4 ms·

My favorite new ridiculous word is "silent technical privilege"[1] , according to which we now must apologize for having interests in technical subjects since c

My favorite new ridiculous word is "silent technical privilege"[1] , according to which we now must apologize for having interests in technical subjects since childhood, rather than socializing and getting drunk like rest of the "unfortunate" kids. [1] http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/01/programmer_privilege_as_an_asian_male_computer_science_major_everyone_gave.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/01/...

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
fao_ 10y ago
It isn't, and never has been, about apologising. It is about recognising that you had a step-up based on being part of a particular demographic, and then either acknowledging that other people won't necessarily have had those step-ups, helping to level the playing field by giving extra help to those who don't have that step-up, or both. So, basically equalising things a wee bit.
- morgante 10y ago
  This is a new low. Apparently putting in the work to learn things is now a "privilege." We made the choice to spend our formative years immersed in technology. We suffered as a result. Maybe the bullies should start by apologizing and inviting us to their parties instead of demanding that we give them jobs. To be clear, I do agree that being middle class and having free time as a teenager is a privilege. What I disagree with is that my choice to spend that time programming instead of partying is a privilege.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    > Maybe the bullies should start by apologizing and inviting us to their parties instead of demanding that we give them jobs. They have some nerve. They've already taken over the industry - your average programmer now is someone who picked software as a career path as an adult (starting university), and was not "into tech" as a kid. And now the already marginalized geeks are being called privileged?
  - lgessler 10y ago
    The premise you're assuming only holds if socioeconomics is constant. Imagine being the child of two software engineers living in a house in the suburbs with your own room and computer. Now imagine being the child of a single mother who works two minimum wage jobs and lives in a cramped apartment in the projects. If the latter child doesn't end up spending as much time programming as the former child, how much of it do you think was choice?
    - morgante 10y ago
      Maybe you missed the last paragraph of my comment? I absolutely agree with the notion of socioeconomic privilege. For what it's worth, I ended up making more than my (single) mother in my very first CS internship.
      - lgessler 10y ago
        Sorry, completely glossed over it. Looks like we agree on this :)
    - khnd 10y ago
      i dont think hn can imagine that hard
- exolymph 10y ago
  I agree with you, but beware the motte and bailey of social justice buzzwords: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-words-words-words/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-word...
- godembodied 10y ago
  helping to level the playing field by giving extra help to those who don't have that step-up Why does someone who is privileged have the obligation to help those that are not?
  - fao_ 10y ago
    From my system of morality, people have a responsibility to provide aid to those who are less well off, and alsoalso have a responsibility to provide knowledge to those who do not have it. I think this follows from the idea that we all have a right to life, dignity, and knowledge. However after some thought, and the rather unpleasant experience of having attempted to discuss and argue this point before, I do not think I can answer in a way that would convince you to change your current viewpoint, rather we would end up arguing opinions.
    - godembodied 10y ago
      From my system of morality... Why do you follow that system of morality and not another one? For example, people adopt and use Gauss's law, because they think it's objectively true. Is that the case with your moral system? Is that moral system objectively true or is it a matter of your opinion? ...idea that we all have a right to life, dignity, and knowledge. The question is whether this is actually true or not. Theory of evolution is an idea, but we ask whether it's true. We don't call it an idea and expect people to take it seriously. You have to provide some arguments that humans actually have right to life and that others have the obligation to help those in need. ...rather we would end up arguing opinions. Wait, so morality for you is a difference of opinions? Kinda like: 'I like chocolate ice cream, you like vanilla ice cream'.
      - fao_ 10y ago
