In anticipation of any future arguments concerning “privilege” as defined by social justice warriors, I submit to them these questions to answer before there is any further discussion on the matter.
If you encounter social justice warriors or anyone prattling about “privilege” on the Internet, feel free to send them a link to this post. Bookmark it, save it, distribute it, Facebook it, tweet it, whatever. Just insist they write a response to each point made before you enter into a discussion. Make that part clear; they aren’t winning by answering. You are simply waiting for them to do the necessary work for a reasonable discussion to occur.
Do not, I repeat, do not engage in debate with these people before they clarify themselves, or else they will control the dialogue and it will inevitably revolve around how horrible a human being you are for denying the claims about a perceived injustice. (Example: anyone who denies there is a rape culture must be a rape apologist, and you spend the whole conversation trying to prove otherwise).
It will save you time, energy, patience, and possibly your sanity. More importantly, it forces them to do something they avoid at all costs: Specify and define what they are really saying.
In a culture that is overseeing the destruction of its language, you can’t afford to assume they mean what you think they mean when they use certain phrases or terms.
It’s not exactly the 95 These, but you get the point.
- What do you mean by “privilege”?
- Why is privilege, as you define it, a bad thing?
- Is “privilege” determined by the means through which a person obtains something, or what they have obtained? In other words, can a person have privilege and still fail to have achieve something compared to a person who achieves it without the same privilege? If this is the case, how do we determine privilege?
- Does privilege always derive from injustice? If so, why? If not, give examples of when privilege is not derived from injustice.
- How does said privilege of one person violate the rights of another?
- Cite one real-life example, involving a specific person, where privilege is acquired through an act that violates the Non-Aggression Principle that does not also involve the State. Then cite a real-life example of how this privilege issue can be resolved without violating the Non-Aggression Principle.
- If it cannot be resolved without violating the NAP, explain why.
- If obtaining privilege requires one to violate the rights of another, is it not considered a crime? If so, what law should be put in place to prevent, rather than compensate for, this privilege?
- What evidence, in your opinion, should be considered sufficient to prove said privilege was obtained unjustly?
- What evidence do you have to prove such privilege not only exists but was obtained unjustly?
- If you admit there is no way to prove conclusively or through empirical evidence that such privilege exists, then what brought you to this conclusion, and why should we accept the conclusion in lack of the evidence?
- Why is the accusation of privilege only applied to entire demographics and never to a specific individual in connection with a specific victim?
- How is accusing someone of having privilege without proving so with empirical evidence any different from accusing someone of a crime without any evidence to substantiate the claims? How is this considered “just?”
- Do you deny having any privilege at any point in your life? If so, explain how you acquired everything you have in life without privilege so that others may emulate you.
- If you have had privilege, what right do you have to accuse others of the same, and what steps have you taken to rectify the situation with your own privilege?
- Define “social justice” and why it is complements, rather than contradicts, the definition of “justice,” as well as the NAP.