4 ms·

This is what's commonly known as the ignorance of privilege. It's white people saying, "Why can't I make jokes about black people, when black people can make jo

by jmagoon 14y ago

This is what's commonly known as the ignorance of privilege. It's white people saying, "Why can't I make jokes about black people, when black people can make jokes about me?" It demonstrates a total ignorance of what it means to be a discriminated against demographic.

jack-r-abbit 14y ago
I'm confused. Are you saying that just because a person is white they are not allowed to be offended by stuff and not allowed to question the validity of others who are offended?
- pifflesnort 14y ago
  Well, according to Adria Richards: "Black people CANNOT be racist against White people. Racism is a position of the oppressor who has the power". http://imgur.com/xPztO6k http://imgur.com/xPztO6k I don't think Adria represents women in the industry, or anyone other than herself. I feel sorry for SendGrid, PlayHaven, the developer who lost his job, and the fact that this is distracting from the real issues of sexism in technology. I don't feel sorry for Adria. She represented her company in a grossly unprofessional manner by publicly naming, picturing, and shaming (including the use of "ass clowns" to describe them) two developers. You don't have to be sexist to be unprofessional. I just hope SendGrid has their lawyers ready to deal with the potential fallout of firing her.
  - jack-r-abbit 14y ago
    I saw that. Of course we know that is bullshit. Just like it would be bullshit to say: "women cannot be sexist against men"
- jmagoon 14y ago
  Hmmm...'colorblindness' by a privileged group is a refusal to acknowledge the real inadequacies between social groups. Basically, "I treat everyone the same--I don't see color" (or gender, or sexual orientation, etc.) is a luxury that only exists for some. For people discriminated against, they /have/ to see color, gender, etc., because it's a limiting condition of their social situation.
  - jack-r-abbit 14y ago
    I see color (and gender, and sexual orientation, etc.). I just don't let them effect how I treat people. But it seems pretty clear that this is a standard only some people are held to.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - jodrellblank 14y ago
      But it should affect how you treat people. Saying the same thing to everyone would only work in a society where everyone was actually equal. In our existing societies, men dominate and male voices dominate. Unless you take that into account, saying the same thing to everyone might well mean saying something defacto-white-male-whatever-biased to everyone. Which isn't equalitarian at all. Which is how you get a conference with 80% men and 20% women, and making a dick joke made someone else uncomfortable - she didn't choose, apropos of nothing, to be upset at that comment - saying "I'd make the same dick joke with/to my female friends" is not an equalitarian way out.
- Steuard 14y ago
  People really, really oversimplify these situations when they focus on ideas like "feeling offended". Yes, everyone is allowed to feel offended. That's not the point. The point is that women in our society live their entire lives under a constant barrage of related offensive behaviors that men do not. Black people in our society live their entire lives under a constant barrage of related offensive behaviors that white people do not. (Black women get hit by both barrages.) In each case, some of the offensive acts are overt and nasty, but most take the form of countless tiny slights that seem harmless on their own but add up to an intensely oppressive environment. So yes, everyone is allowed to be offended. But it's really, really unwise to "question the validity of others who are offended" if you aren't subjected to the same continually hostile environment that they are.
  - jack-r-abbit 14y ago
    constant barrage? A bit of hyperbole there don't you think?
    - Steuard 14y ago
      Not in the slightest. (Unless you took my "constant" to mean "every second" rather than "multiple times each day".) I used to think about this sort of issue in much the same way that you seem to (or at least, I made similar comments at times). I was doing my best to be fair and sensible. But over the past year or two, I've read a lot and learned a lot, and I've realized that I was wrong. This stuff is complicated, and if you haven't spent as much time studying it as you'd spend on a couple of college courses, you probably don't understand it as fully as you think. (I certainly didn't.)

by jmagoon 14y ago

jack-r-abbit 14y ago

I'm confused. Are you saying that just because a person is white they are not allowed to be offended by stuff and not allowed to question the validity of others who are offended?

pifflesnort 14y ago
Well, according to Adria Richards: "Black people CANNOT be racist against White people. Racism is a position of the oppressor who has the power". http://imgur.com/xPztO6k http://imgur.com/xPztO6k I don't think Adria represents women in the industry, or anyone other than herself. I feel sorry for SendGrid, PlayHaven, the developer who lost his job, and the fact that this is distracting from the real issues of sexism in technology. I don't feel sorry for Adria. She represented her company in a grossly unprofessional manner by publicly naming, picturing, and shaming (including the use of "ass clowns" to describe them) two developers. You don't have to be sexist to be unprofessional. I just hope SendGrid has their lawyers ready to deal with the potential fallout of firing her.
- jack-r-abbit 14y ago
  I saw that. Of course we know that is bullshit. Just like it would be bullshit to say: "women cannot be sexist against men"
jmagoon 14y ago
Hmmm...'colorblindness' by a privileged group is a refusal to acknowledge the real inadequacies between social groups. Basically, "I treat everyone the same--I don't see color" (or gender, or sexual orientation, etc.) is a luxury that only exists for some. For people discriminated against, they /have/ to see color, gender, etc., because it's a limiting condition of their social situation.
- jack-r-abbit 14y ago
  I see color (and gender, and sexual orientation, etc.). I just don't let them effect how I treat people. But it seems pretty clear that this is a standard only some people are held to.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - jodrellblank 14y ago
    But it should affect how you treat people. Saying the same thing to everyone would only work in a society where everyone was actually equal. In our existing societies, men dominate and male voices dominate. Unless you take that into account, saying the same thing to everyone might well mean saying something defacto-white-male-whatever-biased to everyone. Which isn't equalitarian at all. Which is how you get a conference with 80% men and 20% women, and making a dick joke made someone else uncomfortable - she didn't choose, apropos of nothing, to be upset at that comment - saying "I'd make the same dick joke with/to my female friends" is not an equalitarian way out.
Steuard 14y ago
People really, really oversimplify these situations when they focus on ideas like "feeling offended". Yes, everyone is allowed to feel offended. That's not the point. The point is that women in our society live their entire lives under a constant barrage of related offensive behaviors that men do not. Black people in our society live their entire lives under a constant barrage of related offensive behaviors that white people do not. (Black women get hit by both barrages.) In each case, some of the offensive acts are overt and nasty, but most take the form of countless tiny slights that seem harmless on their own but add up to an intensely oppressive environment. So yes, everyone is allowed to be offended. But it's really, really unwise to "question the validity of others who are offended" if you aren't subjected to the same continually hostile environment that they are.
- jack-r-abbit 14y ago
  constant barrage? A bit of hyperbole there don't you think?
  - Steuard 14y ago
    Not in the slightest. (Unless you took my "constant" to mean "every second" rather than "multiple times each day".) I used to think about this sort of issue in much the same way that you seem to (or at least, I made similar comments at times). I was doing my best to be fair and sensible. But over the past year or two, I've read a lot and learned a lot, and I've realized that I was wrong. This stuff is complicated, and if you haven't spent as much time studying it as you'd spend on a couple of college courses, you probably don't understand it as fully as you think. (I certainly didn't.)