Hacker News Reader

Comment by spinPhysician | Hacker News Reader

Ten years ago, the rhetorical buzzwords of that period had gotten really, really tedious.

Words like:

  - Patriot
  - Freedom
  - Terrorism
  - Never Forget
  - If we don't do X, they win

Ten years later, and I'm glad those words are a joke by now.

But only to face new words:

  - Privilege
  - Trigger
  - Victim Blaming
  - Social Justice
  - Perpetuating false narratives

Buzzwords only have currency with people who want others to stop thinking deeply about what they're reading or hearing.

When I see buzzwords, especially the politicized variety, I'm pushed away from an article, because I sense an attempt to manipulate and pander to a preferred audience, and that feels dishonest to me.

View on HN

My favorite new ridiculous word is "silent technical privilege"[1] , according to which we now must apologize for having interests in technical subjects since childhood, rather than socializing and getting drunk like rest of the "unfortunate" kids.

[1] http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/01/...

It isn't, and never has been, about apologising. It is about recognising that you had a step-up based on being part of a particular demographic, and then either acknowledging that other people won't necessarily have had those step-ups, helping to level the playing field by giving extra help to those who don't have that step-up, or both.

So, basically equalising things a wee bit.

This is a new low. Apparently putting in the work to learn things is now a "privilege." We made the choice to spend our formative years immersed in technology. We suffered as a result.

Maybe the bullies should start by apologizing and inviting us to their parties instead of demanding that we give them jobs.

To be clear, I do agree that being middle class and having free time as a teenager is a privilege. What I disagree with is that my choice to spend that time programming instead of partying is a privilege.

The premise you're assuming only holds if socioeconomics is constant. Imagine being the child of two software engineers living in a house in the suburbs with your own room and computer. Now imagine being the child of a single mother who works two minimum wage jobs and lives in a cramped apartment in the projects.

If the latter child doesn't end up spending as much time programming as the former child, how much of it do you think was choice?

Maybe you missed the last paragraph of my comment?

I absolutely agree with the notion of socioeconomic privilege. For what it's worth, I ended up making more than my (single) mother in my very first CS internship.

Sorry, completely glossed over it. Looks like we agree on this :)

i dont think hn can imagine that hard

> Maybe the bullies should start by apologizing and inviting us to their parties instead of demanding that we give them jobs.

They have some nerve. They've already taken over the industry - your average programmer now is someone who picked software as a career path as an adult (starting university), and was not "into tech" as a kid. And now the already marginalized geeks are being called privileged?

I agree with you, but beware the motte and bailey of social justice buzzwords: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-word...

>"helping to level the playing field by giving extra help to those who don't have that step-up, or both."

On a more overall point, I'd say that doing such a thing, even if noble and "well-meaning", actually demeans the work of the people that actually created the difference in "step-ups" as you refer to them in the first place.

Some things are given to you by coincidence of birth and location. But other things, the really important ones, are given to you by your upbringing (notably, effort from your parents and family). I will not go beyond telling others what a difference that effort makes. If you never got it yourself, you have a chance to give it to someone else, and not repeat previous mistakes.

When you try to help others understand technology better it does not demean your work. Quite the opposite, people see the work and understand the dedication that the people who write the tools they use put in.

I mean if you understand art that you recognize that it's a lot of work even if you aren't an artist. Those that don't know just assume it's as simple as flicking paint on a canvas and charging a fortune.

The same people will assume you can build a website for $100 because they have no knowledge on what the work requires.

How does it demean the work of those people? They worked for something (Better conditions for their children), and they got it. Whether or not it conveys an advantage over other people is irrelevant to the value of the work, and the results that work produced.

Moreso, I think that we have a responsibility to provide that (better conditions) not only to our children, but also to whomever else we can.

I tried to recognize and acknowledge that I have a step up having earned an engineering degree and even gave some pointers on how to complete one with all the time constraings involved (sleeping on benches in university overnight in order to save time was one). Do you think anyone was interested?

  helping to level the playing field by giving extra help to those who don't have that step-up

Why does someone who is privileged have the obligation to help those that are not?

From my system of morality, people have a responsibility to provide aid to those who are less well off, and alsoalso have a responsibility to provide knowledge to those who do not have it. I think this follows from the idea that we all have a right to life, dignity, and knowledge.

However after some thought, and the rather unpleasant experience of having attempted to discuss and argue this point before, I do not think I can answer in a way that would convince you to change your current viewpoint, rather we would end up arguing opinions.

  From my system of morality...

Why do you follow that system of morality and not another one?

For example, people adopt and use Gauss's law, because they think it's objectively true. Is that the case with your moral system? Is that moral system objectively true or is it a matter of your opinion?

   ...idea that we all have a right to life, dignity, and knowledge.

The question is whether this is actually true or not. Theory of evolution is an idea, but we ask whether it's true. We don't call it an idea and expect people to take it seriously. You have to provide some arguments that humans actually have right to life and that others have the obligation to help those in need.

  ...rather we would end up arguing opinions.

Wait, so morality for you is a difference of opinions? Kinda like: 'I like chocolate ice cream, you like vanilla ice cream'.

  Is that moral system objectively true or is it a matter of your opinion?
  ...
  Theory of evolution is an idea ...

