What Exactly Is The Alt-Right

[OceanBreeze]

Oh wow, this place really has devolved, or at least YOU have, Buffy.

 

You come across as a raving commie lunatic.

[exchemist]

Oh wow, this place really has devolved, or at least YOU have, Buffy.

 

You come across as a raving commie lunatic.

I must admit when I read Buffy's latest I did wonder how you had managed to  rattle her cage :)  A bit OTT.

 

I find your reply interesting, because you are obviously not an unthinking bigot and yet you too find something at least in Trump's pronouncements that you think is onto something. On both sides of the Atlantic, we are seeing a reaction against what is seen as political correctness that suppresses, or makes suspect, the views and feelings of quite normal people.

 

I think that mainstream politics needs to take this on board and not leave it in the hands of nasty populists.

[OceanBreeze]

I must admit when I read Buffy's latest I did wonder how you had managed to  rattle her cage :)  A bit OTT.

 

I find your reply interesting, because you are obviously not an unthinking bigot and yet you too find something at least in Trump's pronouncements that you think is onto something.

 

Thank you for that, but I’m fairly sure Buffy will not agree with you!

I thought my post was reasoned and it was factual in describing my background and my viewpoint. By contrast, her response was way OTT, very patronizing, full of rage and verging on outright hate.

 

I’d like to think maybe she was having a bad day, but she obviously read things into my post that were not there. She built enough strawmen to form a straw army. My take: there are Democrats, particularly  Hillary supporters, who simply cannot, and will not accept the fact that HRC lost the election. They will not accept that HRC is simply not liked, and not trusted, by many men and women alike. Part of that is because of her husband, who probably would have gone to jail if he acted the same way while running a private company, instead of being POTUS. But she has her own serious character faults. She, or her underlings, destroyed evidence, smashed mobile phones with a hammer, wiped a server clean, all while said evidence was already under subpoena. The statement that she is untrustworthy is a statement of fact, not opinion.

 

On both sides of the Atlantic, we are seeing a reaction against what is seen as political correctness that suppresses, or makes suspect, the views and feelings of quite normal people.

 

I think that mainstream politics needs to take this on board and not leave it in the hands of nasty populists.

 

 

Now I will state an opinion: I cannot tell you how glad I was to see her lose the election, against all the odds. Notice I didn’t say how happy I was to see Trump win, just how happy I was to see her lose. That tells the story.

But, to your point, aside from the problems associated with the Clintons, I agree there is presently a backlash against liberals and political correctness in general. That is what Trump has latched on to. The fact that he was elected, against all odds, is an indication of just how strong that back swell really is, and the Democrats ignored that at their cost. Will they do it again? Remains to be seen if they learned anything.

 

The problem, as I see it, is the two-party system and the lack of a middle ground where reasonable people can discuss the issues and make reasonable decisions. As long as the two-party system exists,  with a winner-takes-all system, politics will remain a very nasty game with each side demonizing the other (just as Buffy has done) and the quiet man in the street has had enough of it. Trump hit a nerve with his rhetoric about “draining the swamp” but I am smart enough to know it will never happen as he is also a swamp monster. All anyone can do is hold their nose and hope the stink will go away sometime.

 

 

By the way, if anyone is interested the Greenland ice sheet surface mass budget (SMB) has gained a substantial mass over the past year. The melt was very slow to start in June and the gain was very quick to start again this month (August 2017)

 

 

(sometimes it helps to change the subject when things get too heated)

[Buffy]

Oh wow, this place really has devolved, or at least YOU have, Buffy.

 

You come across as a raving commie lunatic.

 

*Sigh* 

 

I knew this was going to be way beyond your reading level. Sad.

 

But really, it wasn't for you. I mean as exchemist says, you aren't an (well, to correct him slightly) "unrepentant bigot," and you could be saved, but it's pretty clear you don't want to think too hard. 

 

No, I just wanted to memorialize how simplistic little homilies like yours are so toxic when stood up next to the real world for the benefit of all of our visitors.

 

I know an awful lot of people like you who are otherwise nice upstanding citizens and think of themselves as "patriots." But as exchemist also notes, you folks get caught up in the shallow populist rhetoric that is the refuge of knaves and thieves.

 

No, unfortunately you're not a patriot.

 

 

Go placidly amid the noise and waste, and remember what comfort there may be in owning a piece thereof, :phones:

Buffy

[OceanBreeze]

 

*Sigh* 

 

I knew this was going to be way beyond your reading level. Sad.

