"check your privilege"

[Amazon]

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.

Not really, no one is saying for you to give up of your privilege, just be awere of that when you are talking since it can cloud your judgment.

It's like when a rich kid who never had to work before, had his parents pay for his entire college graduation, is now working on his father's company and is saying "Geez getting money sure is easy, poor people just need to get a job and shut up" that guy is not checking his privilege.

@AMFV Just because you are privileged in some areas doesn't mean you are privileged in other areas, the fact you are unable to adimit some people may have worse then you may be why people get angry, just watch the video I posted here I think that will help. They can elaborate this in a better way.

[AMFV]

Not really, no one is saying for you to give up of your privilege, just be awere of that when you are talking since it can cloud your judgment.

But it's really for you to figure out if it's clouding your judgement an outside observer can't really properly assess that, again especially if they don't know your background.

It's like when a rich kid who never had to work before, had his parents pay for his entire college graduation, is now working on his father's company and is saying "Geez getting money sure is easy, poor people just need to get a job and shut up" that guy is not checking his privilege.

Well what if somebody who was poor growing up says that? I've known a lot of people who grew up very poor and are now doing okay that have said that. At my work I've heard that statement a lot. And these are people who work for a living, very hard work. Most of them don't have a college education, and are underprivileged but they have that same opinion as your hypothetical rich snobby kid, what then?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

But it is used to attempt to reduce the value of that opinion.

No, it is an attempt to explain why that opinion doesn't have as much value as the person espousing it might think it does. Would you say your posts are "attempting to reduce the value of my opinion" right now? Or are you attempting to explain why my opinion doesn't actually apply?

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.

So you say, but not in my experience. Sounds to me like you are trying to say that people are using it wrong, but it's coming across as "this expression cannot be used correctly" which is, honestly, a weird statement.

Like with, say, "Beg the question", the fact that many people may use it wrong doesn't make the phrase less correct when used in the correct circumstances.

Grey Wolf

[Amazon]

No, the main idea is that other people have to tell you... Look in your work don't you have supervisors or something? Why do they exist? Because sometimes we are so deep in our own stuff we can't see our own mistakes that's why we need an outside perspective.

I think the main idea is this:

You are white, able-bodied and straight right? The fact you are white, able-bodied and straight does't mean you won't face hardships, problems and difficulties, it just mean that the hardships, problems and difficulties you'll face won't be cause by the fact that you are white, able bodied and straight.

You will never have a problem going to the 13th floor in a building that only has stairs for exemple and that's a privilege you have over someone who uses a wheelchair. it's not about feeling guilt it's about being humple enougth to say you have an innate advantage over other people and you didn't have to do anything to get that advantage.

[Razade]

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.

Even I think that's wrong in most cases. Who are you, or anyone, to decide how much is more than someone needs? Is there an algorithm you use to plug that in?

Not really, no one is saying for you to give up of your privilege, just be awere of that when you are talking since it can cloud your judgment.

I never claimed that either. It's so very hard to discuss this issue when you want to just spin off of things I never said. I said that just because someone has food now doesn't mean they've always had it. Or will always have it. It's not your place to tell someone to acknowledge a criteria that you think they meet when

1. It's not a criteria in the the first place

2. You don't know anything about their lives.

Telling someone who is white that they are privilaged more than someone who is black (and if you don't think this has happened then you...are living in a fantasy land frankly. Hell, google Buzzfeed and you'll find at least 20 snarky articles and 30 hours of video on this alone) in America is insulting. It says to people, regardless of whether you mean it or not, that because of their skin color they've had it easier than someone else just on their skin color.

It is a reductionist argument that fails so hard on so many levels that it's a joke.

It's like when a rich kid who never had to work before, had his parents pay for his entire college graduation, is now working on his father's company and is saying "Geez getting money sure is easy, poor people just need to get a job and shut up" that guy is not checking his privilege.

It's interesting you have to jump to the most extreme and rare case to prove your point.

You are white, able bodied and straight right? The fact you are white and straight does't mean you won't face hardships, problems and difficulties, it just eman that the hardships, problems and difficulties you face won't be cause because by the fact that you are white, able bodied and straight.

