"check your privilege"

[JeenLeen]

Would someone explain what the idiom "check your privilege" means?
I've seen it used several times in the last year or so, and I have a vague understanding of what it means, but I'm really sure. I've never heard it in-person, but have read it a few times.

A few notes
1) I'm not being sarcastic.
2) Although this saying showed up in another thread and that reminded me of posting this, this is a question I've thought about asking for a while
3) Because of how I've usually heard it used, I have a fairly negative connotation with the phrase. It seems overly emotional, grammatically nonsensical, like a threat (probably because similar to "check yourself"), and often used in a way that feels similar to ad hominem or at least some logical fallacy. But I'm making this thread in part to separate that emotional response with actual knowledge to better understand what folk mean when they use it
4) I am likely of a group that, on average, has socio-economic advantages compared to other groups. Thus, I reckon I am one who would often be check privilege in some discussions, if I got involved with them.

Also (as an unimportant note but one I find fun to discuss): it is an idiom since that combination of words does not really mean much in a grammatical sense, akin to the phrase "check yourself", right?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Would someone explain what the idiom "check your privilege" means?
I've seen it used several times in the last year or so, and I have a vague understanding of what it means, but I'm really sure. I've never heard it in-person, but have read it a few times.

A few notes
1) I'm not being sarcastic.
2) Although this saying showed up in another thread and that reminded me of posting this, this is a question I've thought about asking for a while
3) Because of how I've usually heard it used, I have a fairly negative connotation with the phrase. It seems overly emotional, grammatically nonsensical, like a threat (probably because similar to "check yourself"), and often used in a way that feels similar to ad hominem or at least some logical fallacy. But I'm making this thread in part to separate that emotional response with actual knowledge to better understand what folk mean when they use it
4) I am likely of a group that, on average, has socio-economic advantages compared to other groups. Thus, I reckon I am one who would often be check privilege in some discussions, if I got involved with them.

Also (as an unimportant note but one I find fun to discuss): it is an idiom since that combination of words does not really mean much in a grammatical sense, akin to the phrase "check yourself", right?

It means that, in the opinion of the person using the sentence, their target has acted (or, in this forum, posted) in such a way that displays a privilege, possibly one they are not aware of possessing. For example, if Alfred was complaining about their car having broken down and Betty belittled their problem with a "just buy a new one, you cheap bastard", Betty is displaying a privilege: she is clearly well enough off she considers purchasing a vehicle a minor expense, where Alfred likely does not. She might be told to "check her privilege" - i.e. examine her own situation and how it is privileged over those she is interacting with.

As to its grammatical correctness, it seems fine to me. "Check your privilege" is equivalent to "examine your privilege" and grammatically equivalent to, say, "check your tires" - an imperative verb, and the subject of the order being given by the verb.

ETA: as to whether it is an ad hominem or a logical fallacy, I suppose it will depend on how it is used, but I would not imagine it would lend itself to either. It is not implying that the statement was wrong - Betty might be quite capable of purchasing a vehicle when her current one breaks down - as much as pointing out that the comment only applies to privileged circumstances rather than universally. I suppose that if Alfred too was quite capable, then in the example above, it would be a quasi ad hominem, since accusing someone of being inadvertently privileged when they are no more privileged than their original target would in fact be an ad hominem. As I said, will depend heavily on the context.

Grey Wolf

[Strigon]

It's basically the other person saying "you're making assumptions based on an advantage that you have, assuming everyone else does as well."
Depending on the exact context and your own interpretation, this can be anywhere from eye-opening and life changing advice, to nonsensical babbling when you say something the other person doesn't like.

[Cristo Meyers]

The best I can come up with is an example:

A well-off, middle-class person saying the solution to the issue of poverty in urban neighborhoods is for the residents to 'get a job' is likely guilty of not checking their privilege. That is, they're ignoring the realities on the ground (quality of jobs available, issues with getting the necessary education/job skills, local and systemic issues with racism for minority neighborhoods) in favor of their own experience where those systemic issues weren't present.

This also usually comes with an implicit or explicit value judgment: i.e. that the reason they don't get jobs is because they're lazy.

[Ninja_Prawn]

The other posters are pretty much on point.

