4 ms·

>The leadership consists of very privileged people Same problem. Who's to say they are "privileged" as opposed to being hard working / talented people? You're

>The leadership consists of very privileged people Same problem. Who's to say they are "privileged" as opposed to being hard working / talented people? You're pushing the same narrative; white men in positions of power are privileged and don't really deserve what they have. Nonsense. Sometimes that's true, sometimes it's not. Either way it's a useless, tribal way of thinking that does more harm than good. It's completely fair to comment on this because it is the basis of the GP's argument.

DoreenMichele 8y ago
I imagine the leadership of a company like Twitter make really good money, have substantial power and don't have the problems of your average working stiff, regardless of skin color, gender etc. It's sort of tautalogical to say "People in power don't live like the rest of the world." And this fact has been a problem in terms of creating policies that work well for the masses since time immemorial.
- EpicEng 8y ago
  It's one thing to say that people in positions of power, on average, have not directly experienced the harassment or abuse that minorities or people belonging to marginalized groups have. That's fair and may account for some level of ignorance on their part. It is another to say that they _do not care about these things_ specifically because they are a member of a certain class/race/gender/whatever. It's an important distinction as it sets the parameters by which we engage in conversation and debate. If you begin the conversation by accusing the other side of being inherently bigoted then there is no civil or useful exchange of ideas to be had. It puts the other side in a defensive posture from the get go and only leads to more tribal group-think.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    And you refusing to accept my reframing as valid intentionally digs this hole deeper. This is a perpetual problem where one group feels unheard, unserved, left out, etc and then they complain about that and then are told their complaints aren't valid because they said them in a not nice enough fashion or something. Both sides need to give a little here if we aren't going to remain stuck on such topics. And expecting all that giving to come from women, people of color, and other underprivileged groups is merely entrenching white male privilege in a really ugly, toxic manner.
    - EpicEng 8y ago
      >And you refusing to accept my reframing as valid intentionally digs this hole deeper. Because I don't believe it is valid. Class/color/gender are not the only influencers on someone's decision making process, yet you two seem to think that's all we need to consider. Where is the evidence that these people don't care about abuse and harassment because of their class and color? I see a pretty damning statement which includes zero evidence, just what someone believes to be true for <reasons>. So no, I won't accept your premise or the GP's until I see evidence. If there is no evidence then fine, you and anyone else are free to believe whatever you like, but don't pretend it's a logically defensible position. >This is a perpetual problem where one group feels unheard, unserved, left out, etc and then they complain about that and then are told their complaints aren't valid because they said them in a not nice enough fashion or something. Both sides need to give a little here if we aren't going to remain stuck on such topics. Not every complaint _is_ valid, and we have no idea what the GP's motivations were. I'm not going to give any ground. You and the GP are taking a complex issue and boiling it down to something absurdly simple. All that I'm saying is that it's not simple and, if we're ever to have a reasoned debate, it needs to be predicated on facts, not "feelings". If you're going to attribute someone's actions to their gender and race then you had better be able to back it up. It's telling that you believe _I'm_ the one doing harm when I have made no accusations at all and the GP was inarguably expressing a racist view.
      - 300baud 8y ago
        It was not in fact a racist view. It's a view about power dynamics in a system that is racist and sexist. If you really can't get over your feelings of personal insult and your need to defend white men, then please go back and substitute "part of the socially dominant racial group" for "white" and "part of the socially dominant gender group" for "men". In US history, those terms are equivalent. If you don't like that, talk to the founding fathers who set it up that way. The reason it's material here is that a large portion of Twitter abuse is related to this. You can look at famous incidents, for example. Leslie Jones received a giant wave of racist, sexist abuse: https://www.thecut.com/2016/08/a-timeline-of-leslie-joness-horrific-online-abuse.html https://www.thecut.com/2016/08/a-timeline-of-leslie-joness-h... And the company admitted they had failed massively: https://people.com/movies/twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-speaks-out-after-leslie-jones-troll-abuse/ https://people.com/movies/twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-speaks-out... You could also look at the differential experience of white men versus others on Twitter. E.g.: https://www.theroot.com/twitter-has-a-serious-harassment-and-abuse-problem-but-1819979725 https://www.theroot.com/twitter-has-a-serious-harassment-and... Note also your standard here. You, a white man, refuse to accept that race or gender could be relevant to a social problem until other people take the time to spoon-feed you. Why isn't it your job to know something about American history? Why isn't it your job to learn about the problem of online abuse before deciding that the privilege afforded to white men couldn't possibly be the relevant? Answer: because you were raised to believe that whiteness and maleness were the default and were good. So you choose that as your supposedly neutral stance, and require others to prove you wrong. The true neutral stance would either be "I don't know about this problem and would like to learn" or "let's assume that online culture has some relationship to the existing offline social dynamic".
- gowld 8y ago
  Wealth is very nice to have, but it does not insulate someone from suffering racism and sexism.
ThorinJacobs 8y ago
I don't read the parent comment as claiming that the people in power are not hard-working or talented, nor that they don't care. Rather, I read it as asserting that many white men have had the privilege of not having to deal with discrimination and harassment, and that it doesn't come to mind as easily as it does for underrepresented individuals. Just like a developer is going to spot defects in applications more than a non-technical user because they are exposed to defects more often and understand where things will fail, people who have lived discrimination will be more likely to see it where it happens, and understand where to look to find it.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- code_duck 8y ago
  I think it's asserting specifically that the management of Twitter has had the privilege of not having to deal with discrimination and harassment.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
johnny22 8y ago
it's not either or. privileged AND hardworking is a possibility.
forapurpose 8y ago
> Who's to say they are "privileged" The employee who is familiar with them.