 

But really, it wasn't for you. I mean as exchemist says, you aren't an (well, to correct him slightly) "unrepentant bigot," and you could be saved, but it's pretty clear you don't want to think too hard. 

 

No, I just wanted to memorialize how simplistic little homilies like yours are so toxic when stood up next to the real world for the benefit of all of our visitors.

 

I know an awful lot of people like you who are otherwise nice upstanding citizens and think of themselves as "patriots." But as exchemist also notes, you folks get caught up in the shallow populist rhetoric that is the refuge of knaves and thieves.

 

No, unfortunately you're not a patriot.

 

 

Go placidly amid the noise and waste, and remember what comfort there may be in owning a piece thereof, :phones:

Buffy

 

 

More patronizing garbage from an Internet forum moderator who thinks she is a queen.

Edited August 24, 2017 by OceanBreeze

[sanctus]

Oceanbreeze, just to let you know a few years ago (like 10 or so) the discussion here would have been normal, not hot. I joined for the popular science, stayed for political and religious discussions.

Anyway, are you really sure you never experienced white privilege? My take is you just don't notice (and me neither not putting myself above), because negative things affect us more and hence we do notice and remember, while positive/neutral things we forget easier. Example did you ever look for a place to rent, met the landlord, thought you got along well and got the place? Now try to imagine how it would have gone if you were black or native with similar salary/background otherwise...I am not making this up as you know.

Or did you ever have to show you can pay before going to eat in a restaurant?

Or where you ever scared of pissing off police?

Or did anyone ever move to sit somewhere else on the bus/train when you showed up?

Or ever scared of being branded a parasite, just because you took a day off to sit on a bench in a park?

The list goes on and  I guess you see what I mean, each and every white person in the west has white privilege throughout her/his life, but wew do not notice because for us it is normal. Until we get the eye-opening moment where we are on the other side and see what it is like (been there, got that), at least. Or ask non-whites about it.
 

[Buffy]

Better let you know up front, I agree with a bunch of things you say in this post! :cheer:

 

But you may still find it uncomfortable to read, and in any case, you unfortunately may not want to address any of it directly, but that'd be sad.

 

So bear with me.

 

Thank you for that, but I’m fairly sure Buffy will not agree with you!

Tee hee! I just did! :cheer: I love exchemist!

 

You, well, let's just say I "appreciate" your viewpoint, I just don't respect it very much: tends to be what some folks call "intellectually dishonest."

 

But as for the uh, *fervor* of my previous post, that's just called "not willing to suffer fools gladly."

 

I thought my post was reasoned and it was factual in describing my background and my viewpoint. By contrast, her response was way OTT, very patronizing, full of rage and verging on outright hate.

Oh I wasn't saying it wasn't reasoned! Not at all!

 

No, no, no. Just "willfully ignorant."

 

And it seems to have rattled you a little bit, but I'm pretty sure you didn't really bother to read it as it has far too many threats to your worldview.

 

That's your loss dear!

 

I’d like to think maybe she was having a bad day, but she obviously read things into my post that were not there. She built enough strawmen to form a straw army.

I'm not sure I did, but I don't really have much control over your desire to find any slights I may have pointed out about the folks around you as being directed at you. That was actually what last year's dust-up about "deplorables" was all about. Hillary really meant "alt-right, Neo-Nazis, and KKK members," but y'all insisted she was talking about *you*. That was your choice if you did, and not very smart in my book, but it makes sense if you just care about finding fault with all things "liberal."

 

That's called tribalism, something you seem to have a wee bit of a weakness for, along with a little dose of those Straw Men to help out.

 

To wit:

 

My take: there are Democrats, particularly  Hillary supporters, who simply cannot, and will not accept the fact that HRC lost the election.

HAHAHAHAHahahahah! "Cannot accept" exactly....how?

 

I'm hard pressed to find anyone except the hard core of Trump supporters who quite frankly have to deal with the harsh reality of the consequences of her loss!

 

Or are you obsessing about those "I dunno, 2 million, 4 million illegal voters" that's SO well-documented and which proves that Trump *actually* got more votes?

 

Despite what you may have heard dear, we're still waiting on that evidence, and pretty much every Secretary of State in the country has said, "didn't happen."

 

You can't really call yourself a denizen of the real world and believe that.

