7 ms·

Shut Up and Listen

89 points by unalone 14y ago

Sambdala 14y ago
Even giving all benefit of the doubt, what's the solution then? If you don't personally treat anyone differently based on attributes outside their control, what else are you obligated to do?
- stormbrew 14y ago
  Looking for a 'solution' is the wrong angle to take. There is no easy answer to any question that involves privilege. You can't make a decision about how it can be fixed and just fix it. It's an ongoing process and a living conversation. That's why he says that it's not just about shutting up when you're called out on your privilege, it's also about listening. Accept that there are things in the world, and positions people are in, that you can't just argue out of existence.
  - mikecane 14y ago
    People are all privileged in different ways and in different circumstances. I think this idea is what tends to get swept under the rug when pointing to some overarching Privilege.
    - mikecane 14y ago
      Sure, you can downvote me but any married man will tell you that it's always best to have the wife ask for something from someone else because women are perceived as being "nicer" and usually get such favors. When men ask, it's either intimidating to a woman or invokes a power trip with another man.
      - unalone 14y ago
        People who talk a lot about "patriarchy" will point out that a society in which men are made out to be strong and aggressive and dominant doesn't just hurt women. It hurts all the men who would rather be reasonable and mild-mannered and effeminate too. That's not evidence against there being a systemic imbalance. It's further proof of it.
        mikecane 14y ago
        >>>That's not evidence against there being a systemic imbalance. I never said nor intended to imply there wasn't. But there's imbalance in every system too. Which now makes it sound like I'm saying "Just shut up," which is really why I tend to avoid discussions like this because they become No Win. For everyone. Gah.
        unalone 14y ago
        Haha, indeed. Nobody here feels victorious. It's a lot of trekking through mud all around. Anyway, I think that the fact that systems have imbalance is why we need to talk frequently about what imbalance exists, and how we might fix it. It's also why we should stop this irritating habit of turning everything into a system of processes and functions that don't allow for human error. Plenty of people in the tech community think that a series of rules is the end-all be-all cure to every problem, and refuse to admit that rules often cause as many problems as they solve. Learning to listen and empathize with other people is a more valuable trait than ever, because there are more ways than ever to get away with not doing it.
        mikecane 14y ago
        I think to cut to the chase: Put yourself in someone else's shoes. People used to be taught that. They need to be again.
    - mistercow 14y ago
      One thing that I've learned as I've become familiar with the concept of privilege is that if you think something is getting swept under the rug, it's usually just that you haven't found the huge pile of analysis and discussion of it. "People are all privileged in different ways and in different circumstances" is pretty closely tied to the concept of intersectionality. And yes, there are specific situations where generally unprivileged groups have privilege over generally privileged groups. But there are two main reasons nobody wants to focus on those situations: 1. Those situations are typically so minor and so rare that addressing them just isn't a priority, 2. The same prejudice that causes those situations is generally far more problematic in the opposite direction. You might want to read this, if you haven't: http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/what-about-the-men-chapter-1-introduction-and-principles/ http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/what-about-the-me... . It's aimed at a male audience that is basically unfamiliar with privilege, so anyone who's well read on the subject is likely to cringe at some of their oversimplifications. What's interesting about it is that it uses the point that men are hurt by sexism as a call for more men to get involved with feminism.
    - steveklabnik 14y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality
- hurfdurferson 14y ago
  You are not obligated to do anything. If, however, you believe groups that use 100% of the available sapients will always outcompete groups that use 50% of them you will probably, of your own conscience, gravitate towards those groups that do not tacitly exclude those 50% and avoid those that do. When one side tacitly approves of rape threats and murder threats for people who speak out they make it pretty darn easy for me to choose.
  - Sambdala 14y ago
    "you don't personally treat anyone differently based on attributes outside their control" If you subscribe to the quoted as well as what you said and try to only surround yourself with people that act in a similar manner, then isn't that going to happen automatically? "When one side tacitly approves of rape threats and murder threats for people who speak out they make it pretty darn easy for me to choose." I don't think there's two black & white sides here that neatly contain everyone, and I don't think by shunning those who call for violence you have to implicitly endorse whatever the target of that call to violence is advocating.
- rmc 14y ago
  (a) You may think you don't treat anyone differently, but you may actually do it. Everyone makes mistakes. (b) If you don't, then speak up when you see other people do it. Tell people that unacceptable actions are, well, unacceptible. Silence is often taken for tacit approval.
jellicle 14y ago
That's a good old post by Scalzi, but the people who most need to pay attention to it are the ones least likely to pay attention to it. EDIT: He also has a current post: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/03/21/two-simple-observations-regarding-women/ http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/03/21/two-simple-observation...
- camelite 14y ago
  They're not his intended audience IMHO - people like you (who already approve of his politics) are.
  - unalone 14y ago
    John Scalzi is an award-winning author with a considerable fanbase. Last time I was in Times Square, his latest book was being projected on the largest screen there. I humbly suggest that among his immense readership are people who either disapprove of his politics, or who are not quite as aware of their privilege as he is and would benefit from having a smart, eloquent person point it out publicly.
    - camelite 14y ago
      Possibly, but irrelevant. I think he is addressing male and female feminists - women who don't think their voices are heard and men who've already had some sort of come-to-Jesus moment regarding "privilege". To me - not exactly anti-feminist but certainly anti-a lot of people who call themselves feminists, it comes across as a load of smarmy, self-congratulatory, intolerant not-even-wrong rhetoric and I suspect that I it was his intention to convince others like me, he would have written in a different register. edit: eliminated a renegade apostrophe
