4 ms·

Being able to ignore social pressures and just be yourself is definitely a benefit of privilege That's not privilege. That's the benefit of being on the aspie

Being able to ignore social pressures and just be yourself is definitely a benefit of privilege That's not privilege. That's the benefit of being on the aspie end of the neurotypical<->autistic spectrum. It's a lot easier to ignore (or even be unaware) social pressure and focus on tasks for hours on end when you have less dopamine in your brain than your peers. This whole "everything is a privilege" argument is pure nonsense most of the time it's trotted out.

cypher303 10y ago
While you have correctly identified a trait of those who graze the autistic spectrum, you also appear to have discounted the possibility of being able to ignore social pressure otherwise. I think you are kind of proving the point of the person you are responding to. To me it came off as if the comment made you uncomfortable, and you responded in a way that is, in my opinion, short-sighted. I believe what he meant is that often times with privilege, people don’t feel the need to defend a certain viewpoint - because they aren’t negatively affected by it. Disclaimer: I grew up poor as dirt in a house of 7 children, so I’m definitely not speaking from experience as far as being privileged goes. I never graduated college, I just read regular old books. I do have a younger brother who struggles with a slight case of autism though, and he has no interest in computers whatsoever. In fact his life is somewhat in shambles. Also, the term “asperger’s” has been deprecated.
- malandrew 10y ago
  First off, I didn't use the term asperger's. I used the term aspie. One is the DSM-IV term and the other is a derivative term used by the community of people on that end of the spectrum. I didn't suggest that there are no other possible contributors to being able to ignore social pressure. That's what you read into my comment. What I did do is dismiss the very handwavvy explanation of stating it's caused by "privilege", which is one of the most bullshit masturbatory terms to come out of liberal academia in a long time. It is not specific, measurable or testable. Hypotheses and theories based on it lack all the hallmarks of good science. If one wants to talk about something testable based on criteria like income, zip code, educational attainment of parents, or a variety of other aspects that are specific and measurable, that's great, but "privilege" is not specific nor measurable. “The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.” Philip K. Dick The term "privilege" is a weasel word and anyone interested in having an honest intellectual debate should reject it outright. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
cypher303 10y ago
I'd like to add though that I disagree with the parent comment about privilege putting people ahead in the moral sense. I believe that some of the most compassionate people have grown that way through hardship.
- grandalf 10y ago
  > I believe that some of the most compassionate people have grown that way through hardship This is very true, and all of the most dedicated physicians I know were inspired as children to pursue medicine because of some situation they were involved in involving the health of a loved one (or their own health). > putting people ahead in the moral sense Compassion is not the only relevant aspect of morality. The way I'd argue my point is that one of the big reasons we can all sit back and think about how to make the world a better place is because our basic needs are met. Over time, as humanity has overcome basic scarcity and basic fear, we have been able to look outward and prioritize things like making the world better for others. Someone who is privileged is more likely to have had an excellent teacher explain the labor movement or the holocaust, and is more likely to have vacationed to places where other ways of life (including far subpar standard of living) can be observed, or even gone on a humanitarian school-cation to help people in need. Experiences like this help to break a person out of his/her safe little world and help create an understanding of broader issues, problems, and opportunities. Meanwhile, the middle class kid's family got a nice new TV allowing a great view of music videos and action films. This is not about blame or credit. A person alive in 2017 America is more likely to think slavery abhorrent than a person alive in 1830 America. This isn't because there is something superior about modern people, it's because economic prosperity offers the luxury of thinking about others more empathetically. There are always outliers, people who are morally ahead of their time or unusual for their class. Nothing about my argument in this thread applies to them. I'm talking about the average person. Thus the average privileged person is simply ahead at the age of 18 relative to those from more humble backgrounds or from decades past. What scares me most is the large percentage of Harvard and Stanford grads who go into investment banking and similar careers. Those are fine choices for someone whose goal is to "level up" his/her family's wealth status in a single generation, but they are not the sorts of careers chosen by people who had the chance to develop moral clarity and self-actualization early on. It suggests a great deal of cynicism or timidness that should really not be the result of the best education in the world.

cypher303 10y ago

While you have correctly identified a trait of those who graze the autistic spectrum, you also appear to have discounted the possibility of being able to ignore social pressure otherwise. I think you are kind of proving the point of the person you are responding to. To me it came off as if the comment made you uncomfortable, and you responded in a way that is, in my opinion, short-sighted. I believe what he meant is that often times with privilege, people don’t feel the need to defend a certain viewpoint - because they aren’t negatively affected by it. Disclaimer: I grew up poor as dirt in a house of 7 children, so I’m definitely not speaking from experience as far as being privileged goes. I never graduated college, I just read regular old books. I do have a younger brother who struggles with a slight case of autism though, and he has no interest in computers whatsoever. In fact his life is somewhat in shambles. Also, the term “asperger’s” has been deprecated.

malandrew 10y ago
First off, I didn't use the term asperger's. I used the term aspie. One is the DSM-IV term and the other is a derivative term used by the community of people on that end of the spectrum. I didn't suggest that there are no other possible contributors to being able to ignore social pressure. That's what you read into my comment. What I did do is dismiss the very handwavvy explanation of stating it's caused by "privilege", which is one of the most bullshit masturbatory terms to come out of liberal academia in a long time. It is not specific, measurable or testable. Hypotheses and theories based on it lack all the hallmarks of good science. If one wants to talk about something testable based on criteria like income, zip code, educational attainment of parents, or a variety of other aspects that are specific and measurable, that's great, but "privilege" is not specific nor measurable. “The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.” Philip K. Dick The term "privilege" is a weasel word and anyone interested in having an honest intellectual debate should reject it outright. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

cypher303 10y ago

I'd like to add though that I disagree with the parent comment about privilege putting people ahead in the moral sense. I believe that some of the most compassionate people have grown that way through hardship.

grandalf 10y ago
> I believe that some of the most compassionate people have grown that way through hardship This is very true, and all of the most dedicated physicians I know were inspired as children to pursue medicine because of some situation they were involved in involving the health of a loved one (or their own health). > putting people ahead in the moral sense Compassion is not the only relevant aspect of morality. The way I'd argue my point is that one of the big reasons we can all sit back and think about how to make the world a better place is because our basic needs are met. Over time, as humanity has overcome basic scarcity and basic fear, we have been able to look outward and prioritize things like making the world better for others. Someone who is privileged is more likely to have had an excellent teacher explain the labor movement or the holocaust, and is more likely to have vacationed to places where other ways of life (including far subpar standard of living) can be observed, or even gone on a humanitarian school-cation to help people in need. Experiences like this help to break a person out of his/her safe little world and help create an understanding of broader issues, problems, and opportunities. Meanwhile, the middle class kid's family got a nice new TV allowing a great view of music videos and action films. This is not about blame or credit. A person alive in 2017 America is more likely to think slavery abhorrent than a person alive in 1830 America. This isn't because there is something superior about modern people, it's because economic prosperity offers the luxury of thinking about others more empathetically. There are always outliers, people who are morally ahead of their time or unusual for their class. Nothing about my argument in this thread applies to them. I'm talking about the average person. Thus the average privileged person is simply ahead at the age of 18 relative to those from more humble backgrounds or from decades past. What scares me most is the large percentage of Harvard and Stanford grads who go into investment banking and similar careers. Those are fine choices for someone whose goal is to "level up" his/her family's wealth status in a single generation, but they are not the sorts of careers chosen by people who had the chance to develop moral clarity and self-actualization early on. It suggests a great deal of cynicism or timidness that should really not be the result of the best education in the world.