don't think we could have that kind of homogeneity in the U.S., and it would probably be pretty ugly if we did (as well as unconstitutional.) But France does have a unique culture and language, and they want to keep it that way.

(I'm aware of the prejudice against Algerians there, and I'm not saying it's utopia - just a different way of dealing with "otherness.")

Why is it right for the French to enforce cultural conformity (in this case, beachwear) but not right for others?

[JaneV2.0]

So--no room for modesty on French beaches? I don't see anything democratic or fair about that.

[Zoe Girl]

If people want to dress a certain way that does not bother me. I grew up around Amish and that is pretty noticeable. Visiting Utah I get to see their unique style. And since I was a punk kid I believe in freedom of dressing yourself. However like free speech there is a certain level of responsibility you may need to take. I was followed in stores a lot and accused of cheating in school. If there is a reasonable cause to search someone wearing then they need to cooperate. Like free speech, if you say certain things in certain ways then you may be part of shouting fire in a theater and have responsibility for that.

[iris lilies]

Why is it right for the French to enforce cultural conformity (in this case, beachwear) but not right for others?
I agree, especially the idea of encourging less modesty. That seems silly.

[peggy]

I don't admire what the French are doing at all. This wasn't a place of business or school or shopping mall. It's a public beach for heavens sake. They may think they are 'freeing' these women from their restrictive religious doctrine, but they are being as oppressive as the religion.

All it really comes down to, in the end, is society/government/others telling women how to dress and/or behave.

OMG! Why is it ALWAYS the women who must bear the brunt of oppressive religion, government, and 'codes' of conduct. You want to talk privilege? How about the privilege of religion and governments/societies who think it's OK to force women to whatever doctrine they hold dear. In this country, some (see, I didn't name names) push this constantly with denying women's body autonomy, the most basic right EVERYONE should have.

[Alan]

All it really comes down to, in the end, is society/government/others telling women how to dress and/or behave.

Or ensuring there's no suicide bomb vest underneath, but no, that's probably not it.

[creaker]

I agree, especially the idea of encourging less modesty. That seems silly.

I thought the whole thing was pretty silly: "these women are being oppressed - so we're going decide what they can/can't wear on the beach". The hygienic argument was even more silly. Thankfully the French courts are stepping on these bans.

[creaker]

Or ensuring there's no suicide bomb vest underneath, but no, that's probably not it.

You can't hide much in a burkini. You can hide endless stuff in beach bags, ice chests, etc., but those weren't banned.

[bae]

So--no room for modesty on French beaches? I don't see anything democratic or fair about that.

I find it just as troubling to tell a person what she *can't* wear on a beach (burkini_ as to tell her what she *must* wear.

WTH is wrong with either a burkini or a bikini?

Is a wetsuit or dry suit OK, but somehow a burkini is an assault on culture?

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/26/europe/france-burkini-ban-court-ruling/

Frankly, sending an armed agent of the state to tell someone they need to strip off clothing to show more skin smells of sexual assault....

[LDAHL]

Frankly, sending an armed agent of the state to tell someone they need to strip off clothing to show more skin smells of sexual assault....

Or TSA SOP.

[Ultralight]

Societies say what clothes people can and cannot wear all the time, even here in the US.

[bae]

Or TSA SOP.

Yes - I believe I related the tale here some years ago of how the nice TSA man lovingly groped my young daughter at the Chicago terminal.

Scum.

[bae]

Societies say what clothes people can and cannot wear all the time, even here in the US.

http://cdn.history.com/sites/2/2014/01/jewish-couple.jpg

[iris lilies]

OMG! Why is it ALWAYS the women who must bear the brunt of oppressive religion, government, and 'codes' of conduct.
You want to talk privilege? How about the privilege of religion and governments/societies who think it's OK to force women to whatever doctrine they hold dear....

I would say that male circumcision is an example of oppressive religious and societal control.

[catherine]

Yes - I believe I related the tale here some years ago of how the nice TSA man lovingly groped my young daughter at the Chicago terminal.

Scum.

Don't they usually pair gender? When I've been groped, it's always been by females.

[bae]

I would say that male circumcision is an example of oppressive religious and societal control.

Ritual sexual mutilation. I'm still miffed by what my parents, without my consent, did.

[Ultralight]

OMG! Why is it ALWAYS the women who must bear the brunt of oppressive religion, government, and 'codes' of conduct. You want to talk privilege? How about the privilege of religion and governments/societies who think it's OK to force women to whatever doctrine they hold dear. In this country, some (see, I didn't name names) push this constantly with denying women's body autonomy, the most basic right EVERYONE should have.