      - unalone 14y ago
        It's also possible that your perspective on feminist issues is distorted enough that while you're interpreting this as smarmy and self-congratulatory, it is in fact reasonable and well-argued. Right? That sort of argument by its nature swings both ways. Clearly a lot of people here find something worthwhile in how Scalzi writes about this, and some of the literally hundreds of commenters on that blog post are at least finding it worth discussing. Perhaps you'll get something out of them, if not out of Mr. Scalzi's post itself. I do hope so, because from where I'm sitting you're the one being intolerant and not even wrong, and I'd love if this could at least make you pause and reconsider your perspective.
andyl 14y ago
Yet another HN article on Social Engineering.
- unalone 14y ago
  I enjoy this weird HN approach of taking ordinary life, applying weirdass labels to everything, and then trying to somehow "optimize" all of the various little categories. This is about treating other people like their grievances are legitimate, and accepting that your own perspective on the world is not the only one that exists. "Social Engineering"? really?
  - nollidge 14y ago
    Viewing the world through cynicism-colored glasses.
    - mikecane 14y ago
      OK, I object to the misuse of the term "cynic." http://mikecane2008.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/in-praise-of-the-cynic/ http://mikecane2008.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/in-praise-of-th... Cynics would point to the very things Scalzi does.
      - nollidge 14y ago
        For better or worse, the word "cynic" has changed meaning over time. My usage matches definition #1 here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cynic?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cynic?r=75&src=re...
        mikecane 14y ago
        That matters not to Cynics and is only proof of the very corruption we mock.
        unalone 14y ago
cantastoria 14y ago
Great, another guilt ridden diatribe against John Scalzi from John Scalzi. I've never read someone who is more obsessed about being a "privileged white male" than he is. I wish he would take his own advice or at least the first part of it. I'm not going bother arguing with him because really what's the point, this self-flagellation obviously gets him off and as usual it's all about him. Is "self-hating narcissist" a thing?
- rooshdi 14y ago
  No, but introspective human being might be.
- mistercow 14y ago
  If you think that recognizing one's own privilege is about self-flagellation, you really, really don't understand the concept.
- scotch_drinker 14y ago
  Self-flagellation? I went back to make sure I didn't miss anything but it looks like a post about understanding your privilege and how your success relates to it. It's a post about understanding the depth of experience that other people live with, experiences he has not had because of that privilege.
  - resu_nimda 14y ago
    It seems that a trend is developing of labeling earnest introspection as "self-flagellation." See my comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5375270 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5375270 for an identical situation on a different subject. I don't want to make assumptions, but are people really that hostile to the idea of openly questioning oneself? (I'm speaking specifically of the HN community, obviously the answer for the general public is a resounding "yes")
- unalone 14y ago
  Acknowledging that you were born with certain advantages, and that said advantages make you blind to the difficulties that people who are not like you face, is a weird thing to call "self-flagellation". Or narcissism for that matter. Like it is literally the opposite of narcissism. I forget which awesome person said it, but the correct response to realizing you have privilege is not to feel guilty or self-hating. It's to feel responsible. You've been given immense advantages; you should use them to help others who have been less fortunate. So no, I doubt John Scalzi hates himself very much.
jiggy2011 14y ago
I think that the biggest privilege one can have, at least when it comes to matters of career and finance is being born to middle-class or better parents and having an above average IQ. I would imagine a lesbian black woman with an Ivy league education has much greater odds of success than a straight white guy from the trailer park/slum who struggles with reading/writing skills. I find it interesting that it is generally considered correct and fair that somebody has better income and quality of life because of high intelligence when this is a factor as much outside your control as race or gender.
- unalone 14y ago
  > I find it interesting that it is generally considered correct and fair that somebody has better income and quality of life because of high intelligence when this is a factor as much outside your control as race or gender. I don't think it is generally considered correct and fair, which is why so many people are critical of libertarians and Objectivism. Class struggle is a major issue, and post-industrial capitalism is itself often criticized for creating these inherent imbalances. None of that, however, has to do with this particular issue, which is absolutely worth discussing. If you submit a story about the unfairness of upper- versus lower-class opportunities, I'll certainly upvote it.
- paranoiacblack 14y ago
  I disagree. I think the biggest privilege one can have is a fair start. Being able to live as you'd like without picking up hundreds of years of stigma and injustices or having to work extremely hard to distinguish yourself as someone that can be trusted. > I would imagine a lesbian black woman with an Ivy league education has much greater odds of success than a straight white guy from the trailer park/slum who struggles with reading/writing skills. Privilege isn't about odds of success, it's about proportional work to become successful. When someone doesn't trust you or has something against you because of your ethnicity or gender, you have to work two or three times as hard for the same success someone else has. That's the problem. > I find it interesting that it is generally considered correct and fair that somebody has better income and quality of life because of high intelligence when this is a factor as much outside your control as race or gender. This is just the American Dream blown out of proportion, as usual.
cousin_it 14y ago
Is "shut up and listen" a more winning group strategy than "keep telling others about our grievances"?
- hurfdurferson 14y ago
  Fallacy of the excluded middle. NEXT.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