 

But oh dear, I do NOT want to say anything that might be construed to be a straw man, so I will say it's not at all clear that's what you mean! :cheer:

 

 

They will not accept that HRC is simply not liked, and not trusted, by many men and women alike. Part of that is because of her husband, who probably would have gone to jail if he acted the same way while running a private company, instead of being POTUS. But she has her own serious character faults. She, or her underlings, destroyed evidence, smashed mobile phones with a hammer, wiped a server clean, all while said evidence was already under subpoena. The statement that she is untrustworthy is a statement of fact, not opinion.

Sorry dude, you don't get to define the English language: "untrustworthy" is indeed generally an opionion.

 

I'm not going to defend Hillary here--despite the fact that if one bothers to check all your uh, "alleged facts" that they don't hold much water--but just point out the fact that despite all their supposed "crimes" they've not been indicted for a single crime. Ever. Sued, sure. Impeached? That's a matter of history.

 

But you know what? Nobody really cares about your deep-seated abhorrence of the Clintons, and there's really no chance she's going to run again.

 

Continuing to bring her up is evidence of what we call an "obsession." But oh, straw man again, I won't say that *you* do that. Just that many folks do, and they embarrass themselves.

 

... Notice I didn’t say how happy I was to see Trump win, just how happy I was to see her lose. That tells the story.

It sure does! Just a guess: your belief that it's more important to "send a message" that pick the least potentially destructive of the choices at hand? No, that's not it....

 

But, oh, do go on...

 

...I agree there is presently a backlash against liberals and political correctness in general. That is what Trump has latched on to. The fact that he was elected, against all odds, is an indication of just how strong that back swell really is, and the Democrats ignored that at their cost. Will they do it again? Remains to be seen if they learned anything.

Well, actually, what we're seeing is the political pendulum swinging back and forth just as it always has.

 

Now sit down--I don't want you to hurt yourself--you're absolutely right that the Democrats missed the dominant themes, failed to address them effectively and simply failed to execute.

 

By every measure, Hillary should have won in a landslide, yet she didn't, to a great extent because no one has ever seen anything like Donald before and simply didn't know how to attack him.

 

I mean, you gotta give her at least *some* credit because she came far closer to beating him than any of the plethora of Republicans thrown against him including folks like Ted Cruz who have the "anti-liberal, anti-political correctness" schtick down pat!

 

And moreover, the two party system has broken down with the onslaught of Hurricane Donald. The Democrats are certainly struggling, but hooboy howdy, look at all those legislative successes the Republicans are racking up in face of complete control of all three branches of government! And they haven't even tried to pass anything that requires getting 60 votes in the Senate!

 

Who knows what will happen in the next few months?

 

But I totally agree with you that we need to do some major repairs on our two-party system!

 

The problem, as I see it, is the two-party system and the lack of a middle ground where reasonable people can discuss the issues and make reasonable decisions.

Actually, the two-party system has a benefit in that it actually *moderates* extreme opinions, because with only two parties, the party itself pushes things back to the center because it can't afford to lose the middle. If you want to see chaos, look at the multi-party parliamentary systems in the world and see how paralyzed they can be.

 

I mean seriously, the Republicans right now are the envy of *every* party everywhere, because they *should* be able to ram through their entire agenda with minimal opposition. There are indeed enough "Blue Dog Democrats" that they could get past the fillibuster, but the fact is they can't even keep their own people (especially the Freedom Caucus, but increasingly the Alt-Right) in line.

 

No, the issue right now is the polarization of political thought, which is extremely well-documented:

 

 

Now the thing is that that chart just shows the divergence, it doesn't show where it came from.

 

If we look at the ideological positions and policies of the parties, we find an interesting trend over the last 50 years:

 

Source: DW_NOMINATE Ideological Scoring project at Rice University, data can be found here

Which shows that the Republicans have pretty much moved away from the center while the Democrats have moved only slightly away.

 

Anyone who was around in the 60s will tell you that Hillary was basically running as Hubert Humphrey. Not exactly charismatic or very innovative, policy-wise. Conversely, Donald ran way to the right of Barry Goldwater, with just enough Huey Long and Pat Buchanan thrown in to sound more populist. Don't know whether you know this or not, but those folks are generally considered "extreme."

 

But clearly if you have this kind of divergence, it's hard to find common ground.

 

And I'll posit it's even harder when one side mindlessly demonizes the other, with little to show for it *except* straw man arguments.