What about the gay men who have been told by Xianity and Islam that being gay is wrong? Are they not oppressed men?

[Ultralight]

http://cdn.history.com/sites/2/2014/01/jewish-couple.jpg

I did not say it was right.

[Gardenarian]

Women in the fundamentalist Islam world do not choose wear burkas, they are forced to. ALL choices and rights are taken from them at birth.

This is a religion that enshrines the oppression of women. I don't care if it's part of their history or tradition or culture; it's despicable.

Just because fundamental Muslims have been raping, killing, and persecuting women for hundreds of years doesn't make it right.

I am sickened by feminists who claim this is another instance of men telling women what to wear. That is a cheap shot; it's a lot more complicated than that.

The burka is just the most obvious symbol of Islam's subjugation of women.

If they treated another race the way they treat women, we would call it slavery, and the entire world would condemn them.

[Ultralight]

Women in the fundamentalist Islam world do not choose wear burkas, they are forced to. ALL choices and rights are taken from them at birth.

You have no respect for cultural differences! Religious freedom includes the right to oppress women!

[Ultralight]

Note: My sarcasm.

[JaneV2.0]

I guess I'm just a sickening feminist, because I think people should wear--or not wear--what they want to on the beach. Especially if, for whatever reason, they want to maintain their modesty. After all, a hundred years or so ago, women routinely wore "bathing dresses" and other seemingly bulky swimwear. I agree that Islam, as practiced in many parts of the world (not so much in the Syria, Lebanon, Jordan of the recent past), is oppressive of women. No doubt. But that doesn't obviate the fact that many Muslim women are not comfortable appearing on the beach half naked (nor would I be, at my age) to expose themselves to, as my grandmother would put it, "the gaze of the vulgar public." The French government badly overstepped its bounds here, as it's finding out.

[LDAHL]

What about the gay men who have been told by Xianity and Islam that being gay is wrong? Are they not oppressed men?

Disapproval of something isn't oppression. There are people who disapprove of Christianity, eating meat, private education, consuming alcohol, suburbs, capitalism, golf and unfettered free speech. I don't feel particularly oppressed by them, even though I'm quite fond of all those things. In fact, I confess to a fair bit of amusement from the sputtering outrage they sometimes summon up.

I don't think "oppression" enters into it until someone takes action. Bombing an abortion clinic, for instance, or making a law forcing a hospital to perform abortions. But the self-righteousness of a religious fundamentalist or the "vindictive protectiveness" of a Political Correcter are simply part of the background noise of the American Project.

[BikingLady]

Definition of Privilege, The Country Club asking members for donations last weekend. I struggled with this and made so many remarks of donating so the old white well off could continue to live as always. Everything about it seemed so wrong to me. Now a week later I know many of these members and know the charities they pick to work on/donate too, perhaps I view the "donation asking" in a different light, though not for me to donate too. Example, I donated to a trail so I could hike on it. Guess there was not much difference really, the donation was not going to help the greater population or the needy.

[SteveinMN]

the donation was not going to help the greater population or the needy.
I think it's tough sometimes to draw a line between what serves "the greater population or the needy". I think most would agree that donations that support very basic needs like shelter and food help the greater population or the needy. But there are needs which are not quite so basic, like exercise, education, legal representation, ...

If the trail does not restrict public access, a donation enables its availability for the greater population. I support a public radio station, the primary role of which is to offer and explain about music that is not present on commercial airwaves (or even on most of the other public radio stations) around here. I can/should be interested in how many people take advantage of the opportunity (i.e., are donations being used efficiently?) but I don't trouble myself over how closely playing jazz and roots music adheres to Maslow's hierarchy.

[iris lilies]

Definition of Privilege, The Country Club asking members for donations last weekend. I struggled with this and made so many remarks of donating so the old white well off could continue to live as always. Everything about it seemed so wrong to me. Now a week later I know many of these members and know the charities they pick to work on/donate too, perhaps I view the "donation asking" in a different light, though not for me to donate too. Example, I donated to a trail so I could hike on it. Guess there was not much difference really, the donation was not going to help the greater population or the needy.

If I am interpretting this correctly, this is a situation that annoys me.

I dont want organizations I belong o determinging my charitable contributions. I like nice, clean divisions: paying dues to the country club but write a donation check to bulldog rescue.

