3 ms·
What’s wrong with it is that it’s seemingly mandatory to include a “privilege disclaimer” in some publications. It’s often irrelevant, always boring, and indica
by Veen 8y ago
What’s wrong with it is that it’s seemingly mandatory to include a “privilege disclaimer” in some publications. It’s often irrelevant, always boring, and indicative of an identity politics perspective that colours much of modern discourse. It’s irritating boilerplate that writers include to signal their political allegiance and inoculate themselves from criticism when writing about groups that are disfavoured in their politics: in this case middle-class white women.
- erikpukinskis 8y agoWhat's your evidence that it's mandatory? It seems discretionary to me. Here's another article on Vox right now about white Jeopardy champion James Holzhauer, which doesn't mention his race or privilege: https://www.vox.com/first-person/2019/5/4/18529311/jeopardy-holzhauer-ken-jennings https://www.vox.com/first-person/2019/5/4/18529311/jeopardy-... So, at least at Vox there's no such standard like the one you're describing.
- Veen 8y agoYou seem to have misunderstood what the word “seemingly” means. To help you out, it means ”so as to give the impression of having a certain quality; apparently.”
- erikpukinskis 8y agoThat's not the issue here. It seemed true to you, and I pointed out you were wrong.