The thing about "check your privilege" is you shouldn't use it every time you notice someone else's privzizzle, you should point it out when they're being absolute jerks about it. Otherwise it becomes just another overused buzzword.
To me, privilege isn't a condemnation of somebody for being born better off, it's simply being born better off. Understanding your privilege shouldn't ever carry any shame with it, but it can help you better empathize with those who were born into more difficult circumstances. And again, it's not a condemnation, just because you're born into privilege doesn't mean that your life is easy, just easier when compared with others. I do not like how this video handled the topic anymore than the stereotypical "sjw" handles it.
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.
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.
This is gas, fundamental resources, your ability to collect them and the quality of your resources will be a deciding factor in your ability to reach your goals whatever they may be. Privilege is about obstacles. The less obstacles that you have to climb; socially or financially, the more privileged you are.
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.
You people don't see the damn point! Sartre is trying to look at a deeper level of being. You are all coming up with these socioeconomic arguments and financial inequality problem What Sartre is talking about has nothing to do with any of that
+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
Waiting for the Social Justice Warriors to come rolling in from tumblr to criticize this. It's so apparent what Wisecrack was doing, and I gotta say, I respect your statements. Please, hand me a share of the popcorn.
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
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
It sounds like Sartre was trying to make an apologetic case for wealth. Rich people are more free than poor people. More free from debt, more freedom from harassment from authority, and more freedom to choose the path they want to take in life.
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.
A prisoner can delude himself into seeing himself as free, but that doesn't make it so. His options are so constrained that to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. The rich warrior, with more resources at his disposal, has more options available to him than the poor warrior, and thus, is free to pursue more goals: he is more free. The poor warrior can delude himself into thinking otherwise, but unless he has a cadre of options available to him that, somehow, isn't available to the rich warrior, it isn't true. The sort of "freedom" presented here can be likened to an acceptance of one's slavery: it may be the prudent choice, and it may be the definition accepted by, and shapes the reality of, all the slaves in that society, but isn't a freely made choice. EDIT: spelling
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 think the idea of simply changing what you aspire to is a little bit easier said than done. The emotional, irrational side of the human is usually the part that decides the big overarching "life goals" - what your passions, values and dreams are. I don't think that it's so easy to make something like "get through being in prison" or "flip burgers" a real exciting or mentally involving life goal, even for a short period. Also, a lot of privilege basically gives a leg up to mediocre people. To take an example, sooo many students that go to Ivy league universities, for example, are "legacy" students who had older family members that went there. Not the most studious types necessarily. Society degrades the amount of competence and ambition available to it when it puts aside potentially talented/competent/ambitious people just because they're poorer or not white or whatever else. We ought to reward excellence, not the sheer luck of being born in the right place.
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.
"Check your privilege" Words chosen deliberately. White people often interpret it as "Apologize for your privilege" or "Feel guilty for your privilege" neither in fact the meaning behind the phrase. Very simply the idea of "privilege" is that 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. 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.
"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.
I'm really not getting this philosophy. The example "The prisoners freedom is restricted not by the physical prison but buy his unwillingness to conform his goal to his current situation" seems to directly contradict his argument. The very fact the prisoner is forced to conform his goals to his current situation if he wants to have an achievable goal is in itself a reduction in freedom. The person outside the prison is free to do any of the same options as the person inside the prison, as well as many more. Freedom consists in number of possible achievable options. "There is no metric to decide who has the best way to make meaning in their lives" but we can in principle count who has the most options for ways of making meaning and thus who has more freedom. Freedom consists not just in the ability to create "meaning", but also to choose how to. It is abundantly obvious that a slave is not free, though using this videos definition he could be. The prisoner can choose to try to escape, but the success of such an attempt may be beyond his control.
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.
Batman and Punisher have the same goals, to rid the world of crime. Bruce Wayne is more well off than Frank Castle so he can afford all the expensive and experimental gadgets and philosophize about how it is important not to kill your foes. Frank Castle will use any means necessary and take money for his war on crime and use guns. Is either one really hampered in their crime fighting pursuits due to there separate "priveleges"?
Just dont use the "check your privilege" as a tool to shut up people, and on the other hand understand that maybe you have advantages en life, and in the other hand you understand there no such a thing an universal experience base on the color of your skin or your wealth.
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).
I love these videos not just for the clever use of game analogies, but for the fact that they're always a discussion of a person's philosophy. They never say if a way of thinking is right or wrong, they just give a better understanding of what a specific person was saying. So, thanks for doing such a wonderful job, guys
That prisoner argument is dumb as hell. Yes, he's free to attempt an escape or reevaluate his life or commit suicide, but he's not free to go build sand castles. His freedom has not been eradicated, but it has been greatly reduced. And that's not his fault for being unwilling to reevaluate his life. That's the fucking prison's fault. It is what is restricting his freedom. Honestly Sarte sounds like a real ass, going around blaming the victim for not being happy with their victimhood.
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.
+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
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 loved the ending asking whether we should take the opinion of a rich white person about privilege seeing how they are the most privilege group in the world. How ever, I think people are missing the point about checking one's privilege. The idea isn't to be ashamed or bad in anyway about your privilege just be aware of it and how it may affect others. If you're an able bodied person you have a whole host of privileges that you don't even know exist until you talk to a disabled person and see just how many privileges you have as an able bodied person. Now obviously it's ridiculous to then even the playing field by making yourself disabled. That's actually counter productive and retarded. But what we do do is make infrastructure and accommodations for disabled people via ramps, electronic doors, braille, etc. So when someone says check your privilege they're asking you to tone it down some. If you're the only rich person in school you can't expect everyone to be able to afford everything you can. If you're white you can't expect people of color to have the same culture or experience in America. Being white and non white in America is vastly different in many ways that people of Color universally understand that whites typically don't because they simply don't have to deal with it in as many ways as non whites do. So we're not asking you remove a limb, just create infrastructure and accommodations for the underprivileged to at least be able have equal access to things.
