IDDQ Social awareness and privilage discussion

[Lord Hosk]

As per Alex request this thread is to continue the IDDQDerp Twitch discussion about privilege, social justice and responsible change Vrs hatred and fighting.

(/\/\/\/\/\/\Terrible description of a great discussion?/\/\/\/\)

[Arclight_Dynamo]

I'm just going to go ahead and post the article by John Scalzi that I posted in chat, and that Graham mentioned. It really helped me to understand what "privilege" actually means:

Link

Edit:

There are also follow-up pieces here and here that I think are worth your time.

[Danielle Pepin]

These are applicable links about Trevor Noah becoming new host on The Daily Show:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/01/arts/television/trevor-noah-new-daily-show-host-comes-under-scrutiny-for-tweets.html?_r=0

One with video clips:
http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/30/8311883/daily-show-who-is-new-host-trevor-noah-video-clips

Thanks Obama <3

[EmpyrealHell]

I'm just going to go ahead and post the article by John Scalzi that I posted in chat, and that Graham mentioned. It really helped me to understand what "privilege" actually means:

Link

The point I was trying to make when I said in chat that this article only serves to make people feel bad is best described through Dark Souls. When Cam was tilting out on the gargoyles and getting stomped left and right, people telling him that the fight was easy compared to, say, Ornstein and Smough, didn't really do anything other than make him feel shitty for struggling on something that was "easy". We are never going to make any progress when we come at things from a point of trying to bring other people's struggles down, and funny catch phrase titles like this only serve to divide and put people on the defensive. I agree with the core of what it's trying to say, but I don't think that's the right way to go about it.

[Angnor]

The point I was trying to make when I said in chat that this article only serves to make people feel bad is best described through Dark Souls. When Cam was tilting out on the gargoyles and getting stomped left and right, people telling him that the fight was easy compared to, say, Ornstein and Smough, didn't really do anything other than make him feel shitty for struggling on something that was "easy". We are never going to make any progress when we come at things from a point of trying to bring other people's struggles down, and funny catch phrase titles like this only serve to divide and put people on the defensive. I agree with the core of what it's trying to say, but I don't think that's the right way to go about it.

I can understand that, and that's why a lot of people like to point out it's not a zero sum game. There's enough empathy to go around to everyone, because a lot of people have it tough and have problems. Pointing out that privilege exists and that there are institutional/societal biases doesn't mean that you personally don't have it shitty and don't deserve to have that acknowledged. And the reverse is true as well.

[Valkyrie-Lemons]

I'm tired, and about to go to bed, so this might be badly edited:


The thing about "being white is living life on easy mode" is that white people (mostly male) control basically ALL important global institutions, or are in the majority control. I mean, look at things like the G8, how many are white men?

The point is that, as Graham (?) said, you have significantly fewer handicaps in life in 'Western' nations. For example it has be documented that Anglicising names from Indian* drastically improves chances of employment.

Now, the thing is not to think "white people are bad" or "I should feel bad about being white and/or privileged", no; what it's about is recognising that you are privileged and realising that circumstances can be VERY different to you in a similar situation.

If I take an example from my own life: There is a park near the Uni I go to that has no lights, and in the winter, when classes finish late, it is pitch black. I feel perfectly safe walking through it, does that mean that everyone feels safe? Of course not.

You should never feel guilty about being privileged; being privileged means you recognise that some people do not have it as good, and perhaps finding away to address that. It doesn't have to be a huge thing either, it's just being aware that what works for you, does not work for everyone.

And the thing is, there are unprivileged people within the "white and male" group. It's not a homogeneous group; so don't feel that if you're white and male you cannot feel bad about anything, or feel disadvantaged, etc. etc.


Essentially, just be aware of other people around you. Act less egocentrically and think about others when you say or do something.


