Reply to Re: Let's talk power
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
I split my reply in two posts, because I had to cut some parts last time to make the site accept it and I'll try to avoid that this time. 
Also, it makes sense in terms of content.
Also, I put a space in g ay to get around the swear filter. Who made g ay a swear word?!
Where does this "privilege" you talk about come from then and how does the world come to be in your favour?
History. A black person in the US faces much more obstacles in life than a white person. Neither any particular black, not any particular white person alive today is to blame (or praise) for that; that's simply how society is set up. But when talking about power, this is relevant: the black people (like the other minorities mentioned) start at a disadvantage. When they have enough power to lead a life that is comparable to that of other people, I define that as zero power. I understand that this may be confusing, but it seems fair to me. It means that a white man is born with zero power, while a black man is born with negative power. If the black man gains a little power, his total power is still below zero. The reason this matters (and that I define it this way) is that when asking who is to blame for the problems in society, we should always look at the people in power. Because they have likely caused the problems, and at the very least they have the ability to fix them. The minorities are not the people in power. The definition I use aims to fit that reality.
really? because when north carolina introduced their anti-lgbt horseshit, a big pile of companies decided that they don't want to deal with them anymore. so, who's not winning again?
This is an example where those people are upset about this anti-LGBT law, which happened to be mostly anti-transgender. You may be right, and I hope you are, that the push back was in solidarity with the trans community. But there are many anti-trans laws considered or recently passed all over the country, and none of the others got anywhere near this reaction. It seems to me that in NC, the trans people were lucky that this was perceived as "anti-LGBT", which is usually the same as "anti-g ay", even though this law is mostly anti-trans. But I'm happy to be wrong about this.
Are you saying that the g ays and Muslims cannot enjoy their lives for whatever reason?
I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it's harder. Because society has obstacles for them that it doesn't have for others. For example, it's harder to enjoy life if you cannot get a job. (And that too is not impossible, but it is harder for them.)
If a politician or other individual with executive power acts ... then that is an exertion of power.
...
I can't fathom why you'd say that's not power
Yes, it is. But in many cases, this sort of thing only makes their total power less negative. So what I'm saying is that they are still powerless (perhaps I should say: less powerful) compared to average people. Every single president has been male, Christian, straight, cis, and with the exception of Obama, white. If those groups would be treated equally, there would have been some minorities in that position. The fact that Obama isn't a woman doesn't prove anything. The fact that 44 presidents in a row have not been women, literally 100% of them, does prove that women do not hold equal power. Similarly for all the minorities.
Then you go on to say a g ay person's power doesn't count.
You misunderstood me. I defended my claim that they are discriminated against, and in particular that they do not (easily) get to positions of power. If someone does get to a position of power while secretly being g ay, that doesn't prove the opposite, but it does result in a g ay in a position of power, so just counting those is not a good way to measure the magnitude of this problem.
Skin color is much harder to hide (Michael Jackson tried), so counting black CEOs or presidents is more reasonable. There are 13% blacks in the country. I think there are less than 1% black CEOs and including Obama there have been about 2% black presidents. If we accept that black people are not genetically unfit for leadership, they are obviously being stopped from getting into positions of power. This is in some ways not entirely fair either (especially if you want to make the argument that it used to be bad, but it's better now, counting history isn't right), but the difference is so overwhelming that I think the conclusion is justified.
winning the "battle" (against whom exactly?)
Racists, bigots, homophobes, transphobes, sexists. I could summarize them as "haters".
you acknowledge they have power so we're in agreement.
I'd like to be in agreement, but I don't think so. I agree there is some power on their side, but the sum total of their power is still below zero.
My point about power is that it may be transitory.
My attempt to make power a number is of course a simplification. But I think it helps to understand who is to blame for problems. People with negative power are never to blame for anyone else's problems. They are trying the best they can to make their own life pleasant. And they're not even succeeding at that.
Further up you mentioned that you felt uneasy in Egypt? I'd be very interested if you could tell us all about it as it sounds very pertinent to what we've been talking about.
I don't think it is, but I'm happy to explain. Egyptian culture is different from Dutch culture. What I noticed most, is that they take much less personal space; they are closer to each other and touch each other more than I am used to. When I am there, they do that to me as well. That makes me uncomfortable, and that is my problem. When they come to the Netherlands, it becomes their problem; they must adapt to our culture. When we are taking in large numbers of refugees from countries with different cultures than our own, we should make solving that problem a part of the operation.