tehwalrus 14y ago
Rather than thinking of different perspectives (which the author mentions in the last paragraph), I like to think of the list of facts I know as divided into two categories: "the things which I think are actually true, based on data I've obtained from lots of first hand witnesses and, perhaps, first hand" "the things which I dreamed up in my head, which allow me to tell a narrative about a phenomenon, but about which there are other people who actually know the real answer if I can only find and listen to them." This is mostly so I can fit an anti-relativist empiricist worldview into one where I have to listen to other people (especially when they're talking about interesting things) - i.e. while the universe (and morality) are deterministic, I have not measured everything about them yet (and I will never finish this task). Also my chronic fear of embarrassment in unfamiliar social groups is helpful in making me shut up and listen for a while, and generally stops me contributing where I would "show my ass" as the OP says (although, as a white, straight, cis-male with too many qualifications, I tend to speak up and make a fool of myself depressingly often in spite of this.)
127 14y ago
This is silly. Just because Scalzi has problems with listening to what people are saying, does not mean that everyone else has. Also, just because it's good to listen, emphatize and understand where people are coming from, it's not good for anyone to just stand there and take abuse. Nip it in the bud. Don't feed the trolls. Respect people who respect you. If people are silent and don't share their feelings and opinions, ask them questions, get them engaged into the conversation. Be a builder, feed constructive, respectful discussion. Assuming that everybody has something worth listening to makes a huge, fallacious assumption that simply causes you undue suffering. People use words to inform. People also use words to manipulate and gain power over someone. Recognize the difference. You will feel much better and be a much more effective communicator. Just because the only way you understand discussion is in order to share information and discuss things logically, someone else may just use words to try and twist your mind, use whatever dirty tactic to gain an advantage over you, or over a group. They don't care about logic, they don't care about information, they don't care about fairness. Only thing in their mind is power. Recognize.
- mistercow 14y ago
  >Just because Scalzi has problems with listening to what people are saying, does not mean that everyone else has. Yes, but I can assure you that when it comes to discussing privilege, well, yes, everyone else does have.
  - 127 14y ago
    Privilege is a heavily loaded word that is difficult to use in context of contructive discussion. You are by default swallowing the feminist bait and playing by their rules. Making it impossible to gain any ground because of fallacious, circular logic. I'm not denying that privilege exist at all. I'm just saying that how it's understood and used is heavily biased and politicized. It would be much more productive to discuss about topics without resorting to feminist dogma.
    - resu_nimda 14y ago
      FWIW, I found Scalzi's post to be much more constructive (not to mention well-written) than whatever agenda you're pushing here, which is coming across as fairly toxic... It seems pretty clear that people's obliviousness to their own privilege is a much bigger problem than too many people "swallowing the feminist bait."
beachstartup 14y ago
the example of walking through a dark parking lot to demonstrated 'straight white privilege' is pretty shitty. in fact it's probably the worst example you could choose. his 'privilege' of not worrying about being assaulted comes from the fact that he is 6' 280 pounds, not because he's white or male or straight. a big gay black man (or woman, for that matter) of the same stature probably doesn't feel that twinge of fear his petite asian female colleage felt walking through a dark parking lot. smaller/shorter straight white guys still have to worry about getting beaten up or bullied or robbed. in fact bullying it's kind of a wide spread problem these days affecting everyone. in my experience most straight white guys have no problem understanding their privilege in society, i work with a lot of them and they joke around about how being a "white dude" is awesome. it certainly doesn't suck. lots of these guys grew up in diverse neighborhoods or went to school with people from different backgrounds so they have heard stories or seen first hand how people different from themselves go about life. anyone with average IQ and however, there are some that just don't get it and no amount of reading blog posts is going to help them understand, it just takes time (age) and personal experience. or they're just a couple of IQ points below the threshold it takes to think about these things in an abstract manner (beyond "my life is all that exists in this world.")
- shardling 14y ago
  I am a 5'6" white guy weighing 120lb. I don't feel fear walking through dark parking lots. The shortest path between my house and the closest grocery is through a large, poorly lit lot. The better lit street route would add, oh, about a minute to the walk. I would absolutely not walk through there if I was a woman. I don't really mind the small chance of being robbed -- a small chance of being raped is a completely different thing.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - beachstartup 14y ago
    "small chance of being robbed" do it in a bad neighborhood at the wrong time/place and this turns into "large chance of being cornered, beaten for being white/outsider/unknown, robbed, and if you put up any resistance, killed." all your anecdote tells me is you don't venture far from your own safety zones. my point is a bank, board room, police station, or any number of other places is a MUCH BETTER place to illustrate the "white, straight, male" privilege that exists.
theorique 14y ago
Who is John Scalzi and why should I listen to him scolding people?
- epochwolf 14y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Scalzi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Scalzi
  - theorique 14y ago
    Well, that's the literal answer. I guess my question is more of a rhetorical one - why does he take this rude, scolding, authoritative tone with his readers?
rdtsc 14y ago
When our brains encounter certain issues (politics, religion, racial issues, favorite editor) it automatically goes on the defensive and start filtering out everything and starts immediately thinking how to come up with bullet points to deflect the arguments. That prevents us from listening. With respect to those kind of topics there are very few if any who can approach it with a clean slate. So it takes considerable effort to try to ignore all that baggage and listen.
- danielweber 14y ago
