Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Hi, everyone!
i intend this to be very quick video... about the concept of privilege and how it is
how it is used in particular communities, in particular, online communities.
So, what's the deal?
Naming no names, but there are certain groups
where people like to silence others who disagree with them.
by the looming spectre of 'privilege'.
This is a concept according to which
If I am in a group,
and I'm all oppressed, you know, perhaps. Or if I'm just speaking on behalf of someone who's all oppressed,
someone else comes in,
and they are
somehow connected to the oppressors,
what I can do is: if they disagree with me,
I don't have to argue with them. I don't have to say
'Your facts are wrong because of this.' I don't have to say, 'Your argument is wrong because of this.'
I can say 'Check your privilege!',
I can say you have
male privilege
you have white privilege.
you have 'cisgender' privilege.
(look it up — weird word... anyway)
What I want to point out here is
not so much the problems with that
on factual bases, with the fact that very often the person is making massive assumptions
about the person they're talking to.
They're assuming things like they have no major health problems, that they're not disabled in any way
They're assuming that they're straight.
They're assuming that they're cissexual.
Often assuming race when they haven't seen a photo yes.
They're assuming gender when they often don't know that yet.
Very often they've got some other problem in their life.
So, there's a whole load of assumptions. There are assumptions about those groups, that those groups definitely are privileged.
And there are various problems with the concept of privilege itself.
But I'm not dealing with that here today. What I'm dealing with is
my astonishment
at this. At something that happens as part of this.
Now, I understand that people want to silence others, that people want to rhetorically say,
'Don't you talk to me because' you know, 'this'.
But what astonishes me is that this is
clearly fallacious, and yet
I never, never
hear this pointed out as an example of a logical fallacy.
Now, what is the name of this logical fallacy? That's the wrong side.
Yeah, yep, I think you shouted it. It's argumentum ad hominem.
Quite clearly!
The person is being...
I was going to say 'silenced', but let's not focus on silence. The person is being responded to
in terms of
an identification of them as being in a certain group.
Where you say something about them, or a group they're in, instead of what they actually *said*.
it's the people think back to the senate
And it's *textbook* argumentum ad hominem.
It's incredible, but I never see this, I never hear this pointed out.
Victims of this type of tactic always
argue in other terms. They say:
'Well, I'm not that privileged, because of *this*'. Let's say they're a man.
And they say, 'Well, actually...
'There are lots of problems with being a man.'
And then there's the whole sort of 'WHAT ABOUT TEH MENZ??11!'-type
response, you know.
Those patronising responses, blah-blah-blah. See, these responses will never work, because the person you're talking to
believes very fervently
in certain [purported] facts
which you contest, but you can't contest all the facts at once.
So, what the person will do is indulge in question-begging.
They'll just assume that they are entirely right,
all xd
you are disputing
and all the things which
you've mentioned which but you must necessarily be disputing because
principally site
justices statements she's picnics
it's very difficult untangling stains and gets the cheese
intently
talk about the shoes and sandals cousin issues indefinitely and
depends has decided to science you identification something like that but
believe mentioned that
because i said that i'm listening to you know
the company's always excuse thing
orchestras
just mentioned the fantasy
just point out
i've made a point
he had responded by saying i mean citigroup or describing some
characteristic of me
that ease argument at that commitment selections
from uh... point out that they are entire complex relations
is textbook
outplacement permanent
the discussion cannot proceed
while that sort of thing goes on
it's if business gushing out something and sometimes it you say
what would you know nika
get the nazi unacceptable
you cannot say that
a distinctive ticketing correct
you discuss an issue of the exam comes in in science because
they come to some great
and they say oh well we can sign some because we've been here since the
response
excuses these kids huge attempted with your successful you tempted to give any
discussion onto that person's rights
utenti too
detailed discussion onset lesson six
you unit
you must not do that that cheesecake delicious concerned this is my call
we people have been
who are expressed by people saying check your previous
peacekeeping meeting slowed weepy pet dripping
Told 'check your privilege', or 'You have X privilege'.
You have this, that and the other, right?
Ignore the actual facts and point.
Home in on the fact that that is a logical fallacy,
and do not let them go! Do not let them get away with a rather clear and obvious and scummy logical fallacy.
condemned that
and then when they've admitted that they are completed and utterly wrong, then you can...
— and they're humiliated by that fact —
Then you can move on and
then you can discuss whether you are privileged, and all this stuff.
Once you've already established that it doesn't even matter if you are.
It doesn't matter if you're a damn '***', right?
he can make it right
It doesn't matter if you're a pasty
white person with lots of privilege.
It doesn't matter if you're one of those horrible, stinky men.
It doesn't matter if you're a stupid woman who should get in the kitchen.
These are fallacious things to say. They... that is the point. Well, I'm repeating myself now, so I should stop.
That is the message to go away with, right?
So: please, please, please,
implement this. Tell these people
'That's fallacious! Shut the *** up!' [amusing frustrated expressions :-) ]