*I.E. Sanjeev to Simon

[Arclight_Dynamo]

The point I was trying to make when I said in chat that this article only serves to make people feel bad is best described through Dark Souls. When Cam was tilting out on the gargoyles and getting stomped left and right, people telling him that the fight was easy compared to, say, Ornstein and Smough, didn't really do anything other than make him feel shitty for struggling on something that was "easy". We are never going to make any progress when we come at things from a point of trying to bring other people's struggles down, and funny catch phrase titles like this only serve to divide and put people on the defensive. I agree with the core of what it's trying to say, but I don't think that's the right way to go about it.

I can understand that, and that's why a lot of people like to point out it's not a zero sum game. There's enough empathy to go around to everyone, because a lot of people have it tough and have problems. Pointing out that privilege exists and that there are institutional/societal biases doesn't mean that you personally don't have it shitty and don't deserve to have that acknowledged. And the reverse is true as well.

Exactly. No one is saying "Oh, you're straight, white, and male? Boo-hoo with your problems! They don't matter!"

What people are saying is that if we take a straight, white male and (for instance) a gay, black woman and give them the exact same problem, the former is more likely to be able to better deal with it than the latter. Because of how society is structured. That is privilege.

It doesn't mean that we don't have empathy for both people, and say that both are having a hard time... it means that we recognize that things will be more difficult for one than the other.

[Valkyrie-Lemons]

I think this video from The Daily Show can explain this really well.

[Video]

[EmpyrealHell]

I'm tired, and about to go to bed, so this might be badly edited:


The thing about "being white is living life on easy mode" is that white people (mostly male) control basically ALL important global institutions, or are in the majority control. I mean, look at things like the G8, how many are white men?

The point is that, as Graham (?) said, you have significantly fewer handicaps in life in 'Western' nations. For example it has be documented that Anglicising names from Indian* drastically improves chances of employment.

Now, the thing is not to think "white people are bad" or "I should feel bad about being white and/or privileged", no; what it's about is recognising that you are privileged and realising that circumstances can be VERY different to you in a similar situation.

If I take an example from my own life: There is a park near the Uni I go to that has no lights, and in the winter, when classes finish late, it is pitch black. I feel perfectly safe walking through it, does that mean that everyone feels safe? Of course not.

You should never feel guilty about being privileged; being privileged means you recognise that some people do not have it as good, and perhaps finding away to address that. It doesn't have to be a huge thing either, it's just being aware that what works for you, does not work for everyone.

And the thing is, there are unprivileged people within the "white and male" group. It's not a homogeneous group; so don't feel that if you're white and male you cannot feel bad about anything, or feel disadvantaged, etc. etc.


Essentially, just be aware of other people around you. Act less egocentrically and think about others when you say or do something.


*I.E. Sanjeev to Simon

I don't disagree with you at all, I'm just pointing out that being white is "easy mode" doesn't really help convey any of that, and is more likely to put people on the defensive. It's funny, sure, but it doesn't really help the conversation. Getting that message across requires a lot more in-depth, nuanced discussion (which the article does touch on), but the tag line is just divisive.

EDIT:
I think a better analogy would be to say that being a straight white male is like being a frost mage, and everyone is raiding molten core. It still gets across the point that the world seems to be looking for exactly what you have, without putting people on the defensive. People won't interpret that as having their problems trivialized, and I think it's a bit more accurate as well.

[Angnor]

I don't disagree with you at all, I'm just pointing out that being white is "easy mode" doesn't really help convey any of that, and is more likely to put people on the defensive. It's funny, sure, but it doesn't really help the conversation. Getting that message across requires a lot more in-depth, nuanced discussion (which the article does touch on), but the tag line is just divisive.

EDIT:
I think a better analogy would be to say that being a straight white male is like being a frost mage, and everyone is raiding molten core. It still gets across the point that the world seems to be looking for exactly what you have, without putting people on the defensive. People won't interpret that as having their problems trivialized, and I think it's a bit more accurate as well.

