‘When You’re Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression’

‘When You’re Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression’

..... things started making a little more sense to me. All this anger we see from people screaming “All Lives Matter” in response to black protesters at rallies. All this anger we see from people insisting that their “religious freedom” is being infringed because a gay couple wants to get married. All these people angry about immigrants, angry about Muslims, angry about “Happy Holidays,” angry about not being able to say bigoted things without being called a bigot...They all basically boil down to people who have grown accustomed to walking straight at other folks, and expecting them to move. So when “those people” in their path don’t move — when those people start wondering, “Why am I always moving out of this guy’s way?”; when those people start asking themselves, “What if I didn’t move? What if I just kept walking too?”; when those people start believing that they have every bit as much right to that aisle as anyone else — it can seem like their rights are being taken away. (They arent)


Equality can feel like oppression. But it’s not. What you’re feeling is just the discomfort of losing a little bit of your privilege — the same discomfort that an only child feels when she goes to preschool and discovers that there are other kids who want to play with the same toys as she does.It’s like an old man being used to having a community pool all to himself, having that pool actually opened up to everyone in the community, and then that old man yelling, “But what about MY right to swim in a pool all by myself?!”And what we’re seeing politically right now is a bit of anger from both sides. On one side, we see people who are angry about “those people” being let into “our” pool. They’re angry about sharing their toys with the other kids in the classroom.They’re angry about being labeled a “racist,” just because they say racist things and have racist beliefs. They’re angry about having to consider others who might be walking toward them, strangely exerting their right to exist. On the other side, we see people who believe that pool is for everyone. We see people who realize that when our kids throw a fit in preschool, we teach them about how sharing is the right thing to do. We see people who understand being careful with their language as a way of being respectful to others. We see people who are attempting to stand in solidarity with the ones who are claiming their right to exist — the ones who are rightfully angry about having to always move out of the way, people who are asking themselves the question, “What if I just keep walking?”



That's all objectively true, but people will disagree given the political climate.

How could it not be objectively true that IF* you are "more equal than other people" under the law, but IF* changes to the law makes everyone literally equal, the people who used to be "more equal" experience a loss in perceive status?

*hypothetical



Are objectors/mockers dismissing the above philosophlical point out of hand? Or are they dismissing the proposition that black persons or minorities generally have received worse treatment under the law and/or in society, historically speaking?

Mr Person said:

Are objectors/mockers dismissing the above philosophlical point out of hand? Or are they dismissing the proposition that black persons or minorities generally have received worse treatment under the law and/or in society, historically speaking?

Click to expand...

I dont know its a good question. I couldn't tell you why some reject the sound logic in the blog when theres factual proof that it is exactly how SOME feel.

like I said a PERFECT example is equal rights for sexual orentation. All the people that said its doing something to them are exactly who the Blog is talking about and its spot on. Those nutters CLAIM it infringes on their rights but yet cant name the right. . .. its because they THINK its opprssing them some how but the fact is its not.

AGENT J said:

This is a nice little read and for the minority of some people in america it is spot on. i skipped the personal relation story to just post the part in the middle but you should read it, its interesting.

Interesting look and awaking this person had to relate to it in another way. Anyway like I said for SOME people it is spot on and defines exactly the fantasy they are going through. Equal rights wins or the rights of others start being actually protected and they cry and scream and ask what bout my rights. But when they are asked what rights they are referring to they never have an answer or they give a right they never had and nobody does.


Im glad we keep improving as a country and im glad the majority understand this reality and the reality of equal rights, it makes me happy. For those that dont get it and want to fight it, oh well, they are losing and so is their hypocrisy and or bigotry. Hopefully for their sake they wake up and educate themselves to this issue, if not, its their loss.

Click to expand...

I think there's a distinction to make, though, about (a) people who are bothered by HOW these things are discussed, explored, and brought to the surface, but yet do acknowledge, accept, and might even initiate these discussions (etc) . . . as opposed to (b) people that DON'T LIKE the fact that these things need to be discussed, explored, and brought to the surface and thus nay of it will get under their skin and they won't be tuning in for any of it.

The riots in Ferguson are a good example of the HOW being what upsets people, not the WHAT. Rioting and burning down your town (or rather - people traveling into the zone in order to burn down someone else's town) . . . destroying the livelihood of people of ALL races in the process . . . this is NOT what most people support or are willing to tolerate, even if they WANT to bring these things to the surface and talk about it / improve it.

People being bothered by violence, rioting, and overall mayhem is not the same as disapproving of the overall topic being discussed. And yet sometimes these differences seem to be muddled - but clearly there are two very different things going on.

Aunt Spiker said:

1.)I think there's a distinction to make, though, about (a) people who are bothered by HOW these things are discussed, explored, and brought to the surface, but yet do acknowledge, accept, and might even initiate these discussions (etc) . . . as opposed to (b) people that DON'T LIKE the fact that these things need to be discussed, explored, and brought to the surface and thus nay of it will get under their skin and they won't be tuning in for any of it.

2.) The riots in Ferguson are a good example of the HOW being what upsets people, not the WHAT. Rioting and burning down your town (or rather - people traveling into the zone in order to burn down someone else's town) . . . destroying the livelihood of people of ALL races in the process . . . this is NOT what most people support or are willing to tolerate, even if they WANT to bring these things to the surface and talk about it / improve it.

