Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Shut Up and Listen

whatever.scalzi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 115 posts

Re: Shut Up and Listen

#51

Post by mkr-hn »

Steuard wrote: post #31
jellicle wrote: post #4

That's a good old post by Scalzi, but the people who most need to pay attention to it are the ones least likely to pay attention to it. EDIT: He also has a current post: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/03/21/two-simple-observation...

There's hope, though: every time a link like this is posted, a few of the folks who haven't had their "ah-ha!" moments yet may get nudged in that direction (just as the commenter he quotes did). Those nudges do have an effect, and they do add up. Or at least, they did for me. I just wish there was a way to make it happen faster .

It took a few times for me, but it happened on forums and Twitter many months ago.

Re: Shut Up and Listen

#52

Post by revelation »

The concept of privilege only makes sense on a statistical basis. Whats the obsession with constantly applying it to single persons? That speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding. If being white is correlated with being high-earning, that doesn't mean every white is high-earning. That is just not the implication.

Re: Shut Up and Listen

#53

Post by jiggy2011 »

unalone wrote: post #44
jiggy2011 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have a low IQ, the amount of extra work you have to put in in order to successful in a well paying career will be far higher than someone of high intelligence. Being black or homosexual will work against you if you want to work in industries with strong institutionalised stigmas, being dumb will work against you in any industry.

Yes, which is why plenty of people think that capitalism is inherently flawed. A system which rewards production over anything is a system in which those who can't produce as effectively will be punished. Unless you truly believe that production is the end-all be-all of human existence, that's not a fair system. (There's also the problem of capitalism being really bad at properly valuing things but that's neither her…

It's not that various forms of discrimination don't exist. It's that some forms are considered more "just" than others.

If you are born with a low IQ, people will certainly judge you for it. You will also be punished for it, for example by scam artists who will take advantage of you. Then people will respond with stuff like "well, if your dumb enough to fall for that you deserve what you get".

So I think boiling down equality to a few pet issues as various movements want to do is a gross simplification.

As an example, poor areas in the UK are often considered some of the most racist. I think this is partly because people with low education and poor outlook will see an educated black lady complaining about equality on TV and think "wtf is she complaining for, I bet she earns more in a week than I do in a year!".

Re: Shut Up and Listen

#54

Post by mkr-hn »

revelation wrote: post #52

The concept of privilege only makes sense on a statistical basis. Whats the obsession with constantly applying it to single persons? That speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding. If being white is correlated with being high-earning, that doesn't mean every white is high-earning. That is just not the implication.

There's no easy way to tell who the outliers are, so it's common to apply an unfortunate heuristic. Especially if you find yourself low in the local spectrum.

Re: Shut Up and Listen

#55

Post by resu_nimda »

127 wrote: post #42
mistercow wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Just because Scalzi has problems with listening to what people are saying, does not mean that everyone else has. Yes, but I can assure you that when it comes to discussing privilege, well, yes, everyone else does have.

Privilege is a heavily loaded word that is difficult to use in context of contructive discussion. You are by default swallowing the feminist bait and playing by their rules. Making it impossible to gain any ground because of fallacious, circular logic. I'm not denying that privilege exist at all. I'm just saying that how it's understood and used is heavily biased and politicized. It would be much more productive to d…

FWIW, I found Scalzi's post to be much more constructive (not to mention well-written) than whatever agenda you're pushing here, which is coming across as fairly toxic...

It seems pretty clear that people's obliviousness to their own privilege is a much bigger problem than too many people "swallowing the feminist bait."

Re: Shut Up and Listen

#56

Post by beatpanda »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #35
beatpanda wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the point is, you're just imagining those things, which is what causes you to set up this neat little world where a black lesbian has an Ivy League education just because she's smart, ignoring all of the extra obstacles that would be in her way compared to someone with more social privilege. You're able to do this by comparing different kinds of circumstances — the person born with white and male privilege but li…

If you are born with a high IQ and a wealthy background that is more due to luck than any extra effort you have put in. Your ancestors effectively overcame these obstacles on your behalf, so in essence that is a form of privilege; just a different type.

All forms of what is called "privilege" are unearned advantages you get by being, in some way that you didn't choose, part of the dominant group in society. European cultural dominance is also, in a sense, work that was done "on my behalf" by my ancestors, whether I wanted that or not.

My point is to say it's multi-dimensional. A black lesbian attempting to get an Ivy League education, even if her parents can essentially purchase it, is still going to face significant obstacles to success.

There are a plethora of white male role models to look to for inspiration in nearly any professional field (even basketball!). Is the same true for black lesbians? What about fitting in at this theoretical Ivy League school once she gets there — is it going to be full of people like her, who she can relate to and learn from, or is it going to be alienating? And how will that affect her likelihood to finish school?