  Yeah, and lots of people think it's only The Other Side that does it. But most of us are wired to be tribal. Our Side does it, too. In fact, each of us ourselves likely does it. It's good to have friends with a wide variety of political beliefs.
revelation 14y ago
The concept of privilege only makes sense on a statistical basis. Whats the obsession with constantly applying it to single persons? That speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding. If being white is correlated with being high-earning, that doesn't mean every white is high-earning. That is just not the implication.
- mkr-hn 14y ago
  There's no easy way to tell who the outliers are, so it's common to apply an unfortunate heuristic. Especially if you find yourself low in the local spectrum.
- shardling 14y ago
  That's not what the concept of privilege means, though!
- sophacles 14y ago
  Sure, and not every person in a high risk group will get cancer, that's statistics. Yet we still check those people in high risk groups more carefully. It is the same with privilege. You may not have every single benefit associated with you're statistical peers' privilege group, that doesn't mean you don't have privileges. Just by being in a statistically privileged group, you get some privileges. People assume you qualify, and therefore you get opportunity that isn't extended to those who don't. You get the benefit of the doubt,.
Anechoic 14y ago
A textbook example from a Reddit thread: in a conversation about college, one poster lamented the existence of women's and minority groups (like the Society of Women Engineers or the National Society of Black Engineers) that exclude white males. A second poster pointed out that those organizations don't exclude white males, and in some cases white males are actively courted. The third poster responded to the effect of "sure, they let white males join, but I attended a NSBE meeting one and I was the only white guy in the room. As the only white guy I was extremely uncomfortable and that discomfort was basically the same as not welcoming white guys." I don't think this poster was a racist or a bad guy, just someone that didn't realize how his privilege colored his perceptions, or how the privilege (or lack thereof) of others can affect their perceptions.
- steveklabnik 14y ago
  Do you have a link to that? I'd love to be able to show that to others.
  - Anechoic 14y ago
    Ugh, I'll see if I can find it, I don't even remember what the original topic was. edit - found it: http://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/184uh5/as_a_white_male_attending_university_i_should/c8botsc http://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/184uh5/as_a_w... Looks like that post was heavily downvoted. You can read up the parent chain to see the other posts I referenced.
    - steveklabnik 14y ago
      Thank you. It's almost too good to be true. By the way, to 'read up the comment chain,' you can add '?context=3' to add the top 3 posts. Like this: http://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/184uh5/as_a_white_male_attending_university_i_should/c8botsc?context=5 http://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/184uh5/as_a_w...
      - Anechoic 14y ago
jack-r-abbit 14y ago
I guess I'm the only person that has had the "privilege" of being physically assaulted, several times... in separate states, and harassed and threatened for no other reason than being white. Yay privileged white me! Or maybe the only one that was denied financial aid because my father (not me... my father... single father even) was about $1K over the cut off. Damn him for working that second job and getting a few extra hours of overtime. If only he'd not been such a hard worker, he would have made just a tiny bit less and I could have qualified for assistance. However, this was my dad's money they were counting... not mine. I didn't have money. It would have been nice if my totally (not) rich dad had been able to help me with college. Yay privileged white me! And then there was a whole set of grants I could not even apply for because I was white. Yay privileged white me! And then there is the law about making sure that all groups were proportionally represented in schools and jobs, regardless of qualifications. Yay privileged white me! Not everyone in this perceived "privileged" class gets dealt aces. Not that it has to be some competition about who has the harder life (sure... you win that prize)... but some of us actually do get the shaft plenty and have to power through it like everyone else. But you can choose to use it as an excuse or you can choose to use it as inspiration. I chose inspiration! I don't complain about it [except in cases like this. ;)] or use it to dismiss the plights of others. I studied and earned an academic scholarship to partially fund my schooling. I worked nights and weekends to pay rent like everyone else. I worked hard to get where I am. And sure, people will just dismiss that and point a link to that "White Male: Lowest Difficulty Level in Life" article. Those people are hypocrites. If your whole argument is "You don't know what it's like" and "Don't judge me until you've walked a mile in my shoes" then you are not allowed to judge me until you've walked in my shoes either. I shut up and listen plenty and mostly what I hear is "Oh poor me and the tough hand I was dealt... I need to tell everyone else to shut up and listen to me because they can't possibly know the hardships I've seen." My "privileged" ass will shut up now. But shutting up and listening is not reserved only for "privileged whites." We'll gladly share that with anyone willing.
- prawks 14y ago
  I think the OP was discussing more privilege in general, and using the stereotypical straight white male as an example. I agree with you that this is obviously a stereotype, but I don't think the OP used it as anything but just that. Your example speaks volumes about shutting up and listening, both by people of all backgrounds, and to people of all backgrounds.
munificent 14y ago
The older I get, the more I realize two very fundamental facts: People are remarkably different. Like Clementine in the referenced comment, I'm continually astonished at how different the experience of being someone else is from mine even in an ostensibly identical environment. Just walking in a room can be a remarkably different experience for someone beautiful, ugly, female, disabled, etc. People are remarkably similar. I see people do stuff that seems patently dumb are totally counter to how I would do things or how I feel. But as I learn more about the person, I invariably realize what they're doing makes much more sense in context than I originally realized. Much of the difference amounts to differing priorities or background. Much of the core human psychology leading to the behavior is the same. I'm still trying to figure out how to reconcile these two observations, but the big one for me is to try harder to learn where someone is coming from, what their experiences and background are.

