Does Privilege Matter? - 8-Bit Philosophy 

Transportation: Chocobo

Love your name

***** Try being a black man and then come back.

***** Feminists are the ones always complaining about priviledge. I prefer not to be reminded of how they use "priviledge" as an ad hominem.

Afro Samurai try not being black. i bet you can't do it.

***** "priviledge" is nowadays a buzzword like transphobe or homophobe, people use this kind of words to attack the character of a person and avoid their arguments. It is used as a ad hominem, it will trigger a emotional reaction in the observer, not a logical reaction.

can hear it already...

Seems to be pretty calm right now can't wait for my inevitable bitting of my own tongue though

You clearly did not read the comments for 8-bit's episode on women.

I can't handle it. Hold me.

hey man check your facticity

"Otherwise it becomes just another overused buzzword." Too late.

i liked your comment because you said "privzizzle"

Ahh, here's the sensible point. Far down the page where no one will see it because it isn't an ad hominem attack or a complete misunderstanding of the discussion at hand.

That's how it generally is.

I like what you have to say but I have one problem with your statement. I dont think someone with more privilege will have an easier life, as you put it. They will have an easier time finding success as determined by our culture but easy is not quantifiable. One born with more money may be able to buy nice things but what if they cannot find love or become addicted to drugs. Would you say their life is easier than a poor man who has a loving wife and 3 kids but must work all day to support them? I'd say the former may have an easier time getting what they want but judging which life is easier is completely subjective.

ChevN7 That's a fair point as well. Again, I just think that privilege should be treated as a way to better empathize with people, and it can also be thought of as more of a trend than an absolute, as you pointed out.

The issue I have with this is primarily the way its phrased. It's not a condemnation, but it certainly holds no positive or even neutral connotation in today's pop culture. It is too late for privilege to hold any neutral or positive context anymore, its been lambasted by frustrated people looking for a source to vent their anger at. Here's a good example. A buddy of mine isn't exactly in the greatest economic situation and we were discussing money because I'm also not in a great economic situation either. At one point he stated, "More money/power doesn't mean happiness, it means the ability to live in comfort." That is the key in these debates and cultural zeitgeists. All humans share one singular want: stability. In first world countries, stability means the ability to not fret or worry about the economic situations one is put in. Stability is the pillar of society, whether or not you agree with it. I know numerous upper class people and some of them are close friends, they live a comfortable life style but it doesn't stop from social stability and family stability from collapsing in on itself. Human life is fragile, doesn't matter where, when or who you are. The means to achieve a goal are different, but the goal is all the same. When someone wants to achieve something, when they have a goal, a dream, it doesn't matter what means it takes. There is not empathy when one states that another is privileged. What we all want is stability, the ability to feel comfortable. That is the means to achieve empathy and sympathy, the acknowledgement that we all want to be comfortable in our predetermined situations.

I got some Jim Beam, too. :/

What type of popcorn is it?

yea man its a party.

You do realise that Wisecrack also knows perfectly well that Sartre was a communist and had a unique relationship to French Feminist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir and that he probably would despise everything you stand for? ^^'

Artur Yeon You must assume I have something against feminists. I don't. I support EQUAL rights. Not that distorted version of equality and fairness that tumblr spouts.

Thats true, but its fair. If there are two people lost in a jungle searching for a way out to a rescue helicopter with only one spot left, and they choose different paths for different reasons, the one finding the helicopter first is the privileged and can leave the jungle, while the other is at a disadvantage. But its only fair, the choices WE make impact our destiny. We can work our ways to privilege, but we could also bring ourself to disadvantages.

That scenario is implying that we're all starting with all starting with equal footing. But due to the world we live in having history thats not always true, the choices some people made hundreds of years ago about certain people still effect us to this day and can hinder us on our journey through the metaphorical jungle

Nfinite-BarZ Can you give an example ?

like how back when the US was starting someone decided black people were legally only 3/5s of people which served as justification for slavery and Jim Crow and the New Jim Crow

And the point of this video is that no one controls what circumstances they are born in, and that those who have more shouldn't be made ashamed that they do.

