I’d argue that height privilege (up to a point, typically around 6′6″) is a real thing, having nothing to do with being good at sports. There is a noted experiment, which my google-fu is currently failing to turn up, in which participants were shown a video of an interview between a man and a woman. In one group, the man was standing on a footstool behind his podium, so that he appeared markedly taller than the woman. In the other group, the man was standing in a depression behind his podium, so t that he appeared shorter. The content of the interview was identical.
Participants rated the man in the “taller” condition as more intelligent and more mature than the same man in the “shorter” condition. That’s height privilege.
There’s also a large established correlation between height and income, though not enough to completely rule out a potential common cause like “good genes” or childhood nutrition.
I have highly accomplished female friends who tell me horrible stories. I have highly accomplished friends with black skin who tell me horrible stories.
I have highly accomplished female friends who tell me horrible stories. I have highly accomplished friends with black skin who tell me horrible stories.
Can I have some more specifics.
Also note that in the parent I specifically referred to “race privilege”, the situation with “female privilege” is more complicated.
So you’re claiming that there is no way in which the US police and justice systems treat black people differently that isn’t reducible to intelligence or conscientiousness differences?
So you’re claiming that there is no way in which the US police and justice systems treat black people differently that isn’t reducible to intelligence or conscientiousness differences?
More or less. Remember lower conscientiousness translates into higher propensity to commit violent crime.
There’s also a certain amount of what may fairly be called “black privilege” due to the fact that in any highly publicized crime, or alleged crime, with white defendants and a black victim there will be social pressure to through the book at them regardless of lack of evidence, or mitigating circumstances like the victim beating the defendant’s head on the pavement. And conversely if the defendants are black and the victim is white there will be social pressure to go light on the defendants some people even arguing that the victim brought the crime upon himself due to his racism. Something similar happens with police shootings. Shootings of blacks are more likely to make the national news and the victim described as an angelic youth even if he had just robbed a convince store and was charging for the officer’s gun when he was shot.
All of your claims in this comment are factually incorrect.
Shootings of blacks are more likely to make the national news
Have you ever looked at statistics on shooting deaths? Accepting for the sake of argument that more shootings of black victims may show up on the news in an absolute sense (which I don’t believe is actually true), it totally ignores the priors. If a white victim is shot, with high probability that will make the national news; if a black victim is shot, with an extremely high probability it will barely make local news and will receive no national attention. Ferguson wasn’t unusual because a young black man shot; it was unusual that anyone paid any attention. Young black men being shot is far too commonplace to make the news under ordinary circumstances.
Have you ever looked at statistics on shooting deaths?
If you look at my previous sentence, you’ll see I was referring to shootings by police. I agree, that young black men get shot all the time, mostly by other young black men, and nobody pays attention to that.
No, it is true for shooting deaths by police as well. Every time a white person is shot by a policeman, it’s national news. When a black person gets shot by police, it’s Tuesday.
Given things like Affirmative Action and all the pressure to have a “diverse workforce” they’re mostly the beneficiaries of discrimination. There aren’t many high IQ blacks and there’s a lot of demand for them.
This is a good definition. In particular, “Anti-oppressionists use “privilege” to describe a set of advantages (or lack of disadvantages) enjoyed by a majority group, who are usually unaware of the privilege they possess. … A privileged person is not necessarily prejudiced (sexist, racist, etc) as an individual, but may be part of a broader pattern of *-ism even though unaware of it.”
Anti-oppressionists use “privilege” to describe a set of advantages (or lack of disadvantages) enjoyed by a majority group
Does it have to be a majority group? For example, does this compared with this count as an example of “black privilege”? Would you describe the fact that some people are smarter (or stronger) than others as “intelligence privilege” (or “strength privilege”)?
Why focus only specific majority groups and thereby ignore things like men in domestic violence issues getting a lot less help from society than women?
Nearly everyone has some advantages and disadvantages. It’s often not helpful to conflate that huge back of advantages and disadvantages into a single variable.
How would you define “privilege”?
Easier difficulty setting for your life in some context through no fault or merit of your own.
So would you describe someone tall as having “height privilege” because they’re better at basketball?
