Is it possible to falsify Privilege?

Kurt H wrote:

Matthew Bailey wrote:Suukpetaer - the effect of banging two rocks together produces a soapy byproduct that systemically reinforces personal characteristics.

Here let me fix your definition so that it looks more like the privilege definition (nice deck-stacking, btw):

Suukpetaer - the effect of banging two rocks together to produce a soapy byproduct that systemically reinforces personal characteristics.

Notice that suukpetaer may not actually exist, but it is defined. Similarly, one can define words like "ghost" or "unicorn" which refer to non-existent things, yet are defined.

And are just as useless at referring to things that people claim actually exist.

Great way to compare yourself to people who believe in Ghosts.

And "Produces" and "To produce" is REALLY picking at nits considering those two things mean the same thing.

Matthew Bailey

nullnvoid wrote:"ANY claim (which is what a definition is. It is a claim that A=B)"

Incorrect. A definition of a word is merely the explanation of a label. NOT a proof that such a thing exists and NOT a truth claim. I can define any label as I desire. The label won't be useful unless others agree to use the label as well...but there is no requirement to prove the accuracy of a label for it to be useful because it is not a truth claim. A label does not have a property of true/false.

Any definition is also an "identity." An "identity" is where we say that one thing "IS" another thing.

This is equivalent to saying A=B.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_(philosophy)

Or, you may pick any form of identity you wish for your definition, and I will argue from the position of that type of identity (nominal, Qualitative, digital, cultural, social, etc...)

nullnvoid wrote:Your chemistry analogy was poor. H₂O is a combination of two labels which already mean something. By combining them in this arrangement and then equating them to water you HAVE made a truth claim. In this instance you've claimed that a water molecule has a chemical composition of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen.

Wow, that's really interesting since that is one of the arguments about identity that have been made by philosophers such as Wittgenstein, Kripke, & Putnam.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/definitions/

SEP wrote:The definition “Water is H2O,” for example, is intensionally adequate because the identity of water and H2O is necessary (assuming the Kripke-Putnam view about the rigidity of natural-kind terms); the definition is therefore extensionally adequate also. But it is not sense-adequate, for the sense of ‘water’ is not at all the same as that of ‘H2O’.

This would be the Descriptive Definition that is being used, which is what we are discussing with the definition of "Privilege." The attempt to describe "Privileve" and how it fails the tests of a descriptive definition. Counterexamples are both actual and possible (and most definitions fail the "sense-adequacy" since very few descriptions are A=A.

nullnvoid wrote:Edit: If you are someone who teaches logic it might be a good idea to read up on some of the philosophy of language. Wittgenstein might be a good place to start.

Read both the Tractatus and one of his later works where he refutes the Tractatus (Don't recall it's name - I fucking HATE philosophy, but have been forced to learn it due to the fact that people fail at so many basic levels of understanding so many things.

Matthew Bailey

Kurt H wrote:

Matthew Bailey wrote:

Privilege is an unfair advantage or power that is not earned through an individual's own actions or merit, but rather is given and reinforced systemically due to a personal characteristic.

this means:

Privilege = Unfair Advantage, blah, blah, blah.

The not earned part is rather crucial, despite your condescension. I actually think the "unfair" part is what is not crucial.

Matthew Bailey wrote:If it is an advantage, then why not simply call it that, since this definition directly contradicts the dictionary definitions of Privilege.

As pointed out above, the word privilege has never required that the benefit be earned and has specifically referred to some unearned benefits (like the privileges of nobility) for centuries. You are simply wrong.

Matthew Bailey wrote:3) Not earned according to whom? Who is the arbiter of this judgment? How have they operationalized the "unearned?" Has the person making this judgment established either the authority, or the right to make such a judgment?

This is where the "blah, blah, blah" that you dismissed comes in handy. By unearned, it is meant that the beneficiary of privilege can passively benefit. Men have privilege, and not need to do anything other than continue being male in order to benefit.

Nice how you completely fail to address the questions raised.

