3 ms·

> And my point is, looking back those people will say "I am here because I worked hard and everyone one else who is complaining is kind of lazy and should have

> And my point is, looking back those people will say "I am here because I worked hard and everyone one else who is complaining is kind of lazy and should have worked hard as That's a ridiculous straw man. I don't think anyone in this thread would agree with that statement. > Those are good to describe how they got to the position of privilege. Which often has a mix of things like luck, hard work, and others. That is why used the word. Using something like "strategic life advantage" sounds a bit odd though. Of course we all rely on a bit of luck and help from others. But the problem with telling someone you've never met before that they need to "check their privilege" is that you don't know a thing about them. It's offensive in exactly the same way that accusing the poor of being lazy is. If you don't take the time to get to know someone and learn about what they've been through and why they are where they are then you don't get to say things like "you're lazy" or "you're privileged". If you'll pardon my French, "you don't fucking know me".

rdtsc 11y ago
> "I am here because I worked hard and everyone one else who is complaining is kind of lazy and should have worked hard as Nobody here does but it is a common attitude, I have heard it many times from conservative acquaintances and family. This phenomenon was epitomized by the "welfare queen" PR term in US in the 90s and early 2000s, and to some extend I believe "unwed single mother" in UK. It as a figure put up a prototype of how poor people are just waiting for handouts, are lazy and if they just work harder would be successful business owners. > to "check their privilege" I didn't say that. Is that a strawman I see ;-) ? > If you don't take the time to get to know someone and learn about what they've been through I didn't direct my comments at anyone in particular. I responded to a comment because they brought an interesting point my mind but I didn't accuse or insult them. What I said in general is that there is a tendency for people who have made it to ascribe their results to their hard work and willpower even if in reality it was a complicated mix of country they were born, parents, good networking (friends), etc. > If you'll pardon my French, "you don't fucking know me". Alrighty then...
- marknutter 11y ago
  > It as a figure put up a prototype of how poor people are just waiting for handouts, are lazy and if they just work harder would be successful business owners. Kind of like how the social justice crowd has put up a prototype of rich white people as being privileged, uncaring, willfully ignorant, and unsympathetic. It kind of sucks to be generalized, doesn't it? > > to "check their privilege" I didn't say that. Is that a strawman I see ;-) ? Good Lord, pedant much? I knew when I wrote that phrase I should have worded it differently but I gave you too much credit. You know what I mean – I'm talking about people, like you, who like to remind other people of their privilege. > I didn't direct my comments at anyone in particular. I responded to a comment because they brought an interesting point my mind but I didn't accuse or insult them. That's exactly my point. You directed your comments at large swaths of people whom you know nothing about. It's like me saying "poor minorities are just lazy". > > If you'll pardon my French, "you don't fucking know me". Alrighty then... Are you struggling with this conversation? I would hope that you understood by "you" I meant anybody who tries to generalize me with statistics, and not "you" rdtsc.
eropple 11y ago
As a male, I do not fear being date-raped, I do not fear being accosted walking alone at night, I do not worry that I am paid less because of my gender, I do not fear that my career path will be harmed because an employer is afraid to hire or promote me because I may choose to have children. And a white person in the United States, I am likely to get more callbacks on a resume for a job. I can walk down the street, and not have a very tangible fear fill the pit of my stomach that I may hassled by a passing cop. If a cop does wish to speak to me, I do not have to adopt a subservient posture out of fear of being harmed by an official of the state because of the color of my skin. They don't need to know you to point out that the hand you are dealt becomes the hand you play--and that, statistically and sociologically speaking, the hand of a white man is overwhelmingly superior, almost without exception, to that of a black woman in the United States. It is not, to borrow a phrase, about you. It's about systems, and it is largely accepted that the rush to personalize situations is done by people in a position of relative privilege. Because you want it to be about you, so you diminish that privilege. It's a natural reaction; I've done it too. But it's wrong, and you are punching downward at people who have it worse than you, and you should stop.
- marknutter 11y ago
  So if I say statistically and sociologically speaking, black people have lower IQ's, have a more destructive culture of crime, and are more likely to abuse social programs than white people am I somehow protected from scrutiny? Is my generalization any more offensive than yours, really? > It's about systems, and it is largely accepted that the rush to personalize situations is done by people in a position of relative privilege. It's about systems and it's about individuals. People who fight for social justice personalize situations all the time. When statistics come out that don't favor their agenda, they shift the focus to the personal level as well. And they should, because we need to all remember that it is about the individual. As much as sociologist and statisticians would like to believe, we do not all fit neatly into well defined groups. It's insulting to insinuate that we do.