I’d argue that height privilege (up to a point, typically around 6′6″) is a real thing, having nothing to do with being good at sports. There is a noted experiment, which my google-fu is currently failing to turn up, in which participants were shown a video of an interview between a man and a woman. In one group, the man was standing on a footstool behind his podium, so that he appeared markedly taller than the woman. In the other group, the man was standing in a depression behind his podium, so t that he appeared shorter. The content of the interview was identical.
Participants rated the man in the “taller” condition as more intelligent and more mature than the same man in the “shorter” condition. That’s height privilege.
There’s also a large established correlation between height and income, though not enough to completely rule out a potential common cause like “good genes” or childhood nutrition.
You really need riders to the effect that privilege of an objectionable kind is unrelated to achievement or intrinsic abilities,
The problem is that most of the examples SJW object to are in fact related to achievement or intrinsic abilities.
Uh huh
For example, nearly all of what they call “race privilege” is actually “intelligence privilege” or “conscientiousness privilege”.
I think you are just blind to these things.
I have highly accomplished female friends who tell me horrible stories. I have highly accomplished friends with black skin who tell me horrible stories.
Can I have some more specifics.
Also note that in the parent I specifically referred to “race privilege”, the situation with “female privilege” is more complicated.
So you’re claiming that there is no way in which the US police and justice systems treat black people differently that isn’t reducible to intelligence or conscientiousness differences?
More or less. Remember lower conscientiousness translates into higher propensity to commit violent crime.
There’s also a certain amount of what may fairly be called “black privilege” due to the fact that in any highly publicized crime, or alleged crime, with white defendants and a black victim there will be social pressure to through the book at them regardless of lack of evidence, or mitigating circumstances like the victim beating the defendant’s head on the pavement. And conversely if the defendants are black and the victim is white there will be social pressure to go light on the defendants some people even arguing that the victim brought the crime upon himself due to his racism. Something similar happens with police shootings. Shootings of blacks are more likely to make the national news and the victim described as an angelic youth even if he had just robbed a convince store and was charging for the officer’s gun when he was shot.
All of your claims in this comment are factually incorrect.
Have you ever looked at statistics on shooting deaths? Accepting for the sake of argument that more shootings of black victims may show up on the news in an absolute sense (which I don’t believe is actually true), it totally ignores the priors. If a white victim is shot, with high probability that will make the national news; if a black victim is shot, with an extremely high probability it will barely make local news and will receive no national attention. Ferguson wasn’t unusual because a young black man shot; it was unusual that anyone paid any attention. Young black men being shot is far too commonplace to make the news under ordinary circumstances.
If you look at my previous sentence, you’ll see I was referring to shootings by police. I agree, that young black men get shot all the time, mostly by other young black men, and nobody pays attention to that.
No, it is true for shooting deaths by police as well. Every time a white person is shot by a policeman, it’s national news. When a black person gets shot by police, it’s Tuesday.
Are we living in the same universe?
It is not. Police shoot a lot of people and, funnily enough, no one knows exactly how many.
Are you basically claiming that those black people who test highly on IQ tests don’t get discriminated against?
Given things like Affirmative Action and all the pressure to have a “diverse workforce” they’re mostly the beneficiaries of discrimination. There aren’t many high IQ blacks and there’s a lot of demand for them.
This is a good definition. In particular, “Anti-oppressionists use “privilege” to describe a set of advantages (or lack of disadvantages) enjoyed by a majority group, who are usually unaware of the privilege they possess. … A privileged person is not necessarily prejudiced (sexist, racist, etc) as an individual, but may be part of a broader pattern of *-ism even though unaware of it.”
No, this is not a motte.
Why the “majority group” qualifier? Privilege has been historically associated with minorities, like aristocracy.
Does it have to be a majority group? For example, does this compared with this count as an example of “black privilege”? Would you describe the fact that some people are smarter (or stronger) than others as “intelligence privilege” (or “strength privilege”)?
That’s in the bailey, because of “enjoyed by a majority group.”
Why focus only specific majority groups and thereby ignore things like men in domestic violence issues getting a lot less help from society than women?
Nearly everyone has some advantages and disadvantages. It’s often not helpful to conflate that huge back of advantages and disadvantages into a single variable.