Forums / Fun! / Riff-Raff

312,358 total conversations in 9,684 threads

+ New Thread

How privileged are you? chart

Last posted Nov 07, 2012 at 10:10PM EST. Added Oct 16, 2012 at 08:09AM EDT
53 posts from 40 users

I got 155, peasants.
Also, I hope nobody takes this crap seriously.
(Because stereotypically Jews are rich and whatnot? Uhdunno, feminist logic.)


Black covered up mostly everything advantageous.
Being “poor” (although I don’t think I’m “poor,” I think “broke” identifies me better) covered up everything else
Being short dipped me into the negatives.

I feel like Locks, but I’m sure it’s for an entirely different reason. Locks is a social conservative (perhaps a moderate conservative), and I’m more of a moderate liberal. I think she might think that this is only an excuse for people who can still persevere despite these (or sees some of these as choices or easily avoidable), while I see a lot of merit to the activity, because sometimes you don’t recognize just how many static advantages you have over others.
My problem with it is that the tool itself is pretty weak.

  1. One, dude (or dudette) did a bad job of checking for errors.
  2. The scales are not only subjective and personal, but they are also arbitrary (who decided that being black would equal exactly -100 points or being straight would equal exactly +25 points?)
  3. Also, I think it assumes that the person lives in the Western world (a very poor assumption while being on the Internet). A person who lives in China doesn’t necessary have the same disadvantage as a homeless person in the US, because disadvantage varies for different cultures and countries. Being gay in San Francisco isn’t the same as being gay in the US Bible Belt.)

And then there’s the matter of the combinations that the creator didn’t address. Sure, he touched on being black and Jewish (poor Lenny Kravitz…), but it doesn’t say anything about being black and gay (which is much more disadvantageous than being white a gay or female and gay.) There’s also the matter of presenting yourself as such. Many gay men aren’t “flamboyant” with the slight twist of the hips, the fabulous fashion sense, the stereotypical accent/lisp, or anything else normally associated with being a homosexual man. But that person would likely be at a greater disadvantage than a gay man who could pass as a straight man.
And then, dude/dudette left out some other categories. Sure, it sucks being short and there are a ton of studies saying that short people are disadvantaged. But being a midget/dwarf (I forget the correct terminology for a person who would have abnormal proportions and are short) would be much more disadvantageous than just being short with normal proportions.
As a concept, I love the exercise. But one thing I’ve learned about the Internet is that people are not too keen on feminism, sociology, class/gender studies, or the like. I find it ignorant, especially when I begin (and immediately stop) to discuss it with them. Which is odd in my eyes. I find that there are a lot of people online who are disproportionately disadvantaged.

I mean, there are a lot of asexual and bisexual people on KYM last time I checked, and I know there are a lot of people with Asberger’s.

It’s not anything to make an excuse for. I don’t blame my professional or academic shortcomings on being black. But if there’s a systematic and oppressive force being applied to a specific group of people that isn’t being applied among other groups, then the person who can overcome them isn’t just doing what he or she should do. He or she is extraordinary despite those disadvantages. He or she is an exception.

Last edited Oct 16, 2012 at 01:02PM EDT

I got an 100. Then I realized that if I move out and enter the public safety field like I plan to I’ll probably loose 35 points given the generally low pay, bringing me down to 65.

Locks is right tho.

Cale Guy wrote:

I refuse to let a chart judge my Blind Black Retarded Gay Jew lineage.

If you’re blind, how did you even read the chart?
….Oh wait, you can’t read this neither.

Last edited Oct 16, 2012 at 05:34PM EDT

Mexx Android wrote:

If you’re blind, how did you even read the chart?
….Oh wait, you can’t read this neither.

There was already one Homestuck reference I pass a motion to not create a second.

I can assure you that these numbers are arbitrary and somewhat ethnocentric, Quantum.

Don’t think it makes the exercise stupid. Just poorly executed.

So how many of you guys lied about being 9+/10? I’m looking at pretty much all of you here. You put those 20 points back this instant!

But seriously, that question is so arbitrary that it doesn’t even matter. What’s the criteria for “ugly face”? The only definition you can go by is yours (and your own face never fits the criteria for ugly)

All of the questions are pretty arbitrary in fact. Whoever made it obviously wasn’t trying to be serious, let alone politically correct and unbiased. The whole thing is just one dudes opinion.

Also the Jewish and Blind options have to be jokes

Anyway, without further ado: 85.

Pfff. Could have been 95 but apparently being short is a bad thing. Well screw you tall people! I didn’t need to reach the top of the supermarket shelf anyway!

Last edited Oct 16, 2012 at 09:50PM EDT


Brought down mostly by the fact that I am both female and gay. So I guess that means that all lesbians are underprivileged. I knew I was in trouble when I started with -200 points. It is true, all numbers are arbitrary.


This thread is closed to new posts.

Old threads normally auto-close after 30 days of inactivity.

Why don't you start a new thread instead?

Hi! You must login or signup first!