Our Iris Society collected cans of food for a local food bank. I didn't participate, it cross my personal line. Why food bank? Why not bulldog rescue? Who decides where our collective charitable donation go? So, no group donation from me, I will make my own donation.

yesterday was a bit different where I slipped $5 in a card for donations to go to Childhood Diabetes. This was associated with a death in the family of one of our club members and this was her suggested donation organizatin. So that is different in my view, it is a personal gesture to the loved one of the dead person.

[Chicken lady]

I homeschooled my kids.

i remember many of my fellow homeschoolers being angry that they had to pay property taxes but could not access resources (library, sports) of the school system.

i had a different philosophy: take my money and use it to ensure that students in my community who have no choice other than public schools get the best possible education. Leave my kids alone, I am able to provide for them myself.

that is privilege.

my interpretation of the Alan system (lifting the bottom to the norm) would be to provide public education options in a way that leveled the resources and choices available to all children in the community. This would have required my property taxes to increase significantly while providing me with additional benefits only in the form of access to sports teams (which homeschooled students in my state recently acquired) to truly create a level playing field, the increased taxes would be high enough to cut into my ability to provide private educational options for my kids, however, there would be increased opportunities at the public school for all kids to balance this. (I can’t afford art or music, but private lessons in both are now a public option! - and property taxes are so high that we are all dressing at goodwill and shopping at the food bank!)

i’m not sure Alan would actually approve of this.

[LDAHL]

I educate my kid privately in a Catholic school. I have no particular problem with our local public schools. They aren't the nasty, dangerous failure factories you see in some places. I just think we can do better. I don't especially resent the chunk of my property taxes going to the schools as long as it isn't spent idiotically. I assume at least part of the value of my house is related to the quality of the schools. In my state, we get a tax break on private school tuition, so I get at least some recognition of "paying twice". Our state also has a somewhat limited school choice program for people not in a financial position to pay private school tuition.

I was once told by a teachers' union member that it was morally wrong for me to use my economic "privilege" to "withdraw" from the public schools system on the grounds that it somehow deprived the public schools of my family's involvement and support. I said at the time that I valued my kid's best interests over her theory of social justice, and that her argument would probably apply to anyone who moved to a better school district from a worse one.

Whether a private organization like a country club funds it's activities either through dues or asking its members for voluntary donations doesn't strike so much as an exercise of privilege as a funding strategy.

[Chicken lady]

LDAHL,

i object to your tax break. I don’t see you “paying twice” I see you paying once for the education of all the children in the community - just like people who do not choose to have children. (You feel you benefit by increased property value. As someone who intends to die here I see “increased property value” as a bad thing, but “a well educated populous” as a good thing.) And then, separately, I see you exercising the privilege afforded you by your economic situation to opt out of public education and give your children something you think is better.

your tax break allows you to contribute less to the community as a reward for a choice that benefits only your family. I think it is a mistake on the part of the community to give you that tax break.

[Alan]

I think real privilege is the ability to force your idea of social equity on others.

[LDAHL]

LDAHL,

i object to your tax break. I don’t see you “paying twice” I see you paying once for the education of all the children in the community - just like people who do not choose to have children. (You feel you benefit by increased property value. As someone who intends to die here I see “increased property value” as a bad thing, but “a well educated populous” as a good thing.) And then, separately, I see you exercising the privilege afforded you by your economic situation to opt out of public education and give your children something you think is better.

your tax break allows you to contribute less to the community as a reward for a choice that benefits only your family. I think it is a mistake on the part of the community to give you that tax break.

I think defining community as government is too narrow. Private institutions and voluntary associations are also an important component. Participating in a private institution that offers an alternative to a state-provided educational monoculture is probably good both for its supporters and the community at large.

One way this is recognised and encouraged is through various tax credits or deductions.

[Teacher Terry]

Some people do not feel that health care is a right but more of a privilege. I personally know 2 people that would be dead without the ACA. When my friend's daughter developed a rare liver disease at 19 she was too sick to go to college but was allowed to stay on her Mom's work insurance until age 26. Previously she would have been out of luck. She needed a liver transplant and before being put on the list you had to prove you can afford it and afford all the anti-rejection drugs later. Then someone else I know works f.t. but has no insurance by her employer but has ACA insurance. She needs a surgery out of state by specialists and they would not even give her an appointment until she could prove she had insurance that would cover it. So without the insurance she would die. I paid taxes and sent my kids to private school until 7th grade because the local elementary schools were crappy. However, we were allowed to use the special services at the public school like when one of my kids needed speech therapy. I never minded paying the taxes.