What I would add is that there's an understanding, at least among certain circles, that people with less privilege, in particular people who suffer oppression or discrimination, need to be given space to speak about their experiences. That is to say, if you haven't experienced the suffering yourself, it's better to listen to people who have, rather than lecturing them about it or making the conversation about yourself (both of which are things that privileged people often do).

Certainly from my point of view, I have a lot of privilege and, when I was younger, I was definitely blind to certain issues that other people have to deal with. When you're in a privileged position it is genuinely very difficult to see how the world looks to people at the sharp end, and you have to make a conscious effort to check your privilege if you want to make a positive contribution to the situation.

[AMFV]

Would someone explain what the idiom "check your privilege" means?
I've seen it used several times in the last year or so, and I have a vague understanding of what it means, but I'm really sure. I've never heard it in-person, but have read it a few times.

A few notes
1) I'm not being sarcastic.
2) Although this saying showed up in another thread and that reminded me of posting this, this is a question I've thought about asking for a while
3) Because of how I've usually heard it used, I have a fairly negative connotation with the phrase. It seems overly emotional, grammatically nonsensical, like a threat (probably because similar to "check yourself"), and often used in a way that feels similar to ad hominem or at least some logical fallacy. But I'm making this thread in part to separate that emotional response with actual knowledge to better understand what folk mean when they use it
4) I am likely of a group that, on average, has socio-economic advantages compared to other groups. Thus, I reckon I am one who would often be check privilege in some discussions, if I got involved with them.

Also (as an unimportant note but one I find fun to discuss): it is an idiom since that combination of words does not really mean much in a grammatical sense, akin to the phrase "check yourself", right?

As a preface, this thread is very likely to become political and that is considered taboo on the forums, just as a fair warning.

Basically the idea is that certain categories of people have "privileges" that blind them to the experiences of others in worse circumstances. As a premise this is not necessarily untrue, since we're all products of our environment. The problem is when people are using this to talk about individuals based on their group. Saying for example that a person from a group that is generally financially better off can't have experience with poverty because they obviously didn't have the authentic experience, is a fallacy. Say that 95% of a group is above the poverty line, that means that some number of individuals from that group would be below the poverty line.

For example, I am part of a group that is generally considered privileged in the country in which I reside. When I was a kid, I lived for a year with no power, no running water, no heat, sharing a room with five members of my family. This would be considered extreme poverty. Later on I worked with people in poverty for about a year, and I have yet to witness conditions such as what I experienced, even in the groups that I supposedly would have privilege over. That's why this is a very poor thing to say to somebody. Because you don't know their life story. Also you're using statistics backwards. You're using statistics to try to guess at an individual case, which is where stats start to break down.

As to whether you should check your privilege? That depends entirely on your history. Certainly there is nothing wrong with evaluating if you have enough experience to comment on something. But if you do, you shouldn't let belonging to a group that might not always have your experiences deter you. That's my feeling.

[JeenLeen]

Thanks, all. That presents the statement in a fair more neutral light that I've at least interpreted it as being used.

If it's being used in a sense of "be aware of your status in comparison to others", that seems a sound statement.

She might be told to "check her privilege" - i.e. examine her own situation and how it is privileged over those she is interacting with.

As to its grammatical correctness, it seems fine to me. "Check your privilege" is equivalent to "examine your privilege" and grammatically equivalent to, say, "check your tires" - an imperative verb, and the subject of the order being given by the verb.

I think I was generally hearing "check our privilege" as a hostile statement (like "check yourself") or something kinda derogatory about the privileged person's opinion being invalid or wrong, and to be "checked" like checked baggage at the airport -- not at the discussion. Your grammatical view of it helps a lot.

EDIT: AMFV's post was written while I was writing this, and I think the fallacy he mentions is a large part of the 'bad taste' I have about the saying.

[Cristo Meyers]

EDIT: AMFV's post was written while I was writing this, and I think the fallacy he mentions is a large part of the 'bad taste' I have about the saying.

Not necessarily a bad thing. The idea can, like all things, be misused. It's important to recognize the difference between 'check your privilege' vs 'your opinion doesn't matter because you belong to a privileged group'

[Vinyadan]

Personally, I'm happy to have read this thread. I've never met anyone in person using the phrase, and the depictions I had read, as well as some cases in which it was used and were reported by the media, had given me the impression that it simply was a way to throw someone out of the discussion by saying "you aren't one of us, so your opinion doesn't count for anything, and we (= I) don't want you to speak".

