Even giving all benefit of the doubt, what's the solution then?
If you don't personally treat anyone differently based on attributes outside their control, what else are you obligated to do?
If you don't personally treat anyone differently based on attributes outside their control, what else are you obligated to do?
That's why he says that it's not just about shutting up when you're called out on your privilege, it's also about listening. Accept that there are things in the world, and positions people are in, that you can't just argue out of existence.
That's not evidence against there being a systemic imbalance. It's further proof of it.
I never said nor intended to imply there wasn't. But there's imbalance in every system too. Which now makes it sound like I'm saying "Just shut up," which is really why I tend to avoid discussions like this because they become No Win. For everyone. Gah.
Anyway, I think that the fact that systems have imbalance is why we need to talk frequently about what imbalance exists, and how we might fix it. It's also why we should stop this irritating habit of turning everything into a system of processes and functions that don't allow for human error. Plenty of people in the tech community think that a series of rules is the end-all be-all cure to every problem, and refuse to admit that rules often cause as many problems as they solve. Learning to listen and empathize with other people is a more valuable trait than ever, because there are more ways than ever to get away with not doing it.
People used to be taught that. They need to be again.
"People are all privileged in different ways and in different circumstances" is pretty closely tied to the concept of intersectionality.
And yes, there are specific situations where generally unprivileged groups have privilege over generally privileged groups. But there are two main reasons nobody wants to focus on those situations:
1. Those situations are typically so minor and so rare that addressing them just isn't a priority,
2. The same prejudice that causes those situations is generally far more problematic in the opposite direction.
You might want to read this, if you haven't: http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/what-about-the-me... . It's aimed at a male audience that is basically unfamiliar with privilege, so anyone who's well read on the subject is likely to cringe at some of their oversimplifications. What's interesting about it is that it uses the point that men are hurt by sexism as a call for more men to get involved with feminism.
(b) If you don't, then speak up when you see other people do it. Tell people that unacceptable actions are, well, unacceptible. Silence is often taken for tacit approval.
If you subscribe to the quoted as well as what you said and try to only surround yourself with people that act in a similar manner, then isn't that going to happen automatically?
"When one side tacitly approves of rape threats and murder threats for people who speak out they make it pretty darn easy for me to choose."
I don't think there's two black & white sides here that neatly contain everyone, and I don't think by shunning those who call for violence you have to implicitly endorse whatever the target of that call to violence is advocating.