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.
Hi 8-Bit Philosophy, the way you make complex philosophical matters into understandable pixel movies are truly admirable. I love your channel! Could you consider making a video about Ayn Rand’s theory of capitalism because her philosophy might explain the recent news about the richest 1% of the population owning more than 50% of the world’s wealth. It would really mean a lot if you were able to do that.
You dudes hit it out of the park every time. I'm always excited to see your notification pop up. Any chance for a Roland Barthes video? John Stewart Mill? Or, if you're OK with an esoteric guy, Nikolai Federovich Federov?
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.
A lot of anger about the last line. It came across as sarcastic to me, it's most likely a joke. Since the idea of discrediting someone's opinion based on wealth and race wasn't supported at all in the video and was placed at the end, it can really only be heard as a tongue-in-cheek jab at the victim mentality of people who believe that in the first place.
1:55 I will never achieve my dream of becoming a master sand castle maker in prison. Never! The fact that he's locked up isn't what restricts his freedom, it's his choice to believe he's unfree. It's his unwillingness to conform his goal to his current situation. Such a good video. 2:06 is also my fave.
So I'm literally living my whole life to try and get money to survive and you're telling me rich people haven't got it better? Are you crazy? The rich are free, us normal people are like people in jail
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.
Wow Wisecrack, you're brave for posting this. I can only hope that the SJW's from Tumblr don't fly down here in droves disliking and flagging the video.
Whenever I'm chained to a wall against my will and beaten senseless, I remind myself that my suffering is my fault for not thinking about the situation in a positive way. We don't need rights. Freedom is a state of mind. (no pun intended) I dunno about you guys, but this kind of thinking isn't something I can get on board with.
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.
What about what Amartya Sen says? He has a completely opposite view. Liberty is determined by the capacities one has, so in his view privilege does interfere with liberty. If one does not have the economic or political means, one is not really free to exercise his freedom.
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.
Funny enough, I recall watching a video in which black people were asked if they believed that white privilege kept them down. Most claimed that that they didn't believe it even existed, while others claimed that, while it it existed in some areas, it shouldn't stop them from attempting to achieve their goals. Great video! I almost want to make a tumblr account and share this on every SJW's page.
Typical postmodernist nonsense that makes huge leaps between unrelated ideas, ignores this inconvenient thing called "reality", and uses obfuscatory language for the sole purpose of stroking the ego of adherents.
I acknowledge my circumstances and will always strive to better them for the future generation. I will never fall into despair and I will not dwell on what others have and what I do not. I am able bodied and strong willed and I will never give up on what I believe in.
This is the worst interpretation of Sartre I have come across so far. Sartre's radical freedom describes something entirely different than what this video is describing. Sartre was also a radical marxist and a supporter of communism, firmly opposed to capitalism and liberal democracy because of their unequal distribution of power and material wealth. The last part of the video describes what's wrong with using Sartre in this manner. Sartre said that we are all equally free to create meaning, but privilege isn't about creating meaning at all. Instead, privelege describes power relations and social inequality. This video is trash.
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.
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.
This reminds me of Bob Marley's song, "Redemption Song": "Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds" Powerful stuff.
lol at the more right leaning comments. If you take Sartre seriously on this matter, that also means nothing the government does is a restriction of your freedom
For some reason I keep turning back to Nietsche when addressing any other philosophical question. Often blending it with my own little addendum... That someone should seek to not only seek to overcome themselves for the better, but to change the world for the better. In the case of the fact that the Prisoner is "free to make choices, but anguished by being unable to conform their goals to their current situation", I find myself wanting to state the blindingly obvious... The prisoner should use whatever freedom of movement they have left to try to change their situation so that they CAN obtain their so far out of reach goal. Which in context of the prisoner wanting to achieve a great goal outside the prison, means he needs to get out of the prison. Which he needs to recognize... Is totally possible. Meanwhile... Firrion's gear and party woes just need him to realize that in absence of wealth, and an absence of people that are willing to pay him... He should instead focus on straight up fortifying his body through strength training. (Something that is available for anyone anyways.) In essence, the best suggestion is to either overcome one's "lower facticity" or to change it. This leads into one problem I have with Sarte, he seems to phrase his arguments in such a way to suggest that facticity is irrelevant in one's choices, preferring instead to focus on "freedom of choice". When the fact of the matter is, factitity is both the goal and a driving/guiding force for decisions. A man in jail while "free to choose" is not completely "free to move", or to put another way "free to act". Though Sarte would phrase both as the same, and in the process diminishes the freedom of choice to one's mere freedom of movement... The better way is to realize that such a prisoner is also always able to choose something beyond his range of movement, so instead of a choices being merely "escape, restructure, die", those choices are not the choice itself so much as a means to an end. The choice of "escape" becoming a path to fulfill a goal that lies beyond it, and even more choices made in how to achieve this being made into the means for creating that path. ... In fact... Fighting against forces that restrain your ability to fulfill a worthy goal you've chosen is perhaps the most important thing one should do. All beings aren't just free, they desire freedom. One's constant freedom of choice is always a reminder that one's freedom of action is restricted by other forces at play. Forces that both sapient and sentient beings are driven to fight back against. Thus its not just important to recognize your freedom of choice, but its also important to recognize what is standing in the way of it, and that those limitations can be overcome. At the end of the day... I less disagree with Sarte so much as scoff at his lack of eye for ambition... Or perhaps his disregard for it.