[Chicken lady]

Alan, I like your definition.

I wasn’t really advocating that particular remedy, just trying to follow a thought path on what “raising the bottom to the norm” might look like in that instance. Probably too far, because my children’s education was “above the norm” due to my priorities and resources (as is the education of the children of most who have the opportunity to make policy decisions)

LDAHL, I disagree that opting into an alternative education system has benefits for society at large. One might argue that the individuals leaving that alternative system are more productive and contribute more to society, but my view is that students with resources are likely to do well in any educational system and the net effect of more resources (your tax money, time and energy) for the other students instead would be greater. I do not, however, think it is somehow “wrong” for you to prioritize your own offspring.

[JaneV2.0]

I think real privilege is the ability to force your idea of social equity on others.

Like civil rights for all and stuff. Got it.

[BikingLady]

Definition: thinking my ability, access, freedom of being able to, area of safe living(hopefully) to go for a hike this morning before the sun was up. That is a privilege that many for any of those reasons could not do.

[Alan]

Like civil rights for all and stuff. Got it.Yes, living in a Democracy can be messy without the controlling force of a Republic to temper it's citizens imposition of privilege. It took a long time for Republican principles to overcome those Democratic tendencies to reserve civil rights to a preferred tribe. But there's still much room for improvement, not so much on the civil rights side of the equation but on the personal liberty side. These days it's not the governing principles of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness that's at risk, but rather the personal liberties of conscience, religious freedom and association that Democratic group think tries to eliminate from the social order. Using government as a force to impose those restrictions is a terrible use of privilege that must be resisted at every turn.

[JaneV2.0]

As much as I hate to agree with you, I must in this instance (and others): https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/wonder/fda-approves-digital-pill-that-tracks-when-you-take-it/vi-BBEXt3R

Now take your Soma, like a good citizen...

[Alan]

“This concern with the basic condition of freedom -- the absence of physical constraint -- is unquestionably necessary, but is not all that is necessary. It is perfectly possible for a man to be out of prison and yet not free -- to be under no physical constraint and yet to be a psychological captive, compelled to think, feel and act as the representatives of the national State, or of some private interest within the nation, want him to think, feel and act.”
― Aldous Huxley (https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/3487.Aldous_Huxley)
, Brave New World (https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/3204877)

[JaneV2.0]

“It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. It merely required no character.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch 22

[Alan]

“It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. It merely required no character.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch 22Or a democracy.

[JaneV2.0]

I was thinking more of a dictatorship...

[Alan]

A democracy is a sort of dictatorship, tribal but dictatorial.

[ApatheticNoMore]

This concern with the basic condition of freedom -- the absence of physical constraint -- is unquestionably necessary, but is not all that is necessary. It is perfectly possible for a man to be out of prison and yet not free -- to be under no physical constraint and yet to be a psychological captive, compelled to think, feel and act as the representatives of the national State, or of some private interest within the nation, want him to think, feel and act.

Well are they paying him? If so it's a paycheck. And if not it's quite a privilege indeed to have to worry about such soft restraints of freedom (it's a case of having nothing REAL to worry about pretty much - and having nothing real to worry about may as well just be the total of the definition of privilege in it's entirety).

[Chicken lady]

Well, see, this is why I liked Alan’s definition of priveledge.

previously white Christian males had all the priveledge and they got to define terms like “freedom of association”, “conscience”, and “religious liberty” and impose their version of social equity on everybody else. Now some of that priveledge is slipping into other hands and they don’t like it. It’s not fun when other people have priveledge and you don’t And it significantly impacts your life!

[LDAHL]

Well, see, this is why I liked Alan’s definition of priveledge.

previously white Christian males had all the priveledge and they got to define terms like “freedom of association”, “conscience”, and “religious liberty” and impose their version of social equity on everybody else. Now some of that priveledge is slipping into other hands and they don’t like it. It’s not fun when other people have priveledge and you don’t And it significantly impacts your life!

I think the problem occurs when people leap off the “priveledge” into all sorts of petty tyranny and ethical nonsense in the name of social equity. Wealthy white people lecturing less wealthy white people about the need to sacrifice their unfair advantages. Making judgments of guilt or innocence on a group rather than individual basis. Speech codes and silencing of opposing ideas. And the endless condescension driven by the unfounded assumption of moral superiority.