That is a perfect explanation

Pisses me off when people born lucky adopt a victim mentality.

***** It's the point of this video, not Sartre's philosophy as a whole.

sidgar1 whatever, in practice this is horseshit

+dominoes37 Precisely he's not arguing that privilege doesn't exist. He's making the argument that it doesn't mater because you can find meaning in any situation. People can't really process information before they comment I guess, perhaps they can't process it at all. Anyways, in my opinion he only believes as such as a way to relieve his own dissonance for being born into a privileged situation. He's right in the respect that one can find meaning in any situation but it's not exactly a stirring theory that leads me to believe we should just ignore the impact of societal privilege.

Why yes, you are absolutely right. That plays a large role in it, if we deconstruct things carefully. But the bulk of Sartre's work was in pre WW2 France. His work is very congruent with his time and place. The France of today? WAY DIFFERENT I bet it would be a real eye opener for Sartre.

He is saying both are "radically free" while in reality one is forced to conform to the obstacles in his facticity, the prisoner can't choose certain relations to reality because he is a prisoner, which has all to do with the physical walls and nothing with his mind

But the rich warrior does not have the freedom to turn into a dragon and fly into space and save the galaxy. It would be senseless to say he is not free because he lacks such freedoms. The point in the video made with the prisoner is that the prisoner is still free, but his options are limited, and the entire point of Sartre is that freedom is a state of mind, not a state of being. The point of bringing that element of Sartre into this is that a person with less available still has some freedom and how they choose to play the cards they are dealt is up to them, and how they choose to feel about the cards they are dealt is up to them. They can choose to be satisfied with them, but just as easily choose otherwise. What can be taken away from that is nothing more than that there is no point worrying about what cannot be controlled, because you do have some freedom available, and those freedoms can be used to obtain the other freedoms you would rather have (example: they mention the prisoner might attempt to escape. He would be using his limited freedom to attempt to obtain more freedom.) What this video is trying to explain is that because of all of this there is no sense in a person feeling shame or being shamed for things in life they did not choose and which were placed on them, even relative to those given less in many ways.

I saw the arguement, and to carry on with the card metaphore, folding to a full-house when you only have a pair of twos may be the prudent option, but dissatisfaction with having lost that game is completely justified. You can delude yourself into just accepting that your lot in life is actually its own form of freedom, but it's no less a delusional than believing that turning into a dragon and flying into spacr to save the galaxy is an option available to anyone.  EDIT: spelling

Stephen Reed 's explanation describes Sartre's definition of freedom very well. I'd like to add some context: Sartre was quite a revolutionary Marxist and for a radical redistribution of wealth, since he wanted people to have more options. He also was in a unique relationship with the French Feminist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir, so he did care about what the internet calls privilege today, he just didn't think the capitalist's children were at fault for being born rich...

Artur Yeon yes, Stephen Reed​ did describe Sartre's definition very well, I just reject that definition of freedom. No, rich children are not at fault for being born rich (though one can question subsequent actions of such privileged persons, but I'm getting off topic).

Mike D Maybe it'd be easier if we changed the semantics and reffered to his definition of freedom as 'freedom of mind' or something? Because I don't think his and yours necessarily contradict each other, I'd say that I even agree with your opinion on privilege and oppurtunities.

I also thought that when I played minecraft

Thats not what he means. I think he means that whatever your goal is, if you become locked up, your temporary choices towards reaching your goal are limited, but you could choose to imprison your self away from your goal and experience unfreedom. But you could also accept that you have fewer choices, and pick a choice that will later give you more options. Its your own choice to feel less free.

It isnt a bad idea actually, just dont aim too high, for me the key to happiness is having reasonable expectations.

the idea is that what you consider “shitty circumstances” is subjective based on your own personal values

Hi, AIDS Skrillex.

