[cloutchaser]

They are reciting the guilt that they are copying off their parents. It’s horrible.

Think about it this way. You worked damn hard so that your children have a better life. I know I do. So did my parents. Is it unfair that we give that advantage to our children? No. And certainly neither you or your children have anything to feel guilty about.

I’m not from the US so I don’t understand the whole slavery issue but still, no one alive today deserves this insane guilt put on them now for some ancestor sin. That’s called collective guilt and it’s why nazis killed Jews. People need to stop it.

Life is unfair and we are all different. What you do with your talents and resources is what counts. Not what some ancestor of yours did. It’s ridiculous. If you do feel privileged, give away your wealth. If you don’t, then don’t. But for gods sake stop feeling guilt about things you didn’t do.

[amanaplanacanal]

I recognize my privilege, not so I feel guilty about it, but simply as a tool of compassion. If I realize my success in life wasn’t entirely my doing, it’s much easier to realize that someone else’s lack of success isn’t always their fault, either. It helps me be less judgemental.

[tjrDL6MjB2Zwwa]

> Life is unfair and we are all different. What you do with your talents and resources is what counts. Not what some ancestor of yours did. It’s ridiculous. If you do feel privileged, give away your wealth. If you don’t, then don’t. But for gods sake stop feeling guilt about things you didn’t do.

There's a video with Dsouza (spelling?) where he's speaking at a college campus with a bunch of college kids who are attacking him in the Q&A. He made the point that college admissions is limited and if they truly believed what they were saying, they would quit college to give another the opportunity they are privileged to have.

Of course there were reasons why that particular college kid didn't have to do that...and more power to said college kid, I would defend their right to stay.

But I've always loved the hypocrisy in that moment.

[jjeaff]

Recognizing privilege or advantages or whatever you want to call it has nothing to do with guilt and everything to do with empathy and understanding of the world around you.

I find it interesting that many people would be quick to recognize a physical trait as an advantage (like are we that impressed if a heavy weight boxer beats a light weight boxer?) But someone recognizing that race, family money, good genes, or whatever as advantages is somehow "woke" and apologetic.

It's like we have a world full of completely self-unaware Kramers (of Seinfeld fame) running around. So proud and unapologetic about their karate prowess... https://youtu.be/7t8xwpW8gJQ

[tjrDL6MjB2Zwwa]

> Recognizing privilege or advantages or whatever you want to call it has nothing to do with guilt and everything to do with empathy and understanding of the world around you.

Pack it in boys, we're the generation that's finally cracked the "understanding the world around you" nut!

What does that even mean?

This is all a social delusion, exactly like the ones we criticize in our history. This too shall pass (TM) and when it does, perhaps the next generation's response to it will be more useful in helping those that need help.

We don't know, but not recognizing this for what it is, is the height of delusion imo.

[jjeaff]

What does your post even mean? It says nothing except, that you seem to be triggered by words like empathy.

Understanding and empathy in this context mean exactly what I explained. Which is understanding how much of your success is built upon the shoulders of your family, community, and simply good luck.

[crackercrews]

Interestingly none of the interviewees I spoke to confessed having the privilege of intelligence ("good genes" as you put it). It was all about money. Even for children of immigrants who came here without much.

[vagrantJin]

> What you do with your talents and resources is what counts.

This os the argument made by right wingers. No different from "pull yourself up with your bootstraps" and as a famous US rapper asked "pull ourselves up by the bootstraps? Where the f*ck are the boots?!"

Privilege isnt an issue of individuals, and I will never condone hate aimed at individual for supposed "privilege". But the people - before the word "woke" was plastered as a slogan for upper middle class white kids - have always been complaining that the system is not working to create an equal and fair society. Its selective. Its not in plain sight. To stay "woke" is to notice the subtleties of this new version, evolution of keeping black people as sub-human, incapable and dependent. To be woke ws to see the global order of economies and statecraft is mostly and pretty much exclusively European, the same people who see you as sub-human by holy writ. Thats a hard pill to swallow. You are kidding yourself if you think we can ignore all that and keep it moving.

To make an anology. Its like ocean fish being dumped in a fresh water river. People can sit on the outside and point proudly - "behold. The fish is in the fresh water and not in exposed atmos. Eat. Mate. Lay eggs and be merry." Do ocean fish really want to live as fresh water fish?

[tjrDL6MjB2Zwwa]

As someone who came from extreme poverty, I don't agree with this take at all.

Yes, some people are in terrible circumstances due to forces beyond their control. But what you're doing is trying to convince everyone men should be treated as if they have a micro-penis because some men DO have a micro-penis.

The better messaging is that if you do NOT have a micro-penis, you have an opportunity for success if you learn decision making skills (yes, the analogy breaks down, but the point is made).