Bull. Crap. This so perfectly encapsulates my point above it's like I wrote it myself. I didn't, as you can see, but it's like I did. You don't know that. You don't know what hardships they've had and why they have had them. You're assuming, off faulty evidence, that they won't because of the criteria you've laied out. You have absolutely no method to find that out and instead of listening to the person and weighing their argument on the merits of the argument themselves, you are attempting to de-platform or lessen their voice based off outside things.

"Your argument is less valid because of your skin tone, sexual orientation and/or lack of disability". Not because their argument is unsound or flawed in any way. Merely because they were born a certain way.

[AMFV]

No, it is an attempt to explain why that opinion doesn't have as much value as the person espousing it might think it does. Would you say you are "attempting to reduce the value of my opinion" right now? Or are you attempting to explain why my opinion doesn't actually apply?

What I am doing is presenting a counterpoint to your opinion. Which should not inherently devalue it, but refute it. Or at least that's the goal.

Also again, the problem is that you are assuming privilege, again what about somebody who is in my situation, who by most metrics isn't very privileged but I'm still of the race that would make me considered privileged by most folks using that particular phrasing. So it's often used in a situation where it would not apply.

So you say, but not in my experience. Sounds to me like you are trying to say that people are using it wrong, but it's coming across as "this expression cannot be used correctly" which is, honestly, a weird statement.

I will say where the experience can be used correctly... As I have earlier, although probably not so explicitly.

1.) As an inspiration for self-reflection, since you know your own experiences you can use the phrase to examine your own life.

2.) With a close friend with whom you are intimately familiar, and even then you should be careful. Since your friend may have experiences of which you are unaware.

Edit

No, the main idea is that other people have to tell you... Look in your work don't you have supervisors or something? Why do they exist? Because sometimes we are so deep in our own stuff we can't see our own mistakes that's why we need an outside perspective.

Not quite. Supervisors are mostly there to ensure that all of the moving parts are working together.

I think the main idea is this:

You are white, able-bodied and straight right? The fact you are white, able-bodied and straight does't mean you won't face hardships, problems and difficulties, it just mean that the hardships, problems and difficulties you'll face won't be cause by the fact that you are white, able bodied and straight.

I WAS PHYSICALLY ATTACKED BECAUSE OF MY RACE. I have mentioned that before, yes? Well let's mention it again, I was attacked by three dudes who jumped me because of sitting at the wrong table and being white, in High School. I've been stopped by the police for driving in neighborhoods that weren't majority white and asked "what I was doing there", and "if I was looking for prostitutes." So maybe you can take your assumptions about me and shove them someplace, because they're clearly inaccurate.

Hell, disabled people have privileges I don't have: they can park in closer spots, they can access rides without lines at many amusement parks, in some cases they can get money without having to do anything additional. I mean those aren't necessarily bad things, they are, however, advantages.

You will never have a problem going to the 13th floor in a building that only has stairs for exemple and that's a privilege you have over someone who uses a wheelchair. it's not about feeling guilt it's about being humple enougth to say you have an innate advantage over other people and you didn't have to do anything to get that advantage.

But again, I don't have that advantage. As I said in the "Race Video" I would have only been able to take two steps forward the whole time. So... maybe not so privileged.

[WarKitty]

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.

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.

Upon reflection, I've also found the situations where I wanted to invoke the concept of privilege to be ones where there seemed to be a certain amount of skepticism to begin with. So to use the sexual harassment example, having long discussions on the "right" way to say no in order to be listened to, even after I've said "I don't get listened to when I say no." Because the person is not really accepting what I say - it's always worked for them, so I must be doing something differently than what they're doing. Whereas I'm trying to say, no, the situation itself is different for me, so I could do the exact same thing you do any not get the same results, and I think it's because as a woman I am not seen in the same way that a man would be.

Even I think that's wrong in most cases. Who are you, or anyone, to decide how much is more than someone needs? Is there an algorithm you use to plug that in?

There are in fact such algorithms.

But that aside - I think it's a mistake to say that if we can't 100% quantify something we can't have any idea at all. I can say easily enough that, for example, most middle class americans have easy access to buy far more food than they would ever need without breaking the budget.

I will say where the experience can be used correctly... As I have earlier, although probably not so explicitly.

1.) As an inspiration for self-reflection, since you know your own experiences you can use the phrase to examine your own life.

2.) With a close friend with whom you are intimately familiar, and even then you should be careful. Since your friend may have experiences of which you are unaware.