        Is that moral system objectively true or is it a matter of your opinion? ... Theory of evolution is an idea ... Given relative morality (That everyone's moral views of the world differ in ways subtle to extreme), I don't think that morality is objectively debatable, since your view of the world is coloured by your system of morality. We can debate whether the theory of evolution is true because we have something other that we can compare against: 'Does this model accurately represent what is happening in the world', etc. Doing that with morality is impossible, it is a concept that is relevant only to humans. A half-baked example would be: If you kill a billion wildflowers, then that has a measurable effect on the surrounding environment, sure. But at the end of the day there is nothing to say whether the effect that had on the environment is good or bad. It is just an event, it happens, there isn't anything deeper here from an objective point of view. Right and wrong only come into it when you have a preference for a particular outcome. So you view this act as good if you have a preference towards the outcome of a city being built, or you view this as bad if you have a preference towards plant life being left intact. Since we all have different preferences for different outcomes, everybody's systems of morality are inherently different -- even if that difference is not pronounced in most cases. Wait, so morality for you is a difference of opinions? Kinda like: 'I like chocolate ice cream, you like vanilla ice cream'. That is one way you could state it, sure. Why do you follow that system of morality and not another one? I follow my system of morality because I have a preference against harming life. What I mean by this (ignoring the recursion, of course), is that I have been exposed to an overwhelming amount of stimuli, situations, and recollections where this opinion is presented as the preferable decision (Say, Star Trek, etc.), compared to the alternatives I have been exposed to.
- zo1 10y ago
  >"helping to level the playing field by giving extra help to those who don't have that step-up, or both." On a more overall point, I'd say that doing such a thing, even if noble and "well-meaning", actually demeans the work of the people that actually created the difference in "step-ups" as you refer to them in the first place. Some things are given to you by coincidence of birth and location. But other things, the really important ones, are given to you by your upbringing (notably, effort from your parents and family). I will not go beyond telling others what a difference that effort makes. If you never got it yourself, you have a chance to give it to someone else, and not repeat previous mistakes.
  - fao_ 10y ago
    How does it demean the work of those people? They worked for something (Better conditions for their children), and they got it. Whether or not it conveys an advantage over other people is irrelevant to the value of the work, and the results that work produced. Moreso, I think that we have a responsibility to provide that (better conditions) not only to our children, but also to whomever else we can.
  - yardie 10y ago
    When you try to help others understand technology better it does not demean your work. Quite the opposite, people see the work and understand the dedication that the people who write the tools they use put in. I mean if you understand art that you recognize that it's a lot of work even if you aren't an artist. Those that don't know just assume it's as simple as flicking paint on a canvas and charging a fortune. The same people will assume you can build a website for $100 because they have no knowledge on what the work requires.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- googletazer 10y ago
  I tried to recognize and acknowledge that I have a step up having earned an engineering degree and even gave some pointers on how to complete one with all the time constraings involved (sleeping on benches in university overnight in order to save time was one). Do you think anyone was interested?
RGamma 10y ago
That dichotomy is a false one, since you can do both (see e.g. demoscene) :)
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  I've been to a demoscene party and I agree wholeheartedly. Sceners really defy Ballmer Peak[0]. They can crank out coding awesomeness while being totally shitfaced. [0] - https://xkcd.com/323/ https://xkcd.com/323/
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
khnd 10y ago
i don't think its hard to imagine that a lot of people didn't have access to computers during their childhood. also there are lots of people that didn't have the right environment or parenting to name a few. since you mentioned "interests in technical subjects since childhood". i know the guy in the article mentions that he learned to computer from 18 on wards, also he went to MIT which i think says a lot about his childhood. maybe you think the word is ridiculous but i think there is room for more empathy.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