3.)People being bothered by violence, rioting, and overall mayhem is not the same as disapproving of the overall topic being discussed.
4.) And yet sometimes these differences seem to be muddled - but clearly there are two very different things going on.

Click to expand...

1.) that is a VERY solid point AS! and I agree that absolutely can be a factor but similar to what another poster brought up while I think that is a totally logical point that can't get in the way of progress when we are talking about rights and freedoms. Do you agree? I may HATE the way something is changing, how its changing and how quickly the solution is being brought up but if it is a matter of denying others rights I would never try to "opposes" that change because whether it bothers me personally or upsets my "feelings" its positive change. Does that make sense?

2.) the riots in ferguson have nothing to do with this, i don't see how it relates at all. Crimes are crimes . . . people breaking the law is not equality its people breaking the law.
Youll have to explain how you think that topic fits in here please because i dont see it at all

3.) I agree and the blog doesnt suggest that in anyway nor would I
4.) well again not sure how this fits in with the OP but at least I clearly understand what you are sayign here and I agree 100%. People should NEVER muddle these two together. They are part of the problem if they do.
I can say this on it, anybody that says people that opposes the violence and crime committed by the nuttes must oppose the topic are as dishonest and wrong as those that judge the topic based on the nutters. did that make sense

AGENT J said:

This is a nice little read and for the minority of some people in america it is spot on. i skipped the personal relation story to just post the part in the middle but you should read it, its interesting.




Interesting look and awaking this person had to relate to it in another way. Anyway like I said for SOME people it is spot on and defines exactly the fantasy they are going through. Equal rights wins or the rights of others start being actually protected and they cry and scream and ask what bout my rights. But when they are asked what rights they are referring to they never have an answer or they give a right they never had and nobody does.


Im glad we keep improving as a country and im glad the majority understand this reality and the reality of equal rights, it makes me happy. For those that dont get it and want to fight it, oh well, they are losing and so is their hypocrisy and or bigotry. Hopefully for their sake they wake up and educate themselves to this issue, if not, its their loss.

Click to expand...

Interesting. It makes sense, up to a point. Of course, all lives DO matter. It is not true that the police are murdering blacks. So the perception of some people of the few incidents they're angry about, which may or may not be justified (remember that there is an altercation in progress arising from a crime report or crime, begun by the person ultimately killed), is based on a falsehood. So the appropriate response to that does seem to be to state that all lives matter....including the police, innocent passersby, victims of other crimes, etc. There's no shortage of incidents where people are killed. All lives do matter.

And the claims of reverse discrimination does in some instances have merit. Usually not. But there's the occasional case that does.

But generally, it may seem to those with privilege that their rights are being infringed, when others have demanded and finally gotten full rights themselves.

JumpinJack said:

1.)Interesting. It makes sense, up to a point.
2.) Of course, all lives DO matter.
3.) It is not true that the police are murdering blacks.
4.)So the perception of some people of the few incidents they're angry about, which may or may not be justified (remember that there is an altercation in progress arising from a crime report or crime, begun by the person ultimately killed), is based on a falsehood.
5.) So the appropriate response to that does seem to be to state that all lives matter....including the police, innocent passersby, victims of other crimes, etc.
6.) There's no shortage of incidents where people are killed. All lives do matter.
7.)And the claims of reverse discrimination does in some instances have merit. Usually not. But there's the occasional case that does.
8.)But generally, it may seem to those with privilege that their rights are being infringed, when others have demanded and finally gotten full rights themselves.

Click to expand...

1.) yes I agree
2.) of course but it is still a silly response because in no way does BLM mean only black lives matter, just like save dolphins doesn't mean **** the rest of the ocean, of all the events for breast cancer means the rest of the cancers dont matter and people dont feel the overwhelming need to change the slogans or resists them or change their pure message.
3.) I have no idea what this has to do with the topic and the fact is "SOME" police have murdered blacks and other people but of course the is NOT representative of police has a group. Thats why there are police in the BLM movement themselves. WHats awesome about the blog in the OP is its happening right now. For some reason you feel the need to post things that dont really have to deal with the OP or talk about things that dont reflect on the OP either. If somebody says all the police are out murdering blacks that person is an idiot and part of the problem but that also doesnt change the fact that some are. Thats exactly what the OP is about. Its about getting caught up and distracted from reality.
4.) Youll have to be more specific cause i have no clue what you are talking about here and what it has to deal with the OP
5.) again I dont know what you think that is the proper response to but that isnt the proper response to BLM just like my earlier examples showed. But once again you seem distracted by other issues rather than reality and again this is what the op is talking about.
6.) nobody disagrees with all lives matter just like breast cancer isnt against liver cancer and save the dolphins arent about killing horses. Just like womans rights arent against mens rights and gay rights arent against straight rights etc etc etc Its illoigcal to make the jump and thats ONE of the examples.
7.) who said it didnt? another perfect example of the OP. of course minorities are also racist sometimes, the OP doesnt suggest otherwise in anyway
8.) exactly and of course it does, this is why you see them cry about rights infringement yet they can never actually say what rights they are talking about or what rights are actually infringed.