Simply saying that "by unearned, it is meant that the beneficiary of privilege can passively benefit..." only DEEPENS the number of unanswered questions that need to be answered before the term is useful.

Now you have added:

What does passive mean? beneficiary according to whom? How do they measure the benefit? What metric do they use for "benefit." What IS the "benefit?"

And, as before, I am sure that there are even more questions this raises.

What you have done here is an extension of the definition. It has added more to the original definition, requiring even more answers, and creating more problems.

Kurt H wrote:

Matthew Bailey wrote:4) Reinforced systemically? How was this measured? {blah, blah, blah}

Try describing how to measure "health" in just a few sentences without referring back to the concept itself. Some concepts are hard to measure in a simple and concise manner and you need to just deal with that.

There are a great many things that are hard to define. But generally we can define what they are not very easily:

Health is not having a raging case of Ebola, West Nile Virus, not having open sores that ooze puss, not having a heart that is missing a chamber, not being obese, etc.

But the fields of biology and medicine have a set of norms that apply across the population with very well defined statistical means, median, and mode.

Kurt H wrote:

Matthew Bailey wrote:5) How do "Personal Characteristics" create a Systemic Reinforcement?

They don't. You have parsed the sentence wrong. The personal characteristic is the "axis" of privilege (race, gender, sexuality, etc.). The systemic reinforcement is not caused by the personal characteristic. That would be like saying that black people cause racism by being black. Your sixth and seventh criticisms fall to this same critique.

The quote is:

reinforced systemically due to a personal characteristic.

If something is "due" to something, that means that it "causes or contributes to the cause."

If you are saying that there is something else to be added on to this, and the "Personal Characteristics" are only contributing to the cause, then you have an incomplete definition, which would mean you would need to add something else.

Something else that would probably not be quantified.

Kurt H wrote:

Matthew Bailey wrote:It just goes deeper and deeper and deeper.

Your pile of nonsense? Yes, I agree, it is quite large at this point.

ad hom much?

Kurt H wrote:

Matthew Bailey wrote:Yet, if we were to back up, and just call it an "Advantage" (which the definition itself mistakenly equates to Privilege), then most of these problems evaporate.

Relabeling a concept should not make the concept more or less coherent. Do I need to explain the difference between substantive and semantic arguments? It seems like you're really unclear on this.

Those weren't "semantic" arguments.

They were arguments about the quantification of the terms you used. They were arguments that were very much about the substance of your definition, asking "What do these things "DO," not "what do they mean."

Kurt H wrote:

Matthew Bailey wrote:"Oh! gloerboik isn't water, but it has the word "water" in its definition."

You defined gloerboik as a specific kind of water. Thus, not all water is gloerboik, but all gloerboik is water.

Have you considered the possibility that all privilege is advantage, but not all advantages are privileges?

Yes... I have... And especially THAT would eliminate Privilege as a useful concept.

If all Privilege is an Advantage, then just use the word Advantage. No need for the word Privilege, then, is there?

And, it is completely possible that all advantages are not privilege. So what?

Matthew Bailey

Matthew Bailey wrote:Nice how you completely fail to address the questions raised.

That's what happens when your questions are irrelevant. Ask good questions, and you'll get good answers.

Also, take note of the fact that you have no defense for my point that privilege DOES NOT inherently imply an earned condition. I know you would like to hide this problem, but I'll highlight it again.

Matthew Bailey wrote:Simply saying that "by unearned, it is meant that the beneficiary of privilege can passively benefit..." only DEEPENS the number of unanswered questions that need to be answered before the term is useful.

Only for pedants like you. Reasonable people don't have this problem.

Matthew Bailey wrote:And, as before, I am sure that there are even more questions this raises.

It's true . . . you've come up with enough pointless objections. Don't overtax yourself.

Matthew Bailey wrote:

Kurt H wrote:

Matthew Bailey wrote:4) Reinforced systemically? How was this measured? {blah, blah, blah}

Try describing how to measure "health" in just a few sentences without referring back to the concept itself. Some concepts are hard to measure in a simple and concise manner and you need to just deal with that.

