What does "check your privilege" mean?

off to a great start with this thread already....

@spaceinsomniac: Holy shit, that Colbert stuff got extra crazy huh?

Yes, and people like Soey Park are exactly who people are thinking about when they use "social justice warrior" as a pejorative term. It's also why I think that term should exist as a pejorative, although I will admit that it's definitely overused. It should be reserved for people like this.

@spaceinsomniac: I don't like the term for people like her either. She's just a dick. A hateful, condescending dick completely oblivious to humor and satire, the very textbook example of an extremist. If she'd only been born a white male she could at least have found a home on the internet on stormfront, but I don't even know if they have online societies for racist asian women. It's a real tragedy.

This may be a mistake, but I think this is worth discussing further.

You just said that if someone is "spouting off truly hateful shit", they should be banned. Sounds good. But what about levels beneath truly hateful shit? Is there a distinct tipping point where views and comments go from totally okay and anyone that criticizes them is an arrogant jerk to become "truly hateful shit"?

And if anything beneath a certain point is acceptable, should moderators only ban instead of suspending? Because it seems that what the mod is referring to in your quote is suspension-worthy comments.

In my opinion, there are unreasonable people who generally just get banned, reasonable people who are nearing unreasonable territory and thus get suspended sometimes, and reasonable people who simply share different views and don't face much moderation. No one is irredeemable, but sometimes mods do have to determine that someone is very unlikely to improve and decide to protect the forum from them. Usually, they use suspensions and messages before that point to convey that improvement needs to be seen. Hopefully, someone turns things around, but sometimes they don't.

Those people who remain in that limbo between not being moderated and nearly being banned appear to be the ones that mod was referring to. Commenters who skirt just within the range of what will get one banned, and while they may remain a damaging force on the forum as long as they're around, they're still not regarded as damaging enough to be completely banned.

This is about the Time article isn't?

In a Jezebel article, they described it as, "So when someone says "check your privilege", what they mean is embrace and admit that you have preconceived notions and a specific world perspective, and to set those aside for a second and just listen." But when you say, "check your privilege" you're making a preconceived notion about that person based on the color of their skin, sex, sexual orientation etc. The phrase is also deeming you 'too privileged' to have an opinion on the topic.

Maybe I am strange, but I believe in judging someone based on their character and merit rather than their sex, race, nationality, religion or sexual orientation. Telling someone to 'check their privilege" is not only inherently racist, but further separates people based on the color of their skin because of a preconceived idea that they have some privilege.

Yes, I'm a white male. I grew up in a middle class family. When my dad died in 2003 I had to join the US Army to pay for my B.S. and MSc. I was deployed five times in the course of eight years. It's great if you want to make E-7, but rough if you want to attend school. Right now, I live in house that is cost less than Jeff's car, in a predominantly black neighborhood (based on the location, not the cost of real estate). Still people tell me to check my privilege, especially editors at Polygon, like they know me or my struggles. Which is ironic seeing that Polygon is run almost exclusively by white men (editors and deputy editors) http://www.polygon.com/pages/about

I have never heard that before. Its never been said to me and I have never seen it said to anyone else.