Also, it makes sense in terms of content.Also, I put a space in g ay to get around the swear filter. Who made g ay a swear word?!
Where does this "privilege" you talk about come from then and how does the world come to be in your favour?
History. A black person in the US faces much more obstacles in life than a white person. Neither any particular black, not any particular white person alive today is to blame (or praise) for that; that's simply how society is set up. But when talking about power, this is relevant: the black people (like the other minorities mentioned) start at a disadvantage. When they have enough power to lead a life that is comparable to that of other people, I define that as zero power. I understand that this may be confusing, but it seems fair to me. It means that a white man is born with zero power, while a black man is born with negative power. If the black man gains a little power, his total power is still below zero. The reason this matters (and that I define it this way) is that when asking who is to blame for the problems in society, we should always look at the people in power. Because they have likely caused the problems, and at the very least they have the ability to fix them. The minorities are not the people in power. The definition I use aims to fit that reality.
really? because when north carolina introduced their anti-lgbt horseshit, a big pile of companies decided that they don't want to deal with them anymore. so, who's not winning again?
This is an example where those people are upset about this anti-LGBT law, which happened to be mostly anti-transgender. You may be right, and I hope you are, that the push back was in solidarity with the trans community. But there are many anti-trans laws considered or recently passed all over the country, and none of the others got anywhere near this reaction. It seems to me that in NC, the trans people were lucky that this was perceived as "anti-LGBT", which is usually the same as "anti-g ay", even though this law is mostly anti-trans. But I'm happy to be wrong about this.
Are you saying that the g ays and Muslims cannot enjoy their lives for whatever reason?
I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it's harder. Because society has obstacles for them that it doesn't have for others. For example, it's harder to enjoy life if you cannot get a job. (And that too is not impossible, but it is harder for them.)
If a politician or other individual with executive power acts ... then that is an exertion of power.
...
I can't fathom why you'd say that's not power
Yes, it is. But in many cases, this sort of thing only makes their total power less negative. So what I'm saying is that they are still powerless (perhaps I should say: less powerful) compared to average people. Every single president has been male, Christian, straight, cis, and with the exception of Obama, white. If those groups would be treated equally, there would have been some minorities in that position. The fact that Obama isn't a woman doesn't prove anything. The fact that 44 presidents in a row have not been women, literally 100% of them, does prove that women do not hold equal power. Similarly for all the minorities.
Then you go on to say a g ay person's power doesn't count.
You misunderstood me. I defended my claim that they are discriminated against, and in particular that they do not (easily) get to positions of power. If someone does get to a position of power while secretly being g ay, that doesn't prove the opposite, but it does result in a g ay in a position of power, so just counting those is not a good way to measure the magnitude of this problem.
Skin color is much harder to hide (Michael Jackson tried), so counting black CEOs or presidents is more reasonable. There are 13% blacks in the country. I think there are less than 1% black CEOs and including Obama there have been about 2% black presidents. If we accept that black people are not genetically unfit for leadership, they are obviously being stopped from getting into positions of power. This is in some ways not entirely fair either (especially if you want to make the argument that it used to be bad, but it's better now, counting history isn't right), but the difference is so overwhelming that I think the conclusion is justified.
winning the "battle" (against whom exactly?)
Racists, bigots, homophobes, transphobes, sexists. I could summarize them as "haters".
you acknowledge they have power so we're in agreement.
I'd like to be in agreement, but I don't think so. I agree there is some power on their side, but the sum total of their power is still below zero.
My point about power is that it may be transitory.
My attempt to make power a number is of course a simplification. But I think it helps to understand who is to blame for problems. People with negative power are never to blame for anyone else's problems. They are trying the best they can to make their own life pleasant. And they're not even succeeding at that.
Further up you mentioned that you felt uneasy in Egypt? I'd be very interested if you could tell us all about it as it sounds very pertinent to what we've been talking about.
I don't think it is, but I'm happy to explain. Egyptian culture is different from Dutch culture. What I noticed most, is that they take much less personal space; they are closer to each other and touch each other more than I am used to. When I am there, they do that to me as well. That makes me uncomfortable, and that is my problem. When they come to the Netherlands, it becomes their problem; they must adapt to our culture. When we are taking in large numbers of refugees from countries with different cultures than our own, we should make solving that problem a part of the operation.