DoreenMichele 8y ago

I imagine the leadership of a company like Twitter make really good money, have substantial power and don't have the problems of your average working stiff, regardless of skin color, gender etc. It's sort of tautalogical to say "People in power don't live like the rest of the world." And this fact has been a problem in terms of creating policies that work well for the masses since time immemorial.

EpicEng 8y ago
It's one thing to say that people in positions of power, on average, have not directly experienced the harassment or abuse that minorities or people belonging to marginalized groups have. That's fair and may account for some level of ignorance on their part. It is another to say that they _do not care about these things_ specifically because they are a member of a certain class/race/gender/whatever. It's an important distinction as it sets the parameters by which we engage in conversation and debate. If you begin the conversation by accusing the other side of being inherently bigoted then there is no civil or useful exchange of ideas to be had. It puts the other side in a defensive posture from the get go and only leads to more tribal group-think.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  And you refusing to accept my reframing as valid intentionally digs this hole deeper. This is a perpetual problem where one group feels unheard, unserved, left out, etc and then they complain about that and then are told their complaints aren't valid because they said them in a not nice enough fashion or something. Both sides need to give a little here if we aren't going to remain stuck on such topics. And expecting all that giving to come from women, people of color, and other underprivileged groups is merely entrenching white male privilege in a really ugly, toxic manner.
  - EpicEng 8y ago
    >And you refusing to accept my reframing as valid intentionally digs this hole deeper. Because I don't believe it is valid. Class/color/gender are not the only influencers on someone's decision making process, yet you two seem to think that's all we need to consider. Where is the evidence that these people don't care about abuse and harassment because of their class and color? I see a pretty damning statement which includes zero evidence, just what someone believes to be true for <reasons>. So no, I won't accept your premise or the GP's until I see evidence. If there is no evidence then fine, you and anyone else are free to believe whatever you like, but don't pretend it's a logically defensible position. >This is a perpetual problem where one group feels unheard, unserved, left out, etc and then they complain about that and then are told their complaints aren't valid because they said them in a not nice enough fashion or something. Both sides need to give a little here if we aren't going to remain stuck on such topics. Not every complaint _is_ valid, and we have no idea what the GP's motivations were. I'm not going to give any ground. You and the GP are taking a complex issue and boiling it down to something absurdly simple. All that I'm saying is that it's not simple and, if we're ever to have a reasoned debate, it needs to be predicated on facts, not "feelings". If you're going to attribute someone's actions to their gender and race then you had better be able to back it up. It's telling that you believe _I'm_ the one doing harm when I have made no accusations at all and the GP was inarguably expressing a racist view.
    - 300baud 8y ago
      It was not in fact a racist view. It's a view about power dynamics in a system that is racist and sexist. If you really can't get over your feelings of personal insult and your need to defend white men, then please go back and substitute "part of the socially dominant racial group" for "white" and "part of the socially dominant gender group" for "men". In US history, those terms are equivalent. If you don't like that, talk to the founding fathers who set it up that way. The reason it's material here is that a large portion of Twitter abuse is related to this. You can look at famous incidents, for example. Leslie Jones received a giant wave of racist, sexist abuse: https://www.thecut.com/2016/08/a-timeline-of-leslie-joness-horrific-online-abuse.html https://www.thecut.com/2016/08/a-timeline-of-leslie-joness-h... And the company admitted they had failed massively: https://people.com/movies/twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-speaks-out-after-leslie-jones-troll-abuse/ https://people.com/movies/twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-speaks-out... You could also look at the differential experience of white men versus others on Twitter. E.g.: https://www.theroot.com/twitter-has-a-serious-harassment-and-abuse-problem-but-1819979725 https://www.theroot.com/twitter-has-a-serious-harassment-and... Note also your standard here. You, a white man, refuse to accept that race or gender could be relevant to a social problem until other people take the time to spoon-feed you. Why isn't it your job to know something about American history? Why isn't it your job to learn about the problem of online abuse before deciding that the privilege afforded to white men couldn't possibly be the relevant? Answer: because you were raised to believe that whiteness and maleness were the default and were good. So you choose that as your supposedly neutral stance, and require others to prove you wrong. The true neutral stance would either be "I don't know about this problem and would like to learn" or "let's assume that online culture has some relationship to the existing offline social dynamic".
gowld 8y ago
Wealth is very nice to have, but it does not insulate someone from suffering racism and sexism.

ThorinJacobs 8y ago

I don't read the parent comment as claiming that the people in power are not hard-working or talented, nor that they don't care. Rather, I read it as asserting that many white men have had the privilege of not having to deal with discrimination and harassment, and that it doesn't come to mind as easily as it does for underrepresented individuals. Just like a developer is going to spot defects in applications more than a non-technical user because they are exposed to defects more often and understand where things will fail, people who have lived discrimination will be more likely to see it where it happens, and understand where to look to find it.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
code_duck 8y ago
I think it's asserting specifically that the management of Twitter has had the privilege of not having to deal with discrimination and harassment.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

johnny22 8y ago

it's not either or. privileged AND hardworking is a possibility.

forapurpose 8y ago

> Who's to say they are "privileged" The employee who is familiar with them.