Assigning 'privilege' to race and gender seems fairly lazy to me, considering there are so many ways that it may not actually be a privilege to everybody. You know what is always, without fail, a privilege? Coming from money. When I was growing up, the term 'privileged' could be used without argument that way.

Socioeconomic status is the only real differentiator, and these factions only serve to divide the people whose interests are in reality, quite aligned. Unsurprisingly, this tends to greatly assist those at the top of the socioeconomic ladder in maintaining political deadlock on issues which greatly assist the majority at the expense of the tiny minority. Issues such as the social safety net, healthcare, education, infrastructure, and democratic process.

A cursory review of history shows that this is not a novel strategy.

It's like Eleanor Roosevelt said (more or less: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/03/30/not-inferior/): "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."

Not doing something you want to do because "they'll all laugh at me" is you giving your consent to being made to feel inferior. Their opinion only matters because you make it matter, by caring about it enough to let it stop you from doing something you want to do.

You may feel like their opinion puts shackles around your ankles, but really the shackles only exist in your mind. Stop believing in them and they disappear.

1. Being racist is bad 2. All white people are racist (by virtue of being born into a racist culture)

Ergo... all white people are bad. And I've seen several facebook posts by people of color that say things like "I'M DONE WITH WHITE PEOPLE." And I'm even somewhat sympathetic to that: All the evidence I've seen indicates I get treated better for being a tolerably handsome white dude. That must be kind of infuriating.

But at the end of the day, it's this culture that is often hostile to white dudes on principal, and just... okay? I guess I won't talk to you at parties if you don't want me to?

Well, it's not about your individual, direct contribution but your place in that system of power.

Just because you're not directly related to powerful rich white men doesn't mean that their decisions - while mostly targetted at "rich" rather than "white and male" - haven't also and continue to benefit you to this day.

My great-great-great-grandfather may have been a penniless shmuck of no importance - but whoever he was he was still the head of his household and had some modicum of rights. His wife on the other hand, would have been largely considered to be his property. Had he died after her first born son came of age, she might not even inherit anything he leaves behind - or be forced to marry his younger brother, or etc etc.

And woe betide you if you were born black 50+ years ago.

I know the above isn't in question but what I'm getting at is - we still benefit in some way from all of this and the fact that our feelings get hurt, or we aren't personally responsible isn't particularly interesting.

I'm not defending the practice - I too lean towards saying "it's way too abrasive" but I fundamentally sympathize with the underpinning. Anything I say is likely to be in my interests.

That looked like a fun skill to have, so I tried doing it on my own - introducing myself to other attendees, asking about their work and projects, etc. And I ran into a bunch of awkward situations where the person responded as if I were flirting with them (inevitably most of the people I talked to were men, since most of the people at those conferences were men). No, I actually just wanted to learn more about your company's business model.

I was copying my male friend's style of talking to other men, and I was interpreted differently. I've adjusted my approach now to reduce the chances of misunderstandings like that.

It's fairly unlikely in a civilised surrounding, but civilisation is rarer than you think.

As a straight white male, your potential downside from getting into a chat with someone at a party does not include serious bodily harm. Most people are nice to you by default.

Another example: an outgoing, alone woman might be perceived as easy or sleazy by some Neanderthal-like person she talks to, and could end up with a lot of unwanted attention from saying hi to the wrong people. Again, unlikely, depends on the surroundings/crowd, but still.

As a white straight guy, going to a totally random party alone is a much safer proposition.

As a white, cis, straight male (with a good job, I might add) there are few venues you aren't automatically welcome at and compatible with.

Flip any of those variables and "just get out there" is less applicable or harder. It's not like being a white male is a cheat code at life, but you spawn with a fuller inventory and a couple rings of +2 less bulshit.

Reality is it applies to everyone and its just a "woe is me" strategy. I "can't" socialize because I'm not pasty white, well there's a load off my back I don't have to be responsible for anymore.

This smacks of tremendous ignorance of the history of First Nations people and what white Canadians have done to them. It's possibly the most concrete demonstration of white privilege I've ever seen.

