You may have noticed the latest uber-trendy catchphrase making the rounds ad nauseum at The Hive over the past few weeks - White Privilege.
Replacing such stalwart favorites as "stochastic terrorism", "living wage", "fracking", and the ever-popular "'common sense' gun laws" our newest psuedointellectual topic satisfies the DUmmy craving to wax exquisitely patronizing for the purpose of "educating" others in subjects that are intuitively apparent to the vast majority of folks by roughly age ten or so. The threads have proliferated beyond all practical usefulness. So much so that it should be readily apparent now to all but the thickest of the DU dimwits that they have become nothing more than "Hey, look at me!" vehicles to gain street cred or vie for honors as Bestest And Most Sensitivest Liberal. But I digress.
First of all, let me say that one has to have achieved a certain level of affluence, be in a "comfort zone", if you will, to even consider the concept, and that's why it fails as a broad-based tool to have the general populace cogitate on discrimination. It's hard to get across to the rubber-booted White Guy standing in a ditch and shoveling away for eight bucks an hour that his 15% less likeliness of being pulled over for speeding because he's white has any relevance. He might not even have a car, or if he does, is studious about following the traffic laws because he can't afford a ticket or the hit it might be to his insurance. Or that Jane Sixpack, who is juggling work and two kids and just stopped in to Wal*Mart for a package of Huggies should recognize!â„¢ her sweet fortune of not being followed around the store by a loss-prevention specialist for the ten minutes she's in there. I know...I know...the ingrates! Going through life not acknowleging their "privilege".
Secondly, to those who insist that the term is not accusatory or inherently negative in any way when applied to the individual, my question is, "Then why use it?" Does it not automatically follow that if some are discriminated against or suffer racism, that means there are others who do not? Is that some mysterious mathematical concept that rates an entirely new approach to be understood? Are there really blithering idiots among you who don't recognize that both must exist? And if "white privilege" simply means the absence of discrimination, why not play up the affirmative acts of discrimination or racism themselves than the negative "not discrimination" side of the coin? After all, getting rid of discrimination is the goal, right?
The answer is simple. DUmmies are preternaturally driven to distraction with "fairness". And by fairness I don't mean equal opportunity. Equal opportunity is an antiquated idea that DUmmies scoff at because it still requires individual effort and responsibility to achieve and carries the risk of failure. No, the goal has long been now equal outcomes. Equal outcomes is something that can only be realized by outside forces (read: government) via coersion. Either everyone must be rich, or everyone must be mediocre, or everyone must be poor. It is this adolescent version of fairness to which "progressives" adhere. That is why it is not enough to point to the wrongs of discrimination and demand they be fixed. They must also insist on framing the absence of discrimination as "privilege" so in the event they cannot resolve the former, they will burn down the latter, all for the sake of "fairness". After all, no one should be "privileged" over another. A sense of guilt must be instilled in those who experience it. If one sucker is dropped in the dirt, all the lollipops must follow. Such is the petulant, childish nature of DUmmies.