The point of most analogies like this one are to provide a way to look at it that someone might not have considered, and especially in this case to to engage by using language the reader/listener can identify with. In this case, for someone who pays video games, the analogy is very general but gets the point across, where your example might miss a few people (While I can generalize what you mean, I don't know what game you're referencing there. World of Warcraft?).

I'll readily admit it's not perfect. That said, I think it's a pretty good analogy. For the most part you're not going to convince people with a nuanced, in-depth discussion of the topic right off the bat. They're going to tune out, especially online. You need to get them thinking about it a little bit at first in simpler more basic terms. After all, we invented TL:DR...

Maybe this is just me speaking from my own journey on this subject, but I had to see a lot of different analogies and comparisons on the subject (many I dismissed) before I was willing to take a more in-depth look at it. All of them fail in some way, because ultimately the subject itself is a vast and complicated quagmire that offers no easy comprehension or solution.

I can understand the reaction to having ones life called 'easy mode'. Especially when parts (or all) of it have been hard and you've had to bust your ass and earn everything you have (I can't make that claim). It isn't about calling any one individual out for having an 'easy' life, in the end it's about pointing out the relative differences between de facto classes.

[Psyclone]

I'd also like to point out that making issues of privilege all about how shitty white men feel when called on their privilege IS AN EXAMPLE OF PRIVILEGE.

White men turn conversation back onto themselves with things like that and distract from the real issues.

[EmpyrealHell]

The point of most analogies like this one are to provide a way to look at it that someone might not have considered, and especially in this case to to engage by using language the reader/listener can identify with. In this case, for someone who pays video games, the analogy is very general but gets the point across, where your example might miss a few people (While I can generalize what you mean, I don't know what game you're referencing there. World of Warcraft?).

Yeah, that's a WoW reference. I think the main difference that I'm trying to get across is that in a vacuum, being a straight white male isn't any easier than being anything else. But we don't live in a vacuum, and the way the world is set up for the vast majority of people with the means to be reading stuff on the internet is imbalanced in favor of the straight white male. This helps to illustrate the fact that it's not any one specific straight white male's fault that they have a leg up on life. This also prevents us from having to make caveats about how easy in this context doesn't necessarily mean easy in the absolute, and moves the conversation away from the individual and onto the larger world.

I will admit that it is also not a perfect metaphor, and it does lose mass appeal by being a bit more specific. I would argue that a more accurate, targeted metaphor does a better job not only of getting the point across, but getting people to listen to rest of what you have to say in the first place. A place exists for both, but I felt it necessary to point out the flaws in the article's analogy based on the fact that there were people in chat at the time who were feeling threatenedtargeted, and how others responded to them. Graham said that if someone makes you feel shitty about any of this for being white, then that's on that person, and I wanted to help clarify how this headline could be seen as doing just that.

I'd also like to point out that making issues of privilege all about how shitty white men feel when called on their privilege IS AN EXAMPLE OF PRIVILEGE.

White men turn conversation back onto themselves with things like that and distract from the real issues.

I'm not saying that privilege doesn't exist, or denying the impact it has. The linked article makes a lot of good points, but as was evidenced by the reaction of some people in chat when it was originally posted, the headline is divisive and puts people (specifically the people that it wants to make its point to) on the defensive. I'm not trying to make the issue about white men, I'm just pointing out how this language can be seen as hostile, and trying to propose an alternative that the target audience of the work will be more receptive to. If anything I'm turning the conversation back onto language, but this was a tangent to the main conversation anyway.

[Jamfalcon]

I tend not to weigh in much on this sort of conversation, though I do read them, because I do understand that as someone who checks off pretty much every box in regards to privilege, I have the hardest time noticing the advantages they give me. As someone who hasn't had to deal with discrimination of any sort in his lifetime (or certainly not in a context that affect my life in any way), I don't feel like I have much to add to the conversation. And yes, I realize the irony of my carrying on this line of discussion, and plan to go back to observing and learning.