[2D8HP]

Would someone explain what the idiom "check your privilege" means?
I've seen it used several times in the last year....

I've seen it as well, but only in vague generalities.

...I've never met anyone in person using the phrase...

Neither have I.

I really wonder if "check your privilege" is another phrase like "virtue signaling" that are only typed but never spoken out loud.

I'm tired of these goobelygook language innovations that aren't used face to face, and only seem to exist as copy and paste internet phrases.

[Vinyadan]

Yes, and the media report I remember talked about it after it had been used on Facebook, not in a face-to-face discussion.

[Florian]

Oh, I´ve been into discussions when that phrase has been used, each time it has been used well.

Sometimes, people just forget when they're arguing from a privileged position and don't see that they take something for granted that is only available because of that position.

[AMFV]

Neither have I.

I really wonder if "check your privilege" is another phrase like "virtue signaling" that are only typed but never spoken out loud.

I'm tired of these goobelygook language innovations that aren't used face to face, and only seem to exist as copy and paste internet phrases.

I have heard it in person. I suspect the reason you haven't is because of the crowd you're spending time with. I've heard it from college students, in a fairly serious context, and it was pretty irritating to me for the reasons I listed above. Because when somebody tells you to "check your privilege" they're making some pretty big assumptions about you and your history, in most cases based on your ethnicity, and that doesn't sit well with me.

Virtue signal is mostly a phrase used by the extreme opposite group. So it's used by even still another group.

Edit:

Oh, I´ve been into discussions when that phrase has been used, each time it has been used well.

Sometimes, people just forget when they're arguing from a privileged position and don't see that they take something for granted that is only available because of that position.

It's possible that it could be used well, but again it's important to remember that because somebody comes from a position you PRESUME to be privileged does not make that the case in absolute.

[Aedilred]

I've seen it as well, but only in vague generalities.




Neither have I.

I really wonder if "check your privilege" is another phrase like "virtue signaling" that are only typed but never spoken out loud.

I'm tired of these goobelygook language innovations that aren't used face to face, and only seem to exist as copy and paste internet phrases.

I have heard (and probably used) "virtue signalling" in real life, but generally only in the third person. "Check your privilege" is inherently used directly to the target and because of its equally inherently confrontational nature is less likely to be used in real life where people, especially people who consider themselves vulnerable, are more conflict-averse.

"Virtue signalling" used as an accusation rather than a descriptor has a similar issue but there's also the matter that it tends to refer to activities which are largely online anyway: liking and sharing posts, posting phoney outrage on social media, generally making enough of a fuss to show that you're "on the right side" without actually incurring any risk or doing anything meaningful to help. In real life, people tend to have more skin in the game to begin with and so pointless virtue-signalling is rarer.

Then there's also the issue that in real life people don't tend to hang out in environments where these sorts of things are likely to come up anyway, unless they're actively seeking them out. I'm sure there are plenty of occasions in real life where people are told to check their privilege, but most of them are probably at meetings I don't go to.

[WarKitty]

Basically the idea is that certain categories of people have "privileges" that blind them to the experiences of others in worse circumstances. As a premise this is not necessarily untrue, since we're all products of our environment. The problem is when people are using this to talk about individuals based on their group. Saying for example that a person from a group that is generally financially better off can't have experience with poverty because they obviously didn't have the authentic experience, is a fallacy. Say that 95% of a group is above the poverty line, that means that some number of individuals from that group would be below the poverty line.

I think this is one of those things that's going to depend on the group and how much you can know about it, as well. Some groups are more obvious than others - for example, looking at me you can pretty much tell I've never dealt with anything related to being a racial minority in the u.s. On the other hand, you really can't tell what someone's experienced with poverty without knowing about their background in detail.

Oh, I´ve been into discussions when that phrase has been used, each time it has been used well.

Sometimes, people just forget when they're arguing from a privileged position and don't see that they take something for granted that is only available because of that position.

