Shut Up and Listen • Hacker News Board

Re: Shut Up and Listen

#101

Post by sophacles » Fri, Mar 22, 2013, 5:22 PM UTC

jiggy2011 wrote: post #97

sophacles wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Being born in a trailer park now means being born stupid? This is goalpost moving. I didn't say pass for being "upper class". I was discussing passing for being "not from the trailer park". Lots of people at Harvard are not wealthy, just have good grades and SAT scores.

Being smart is a huge privilege.

Sure. Sometimes. It can be an exclusionary factor too.

The point of privilege discussions tho isn't to eliminate all privileges. It is to recognize them, and work towards eliminating the implicit ones, by making them explicit. And to further decide which ones make sense and which ones don't.

Assuming that someone is respectable based on skin color or iq or gender or whatever is a privilege that doesn't make sense. Assuming that someone is qualified to gain the benefit of an institution of learning based on a shown track record of learning well does - IMO.

Recognizing that I have opportunities because I was unfairly given a pass by the cops when I was holding drugs, even though my buddy who wasn't was searched, is not self-flagellation. It is a simple fact of what happened. Recognizing privilege isn't an act of self hate. Using my privilege to influence the reduction of privileges that make no sense isn't self-hate either, it is an attempt to reduce the absurd. It's recognition that things are fucked up, and trying to correct it.

Re: Shut Up and Listen

#102

Post by shardling » Fri, Mar 22, 2013, 5:39 PM UTC

beachstartup wrote: post #77

shardling wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a 5'6" white guy weighing 120lb. I don't feel fear walking through dark parking lots. The shortest path between my house and the closest grocery is through a large, poorly lit lot. The better lit street route would add, oh, about a minute to the walk. I would absolutely not walk through there if I was a woman. I don't really mind the small chance of being robbed -- a small chance of being raped is a completely d…

"small chance of being robbed" do it in a bad neighborhood at the wrong time/place and this turns into "large chance of being cornered, beaten for being white/outsider/unknown, robbed, and if you put up any resistance, killed." all your anecdote tells me is you don't venture far from your own safety zones. my point is a bank, board room, police station, or any number of other places is a MUCH BETTER place to illustra…

Ah, sorry -- I somehow misread your initial post. I was speaking specifically about male privilege.

But to be fair, so was whoever used that example. It is talking about a particular type of privilege, and how we might not even notice when we have it. It wasn't supposed to indicate all types of straight white privilege.

Re: Shut Up and Listen

#103

Post by mikecane » Fri, Mar 22, 2013, 5:44 PM UTC

unalone wrote: post #99

mikecane wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That matters not to Cynics and is only proof of the very corruption we mock.

There's something ironic about a cynic, in the classic sense of "question everything and undermine assertions", protesting the corruption of his own self-declared title. ;-)

The Ironics are a different school of thought.

Re: Shut Up and Listen

#104

Post by mistercow » Fri, Mar 22, 2013, 5:54 PM UTC

bromang wrote: post #89

mistercow wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I'm sorry, I mistakenly engaged a troll. I'll stop now.

welp, an argument you can't win! Time to insult people!

Once someone has preemptively labeled anything you might say as "dogma", there is no argument. I don't believe in drinking from poisoned wells.

Re: Shut Up and Listen

#105

Post by beatpanda » Fri, Mar 22, 2013, 5:56 PM UTC

GHFigs wrote: post #83

beatpanda wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 essenti…

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? Black lesbians are as free to look up to white male role models as anybody else, just as I'm free to not care about someone's race, gender, or sexuality when I look to them as a role model. (Or religion, ethnicity, etc.) Lots of people with money and good…

Saying that other people had to work harder than you is not the same as saying you are lazy. It sounds like you're projecting.

Re: Shut Up and Listen

#106

Post by btilly » Fri, Mar 22, 2013, 6:18 PM UTC

mtrimpe wrote: post #92

btilly wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When oppressed people reach recognizable pinnacles of success, like an Ivy League education, it's because they worked harder than lots of other people might have had to, despite other advantages they might have had. That would be better than the world we have. Until I moved to the USA and observed the process first hand at an Ivy League school, I would never have credited the claim that there are people whose whole l…

I'm not American but don't you have the same problem with rich kids whose parents donate buildings to get their kids through school? If so, do you also discount the trappings of success of every person that looks like he could have rich parents?

That problem does exist, but happens to fewer people. And in my experience, those legacy kids tend to be quite well prepared, and from what I saw were judged to the same standards as other people. (They did, of course, have the option of choosing easier courses if they didn't want to work hard. But so did everyone else...)

Furthermore it matters less in the work place. Because if your parents can donate buildings to get you into a school, your parents generally can arrange to help you get employed. Hence I as a random software developer am unlikely to be in a position of deciding whether a random rich kid should be hired as my peer.

Unlikely, but not impossible. Several jobs back I worked fairly closely with a couple of "legacy" kids. They worked twice as hard as anyone else because they were afraid that they would be seen as just spoiled rich kids. Anecdotal, but it did not leave me dreading working with legacies in the future.

