Loading...

"Privilege" | Forum

Topic location: Forum home » General » Philosophy/Politics
AK
AK Oct 26 '18
Noun: "a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people."


With this in mind, I am to believe, somehow, that I am granted special rights, advantages, or immunity based solely upon me being white. White privilege. Where was "white privilege" hiding when the Irish began immigrating to America? What do you even mean by "white"? And how is it that I cannot be at least amused if not somewhat offended at someone painting race with such a broad-brush as "white", while at the same time advocating for manufactured and patently absurd levels of granularity in terms of gender expression? 


I would also ask which rights, or advantages are these specifically? Who is the issuing-authority? And why are these supposed rights not granted across-the-board to all white people without exception, then? Is it that those white people who also live in appalling poverty did something to get their white privileges revoked? Who revoked Tiny Tim's white privilege? the same applies for "Male privilege" 


Am I to believe that simply being male and white is, in and of itself, a privilege? This does not compute. It has always been my understanding since at least pre-school that 1) privileges are earned and 2) privileges can be taken away. My gender was certainly not earned, neither was my race, nor can either be taken away. That's just "how god made me" - blame him!


Additionally, it might seem as a privilege to be white in a predominantly white society, but just see how far it gets you in Japan or Mexico (seriously, go try it). It's not such a "privilege" then. Not at all.


Finally, assuming that a person enjoys specific advantages solely because they are white is, itself, a racist assumption. 


So please, spare me this "privilege" garbage. In fact, go fuck yourself with that noise. I'm not buying it, and I don't feel in the least bit guilty or as if I owe anyone anything on account of my race or gender. Everyone has their own cross to bear, and their own hand of cards to play. Some people just suck at life and prancing about assuming that the game is rigged for or against certain people on account of their race and or gender is certainly not helping anyone's odds of success. 

The Forum post is edited by AK Oct 26 '18
Share:
Dark Enlightenment
Dark Enlightenment Oct 26 '18
What is something used by government sychophants (nomian apologists) to argue some bullshit about the wonders of the applicable society.
The Forum post is edited by Dark Enlightenment Oct 26 '18
AK
AK Nov 2 '18
@TV indeed. Not to mention the obvious: it is simultaneously 


1) an ironic, if not self-loathing, sentiment for anyone who is "privileged" enough to be attending college in the first place to be holding. 


and


2) an arrogant over-simplification of the complexities at hand. Those who personally have not yet proven themselves capable of living on their own - making a living in the world as-is rather than studying in the sheltered environment that is university - presume to know how to fix a social system which they themselves are not yet even a fully functioning member of. 


When they say "race" or "gender" I hear "class", because I know that's what they really mean to say - it's a class thing; except that they know full-well that correcting against proletariat vs bourgeoisie gets you Pol Pot and killing fields. That's never worked. So it is framed as a gender or race issue, and maybe suckers will buy-into their own mandatory concessions and death sentences willingly. 


Of course: "these are just college kids" comes to mind. But on the other hand, the idea of universities - especially state-funded universities - indoctrinating the global elite is not a small matter at all; and for obvious reasons.

The Forum post is edited by AK Nov 2 '18
AK
AK Nov 2 '18

This is a hypothesis that is worth fleshing-out, as there is some intuitive consistency to it that I by-in large agree with.


One thing that I would be compelled to reconcile this against is that, generally speaking, those who grow up without a father in the home are more likely to run a muck and join a gang: the upper echelon of which serves as surrogate fathers – and, especially when your money isn't right, disciplinarians.

It is an open-ended point worth considering that the absence of a father can result, at least indirectly, in the adaption of hyper-masculine behavior; perhaps to such an extent that one finds oneself feeding the prison industrial complex – as is the near-inevitable outcome of the life-style.


*The point is a lack of a father can have the extreme opposite affect.


