Hacker News Reader

Comment by lexcorvus | Hacker News Reader

It is a fascinating double-standard. Compare to a similar sentiment someone might express:

“I thought Obama would do a perfectly fine job, but it just felt inappropriate to have a black man as President of the United States.”

Such a person would be pilloried as a racist.

It's astonishing how often people imply or explicitly assert that white men don't understand what it's like to live in a society hostile to their race and sex. A cursory glance at, say, the New York Times shows that such hostility is in fact pervasive—even, bizarrely, among white men themselves.

View on HN

As a white man, I agree that I can't REALLY understand what it is like to live in a society hostile to my sex and race. I can try to empathize, but I can't understand it in the same way.

I don't understand what you mean about the NYT. I have never seen a single article that is 'hostile' to white men. Pointing out that white men are in a position of privilege is NOT hostility, it is observation.

>white men are in a position of privilege

It's a statement that undermines everything the person have ever achieved.

You only got here not because of hard work, but because of your `white privilege`. It implies a person's success is undeserved. Yes there's probably is an advantage, but the exact how much is highly debatable.

I think you might be taking the concept of 'white privilege' too personally.

Being in a position of privilege does not imply that everything you have earned you got because of that privilege. You can start off in an advantageous position and still fail or succeed.... and still be worthy of praise for when you do succeed.

Just like in anything else in life... for example, in Basketball it is a 'position of privilege' to be tall. It is objectively easier to succeed in basketball if you are tall, but that doesn't mean that those that DO succeed at the highest levels aren't worthy of praise or somehow did not 'earn' their success. LeBron James has HUGE advantages to being good at basketball, but that just set him up to be in a position where he CAN succeed.. the success itself is still all his achievement.

Google around and you'll find a zillion examples like this one:

Twitter, Like Other Big Tech Companies, Comes Up Short on Diversity

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/23/twitter-like-other-...

Once you realize that words and phrases like "diversity" and "person of color" are attacks, you'll see the hostility everywhere. For example, when you tell a white man that your company, conference, meetup, etc., is trying to increase its "diversity"—and which one isn't?—what you are actually telling him is we need fewer people like you. And when you realize how many white men support "diversity", et al., you'll understand how bizarre the whole situation really is.

The solution, by the way, is to grow a thick skin, suck it up, and deal. Indeed, there's no other choice at present; in our current political climate, complaining often works wonders for politically favored grievance groups, but no one wants to hear complaints from white men. The political power needed to change this is immense—far greater than the current pathetic attempts to push back (Republicans, the Tea Party, etc.). Best learn to live with it. (I still find it fascinating, though, which is why I can't resist commenting on the phenomenon.)

"Once you realize that words and phrases like 'diversity' and 'person of color' are attack"

Wait, what? No, they aren't saying 'we need fewer people like you', and saying we want diversity is NOT an attack. You have a twisted view of fairness if you feel that wanting to be more inclusive is somehow unfair to the people who were already included.

No, they aren't saying 'we need fewer people like you'

Suppose a conference has 50 speaking slots, 40 of which last year went to white men and 10 of which went to women and "people of color". This year, the organizers are working hard to increase "diversity". For a fixed number of speaking slots, the only way to do this is to decrease the number of white men, since white men—no matter their beliefs, background, hobbies, interests, etc.—don't count as "diverse". Thus, while the organizers' intent is probably not to tell white men that "we need fewer people like you", that message is an inevitable result of efforts to increase "diversity". (Of course, the organizers could also expand the number of speaking slots, but this only works for so long; eventually you'll hit a ceiling, at which point the game again becomes zero-sum.)

I know it's difficult to reconcile these results with the warm & fuzzy feelings you've been taught to associate with "diversity", but it's a mathematical fact: in most of the fields where it's applied, increasing "diversity" means decreasing the number of white men.

White men do not understand, any more than I understand what it feels like to be a rabbit. Your comment is a clear example of that failure -- actually, it's worse, because you don't even understand the problem intellectually. Some white men do acknowledge their privilege, but even for them, it will never be possible to experience true systemic hostility based on their gender or race.

"Occasionally my gender-race is criticized for the oppression it, as a whole, has and continues to heap on other groups" cries the white man. "Hostility! I understand it!" he says.

Meanwhile, all the other groups deal with actual adversity. I mean things worse than newspaper articles pointing out how you start with advantage. Things like disproportionate violence at the hands of the police and the state, disproportionate victimization with sexual violence, inability to move forward in the corporate world, imbalanced expectations regarding family life, dress, body shape, etc. Even things like being less likely to be called back for a job interview because of your name.

Yeah, white men, including you, really do not get it.

