I'd agree with that, but calling it privilege is a bad name. Because how do you implement equality when dealing with privilege? You take from the privileged to level the playing field. So when you apply that to being privileged because you aren't being discriminated against, the solution is to remove that privilege? So... do more discrimination so everyone is equal?

When you instead identify those that are oppressed and those that are not, the solution to equality is to remove the oppression. So when applied to our situation, remove the discrimination so everyone is equally not discriminated against.

[–] kakes@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago

Because how do you implement equality when dealing with privilege? You take from the privileged to level the playing field. So when you apply that to being privileged because you aren't being discriminated against, the solution is to remove that privilege? So... do more discrimination so everyone is equal?

Hmm? The way to address privilege isn't to take from the privileged, though. Maybe I'm missing something in your hypothetical? The goal isn't to reduce privilege, but to raise everyone up to the same level so that no particular class is "privileged".

Reparations are a thing, which can potentially be what you're describing, but overall this isn't a zero-sum game or a math equation. The bulk of the solution is simply for people to respect other people.

Sure, respect alone won't necessarily address class or wealth privilege, but it would address most forms that people normally talk about (and that are being talked about here) - preferential treatment due to race, culture, sexual orientation, sex, gender, ability, etcetcetc.

Like, all of those could be addressed entirely by a change in culture, with not a single person being worse off than they were before, so to view it as transactional can become misleading, I think.