There's a chemical angle, too: one worth paying attention to, perhaps in favor of the hypothesis of systemic feminization of the male populace is the decriminalization of marijuana; which has well-documented testosterone reducing affects. I have yet to encounter a violent pot-head in the real world. They talk and theorize and philosophize with the best of them – and quite vigorously – but are as docile as silly putty elsewhere with a knife to the face.


Birth control “possibly” encourages women to seek-out “bigger brother”, kind, considerate, compassionate types, rather than the traditionally masculine / assertive. This might rightly shape behavior. 


Both points, for however flawed they may be, point to the reality that human behavior is more of an endocrine thing than the intellectual thing we'd perhaps like to think it is.


To your points with regard to the rejection of the father from the household: You are definitely on to something there. I think that is “key” - but – for example, in my situation – I haven't talked to the guy since I was 7. He's a sociopath. Manipulative, promiscuous, prone to drug abuse, violent, just not a “good apple”. The not-good-apple became a tree, and the apple did not fall far from said tree, in my case - but at least I'm "aware of it" - I have these impulses, which I "sometimes" act upon, but mostly resist and go "no, because look at where it got him!". It's a struggle, but c'est la vie - such is evolution. Zeus vs cronus. athena vs zeus - and so on. It's written, I think, within our DNA itself. That's how, I suspect, revealed religions work: when a program becomes aware of its own programming. Such as is adequately explained in a myriad of myths, if you think about it. 


Anyway, back to the topic at hand: the moms got tired of the BS, and booted the guy.


From there, there are two paths, I think:


One – you end up “bitch made”. Your mom raises you and you sort of acquire all the attributes that go along with that.


Two – you sort of gravitate to some other older male role models. These can range from those equally as dysfunctional as the one they are replacing - typically the slightly older bad influence, or the complete opposite of the one they are replacing – typically a coach or a sensei. Sometimes both. You can sort of see how this follows the same “arc” as Star Wars or, say, Gilgamesh and Enkidu.


The same archetypal pattern brought up in the “horned god” Wikipedia entry:


Sherry Salman considers the image of the Horned God in Jungian terms, as an archetypal protector and mediator of the outside world to the objective psyche. In her theory the male psyche's 'Horned God' frequently compensates for inadequate fathering.


When first encountered, the figure is a dangerous, 'hairy chthonic wildman' possessed of kindness and intelligence. If repressed, later in life The Horned God appears as the lord of the Otherworld, or Hades. If split off entirely, he leads to violence, substance abuse and sexual perversion. When integrated he gives the male an ego 'in possession of its own destructiveness' and for the female psyche gives an effective animus relating to both the physical body and the psyche.


In considering the Horned God as a symbol recurring in women's literature, Richard Sugg suggests the Horned God represents the 'natural Eros', a masculine lover subjugating the social-conformist nature of the female shadow, thus encompassing a combination of the shadow and animus. One such example is Heathcliff from Emily Brontë's Wuthering Heights. Sugg goes on to note that female characters who are paired with this character usually end up socially ostracised, or worse – in an inverted ending to the male hero-story”


And there's a lot to this that is worth mulling over and digesting – especially the “the male psyche's 'Horned God' frequently compensates for inadequate fathering.” This may very well be closer to a painful truth than most are willing to confront, though important to note: as necessity is the mother of invention, sometimes the compensation results in an even rounder wheel so-to-speak. 




If our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about god?


Beyond that, there's not a lot that you're postulating that I disagree with. It resonates.


For a wildly off-base example: consider pink floyd's “the wall” the motifs of the over-bearing mother, one that re-occurs through out both Freud and Jung's work.


One side left totally out in the rain on this, too, is that because men are more prone to analysis and dissecting how things work, we have a pretty decent insight into the male psyche. Women still remain a mystery – and quite possibly because all intellectual observations are wildly offensive to their sensibilities because they point-to the idea that their behavior is entirely regulated by hormonal functions that they are not, themselves, entirely in control of. It's pure enocrinological materialism, which makes sense since the root “matter” means mother, hence material (and probably hence the nude altars) - mother nature. Primordial chaos. The amniotic abzu or engurru, the dark womb, the flood, etc. 