89 points by unalone 14y ago

Even giving all benefit of the doubt, what's the solution then? If you don't personally treat anyone differently based on attributes outside their control, what else are you obligated to do?

stormbrew 14y ago
Looking for a 'solution' is the wrong angle to take. There is no easy answer to any question that involves privilege. You can't make a decision about how it can be fixed and just fix it. It's an ongoing process and a living conversation. That's why he says that it's not just about shutting up when you're called out on your privilege, it's also about listening. Accept that there are things in the world, and positions people are in, that you can't just argue out of existence.
- mikecane 14y ago
  People are all privileged in different ways and in different circumstances. I think this idea is what tends to get swept under the rug when pointing to some overarching Privilege.
  - mikecane 14y ago
    Sure, you can downvote me but any married man will tell you that it's always best to have the wife ask for something from someone else because women are perceived as being "nicer" and usually get such favors. When men ask, it's either intimidating to a woman or invokes a power trip with another man.
    - unalone 14y ago
      People who talk a lot about "patriarchy" will point out that a society in which men are made out to be strong and aggressive and dominant doesn't just hurt women. It hurts all the men who would rather be reasonable and mild-mannered and effeminate too. That's not evidence against there being a systemic imbalance. It's further proof of it.
      - mikecane 14y ago
        >>>That's not evidence against there being a systemic imbalance. I never said nor intended to imply there wasn't. But there's imbalance in every system too. Which now makes it sound like I'm saying "Just shut up," which is really why I tend to avoid discussions like this because they become No Win. For everyone. Gah.
        unalone 14y ago
        Haha, indeed. Nobody here feels victorious. It's a lot of trekking through mud all around. Anyway, I think that the fact that systems have imbalance is why we need to talk frequently about what imbalance exists, and how we might fix it. It's also why we should stop this irritating habit of turning everything into a system of processes and functions that don't allow for human error. Plenty of people in the tech community think that a series of rules is the end-all be-all cure to every problem, and refuse to admit that rules often cause as many problems as they solve. Learning to listen and empathize with other people is a more valuable trait than ever, because there are more ways than ever to get away with not doing it.
        mikecane 14y ago
        I think to cut to the chase: Put yourself in someone else's shoes. People used to be taught that. They need to be again.
  - mistercow 14y ago
    One thing that I've learned as I've become familiar with the concept of privilege is that if you think something is getting swept under the rug, it's usually just that you haven't found the huge pile of analysis and discussion of it. "People are all privileged in different ways and in different circumstances" is pretty closely tied to the concept of intersectionality. And yes, there are specific situations where generally unprivileged groups have privilege over generally privileged groups. But there are two main reasons nobody wants to focus on those situations: 1. Those situations are typically so minor and so rare that addressing them just isn't a priority, 2. The same prejudice that causes those situations is generally far more problematic in the opposite direction. You might want to read this, if you haven't: http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/what-about-the-men-chapter-1-introduction-and-principles/ http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/what-about-the-me... . It's aimed at a male audience that is basically unfamiliar with privilege, so anyone who's well read on the subject is likely to cringe at some of their oversimplifications. What's interesting about it is that it uses the point that men are hurt by sexism as a call for more men to get involved with feminism.
  - steveklabnik 14y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality
hurfdurferson 14y ago
You are not obligated to do anything. If, however, you believe groups that use 100% of the available sapients will always outcompete groups that use 50% of them you will probably, of your own conscience, gravitate towards those groups that do not tacitly exclude those 50% and avoid those that do. When one side tacitly approves of rape threats and murder threats for people who speak out they make it pretty darn easy for me to choose.
- Sambdala 14y ago
  "you don't personally treat anyone differently based on attributes outside their control" If you subscribe to the quoted as well as what you said and try to only surround yourself with people that act in a similar manner, then isn't that going to happen automatically? "When one side tacitly approves of rape threats and murder threats for people who speak out they make it pretty darn easy for me to choose." I don't think there's two black & white sides here that neatly contain everyone, and I don't think by shunning those who call for violence you have to implicitly endorse whatever the target of that call to violence is advocating.
rmc 14y ago
(a) You may think you don't treat anyone differently, but you may actually do it. Everyone makes mistakes. (b) If you don't, then speak up when you see other people do it. Tell people that unacceptable actions are, well, unacceptible. Silence is often taken for tacit approval.

jellicle 14y ago

That's a good old post by Scalzi, but the people who most need to pay attention to it are the ones least likely to pay attention to it. EDIT: He also has a current post: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/03/21/two-simple-observations-regarding-women/ http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/03/21/two-simple-observation...

