5 ms·

That's a very easy thing to say from a place of privilege, with current and historical institutions set up to protect and enforce your (and my) interests. Edit

That's a very easy thing to say from a place of privilege, with current and historical institutions set up to protect and enforce your (and my) interests. Edit: Here, I'll put it better: by telling people from historically disadvantaged groups to buck up and be quiet, you're effectively saying, "I reject your understanding of your experiences, so your perspective is invalid."

jnbiche 11y ago
Do you know seibelj? Just curious how you knew s/he was in a place of privilege.
- __derek__ 11y ago
  I don't know that person, but consistency in usernames makes it easy to check before posting a comment with that assumption.
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
That's an unfalsifiable accusation of original sin.
lpsz 11y ago
I can't tell if you're trolling, but "check your privilege" is one heck of a way to derail any argument. There is no virtue in being less privileged, and more privileged aren't necessarily morally bankrupt.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > more privileged aren't necessarily morally bankrupt Not at all. Humans naturally assume their experiences and perspectives are generally shared; it's just the way we function. In this case, it makes dealing with the problems of society difficult because if you don't have those problems, you generally are unware of them and their true impact. "Let them eat cake", said one privileged person. Generally, it results in people thinking an issue isn't a big priority or can be put off. It isn't keeping them up at night, after all. See MLK's writing on it, which I posted here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10571341 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10571341
- danharaj 11y ago
  That's not the point of the phrase, and even I think it's a bit tired by now. The phrase asks the speaker to reevaluate their unspoken assumptions. I think 'lighten up and accept that the world is shitty' is a reactionary mode of thought, as if the 'real world' is a vast, static, unassailable entity and not an ever-changing tapestry of human activity. It is not a reasoned argument, it is not a response in a conversation, it is a demand that people shut the fuck up because the things they care about aren't worth caring about. "check your privilege" is a diplomatic and concise way of saying 'you have no fucking idea what you're talking about, and yet you feel entitled to control the conversation; maybe stop doing that?'.
  - shaftoe 11y ago
    "Check your privilege" is also a concise way of telling someone that, based upon factors of which they have little or no control, whatever opinion they are expressing has little or no value because they do not or cannot understand viewpoints from a different set of experiences. Anotherwords, it's passive-aggressive bullying and belongs in the same category as telling a woman to stop worrying her pretty little head about such issues.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - rdancer 11y ago
      You and the grandparent don't necessarily disagree. "Check your privilege" is a great thing to say in a discussion, and an idiotic thing to say in a debate. It's been thoroughly discredited by being used as an ad-hominem attack in place of an argument, but sometimes people do ride in on a high horse, and asking them how the weather is up there may be the most appropriate question. You're both right.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
drumdance 11y ago
How about asking them to behave like their role models? I cannot imagine MLK refusing to talk to the media, or his follower breaking into tears because someone said something they didn't like. He loved the media because he knew it was his best ally. The media loved him because he was courageous.
- Retra 11y ago
  Not everyone knows their role model. I mean, the closest thing to my role model would be Richard Feynman, but there's no way I could behave like him. I wouldn't even know where to begin.
  - robotresearcher 11y ago
    Bongoes.
- cup 11y ago
  MLK would have probably supported them: First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."
- archagon 11y ago
  Many people would parse this as "I'll listen to you, but only if you behave how I see fit." Their response would be that they definitely don't have to ask you for permission to speak up.
  - drumdance 11y ago
iamsohungry 11y ago
I can't speak for seibelj, but I don't think you that telling people to stop being offended so easily amounts to telling disadvantaged groups to buck up and be quiet. Personally, I want people to start a conversation with me if I do something that hurts them. But I also have the basic expectation that people take the time to understand and consider what I am saying before they get offended. I also don't think that "I reject your understanding of your experience, so your perspective is invalid" is an unreasonable thing to say. Sometimes people don't understand their experiences, and as a result, they misjudge the nature of reality. The recent controversy at Yale over cultural appropriation in Halloween costumes is a good example: there were students saying that they couldn't go to class because they didn't feel safe after a professor made an argument that avoidance of cultural appropriation had to be balanced with free speech. I do reject that understanding of their experience; they experienced nothing that indicated they should feel unsafe. Nothing about the professor's measured statement of disagreement indicates danger. Their perspective on that topic was invalid. People's feelings aren't always valid; everyone is wrong some portion of the time. And that's true of disadvantaged people, too. If we accept the rule that every opinion from an underprivileged person is correct, we're opening ourselves to all sorts of wrong ideas. And if we discard all dissenting opinions from privileged people, we're closing ourselves to all sorts of correct ideas. Truth is not solely given to the disadvantaged.

jnbiche 11y ago

Do you know seibelj? Just curious how you knew s/he was in a place of privilege.