An example I've used that's not quite privilege but sort of similar is when western europeans tell americans to just sell the car and use public transit and a bike. Outside of major cities, the availability of public transit is just so incredibly different that what might be a smart financial decision in one area is a terrible idea in another. (For example, where I am now, I couldn't even get a Walmart job without some sort of access to a vehicle - either someone who could reliably drop me off or pick me up or some way to drive myself.)

[AMFV]

I think this is one of those things that's going to depend on the group and how much you can know about it, as well. Some groups are more obvious than others - for example, looking at me you can pretty much tell I've never dealt with anything related to being a racial minority in the u.s. On the other hand, you really can't tell what someone's experienced with poverty without knowing about their background in detail.

But I might not be able to tell that. If you're the most common race in the general US, but you live in Atlanta, particularly in certain parts of Atlanta, you've had some of that experience. Because you have been a racial minority surrounded by a culture that wasn't necessarily yours, and had to decide between assimilation or going your own way.

After my father rejoined the military, ironically because of the period of extreme poverty that was mentioned. I went from a rural town in Washington state where there was one racial minority student in our school, and like two that were ambiguous, to a school where it was pretty matched with national demographics, to a school where I was the racial minority, and because they let kids from off-post into the school, they were not army brats but kids from a poor area outside of town, and I can say that it was a very interesting and different experience. But I definitely have experienced being attacked because of my race (physically), I have experienced having to figure out if I wanted to blend in or not, and not blending was dangerous, and you wouldn't know that by looking at me. So anything like that is a very very bad assumption to be making unless you know the person very well.

Basically it's a phrase that you could use with your friends but you definitely shouldn't use it with strangers.

An example I've used that's not quite privilege but sort of similar is when western europeans tell americans to just sell the car and use public transit and a bike. Outside of major cities, the availability of public transit is just so incredibly different that what might be a smart financial decision in one area is a terrible idea in another. (For example, where I am now, I couldn't even get a Walmart job without some sort of access to a vehicle - either someone who could reliably drop me off or pick me up or some way to drive myself.)

This is also an example of something pretty interesting. Because having a car is both a detriment and a privilege. Because while you might not be able to sell your car, or live without it, it lets you do things that the Europeans simply couldn't. I can decide that I want to go out camping 500 miles from my house in the middle of nowhere and pack for it, without much advance planning. I can move (I own a truck) without any assistance or really that much involved. But it is more money out of my pocket.

[2D8HP]

I have heard it in person. I suspect the reason you haven't is because of the crowd you're spending time with. I've heard it from college students....

That could as, except for my wife and the apprentice on the crew, I just don't talk much with college graduates, and the only time in the last two decades that I've spent more than an hour with a college student was with an intern who was tasked with drawing some piping diagrams under the restaurants at Fisherman's Wharf.

He kept insisting that he needed more time while the tide was coming in, despite my warning him that we'd have to wade and swim out if we stayed longer (we did wind up having to do that).

How close the Sea Lions get scared him (just as the did me a few months earlier).

He seemed a hard working kid, and was the first in his family to have the privilege of college (see, thread topic!) as is the apprentice on my current crew.

[WarKitty]

Basically it's a phrase that you could use with your friends but you definitely shouldn't use it with strangers.

The trouble is you kind of get into cases where there's no way to move the conversation in a productive direction that isn't potentially being rude. The fundamental point people are trying to communicate is that, sometimes you're speaking from background assumptions and you don't really get what it's like for someone in a different situation. And that's making you dismiss things that you really shouldn't dismiss or try to push solutions that don't work.

For a personal example - some of the conversations about street harassment I've been in. I've heard all the lines about how "I'd love it if women randomly hit on me, what's the big deal" or "I had a guy follow me once hitting on me and I got over it" or something. I've even seen guys get upset because they're saying something like "I can't even get any member of the opposite sex to pay attention to me, I have to do all the work and get rejected every time, and you're complaining about too much attention?"

A lot of cis men really struggle with understanding why women would care about street harassment, because they're picturing it from their experiences and those experiences just don't match up. And there's really no good way to explain it without saying, you need to stop and listen for a while and stop trying to talk from your experiences, because your experiences here are so very different. There's really no good way to say that without it being at least potentially interpreted as "your opinion doesn't matter" or "you don't know what you're talking about."