That said, the main reason I felt like I wanted to weigh in, is on the topic of an RPG analogy for privilege, here's my take: being born as a straight white male is coming into the game with a well optimized character build. You can absolutely still do terribly in the game and fail miserably, and you still have to work hard to succeed. But the player who just picked their class because it sounded neat and chose their skills at random is going to have a far, far harder time overcoming many of the challenges. They can still succeed, they can still do some things better than you, and yeah, of course anyone can be lucky or unlucky. But the character that comes into the game optimized for success is going to find it more easily.

I hope that makes some sort of sense, I should have been in bed an hour ago.

[Deedles]

The main reason I don't like that analogy is that it implies it being a choice, kinda how the Frost Mage analogy implies that people with privilege are better equipped to deal with things(to non-WoW players, it's because Molten Core was filled with fire creatures, weak to frost damage), which is the incorrect stereotype in the first place.

That's why a lot of analogies aren't always very nice when it comes to the ones with privilege(or at least aren't too focused on being such), because even if individuals within that group have had it hard, as a whole they've had it easier because of perpetuated stereotypes and ways of thinking.

[Arashi]

(...)

The point I was trying to make when I said in chat that this article only serves to make people feel bad is best described through Dark Souls. When Cam was tilting out on the gargoyles and getting stomped left and right, people telling him that the fight was easy compared to, say, Ornstein and Smough, didn't really do anything other than make him feel shitty for struggling on something that was "easy". We are never going to make any progress when we come at things from a point of trying to bring other people's struggles down, and funny catch phrase titles like this only serve to divide and put people on the defensive. I agree with the core of what it's trying to say, but I don't think that's the right way to go about it.

I have to agree here with EmpyrealHell and I think his example of Cam's Dark Souls tilt is perfect.
However I wanted to share my own experience as well.
I'm a straight, white male in my twenties. I absolutely understand I'm privileged.
However I also suffer from ADD, depression and social anxiety.
Which is causing issues for my education (and student debt for that matter) and means I have virtually no work experience, among other things.
I realize these problems would be twice as hard if I had been female, or gay, or born with a different skin colour.
It however DOESN'T mean my life is 'easy' or 'easy mode' or 'casual'.
It might be 'easier' or 'lower difficulty' (as the article uses).
But going: "Straight white male is easy mode. Harharhar. Such casuals." is only hurtful IMO.
And as EmpyrealHell said, I think that is where a lot of reactions in the chat came from after those remarks.

[Amake]

Of course, our prejudices also tell us having it easy means you deserve to be punished. That may be why a lot of people balk at the idea.

Failing doesn't make you a bad person. Struggling doesn't make you a bad person. Struggling with a thing that someone else finds easier doesn't make you a worse person than that person. Even struggling with a thing that someone else finds easier who has less reason to find it easy than you do doesn't make you worse than that person. That's just what the Man trying to get us to work against each other wants you to think.

And I don't think anyone's unaware that every deviation from the ideal straight, white, wealthy, middle aged, skinny, able-bodied, neurosis-free, neurotypical, cisgendered, genius man template raises your difficulty level. Unless all those descriptors match you, you probably don't have to feel targeted when people talk about casuals.

[Deedles]

Recognising priviliege does in no way diminish the individual struggles belonging to the privilieged group.

I also can't help but wonder if the 'casuals' and 'hardcore' lingo is the author of the article taking a jab at the fact that it's one of the most well used insults against female gamers, by male gamers, predominantly cis, white males.

[Jamfalcon]

The main reason I don't like that analogy is that it implies it being a choice, kinda how the Frost Mage analogy implies that people with privilege are better equipped to deal with things(to non-WoW players, it's because Molten Core was filled with fire creatures, weak to frost damage), which is the incorrect stereotype in the first place.