*pater – pattern. (not an exact match, but I think not entirely worth dismissing. Purusha / prakriti) ordered and the orderer. The feminine chaos of the material and the masculine faculty of pattern-finding. This could well delve into prelingual circuits of meaning and psychic cohesion that would make for one terrible trip on a head full of acid.


For as worried as I may be that you hypothesis is correct insofar as the pussification of the population, there's probably “more” to this than one might suspect.


To your point, oh sure, we have many armed citizens – how many can say they've actually shot or stabbed someone? No weapons in the world will do anyone any amount of good if they evaluate every life as equal and worth saving. Without the ability to say, without hesitation, “my life is worth more than someone else's” or “I'd rather be judged by 12 than buried by 6” - you won't fight back. Perhaps this is what either some puppeteers behind the scenes – some CIA equivalent operating here in the US – want. Perhaps it is some emergent outcome of collective systemics that we have yet to fully understand. Perhaps it is a death wish – a collective death drive - what happens when there are no final frontiers to cross, no ultimate enemy to defeat. The whole purpose of the holy grail. Without that sort of open-ended quest for that which is most valuable, we (perhaps) as a species, implode. 


Maybe happiness just isn't enough. Maybe it's the pursuit. The frontiers to conquer. The enemies to defeat. That "We are more in love with the desire than the desired" frame of reference that for failing the former - lacking the "thing to pursue" or "raison d'etre" maybe the system - any system - turns on itself automatically as surely as in the case of individual depression as too a sort of sickness of "society" itself.


(again with the lysosome)


A lot can be done with this general premise you've stated and fleshed-out across sociological, mythological, and psychological angles - which I have no doubt will further amplify your suppositions. 



The Forum post is edited by AK Nov 2 '18
AK
AK Nov 3 '18

With regards to the impact of a father figure on the son, what you had stated seems mostly true – though there are examples where they set such an obviously terrible example that one can only take away from him what not to do. i.e. a child whose father has only been in the picture intermittently due to various prison sentences and parole violations can make out for themselves the damage that lifestyle causes for them and choose an entirely opposite path; in which case father becomes role-model for what not to do. That same child's brother may make of it something else – a pattern of behavior to emulate.


How that works? man, I've seen it first-hand and repeated over a number of instances, yet I am still at loss for so much as a hypothesis. In one case it was twins! Same age, same situation – one became a career criminal, the other went on to teach at a school for troubled children – a Christian one, no less. Whatever that case, that two of the same genetic make-up and same familial circumstances can go in wildly different directions makes determinism a pretty shaky proposition. Perhaps their need for identity prompted opposite behaviors? The idea of “if he's Cain, then I'll be Able (or vice versa) and that's how they'll be able to tell us apart” Who can really say for sure?


This is not to say that personal anecdotes does a thesis make, but they are compelling none-the-less. The cool thing about human behavior, is that it's multi-factored and adaptive. Computers are easy to predict. People___ not so much.


It is true that if a child is not properly socialized by the age of 4-5, they're pretty likely to be a societal problem the whole of their lives. The whole “does not play well with others” slogan, is actually more of a deficiency than a thing-to-be-proud of. Most – if not all - of the routines involved with living or functioning within a civilization is a game; or at least game-like. You'll even find those who are most expressed in their vehemence against societal norms still take the time to express this sentiment to an audience of others – as if seeking our others to play their game with.


It's the ones who don't desire validation at all – the far extreme antisocial - that are most alarming. These are those you never hear from – they're out there just doing what they do for who knows why?


