3 ms·
And no matter how much privilege may have indeed played a part, it seems very gross to me that people seek to debase their achievements by focusing on aspects t
by BlueGh0st 6y ago
And no matter how much privilege may have indeed played a part, it seems very gross to me that people seek to debase their achievements by focusing on aspects that these kids can't even control. It's rude (to a point) to point out how much raw luck may have had in one's achievements, but why is privilege (which is arguably very similar in many ways) fair game?
The focus should be on all of the effort that the kid put forth which many other equally privileged or lucky kids would have squandered.
- watwut 6y ago> It's rude (to a point) to point out how much raw luck Why should it be rude?
- rtpg 6y agoI think the point is that the effort is maybe not as much as the lauding implies ("Guy makes WSYWIG editor in 10 seconds" is less impressive if I just use contenteditable) I don't really agree on this reading for this case, but this _definitely_ applies for basically every 30 under 30 list and lots of stuff in VC-land (Theranos etc). Some people get a silver spoon of a situation and get lauded for basically showing up.
- m000 6y agoWhat is irking people is not the achievement, but the meticulous documentation and flagrant promotion of the achievement. Guinness Book of Records didn't invite themselves you know. They also don't come for free. Typically you need to pay a hefty fee to come and document your record AFAIK (another sign of privilege). More kids may have similar achievements but their parents never sought publicity photo shoots for them. Exposing kids to this kind of publicity may be bad for them down the line. May make them feel like a failure if they aren't able to pull another newsworthy stunt in the future.