The problem is that doesn't give you any way of fixing anything if the people causing the problems aren't close, intimate friends with the people dealing with the problems. Again, I think there are a lot of things that are real problems that can't be quantified and pinned down and separated from the personal experiences of those dealing with them. If I want to explain to a guy why he shouldn't shout "hey, looking sexy lady!" out his car window at a woman, I'm probably going to have to appeal to personal experience - that both I and many women I know experience that sort of thing as part of a pattern of objectification.

[Amazon]

AMFV But that's the the thing just becuase you have privilege in certain areas doesn't mean you are privilege in all areas you just need to be willing to adimit that just as you are underprivileged in some aspects other people are too.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

What I am doing is presenting a counterpoint to your opinion. Which should not inherently devalue it, but refute it. Or at least that's the goal.

Precisely. And "check your privilege" does the same - indicate that an argument used does not apply to the current circumstances.

Also again, the problem is that you are assuming privilege,

Excuse me? why are you making this about me? When have I, Grey Wolf, "assumed privilege"?

This, what you are doing right now, this is an ad hominem and an attempt to dismiss my opinion by creating a strawman. Think otherwise? Quote one of my posts where I have, in your opinion, "assumed a privilege". Otherwise, admit that you are crafting a strawman.

Honestly, you have done far more to politicise this topic which is about the meaning of a phrase than anyone else.

again what about somebody who is in my situation, who by most metrics isn't very privileged but I'm still of the race that would make me considered privileged by most folks using that particular phrasing. So it's often used in a situation where it would not apply.

I do not know you from Adam. For all I know, no-one has ever used this phrase talking about you, and you have just made up this argument to bolster your position. But whether you made it up or not, it fails to in any way refute my statements about the phrase itself. Instead, it relies on assuming that I misuse the phrase, to which I repeat: it is irrelevant how many people misuse the phrase. The phrase means what it means, and it can be used in a fairly common scenario. It might not be the most detailed or polite, but it does describe a common argumentative scenario where an argument may apply to others but not to the listener due to differences in privilege.

I will say where the experience can be used correctly... As I have earlier, although probably not so explicitly.

1.) As an inspiration for self-reflection, since you know your own experiences you can use the phrase to examine your own life.

2.) With a close friend with whom you are intimately familiar, and even then you should be careful. Since your friend may have experiences of which you are unaware.

Or 3) situations such as the one I used as my own example. The fact that other situations might exist do not in any way lessen the example I gave.

Grey Wolf

[AMFV]

Upon reflection, I've also found the situations where I wanted to invoke the concept of privilege to be ones where there seemed to be a certain amount of skepticism to begin with. So to use the sexual harassment example, having long discussions on the "right" way to say no in order to be listened to, even after I've said "I don't get listened to when I say no." Because the person is not really accepting what I say - it's always worked for them, so I must be doing something differently than what they're doing. Whereas I'm trying to say, no, the situation itself is different for me, so I could do the exact same thing you do any not get the same results, and I think it's because as a woman I am not seen in the same way that a man would be.

But those sort of people aren't likely to be swayed by you telling them to "Check Their Privilege" if anything that's going to make them very angry and defensive. Particularly if your assumptions about them are in some way wrong or unfounded. Since you have to make a set of assumptions about them to tell them that.

The problem is that doesn't give you any way of fixing anything if the people causing the problems aren't close, intimate friends with the people dealing with the problems. Again, I think there are a lot of things that are real problems that can't be quantified and pinned down and separated from the personal experiences of those dealing with them. If I want to explain to a guy why he shouldn't shout "hey, looking sexy lady!" out his car window at a woman, I'm probably going to have to appeal to personal experience - that both I and many women I know experience that sort of thing as part of a pattern of objectification.

I'm going to be brutally honest. If the person who you are talking to is not yourself or a close friend, and isn't listening to you already making valid points. There is not a thing you can say, and "Check Your Privilege" is likely to be the worst thing you could say.

AMFV But that's the the thing just becuase you have privilege in certain areas doesn't mean you are privilege in all areas you just need to be willing to adimit that just as you are underprivileged in some aspects other people are too.

I don't think I've ever argued that all people were privileged. Only that I, myself, was less privileged than people tend to assume, especially the people that would use that phrasing.