There are a great many things that are hard to define. But generally we can define what they are not very easily:

Health is not having a raging case of Ebola, West Nile Virus, not having open sores that ooze puss, not having a heart that is missing a chamber, not being obese, etc.

How many open sores, and for how long? What if the heart gets a replacement part? How exactly do you define obese?

See, I can ask a series of nitpicky questions too.

The adequacy of a definition bears no relation to the number of nitpicky questions you can ask about it. This is because the number of nitpicky questions you can ask is constrained only by your imagination and endurance. Your ability to continue the pointless process of generating nitpicky questions about privilege but not doing so with regard to health is a product of your desire to reject the concept, not any problem with the definition.

Matthew Bailey wrote:

Kurt H wrote:

Matthew Bailey wrote:5) How do "Personal Characteristics" create a Systemic Reinforcement?

They don't. You have parsed the sentence wrong . . .

The quote is:

reinforced systemically due to a personal characteristic.

If something is "due" to something, that means that it "causes or contributes to the cause."

At this point I suspect that you are deliberately pretending not to understand words and concepts. There is no way that someone with your vocabulary is this stupid. But just in case . . .

People might be treated a certain way due to a personal characteristic like, say, skin color. This does not mean that the behavior is caused by their skin color. The behavior is caused by cultural attitudes (the "systemic reinforcement").

Matthew Bailey wrote:If you are saying that there is something else to be added on to this, and the "Personal Characteristics" are only contributing to the cause, then you have an incomplete definition, which would mean you would need to add something else.

I am not saying that there is something else to be added. I am saying that you are misreading the definition. The "personal characteristics" clause is referring to the fact that there are multiple types of privilege, each one reinforced by similar (but not necessarily the SAME) structures of systemic reinforcement.

Matthew Bailey wrote:

Kurt H wrote:

Matthew Bailey wrote:It just goes deeper and deeper and deeper.

Your pile of nonsense? Yes, I agree, it is quite large at this point.

ad hom much?

No, since that is not an ad hominem argument. Do you have trouble with that definition too? I wouldn't be surprised at this point.

Matthew Bailey wrote:They were arguments about the quantification of the terms you used. They were arguments that were very much about the substance of your definition, asking "What do these things "DO," not "what do they mean."

What does what do? Clarify your objection to the concept. Assuming, of course, that you've actually made one, which is not yet established.

Matthew Bailey wrote:

Kurt H wrote:Have you considered the possibility that all privilege is advantage, but not all advantages are privileges?

Yes... I have... And especially THAT would eliminate Privilege as a useful concept.

All falcons are birds, but not all birds are falcons. Apparently, this eliminates "falcons" as a useful concept.

I am not certain that one can falsify privilege now, for any analyses conducted would have so many variables that it would just be impossible now. Falsification is that that can be applied to scientific or mathematical hypotheses, but not sociological ones

And also the whole notion of privliege, while no doubt a useful barometer in itself, can be complex however. So take a simple example of a gay man and a straight woman. On the one hand he has greater privilege over her, because of his gender. But on the other, she has greater privilege over him, because of her sexuality. So there is no absolute measure here. As it is more subtle than that now. This could cause problems over who exactly is more privileged than who. But the real problem is using it as a label to deny say to one merely because of an accident of birth. As a white man have an opinion of less value on the subjects of racism or misogyny now, for example. However to absolutely deny me my opinion is wrong, since free speech is for every one, not just those one merely happens to agree with now. Because no one should be treated any differently because of factors beyond their control - this applies to the privileged as much as the non privileged now
_______________________________________________________________________
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN

Again...

You would first need to find a Definition that wasn't Contradictory or Tautological.