 

So I'm totally in agreement with you about straw man arguments and their problem in the political realm.

 

Of course, the solution is for there to be less lying about what each side believes.

 

Calling Obama "the most extreme president ever" is just beyond the pale, but that's what you'll hear on right-wing radio.

 

It's not that the left hasn't fallen for some demonizing, but honestly that graph shows you why it's so easy to:

 

As long as the two-party system exists,  with a winner-takes-all system, politics will remain a very nasty game with each side demonizing the other (just as Buffy has done) and the quiet man in the street has had enough of it. Trump hit a nerve with his rhetoric about “draining the swamp” but I am smart enough to know it will never happen as he is also a swamp monster. All anyone can do is hold their nose and hope the stink will go away sometime.

So what do we do? I mean your screed above was just dripping with hatred of all things Democrat, yet you pulled out a bunch of "proof points" that were all genuine straw men.

 

How do we fix that?

 

(sometimes it helps to change the subject when things get too heated)

Well, if you just change the subject, people start to think you want to avoid it.

 

More patronizing garbage from an Internet forum moderator who thinks she is a queen.

So c'mon dude, don't be such a *snowflake*. Do you wanna talk policy or not?

 

So, we've just called each other black, so are you happy now Mr. Kettle? Shall we try to save our country or are you going to hold your nose until you turn blue, or get your way?

 

Now, my proposal is that if you're really going to talk politics, don't talk about candidates because that just says you're more interested in personalities and beauty contests than actual policy. I've been hard pressed to find any discussion of policy in your rants other than to say stuff that "just ain't so, but you sawed it on the intertoobs" but if we're going to be solving any problems, we have to talk about the problems and, more importantly, get our facts straight.

 

I'll leave it to exchemist to disassemble your Greenland misinformation, but gosh it's refreshing for you to at least go down that path! :cheer:

 

 

The more you read and observe about this Politics thing, you got to admit that each party is worse than the other. The one that's out always looks the best. :phones:

Buffy

[serenesam]

The "alt - right" is a movement built on a foundation of weakness.  They want to be strong, but the only way they can feel strong is to put somebody else down, or beat them up or kill them.  It is made up of loudmouths, bullies and those who seek to profit from them.

I don't consider myself to be an "Alt-Righter" because I don't agree with everything they say or the goals they're trying to achieve. I guess you could call me a friend of The Alt-Right in that I do believe White people have a right to preserve their culture and heritage. 

 

In the United States, nobody complains when a bunch of Vietnamese people get together to create a "Little Saigon." The various ethnicities of Whites should have the same rights too. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Saigon

[exchemist]

Oceanbreeze, just to let you know a few years ago (like 10 or so) the discussion here would have been normal, not hot. I joined for the popular science, stayed for political and religious discussions.

 

Anyway, are you really sure you never experienced white privilege? My take is you just don't notice (and me neither not putting myself above), because negative things affect us more and hence we do notice and remember, while positive/neutral things we forget easier. Example did you ever look for a place to rent, met the landlord, thought you got along well and got the place? Now try to imagine how it would have gone if you were black or native with similar salary/background otherwise...I am not making this up as you know.

 

Or did you ever have to show you can pay before going to eat in a restaurant?

 

Or where you ever scared of pissing off police?

 

Or did anyone ever move to sit somewhere else on the bus/train when you showed up?

 

Or ever scared of being branded a parasite, just because you took a day off to sit on a bench in a park?

 

The list goes on and  I guess you see what I mean, each and every white person in the west has white privilege throughout her/his life, but wew do not notice because for us it is normal. Until we get the eye-opening moment where we are on the other side and see what it is like (been there, got that), at least. Or ask non-whites about it.

 

I don't think any of the things you mention are white privilege. They are examples of prejudice and racism against non-whites.

 

To me the distinction is important, as "privilege" has the clear connotation of specially favourable treatment which is by implication undeserved.

 

This is NOT what Ocean Breeze has, by his own account, experienced in his life, and I think if I were he I might be offended if it were suggested otherwise. He clearly feels he has achieved what he has without special advantages and he may well be right. The absence of artificial obstacles placed in his path due to skin colour or ethnic background does not make him undeserving of his position in life.

 

I see this as symptomatic of the twisting of language in our discourse about race which is exactly what makes people lose sympathy with our well-intentioned efforts to overcome racism and prejudice. 

