Comment by JulianMorrison | Hacker News Reader

Comment by JulianMorrison | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You are articulating the zeitgeist of the culture: equal treatment is enough.

You are failing to accept the measured fact that people who think they are giving out equal treatment, are mistaken.

Privilege blinds you. There are problems you never see, that if you knew about you'd be all like "Shit, seriously? that really happens? That's awful". But because you never know, you fill in the blanks with your own privileged experience and so erase them. There are problems, like this one, where your eyes believe they have seen equality, but a camera and stopwatch measures unfair treatment.

You need to stop being so trusting of your own inputs.

Those "different rules for every demographic" are there to (crudely) rebalance the scales. They aren't really different rules. They are compensating for the fact that supposed neutrality is skewed hard. Think of them as komi in go.

And the concept of privilege is there to teach you how the real world works, because unaided, you'll never see it.

A nice explanation of privilege. I'm not super fond of the term, since I hear too many people use it as an attack instead of a conversation starter. Its hard to convince someone they're wrong, that has to be a delicate conversation.

Maybe: Do your best to treat everyone equally, and be aware of just how insanely hard this is for ANY human being to do.

I would go with "Try to 'overcompensate' when it comes to repressed groups; only then will you trick your brain into more genuinely equitable behavior."

It's similar to how, as a rule of thumb, we would do well to "over-document" our code. We're so close to the source that things that we consider "obvious" (due to constant exposure) are absolute headscratchers for people reading the code for the first time.

Your use of "overcompensate" seems to suggest unequal treatment is necessary for equality. That's a head scratcher.

For your example to be relevant, shouldn't the programmer reserve her superb documentation skills for members of repressed groups?

I'm not sure there are any disagreements here beyond language.

How about: "Try for equality, and understand that due to your own biases this might just feel like overcompensating."

jrells made my point for me.

I put "overcompensate" in quotes because our brains are poorly equipped to judge equity objectively. We have to use hacks like "You cut the cake, and I'll choose which half is mine" for that reason.

It seems the topic of privilege often arises to promote empathy in some roundabout way. I just think empathy is a good concept that stands without the help of privilege. It's possible that pointing out the disparity in privilege can guilt empathetic emotions into some -- but this message then becomes unfairly reserved for those deemed as "privileged". Empathy is good for everyone. Privileged or not.

Nobody's arguing against empathy. And simply saying that privilege is "unfairly reserved" (without any qualifiers) begs the question.

We're saying that privileged people are often blind to their own privilege and others' disadvantages. To them (and I'm in this group), and thanks to things like hedonic adaption, a position of privilege feels like their "natural" state. To have some of that privilege taken away feels like a loss, even though it was nothing they earned on their own in the first place. To illustrate: How often do people hear heterosexuality applied as a pejorative label?

> And simply saying that privilege is "unfairly reserved"

I meant the promotion of empathy is being unfairly reserved. Empathy is a universally virtuous principle. To preach it at cis white males excludes others from the joys of this enlightenment.

> To them (and I'm in this group)

This is what confuses me. Why is privilege seen as a membership of a group rather than a behavioral fact about human existence? If you took someone you considered "under privileged" and gave them "excess privilege", surely they too would employ "hedonic adaption". Point being, it seems privilege can be reasoned about in principle without employing group mentality.

> To illustrate: How often do people hear heterosexuality applied as a pejorative label?

On the surface we can reason that pejoratives are bad. Beneath that we can reason that some people are victimized for being different. And beneath that we can reason that empathizing with others helps us act in more caring ways.

I think the promotion of kind language is valid and good, but I feel like it's less useful than the promotion of empathy, because the result of empathizing most likely encompasses the benefits of kind language and much more.

> You are failing to accept the measured fact that people who think they are giving out equal treatment, are mistaken.

People who try to be good are sometimes bad. How does that negate the original intent?

> Privilege blinds you. There are problems you never see, that if you knew about you'd be all like "Shit, seriously?

It's odd that people who preach about privilege fail to reason about it in principle. Privilege isn't something everyone has and fails to recognize. Instead, privilege is allotted to a select few - who without the help of the underprivileged would remain blissfully ignorant of their position.

Privilege, much like justice, has become a loaded word to signify ones vigilance against another group of people without sounding like a bigot. There's nothing wrong with trying to treat everyone with excellence. No one is obligated to engage in this speculative oppression olympics in order to reserve preferential treatment for the victors. That kind of nonsense is a fools errand.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com