great video wisecrack!! but in response to the question at the end of the video: no, we shouldn't just trust ONE person's perspective on privilege. rather we should hear what Sartre has to say but should also welcome another voice e.g. Angela Davis or Audre Lorde into the discussion. we tend to think that only one person/ideology has it figured out for everyone but that's not the case and we can point out flaws with Sartre's argument but should fill in those flaws with new, more nuanced understanding because he's not all wrong. thank you again for great, provocative material. I check in daily! keep up the great work and I would love to see a video on a synthesized philosophy rather than one view on a topic! :)
I'm not sure I buy Sartre's argument at all. One's ability to choose one's relationship toward life is completely dependent on their facticty. One with very little material wealth, education, etc., has a very small amount of options when decided their purpose when compared to a person with a lot of those things. It would follow that privilege DOES matter, and a great deal in fact, when trying to decided how to live one's life. I think it's particularly good idea in regards to how one should live their life; i.e. choosing a goal that is achievable given your situation. But I think that just highlights how important privilege is to things like this, And of course, this completely doesn't deal with some of the main reason we use privilege.
Bottom line: Freedom is choice. That choice is relative. Wealth affords resources, which allows more choices, and thus more freedom. The question then, is whether you use it, abuse it, or take it for granted. Even those who are born with limited choices can use those choices to carve out greater resources for themselves to expand their realm of choices, perhaps in friends, allies, or simply strategic or lateral moves that free you from the bonds of your current situation. I believe that a person should be judged not based on their facticity, but relative to it, based on their choices and accomplishments, either aided by the circumstances they were born into, or what they have done with their life despite them. For instance, it is much more impressive to me if an inner city kid graduates at the top of his class at harvard, than it is if a rich kid with harvard parents and nepotism on his side did so. In either case, credit is owed to each of them, but the amount of credit is relative to their facticity--their choices fill the space where facticity ends and their accomplishments begin.
3 Quick thoughts. This guy reminds me of the narrator for Hitchhiker's Guide to the galaxy. I just watched a long and in depth video by PJ Media on living in a post scarcity world. Worth watching but in a way it relates right back to this pretty heavily. And this relates to it. And I think I'm going to have to watch this video like three or four more times at least. Really heavy stuff in here.
I see no function for guilt, but I do see a function of awareness of the circumstances by which you attained said position in life when you are born into it: AKA luck/happenstance/deterministic processes outside of your control. This awareness that not one individual chose to be this or that, white or black, rich or poor, should allow us to recognize the good that comes from such conditions, and to recognize the bad that comes from not having those conditions. This will then translate to an empathy for those who do not, just as Guatama Buddha did when he left the castle to witness the destitute. The idea that there exists a point in which a human becomes saturated in wealth and possessions and nothing more really exists beyond a certain point, yet at the same time people are starving and dying of no fault of their own (no one wants to starve, et cetera). This empathy will translate to a symbolic-interaction from a grassroots, interpersonal level which may push itself up through to the collective and lead to better lives for more people. tl;dr GET THE FUCK BACK UP THERE AND READ THAT SHIT, MUTHAFUCKAS.
"Listen...Your birth, your status...these things are part of your environment, they're what you've been given. People strive for the things they want and give up on the things they don't want. Choosing not to decide is still a choice." Cybil Alinda - Tactics Ogre: The Knight of Lodis
There is wisdom in the prisoner analogy. But, it is not about freedom. To say you are free in a prison cell (as long as your goal in life is attainable inside a prison cell) is ludicrous. If you're aren't free to choose your goals, you are not free. The wisdom is in accepting reality and not wasting mental energy on wishing your circumstances were different.
I can see a good and a bad side to this. It can be used to justify one's interference with another's self determination, but it also tells people they must acknowledge their place in life before they can strive to change 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.
The point of understanding privilege is just acknowledging that you MAY benefit from certain things you did not earn, such as race, sex, parent's affluence, etc., while others may not. Nobody needs to be ashamed of their privilege or proud of their struggle. Understanding privilege is about taking a hard look at yourself and your relationship to society, questioning the attitudes you have towards others and where those attitudes come from. For example, I have caught myself being nicer to people whom I find physically attractive, or impatient with people who use grammar unlike my own. We all have prejudices that we're not even aware of. When they are called out by others, it's easy to become defensive and make excuses for ourselves - (I'm not racist, but....) But it is the duty of all decent people to strive to be better, to seriously consider that we might be in the wrong, and consciously shift our thinking when we become aware of the unenlightened attitudes we never knew we had.
I can see parts of this where I live. I live in government housing, you can choose to act like it, or choose to be better. I don't do drugs, dress like a meth addict in tracksuit pants and hoody, I don't swear, get angry, have a bad attitude. I choose to not let my circumstances change how I act. I look at all the crazy people around me and ask why??? We probably make similar money yet my attitude is what is different, how I choose to react to my situation living in housing and low income. They have created their own hell of pain yet I live comfortably cause I react and act differently in the same situation. I don't let my outside circumstances change me as a person, I'm free, I am free of social stereotypes that the others around me conform to, the stereotype of the junkie that dresses like crap and is a bastard. I choose to deny the stereotype of living in housing and don't let that get to me and I'm happy and rich in other ways. How you react to certain situations is important and don't react stereotypically cause that's making yourself a prisoner of social standards, I choose to react to my circumstances how I want to react, and that makes me free.
It's an interesting discussion. Whenever we hear about privilege it's always in the context of what someone else has and what the other person thinks they need. Male privilege, white privilege, being born rich, or born handsome but we all have different gifts and different ideas on what our purpose is in life which might spur us on to finding ways to leverage those gifts to obtain that purpose.