camelite 14y ago
They're not his intended audience IMHO - people like you (who already approve of his politics) are.
- unalone 14y ago
  John Scalzi is an award-winning author with a considerable fanbase. Last time I was in Times Square, his latest book was being projected on the largest screen there. I humbly suggest that among his immense readership are people who either disapprove of his politics, or who are not quite as aware of their privilege as he is and would benefit from having a smart, eloquent person point it out publicly.
  - camelite 14y ago
    Possibly, but irrelevant. I think he is addressing male and female feminists - women who don't think their voices are heard and men who've already had some sort of come-to-Jesus moment regarding "privilege". To me - not exactly anti-feminist but certainly anti-a lot of people who call themselves feminists, it comes across as a load of smarmy, self-congratulatory, intolerant not-even-wrong rhetoric and I suspect that I it was his intention to convince others like me, he would have written in a different register. edit: eliminated a renegade apostrophe
    - unalone 14y ago
      It's also possible that your perspective on feminist issues is distorted enough that while you're interpreting this as smarmy and self-congratulatory, it is in fact reasonable and well-argued. Right? That sort of argument by its nature swings both ways. Clearly a lot of people here find something worthwhile in how Scalzi writes about this, and some of the literally hundreds of commenters on that blog post are at least finding it worth discussing. Perhaps you'll get something out of them, if not out of Mr. Scalzi's post itself. I do hope so, because from where I'm sitting you're the one being intolerant and not even wrong, and I'd love if this could at least make you pause and reconsider your perspective.

andyl 14y ago

Yet another HN article on Social Engineering.

unalone 14y ago
I enjoy this weird HN approach of taking ordinary life, applying weirdass labels to everything, and then trying to somehow "optimize" all of the various little categories. This is about treating other people like their grievances are legitimate, and accepting that your own perspective on the world is not the only one that exists. "Social Engineering"? really?
- nollidge 14y ago
  Viewing the world through cynicism-colored glasses.
  - mikecane 14y ago
    OK, I object to the misuse of the term "cynic." http://mikecane2008.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/in-praise-of-the-cynic/ http://mikecane2008.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/in-praise-of-th... Cynics would point to the very things Scalzi does.
    - nollidge 14y ago
      For better or worse, the word "cynic" has changed meaning over time. My usage matches definition #1 here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cynic?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cynic?r=75&src=re...
      - mikecane 14y ago
        That matters not to Cynics and is only proof of the very corruption we mock.
        unalone 14y ago

cantastoria 14y ago

Great, another guilt ridden diatribe against John Scalzi from John Scalzi. I've never read someone who is more obsessed about being a "privileged white male" than he is. I wish he would take his own advice or at least the first part of it. I'm not going bother arguing with him because really what's the point, this self-flagellation obviously gets him off and as usual it's all about him. Is "self-hating narcissist" a thing?

rooshdi 14y ago
No, but introspective human being might be.
mistercow 14y ago
If you think that recognizing one's own privilege is about self-flagellation, you really, really don't understand the concept.
scotch_drinker 14y ago
Self-flagellation? I went back to make sure I didn't miss anything but it looks like a post about understanding your privilege and how your success relates to it. It's a post about understanding the depth of experience that other people live with, experiences he has not had because of that privilege.
- resu_nimda 14y ago
  It seems that a trend is developing of labeling earnest introspection as "self-flagellation." See my comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5375270 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5375270 for an identical situation on a different subject. I don't want to make assumptions, but are people really that hostile to the idea of openly questioning oneself? (I'm speaking specifically of the HN community, obviously the answer for the general public is a resounding "yes")
unalone 14y ago
Acknowledging that you were born with certain advantages, and that said advantages make you blind to the difficulties that people who are not like you face, is a weird thing to call "self-flagellation". Or narcissism for that matter. Like it is literally the opposite of narcissism. I forget which awesome person said it, but the correct response to realizing you have privilege is not to feel guilty or self-hating. It's to feel responsible. You've been given immense advantages; you should use them to help others who have been less fortunate. So no, I doubt John Scalzi hates himself very much.

jiggy2011 14y ago

I think that the biggest privilege one can have, at least when it comes to matters of career and finance is being born to middle-class or better parents and having an above average IQ. I would imagine a lesbian black woman with an Ivy league education has much greater odds of success than a straight white guy from the trailer park/slum who struggles with reading/writing skills. I find it interesting that it is generally considered correct and fair that somebody has better income and quality of life because of high intelligence when this is a factor as much outside your control as race or gender.

unalone 14y ago
> I find it interesting that it is generally considered correct and fair that somebody has better income and quality of life because of high intelligence when this is a factor as much outside your control as race or gender. I don't think it is generally considered correct and fair, which is why so many people are critical of libertarians and Objectivism. Class struggle is a major issue, and post-industrial capitalism is itself often criticized for creating these inherent imbalances. None of that, however, has to do with this particular issue, which is absolutely worth discussing. If you submit a story about the unfairness of upper- versus lower-class opportunities, I'll certainly upvote it.
paranoiacblack 14y ago
I disagree. I think the biggest privilege one can have is a fair start. Being able to live as you'd like without picking up hundreds of years of stigma and injustices or having to work extremely hard to distinguish yourself as someone that can be trusted. > I would imagine a lesbian black woman with an Ivy league education has much greater odds of success than a straight white guy from the trailer park/slum who struggles with reading/writing skills. Privilege isn't about odds of success, it's about proportional work to become successful. When someone doesn't trust you or has something against you because of your ethnicity or gender, you have to work two or three times as hard for the same success someone else has. That's the problem. > I find it interesting that it is generally considered correct and fair that somebody has better income and quality of life because of high intelligence when this is a factor as much outside your control as race or gender. This is just the American Dream blown out of proportion, as usual.

cousin_it 14y ago

Is "shut up and listen" a more winning group strategy than "keep telling others about our grievances"?