Lots of people with money and good educational pedigrees have to face the accusation their education was simply purchased by their parents, they they didn't get in "on merit". Our protagonist has to face not only that accusation, but the additional, much more common accusation that "affirmative action" got her a spot in this Ivy League institution.

So when and if she graduates, she will have worked harder and persevered through more than a white guy with the same wealth and IQ. And the point of talking about all this isn't to make you feel bad, or to say that one group is better than another — it's just to create understanding.

Re: Shut Up and Listen

#57

Post by JPKab »

jellicle wrote: post #4

That's a good old post by Scalzi, but the people who most need to pay attention to it are the ones least likely to pay attention to it. EDIT: He also has a current post: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/03/21/two-simple-observation...

I'm glad I read this. As a white boy who grew up in poverty like he did, his explanation of how wealthy people simply don't understand the priveledge they have, and connecting that to race really hit home.

I can only begin to understand the perks I get by being white and belonging to the mainstream, white collar culture. Growing up, people knew I lived in a trailer, and was therefore "white trash." The fact that I spoke in the dialect of my family (a thick, Appalachian accent which is itself a relic of heavy Ulster Scots settlement of the region) marked me as an outsider when I arrived at college courtesy of a wealth coal-man's scholarship and heapings of Pell Grants. I am now able to shed this accent, this marker of "inferiority" at will. My brothers and sisters of color are unable to shed the markers which make them stand out as outsiders.

There is one thankful trend I have observed: I have seen prejudiced people become less numerous, and less likely to hold positions of power than they used to, but it is a slow process. The minions which often guard the doors to the hiring process are often samll minded, petty bigots, unbeknownst to their leadership. They see "Tyrone" on a job application, and it gets moved to the "no" pile. I'm glad my father didn't name me "Jethro." Perhaps I would have been marked out as inferior by proxy of my "hillbilly" name.

Re: Shut Up and Listen

#58

Post by unalone »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #53
unalone wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, which is why plenty of people think that capitalism is inherently flawed. A system which rewards production over anything is a system in which those who can't produce as effectively will be punished. Unless you truly believe that production is the end-all be-all of human existence, that's not a fair system. (There's also the problem of capitalism being really bad at properly valuing things but that's neither her…

It's not that various forms of discrimination don't exist. It's that some forms are considered more "just" than others. If you are born with a low IQ, people will certainly judge you for it. You will also be punished for it, for example by scam artists who will take advantage of you. Then people will respond with stuff like "well, if your dumb enough to fall for that you deserve what you get". So I think boiling down…

You... are aware that there's a huge movement against treating people with low IQs like they're subhuman, right? There's a thread currently on the front page in which people are arguing about whether or not the word "retarded" should be used as a casual insult.

I don't understand what your end goal is here. Either we talk about imbalances or we don't. And if we do, we have to talk about specific imbalances, or else they don't get fixed. This is a specific imbalance that's engendering (ahem) a lot of discussion recently, and it's about time that that discussion's being had. I'll say again that if you want to post about the disadvantages of having a low IQ, I'll gladly upvote it, but it seems like you're saying that because other types of discrimination exist, we should stop talking about this one. Which is absurd.

Re: Shut Up and Listen

#59

Post by Steuard »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #13

I think that the biggest privilege one can have, at least when it comes to matters of career and finance is being born to middle-class or better parents and having an above average IQ. I would imagine a lesbian black woman with an Ivy league education has much greater odds of success than a straight white guy from the trailer park/slum who struggles with reading/writing skills. I find it interesting that it is genera…

Others have responded to parts of this already, so I won't repeat their points. But one issue that I haven't seen anyone comment on is that race and sex are very overt traits, while family wealth and IQ are a good bit less obvious at a glance.

Being born in a poor family makes life much harder, no question, but (e.g.) if a straight white man from a trailer park does get into a good college then the people around him won't immediately guess his background (and judge him for it). A lot of them will make the high-probability assumption that his family is similar to their own, and that implicit sense of kinship will go a long way toward making him a welcome part of the community.

A person who's black or female in that same environment could hardly expect to have the same experience: those traits are in most cases obvious at a glance. If a teacher or a peer has a prejudice against both "blacks" and "people from trailer parks" (consciously or unconsciously), the black student will definitely suffer from it while the poor white student may luck out. And there's little chance that privileged white guys will unthinkingly assume that a black student is actually white or that a woman is actually a man and thus feel that implicit sense of kinship.

Re: Shut Up and Listen

#60

Post by nollidge »

mikecane wrote: post #48
nollidge wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Viewing the world through cynicism-colored glasses.

OK, I object to the misuse of the term "cynic." http://mikecane2008.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/in-praise-of-th... Cynics would point to the very things Scalzi does.

For better or worse, the word "cynic" has changed meaning over time. My usage matches definition #1 here:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cynic?r=75&src=re...

Post reply on HN