It seems more accurate to say "... people aren't using it to make your life worse."
Being yourself isn't a problem unless someone else decides to make it one.
this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025
430 points (89.1% liked)
Flippanarchy
1191 readers
20 users here now
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
-
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
True mostly, although some things may occur regardless of how other people treat you, like feelings of dysphoria from being transgender, since it's based on your own perception of yourself.
Of course, other people can certainly make it even worse.
This is a motte-and-bailey argument, in which one term has two definitions. You have the definition in the OP which gets brought out whenever someone argues against the idea of "privilege". It's designed to be hard to disagree with and so it just states the obvious. However, it's not the definition that people who talk about privilege actually use in any other context. Otherwise why would they talk about dismantling privilege? Or refuse to talk about the privilege of of anyone except straight/white/cis people (usually men)?
I don't like it when people make a controversial claim and then pretend that they aren't doing that if anyone challenges them, rather than defending the claim.
This is really the only definition I’m aware of. What do you imagine these other people mean then?
I think that in other contexts, they present privilege as a property of groups rather than of individuals. So, for example, white people as a whole have white privilege and so any particular white person has it because of his race, not because of anything he personally has or has not experienced.
They also present it as something that the privileged groups have unfairly, at the expense of other groups. "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression." If privilege is simply the state of not having your life made worse, why would it feel different from equality? Why would anyone want to dismantle it?
I don’t really understand how these ideas are in conflict with the meme here. You could be living a perfect life in a material sense but still be miserable if you are clinically depressed.
Privilege takes many forms. Some are just not being subject to oppression or violence that these other groups face, but some can also be benefiting from the oppression of those groups.
For example, having class privilege can mean benefiting from cheap labor to fulfill your desires. If a billionaire was deprived of all or most of the labor of the people who support their lavish lifestyle, I have to imagine this could cause them considerable distress, at least temporarily. In that case, I think it’s fairly easy to see how equality could feel like oppression.
Another example is that some people just like having a higher social status in society. It feels natural and empowering for them to be “above” other people in some sense. When this is upended, it feels bad.
But again, none of this implies that these people are living good lives in the current system. It just means they either benefit from it or aren’t harmed by it in some way, small or large. For most people, I think the benefits are small and may even be outweighed by other benefits they would receive in a more equal society. But there are those who would lose more, and they tend to be the loudest opponents of equality. They also tend to be wealthy and influential in the media and they influence many other people to adopt their viewpoints, even when those viewpoints aren’t in those people’s best interests.
All that said, this seems to be a common and recurring issue, so it may be that the concept of privilege needs reframing to avoid triggering people who don’t understand what it means. I am open to suggestions but we also need to be careful not to minimize or erase the struggles of oppressed people in our language.
load more comments
(1 replies)
And none of that holds a candle to privalige of being rich.
I mean, you've got the OJ paradox.
Did he get away with murder by throwing money at an army of top lawyers? Absolutely.
Did he get singled out by the LAPD and dragged through what was supposed to be a kangaroo court run by literal Hitler worshipping fascists? Also Absolutely.
Wealth doesn't completely immunize you against bigotry, particularly from the vile views of other richer people.
Hearing it like that makes it even sadder, because it shows in an easy way that people discriminate against each other without even being good off themselves.
One of the biggest scams liberalism pulled on us is to convince us that we exist in societies where we actually have "rights" and "freedoms."
In reality, we exist in a society that is hierarchically based on privilege.