[AMFV]

The trouble is you kind of get into cases where there's no way to move the conversation in a productive direction that isn't potentially being rude. The fundamental point people are trying to communicate is that, sometimes you're speaking from background assumptions and you don't really get what it's like for someone in a different situation. And that's making you dismiss things that you really shouldn't dismiss or try to push solutions that don't work.

The first problem is that a lot of times people who have been in those same situations try to push the same solutions that people are trying to push where people assume that the other people aren't. So that's not necessarily a solid case. Also there's a point where emotionally what you feel isn't the most important thing, just because I don't necessarily understand exactly how somebody feels in a particular situation doesn't render my advice to somebody in that situation necessarily worthless, although it may make my delivery challenging.

The second problem is that when I've seen that phrase used it's NEVER used to try to move the conversation, it's to put the brakes on something that people don't want to discuss. And that's a dangerous thing to do, for a variety of reasons. As I said, you don't know the other person's experiences. I, have not lived a very privileged life by most metrics, although I'm doing fine now, but if people are just lumping me in with my ethnic group, gender, and sexual preference, they would assume I have.

The third problem is that you are mind-reading, you're inferring things about the other person's beliefs and backgrounds rather than listening to the things they're saying, and that's a big problem. For example, you might infer that a guy has never been cat-called or hit on by random women, which may or may not be the case.

For a personal example - some of the conversations about street harassment I've been in. I've heard all the lines about how "I'd love it if women randomly hit on me, what's the big deal" or "I had a guy follow me once hitting on me and I got over it" or something. I've even seen guys get upset because they're saying something like "I can't even get any member of the opposite sex to pay attention to me, I have to do all the work and get rejected every time, and you're complaining about too much attention?"

I can definitely relate to what you're having trouble with. It can be very hard to communicate something that is emotionally challenging to somebody who isn't understanding, or who is deliberately refusing to understand your position. I think that in this sort of situation, maybe trying to talk from a position that is not dependent on your personal experience might be better. Or if you want to go that route, maybe frame the question in terms of the guy's girlfriend, because that might help them.

To be fair, I have been hit on by women and it has been awkward, and I have had strangers shout comments about my appearance at me (although that's been more men than women). I imagine that that's not completely unheard of with other guys of reasonable attractiveness levels, I'm not like a supermodel or anything. But I would imagine that they probably don't think too much about it.

A lot of cis men really struggle with understanding why women would care about street harassment, because they're picturing it from their experiences and those experiences just don't match up. And there's really no good way to explain it without saying, you need to stop and listen for a while and stop trying to talk from your experiences, because your experiences here are so very different. There's really no good way to say that without it being at least potentially interpreted as "your opinion doesn't matter" or "you don't know what you're talking about."

I think that the problem is that when you say "check your privilege" it comes with a host of assumptions that are additional to the two you've mentioned. "If you were a woman, you'd understand" is possibly better. Because stating that somebody has a privilege is like stating that somebody has some kind of unearned benefit and that's problematic at the start. As a matter of fact, the latter thing might even be better to say, cause it's what you really mean when you say that.

[Nifft]

Bit of a side-topic, then back onto the main topic.

One major thing I dislike about the "check your privilege" interjection is that it seems to call a thing "privilege" which I would have called basic civil rights. This is disturbing for a variety of reasons:

- Basic civil rights ought to be rights, not privileges.

- The idea that you can and should strip someone of their "privilege" is very problematic when you realize that it's actually civil rights.


In addition to the chilling effect of demanding that someone must be an in-group member to have an opinion, I don't like the idea that civil rights are being discussed as if they were a luxury. It's true that the classes with the most access to luxuries also have the most access to civil rights, but that's not an excuse to conflate the two. Luxuries are optional, civil rights ought to be mandatory.

[Amazon]

We as humans tend to judge life using our own experiences as a medium and a lens, that doesn't work all the time because we tend to assume lots of things.

Let's say I live in a family where everyone knows how to dance tango, and dancing tango is a very common thing among my family.

If I start mocking you for not knowing how to dance tango besides being a huge jerk I'm not taking in consideration the privilege I had and I'm taking the fact that people need to know how to dance tango for granted.