Just asked a bank owner if interest was a good thing. He said no

+Alex Swisher that was just an example I came up with off the top of my head. My point is that you can't ask someone to come to a conclusion on a philosophical idea when he/she directly benefits from it. There is a definite bias that comes into play

Except the maker of the video doesn't directly benefit from it. Like at all

Well, yes and no. You are completely right by being critical about possible biases of intellectuals. However you can´t simply justify an ad hominem argument (neglecting anargument/opinion not because the premises are wrong or because of paradoxes, but because of who made the argument) by saying he was male white thus has to be biased - especially if you don´t know who exactly it´s coming from, why exactly the argument would be bias (what the original argument is) and how exactly the argument would be bias. Considering privileges I would defend the early Sartre (I mainly just read his early works so, I can´t really make an argument beyond) insofar he thinks that one can´t justify having any rights or deserved anything (I fact trying to do so would be unauthentic) - most notably he writes in his diaries of 1939/40 that he didn’t deserve not being in war, hence he even admits that he (as all people in the army) is responsible for the war since he had the option to desert, but didn’t. The whole point is mainly, that our surroundings do not justify what we are doing / not doing, since we always can make up another possibility, think of another way we might act. Living in an society where privileges are generally accepted does not automatically justify said privileges, having worked for a wage does not automatically justify doing whatever with it, being poor does not automatically justify harming other people. There are no imperatives which could fully justify an action or an situation, because any imperative is always already chosen, all reason for an action is a reason we define as such, every excuse we make is just this: an excuse. Freedom constitutes the possibility of a declaration of bondage. I still would argue that Sartre has some sort of privileged position - I personally do not think that all humans are necessarily free (and I argue with Spivak here) - how do we know of the ones who do not even have the possibility to declare themselves as unfree? What about people who do have choices, but whose choices (even the one between life and death) do not change anything, do not mean anything, because they´ve been denied any subject status at all?

I guess we are all free within our own respective bounds. So, basically, we are all free, but some of us are more free than others.

Junambo QCG so privilege does matter?

I'd say so. There's little said here about the fact that freedom - being tied closely to choice - is limited when our choices are limited. In the situation described the prisoner has three options, however a wealthy prisoner might have several others, such as to pay their way to freedom, to improve their living situation in the cell if allowed to do so, and so on. His point seems to be that everyone has at least more than one, single path, should they want to choose - on a personal level - to walk a different one to what they're on. Where this falls down is that someone in a position of _real_ privilege (by which I mean political power, wealth, influence, the ability and means to coerce others or alter ones situation) has many, many more paths, which equates to much more freedom.

Imagine you get lost in an desert island and you don't have the means to get out of there. Are you free or are you a prisoner? No one is keeping you in there but yourself, you could try to escape, but you fear to die in the attempt, etc. Did you get it?

Thiago Dantas Yeah I get that but man made limitations on freedom are different to physical limitations. the difference between the island and the prison is once you've escaped from the island you are "more free" for good, where as escaping from prison simply moves you from the real prison to the "prison" of being eternally on the the run.

Yes, it does matter lol

originalcrispy How so?

It probably allowed him more time to think about "privilege" and from what I know, it is something earned not given. So the SJW's should find a word that actually makes sense from a dictionary standpoint

Alexander Di Maria what dictionary are you using?

Petro Beherha it's a matter of perspective. By definition, privileges are given and not earned. Let's say that he earned his wealth by working hard. From his perspective, any "benefit" he would receive would be because he worked hard; from the point of view of someone who works just as hard yet isn't wealthy, those benefits would be attributed to other factors (including his not excluding his current wealth).