Precisely. And "check your privilege" does the same - indicate that an argument used does not apply to the current circumstances.

But you're not using it in good faith unless you know about the other person's privileges and that requires that the person be you or somebody you know closely.

Excuse me? why are you making this about me? When have I, Grey Wolf, "assumed privilege"?

Because if you have used the phrase then you HAVE to by definition have assumed the other person had privilege. PERIOD. Or you are misusing the phrase or incorrectly applying it. You might be psychic and able to tell other people's life story by looking at them, but I'd bet a shiny hundred dollar bill that you can't.

That when you said "Check Your Privilege" you were talking to people of whose actual privilege you were likely uncertain.

This, what you are doing right now, this is an ad hominem and an attempt to dismiss my opinion by creating a strawman. Think otherwise? Quote one of my posts where I have, in your opinion, "assumed a privilege". Otherwise, admit that you are crafting a strawman.

You admitted to using the phrase "Check Your Privilege" with people that you do not know well. Ergo you've assumed their privilege period. Are we done with weaseling here?

Edit: I mean look at Amazon, she assumed (incorrectly) that I had never had issues because of my race, sexual affiliation, or able-bodiedness and was definitely wrong on that number.

Honestly, you have done far more to politicise this topic which is about the meaning of a phrase than anyone else.

That was not my intention and I have strived to avoid doing that as best I can, but the fact is that this phrase has a strong political context, which I have tried to dance around as best as I can.

I do not know you for Jack. For all I know, no-one has ever used this phrase talking about you, and you have just made up this argument to bolster your position. But whether you made it up or not, it fails to in any way refute my statements about the phrase itself. Instead, it relies on assuming that I misuse the phrase, to which I repeat: it is irrelevant how many people misuse the phrase. The phrase means what it means.

But you have, because you have assumed a set of privileges for people against whom you used that phrase, which may not be accurate.

Or 3) situations such as the one I used as my own example. The fact that other situations might exist do not in any way lessen the example I gave.

Grey Wolf

Yes, it does. Because you are not using the phrase in good faith, because you do not know the other person's privileges or life history.

[Razade]

There are in fact such algorithms.

To be sure. It was more of a pithy comment in that even if they are, their effectiveness seems dubious at best. Even if they were 100% (which nothing is or could be) effective (and I'd wager they're not even breaking 10% on their best day) they're guidelines at best and Orwellian at worst.

But that aside - I think it's a mistake to say that if we can't 100% quantify something we can't have any idea at all. I can say easily enough that, for example, most middle class Americans have easy access to buy far more food than they would ever need without breaking the budget.

I do too. Which is why I never said it in the first place nor would I say it.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Because if you have used the phrase then you HAVE to by definition have assumed the other person had privilege. PERIOD.

For the record, I consider it valid to make assumptions made on the basis of what a person's statement reveals. If someone, as I exemplified, makes light of expensive purchases, making the assumption that said person has a monetary privilege is not somehow invalid, but instead is a perfectly reasonable deduction to make based on their own words.

That said, you are telling others they can't use a phrase because it assumes things about others beyond what you consider proper, while making assumptions about me. Your hypocrisy is quite something. I'm done with you.

GW

[WarKitty]

The worry I'm having is we're getting to the point where there simply is no way that's not seen as rude and off-putting to have any sort of important discussion about social issues with anyone you don't know intimately, unless you can put it into something you can quantify.

That is not workable. Many very important social issues can't be easily quantified. And sometimes there is no way at all to make a point to someone without saying no, your experience doesn't apply here, because you're assuming how things work for you is how they work for someone else and that isn't the case.

You cannot make a change if every way you could realistically engage with someone who doesn't understand is seen as rude.

[AMFV]

For the record, I consider it valid to make assumptions made on the basis of what a person's statement reveals. If someone, as I exemplified, makes light of expensive purchases, making the assumption that said person has a monetary privilege is not somehow invalid, but instead is a perfectly reasonable deduction to make based on their own words.

I've known people on welfare that definitely made light of expensive purchases, sometimes buying things on credit or that they could not afford. So maybe not a good assumption. Again, you are making a deduction that is not necessarily something that is borne out in practice. And that is the problem with this phrase.