I like how you assume that he/she is white, or even a man at all.

It's possible that someone from another race or gender feels that white men have it tough. I've never met such a person.

How is it his fault and why should he care? He didn't choose to be born as a white man. He has no more responsibility for his race than any national for their country.

Where did I say it was his fault? If I said that, it was an error. It's not relevant whose fault it is.

(Except if you're referring to the fault of not knowing that he's privileged. That is his fault.)

Why should he care? That's a question about his particular ethical priorities that I could only guess at. Why should any advantaged person care about the disadvantaged?

Suppose I belong to an advantaged group, what good does it do to me if I admit the advantage exists? Why would I ever want to give up this advantage?

Income inequality didn't prevent a rising standard of living for everyone, what makes social inequality inherently bad?

Again, these are questions about your ethical framework that are not answerable by me. Personally I find it detestable and anti-social to try to hoard unearned advantages based on race and gender. If you were my friend and admitted this to me face to face, I would have to seriously consider our relationship. But you aren't my friend, and if you're OK with it there's little I could possibly say to convince you otherwise, especially on the internet.

Hoarding these advantages may make life better for everyone.

> Hoarding these advantages may make life better for everyone.

Ew. What a gross thought. I guess it's convenient to believe for a privileged person, but, ew.

Rich privilege should also really be a thing, people like Bill Gates never used his privilege to make the world a better place.

You don't really need to keep repeating the propaganda from those diversity seminars. We've heard it. And most of us who pay attention know it's all bull. As an example:

disproportionate victimization with sexual violence

Well, look at who is committing all that sexual violence and then talk about how white people are at fault:

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus/current/cv0842.pdf

Most of your other comments are similarly flawed. However, the shortest retort to every bitch and moan that comes from the grievance industry is the simple fact that black people in the US have a higher per capita income than any country in Africa [1]. Most other relevant metrics like education, lifespan, and even crime stats paint a pretty good picture for blacks living under the merciless jackboot of evil whites, when compared to living without all that racism. [2]

[1] Actually, except one. That exception has a pretty straightforward explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_Guinea#mediaviewer/F...

[2] Example. Note that most exceptions are Arabic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...

> Sexual violence ... white people

????? Obviously, I was referring to men as the oppressing group on this point.

Re. the rest, let me make sure I understand your position. "As long as there is someplace black people are worse off than they are in the US, they have nothing to complain about and white privilege doesn't exist." Am I reading you right?

Black people in America are Americans, not Africans. They're not 'Africans who came to America'. They're Americans. Their parents were Americans, as were their parents' parents, for a few generations back. At this point, they're no more African than the white people of America are. It's a pointless comparison.

Yeah, white men, including you, really do not get it.

Dude, you're white—or, at least, you look white [1], which is all the ammunition a Social Justice Warrior needs to accuse you of White Privilege, no matter what your surname is. Realize that, if they ever come after you, it will be people like me who'll defend you.

[1]: From jamesaguilar's HN profile (no cyberstalking required): http://fb.me/james.aguilar

I am white. I do have white privilege. I do not need anyone to defend me from activists seeking equality.

I do not need anyone to defend me from activists seeking equality.

You really need to study the French Revolution. You think that because you're part of the current revolution that it won't eventually consume you as well? Consider Danton and Robespierre, a couple of the original "activists seeking equality" (or, rather, égalité). Danton once thought as you do; on his way to the guillotine he shouted at his former ally, "Robespierre, you will follow me! Your house will be razed! Salt will be sown there!" [1] Robespierre once thought as you do; he met the same fate as Danton less than four months later.

[1]: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Jacques_Danton, « Robespierre, tu me suis ! Ta maison sera rasée ! On y sèmera du sel ! », my translation

Far more worried about an asteroid wiping out life on the planet than I am worried about women and minorities guillotining me.

Don't be so literal. Social Justice Warriors won't guillotine you, but give them half a chance and they will destroy your job and ruin your reputation.

Examples of non-sexist, non-racist people who have lost their jobs due to civil rights activists?

Don't be so naïve—you're a white man. Don't you realize that automatically makes you sexist and racist in many people's eyes?

That's quite a rhetorical leap you just made, there.

Why is this astonishing?

"It's astonishing how often people imply or explicitly assert that white men don't understand what it's like to live in a society hostile to their race and sex."

Flipping the races (or sexes) around in a statement is often fascinating. Statements that seem benign turn out to be highly racist or sexist, and vice versa.

Nowadays, racism against anyone other than white is despised, and sexism against anyone other than men is despised. Conversely, anti-White racism or anti-male sexism is permitted, and in some circles, condoned and even encouraged. Just the politically correct times that we live in.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com