2:38 the metric would be options to pursue your goal wouldn't it. more choice in how you pursue your goal means more options to choose from so you can take the path of least resistance which is always preferable if you are looking to accomplish something. money always gives the option to buy what you are trying as well as doing it the way without money.
Being in any extreme is going to askew one's view of life. But the juxtaposition can't be ignored. One shouldn't feel sorry about their birthright, but likewise, one shouldn't be oblivious to it.
Sartre also has an ethical view. While recognising that we all have that radical freedom, that ultimate choice of how we act given our current situation, he establishes that those born to privilege can choose either to uphold the unjust system that creates them or turn their own privilege towards the fight for a fair and egalitarian world. That is the central theme of "le diable et le bon Dieu". Goetz and his arc in the book exemplifies different radical free choices by a character who is a perfect example of privilege and power, and his final choice to put that to the service of a greater cause.
i cant agree with this, as it seems to assume that humans are born as a blank slate to be shaped by their environment, and have the capacity to easily change their goals to fit their environment. after all, from personal experience, I'm an artist, and I was mentally geared to be an artist since i was young enough to first start making memories in the first place, before i could start making rational changes in my mentality based upon my position, and the desire and borderline obsession to think like an artist and create works of art has persisted since then. to assume that i am not limited in my ability to change values and goals in my life is to ignore how i inherently function. and when an argument boils down to "the solution to problems and flaws is to ignore problems and flaws" then i have to question the validity of such arguments in the first place.
i don't think guilt has anything to do with it. Privilege just makes it easier to attain physical goals. It's not impossible to achieve something without privilege, the underprivileged just need to be more organized and hard working. Not all 'projects' are of the physical world though, some people might search for enlightenment or inner peace or kindness to strangers. A project like that doesn't require money, and in that case, privilege wouldn't put someone at an advantage over someone else without.
The irony of the last statement is pretty cute. Also his points are fairly interesting because it's found in poor people, like people who are unable to ever get out of poverty that is, is heavily based on a mindset of living outside your means, and money gotten is spent instead of saved, no attempt to save money anywhere is made.
***** 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.
I mean, in a society like the US, even those born in poverty and rough neighborhoods have several options to escape their situation. Education, starting a business, getting a job etc. But in other countries, they may have a society that creates privilege. It's definitely a term used by the upper echelon's to put down and subdue the lower classes. It is a privilege to go to school,despite it being free to all US born citizens it is still a wonderful opportunity to round out your knowledge of the world and how it works, social skills, and discover an area of interest that you would like to further explore in your future.
As to the last statement, we are predisposed as humans to create certain meanings in a given frame of reference. We are evolutionary disposed to like wealth and possession and the like.
If a person is born rich, there's no issue. If that person grows up to squander his wealth or in other words not use at least half of it to fund programs that advance our species technologically, or help the sick and poor, then he's a douche. The majority of us make less than $50k a year. A millionaire has the equivalent of 20 years worth of that $50k salary.
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.
So even if someone gets every limb tied down in chains, he is still free to fart and blink. Of course you can diminish the understanding of freedom, saying that even when you are in prision you are still somewhat free(having a few action options). I agree to say that there is freedom in having freewill between two or more options.
Oh man, that ending was the absolute best. Anyway, being born with more in life means that someone else will have less, since there are finite resources. If we are to succeed as a race, then those who have more should help those with less. Sure, a person with less can make their own choice within the confines of their own space, but the fact that someone was born outside those limitations means they have a headstart. And when it comes to societal privilege, this means that competition will most of the time go to the person with the headstart, leading to social inequities that drag us all down. Basically, before you start deriding groups for wanting the same rights that you enjoy, check your privilege.
The point is not that privilege doesn't matter in what you can accomplish. The point is that you are free to decide for yourself what you want to accomplish, what would be meaningful for you to do. The prison example is the best example. The prisoner has to change what he thinks would be meaningful to do because he's stuck in prison. He can choose to be unhappy because he's stuck or choose to find meaning in his current circumstances.
I wish these videos were a LOT longer. Feels like there is so much more to say about each topic, philosophy.
Transportation: Chocobo
The thing about "check your privilege" is you shouldn't use it every time you notice someone else's privzizzle, you should point it out when they're being absolute jerks about it. Otherwise it becomes just another overused buzzword.
"Otherwise it becomes just another overused buzzword."
Too late.
i liked your comment because you said "privzizzle"
To me, privilege isn't a condemnation of somebody for being born better off, it's simply being born better off.
Understanding your privilege shouldn't ever carry any shame with it, but it can help you better empathize with those who were born into more difficult circumstances. And again, it's not a condemnation, just because you're born into privilege doesn't mean that your life is easy, just easier when compared with others. I do not like how this video handled the topic anymore than the stereotypical "sjw" handles it.
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.
This is gas, fundamental resources, your ability to collect them and the quality of your resources will be a deciding factor in your ability to reach your goals whatever they may be.
Privilege is about obstacles. The less obstacles that you have to climb; socially or financially, the more privileged you are.
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
You people don't see the damn point!
Sartre is trying to look at a deeper level of being.
You are all coming up with these socioeconomic arguments and financial inequality problem
What Sartre is talking about has nothing to do with any of that
+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
Waiting for the Social Justice Warriors to come rolling in from tumblr to criticize this. It's so apparent what Wisecrack was doing, and I gotta say, I respect your statements. Please, hand me a share of the popcorn.
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.
one man's privilege is often another's disadvantage
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
It sounds like Sartre was trying to make an apologetic case for wealth. Rich people are more free than poor people. More free from debt, more freedom from harassment from authority, and more freedom to choose the path they want to take in life.