[Buffy]

I don't think any of the things you mention are white privilege. They are examples of prejudice and racism against non-whites.

 

To me the distinction is important, as "privilege" has the clear connotation of specially favourable treatment which is by implication undeserved.

 

I see this as symptomatic of the twisting of language in our discourse about race which is exactly what makes people lose sympathy with our well-intentioned efforts to overcome racism and prejudice.

This is really the crux of the problem: You're absolutely right that many people hear "privilege" and think "undeserved" and I actually took some pains to point this out above. Making that jump to "undeserved" is a defense mechanism though to avoid exactly what you're also arguing which is a distinction between "privilege" and "prejudice" when they are really two sides of the same coin.

 

Sociologically, in any society there is a dominant class, and that dominant class--in America, basically "white people"--being the class is *defined* as privilege. 

 

That's kind of embarrassing, which is why people want to shed the issue by insisting they're offended by saying what they've got is undeserved, when the issue is really they deserve whatever they've got, but society's prejudice prevents others from achieving it just as easily.

 

This is really a critical issue and I'm glad you're pointing it out, but it's also the point where people stop communicating because they *choose* to be offended rather than choosing to listen to the evidence of prejudice the *leads* to "privilege."

 

This also gets caught up in the whole argument of any programs that seek to "level the playing field" get called "undeserving" by the people in the dominant class, precisely because they are giving up the privilege of having a better chance to get the job or the university position because of those attempts at equality.

 

The words here do matter, but when they're used as weapons, we all lose.

 

 

If you want to see the true measure of a man, watch how he treats his inferiors, not his equals. :phones:

Buffy

[exchemist]

 

This is really the crux of the problem: You're absolutely right that many people hear "privilege" and think "undeserved" and I actually took some pains to point this out above. Making that jump to "undeserved" is a defense mechanism though to avoid exactly what you're also arguing which is a distinction between "privilege" and "prejudice" when they are really two sides of the same coin.

 

Sociologically, in any society there is a dominant class, and that dominant class--in America, basically "white people"--being the class is *defined* as privilege. 

 

That's kind of embarrassing, which is why people want to shed the issue by insisting they're offended by saying what they've got is undeserved, when the issue is really they deserve whatever they've got, but society's prejudice prevents others from achieving it just as easily.

 

This is really a critical issue and I'm glad you're pointing it out, but it's also the point where people stop communicating because they *choose* to be offended rather than choosing to listen to the evidence of prejudice the *leads* to "privilege."

 

This also gets caught up in the whole argument of any programs that seek to "level the playing field" get called "undeserving" by the people in the dominant class, precisely because they are giving up the privilege of having a better chance to get the job or the university position because of those attempts at equality.

 

The words here do matter, but when they're used as weapons, we all lose.

 

 

If you want to see the true measure of a man, watch how he treats his inferiors, not his equals. :phones:

Buffy

 

I don't buy that, I'm afraid. It is offensive to resort to the patronising psychobabble of "defence mechanisms" in this context. By talking in this way, you are claiming that people are not being rational but are instead being emotional or driven by subconscious psychological factors. I don't believe that for an instant. 

 

It is perfectly reasonable to hear echoes of "undeserved", in the way the term "privilege" is bandied around nowadays in contexts like this. If you look up dictionary definitions you find words like "favour" used to describe privilege. This implies something given by someone else, ex gratia, i.e. not a right and not based on merit. 

 

I firmly believe we should stick to labelling prejudice and racism as such, without trying to inflict a collective guilt trip on the innocent majority of law-abiding citizens.

 

If we don't, we lose their support...and the result is Trump! 

Edited August 24, 2017 by exchemist

[serenesam]

Of course you did, dear.

 

 

Well gee, it'd be nice if there were even that!

 

Where is the "opportunity" to have daddy introduce you to his friend who owns a company that does what you want to do if you are a kid who grows up in Oakland?

 

Where's the opportunity to meet your future classmates at Harvard that you meet playing Lacrosse thanks to your stay-at-home mom, who can take you to that between your SAT prep classes and the Model UN?

 

 

Funny thing is that it sounds like you as a poor white kid missed those "opportunities" too.

 

Hate to disturb your world view, but it's not the "dark" people that are a problem with "equality" it's the rich folks like Trump who are happy to keep you down there with the rest of the Polloi.