fao_ 10y ago

It isn't, and never has been, about apologising. It is about recognising that you had a step-up based on being part of a particular demographic, and then either acknowledging that other people won't necessarily have had those step-ups, helping to level the playing field by giving extra help to those who don't have that step-up, or both. So, basically equalising things a wee bit.

morgante 10y ago
This is a new low. Apparently putting in the work to learn things is now a "privilege." We made the choice to spend our formative years immersed in technology. We suffered as a result. Maybe the bullies should start by apologizing and inviting us to their parties instead of demanding that we give them jobs. To be clear, I do agree that being middle class and having free time as a teenager is a privilege. What I disagree with is that my choice to spend that time programming instead of partying is a privilege.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  > Maybe the bullies should start by apologizing and inviting us to their parties instead of demanding that we give them jobs. They have some nerve. They've already taken over the industry - your average programmer now is someone who picked software as a career path as an adult (starting university), and was not "into tech" as a kid. And now the already marginalized geeks are being called privileged?
- lgessler 10y ago
  The premise you're assuming only holds if socioeconomics is constant. Imagine being the child of two software engineers living in a house in the suburbs with your own room and computer. Now imagine being the child of a single mother who works two minimum wage jobs and lives in a cramped apartment in the projects. If the latter child doesn't end up spending as much time programming as the former child, how much of it do you think was choice?
  - morgante 10y ago
    Maybe you missed the last paragraph of my comment? I absolutely agree with the notion of socioeconomic privilege. For what it's worth, I ended up making more than my (single) mother in my very first CS internship.
    - lgessler 10y ago
      Sorry, completely glossed over it. Looks like we agree on this :)
  - khnd 10y ago
    i dont think hn can imagine that hard
exolymph 10y ago
I agree with you, but beware the motte and bailey of social justice buzzwords: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-words-words-words/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-word...
godembodied 10y ago
helping to level the playing field by giving extra help to those who don't have that step-up Why does someone who is privileged have the obligation to help those that are not?
- fao_ 10y ago
  From my system of morality, people have a responsibility to provide aid to those who are less well off, and alsoalso have a responsibility to provide knowledge to those who do not have it. I think this follows from the idea that we all have a right to life, dignity, and knowledge. However after some thought, and the rather unpleasant experience of having attempted to discuss and argue this point before, I do not think I can answer in a way that would convince you to change your current viewpoint, rather we would end up arguing opinions.
  - godembodied 10y ago
    From my system of morality... Why do you follow that system of morality and not another one? For example, people adopt and use Gauss's law, because they think it's objectively true. Is that the case with your moral system? Is that moral system objectively true or is it a matter of your opinion? ...idea that we all have a right to life, dignity, and knowledge. The question is whether this is actually true or not. Theory of evolution is an idea, but we ask whether it's true. We don't call it an idea and expect people to take it seriously. You have to provide some arguments that humans actually have right to life and that others have the obligation to help those in need. ...rather we would end up arguing opinions. Wait, so morality for you is a difference of opinions? Kinda like: 'I like chocolate ice cream, you like vanilla ice cream'.
    - fao_ 10y ago
      Is that moral system objectively true or is it a matter of your opinion? ... Theory of evolution is an idea ... Given relative morality (That everyone's moral views of the world differ in ways subtle to extreme), I don't think that morality is objectively debatable, since your view of the world is coloured by your system of morality. We can debate whether the theory of evolution is true because we have something other that we can compare against: 'Does this model accurately represent what is happening in the world', etc. Doing that with morality is impossible, it is a concept that is relevant only to humans. A half-baked example would be: If you kill a billion wildflowers, then that has a measurable effect on the surrounding environment, sure. But at the end of the day there is nothing to say whether the effect that had on the environment is good or bad. It is just an event, it happens, there isn't anything deeper here from an objective point of view. Right and wrong only come into it when you have a preference for a particular outcome. So you view this act as good if you have a preference towards the outcome of a city being built, or you view this as bad if you have a preference towards plant life being left intact. Since we all have different preferences for different outcomes, everybody's systems of morality are inherently different -- even if that difference is not pronounced in most cases. Wait, so morality for you is a difference of opinions? Kinda like: 'I like chocolate ice cream, you like vanilla ice cream'. That is one way you could state it, sure. Why do you follow that system of morality and not another one? I follow my system of morality because I have a preference against harming life. What I mean by this (ignoring the recursion, of course), is that I have been exposed to an overwhelming amount of stimuli, situations, and recollections where this opinion is presented as the preferable decision (Say, Star Trek, etc.), compared to the alternatives I have been exposed to.
zo1 10y ago
>"helping to level the playing field by giving extra help to those who don't have that step-up, or both." On a more overall point, I'd say that doing such a thing, even if noble and "well-meaning", actually demeans the work of the people that actually created the difference in "step-ups" as you refer to them in the first place. Some things are given to you by coincidence of birth and location. But other things, the really important ones, are given to you by your upbringing (notably, effort from your parents and family). I will not go beyond telling others what a difference that effort makes. If you never got it yourself, you have a chance to give it to someone else, and not repeat previous mistakes.
- fao_ 10y ago
  How does it demean the work of those people? They worked for something (Better conditions for their children), and they got it. Whether or not it conveys an advantage over other people is irrelevant to the value of the work, and the results that work produced. Moreso, I think that we have a responsibility to provide that (better conditions) not only to our children, but also to whomever else we can.
- yardie 10y ago
  When you try to help others understand technology better it does not demean your work. Quite the opposite, people see the work and understand the dedication that the people who write the tools they use put in. I mean if you understand art that you recognize that it's a lot of work even if you aren't an artist. Those that don't know just assume it's as simple as flicking paint on a canvas and charging a fortune. The same people will assume you can build a website for $100 because they have no knowledge on what the work requires.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
googletazer 10y ago
I tried to recognize and acknowledge that I have a step up having earned an engineering degree and even gave some pointers on how to complete one with all the time constraings involved (sleeping on benches in university overnight in order to save time was one). Do you think anyone was interested?

RGamma 10y ago

That dichotomy is a false one, since you can do both (see e.g. demoscene) :)

TeMPOraL 10y ago
I've been to a demoscene party and I agree wholeheartedly. Sceners really defy Ballmer Peak[0]. They can crank out coding awesomeness while being totally shitfaced. [0] - https://xkcd.com/323/ https://xkcd.com/323/

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

khnd 10y ago

i don't think its hard to imagine that a lot of people didn't have access to computers during their childhood. also there are lots of people that didn't have the right environment or parenting to name a few. since you mentioned "interests in technical subjects since childhood". i know the guy in the article mentions that he learned to computer from 18 on wards, also he went to MIT which i think says a lot about his childhood. maybe you think the word is ridiculous but i think there is room for more empathy.