Some high risk factors include


- parental history of antisocial behaviors

- parental alcohol and drug abuse

- chaotic and unstable home life

- absence of good parenting skills

- use of coercive and corporal punishment

- parental disruption due to divorce , death, or other separation

- parental psychiatric disorders, especially maternal depression


because the parents are sort of the blue-print for authority and structure (or vice versa) and we mostly learn through observation and mimicry, they indirectly inform you of how arbitrary structures of law and order are to be regarded and dealt with. By four or five, you basically got the message and, to your point, that sticks.


As to the nature of women. I don't pretend to know. They're not a completely alien species, of course, and I'm not putting them on a pedestal either. In fact, I'm usually more of a hit with the women than the men, mainly because with a dude I can basically size-you up pretty quickly – it's not hard for me assess if one is pretty cool, a complete offy, shady as fuck, or possibly shady but not in a malicious way.

And I tend to treat them accordingly. Women. They vary, a lot. You have your damsels in distress who never fart – nothing is ever their fault – not ever! The are neurotic types who would not be worth putting up with were it not for their kegel muscles. And then, on the opposite end of the spectrum, you have your Babaylans for example: Heylia James of Weeds is a good example – 


you see a lot of that in the darker ethnicities. They're more stand-up people than some dudes you know. You almost never can tell, so I approach them as a sort of “black box” - 0 by way of assumptions, and I poke and prod and of coax assuming I don't actually know what's going under there (as they say, often times when you go turning up stones, you find worms) I'm not privy to their inner workings, but I do know they're just wired differently than I can empathize with.


Whatever the case I take an “I'm not woman – I have no idea what it's like, I don't pretend to have you figured out at all” approach. And just let it play out for a few months, after which you'll catch their particular “vibe” and extrapolate how it's going to play-out for the next 1-3-5-7-10 years, and decide if it's worth pursuing on a case by case basis. They're all neurotic, some just to more live-with-able extents than others, and some neurotic in exactly the right ways... but idiosyncratic enough for me to put the broad-brush down.


As to the implosion going on. Or better stated “there seeming to be an implosion going on” this brings up another point worth considering: that maybe it just seems that way due to the way the media tends to magnify issues. It's almost as if we live in two worlds: the world as seen from our backyards, and the world as portrayed on social media.


This whole “privilege” thing is something I encounter speaking with my more well-to-do SJW counterparts who just so happen to not only live nowhere near where I live, but would not drive here if their lives depended upon it.


*I live here because it's cheaper and I am used to it. If you're going to rent, then at least rent cheap.


From my backyard – it's a non-issue. The only questions that come up are:


“where you from?”

“you good?”

“you got 50 cents?”

“where my money at?”


I reckon that someone come up around here petitioning people to call them xir, they might at best find themselves minus a wallet, and possibly a pint or two of blood. It's a type of ethos that only flies in cyber-space.


As it turns out, what I can see from my backyard is a solid representation of the world as-is. This includes the stabbings and the shootings. The rest happens in front of camera or on campuses – both of which are poor excuses for real life.


It is also possible we're making mountains out of mole hills - protesting it only draws attention to a non-issue.


God sort of does but does not have a father. This changes depending on if you're speaking literally / materially or figuratively / spiritually (in the platonic sense of the word).


Figuratively – it's a recursive and asymptotic idea: man made god made man made god


public static void main()

{

int man = god(0);

}



public int god(man as int)

{

man = god(man++);

}



^this will eventually over-flow the stack, but the gist is recursion.


One fart smucker referred to “it” as “next” except that “next” points to the general asymptotic progression of things towards “betterment”


The satanic, however, is the stack over-flowing. Where the ideal can no longer impose upon the real due to systemic limitations. Where said limits are encountered is where we find what is real. It is very much an acknowledgment of limit and form - sufficient to reject or stymie the ideal that is "betterment".

The Forum post is edited by AK Nov 3 '18
Certain features and pages can only be viewed by registered users.

Join Now

Like and Share

Donate

This site is largely funded by donations. You can show your support by donating. Thanks. Every dollar helps.