| > I will say that it takes a certain level of privilege to say one shouldn’t discuss politics at work. Having a discussion is hard. While you come to this well-intended, participants bring their own life experiences and hardships. They may not agree on the starting point of the conversation: How is "marginalized' and "privileged" is defined? Some may not take that perspective on the above issues, and people with these characteristics may not consider themselves part of the "group", they may believe overcoming hardship by the way of grit and merit being the ideal. People with these characteristics who don't consider themselves part of the "groups" may find the rhetoric being used patronizing, they don't want to be treated special or different, they want to be recognized for their contribution to the collective. That's where role models come from, to some. They may disagree on what "empathy" means. Casting a group as marginalized draws broad strokes about others, because who isn't marginalized? How could someone know how someone else feels or what they have faced in life? If you don't like having your hardship belittled, why potentially do the same thing to others? We all have feelings and bring our unique stories and experiences to the table. The definition of "inclusiveness". To some, the qualm isn't the subject, it's how some people who cite these groups disregard the larger collective or group they're apart of (e.g. their team, their workplace). The definition of "discussion". There are stories of people being fired for merely citing agreed upon academic social/psychological research. Some sense viewpoint discrimination - fear of being sanctioned for stating their perspective - or to even say they're hurt by the topic's inferences. |
Let me give you a real world example.
In the US, the average white person goes to a better funded school than the average minority. That is a form of privilege. I personally am white, but went to a majority black school that is extremely underfunded and around an 80% below poverty level. I (and all others attending my school) missed out on numerous opportunities that other schools provided.
But when people see me, they immediately stereotype me as having gone to a better funded school. This is an assumption they make about me based on my race, and which some use against me (thinking me privileged in relation to school system).
When applying to college, many colleges use race to assume a level of hardship and then adjust admission standards based on hardship. Someone who goes to a very underfunded school won't score as high on the SAT as they would have if they had gone to a better school. Yet because of my race, the assumption is made that such reasoning does not apply to me.