Hacker News Reader

Comment by tenaciousDaniel | Hacker News Reader

There is already a linguistic convention in place that disambiguates those two concepts. We had the terms "racism" and "institutional racism"/"systemic racism". What do we gain from condensing the words into one?

Given how this new construction is used, my more cynical side wants to believe that what is gained is the ability of one side of the political aisle to spew any kind of hatred towards particular groups of people without criticism or consequence.

View on HN

Because the linguistic convention is inadequate and misleading.

For a counterexample, look at the use of the word "privilege", a new definition introduced to the lexicon to explain one of the expressions of prejudice in society. (If you're already poising fingers over keyboard in angry rebuttal, stop and listen.) Privilege is conceptually very simple - it is the absence of discrimination. The absence of racism, or of sexism.

Yet the very term arouses righteous fury, to be even mentioned in the presence of many privileged people. Just watch the rebuttals this comment will draw for examples.

So to my original point, if you introduce new language to describe the prejudice + power concept, it will be vociferously attacked by those who do not face prejudice + power in their daily lives.

Likewise, if you more precisely define an existing word from this world - say, racism - it is also vociferously attacked, by the same people.

And attacking the very language being used to describe the problem is part of the problem.

My favorite "Ah-ha!" illustration of privilege actually came from someone culturally and politically towards the Right:

Imagine you're gay, and you're hanging out with a new friend of your gender, who does not share your orientation. At what point is it appropriate for you to disclose your orientation to your friend? Too early, what if you're seen as coming onto them? Too late, what if you're seen as not trusting them? &c.

Not having to ask yourself that question is a form of "hetero privilege". It is a burden that, as a cis-het person, you will never face.

That's a good one. The annoying thing is, privilege is a simple, obvious concept that not even right-wingers can disagree with, once they understand it. But getting past that initial hump of resistance is so difficult. It doesn't help that those who came up with the terminology used a word that carries a meaning most people are offended to assign to themselves. "I'm not privileged, I was poor once in college!"

The term "privilege" actually makes a lot of sense in the academic context, where it's been rigorously defined (both inclusively and exclusively), but as soon as it made its way into popular discourse, someone interpreted it as a thing that could be someone's "fault", and that narrative has never shaken loose.

I remember when it first came into vogue, back in the 1990s. I was one of those saying "Your choice of word will always cause you problems!" And for a long time, I believed that the resistance came from using such a loaded word.

I no longer believe that. I think the people who are angry about the term "privilege" would be angry if we called it "bunnies".

"Hetero privilege" is proved by the discrimination and stigma against gay relationships, families, the violence against them, rejection by their families, their churches, institutions like blood banks, etc. I think if someone can't already see it there then they won't find it by teasing apart an example like this. It's just seen as another awkward situation. There are awkward situations specific to hetero men too, so it's not seen as a problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com