[sp332]

There's a big difference in perspective between saying "the majority is privileged" and saying "the minority is disadvantaged". When the majority is heterosexual, white, and "cis-gendered", isn't that the baseline instead of privileged?

[king_jester]

Having your status considered the baseline is a part of privilege. Folks who fall outside of that baseline face real negative consequences for it. Both "the majority is privileged" and "the minority is disadvantaged" are true at the same time.

[sp332]

OK so the majority has some privilege just from being the majority. But that isn't a moral failing, something they should be ashamed of, something they shouldn't take full advantage of, or something they can change. So it doesn't seem to have anything in common with, say, racism or sexism.

[shinratdr]

That depends entirely on the direction you're observing from.

[sp332]

Let's say things are set up to pander to the majority, even when it puts a minority at a disadvantage. What is the argument for making things harder for the majority, to equalize things for the minority? On average, society would come out worse, so you'd have to argue that equality itself is more valuable than any advantage for the majority.

[king_jester]

> What is the argument for making things harder for the majority, to equalize things for the minority?

Nobody is arguing to make things harder or worse for those with privilege. Generally people are asking for equal consideration and opportunity and a recognition of past and existing injustice.

[sp332]

Well you may not be, but many people are.

[thwest]

Show me where people are advocating anti-white and anti-cis policies.

[sp332]

If you’re straight, consider a commitment ceremony but don’t get married until all people can share in that legal right should they so choose.

If you’re a white person with wealth and children, choose to invest in and send your children to a local, public, neighborhood school or at least a private school with a strong commitment to diversity and inclusion rather than a lily-white private place with connections to the Ivy League.

http://everydayfeminism.com/2012/12/how-to-talk-to-someone-a...

[rsml]

Taken to its logical extreme, you could argue that sometimes it is advantageous for a society to harvest the organs of a healthy person, so that multiple people can have their lives extended through transplantation. Eugenics can also be argued for by saying that there's a net benefit to society.

One argument against this is based on the philosophical concept of a Veil of Ignorance[1]. We should create the rules of society as if we don't already know what our position in society will be. No one wants to live in a society where they could be randomly selected for organ harvesting, for example.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance

[phillmv]

Well, by your own metaphor on _average_ society would come out the same, by definition. (I suspect you meant median).

As a result, it sounds like you're saying "screw you, I got mine". We can flip the question around: why does this majority deserve better opportunities? There aren't very good answers to that question.

The main thing I'd point out is that unlike your metaphor society is not a zero-sum game.

[sp332]

Well, by your own metaphor on _average_ society would come out the same, by definition.

No, if you make things worse for 90% of the population, and make it better for 10% of the population, the total is worse and therefore the average (mean) is worse.

Edit: an example. Let's say the first 9 people rate society at 10 points, and the last one rates it a 4. Total 94, mean 9.4, median 10. Now change things around so everyone is equal and ranks things a 9. Total 90, mean 9.0, median 9. Even though the majority is almost as happy as before, and the minority is much happier, most measures come out worse.

[phillmv]

Why is the total going down in the after picture? Because our points only belong to the set of natural numbers ;)?

We're assuming in this totally contrived example that points are a measure of total resources + opportunity in our closed system, since we're implying a redistribution of a fixed pool of resources^1.

So, the total in the "after" picture would still be 94 and thus the mean would remain at 9.4 and the median would be 9.4 - (and down from 10).

I'm not a fan of arguing from averages - realistically, the picture is more like 1 - 1000pts, 2 - 100pts, 3-50pts, 4-30pts, 5, 6-7 - 20pts, 8-10 10pts

~ 1270 total, avg 127, median 20.

But these are all contrived examples (in the above I'm more leaning on income distribution, which I've reproduced from memory and may be skewed). If we equalize the above, the median would go up.

The argument for redistribution can be made on an economic/statistical basis - but the argument for equality, I think, is ultimately moral. It's not about fairness per se, but about justice.

^1 Not quite my stance but for the sake of argument.

[sp332]

Oh, I see! I wasn't really considering a zero-sum situation. In the argument from justice, you think it's a moral mandate to take money away from people because other people have less money?

[shinratdr]

> On average, society would come out worse

That's a massive leap in logic. Society isn't a simple one in, one out metric.

[FkZ]

"What is the argument for making things harder for the majority, to equalize things for the minority?"

That is an argument no one is making. What are you talking about?

[twelvechairs]

the majority isnt all those things and male.

[sp332]

White women are still privileged over other women (in the US and Canada anyway). You don't have to be male to be privileged.