__derek__ 11y ago
I don't know that person, but consistency in usernames makes it easy to check before posting a comment with that assumption.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

That's an unfalsifiable accusation of original sin.

lpsz 11y ago

I can't tell if you're trolling, but "check your privilege" is one heck of a way to derail any argument. There is no virtue in being less privileged, and more privileged aren't necessarily morally bankrupt.

hackuser 11y ago
> more privileged aren't necessarily morally bankrupt Not at all. Humans naturally assume their experiences and perspectives are generally shared; it's just the way we function. In this case, it makes dealing with the problems of society difficult because if you don't have those problems, you generally are unware of them and their true impact. "Let them eat cake", said one privileged person. Generally, it results in people thinking an issue isn't a big priority or can be put off. It isn't keeping them up at night, after all. See MLK's writing on it, which I posted here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10571341 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10571341
danharaj 11y ago
That's not the point of the phrase, and even I think it's a bit tired by now. The phrase asks the speaker to reevaluate their unspoken assumptions. I think 'lighten up and accept that the world is shitty' is a reactionary mode of thought, as if the 'real world' is a vast, static, unassailable entity and not an ever-changing tapestry of human activity. It is not a reasoned argument, it is not a response in a conversation, it is a demand that people shut the fuck up because the things they care about aren't worth caring about. "check your privilege" is a diplomatic and concise way of saying 'you have no fucking idea what you're talking about, and yet you feel entitled to control the conversation; maybe stop doing that?'.
- shaftoe 11y ago
  "Check your privilege" is also a concise way of telling someone that, based upon factors of which they have little or no control, whatever opinion they are expressing has little or no value because they do not or cannot understand viewpoints from a different set of experiences. Anotherwords, it's passive-aggressive bullying and belongs in the same category as telling a woman to stop worrying her pretty little head about such issues.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - rdancer 11y ago
    You and the grandparent don't necessarily disagree. "Check your privilege" is a great thing to say in a discussion, and an idiotic thing to say in a debate. It's been thoroughly discredited by being used as an ad-hominem attack in place of an argument, but sometimes people do ride in on a high horse, and asking them how the weather is up there may be the most appropriate question. You're both right.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

drumdance 11y ago

How about asking them to behave like their role models? I cannot imagine MLK refusing to talk to the media, or his follower breaking into tears because someone said something they didn't like. He loved the media because he knew it was his best ally. The media loved him because he was courageous.

Retra 11y ago
Not everyone knows their role model. I mean, the closest thing to my role model would be Richard Feynman, but there's no way I could behave like him. I wouldn't even know where to begin.
- robotresearcher 11y ago
  Bongoes.
cup 11y ago
MLK would have probably supported them: First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."
archagon 11y ago
Many people would parse this as "I'll listen to you, but only if you behave how I see fit." Their response would be that they definitely don't have to ask you for permission to speak up.
- drumdance 11y ago

iamsohungry 11y ago

I can't speak for seibelj, but I don't think you that telling people to stop being offended so easily amounts to telling disadvantaged groups to buck up and be quiet. Personally, I want people to start a conversation with me if I do something that hurts them. But I also have the basic expectation that people take the time to understand and consider what I am saying before they get offended. I also don't think that "I reject your understanding of your experience, so your perspective is invalid" is an unreasonable thing to say. Sometimes people don't understand their experiences, and as a result, they misjudge the nature of reality. The recent controversy at Yale over cultural appropriation in Halloween costumes is a good example: there were students saying that they couldn't go to class because they didn't feel safe after a professor made an argument that avoidance of cultural appropriation had to be balanced with free speech. I do reject that understanding of their experience; they experienced nothing that indicated they should feel unsafe. Nothing about the professor's measured statement of disagreement indicates danger. Their perspective on that topic was invalid. People's feelings aren't always valid; everyone is wrong some portion of the time. And that's true of disadvantaged people, too. If we accept the rule that every opinion from an underprivileged person is correct, we're opening ourselves to all sorts of wrong ideas. And if we discard all dissenting opinions from privileged people, we're closing ourselves to all sorts of correct ideas. Truth is not solely given to the disadvantaged.