[Williamsmith]

This thread reminds me of the predictions Hanna Rosin made seven years ago in an article for the Atlantic magazine called, The End of Men. Perhaps it was a few years early but in light of recent happenings....seems prescient.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/308135/

[Chicken lady]

The ability to strip the license plates off a car with a long handled adjustable wrench in early morning daylight in a residential area in a strange town and have the sheriff drive past without even slowing down.

[jp1]

Making judgments of guilt or innocence on a group rather than individual basis.

Trayvon Martin would undoubtedly agree with you on this were he still alive today.

[LDAHL]

Trayvon Martin would undoubtedly agree with you on this were he still alive today.

That sad episode provided many tragically comic and comically tragic examples of that kind of thinking. The New York Times struggle with the shooter's pedigree that eventually preserved the narrative with "White Hispanic". NBC editing the 911 call audio to achieve the desired impact. ABC 're-digitizing" photos to the same purpose. Presidential musings on what his male issue might have looked like. The raising of sweatshirts and Skittles to protest totems. The usual uplifting commentary from the Rev. Al Sharpton. Spike Lee tweeting (incorrectly) George Zimmerman's home address. Zimmerman auctioning his gun to the skinhead community. It was a true Bonfire of the Vanities moment.

Ultimately, the presumption of innocence triumphed over the forces arrayed against it; but it was a near-run thing.

[Williamsmith]

I studied the Martin/Zimmerman case. Proving that Zimmerman committed any crime beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence ...... was a huge stretch. If it wasn’t for race, media bias and expansive vigilantism necessitated by police indifference to neighborhood issues; we probably would have never heard about this case. Pick another martyr jp1....there are better ones out there.

[iris lily]

I studied the Martin/Zimmerman case. Proving that Zimmerman committed any crime beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence ...... was a huge stretch. If it wasn’t for race, media bias and expansive vigilantism necessitated by police indifference to neighborhood issues; we probably would have never heard about this case. Pick another martyr jp1....there are better ones out there.

Like The Gentle Giant Michael Brown?

Another false god in the game of race politics.

[Williamsmith]

Like The Gentle Giant Michael Brown?

Another false god in the game of race politics.

Perhaps a worse example ...... if that’s possible. Walter Scott would have my vote if I were into that sort of thing. His life was truly snuffed out unnecessarily. But then, justice prevailed and Mr. Slager is serving a twenty year sentence.

[Teacher Terry]

IL: I just read that St. Louis had double the homicide rate that Chicago and Baltimore have.

[catherine]

IL: I just read that St. Louis had double the homicide rate that Chicago and Baltimore have.

I noticed that in Williamsmith's post about travel to NYC, several people said "I felt safe." I thought that was an odd comment, actually. I don't think of NYC as UNsafe, and I have to admit that Guiliani is responsible for that in good measure.

So I looked up crime rates across the US, and found that New York City is #32 on the list for violent crime, after cities like San Diego, Austin and Portland. For murders/manslaughter, it ranks 13. For robbery, it's 39. As for me, I've had a computer stolen from my car in Burlington, VT. I've also had my wallet and/or pocketbook stolen in NY 3 times. But, strangely, the New York thieves took the money and threw the wallet/pocketbook in the mailbox. I got most of my stuff back every time. So New York thieves are very thoughtful thieves. OTOH, I didn't get my computer back in Vermont.

Safety is not a huge issue in NYC tourism, unless you decide to take your life in your hands by driving there.

[bae]

I used to go to NYC on weekends in the early 80s. It did not seem especially safe then, and I always travelled with a group. The NYC of today is like Disneyland by comparison. Clean, safe, friendly, service-oriented. Not as many people in giant furry suits though.

[LDAHL]

I used to go to NYC on weekends in the early 80s. It did not seem especially safe then, and I always travelled with a group. The NYC of today is like Disneyland by comparison. Clean, safe, friendly, service-oriented. Not as many people in giant furry suits though.

I remember the Times Square of that period as a smorgasborg of sleaze.

[bae]

I remember the Times Square of that period as a smorgasborg of sleaze.

It was a great time to be alive.

[LDAHL]

It was a great time to be alive.

If all your shots were up to date.