Re: Shut Up and Listen

#107

Post by camelite » Fri, Mar 22, 2013, 6:25 PM UTC

unalone wrote: post #70

camelite wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly, but irrelevant. I think he is addressing male and female feminists - women who don't think their voices are heard and men who've already had some sort of come-to-Jesus moment regarding "privilege". To me - not exactly anti-feminist but certainly anti-a lot of people who call themselves feminists, it comes across as a load of smarmy, self-congratulatory, intolerant not-even-wrong rhetoric and I suspect that…

It's also possible that your perspective on feminist issues is distorted enough that while you're interpreting this as smarmy and self-congratulatory, it is in fact reasonable and well-argued. Right? That sort of argument by its nature swings both ways. Clearly a lot of people here find something worthwhile in how Scalzi writes about this, and some of the literally hundreds of commenters on that blog post are at leas…

>It's also possible that your perspective on feminist issues is distorted enough that while you're interpreting this as smarmy and self-congratulatory, it is in fact reasonable and well-argued. Right?

It's always possible, but that's precisely the problem with false-consciousness arguments presented without substantiation: it's always possible.

For example some people might see the habitual accusation of distorted perspective as the nervous thought stopper of an ideologue faced with contrary experience.

> Perhaps you'll get something out of them, if not out of Mr. Scalzi's post itself. I do hope so, because from where I'm sitting you're the one being intolerant and not even wrong,

Do you really think that or is it just a thematically convenient inversion?

> I'd love if this could at least make you pause and reconsider your perspective.

I hereby coin the term 'fem-splaining' to label this sort of concerned exhortation towards self-reflection so honest you'll realise you were wrong all along. It's not bad advice in general but in the context of an argument on the internet, difficult to accept as good faith (I'm not accusing you of acting in bad faith here)

edit: improved flow

Re: Shut Up and Listen

#108

Post by btilly » Fri, Mar 22, 2013, 6:40 PM UTC

sophacles wrote: post #84

btilly wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When oppressed people reach recognizable pinnacles of success, like an Ivy League education, it's because they worked harder than lots of other people might have had to, despite other advantages they might have had. That would be better than the world we have. Until I moved to the USA and observed the process first hand at an Ivy League school, I would never have credited the claim that there are people whose whole l…

It seems that your frustration is that some people now have a privilege they previously didn't have. This makes sense, but the very first statement you said in light of it suggests that you are turning a blind eye to other privileges. To say that the way things work with some people getting privileges and others not - therefore having to work harder - is ideal, then complaining that some people have to work harder an…

I have no problem in accepting the existence of privileges. Some are rich, some are tall, some are smart, etc.

My objection is that specific accomplishments should mean specific things. The meaning of what you need to accomplish to get a specific degree should not change because you're black and threaten a lawsuit. If you don't know how to invert a 3x3 matrix, you shouldn't be getting a masters in math.

The ultra-PC crowd seems to want it both ways. They want minorities to be given degrees more easily than privileged white kids. And then they want the degrees handed out to minorities to be treated as having the same meaning as degrees handed out to those privileged white kids. But there is a fundamental contradiction here. If an advanced math degree means something different about your qualifications based on who you are, then people will learn that and won't treat that degree equally.

But, how would I solve the problem? Quite simply - I'd tackle it like our military does. To achieve a given credential you have to perform to the same level on the same test no matter who you are. If you are someone whose background did not prepare you, extra assistance will be made available to help you catch up. Make the credential mean the same, and people will learn that it does and will learn to treat it the same. You are then laying the foundation for people to treat minorities equally in the future - not because someone tells them to - but because it makes sense for them to do so.

(I keep resisting writing a blog post about how unequal high schools make it so that the legally safe way to hire for basic literacy is to require a college degree - which actually discriminates more strongly by race than the legally unsafe approach of being willing to hire high school kids that can demonstrate basic literacy. It is really sad and silly, but true.)

Re: Shut Up and Listen

#109

Post by GHFigs » Fri, Mar 22, 2013, 6:41 PM UTC

beatpanda wrote: post #105

GHFigs wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? Black lesbians are as free to look up to white male role models as anybody else, just as I'm free to not care about someone's race, gender, or sexuality when I look to them as a role model. (Or religion, ethnicity, etc.) Lots of people with money and good…

Saying that other people had to work harder than you is not the same as saying you are lazy. It sounds like you're projecting.

I'm asking you to consider the possibility that you've failed to communicate the message you intended, instead of attacking people for not getting it.

Re: Shut Up and Listen

#110

Post by GHFigs » Fri, Mar 22, 2013, 6:57 PM UTC

jack-r-abbit wrote: post #100

mtrimpe wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not American but don't you have the same problem with rich kids whose parents donate buildings to get their kids through school? If so, do you also discount the trappings of success of every person that looks like he could have rich parents?

Is there really a problem in the US with a huge number of people donating buildings to schools to get their kids in? I did not realize this happens on a large enough scale to make that an actual issue.

It's less literal than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_admission