"Well gee, I'm just a simple guy, but I don't think trying to balance out the horrible things that people of my race did to people of another race well into the 1900s that irreversibly affected their communities ability to survive is all that fair if I don't get those things too!"

It's all well and good to want a level playing field, but when you've spend the last century digging everyone else into gigantic holes, it kind of rings a little hollow.

The thing to understand about racism is that it's a societal thing, not an individual thing. Discrimination against an individual can be racist, but only if it contributes to the racism of a society. (I know, the academic usage of "racism" is unfortunately a little different than the colloquial usage)

In your individual case, you might not be as privileged as the students around you, but your race certainly is. I don't know much about Canada, but Native Americans have quantifiably rough lives. On average they make less, are more likely to become alcoholics, and are less likely to make it through college.

It's not about what your ancestors did. People bring that up a lot but you shouldn't be held accountable for the actions of people you never met just because you're related to them. In fact, you aren't held accountable. But you still have to deal with the society we live in as a result of the actions your ancestors took. That society is deeply inequal, and by providing things like scholarships we're accelerating progress in equality that traditionally takes decades to come about.

But the reality is that to get to this point, many immigrant families and first nations families face enormous difficulty to meet their basic needs. To get to this country is one thing, to get here without anything is another. To have everything taken away and having to build it up without a strong support network is difficult. Equality isn't just about the money, it's about the community around you that helps create an environment that allows you to grow and succeed. By just pointing at the price tag, you're oversimplifying so many social factors and issues that play into how you get into university, get out, and start your career path in which, for families coming from difficult situations can simply be solved by some money.

Oh, and in case you were wondering, I am a visible minority myself. I didn't suffer and neither did my parents because the heavy burden was taken care-of by my great-grandparents and grandparents notwithstanding blatant racism by society and even government laws. I'm several generations removed from understanding the economic difficulties, but I'm still very much rooted in the cultural and social ones.

However, my argument was that if the situations were reversed, the outcome would be exactly the same. Go to a place where there are predominantly women (any dance class or even a Yoga class, feminist conference), and if you and I would try to "talk to them like we talk to men", many of them would assume that we're flirting with them. Or do my observations not concur with yours?

As insane as it may sound for a Torontonian, I grew up in Scarborough where many people didn't go on field trips simply because of the cost. Some kids had small lunches. And I grew up in a time where, because of cut backs in education costs, students were required to pay a "course fee" of about $50 at the beginning of the term in high school to pay for additional learning supplies for classes. Which usually amounted to the fee required to print workbooks, provide extra writing materials, or even art supplies.

Except for that it's discrimination based on need and not race.

No, if you make things worse for 90% of the population, and make it better for 10% of the population, the total is worse and therefore the average (mean) is worse.

Edit: an example. Let's say the first 9 people rate society at 10 points, and the last one rates it a 4. Total 94, mean 9.4, median 10. Now change things around so everyone is equal and ranks things a 9. Total 90, mean 9.0, median 9. Even though the majority is almost as happy as before, and the minority is much happier, most measures come out worse.

>In the argument from justice, you think it's a moral mandate to take money away from people because other people have less money?

Well, not because other people have less money.

My politics are roughly "people should do whatever they want, but they should have to pay the price of the externalities of their actions", sprinkled with "reducing overall human misery is virtuous".

More like, because in order for the massively wealthy to exist there's a strong argument that there has to be a massive underclass to go along with it. In this light, being rich creates the externality of forcing people to be poor, and as a result it's perfectly moral to redistribute some of that wealth.

Another argument goes, we have a more vibrant and stable society if we ensure that a) everyone is healthy and gets a good education and b) no one person or group in particular can amass so much power as to be capable of destabilizing society as a whole.

There are a few other argument, but at the time of writing I think those two are the strongest. We can talk about right wrongs from the historical record, we can talk about the duty to minimize misery, we can talk about private property is a state-regulated right and thus it's legitimate to argue over it, we can talk about theological underpinnings, etc etc.

You may disagree, of course.