Like Amazon's reference to "they should just get a job". Yes, I've heard snobby rich kids say that. But I've also heard formerly poor blue collar workers say it. So assuming that somebody has a certain background based on certain phrases is probably really not a great bet.

That said, you are telling others they can't use a phrase because it assumes things about others beyond what you consider proper, while making assumptions about me. Your hypocrisy is quite something. I'm done with you.

GW

I have not made a single assumptions. You've admitted to using the phrase. Ergo you've made assumptions about others. That is NOT an assumption, unless you are misusing the phrase that is the case.

[Keltest]

The worry I'm having is we're getting to the point where there simply is no way that's not seen as rude and off-putting to have any sort of important discussion about social issues with anyone you don't know intimately, unless you can put it into something you can quantify.

That is not workable. Many very important social issues can't be easily quantified. And sometimes there is no way at all to make a point to someone without saying no, your experience doesn't apply here, because you're assuming how things work for you is how they work for someone else and that isn't the case.

You cannot make a change if every way you could realistically engage with someone who doesn't understand is seen as rude.

I think theres a difference between dismissing somebody's idea as not workable and explaining that theyre starting from the wrong place, and casually dismissing somebody with a three word passive-aggressive phrase. Regardless of whether you mean it that way, if you tell somebody to "check your privilege" then you are basically telling them to shush and let the grown ups have their conversation. You aren't engaging anybody that way. Yeah, somebody might still come away offended from the first method, but that's as much their problem as it is yours, because you made an effort to engage them and they still decided the very idea youre espousing was offensive. But with the latter way, youre pushing them out of that conversation, telling them they cant meaningfully participate (or more precisely, that you wont let them), and that is definitely your fault if you do that.

[WarKitty]

I think theres a difference between dismissing somebody's idea as not workable and explaining that theyre starting from the wrong place, and casually dismissing somebody with a three word passive-aggressive phrase. Regardless of whether you mean it that way, if you tell somebody to "check your privilege" then you are basically telling them to shush and let the grown ups have their conversation. You aren't engaging anybody that way. Yeah, somebody might still come away offended from the first method, but that's as much their problem as it is yours, because you made an effort to engage them and they still decided the very idea youre espousing was offensive. But with the latter way, youre pushing them out of that conversation, telling them they cant meaningfully participate (or more precisely, that you wont let them), and that is definitely your fault if you do that.

I'll be honest, I've really never seen the specific phrase "check your privilege" very often by people who actually mean it (as opposed to those who are mocking the idea of privilege). When I have seen it, it's generally been in spaces where people are already on board with the idea of privilege.

But I've found no matter how you explain it, there's really no way to say "your experience is leading you to the wrong conclusion" that isn't largely read as "you're not letting me participate." And you do need a fairly quick way of saying "we're not going over your opinion right now," because in my experience the other alternative is that you will never get anything done except answering slight variations on objections from people who don't really get it, and what you actually have to say will get buried by the people who are insisting they don't want to be silenced.

[AMFV]

I'll be honest, I've really never seen the specific phrase "check your privilege" very often by people who actually mean it (as opposed to those who are mocking the idea of privilege). When I have seen it, it's generally been in spaces where people are already on board with the idea of privilege.

Which is still problematic, because again, you're still making assumptions about other people's experiences based on their conclusions and opinions. Not their actual experiences.

But I've found no matter how you explain it, there's really no way to say "your experience is leading you to the wrong conclusion" that isn't largely read as "you're not letting me participate." And you do need a fairly quick way of saying "we're not going over your opinion right now," because in my experience the other alternative is that you will never get anything done except answering slight variations on objections from people who don't really get it, and what you actually have to say will get buried by the people who are insisting they don't want to be silenced.

So you're explicitly admitting that what you want out of the situation is to silence them? Also you're not accounting for situations where somebody with a similar experience might have a differing conclusion. That's a very poor approach I think. Especially when you don't know the person you're talking to's situation.

It's a very easy leap from "you don't have the experience to make these conclusions" to "anybody with differing opinions from mine must not know what they're talking about" and that's the problem with that phrase and it's idea. I mean if your real problem is answering the same question over and over again, you can say something like "well that's already been addressed..." or so forth and so on.

[S@tanicoaldo]

I think the problem is that for this phrase to work people need to acknowledge the concept of racial inequality and some people just don't think racism is a thing so they are not "on the same page".