Given relative morality (That everyone's moral views of the world differ in ways subtle to extreme), I don't think that morality is objectively debatable, since your view of the world is coloured by your system of morality. We can debate whether the theory of evolution is true because we have something other that we can compare against: 'Does this model accurately represent what is happening in the world', etc. Doing that with morality is impossible, it is a concept that is relevant only to humans.

A half-baked example would be: If you kill a billion wildflowers, then that has a measurable effect on the surrounding environment, sure. But at the end of the day there is nothing to say whether the effect that had on the environment is good or bad. It is just an event, it happens, there isn't anything deeper here from an objective point of view. Right and wrong only come into it when you have a preference for a particular outcome. So you view this act as good if you have a preference towards the outcome of a city being built, or you view this as bad if you have a preference towards plant life being left intact. Since we all have different preferences for different outcomes, everybody's systems of morality are inherently different -- even if that difference is not pronounced in most cases.

  Wait, so morality for you is a difference of opinions? 
  Kinda like: 'I like chocolate ice cream, you like vanilla ice cream'.

That is one way you could state it, sure.

  Why do you follow that system of morality and not another one?

I follow my system of morality because I have a preference against harming life. What I mean by this (ignoring the recursion, of course), is that I have been exposed to an overwhelming amount of stimuli, situations, and recollections where this opinion is presented as the preferable decision (Say, Star Trek, etc.), compared to the alternatives I have been exposed to.

Great and a very thoughtful answer. You gave a good explanation about morality and its relevance. Plus at the end you've admitted that this and probably many other of your attitudes & preferences are heavily influenced not by critical examination of all alternatives, but by what you've been most exposed to - kinda like religious affiliation.

Thank you for the answer.

i don't think its hard to imagine that a lot of people didn't have access to computers during their childhood. also there are lots of people that didn't have the right environment or parenting to name a few. since you mentioned "interests in technical subjects since childhood". i know the guy in the article mentions that he learned to computer from 18 on wards, also he went to MIT which i think says a lot about his childhood. maybe you think the word is ridiculous but i think there is room for more empathy.

That dichotomy is a false one, since you can do both (see e.g. demoscene) :)

I've been to a demoscene party and I agree wholeheartedly. Sceners really defy Ballmer Peak[0]. They can crank out coding awesomeness while being totally shitfaced.

[0] - https://xkcd.com/323/

Indeed, the political class is frighteningly relentless at churning out new versions their doublespeak vocabularies designed to balkanize the voting population.

As you rightly stated, these "power words" change with the political climate, but they all serve the same purpose: to divide and conquer. Balkanize the voter base in any way possible, and you have a fractured and easily controlled populace.

It appears modern democracy has been fully gamed.

I also find these buzzwords annoying - but they're different. 'Privilege' is the only term from that list in the article...

'Trigger' I find annoying in almost every context; with the exception of facilities for the clinically traumatised I abhor the idea.

'Victim Blaming' is a useful term but I'm sure overused.

'Social Justice' seems more often these days sarcastically used as in 'Social Justice Warrior'

'Perpetuating false narratives' does seem just a pompous way of saying lies/propaganda.

... but returning to 'Privilege' I think that's a term that is overused - and annoyingly as in 'check your privilege' can be used to shut down a conversation or deny a viewpoint because of who someone is. A pernicious form of ad hominem.

And yet reading the article I think the argument is well made and the term 'privilege' is not used glibly. So perhaps it's unfair to write off the point just because that one word is used?

What about words like

    - Disruption
    - Free software
    - DevOps
    - Dragnet surveillance
    - Fair use
    - Intellectual property
    - Responsive design

Are these words politicized buzzwords? Why or why not? They all seem to be shorthand words that deeply embed a particular worldview that not everyone agrees with. Do they also seem to you to be manipulative and pandering and dishonest?

No, but some of them are meaningless or harmful :). Like "disruption", which means everything and nothing nowadays, and is used to justify and glorify illegal behaviour (e.g. Uber). Or "responsive design", which while a good ideal in theory, in practice involves making the website useless for both desktop _and_ mobile at the same time. :).

Could you explain why you think "privilege" is a buzzword? If it had been peppered into the article haphazardly that would be another matter, but I felt that the author used it to help emphasize how different circumstances are between, say, a jaded Google engineer who graduated with a BS debt-free, and a Bangladeshi mother of five who's worked in a sweatshop since she was 15.

Wrong post?

Not really, the title of the BLOG uses 'bullshit', but the post as it appears on backser-news reads 'privilege' (at least via this link https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11802664, it appeared on my front-page as bullshit so I'm wondering if this has been edited by a HN admin)

If you CTRL+F the blog post for "privilege" you will see that the rant eventually turns to the topic to underscore somethingorother.

So the comment you're replying to lamenting the use of "privilege" in a somewhat asinine and ranty way seems on target.

"Pissed off developer rants" are pretty tired though. I'm not sure I'm really a fan of this guy's line of thinking or his outrage over it.

Like it or not, stepping outside of the 9 to 5 / collect-a-regular paycheck is a risk. It is brave in some ways. He's right in others that it does require a safety net & confidence which people raised in low-income environments might not enjoy... but the blog-post doesn't help anything.

I have to agree. When I encounter those, I usually tune out or click away.

I realise it's a bit buzzwordy, but social justice is a useful catch-all term when describing what political activists fight for. Is there a term you prefer in its place?

I couldn't agree more.

Amen. It just kills me. All politic factions are guilty of it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com