hurfdurferson 14y ago
Fallacy of the excluded middle. NEXT.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

tehwalrus 14y ago

Rather than thinking of different perspectives (which the author mentions in the last paragraph), I like to think of the list of facts I know as divided into two categories: "the things which I think are actually true, based on data I've obtained from lots of first hand witnesses and, perhaps, first hand" "the things which I dreamed up in my head, which allow me to tell a narrative about a phenomenon, but about which there are other people who actually know the real answer if I can only find and listen to them." This is mostly so I can fit an anti-relativist empiricist worldview into one where I have to listen to other people (especially when they're talking about interesting things) - i.e. while the universe (and morality) are deterministic, I have not measured everything about them yet (and I will never finish this task). Also my chronic fear of embarrassment in unfamiliar social groups is helpful in making me shut up and listen for a while, and generally stops me contributing where I would "show my ass" as the OP says (although, as a white, straight, cis-male with too many qualifications, I tend to speak up and make a fool of myself depressingly often in spite of this.)

127 14y ago

This is silly. Just because Scalzi has problems with listening to what people are saying, does not mean that everyone else has. Also, just because it's good to listen, emphatize and understand where people are coming from, it's not good for anyone to just stand there and take abuse. Nip it in the bud. Don't feed the trolls. Respect people who respect you. If people are silent and don't share their feelings and opinions, ask them questions, get them engaged into the conversation. Be a builder, feed constructive, respectful discussion. Assuming that everybody has something worth listening to makes a huge, fallacious assumption that simply causes you undue suffering. People use words to inform. People also use words to manipulate and gain power over someone. Recognize the difference. You will feel much better and be a much more effective communicator. Just because the only way you understand discussion is in order to share information and discuss things logically, someone else may just use words to try and twist your mind, use whatever dirty tactic to gain an advantage over you, or over a group. They don't care about logic, they don't care about information, they don't care about fairness. Only thing in their mind is power. Recognize.

mistercow 14y ago
>Just because Scalzi has problems with listening to what people are saying, does not mean that everyone else has. Yes, but I can assure you that when it comes to discussing privilege, well, yes, everyone else does have.
- 127 14y ago
  Privilege is a heavily loaded word that is difficult to use in context of contructive discussion. You are by default swallowing the feminist bait and playing by their rules. Making it impossible to gain any ground because of fallacious, circular logic. I'm not denying that privilege exist at all. I'm just saying that how it's understood and used is heavily biased and politicized. It would be much more productive to discuss about topics without resorting to feminist dogma.
  - resu_nimda 14y ago
    FWIW, I found Scalzi's post to be much more constructive (not to mention well-written) than whatever agenda you're pushing here, which is coming across as fairly toxic... It seems pretty clear that people's obliviousness to their own privilege is a much bigger problem than too many people "swallowing the feminist bait."

beachstartup 14y ago

the example of walking through a dark parking lot to demonstrated 'straight white privilege' is pretty shitty. in fact it's probably the worst example you could choose. his 'privilege' of not worrying about being assaulted comes from the fact that he is 6' 280 pounds, not because he's white or male or straight. a big gay black man (or woman, for that matter) of the same stature probably doesn't feel that twinge of fear his petite asian female colleage felt walking through a dark parking lot. smaller/shorter straight white guys still have to worry about getting beaten up or bullied or robbed. in fact bullying it's kind of a wide spread problem these days affecting everyone. in my experience most straight white guys have no problem understanding their privilege in society, i work with a lot of them and they joke around about how being a "white dude" is awesome. it certainly doesn't suck. lots of these guys grew up in diverse neighborhoods or went to school with people from different backgrounds so they have heard stories or seen first hand how people different from themselves go about life. anyone with average IQ and however, there are some that just don't get it and no amount of reading blog posts is going to help them understand, it just takes time (age) and personal experience. or they're just a couple of IQ points below the threshold it takes to think about these things in an abstract manner (beyond "my life is all that exists in this world.")

shardling 14y ago
I am a 5'6" white guy weighing 120lb. I don't feel fear walking through dark parking lots. The shortest path between my house and the closest grocery is through a large, poorly lit lot. The better lit street route would add, oh, about a minute to the walk. I would absolutely not walk through there if I was a woman. I don't really mind the small chance of being robbed -- a small chance of being raped is a completely different thing.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- beachstartup 14y ago
  "small chance of being robbed" do it in a bad neighborhood at the wrong time/place and this turns into "large chance of being cornered, beaten for being white/outsider/unknown, robbed, and if you put up any resistance, killed." all your anecdote tells me is you don't venture far from your own safety zones. my point is a bank, board room, police station, or any number of other places is a MUCH BETTER place to illustrate the "white, straight, male" privilege that exists.

theorique 14y ago

Who is John Scalzi and why should I listen to him scolding people?

epochwolf 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Scalzi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Scalzi
- theorique 14y ago
  Well, that's the literal answer. I guess my question is more of a rhetorical one - why does he take this rude, scolding, authoritative tone with his readers?

rdtsc 14y ago

When our brains encounter certain issues (politics, religion, racial issues, favorite editor) it automatically goes on the defensive and start filtering out everything and starts immediately thinking how to come up with bullet points to deflect the arguments. That prevents us from listening. With respect to those kind of topics there are very few if any who can approach it with a clean slate. So it takes considerable effort to try to ignore all that baggage and listen.