Is like talking about round planets to someone who thinks earth is flat, they have two diferent takes on reality so they can't have a conversation, since that conversation depends on the notion and premise that earth is round.

[WarKitty]

So you're explicitly admitting that what you want out of the situation is to silence them? Also you're not accounting for situations where somebody with a similar experience might have a differing conclusion. That's a very poor approach I think. Especially when you don't know the person you're talking to's situation.

I mean, the problem there is more that if you have a lot of people, eventually you're going to hit the point where someone will be silenced, unless you are going to sit there until literally everyone who wants to say anything has said it (and you have the energy to deal with every single person who has something to say). That's not always a realistic thing. If you're talking about an experience that's common to a group that's a minority where you are, then if you just go by everyone gets a voice what ends up happening is the majority who haven't had that experience drown out the minority who have.

There is not and cannot be a space that's open to everyone and everyone at all is allowed to share there opinion whenever and no one is ever silenced - it would be a chaos of whoever can push their opinion with the most energy. What we're saying is what's been happening is that many groups who are not privileged are the ones getting silenced, but those doing the silencing aren't noticing because they are hearing the people they know and are used to hearing.

[AMFV]

I think the problem is that for this phrase to work people need to acknowledge the concept of racial inequality and some people just don't think racism is a thing so they are not "on the same page".

Is like talking about round planets to someone who thinks earth is flat, they have two diferent takes on reality so they can't have a conversation, since that conversation depends on the notion and premise that earth is round.

The problem is that there are people who have a lot of racially charged viewpoints who don't realize that not all problems link back to racism. "Checking your privilege" assumes that people of a certain background will have it worse. Do you think that a child of Caucasian meth addicts is going to have an easier life than Jayden Smith? I mean I can tell you that is not the case. (Not from my experience in this case, but from general processing).

And wanting a more nuanced view doesn't equate to "not believing racism is a thing". It's a desire to have an actual nuanced discussion.

I mean, the problem there is more that if you have a lot of people, eventually you're going to hit the point where someone will be silenced, unless you are going to sit there until literally everyone who wants to say anything has said it (and you have the energy to deal with every single person who has something to say). That's not always a realistic thing. If you're talking about an experience that's common to a group that's a minority where you are, then if you just go by everyone gets a voice what ends up happening is the majority who haven't had that experience drown out the minority who have.

But a discussion isn't a shouting mob, or shouldn't. And the goal of discourse should be to have all viewpoints recognized and examined. You're admitting that you're rejecting things out of hand, that's not a good way to develop and is going to eventually result in solid points being bowled over and ignored.

And what's worse, again you haven't addressed the problem of the fact that asking somebody to check their privileged has to do with your assumptions about that person's background and views. And those may not be accurate. And you're then moving to silence those people based on those assumptions, that's a big deal particularly if those are predicated in something like gender or race.

There is not and cannot be a space that's open to everyone and everyone at all is allowed to share there opinion whenever and no one is ever silenced - it would be a chaos of whoever can push their opinion with the most energy. What we're saying is what's been happening is that many groups who are not privileged are the ones getting silenced, but those doing the silencing aren't noticing because they are hearing the people they know and are used to hearing.

Well no, you normally take turns stating points, or at least that's how it should be, if it's a proper discourse. Also you're making some pretty broad assumptions about what other people are or aren't noticing. And that's problematic as well.

[Rain Dragon]

I think in most contexts the phrase by itself is difficult to use because of the aforementioned problems of making an assumption that may be harmful to the conversation, making the listener feel silenced when that isn't the case and plenty more. If you're already in a heated discussion where someone isn't understanding the situation properly the phrase alone isn't likely to have an effect.

But!
I think the sentiment especially as explained in the first few posts is valuable and I've heard (and might have said) things that are roughly similar to try to come to an understanding.

Because of these things the phrase isn't one I would use over something like 'Hey, could you listen a sec to a story?' or 'I have an analogy that might help' or even 'Just imagine (blank)'.

[WarKitty]

But a discussion isn't a shouting mob, or shouldn't. And the goal of discourse should be to have all viewpoints recognized and examined. You're admitting that you're rejecting things out of hand, that's not a good way to develop and is going to eventually result in solid points being bowled over and ignored.