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,
A prisoner can delude himself into seeing himself as free, but that doesn't make it so. His options are so constrained that to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. The rich warrior, with more resources at his disposal, has more options available to him than the poor warrior, and thus, is free to pursue more goals: he is more free. The poor warrior can delude himself into thinking otherwise, but unless he has a cadre of options available to him that, somehow, isn't available to the rich warrior, it isn't true.
The sort of "freedom" presented here can be likened to an acceptance of one's slavery: it may be the prudent choice, and it may be the definition accepted by, and shapes the reality of, all the slaves in that society, but isn't a freely made choice.
EDIT: spelling
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.
This comment section will probably be the worst in RUclips history.
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
I think the idea of simply changing what you aspire to is a little bit easier said than done. The emotional, irrational side of the human is usually the part that decides the big overarching "life goals" - what your passions, values and dreams are. I don't think that it's so easy to make something like "get through being in prison" or "flip burgers" a real exciting or mentally involving life goal, even for a short period.
Also, a lot of privilege basically gives a leg up to mediocre people. To take an example, sooo many students that go to Ivy league universities, for example, are "legacy" students who had older family members that went there. Not the most studious types necessarily. Society degrades the amount of competence and ambition available to it when it puts aside potentially talented/competent/ambitious people just because they're poorer or not white or whatever else. We ought to reward excellence, not the sheer luck of being born in the right place.
Minecraft is the ultimate existentialist experience.
Invent your own project. Make it.
I also thought that when I played minecraft
So basically-- if you live under shitty circumstances, just lower the standards on what your goal in life should be? That seems like a terrible idea.
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
"Check your privilege"
Words chosen deliberately. White people often interpret it as "Apologize for your privilege" or "Feel guilty for your privilege" neither in fact the meaning behind the phrase.
Very simply the idea of "privilege" is that 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. 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.
"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.
I'm quite glad I've discovered Wisecrack through TGWTG, this is one of the best Channels on RUclips, in my opinion.
I'm really not getting this philosophy. The example "The prisoners freedom is restricted not by the physical prison but buy his unwillingness to conform his goal to his current situation" seems to directly contradict his argument. The very fact the prisoner is forced to conform his goals to his current situation if he wants to have an achievable goal is in itself a reduction in freedom. The person outside the prison is free to do any of the same options as the person inside the prison, as well as many more. Freedom consists in number of possible achievable options. "There is no metric to decide who has the best way to make meaning in their lives" but we can in principle count who has the most options for ways of making meaning and thus who has more freedom.
Freedom consists not just in the ability to create "meaning", but also to choose how to. It is abundantly obvious that a slave is not free, though using this videos definition he could be.
The prisoner can choose to try to escape, but the success of such an attempt may be beyond his control.
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.
Batman and Punisher have the same goals, to rid the world of crime. Bruce Wayne is more well off than Frank Castle so he can afford all the expensive and experimental gadgets and philosophize about how it is important not to kill your foes. Frank Castle will use any means necessary and take money for his war on crime and use guns. Is either one really hampered in their crime fighting pursuits due to there separate "priveleges"?
Just dont use the "check your privilege" as a tool to shut up people, and on the other hand understand that maybe you have advantages en life, and in the other hand you understand there no such a thing an universal experience base on the color of your skin or your wealth.
My answer to the narrator's end question: should that really matter?
Yes, it does matter lol
originalcrispy
How so?
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).
I love these videos not just for the clever use of game analogies, but for the fact that they're always a discussion of a person's philosophy. They never say if a way of thinking is right or wrong, they just give a better understanding of what a specific person was saying.
So, thanks for doing such a wonderful job, guys
That prisoner argument is dumb as hell. Yes, he's free to attempt an escape or reevaluate his life or commit suicide, but he's not free to go build sand castles. His freedom has not been eradicated, but it has been greatly reduced. And that's not his fault for being unwilling to reevaluate his life. That's the fucking prison's fault. It is what is restricting his freedom.
Honestly Sarte sounds like a real ass, going around blaming the victim for not being happy with their victimhood.
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.
This actually doesn't mean much coming from a rich white male philosopher. It's like asking a bank owner whether interest on loans is a good thing
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?
Check your facticity!
Come Wisecrack, unleash Wittgenstein, unleash the Tractacus, it's time.
The video had absolutely nothing to do with the title.
Why do you think so?
+Clover Field what the fuck?
I love this series. Great job, please keep them coming.
I loved the ending asking whether we should take the opinion of a rich white person about privilege seeing how they are the most privilege group in the world.
How ever, I think people are missing the point about checking one's privilege. The idea isn't to be ashamed or bad in anyway about your privilege just be aware of it and how it may affect others. If you're an able bodied person you have a whole host of privileges that you don't even know exist until you talk to a disabled person and see just how many privileges you have as an able bodied person. Now obviously it's ridiculous to then even the playing field by making yourself disabled. That's actually counter productive and retarded. But what we do do is make infrastructure and accommodations for disabled people via ramps, electronic doors, braille, etc. So when someone says check your privilege they're asking you to tone it down some. If you're the only rich person in school you can't expect everyone to be able to afford everything you can. If you're white you can't expect people of color to have the same culture or experience in America. Being white and non white in America is vastly different in many ways that people of Color universally understand that whites typically don't because they simply don't have to deal with it in as many ways as non whites do.
So we're not asking you remove a limb, just create infrastructure and accommodations for the underprivileged to at least be able have equal access to things.
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.
Hi 8-Bit Philosophy, the way you make complex philosophical matters into understandable pixel movies are truly admirable. I love your channel! Could you consider making a video about Ayn Rand’s theory of capitalism because her philosophy might explain the recent news about the richest 1% of the population owning more than 50% of the world’s wealth. It would really mean a lot if you were able to do that.