 

 

An age is called Dark, not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it, :phones:

Buffy

Doesn't everyone have to right to go to school? I'm talking the USA here. Sure, it might be public **** school, but that's better than nothing right? Those are opportunities. Also, I think some girls simply don't want to be like men/boys. Like I won't mind if a small percentage of girls want to be the "career woman" because you're always going to have anomalies/outliers. The true question then becomes, in what situation is a female happier (on average)?

 

In terms of employment, I don't believe employers blatantly discriminate against women, minorities, and the disadvantaged. If that were the case, it would make headlines.

 

In fact, even something like having a "disability" could put you at an advantage when say applying for a university:

 

Colleges are looking for diversity, Montesano explains, and having a learning disability represents a form of diversity.

 

Source: https://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/the-college-solution/2011/06/14/learning-disabilities-can-offer-college-admission-edge

 

When filling out applications, then, students must make the difficult decision of whether to disclose information about their disability to their universities of choice. Telling a college that you have ADHD will never hurt your chances of getting in — it’s illegal for college admissions officers to let this information negatively affect your chances — but in some cases, it might be helpful for the school to know and could actually give you an opportunity to explain aspects of your application that you wouldn’t otherwise be able to. Disclosing this information can help a student to explain a drop in grades from one year to the next, or low SAT scores that don’t seem to measure up with a high GPA.

 

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/learning-disabilities-the_n_1079621.html

 

So if you believe Trump is keeping you down, what are you (politically)? I mean I believe you're a Democrat right? You really think Hillary would have been all that much better? You see, I was on some Reddit forum called "Debate The Alt-Right" and I noted that it probably wouldn't make much of a difference if a Democrat was elected. In essence, it would have simply been four additional years of Barack Obama. Even if say for example, Bernie Sanders was elected President of the United States, he too would have had to compromise to a certain degree with the powers that be/establishment. I tend to see/call politics as "wobbler effect." Things move slightly to the Right and things move slightly to the Left but it's just a mask/illusion. Sure, the rich would benefit more if a Republican was elected but then they would not benefit when a Democrat gets elected but the point is that things are circular or move in circles. 

 

"All the world's a stage." - William Shakespeare

[serenesam]

Imagine driving in your car, and the blue lights of a police car come on behind you.  Maybe you think, "What was I doing, was I speeding, did I fail to signal."  Or maybe you thing, "How am I going to pay for the ticket I'm about to get."

 

If your skin were darker, you might be thinking "How do I not get beaten up or killed"

 

We Americans may all live in the same country, but some of us are worlds apart.

That's why you should move to a place where people look like you, have the same/similar skin color like you. Nationalism is the answer. 

 

So if you're Black or Hispanic, move to California where there are a lot of cops that are Black or Hispanic. 

[serenesam]

 

Poor Little Sammy who just came and went,

'whites only' his mantra to constantly vent.

His past is loose loony he freely admits,

and he furthers his history in irrational fits.

:Glasses:

 

There probably (if not most likely) loonies on The Left and on The Right. 

[serenesam]

Oh wow, this place really has devolved, or at least YOU have, Buffy.

 

You come across as a raving commie lunatic.

Actually, there are many, many other pills aside from The Red Pill, The Blue Pill, and The Black Pill:

 

https://historiesofthingstocome.blogspot.com/2017/06/red-pill-blue-pill-green-pill-black-pill.html

[Buffy]

I don't buy that, I'm afraid. It is offensive to resort to the patronising psychobabble of "defence mechanisms" in this context. By talking in this way, you are claiming that people are not being rational but are instead being emotional or driven by subconscious psychological factors. I don't believe that for an instant.

I quite appreciate the issue of connotation here, and I think a big part of the problem is that the issue is one that is complex.

 

Unfortunately, especially considering the topic of this thread, there is in our society a strong feeling of inherent privilege. That is not to say more than a minority support it, but the usage of the euphemism "Alt-Right" is specifically intended to make these actual feelings of privilege more palatable to those who might insist "I am not a racist."

 

So to go the other direction on this, and say "prejudice" and "privilege" are completely disjoint concepts, isn't any more realistic than to say that they are identical, when they're not. But the are undeniably intertwined, and that connection allows for offense to be spread in either direction.

 

I'm familiar with privilege because I move in fairly wealthy circles. The average house price in my neighborhood pushes $3 million, and I know a large percentage of these people are convinced that they and their abilities are solely responsible for their success, when it's clear that their upbringing, schools and social connections along with a huge dose of luck mostly got them where they are. And it is embarrassing for many to admit that that might not be the case. Now that's not near the majority, and my house district voted for a Democrat last year for the first time since FDR.

