Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/28/84; site lll-crg.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!muffy From: muffy@lll-crg.ARPA (Muffy Barkocy) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.women Subject: Re: Discrimination and affirmative action Message-ID: <656@lll-crg.ARPA> Date: Sun, 23-Jun-85 15:39:48 EDT Article-I.D.: lll-crg.656 Posted: Sun Jun 23 15:39:48 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 26-Jun-85 05:21:25 EDT References: <468@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <196@kontron.UUCP> <318@spar.UUCP> <252@kontron.UUCP> Reply-To: muffy@lll-crg.UUCP (Muffy Barkocy) Organization: Lawrence Livermore Labs, CRG group Lines: 20 Xref: watmath net.politics:9562 net.women:6057 In article <252@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> who are OVERPRIVILEGED. >> >> -michael > >Could you define "overprivileged"? Don't you just mean, someone who >has more than I think they should have? Actually, people should be careful of this word, "overprivileged." It implies that someone has "too much privilege," which further implies that there is some quantity of privilege which is *not* too much, and this quantity may be non-zero. Now, "privilege" generally means that someone is allowed or given something that someone else, or many other people don't have, so this word *could* mean that it is okay for some people to have things or rights that other people don't. I suspect that the intent was just to make the word seem even more forceful: "he's not just privileged, he's OVERPRIVILEGED." Muffy