They face other problems. Mainly social. If you're rich, who's to say someone isn't using you for your money? You have expectations, especially if you're born. Say someone is the child of typhoon. They have to live up to the expectations of everyone. So examples are: get perfect grades, go to the top university. Be a winning sportsman. Be a talented something in music. Be polite. Be prepared to say no. The biggest faced by a lot. Parents... They're most of the time too busy for you in work. Honestly if I had to choose between this and being poor yet happy, I'd choose the latter. Sure, economically they have an advantage. But what about the rest such as mental and social health

Emptywhat scienceup Are you some type of idiot? You're obviously a rich kid. You don't want to be poor. All those problems you mentioned seem insignificant when you're poor, we can't live as people, money is practically the only goal I have in life. You don't have to go to a top university or good grades, because in the end of the day - if you don't - it really doesnt matter. Social problems are all in your mind, you can easily ignore them Don't you tell me about problems faced as a rich kid are better than being a poor kid. How dare you say that. You've never been broke before, I pray you lose all your money so you can realise the hardships. Being poor means living in a bad neighborough, it means going to a rubbish school and putting extremely more hard work to achieve grades. It means avoid getting shot or rob while walking home at night. It means not having enough money to buy 'average' clothes. Being poor means you were born a failure. Trust me I know.

+Barttoocool The point is that it's all subjective. Privilege is something derived from the subjective juxtaposition of things that ultimately don't matter unless you think it matters. For the person who doesn't consider the capitalistic 9-5 grind of the average North American life to be a part of their livelihood, then no, the rich and poor have no significance to them. But because you've placed an importance to "get money to survive", people who have more of this resource than you do are considered to you to be more "privileged". Privilege is self-derived. It doesn't actually exist unless you think it exists.

Steven Noble No not within the UK. I am not sure about the US system because capitalism is practically destroying the country within itself. But in the UK all schools are governed by a central exam board system. It's not till you get to University/College that rubbish school would mean better grades ; but obvioously a worthless degree. Also the world is stacked up against them. You shut the fuck up, it's the truth, I never said they shouldn't try I said it's incredibly difficult There are VERY FEW people that have become successful from nothing. You're obviously from a wealthy background to be chatting all this shit. You're also twisting my words. If someone has a strong will, maybe even a good plan ; opportunities may still not show up. It's incredibly difficult, wake up. The majority of people living in poverty have children who do the same ; the odds are stacked against them from birth. It's not fair. Schools with worse grades especially in the US should get much more funding not the reverse. If you're wealthy, you'll more likely have connections and money to chase the opportunities you want. If you're broke, it's like climbing a mountain with crutches ; it may well be doable but it's incredibly difficult to the point where it's no different from a miracle.

+Barttoocool if you're poor and struggling so bad how are you on the internet? shouldn't you be using this money for idk food, "average clothing", & water? also life won't be fair i'm sorry to say but some people will always have something better than you but no matter what is you can work for it and don't give me that bullshit about opportunities never arrive, make them, go out and make your way.

I think you missed the point. Sartre was not making an argument about the morality of imprisonment, he was making an argument about the betterment of one's self. If you are locked up then you have two choices. You can either A.) Dream of the outside world and waste away in misery or B.) Change your outlook to persevere.

Saying that someone's suffering is due to them having a bad outlook on their shitty situation is awful. Maybe that person's outlook could be better, sure, but that's a minor fucking issue compared to the actual injustice that created the shitty situation. I'm not suggesting your option A of wasting away in misery, I'm suggesting that injustices be ACTUALLY CORRECTED instead of suggesting that the victims of injustice could be OK by changing their outlook.

This video is not representative of Sartre's view. Sartre was a radical Marxist so if anything he was implying the opposite conclusion that the video makes. Even as a communist, he spoke out against Soviet labor camps as being horrible abuses of human rights and freedoms.

DontMockMySmock It's not even about the outlook. It's about the fact that he still has the opportunity to reach his goals. The outlook is just there to show what is expected, but it is also used to show that just because you have that outlook doesn't mean that it is how the situation will end up and that you should give up all hope. Also, you're taking the thought experiment too literally. In other words, you're doing it wrong.

The idea is that his goals of being outside the prison causes him to suffer. The same way everyone wants to be rich, so they blame the rich for their predicament. The idea, then, is that you should choose not to be rich if you can't obtain it. Diogenes was poor as shit, but Alexander the Great envied the man. That's all the video was saying. Don't take the prison thing literally. It's an analogy.