That's why a lot of analogies aren't always very nice when it comes to the ones with privilege(or at least aren't too focused on being such), because even if individuals within that group have had it hard, as a whole they've had it easier because of perpetuated stereotypes and ways of thinking.

Ah, fair points. I definitely didn't mean to imply that it was a choice, but reading it again in the light of day I do see the flaw in that analogy.

[Deedles]

I don't think it's a horrible analogy(neither of them were), because it obviously comes from a place of goodwill(And like Scalzi said in one of his follow-ups, no analogy or metaphor is going to be perfect), it's mostly that that stood out a bit to me, since members of the LGTB community so often get accused of having a choice, when they don't.

[korvys]

I'm always a little wary of trying to re-frame any discussion about privilege (or anything, really) that uses an analogy, as being about the analogy itself. It's not that it's not sincere, I'm a big a fan of discussing things into the ground as a form of recreation, but it's also a debate tactic, implying (but not usually *saying*) that because the analogy is flawed, the argument is flawed, and because the argument is flawed, it is incorrect.

I certainly don't think anyone here is approaching it like this, but something more common, and still well intentioned,is things like this:

I agree with the core of what it's trying to say, but I don't think that's the right way to go about it.

Pointing out the flaws in an analogy is one thing, but I think it's important not to shut down a discussion (even accidentally) just because the analogy isn't perfect.

Like I said, I don't think this is intentional, and has already been acknowledged, and now I'm sort of turning it into a meta-discussion, but I just wanted to share my frustration. It's just so common in all sorts of discussions (see also: I'm not a Feminist, I'm an Egalitarian). I'll probably write more later.

[EmpyrealHell]

Pointing out the flaws in an analogy is one thing, but I think it's important not to shut down a discussion (even accidentally) just because the analogy isn't perfect.

I agree, I made one comment in the original conversation, and then it moved over here and became its own, separate conversation. I definitely wasn't trying to derail the original conversation, and based on how it played out in chat I don't think that I did. This seems more like a sidebar, and I think this is the best place to have these sorts of meta discussions. If there is a more appropriate place and time to have this discussion, I'd be more than happy to move it there.

To shed light on my perspective on this, I am a linguist. I consider the clear and effective communication of a point to be more important than the point itself. I don't mean to downplay the significance of any issue in particular, but just like you can't build a house on a cracked foundation, you can't have a good discussion of complex ideas if you can't effectively communicate to people holding opposing views without triggering a defensive response. I saw people talking past each other in chat without actually addressing the points the other was making, and I tried to help bridge that gap so that people could actually talk to each other, rather than past.

[korvys]

This is the perfect place for this. I realise that you, and everyone, are not trying to derail the conversation. You even acknowledged you were focusing on the language aspect in your previous post.

I do have to disagree with you, though, on "the clear and effective communication of a point [is] more important than the point itself". As long as everyone comes into a discussion in good faith (which I accept is not really true of most internet discussions), I think there is a lot of room for "The analogy isn't perfect, but I understand the point you're making".

[Duckay]

I know it hasn't really come up here, but on a semi-related point, it is of course important to keep in mind that there is not only one kind of privilege and that it's possible to benefit from one and not benefit from another. Of course, it's on the people using the term to make it clear that they are talking about privilege in a specific sense, and on the people listening to appreciate the context and keep that in mind when forming a response.

[Arclight_Dynamo]

Precisely. I'm privileged in that I'm a cis white dude, living in the developed world, whose first language is English. I'm not privileged in that I'm not American, I'm not Christian, and I'm mentally ill.

On balance I'm pretty darn privileged, but in certain circumstances the particular ways I lack privilege become relevant. And, of course, in certain other circumstances (most, in fact) they are not relevant.

Context matters and intersectionality is a thing.

[Elomin Sha]

Privilege: we were the successful formation of a diploid cell, no succomming to miscarriage, whisking, et al, and in the end came to term screaming, kicking and covered in red (In my case I was blue, then red then orange - that's right...I'm a shape shifter).