A lot of the assertions you make are unfounded. For example it’s not a given that wanting the best for your own children, means you don’t care about any other children. It also doesn’t mean you do care. It simply isn’t a given either way. You write the assertion, as a universal, without a supporting argument, but then you move on as if you have proved the point. The entire article is full of these 3 or 4 word monties. As a result much of it is either unsound or hollow. You are trying to be biting, but it just comes off as snide.
Your own side will cheer you on anyway, and those opposed will just ignore you and continue dismantling the government. Well done then. I’m not interested in being on either side. I am interested in helping the disadvantaged.
What I would ask though is where you get the idea that things in the US or maybe elsewhere are zero sum. I can see you are already macro-trolling people who disagree with you on other points. If you are going to do that here, let me know so we can nip it in the bud. I have to make dinner for my kids.
It seems, and please correct me if I’ve misunderstood, that you are saying that someone who is privileged, in your sense of the word, will have to give up things in order for others to become privileged as well? Is that correct? Or do you seek to eliminate privilege? What does that look like? Do you do think this is a zero sum situation, where one’s gain has to be another’s loss?
Where does that come from? In what is that grounded? Where is the source material to say that if there is a Pie a that we need to slice up the pie in smaller slices, redistribute it and then everyone will be happy? Why not bake another pie? The US has a lot of pie. Why so stingy?
Also do you think that people born with let’s say a privileged skin color are guaranteed success? Can they not fail despite their privilege? Can you lose privilege? If you fail and die in the gutter where was your privilege?
I don’t see much thought of that having gone into this, as your story adheres to the internet standard of a shallow and hamhanded understanding of sociological theory.
The reason I’ve worded it this way is because in the US system it seems that privilege at some elite levels might be something you actually have. Like someone born into the Kennedy clan, they cannot really fail, unless they make a gargantuan effort. Simply put they have money. A lot of money. They will not be allowed to fail. Others with less money could still have signifigant amounts of privilege that will keep them from ever failing, or require a supreme effort to do so.
But it seems privilege might also be something you don’t have. Like disadvantages. Disadvantages that will pull you down into the bottom, or keep you there, excepting an almost super human effort. Someone born poor but white, has a lack of disadvantages that others may suffer from. But they can still crawl down to the bottom of the barrel and stay there. Or they can be unlucky and get shoved down there as well. The US system has a bottom that is very hard to get out of. But in that sense of privilege being a lack of something it seems more efficient to talk about the something, rather than the lack.
The pie you are talking about slicing up is the pie of the people in the 2nd tier or privilege. You are not addressing first tier privilege. There aren’t enough of them to really make a difference, although they do have most of the world’s wealth and they plan to keep it.
And then when discussing the other side, you fail to mention what it is that let’s say black America has. It’s not privilege. It’s not a lack of the second type of privilege. Why? That would be a double negative and ridiculous. Black America has disadvantages. There you have it. The simple truth.
Is it 2nd tier privilege that is holding down black America? Will removing that privilege from those who have it suddenly cause all the disadvantages the black Americans face to go POOF? I don’t think it will make a goddamned bit of difference my friend. 2nd tier privilege has been slowly but inexorably dissapearing since the first the civil rights act, and then the beginning of wage stagnation at the outset of the Reagan years. And Black America is still not shooting to parity. Instead the police are still shooting them to death.
You are only addressing one sort of generic form of privilege it seems, and not addressing social disadvantage at all.
There are at least 2 types of privilege, that while they are both better of than the disadvantaged, are not equivalent to each other. And removing type 2 won’t ameliorate disadvantage at all. It will ameliorate the distance between type 2 and disadvantage by bringing them closer together, but disadvantage won’t actually be elevated.
Perhaps at this point, I could suggest finding out who took the other pies, and where you can get you hands on them. Because letting the thieves them get away with it, while you fight your friends and foes for the wretched leftovers looks pretty pathetic. And helping the disadvantaged is too important to fuck up with the wrong theory applied with a sledgehammer’s grace.
It’s a hard critique, I know, but it was made in the spirit of love. Do what you want with it.