DO ALAN WATTS PLEASE
AND/OR JOSEPH CAMPBELL'S THE HERO'S JOURNEY
You dudes hit it out of the park every time. I'm always excited to see your notification pop up.
Any chance for a Roland Barthes video? John Stewart Mill? Or, if you're OK with an esoteric guy, Nikolai Federovich Federov?
I've always been pretty poor so I dont really understand but if people feel guilty for being rich why dont they just donate the money?
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.
The fact that my analysis is on track with yours makes me happy to know that I am heading in the right direction
the very end got me laughing
This is the first time I felt truly empowered from an 8-bit philosophy video. THX Wisecrack!!!
A lot of anger about the last line. It came across as sarcastic to me, it's most likely a joke. Since the idea of discrediting someone's opinion based on wealth and race wasn't supported at all in the video and was placed at the end, it can really only be heard as a tongue-in-cheek jab at the victim mentality of people who believe that in the first place.
1:55 I will never achieve my dream of becoming a master sand castle maker in prison. Never! The fact that he's locked up isn't what restricts his freedom, it's his choice to believe he's unfree. It's his unwillingness to conform his goal to his current situation. Such a good video. 2:06 is also my fave.
So I'm literally living my whole life to try and get money to survive and you're telling me rich people haven't got it better? Are you crazy? The rich are free, us normal people are like people in jail
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.
HOW DID I NOT SEE THIS SERIES B4 WISECRACK IS AWESOME!!
Wow Wisecrack, you're brave for posting this. I can only hope that the SJW's from Tumblr don't fly down here in droves disliking and flagging the video.
Thank you! I came to a close conclusion my self but having Sartre describe it for you is way better. Altough i wouldnt add religion on facticity-
Whenever I'm chained to a wall against my will and beaten senseless, I remind myself that my suffering is my fault for not thinking about the situation in a positive way. We don't need rights. Freedom is a state of mind. (no pun intended) I dunno about you guys, but this kind of thinking isn't something I can get on board with.
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.
What about what Amartya Sen says? He has a completely opposite view. Liberty is determined by the capacities one has, so in his view privilege does interfere with liberty. If one does not have the economic or political means, one is not really free to exercise his freedom.
if I had a choice,I would choose to be rich. Who really wants poverty?
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.
Funny enough, I recall watching a video in which black people were asked if they believed that white privilege kept them down. Most claimed that that they didn't believe it even existed, while others claimed that, while it it existed in some areas, it shouldn't stop them from attempting to achieve their goals.
Great video! I almost want to make a tumblr account and share this on every SJW's page.
Typical postmodernist nonsense that makes huge leaps between unrelated ideas, ignores this inconvenient thing called "reality", and uses obfuscatory language for the sole purpose of stroking the ego of adherents.
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.
I acknowledge my circumstances and will always strive to better them for the future generation. I will never fall into despair and I will not dwell on what others have and what I do not. I am able bodied and strong willed and I will never give up on what I believe in.
This is the worst interpretation of Sartre I have come across so far. Sartre's radical freedom describes something entirely different than what this video is describing. Sartre was also a radical marxist and a supporter of communism, firmly opposed to capitalism and liberal democracy because of their unequal distribution of power and material wealth.
The last part of the video describes what's wrong with using Sartre in this manner. Sartre said that we are all equally free to create meaning, but privilege isn't about creating meaning at all. Instead, privelege describes power relations and social inequality. This video is trash.
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.
This reminds me of Bob Marley's song, "Redemption Song":
"Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds"
Powerful stuff.
Unsubbed ;)
one day, i'm going to come back to this or mention as the thing that changed my life. Thank you wisecrack
lol at the more right leaning comments. If you take Sartre seriously on this matter, that also means nothing the government does is a restriction of your freedom
Thought-provoking and to the point. Very good.
The ending, of course, is hilarious.
Also the video was excellent. Naturally, the punchline takes precedence.
The funny thing is the thing with the prison actually fits well into eastern religious/philosophy.
This show is the best, the world needs philosophy and this is a beautiful way to present it. Good on you chaps!
For some reason I keep turning back to Nietsche when addressing any other philosophical question. Often blending it with my own little addendum... That someone should seek to not only seek to overcome themselves for the better, but to change the world for the better.
In the case of the fact that the Prisoner is "free to make choices, but anguished by being unable to conform their goals to their current situation", I find myself wanting to state the blindingly obvious... The prisoner should use whatever freedom of movement they have left to try to change their situation so that they CAN obtain their so far out of reach goal. Which in context of the prisoner wanting to achieve a great goal outside the prison, means he needs to get out of the prison. Which he needs to recognize... Is totally possible.
Meanwhile... Firrion's gear and party woes just need him to realize that in absence of wealth, and an absence of people that are willing to pay him... He should instead focus on straight up fortifying his body through strength training. (Something that is available for anyone anyways.)
In essence, the best suggestion is to either overcome one's "lower facticity" or to change it.
This leads into one problem I have with Sarte, he seems to phrase his arguments in such a way to suggest that facticity is irrelevant in one's choices, preferring instead to focus on "freedom of choice". When the fact of the matter is, factitity is both the goal and a driving/guiding force for decisions.
A man in jail while "free to choose" is not completely "free to move", or to put another way "free to act". Though Sarte would phrase both as the same, and in the process diminishes the freedom of choice to one's mere freedom of movement... The better way is to realize that such a prisoner is also always able to choose something beyond his range of movement, so instead of a choices being merely "escape, restructure, die", those choices are not the choice itself so much as a means to an end. The choice of "escape" becoming a path to fulfill a goal that lies beyond it, and even more choices made in how to achieve this being made into the means for creating that path.