danielweber 14y ago
Yeah, and lots of people think it's only The Other Side that does it. But most of us are wired to be tribal. Our Side does it, too. In fact, each of us ourselves likely does it. It's good to have friends with a wide variety of political beliefs.

revelation 14y ago

The concept of privilege only makes sense on a statistical basis. Whats the obsession with constantly applying it to single persons? That speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding. If being white is correlated with being high-earning, that doesn't mean every white is high-earning. That is just not the implication.

mkr-hn 14y ago
There's no easy way to tell who the outliers are, so it's common to apply an unfortunate heuristic. Especially if you find yourself low in the local spectrum.
shardling 14y ago
That's not what the concept of privilege means, though!
sophacles 14y ago
Sure, and not every person in a high risk group will get cancer, that's statistics. Yet we still check those people in high risk groups more carefully. It is the same with privilege. You may not have every single benefit associated with you're statistical peers' privilege group, that doesn't mean you don't have privileges. Just by being in a statistically privileged group, you get some privileges. People assume you qualify, and therefore you get opportunity that isn't extended to those who don't. You get the benefit of the doubt,.

Anechoic 14y ago

A textbook example from a Reddit thread: in a conversation about college, one poster lamented the existence of women's and minority groups (like the Society of Women Engineers or the National Society of Black Engineers) that exclude white males. A second poster pointed out that those organizations don't exclude white males, and in some cases white males are actively courted. The third poster responded to the effect of "sure, they let white males join, but I attended a NSBE meeting one and I was the only white guy in the room. As the only white guy I was extremely uncomfortable and that discomfort was basically the same as not welcoming white guys." I don't think this poster was a racist or a bad guy, just someone that didn't realize how his privilege colored his perceptions, or how the privilege (or lack thereof) of others can affect their perceptions.

steveklabnik 14y ago
Do you have a link to that? I'd love to be able to show that to others.
- Anechoic 14y ago
  Ugh, I'll see if I can find it, I don't even remember what the original topic was. edit - found it: http://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/184uh5/as_a_white_male_attending_university_i_should/c8botsc http://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/184uh5/as_a_w... Looks like that post was heavily downvoted. You can read up the parent chain to see the other posts I referenced.
  - steveklabnik 14y ago
    Thank you. It's almost too good to be true. By the way, to 'read up the comment chain,' you can add '?context=3' to add the top 3 posts. Like this: http://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/184uh5/as_a_white_male_attending_university_i_should/c8botsc?context=5 http://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/184uh5/as_a_w...
    - Anechoic 14y ago

jack-r-abbit 14y ago

I guess I'm the only person that has had the "privilege" of being physically assaulted, several times... in separate states, and harassed and threatened for no other reason than being white. Yay privileged white me! Or maybe the only one that was denied financial aid because my father (not me... my father... single father even) was about $1K over the cut off. Damn him for working that second job and getting a few extra hours of overtime. If only he'd not been such a hard worker, he would have made just a tiny bit less and I could have qualified for assistance. However, this was my dad's money they were counting... not mine. I didn't have money. It would have been nice if my totally (not) rich dad had been able to help me with college. Yay privileged white me! And then there was a whole set of grants I could not even apply for because I was white. Yay privileged white me! And then there is the law about making sure that all groups were proportionally represented in schools and jobs, regardless of qualifications. Yay privileged white me! Not everyone in this perceived "privileged" class gets dealt aces. Not that it has to be some competition about who has the harder life (sure... you win that prize)... but some of us actually do get the shaft plenty and have to power through it like everyone else. But you can choose to use it as an excuse or you can choose to use it as inspiration. I chose inspiration! I don't complain about it [except in cases like this. ;)] or use it to dismiss the plights of others. I studied and earned an academic scholarship to partially fund my schooling. I worked nights and weekends to pay rent like everyone else. I worked hard to get where I am. And sure, people will just dismiss that and point a link to that "White Male: Lowest Difficulty Level in Life" article. Those people are hypocrites. If your whole argument is "You don't know what it's like" and "Don't judge me until you've walked a mile in my shoes" then you are not allowed to judge me until you've walked in my shoes either. I shut up and listen plenty and mostly what I hear is "Oh poor me and the tough hand I was dealt... I need to tell everyone else to shut up and listen to me because they can't possibly know the hardships I've seen." My "privileged" ass will shut up now. But shutting up and listening is not reserved only for "privileged whites." We'll gladly share that with anyone willing.

prawks 14y ago
I think the OP was discussing more privilege in general, and using the stereotypical straight white male as an example. I agree with you that this is obviously a stereotype, but I don't think the OP used it as anything but just that. Your example speaks volumes about shutting up and listening, both by people of all backgrounds, and to people of all backgrounds.

munificent 14y ago

The older I get, the more I realize two very fundamental facts: People are remarkably different. Like Clementine in the referenced comment, I'm continually astonished at how different the experience of being someone else is from mine even in an ostensibly identical environment. Just walking in a room can be a remarkably different experience for someone beautiful, ugly, female, disabled, etc. People are remarkably similar. I see people do stuff that seems patently dumb are totally counter to how I would do things or how I feel. But as I learn more about the person, I invariably realize what they're doing makes much more sense in context than I originally realized. Much of the difference amounts to differing priorities or background. Much of the core human psychology leading to the behavior is the same. I'm still trying to figure out how to reconcile these two observations, but the big one for me is to try harder to learn where someone is coming from, what their experiences and background are.