rdtsc 11y ago

> "I am here because I worked hard and everyone one else who is complaining is kind of lazy and should have worked hard as Nobody here does but it is a common attitude, I have heard it many times from conservative acquaintances and family. This phenomenon was epitomized by the "welfare queen" PR term in US in the 90s and early 2000s, and to some extend I believe "unwed single mother" in UK. It as a figure put up a prototype of how poor people are just waiting for handouts, are lazy and if they just work harder would be successful business owners. > to "check their privilege" I didn't say that. Is that a strawman I see ;-) ? > If you don't take the time to get to know someone and learn about what they've been through I didn't direct my comments at anyone in particular. I responded to a comment because they brought an interesting point my mind but I didn't accuse or insult them. What I said in general is that there is a tendency for people who have made it to ascribe their results to their hard work and willpower even if in reality it was a complicated mix of country they were born, parents, good networking (friends), etc. > If you'll pardon my French, "you don't fucking know me". Alrighty then...

marknutter 11y ago
> It as a figure put up a prototype of how poor people are just waiting for handouts, are lazy and if they just work harder would be successful business owners. Kind of like how the social justice crowd has put up a prototype of rich white people as being privileged, uncaring, willfully ignorant, and unsympathetic. It kind of sucks to be generalized, doesn't it? > > to "check their privilege" I didn't say that. Is that a strawman I see ;-) ? Good Lord, pedant much? I knew when I wrote that phrase I should have worded it differently but I gave you too much credit. You know what I mean – I'm talking about people, like you, who like to remind other people of their privilege. > I didn't direct my comments at anyone in particular. I responded to a comment because they brought an interesting point my mind but I didn't accuse or insult them. That's exactly my point. You directed your comments at large swaths of people whom you know nothing about. It's like me saying "poor minorities are just lazy". > > If you'll pardon my French, "you don't fucking know me". Alrighty then... Are you struggling with this conversation? I would hope that you understood by "you" I meant anybody who tries to generalize me with statistics, and not "you" rdtsc.

eropple 11y ago

As a male, I do not fear being date-raped, I do not fear being accosted walking alone at night, I do not worry that I am paid less because of my gender, I do not fear that my career path will be harmed because an employer is afraid to hire or promote me because I may choose to have children. And a white person in the United States, I am likely to get more callbacks on a resume for a job. I can walk down the street, and not have a very tangible fear fill the pit of my stomach that I may hassled by a passing cop. If a cop does wish to speak to me, I do not have to adopt a subservient posture out of fear of being harmed by an official of the state because of the color of my skin. They don't need to know you to point out that the hand you are dealt becomes the hand you play--and that, statistically and sociologically speaking, the hand of a white man is overwhelmingly superior, almost without exception, to that of a black woman in the United States. It is not, to borrow a phrase, about you. It's about systems, and it is largely accepted that the rush to personalize situations is done by people in a position of relative privilege. Because you want it to be about you, so you diminish that privilege. It's a natural reaction; I've done it too. But it's wrong, and you are punching downward at people who have it worse than you, and you should stop.

marknutter 11y ago
So if I say statistically and sociologically speaking, black people have lower IQ's, have a more destructive culture of crime, and are more likely to abuse social programs than white people am I somehow protected from scrutiny? Is my generalization any more offensive than yours, really? > It's about systems, and it is largely accepted that the rush to personalize situations is done by people in a position of relative privilege. It's about systems and it's about individuals. People who fight for social justice personalize situations all the time. When statistics come out that don't favor their agenda, they shift the focus to the personal level as well. And they should, because we need to all remember that it is about the individual. As much as sociologist and statisticians would like to believe, we do not all fit neatly into well defined groups. It's insulting to insinuate that we do.