... In fact... Fighting against forces that restrain your ability to fulfill a worthy goal you've chosen is perhaps the most important thing one should do. All beings aren't just free, they desire freedom. One's constant freedom of choice is always a reminder that one's freedom of action is restricted by other forces at play. Forces that both sapient and sentient beings are driven to fight back against.
Thus its not just important to recognize your freedom of choice, but its also important to recognize what is standing in the way of it, and that those limitations can be overcome.
At the end of the day... I less disagree with Sarte so much as scoff at his lack of eye for ambition... Or perhaps his disregard for it.
great video wisecrack!! but in response to the question at the end of the video: no, we shouldn't just trust ONE person's perspective on privilege. rather we should hear what Sartre has to say but should also welcome another voice e.g. Angela Davis or Audre Lorde into the discussion. we tend to think that only one person/ideology has it figured out for everyone but that's not the case and we can point out flaws with Sartre's argument but should fill in those flaws with new, more nuanced understanding because he's not all wrong. thank you again for great, provocative material. I check in daily! keep up the great work and I would love to see a video on a synthesized philosophy rather than one view on a topic! :)
Man I fucking love this channel.
I'm not sure I buy Sartre's argument at all. One's ability to choose one's relationship toward life is completely dependent on their facticty. One with very little material wealth, education, etc., has a very small amount of options when decided their purpose when compared to a person with a lot of those things. It would follow that privilege DOES matter, and a great deal in fact, when trying to decided how to live one's life.
I think it's particularly good idea in regards to how one should live their life; i.e. choosing a goal that is achievable given your situation. But I think that just highlights how important privilege is to things like this,
And of course, this completely doesn't deal with some of the main reason we use privilege.
Bottom line: Freedom is choice. That choice is relative. Wealth affords resources, which allows more choices, and thus more freedom. The question then, is whether you use it, abuse it, or take it for granted. Even those who are born with limited choices can use those choices to carve out greater resources for themselves to expand their realm of choices, perhaps in friends, allies, or simply strategic or lateral moves that free you from the bonds of your current situation. I believe that a person should be judged not based on their facticity, but relative to it, based on their choices and accomplishments, either aided by the circumstances they were born into, or what they have done with their life despite them. For instance, it is much more impressive to me if an inner city kid graduates at the top of his class at harvard, than it is if a rich kid with harvard parents and nepotism on his side did so. In either case, credit is owed to each of them, but the amount of credit is relative to their facticity--their choices fill the space where facticity ends and their accomplishments begin.
The thumbnail made it look like it was gonna include Jonathan and Dio
KONO DIO DA
........this is the greatest youtube channel I´ve ever seen in my life.
This is a great series. Keep up the good work!
This is my favourite so far. Particularly the end.
BLESS THAT ENDING!
i like sartres thought that you choose your own purpose, makes it feel like you're in a videogame
i love how he ended it.
Great video. That ending was magnificent.
3 Quick thoughts.
This guy reminds me of the narrator for Hitchhiker's Guide to the galaxy.
I just watched a long and in depth video by PJ Media on living in a post scarcity world. Worth watching but in a way it relates right back to this pretty heavily. And this relates to it.
And I think I'm going to have to watch this video like three or four more times at least. Really heavy stuff in here.
I see no function for guilt, but I do see a function of awareness of the circumstances by which you attained said position in life when you are born into it: AKA luck/happenstance/deterministic processes outside of your control. This awareness that not one individual chose to be this or that, white or black, rich or poor, should allow us to recognize the good that comes from such conditions, and to recognize the bad that comes from not having those conditions. This will then translate to an empathy for those who do not, just as Guatama Buddha did when he left the castle to witness the destitute. The idea that there exists a point in which a human becomes saturated in wealth and possessions and nothing more really exists beyond a certain point, yet at the same time people are starving and dying of no fault of their own (no one wants to starve, et cetera). This empathy will translate to a symbolic-interaction from a grassroots, interpersonal level which may push itself up through to the collective and lead to better lives for more people.
tl;dr
GET THE FUCK BACK UP THERE AND READ THAT SHIT, MUTHAFUCKAS.
This can be known as existential solitude.
Thinking a person is one thing. But knowing different
"Listen...Your birth, your status...these things are part of your environment, they're what you've been given. People strive for the things they want and give up on the things they don't want. Choosing not to decide is still a choice."
Cybil Alinda - Tactics Ogre: The Knight of Lodis
"Life... dreams... hope... Where do they come from? And where do they go...? Such meaningless things... I'll destroy them all!" - Kefka
There is also a really good crash course
Philosophy on existentialism itself. That
May clear up ambiguities.
There is wisdom in the prisoner analogy. But, it is not about freedom. To say you are free in a prison cell (as long as your goal in life is attainable inside a prison cell) is ludicrous. If you're aren't free to choose your goals, you are not free.
The wisdom is in accepting reality and not wasting mental energy on wishing your circumstances were different.
I can see a good and a bad side to this. It can be used to justify one's interference with another's self determination, but it also tells people they must acknowledge their place in life before they can strive to change it.
Feminists... -_-
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.
The point of understanding privilege is just acknowledging that you MAY benefit from certain things you did not earn, such as race, sex, parent's affluence, etc., while others may not. Nobody needs to be ashamed of their privilege or proud of their struggle. Understanding privilege is about taking a hard look at yourself and your relationship to society, questioning the attitudes you have towards others and where those attitudes come from. For example, I have caught myself being nicer to people whom I find physically attractive, or impatient with people who use grammar unlike my own. We all have prejudices that we're not even aware of. When they are called out by others, it's easy to become defensive and make excuses for ourselves - (I'm not racist, but....) But it is the duty of all decent people to strive to be better, to seriously consider that we might be in the wrong, and consciously shift our thinking when we become aware of the unenlightened attitudes we never knew we had.