 

But here's the thing: while many people here readily admit to having benefited significantly from their "privilege" very few of them would say it's "undeserved." Just like Ocean, they've worked hard. There are a bunch of Trust-Fund types around here though who get really indignant when privilege is mentioned and they will storm off in a huff if "undeserved" is brought up. That latter bunch is actually the core of the rich Trump support around here, and I think they meet your definition of "undeserved privilege" pretty well:

 

It is perfectly reasonable to hear echoes of "undeserved", in the way the term "privilege" is bandied around nowadays in contexts like this. If you look up dictionary definitions you find words like "favour" used to describe privilege. This implies something given by someone else, ex gratia, i.e. not based on merit.

Now the problem here is that there actually is a lot of privilege, and regardless of whether it's deserved or not, if you're *not* in the dominant group and you see people who are in the dominant group benefiting from "prejudice," that looks an awful lot like "privilege." Again, it may be completely "deserved," but there's still a "privilege" that's associated with having the right skin color that comes with being in the dominant group.

 

If all our institutions already had the same distribution of color that exists in the overall population, then all this would be moot, but the very nature of "affirmative action" is very much because so much of the prejudice that exists doesn't go away on it's own and we've found we have to work to get to a level playing field. And it's at that point that the people who are used to having a larger percentage of the available slots devoted to their own group get mad, because they do have to give up space that "used to be theirs." Is that prejudice or privilege? To people of color, to not call it privilege is to bury it in euphemisms, especially when they're told that "there is no prejudice any more" which is *very* popular in some segments of the GOP, and even among Bernie acolytes who insist that race is irrelevant, it's only about class. When people say that kind of thing it's called "erasure" and it drives people of color absolutely bonkers.

 

So...

 

I firmly believe we should stick to labelling prejudice and racism as such, without trying to inflict a collective guilt trip on the innocent majority of law-abiding citizens.

 

If we don't, we lose their support...and the result is Trump!

You're absolutely right about being careful about how our labeling is perceived, but realize that discounting the effects that are very real to some and invisible to others is a major obstacle, yes, "on many sides."

 

What is a challenge here is a recognition that so much of this erasure is inextricably linked to denial of prejudice. There's not even a recognition that there's an issue when race is a central to whatever is being discussed. And unfortunately we see a lot of this in this thread among people who will swear up and down that they don't have a shred of prejudice in their personality.

 

To be clear, I'm not participating here so much to say what I think as to see what works and what doesn't. What you see from me above to a certain extent is what you might call "psychodrama" which was popular back in the 70s as a mechanism of letting people see what they look like to others by giving them a dose of their own attitude. It can be quite enlightening if people have an open mind, but I fear we have too much polarization in society to create bridges to folks who really refuse to look.

 

A lot of this is going to be generational, and despite what you've been hearing about Millennials, I see a lot of good in my daughter's generation. They have a much bleaker future given where things are than those of us in previous generations did, but they're doing good things, and a lot of this has to do with dealing with prejudice.

 

Now as you all know, I end all my posts with a quote (which you should always look up!), but I just did a search of "privilege quotes" and as an exercise left for the reader, I'd browse through these to see if you see any that really have that connotation of "undeserved." I even thought about rewriting this post based on that, but the thing is that no matter what the most common usage of it is, it has come to have a special meaning in political debate that has indeed become toxic, and everything I said above is an attempt to talk about *that* aspect of the word.

 

So there is a strong argument for dropping it from many aspects of this debate, with the caveat that there are in fact strong opinions on all sides, which means the operative word here is "avoid" not "discount and dismiss" it.

 

 

The ability to have a choice in what you do is a privilege, :phones:

Buffy

[sanctus]

OceanBreeze, if Exchemist is right and you interpret "privilege" as "undeserved" then I am sorry. I know nothing of what you did to get where you are, but I am sure (no irony!) you worked for it and deserved it.

But here is a list made by someone else about white privilege:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/michaelblackmon/17-harrowing-examples-of-white-privilege-9hu9?utm_term=.pfX96n7bn#.ge56ZxjRx

Number 9 nails it: "I have the privilege of being totally unaware of my privilege"

OR from another article:
Recognizing Privilege simply means being aware that some people have to work much harder just to experience the things you take for granted (if they ever can experience them at all.)