"in a conversation on the experience of poverty the poor speaker's input is more valuable than the rich persons because the rich person has never been poor" Which is a load of horse shit, because the rich person has experience with regard to accumulating resources and thereby has incredibly valuable input if you're actually looking to solve the issue of people being poor, rather than just whine about it. This "progressive stack" nonsense is about self importance, nothing more. You want to be in a position of superiority. You want to be the "working class hero". You want to justify your circumstances and put yourself up on a pedestal as a martyr. If someone else's 'privilege' is of more importance to you than their input, then you clearly have little to no interest in solving the core issues. You're also a judgmental arse with an inferiority complex. "While people" Also, racism. Nice.

Skippy19812 how very convenient for you to completely ignore the next sentence "That's not to say the rich person can not contribute to the conversation but when the rich person begins to speak as any sort of authority on the experience of poverty they need to reassess their privilege and recognize that they are in no position to be an authority of a lifestyle they have never lived." This isn't about "solving poverty" that's an entirely different conversation. I'm talking about conversations where rich people say they made their money by hard work and effort and this is what poor people should do, these rich people having themselves never been poor. Conversations where people assume people on welfare with jobs are gaming the system. Conversations where people complain about welfare queens and ignore that welfare queens was a Reganism he made up. Saw one person and assumed everyone was doing the same thing. Because he never lived that life because he was fortunate in his upbringing. racism? It's racism to point out that white people complain about people mentioning privilege? That's not racism bro. All I'm trying to say is when I'm talking about having a Luau themed officer party maybe the Hawaiian person knows better than me whether or not this is an offensive appropriate of a respectful tradition.

SuperWolfkin You yourself are making an assumption, that if someone was born into privilege that they are unable to empathize, or that their experience means that they can not come to a logically sound hypothesis regarding another person's situation. In this case, it is you who is putting a barrier between people, not their respective levels of privilege. You are 'assuming' that a rich man will default to Reganisms, or will make offensive, ignorant and snobbish assumptions and remarks. You don't know that they will, you've just made an assumption based on your own prejudice. Also, yes, it is indeed racist to assume that all people of a certain skin tone will automatically default to a particular behavior. Secondly, it is both logically unsound and racist to claim that all white people are in a position of privilege. Thirdly, it is racist to claim that a person of a particular skin tone is not allowed to rebut claims made by another party based on the other party's assumption of their default behavior. In short, claiming that a person of a particular skin tone will exhibit certain behaviors, then telling them that they are not allowed to rebut such a claim is racist. The skin tone of the person you're making claims about doesn't matter. The fact that you're making assumptions based on their skin tone does. Finally, if you're having a Hawaiian themed Luau party it's nobody else's business what you get up to. Having a party theme based on a particular culture is not racist.

Skippy19812 "Having a party theme based on a particular culture is not racist." Yes it can be. Having a cowboys and Indians party is offensive to first nations people. Having a gangster welfare party is offensive to black people. Having a KamiKaze beer party is offensive to the Japanese. "yes, it is indeed racist to assume that all people of a certain skin tone will automatically default to a particular behavior." again you read my words wrong. I never said all white people complain about privilege. I said all people who complain about privilege are white. "if someone was born into privilege that they are unable to empathize, or that their experience means that they can not come to a logically sound hypothesis regarding another person's situation." again not what i said. I didn't say the rich man couldn't understand the poor man. I simply said he couldn't speak as an authority on being poor more than someone who has actually been poor. Not that he couldn't speak at all but that his position of authority on that lifestyle is limited by the fact that he has never lived that lifestyle.

SuperWolfkin "Yes it can be." Racism is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. Playing cowboys and Indians is not racist. Insensitive, maybe, but not racist. Having a party themed on a particular culture is not in any way racist. If anything it is a celebration of that culture. Even if it is handled poorly and people get their feelings hurt, there is something to be said for growing a thicker skin. "I said all people who complain about privilege are white." Still racist. You're assuming that no black people complain about privilege based on your own assumptions of their behavior. You're also assuming that I am white based on your own prejudices and expectations of white people. "I simply said he couldn't speak as an authority on being poor" Weasel words. The end result is the same. "Check your privilege" is just another way for someone to end the conversation when they don't like the outcome. You don't need to be poor to see the effects of being poor, and you don't have to be an 'authority' to join the conversation.