[SteveinMN]

I used to go to NYC on weekends in the early 80s. It did not seem especially safe then, and I always travelled with a group. The NYC of today is like Disneyland by comparison. Clean, safe, friendly, service-oriented. Not as many people in giant furry suits though.
Exactly. I grew up in the suburbs surrounding the five boroughs, occasionally going to "The City" for field trips and to visit relatives. Back then, ads used to run in the paper and on TV recommending that people not wear jewelry on the subway lest you appear too attractive to thieves. Even out in the 'burbs they warned folks when shopping for Christmas/Hanukkah that, if they put purchases in the trunk of their car, they should move their car to another parking spot to avoid people who would jimmy the trunk open as soon as you went back to do more shopping. They weren't doing that to enhance tourism.

[Lainey]

Trayvon Martin would undoubtedly agree with you on this were he still alive today.

Yes, at this point we suspend judgment until everyone reviews the resume of the victim. If that receives approval, only then can we proceed to decide if his life was worthy to have continued or not.

[iris lilies]

IL: I just read that St. Louis had double the homicide rate that Chicago and Baltimore have.
Yes, we usually are in the top 3 and lately have been No. 1. Yay, us. The city of St. Louis draws tight boundaries around an urban core, so there is little suburban populace to tone down and mix with irban ceimw stats.

On the other hand, urban blight is very strong in northern suburbs outside of the city of St, Louis, so ths explanatin does not entirely explain it away.

[jp1]

That sad episode provided many tragically comic and comically tragic examples of that kind of thinking. The New York Times struggle with the shooter's pedigree that eventually preserved the narrative with "White Hispanic". NBC editing the 911 call audio to achieve the desired impact. ABC 're-digitizing" photos to the same purpose. Presidential musings on what his male issue might have looked like. The raising of sweatshirts and Skittles to protest totems. The usual uplifting commentary from the Rev. Al Sharpton. Spike Lee tweeting (incorrectly) George Zimmerman's home address. Zimmerman auctioning his gun to the skinhead community. It was a true Bonfire of the Vanities moment.

Ultimately, the presumption of innocence triumphed over the forces arrayed against it; but it was a near-run thing.

If I understand you correctly you're trying to say that because Zimmerman was hispanic that he couldn't have had racial bias against Martin because Zimmerman was also a minority? Before you make that assumption perhaps you should read Dreamland (the book someone mentioned a while back about the opiod crisis.) The current heroin problem in America is largely a white phenomenon because the Mexican heroin delivery guys were terrified of black people and absolutely would not sell to them or even go to neighborhoods with any black people in them.

[jp1]

I used to go to NYC on weekends in the early 80s. It did not seem especially safe then, and I always travelled with a group. The NYC of today is like Disneyland by comparison. Clean, safe, friendly, service-oriented. Not as many people in giant furry suits though.

I lived through that transition to Disneyland, 1 1/2 blocks west of times square. While I never truly felt unsafe in 1992 when I first moved there (at that time at night my block had drug dealers at one end and prostitutes at the other. Neither ever harmed or threatened me, but some of the drug dealers' customers were pretty scary looking) by the time I moved out of that apartment 14 years later it definitely seemed "more safe" than it had when I moved in. I knew that the disneyfication was complete a few years before I left. The dealers and hookers had been gone for a few years by then and the long abandoned building on the corner of my block suddenly got renovated and a Starbucks moved in on the ground floor.

[Teacher Terry]

Many people have died senselessly. Martin is one of them. Whether or not he was guilty in a court of law Zimmermann did not need to take his life.

[LDAHL]

If I understand you correctly you're trying to say that because Zimmerman was hispanic that he couldn't have had racial bias against Martin because Zimmerman was also a minority?

Not at all. I see it as an example of the lengths the Times was willing to go to to preserve the white-guy-kills-black-guy-and-gets-away-with-it-because-of-systemic-racism formulation. Simply reporting that a guy named Zimmerman was on trial for killing a guy named Martin without the color coding wouldn't have sold many papers to their target demographic.

[LDAHL]

Many people have died senselessly. Martin is one of them. Whether or not he was guilty in a court of law Zimmermann did not need to take his life.

Perhaps. But what is your alternative to a court of law to make that determination?

[jp1]

Personally I don't think it matters whether it is white on black or Hispanic on black racism. My point is that I wonder if Zimmerman had come across Zuckerberg, also known to regularly wear hoodies, would he have perceived zuckerberg to be as much of a threat?