I've spoken to two Professors at UCLA now who deal with the Social Sciences:

• Professor Francis Steen. UCLA Professor of Communications (handling the Television News Archive, among other projects, which deals with handling, cataloging and researching over 9,000,000 hours of Television News since 1975)

• Professor Oto Santa Ana: Professor of Latin/Hispanic Studies. His current project is examining a Multiperspective view of the May 1st 2007 MacArthur Park Melee where the Police cleared MacArthur park, assaulting women, children and reports, and firing rubber bullets into them (My part of this project is to build a multi-perspective video database and tour using Google-earth to geotag the video that we have from the hundreds of private sources and amateur reporters and bloggers on the scene, and the thousands of news broadcasts in the Americas, Asia (where there is a large Latin population), and Europe that covered the story).

Both have assured me that you will not be able to come up with a definition that doesn't lead to contradiction or Tautology for what you are attempting to do with the word (re: Privilege). And both have studied the issue since the 1960s (and at one time both subscribed to the idea in their youths, before they had managed to get into graduate school, where they first encountered a rigorous examination of the subjects they pursued and the issues surrounding the topic of "Privilege;" only to discover that the word was useless to describe any real thing).

People use the word simultaneously for too many things, leading to contradictions.

Thus, as I have been saying:

It is better to use words like "Economic Differences/Similarities," "Gender Differences/Similarities," "Sexual Differences/Similarities," "Physiological Differences/Similarities," "Physiological Advantages/Disadvantages," "Gender or Sexual Advantages/Disadvantages," "Economic Advantages/Disadvantages," Economic Opportunities/Lack-of-Opporunities," "Sociological Advantages/Disadvantages," and so on.

These words refer to REAL things, that can be defined safely without worry of contradiction, and often with both great specificity, and the ability to falsify.

The only reason people use the word "Privilege" is that it identifies them as "One of the In Crowd" in the "Cult of Social Justice" rather than being someone who is genuinely concerned about Social Issues and isn't afraid to go where the evidence takes them. The word identifies someone who is a slave to an ideology, and not someone who is capable of taking a hard look at the cult like status of the language (See Marc Galanter's work on cults, which define the typical four( Or sometimes five) main characteristics of a Cult¹). The people involved on the other Atheism+ site exhibit all of the traits to a very high degree. Many here exhibit these traits pretty strongly as well (of course, there will be a great gnashing of teeth, a rousing defense of "We are not a cult." and attacking of my statement rather than taking a look into what exactly is meant, and how Galanter's work might apply).

The "fifth" trait exhibited by Cults is a private language and vocabulary that often diverges greatly from the typical usage of the words, or includes words that are completely fictional (body thetans anyone?), which serve to both control the member's way of thinking, and to identify members to each other. Here, terms like "cisgendered," or "Privilege" fill this role (there are others).

And this is why Atheism+ was so attacked by many members of the general Atheist culture (I have educated quite a few about Marc Galanter's work, and more than a few Atheists have actually studied with Marc in graduate school - So they tend to be able to recognize Cultish behavior when they see it).

It should be pointed out that a Cult need not have any official "foundation" or "intent" to form a Cult. Often they are spontaneous collections of people who wind up forming into a dysfunctional group that exhibits these behaviors in order to maintain stability in an otherwise chaotic environment.

I would have hoped that people would see this, not as an attack on Atheism+, but as a simple statement of concern for the survival of the ideals. Closing a group into a cult just alienates that group further from both their goals and society.

for a group that says that they wish to stand for something right in the world, and to accomplish the correction of wrongs; to have this happen would not be a "good" thing. It would tend to prohibit those very things.

Matthew Bailey


¹ Marc is THE GUY when it comes to cults. I studied his work when I was a kid, and was among the subjects he interviewed for the book.

The traits exhibited by members of a cult, or by the collective group that is a Cult, are:

• The cult members for a tightly cohesive group
• The members impute transcendent powers to their leaders or missions (this can also be replaced with a more subtle form of imputation of power, that takes the form of a Desperate need, in which they are the only people who can possibly perform a job, or fill a role)
• The group will strictly control members’ behavior
• The group will exert a powerful influence that overrides individuals’ usual behavior

^ This.