Actually I think it's the other way around. The more you own, the more you have to lose, the more you have to take care of. It becomes a prison. Even comfort and luxuries can become a prison when they become something that defines your life. It is the same with wealth ambitions, people can take their lives if confronted with failure. I personally think it's education the one thing that would widen a person's horizons and offer a wider set of choices, not only academic education but moral one as well, the kind of education that leads one to respect and empathize with others.

Damian Reloaded Finally someone who understand how shit is done.

Damian Reloaded Even if that were the case, education requires money. People with more money have more opportunities to further their education.

+Damian Reloaded You do know about poverty and homelessness right?

noone8151 I do know some right. I also know about education, wealth and ambitions of well being in general. I'm almost 40 and I've been busy,

Muh vocabulary. Holy shit did you expect anyone to read through that shit. You're on you tube not at a philosophy101strokingcontest.

Sartre's philosophy or the video's explanation?

+GearZNet Projecting. Pretty sad you get worked up about someone with a decent vocabulary.

***** I'm so sorry I triggered you. Here's your comment.

They do often donate if they feel that way, its usually not that, its usually society telling them they should feel guilty for being rich. People are a jealous bunch, they resent people who have what they want, who doesn't want money?

Bob Sachamanto Speaking as a poor person, I can honestly say I don't resent the rich. The rich give me money. I resent the people who take my money away: government.

It seems to me that much of the resentment toward the rich comes not from the poor, but from the middle class, as a sort of preemptive defense against any suggesting that they have greater privilege than the poor. This class resentment is then exacerbated by corporatists who get unfair tax breaks and bailouts, and when the poor and middle classes try to call this unfair, the corporatists defend their image by twisting the narrative into one of class warfare.

I'm all for tax breaks for the rich, AND for the middle class and the poor. The government needs to stop spending ten times as much on half the quality and figure out how to get by with less of MY money, and everybody's. As I said, the rich give me money; the government takes it.

Basically rich people tell other rich people that they should feel bad or guilty that they're rich or born into wealth. It's essentially a tactic used by the rich to retain and ensure that they remain wealthy in comparison to others by tricking others into thinking that they shouldn't be rich, powerful and influential. It is interesting because the will to power (Nietzsche) rules.

You are, in effect, shaming him for his "privilege". He doesn't owe "society" anything. He is free to spend his money as he sees fit. Why do you consider yourself entitled to his money?

sidgar1 if you like the computer you're using right now to type those words, like not planting your own wheat, like not having to sew your own clothes out of raw material, then you already accepted that everyone playing some part in the betterment of our civilization is a good thing. Now how one will choose to do that or their time-table for doing so, is their business.

The charity in the action is lost when it is demanded, you're coming off as a pissed off communist, instead if everyone liked eachother a bit a more people might do what you have suggested, but instead, we buy multiple cars and houses because... We can.

***** Protecting the well-being and prosperity of citizens is the government's job, not the rich. Government already forces them to "share" their wealth involuntarily through taxes, and the rich pay the bulk of all taxes. Many who have wealth have also earned it through very hard work and dedication. Not everyone inherits their wealth, and not everyone who is poor works hard to escape their poverty. Why should those who worked hard to earn their wealth be forced to give away part of their earnings with those who weren't willing to put in the effort to succeed? Why should a rich genius inventor who devises things that benefit society as a whole be forced to share his wealth with others? Hasn't he already paid his "dues" to society? Feeling "entitled" to someone else's wealth is a form of "privilege" in itself.