Well no, you normally take turns stating points, or at least that's how it should be, if it's a proper discourse. Also you're making some pretty broad assumptions about what other people are or aren't noticing. And that's problematic as well.

Who gets to be the representative of each viewpoint? Who gets to decide what counts as an individual viewpoint? Who gets to take those turns? If there are 5 men and one woman (which is far fairer than the gender roles I got in academia), that one woman's voice is going to be drowned out pretty quickly if you're insisting that everyone get an even share. And it's often made worse - there are studies that women do often get interrupted or cut off much more frequently than men, and men by and large don't notice when this is happening, so they get the idea that it's a fair discussion when it's not.

There's also a fatigue aspect. Not every discussion is without consequences. To use a completely over the top example, suppose I was regularly dealing with people arguing that I should not attend university due to my gender. And every time there was a discussion about the experience of women in the university, someone wanted to come in and present their argument as to why women shouldn't be attending university. I think you could see where the women would feel that at some point, dealing with that same argument every time prevented them from ever moving past it.

[Tvtyrant]

I think the phrase is perfectly viable between intimates. If my grandparent or a psychologist I went to told me I should check my privelege on an opinion it would provoke thoughtful discussion.

With a stranger it is worthless. We don't know anything real about each other, and it reduces human experience to categories.

[Zebalas]

Do you think that a child of Caucasian meth addicts is going to have an easier life than Jayden Smith? I mean I can tell you that is not the case. (Not from my experience in this case, but from general processing).

But economic class is also a source of privilege.

Besides imagine if that kid was black, don't you think he's going to have a even harder time?
Dealing with racism, poverty and the addiction of his parents. In that sense the Caucasian kid is "privileged" not that he has it easy but that he won't have to deal with one of the things the black kid will have to face.

[Razade]

Who gets to be the representative of each viewpoint? Who gets to decide what counts as an individual viewpoint? Who gets to take those turns? If there are 5 men and one woman (which is far fairer than the gender roles I got in academia), that one woman's voice is going to be drowned out pretty quickly if you're insisting that everyone get an even share. And it's often made worse - there are studies that women do often get interrupted or cut off much more frequently than men, and men by and large don't notice when this is happening, so they get the idea that it's a fair discussion when it's not.

Does their gender or their race have anything to do with the discussion? If the five of you are talking about building a bridge, why does it matter that the lone woman have an "unequel voice"? Should a man, regardless of the context of the conversation, count for a fraction of a woman dependent on their make up? Should those four men building the bridge be 1/4th a person so that the split in gender is even? If there were ten men and ten women would the men count as one person?

[Tvtyrant]

But economic class is also a source of privilege.

Besides imagine if that kid was black, don't you think he's going to have a even harder time?
Dealing with racism, poverty and the addiction of his parents. In that sense the Caucasian kid is "privileged" not that he has it easy but that he won't have to deal with one of the things the black kid will have to face.

And there we have it. All people are really just categories of misery, and individual experiences are unimportant.

For instance, there is no way a white kid could be savagely beaten by his hispanic neighbors for his skin color, or chased up against a fence and stoned, or be excluded from his largely latino schools' culture. It is simply categorical.

[BannedInSchool]

I think the problem is that for this phrase to work people need to acknowledge the concept of racial inequality and some people just don't think racism is a thing so they are not "on the same page".

Even before that they have to already understand what's being said, as a three-word phrase doesn't convey any of the intended meaning unless you've already been initiated into its mysteries. One might as well be saying "go @#$% yourself" because that's going to be the conveyed message without the whole context which is not necessarily shared.

[Zebalas]

And there we have it. All people are really just categories of misery, and individual experiences are unimportant.

For instance, there is no way a white kid could be savagely beaten by his hispanic neighbors for his skin color, or chased up against a fence and stoned, or be excluded from his largely latino schools' culture. It is simply categorical.

Bullying is bad sure, but we are talking about social and systemic oppression here, both are terrible but just not in the same level.

[Tvtyrant]

Bullying is bad sure, but we are talking about social and systemic oppression here, both are terrible but just not in the same level.

Sure. Like if I had comitted suicide from constant harassment it would be less awful then growing up in one of the gangs that harassed me.

[Zebalas]

Sure. Like if I had comitted suicide from constant harassment it would be less awful then growing up in one of the gangs that harassed me.

Without social and systemic oppression there would not be gangs in the first place.