Love the closing line.
I can see parts of this where I live. I live in government housing, you can choose to act like it, or choose to be better.
I don't do drugs, dress like a meth addict in tracksuit pants and hoody, I don't swear, get angry, have a bad attitude.
I choose to not let my circumstances change how I act.
I look at all the crazy people around me and ask why??? We probably make similar money yet my attitude is what is different, how I choose to react to my situation living in housing and low income.
They have created their own hell of pain yet I live comfortably cause I react and act differently in the same situation. I don't let my outside circumstances change me as a person, I'm free, I am free of social stereotypes that the others around me conform to, the stereotype of the junkie that dresses like crap and is a bastard.
I choose to deny the stereotype of living in housing and don't let that get to me and I'm happy and rich in other ways. How you react to certain situations is important and don't react stereotypically cause that's making yourself a prisoner of social standards, I choose to react to my circumstances how I want to react, and that makes me free.
It's an interesting discussion. Whenever we hear about privilege it's always in the context of what someone else has and what the other person thinks they need. Male privilege, white privilege, being born rich, or born handsome but we all have different gifts and different ideas on what our purpose is in life which might spur us on to finding ways to leverage those gifts to obtain that purpose.
i fucking loved the ending.
+Munzy Banks I hated it
You guys really do make life better :) Keep being awesome
2:38
the metric would be options to pursue your goal wouldn't it. more choice in how you pursue your goal means more options to choose from so you can take the path of least resistance which is always preferable if you are looking to accomplish something. money always gives the option to buy what you are trying as well as doing it the way without money.
Being in any extreme is going to askew one's view of life. But the juxtaposition can't be ignored. One shouldn't feel sorry about their birthright, but likewise, one shouldn't be oblivious to it.
You guys should do a video on Sartre's idea that "Hell is other people." I'm sure that will be a very interesting video, too.
Sartre's vision is augmented
Sartre also has an ethical view. While recognising that we all have that radical freedom, that ultimate choice of how we act given our current situation, he establishes that those born to privilege can choose either to uphold the unjust system that creates them or turn their own privilege towards the fight for a fair and egalitarian world. That is the central theme of "le diable et le bon Dieu". Goetz and his arc in the book exemplifies different radical free choices by a character who is a perfect example of privilege and power, and his final choice to put that to the service of a greater cause.
i cant agree with this, as it seems to assume that humans are born as a blank slate to be shaped by their environment, and have the capacity to easily change their goals to fit their environment.
after all, from personal experience, I'm an artist, and I was mentally geared to be an artist since i was young enough to first start making memories in the first place, before i could start making rational changes in my mentality based upon my position, and the desire and borderline obsession to think like an artist and create works of art has persisted since then. to assume that i am not limited in my ability to change values and goals in my life is to ignore how i inherently function.
and when an argument boils down to "the solution to problems and flaws is to ignore problems and flaws" then i have to question the validity of such arguments in the first place.
i don't think guilt has anything to do with it. Privilege just makes it easier to attain physical goals. It's not impossible to achieve something without privilege, the underprivileged just need to be more organized and hard working. Not all 'projects' are of the physical world though, some people might search for enlightenment or inner peace or kindness to strangers. A project like that doesn't require money, and in that case, privilege wouldn't put someone at an advantage over someone else without.
The 'rich white man' concept is intellectual imperialism.
which would be another good topic to delve into...
The irony of the last statement is pretty cute. Also his points are fairly interesting because it's found in poor people, like people who are unable to ever get out of poverty that is, is heavily based on a mindset of living outside your means, and money gotten is spent instead of saved, no attempt to save money anywhere is made.
***** 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.
I mean, in a society like the US, even those born in poverty and rough neighborhoods have several options to escape their situation. Education, starting a business, getting a job etc. But in other countries, they may have a society that creates privilege.
It's definitely a term used by the upper echelon's to put down and subdue the lower classes. It is a privilege to go to school,despite it being free to all US born citizens it is still a wonderful opportunity to round out your knowledge of the world and how it works, social skills, and discover an area of interest that you would like to further explore in your future.
As to the last statement, we are predisposed as humans to create certain meanings in a given frame of reference. We are evolutionary disposed to like wealth and possession and the like.
Begrudging others their good fortune is nothing but destructive.
If a person is born rich, there's no issue. If that person grows up to squander his wealth or in other words not use at least half of it to fund programs that advance our species technologically, or help the sick and poor, then he's a douche. The majority of us make less than $50k a year. A millionaire has the equivalent of 20 years worth of that $50k salary.
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.
So even if someone gets every limb tied down in chains, he is still free to fart and blink.
Of course you can diminish the understanding of freedom, saying that even when you are in prision you are still somewhat free(having a few action options).
I agree to say that there is freedom in having freewill between two or more options.
Oh man, that ending was the absolute best.
Anyway, being born with more in life means that someone else will have less, since there are finite resources. If we are to succeed as a race, then those who have more should help those with less.
Sure, a person with less can make their own choice within the confines of their own space, but the fact that someone was born outside those limitations means they have a headstart.
And when it comes to societal privilege, this means that competition will most of the time go to the person with the headstart, leading to social inequities that drag us all down.
Basically, before you start deriding groups for wanting the same rights that you enjoy, check your privilege.
The point is not that privilege doesn't matter in what you can accomplish. The point is that you are free to decide for yourself what you want to accomplish, what would be meaningful for you to do. The prison example is the best example. The prisoner has to change what he thinks would be meaningful to do because he's stuck in prison. He can choose to be unhappy because he's stuck or choose to find meaning in his current circumstances.
A simple no would have been sufficient to answer the question but I enjoyed philosophical rigor all the same. Great video.
Oh thank you so much for this.