***** In a utopia yes. Just as in a Utopia a government won't be corrupt and abuse its power.

One that was a mockery lol two the street goes both ways and finally three the reason everyone hates the check your privilege thing is because it's a form of censorship claiming that since your this you can't comment on this and that's how it's used by sjw's so yeah

"just recognizing that you have advantages and accommodating others" is not the goal of the privilege idea. The whole point is to shame/coerce/intimidate those with privilege to cripple themselves OR hand you all of their stuff OR ELSE you will kill them off completely through revolution. Marxism 101, duh.

Does anyone recall the short sci-fi story Harrison Bergeron? The solution was exactly that: strong people were made to wear weights, beautiful people were made to wear masks, smart people were made to wear headphones that would play jarring noises to disrupt concentration.

Well social censorship is big thing and there are very many sides to it, but the overall idea of social censorship is to allow socially marginalized groups such as the LGBT community to live more freely socially. Freedom by law means diddly if you're not free socially. But I do agree that there's a limit to how much privileged people should accommodate. But at the same time, accommodations must be made. If you're the best player, nothing can stop you from being the best player, but there are other people on the team who may not be as talented as you but need to get some Play time so they can show college recruiters their skills as well so even if they can't get the D1 scholarships or the best football teams he can at least get enough shine to get what he can. You joined the team for the same reason he did.

GrifMoNeY That short story was interesting, because instead of bringing up people who were "less privileged" their society decided to bring down those who were naturally "privileged". And I can't help but feel that's the ideal solution that most people would think of when trying to create a more equal society; don't improve your social standing, just bring theirs down.

Why do you think so?

+Clover Field what the fuck?

thank you

poverty can cause you to develop skills you wouldn't otherwise, it's easy having enough money t be able to do what ever you want plus more with it but it only matters so much.

Arni Geir rich people have access to skills poor people would never dream of havin' .. If i need to live in africa to have a skill of fightin'lions then i don'want such a skill

@Arni Geir The opposite is true, so its irrelevant. I never want to be extremely poor again, it made me who I am today, but I rather naver experienced it.

people only see what they don't have, money is just one of many things you can have that benefits you over others, and the one thing people put too much value in.

yes pretty much. If you are poor, well too bad because "life's not fair". But we also shouldn't raise taxes on the rich to create social programs or infrastructure because "hey that's not fair to the rich!" Heads they win, tails you lose.

But we are free to interpret how we will interact with these privileges, thus "Does Privilege Matter?". In the end no one is keeping you in this system that doesn't benefit you, but luckily enough (relative to location), you can change the system.

Your choosing to label this video as trash is a choice you are making.

Sartre did talk about privilege and this video wasn't entirely wrong, but I still think your point remains and that Sartre would beg to differ here as well. And what's worst is that The Internet Inc. is now assuming that Sartre said all these things about privilege not to make an actual point, but to talk about white men on the net, ignoring the fact he was probably against *everything they believe in and had a unique relationship with the Oh-So-Evil Simone de Beauvoir... These guys are idiots.

Greg Moberg i remember when i was in middle school too

+Greg Moberg You're a fuggin idiiot

It is good that you can not get on board with that kind of thinking because what you just presented a sophistry.

***** just curious, what makes it sophistry?

Greg Moberg Simple. It sounds very clever but... 1 Not a real, relevant, nor logical example. 2 Straw-man fallacy. 3 Unrelated to the topic of privilege.

+Munzy Banks I hated it

*bias. ...biasis maybe

***** Like when having good things was considered good rather than some kind of original sin.

+TheLordPresident This concept completely ignores time and generations. The actions of a parent's hard work or the lack of it influence how privileged their child will be, and it is every parent's instinct and life goal to make their child's life as rich as possible, because their first instinct is a child's safety and well being. What brings safety and well being? Power and money. So you must ask yourself, are you going to steal a parent's life's work from the hands of their child to make up for the discomfort of someone else? How could you justify it? I think letting them have the fruits of their parent's work is just. If their parent failed to produce fruit to feed them, that's unfortunate, but there is no one to blame. The child must simply try to make it better in their own generation. Perhaps these conditions can be influenced by getting caught in war, crime and such, but we have the law, even if imperfect, to cover that. If it's simply good/bad luck such as some farmer losing their crop and another getting a good crop, there's no one to blame. You can't bring nature or chance to court.