The messaging matters, but what ends up happening is those for whom the messaging is far less important tend to send the wrong signals because they're not the signals that help assuage their guilt for not helping.

[vagrantJin]

> As someone who came from extreme poverty, I don't agree with this take at all.

What you are doing is taking things to a personal level when my point was really about systems, macro. So that an individual need not feel guilt. At least someone who isn't the head of state.

[tjrDL6MjB2Zwwa]

right, you're not actually interested in helping people, that's the point. If you were, your response wouldn't be "you've done it, but that doesn't matter".

[vagrantJin]

Yeah. Probably.

[crackercrews]

> the system is not working to create an equal and fair society

How can you make our society more equal and more fair? More "equal" makes it sound like fewer disproportionate outcomes by race. I can't think of a way to achieve that goal in a way that is "fair".

[vagrantJin]

The systems in place should not actively work to keep others down, whether its by race, socioeconomoic status, religion etc. What matters is people's potential and capacity to be healthy, productive members of society. It's unlikely to be fair. Thats not really any one individuals fault.

[jonathanlb]

I agree to some extent, but your comment has several major fallacies:

Slippery slope, e.g., acknowledging privilege or past wrongs leads to a dangerous path, such as the Holocaust.

False dilemma, e.g., either one must give away their wealth or not feel guilty, when there are other options.

Genetic fallacy, e.g., implying that the actions of ancestors should not be held against someone because they are not responsible for their ancestors actions. Even if someone didn't choose to have a certain privilege, that does not mean that it does not exist.

Strawman Fallacy, e.g., presenting a misrepresenation of the idea of collective guilt and suggesting that it is the same as Nazis killing Jews.

Like I said, I agree to the extent that guilt can be unproductive. If one feels that, though, about systemic injustices that allowed them to attain a privileged position in life, it could be seen as an invitation to address those and/or current injustices.

[wickedsickeune]

As a fellow person who also likes to notice fallacies, I'd advise you not to point them out, because it usually has a negative effect on convincing your interlocutor.

[ngc248]

Not only that, convo becomes robotic. When the poster talked about nazis killing jews, we understand what he meant based on the context. Heck you can list fallacies for any argument.

[uxcolumbo]

What is a different / better way to convince someone?

How would you have approached it?

[OJFord]

Not GP but IMO it's a lazy and boring way of disagreeing. Declaring something 'a strawman' on HN is so common and not entirely done I think (not that I'm particularly familiar) with technical accuracy, it's like screaming 'fake news' with a veneer of intelligence.

GGP comment here was maybe better than most for actually relating the alleged fallacies to what the parent had said directly, but I think it'd be better/politer/more honest good discussion to phrase it like 'this is not the same because blah blah. This kind of argument is known as a blah fallacy.' or not even mention the fallacy, because does it really matter? Unless that's what you want to talk about instead of the actual topic.

It's a bit like saying 'I went through your comment looking for grammatical errors: 1) split infinitive, e.g. blah; 2) missing possessive apostrophe, e.g. blah's blah not blahs blah, ...' versus talking about the content instead and perhaps politely mentioning it. Just a bit 'ha, got you'.

[tjrDL6MjB2Zwwa]

For anyone reading this, just note that when you employ these tactics the value of accuracy gets lost.

Because that's often what these things are, a test of the values considered important. If accuracy is not important, by all means, don't point out the flaws but rather concentrate on making the other person feel good. Just understand what it is you're doing.

But ask yourself this: How do you arrive at the truth if pointing out inaccuracies is not valued? At that point, why are you even engaging?

Something to think about.

[OJFord]

I'm not saying don't point out inaccuracies, I'm saying there are less combative ways of doing that than 'here is a list of the named fallacies in your argument'.

[uxcolumbo]

Thanks.

I think you're right, this style of discussion can appear confrontational and focusing on scoring points.

I didn't see it at first - I was just parsing the words without imagining how it might be perceived.

[program_whiz]

Just to point out most of these "fallacies" you describe are just you disagreeing in this case. You don't believe ascribing guilt or privilege based on ancestry will lead to the holocaust again so you say its a slippery slope, however there are many historic examples where ascribing guilt or blame based on ancestry has justified mass killing (jews, kulachs, china purge, etc.). Im not saying the GP is righr just that these arent necessarily logical fallacies, just your interpretation (but being justified by dubious claims of invalid logic). He did not say "this will inequivocally lead to the holocaust" which is a strong logical claim that coukd be fallacious, but instead, "this kind of thinking is similar to thunking that justified the holocaust". Actually in a strange way you strawmanned the GP argument by not observing context and nuance.

And just as an aside it feels a bit hollow to list it out like this. It reads like a code review from the junior that just finished reading a book on design patterns or code smells. Direct engagement and counterpoint addressing the substance of the argument could be less gimmicky.