So the idea of check your privilege is "Don't take things for granted"

This video may help you get the concept:

Spoiler

Show

It's not our fault to have privilege, but it's our fault to not adimit we have.

[Rockphed]

I really wonder if "check your privilege" is another phrase like "virtue signaling" that are only typed but never spoken out loud.

I'm tired of these goobelygook language innovations that aren't used face to face, and only seem to exist as copy and paste internet phrases.

I've heard it in person. Once. I'm pretty sure the person who used it used it wrong.

The trouble is you kind of get into cases where there's no way to move the conversation in a productive direction that isn't potentially being rude. The fundamental point people are trying to communicate is that, sometimes you're speaking from background assumptions and you don't really get what it's like for someone in a different situation. And that's making you dismiss things that you really shouldn't dismiss or try to push solutions that don't work.

In general, explaining why a proposed solution or objection is invalid (e.g. "he can't afford to pay for a new steering wheel, how do you expect him to pay for a new car?") is significantly more productive than simply shooting off a "check your privilege".

[Grey_Wolf_c]

One major thing I dislike about the "check your privilege" interjection is that it seems to call a thing "privilege" which I would have called basic civil rights.

What you would call basic civil rights is irrelevant, if said circumstance is not, in fact, a universal right. Lets say that a member of an unprivileged group is having trouble with, say, unsympathetic law officers. Proclaiming that everyone is equal before the law, and thus that the problem can't be with the police, when the reality is that different groups do experience very different results from interacting with the law, comes across as both insensitive and ignorant, whether intended or not. "Trust the police" might be a perfectly valid response for you, but not for others.

In addition to the chilling effect of demanding that someone must be an in-group member to have an opinion,

The expression "check your privilege" does not "deman[d] that someone must be an in-group member to have an opinion". It simply warns the person with the opinion that said opinion is coloured, whether they are aware or not, by a privilege that the others in the conversation do not have access to, and thus that their opinion lacks applicability to the situation at hand.

I don't like the idea that civil rights are being discussed as if they were a luxury. It's true that the classes with the most access to luxuries also have the most access to civil rights, but that's not an excuse to conflate the two. Luxuries are optional, civil rights ought to be mandatory.

But they are not. And until they are, you don't get to tell people what they can't call those should-be-universal-but-are-not rights "privileges", because they are, in fact, privileges. They are using the terminology better than you are.

ETA:

In general, explaining why a proposed solution or objection is invalid (e.g. "he can't afford to pay for a new steering wheel, how do you expect him to pay for a new car?") is significantly more productive than simply shooting off a "check your privilege".

Certainly, but not everyone has the privilege, in the form of time and patience, to always chose the most productive solution to any given problem. In the same way I can ask someone in, say, the MitD thread to "read the OP, section X" than re-explain something I've already typed there, someone may just want to say in three words "your answer assumes that the person you are talking to has access to privilege X like you do, but they don't, and thus your answer is not applicable".

Grey Wolf

[WarKitty]

For example, you might infer that a guy has never been cat-called or hit on by random women, which may or may not be the case.

Sometimes it's also a discussion of what is actually relevant. For example, I'd say in a u.s. cultural context, there are some very salient differences between (assume cisgender for all the following) a man being catcalled or hit on by a random woman, and a woman receiving the same from a man. I think sometimes part of the problem is that people fail to appreciate those differences and end up trying to relate from their own experiences that actually have some major points that aren't the same.

In general, explaining why a proposed solution or objection is invalid (e.g. "he can't afford to pay for a new steering wheel, how do you expect him to pay for a new car?") is significantly more productive than simply shooting off a "check your privilege".

I'd say the problem is sometimes explaining why the objection is invalid is in itself based on experience. To go back to the sexual harassment case I used, it's very hard to explain to someone who is used to telling people to go away and having them actually go away, that telling people who are bothering you to go away often makes the situation worse. You end up going around in circles on the "right" way to tell someone to go away, when your experience tells you that there is no right way (but you have to go through every single possible variation with every single person who you talk to in order to get to that). There's also a sheer fatigue element that is a very common report but can't be separated from personal experience.