***** I'm kind of confused on where you stand. I'm not talking about blame, really. I'm not talking about punishing people with privilege, I'm taking about the importance of people with experience talking about issues that pertain to them. I'm not saying that rich people shouldn't be able to be rich nor pass that wealth to their children; I'm saying that children in those environment have a less powerful statement when it comes to talking about poverty. These are two different issues. I'm talking about privilege; you are talking about reparation.

TheLordPresident But doesn't what I said sort of debunk privilege entirely? No one is inherently better off, we are simply so far down the line that through human error or success the circumstances have changed. This is obviously remarkable, because humans are a rare species in that we build something that lasts for countless generations and improves at the same time. In other words... privilege is part of, or an inevitable cause of human nature. It's not "good" or "bad" as some people seem to view it. It's neutral, natural.

***** Well, no, privilege isn't good or bad. I don't say that it is or isn't. However, privilege is a thing to be aware of. Some people are inherently better off. Do you think that Donald Trump is popular purely off of intellect and wit? Of course not, most of the reason he is popular is because he amassed a fortune off his father. I use him as an example because his "small loan of a million dollar" quote is a perfect example of privilege. Again, privilege isn't a bad thing. I'm not saying that straight white dudes need to jump off a bridge. I'm just saying that in discussion, one needs to be aware of these qualities in order to incite a more meaningful discourse.

***** By the way, I want to compliment you on your courtesy. It is always a pleasure to hold an argument with a respectful intellectual.

KONO DIO DA

+Devron Cheatwood Finally, somebody said it.

+Devron Cheatwood Even the most enslaved, most oppressed individual has the ability to choose their attitude toward the situation at hand. As the video notes, the prisoner CAN choose to reevaluate their worldly perspective(s) on the basis of their new circumstances, and determine how to act accordingly.

+Tom Kline A change of perspective does not necessarily change one's physical state of being. Even if the prisoner and/or slave had the most upbeat and positive attitude possible, they still are restricted by their environment and society and are not free to do basic human things, like take a long jog, or have privacy.

+Devron Cheatwood Sartre never said the prisoner is free to do ANYTHING, just that they are ALWAYS capable of making a choice, even if it's another how they view their captivity. They ALWAYS can choose to TRY to escape, change their perspective, or yes, even commit suicide. Those three options are ALWAYS present in ANY situation: acting on the situation at hand, changing your perspective, or committing suicide.

+Tom Kline I meant to say, "even if it's a matter of how..."

***** Nice apples and oranges there m8.

***** I don't think you have any clue what he's talking about. He clearly specified people who are stuck in poverty BECAUSE of having a mindset of living outside their means, which is obviously not all people who are poor but it's not uncommon in the first world, in small towns especially. It is an interesting point to consider and relevant to this video. You are way too quick to assume the most polarized extreme of a person for the appearance of a differing opinion. That itself is often a sign of having an extremist mindset so you might want to look into that. What is the point of coming in and acting like a twit to people with opinions you don't like? Even if this person were the some paranoid wealthy fox news watching far right bigot that wouldn't matter one iota because you would be the asshole coming in and throwing rocks here and where you stand when you throw them and who you throw them at makes no difference. This is how you really fight bigotry and ignorance: guardianlv.com/2013/11/kkk-member-walks-up-to-black-musician-in-bar-but-its-not-a-joke-and-what-happens-next-will-astound-you/ If you ever do encounter someone you feel worthy of the criticism you're trying to throw around, try actually treating them with fucking humanity instead.

And your not happy with your life it's your fault because your life goal isn't to be a slave.this just seems like a validation for the argument that the strong do as they want and the weak endure what they must.(which I personally think is as this is a horrible philosophical idea.)

Basically the idea is that if your life is shit but your starting situation was even worse you can pat yourself on the back telling yourself you played well with the cards you were given. Won't take away the shit though. Basically: by this view happiness means lowering your standards.

Hey buddy ,check your privilege. ;)