[LDAHL]

Personally I don't think it matters whether it is white on black or Hispanic on black racism. My point is that I wonder if Zimmerman had come across Zuckerberg, also known to regularly wear hoodies, would he have perceived zuckerberg to be as much of a threat?

You may not think so, but there is a significant outrage industry that feels otherwise. Do you honestly believe we would have seen the same media circus eager to impute racist motives to an individual and society at large for a similar incident between two people of color?

[Williamsmith]

Personally I don't think it matters whether it is white on black or Hispanic on black racism. My point is that I wonder if Zimmerman had come across Zuckerberg, also known to regularly wear hoodies, would he have perceived zuckerberg to be as much of a threat?

You have to climb out of your own biased opinions to make sense out of it. Zuckerberg wouldn’t have communicated or acted as Martin did. We have the cell phone call with the girlfriend to illuminate us on Martin state of mind and it didn’t reflect kindly on Martin. There are several very in-depth reviews of the case....I will try to find one for you if you are interested in approaching it with an open mind.

[bae]

During the Zimmerman trial, how many young black men were shot to death in Detroit? What were their names?

[Ultralight]

During the Zimmerman trial, how many young black men were shot to death in Detroit? What were their names?
You are going to make a lot of people angry if you keep asking these questions.

[Williamsmith]

During the Zimmerman trial, how many young black men were shot to death in Detroit? What were their names?

Jobs and welfare reform. That’s what the African American community needs more than a denouncement of racism. You don’t have to have a homogeneity to have a non violent society. You have to have a fairly equal distribution of wealth and a real opportunity to advance socially and economically. Take every black person from the Detroit ghettos and replace them with white and the homicide rate for whites would skyrocket. It’s the Tantalus syndrome and it is alive and well in the United States.....and both parties have fed it.

[bae]

Careful speaking the truth like that!

[Alan]

Jobs and welfare reform. That’s what the African American community needs more than a denouncement of racism.
But it's not as satisfying.

[jp1]

You have to climb out of your own biased opinions to make sense out of it. Zuckerberg wouldn’t have communicated or acted as Martin did. We have the cell phone call with the girlfriend to illuminate us on Martin state of mind and it didn’t reflect kindly on Martin. There are several very in-depth reviews of the case....I will try to find one for you if you are interested in approaching it with an open mind.

My opinion is that Zimmerman was at fault for approaching Martin in the first place. That was the proximate cause for everything that followed. What exactly is a geeky teenager supposed to do when a random creepy dude approaches them and wrongly accuses them of nefarious activity when all they have done is walk down the street with some skittles and a soda? Zimmerman approached him not because he'd seen him do anything wrong, but simply because he was a black teenager walking down the street. None of the options for Martin at that point were good. I suppose he could've started running. But he'd likely have ended up just as dead. At least then Zimmerman might've ended up in jail although you never know, he'd have probably said "I thought he must've been guilty, why else did he run?"

[jp1]

Jobs and welfare reform. That’s what the African American community needs more than a denouncement of racism. You don’t have to have a homogeneity to have a non violent society. You have to have a fairly equal distribution of wealth and a real opportunity to advance socially and economically.

While I agree that jobs and economic opportunity are critically important, they aren't even the starting point if one can't even walk down the street without being accused of a crime based on no more evidence of that crime than the color of one's skin not aligning with the majority of the people in the neighborhood?

[Alan]

My opinion is that Zimmerman was at fault for approaching Martin in the first place. That was the proximate cause for everything that followed. What exactly is a geeky teenager supposed to do when a random creepy dude approaches them and wrongly accuses them of nefarious activity when all they have done is walk down the street with some skittles and a soda?
I advise my grandsons not to physically attack an accuser and especially not to slam their head onto the sidewalk, as that never ends well for anyone. Plus, their hard won geek status may be lost forever.

[jp1]

I advise my grandsons not to physically attack an accuser and especially not to slam their head onto the sidewalk, as that never ends well for anyone. Plus, their hard won geek status may be lost forever.

Geek status is highly overrated. I'm glad to be long rid of mine. Thankfully I didn't have to bash an asshole's head on the ground to do so. The only thing Martin did wrong is not bash hard enough. Stand your ground and all that. Dead men can't disagree with your version of the story.

[Alan]

Geek status is highly overrated. I'm glad to be long rid of mine. Thankfully I didn't have to bash an asshole's head on the ground to do so. The only thing Martin did wrong is not bash hard enough. Stand your ground and all that. Dead men can't disagree with your version of the story.Remind me not to piss you off, you don't seem to understand the premise of stand your ground.