Another good example is depression and exercise. It's almost impossible to explain to someone who hasn't dealt with severe mental illness why "get some exercise" isn't really helpful. Because they haven't had the experience where you're just so far out of energy that it's a miracle you managed to shower AND eat today. So it sounds like you're just making excuses when you say that doesn't work, you can't just make yourself exercise.

Bit of a side-topic, then back onto the main topic.

One major thing I dislike about the "check your privilege" interjection is that it seems to call a thing "privilege" which I would have called basic civil rights. This is disturbing for a variety of reasons:

- Basic civil rights ought to be rights, not privileges.

- The idea that you can and should strip someone of their "privilege" is very problematic when you realize that it's actually civil rights.

I think there's two different things that might be called privilege. There are things that can be considered basic civil rights. But there's also things that literally can't exist without being unfair - if I have an advantage over someone else, I benefit from that advantage and in order for them to be on an even playing field I have to lose that. (An easy example would be being seen as more qualified than someone based on my name. I obviously benefit from that, and I obviously will lose that benefit if things are made fair.)

I would also note the privilege also often exists alongside the idea that by default, the opinions of the group with privilege are given more attention, and that the less privileged often get talked over or ignored. So it also has side of "we've heard these voices so many times and these other people aren't getting a chance to be heard." Or maybe "you may think you're trying to be an even participant, but you're actually talking over people with the same objections we've answered 20 times already."

[Amazon]

Bit of a side-topic, then back onto the main topic.

One major thing I dislike about the "check your privilege" interjection is that it seems to call a thing "privilege" which I would have called basic civil rights. This is disturbing for a variety of reasons:

- Basic civil rights ought to be rights, not privileges.

That's Ludicrous, is like if I have food and you don't and I go "Geez I have food just fine, quit complaining that's just basic civil rigths".

[Razade]

That's Ludicrous, is like if I have food and you don't and I go "Geez I have food just fine, quit complaining that's just basic civil rigths".

That isn't what he said. His point is everyone should have enough to eat, one shouldn't be shamed they've got that right. One should try to help the other attain it. What good is there in mocking or tearing down someone instead of asking for help?

[Amazon]

That isn't what he said. His point is everyone should have enough to eat, one shouldn't be shamed they've got that right. One should try to help the other attain it. What good is there in mocking or tearing down someone instead of asking for help?

But no one is mocking or tearing down someone, they are just saying "Dude you have food who are you to talk about hunger?" You have food that is your privilege, that's a fact, people are just saying facts.

[Razade]

But no one is mocking or tearing down someone, they are just saying "Dude you have food who are you to talk about hunger?" You have food that is your privilege, that's a fact, people are just saying facts.

Maybe, as others have pointed out here, they didn't have food. It's not someone else's place to tell others what their place is. That is the take away here. That's the point. I'd also contend that there ARE people mocking, tearing down or attempting to segregate people based off of "privilege". That probably will end up getting this thread locked though. Your assertion that it isn't happening is a false one, regardless.

[WarKitty]

But no one is mocking or tearing down someone, they are just saying "Dude you have food who are you to talk about hunger?" You have food that is your privilege, that's a fact, people are just saying facts.

I think it's a terms issue here. What he's saying is it sounds like "how dare you have food when other people don't!" That may not be what people mean, but it's the impression other people get.

I do think it gets confused too - for example, it would be perfectly reasonable to say "you have way more food than you need and other people don't have any at all, you need to give them your food." And sometimes that is the case.

[AMFV]

We as humans tend to judge life using our own experiences as a medium and a lens, that doesn't work all the time because we tend to assume lots of things.

Which is exactly the same negative behavior I've seen from people who tell people to "check their privilege". The assumption that these people have had an easy life because they have (if they are of similar ethnic background) or assuming that they have had an easy life based on some erroneous ideal they have (if they are of differing background).

So the idea of check your privilege is "Don't take things for granted"

It's really not used that way. I mean at least in my experience it isn't. It's not used to stop people who are mocking other people who are in worse circumstances, it's used to shut people out of a discussion. Because of their set of experiences. What's worse, it's used to shut people out of a discussion based on their race without even learning about their background or backstory or experiences.

It's not our fault to have privilege, but it's our fault to not adimit we have.

The problem is when other people start insisting that you have privileges you don't, and getting angry that you won't "admit" your privilege. I remember once a friend of mine on Facebook posted a "race" video on YouTube.

