It's a pretty standard progressive idea these days, and you can find roots of it going back to Rousseau. But only in the Religion Group on DU will you find a progressive arguing that differential privilege is okay because every other society has always done it. If I didn't know better, I'd say anyone who makes that kind of argument would be a conservative.

Judging by this post, and your response, that seems to be what has happened.

There is clearly some sort of argument going on, but is not being stated openly.

Who is privileged changes.

Like the conservative argument that marriage has always been between one man and one woman, which is not only untrue, but also irrelevant to modern marriage which has in fact changed greatly from medieval and early modern marriages.

If I observe that humans are also tribal, that is neither conservative nor liberal.

That basically say: because we've always had them, we always will.

And historical based observation?

That is an interesting viewpoint.

Last edited Sun Apr 8, 2018, 07:57 PM - Edit history (1)

You don't think you use conservative arguments. I understand.

Last edited Mon Apr 9, 2018, 01:41 PM - Edit history (1)

Pretty much everything you've said so far. You are either implying that humans are by nature a certain way and cannot change, or simply observing that humans have acted a certain way for, like, a really long time. In neither case are you offering anything particularly useful.

And neither should either case matter, seeing as you believe in free will.

The key is in recognizing one's own privileges and taking them into consideration through recognition that not all share one's privileges. Recognizing, for example, that I am often treated differently than a person of color or a woman helps me not to take advantage of my privilege to the detriment of others.

Privilege exists. Recognition of that is crucial in achieving social justice. I cannot change my inborn characteristics, but I can change my behavior. I should and I do.

There's volumes of information you're missing out on.

Just sayin'

to what people affected by privilege have to say about it, to not dismiss those comments, and to try to see the world as experienced by others.

Or not. Generally the latter approach is more typical.

1. you could empathize and listen to what the marginalized (in the area of religion in this country) have to say so that you can understand those experience better.

2. you could dismiss and mock those that have concerns and voiced them.

You opted for 2. Because of privilege. Own that and do better at discussion.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218270285#post1

As he posted to you in that very same thread, he says he receives numerous personal messages and asking him to continue doing what he is doing, and praising his efforts to "present balance" here with posts like that.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218270285#post159

Since you participated in that thread, you may have noticed that a grand total of zero Christians had anything to say to him about mocking recipients of death threats, including children, or about the Christians who issue those death threats.

I think this goes way beyond simple privilege.

"You're in the minority, so STFU."

So are holier-than-thou attitudes. There are many abuses of privilege that adversely affect those who do not have the same privilege. We should all be mindful of that as much as possible.

Namely civil and human rights.

The value in discussing social privilege is to teach people to be more inclusive and respectful of diversity by recognizing the reinforcement of the default isn’t always a great idea.