[jp1]

Remind me not to piss you off, you don't seem to understand the premise of stand your ground.

Neither did Zimmerman.

[Alan]

Neither did Zimmerman.
Stand your ground doesn't mean you can use physical force against people who piss you off, it means that when someone gets physical with you, you're not required to run. That's why Zimmerman was acquitted.

Please don't make other young men of any race think they're allowed to use force against anyone who pisses them off. That's irresponsible.

[jp1]

The problem with Florida's stand your ground law is that it lets people initiate contact and then claim self defense when that contact goes badly. I repeat my earlier question, what should Martin have done when a random creepy dude approached him and wrongfully accused him of wrongdoing based on the color of his skin? Martin clearly, and correctly as it turns out, understood that his life was potentially in jeopardy and reacted accordingly. Ultimately his reaction proved to not be the right one, but he didn't know Zimmerman from Adam, so his fear and reaction seem perfectly logical to me. The assumption of many seems to be that if he'd just kept walking and ignored Zimmerman it would've turned out fine. I'm not at all convinced of that.

[jp1]

Remind me not to piss you off, you don't seem to understand the premise of stand your ground.

Dont worry. I’m a bland, slightly overweight middle aged white man. If you see me walking down the street with a pack of skittles in one hand and a soda in the other you’ll probably just ignore me. It's highly unlikely that you'll feel the need to engage me and risk your life.

[Ultralight]

Dont worry. I’m a bland, slightly overweight middle aged white man.
Time to go to church! ;)

[Chicken lady]

Going back to the original topic - jp1’s post stands as an example.

[Alan]

Going back to the original topic - jp1’s post stands as an example.
I think the question is, if he had left out his description of being white, would the millions of other people of color who merrily walk down the street with a pack of skittles in one hand and a soda in the other without drawing attention to themselves also be considered privileged or is this ability solely the province of white males?

[Williamsmith]

There are facts and circumstances in the Zimmerman/Martin case that are inconvenient to the “white privilege” narrative. They aren’t talked about by defenders of Martin. Often it becomes necessary to ascribe predjudiced behavior to Zimmerman simply to make up for the inconveniences.

Zimmerman’s primary motive was that his neighborhood (which was mixed race)was experiencing an outbreak of burglaries and thefts. His own neighbor , a single woman with a baby had intruders break in her house while she was home.

He and others had formed a neighborhood watch as tens of thousands of people have done in crime plagued neighborhoods. Watching.......requires watching. Watching often involves moving to positions with sight advantage and necessarily following. The facts are that Zimmerman first saw Martin and immediately suspected he didn’t belong not because he was black. It was because he fit the description of previous encounters with burglars and thieves in the neighborhood.

Martin was young, wearing hooded sweatshirt and had his hands concealed. It was raining and he was looking into places. He was loitering, not going from point A to point B. It didn’t take long for Martin to realize he was being watched. His destination was an apartment in Zimmerman’s community that he could have already been to easily from the 7-11 he was coming from well before the incident happened.

But instead, Martin concealed himself knowing Zimmerman would follow looking for him. Martin ambushed Zimmerman and assaulted him. Clear evidence from witnesses and a mound of physical evidence cooroberated Zimmermans account. Had Zimmerman not been armed, he would have lost this fight, been seriously hospitalized or killed. But he was armed and feared for his life and defended himself. Period.

That Zimmerman was not white necessarily still isn’t a problem to the people who push the privilege narrative. He is apparently white enough to be prejudiced. If you want to use this case as an example of white privilege.....you have to leave out a lot of facts.

[jp1]

Time to go to church! ;)

Only if you'll come with me.

[Ultralight]

Only if you'll come with me.

I work out at home, but if you were in C-bus and wanted a gym buddy, I would consider it! :)

[jp1]

I work out at home, but if you were in C-bus and wanted a gym buddy, I would consider it! :)

Thanks for the offer but I'll probably stick with the "stairmaster" a set of 137 steps up the side of a hill near our house. I try to do 4 climbs 4 or 5 times a week.

[nswef]

Yikes! 137 steps.

[jp1]

Yikes! 137 steps.

the iPhone health app usually records it as about 50 flights of stairs when I do four trips up it.

[Ultralight]

Thanks for the offer but I'll probably stick with the "stairmaster" a set of 137 steps up the side of a hill near our house. I try to do 4 climbs 4 or 5 times a week.
Bad ass!