Spoiler: Video

Show

I commented that I would have only been able to take two steps forward, which made the other person very angry because I was not of an ethnic background that they would have associated with that. Also I commented that the video was pretty racist, since there should be some people of each race in the front, ableit not in the same proportions. That's why oversimplifications are a big problem.

What you would call basic civil rights is irrelevant, if said circumstance is not, in fact, a universal right. Lets say that a member of an unprivileged group is having trouble with, say, unsympathetic law officers. Proclaiming that everyone is equal before the law, and thus that the problem can't be with the police, when the reality is that different groups do experience very different results from interacting with the law, comes across as both insensitive and ignorant, whether intended or not. "Trust the police" might be a perfectly valid response for you, but not for others.

But it's not always the groups you think are experiencing bad treatment that are. In my experience poor people of the majority ethnic background have quite a few problems with the police, probably in similar number to poor people of other ethnic backgrounds. The problem is when people start lumping people in with groups that they don't really belong to. Like assuming that all of the majority race are part of one giant group, which is not really something that holds true, at least not in my experience. There are too many diverse sections.

I mean say you have a majority race member, who is not using a licence plate, wearing militia gear, and is possibly armed. I bet that they would have a very different experience than somebody who looks like a businessman from a minority group. Which makes sense since "sovereign citizens" are often responsible for the worst acts of violence against police.

The problem is that "Check Your Privilege" simplifies something past where you can, and that's a big deal, and a serious issue if you're trying to deal with things in those kind of conversations.

The expression "check your privilege" does not "deman[d] that someone must be an in-group member to have an opinion". It simply warns the person with the opinion that said opinion is coloured, whether they are aware or not, by a privilege that the others in the conversation do not have access to, and thus that their opinion lacks applicability to the situation at hand.

But it is used to attempt to reduce the value of that opinion. And is often used in attempt to shut down or silence the person who is making that opinion, when it is shouted at them. And again, without proper knowledge of that person's background.

Sometimes it's also a discussion of what is actually relevant. For example, I'd say in a u.s. cultural context, there are some very salient differences between (assume cisgender for all the following) a man being catcalled or hit on by a random woman, and a woman receiving the same from a man. I think sometimes part of the problem is that people fail to appreciate those differences and end up trying to relate from their own experiences that actually have some major points that aren't the same.

True, and to be fair, it might be hard for me to look at things from the perspective of the guys you're discussing since I have had experiences where I have been hit on and it was extremely uncomfortable and awkward. Which may or may not be the same sort of experience as a woman in the same situation, but it's closer. Or at least it's close enough that I could see where you're coming with your set of complaints.

Again, this is a situation where the individual with whom you're conversing may have a different set of experiences than you are presuming they have. Barring their statement of such. It's possible that they just have interpreted those experiences differently.

I'd say the problem is sometimes explaining why the objection is invalid is in itself based on experience. To go back to the sexual harassment case I used, it's very hard to explain to someone who is used to telling people to go away and having them actually go away, that telling people who are bothering you to go away often makes the situation worse. You end up going around in circles on the "right" way to tell someone to go away, when your experience tells you that there is no right way (but you have to go through every single possible variation with every single person who you talk to in order to get to that). There's also a sheer fatigue element that is a very common report but can't be separated from personal experience.

To be fair, you've managed to separate those out pretty clearly here, and explain them without needing to really go into detail about experience.

Another good example is depression and exercise. It's almost impossible to explain to someone who hasn't dealt with severe mental illness why "get some exercise" isn't really helpful. Because they haven't had the experience where you're just so far out of energy that it's a miracle you managed to shower AND eat today. So it sounds like you're just making excuses when you say that doesn't work, you can't just make yourself exercise.

To be fair, as somebody who had severe depression at one point. Exercise can really help sometimes. It wasn't something that I could have done when I was hospitalized, but soon after I managed to start doing that and it really helped me recover. So I don't think that's necessarily a case of "checking privilege" in all cases, like for me it worked. And I was suicidal and hospitalized, so that's as bad as it gets. So it's more a case of realizing that not everything works for everybody. Of course I was also medicated which really helped there too and that came first.