[tazjin]

Stopped reading after

> Preface: As a white, heterosexual, cis, male, I’m granted, from birth, an extraordinary amount of privilege

I wasn't actually aware people outside of the Tumblrverse said things like that. (Over on Reddit there is /r/TumblrInAction for things like this)

[spindritf]

Oh, good. It's not just me.

> Preface: As a white, heterosexual, cis, male, I’m granted, from birth, an extraordinary amount of privilege

This is crazy, intellectually debilitating blabber. And just wrong on a blog[1].

We already allowed lawyers and CYA politicians to slap warning labels on everything (despite the fact that it's counter-productive[2]). Are we now going to put disclaimers on private blogs?

Or is it like a weird way to brag? "I'm not affected by any common affliction." (You forgot "able-bodied" BTW which is much more important that those other things.) Better yet, "I, being of sound mind and body do hereby publish this blogpost."

[1] http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/against-disclai.html

[2] http://pss.sagepub.com/content/24/9/1842

[md224]

> This is crazy, intellectually debilitating blabber.

Would you care to elaborate on what's crazy and intellectually debilitating about the sentence you quoted? I know people that would agree completely with that sentence, so I'd be curious to hear your perspective and why you feel it's wrong.

[thwest]

Perhaps the concepts of gender and race are so foreign that it is literally difficult to think about and therefore "debilitating".

[makomk]

He also completely failed to mention mental health issues, which was the more glaring omission for me.

[steveklabnik]

It's actually directly relevant; they're acknowledging that when they say "if you're lonely, just get out there and say hello!" is an acceptable option partially because it really is true that at the worst, they'll feel uncomfortable. Someone who does not come from this place in life has a myriad of other things that can add to the downsides in this equation, and when you stack the two up against each other, they start looking differently really quickly.

Of course, since you skipped the "please remember the position I come from and critically engage with how that effects the thoughts I have," I shouldn't have expected you to.

[tomp]

Could you explain a bit more, why exactly does this advice "just get out there" not apply to anyone who isn't either white, heterosexual, cis or male?

[britta]

There are many potential examples, but I'll explain an example from my own experience. I'm a woman, and I've enjoyed tagging along with my male friend who is very friendly at conferences and similar events, talking to all kinds of strangers and having good conversations.

That looked like a fun skill to have, so I tried doing it on my own - introducing myself to other attendees, asking about their work and projects, etc. And I ran into a bunch of awkward situations where the person responded as if I were flirting with them (inevitably most of the people I talked to were men, since most of the people at those conferences were men). No, I actually just wanted to learn more about your company's business model.

I was copying my male friend's style of talking to other men, and I was interpreted differently. I've adjusted my approach now to reduce the chances of misunderstandings like that.

[tomp]

And your conclusion is that if a man did the same (copying a woman's style of talking to other women, and going around introducing himself to (mostly) women attendees), the outcome would be different? If not, it's not really a case of male privilege.

[tptacek]

Her conclusion is that when she follows the standard advice to get out there and talk to people, the men she talks to think that she's flirting with them. Whereas when you or I talk to men, they very rarely think we're flirting with them.

A subtext that you may have missed is that it's very awkward and uncomfortable to have only one party to a conversation think that the conversation is sexually charged, and the possibility of that happening is a disincentive to circulating and socializing.

I thought it was a pretty straightforward observation, but hopefully my summary helps you. Translating basic human experience to nerd-ese --- all part of the service we provide!

[tomp]

I don't like your tone. I think I got all of the subtext.

However, my argument was that if the situations were reversed, the outcome would be exactly the same. Go to a place where there are predominantly women (any dance class or even a Yoga class, feminist conference), and if you and I would try to "talk to them like we talk to men", many of them would assume that we're flirting with them. Or do my observations not concur with yours?

[britta]

Yes! Thanks.

[arbitrarywords]

Maybe imagine you're a happily married account manager for a baby formula company and then when you go to professional conferences (of mostly women), every time you try to engage someone or get involved in a group conversation the talk subtly turns to nipple tenderness and mid-term horniness. It makes doing your job and life in general harder than if you were just another woman.

[wglb]

Can you say what the adjustment was?

[britta]

For one, I talk less to people I don't know; the potential for awkwardness changes the risk/reward calculation.

I am also more serious when I'm talking to people I don't know - less smiling, more matter-of-fact, cool instead of warm. This is artificial for me since I'm generally friendly, but apparently it's less confusing.

I spend a lot more time reading the situation to get a better feel for how people are likely to respond, including whether people at the conference/event are likely to already have a reasonable amount of experience working/talking with women as peers.

Or I find ways to meet new people while I'm with other people, such as joining groups that have positioned themselves to be open to others joining in. Or convincing friends - or people I've just met - to tag along with me to meet other people.

[swombat]

It's still sadly the case that in many parts of the world, if you're, say, gay, and you "get out there" and end up talking to the wrong person, they might gang up on you in the parking lot as you leave and beat the shit out of you.

It's fairly unlikely in a civilised surrounding, but civilisation is rarer than you think.

As a straight white male, your potential downside from getting into a chat with someone at a party does not include serious bodily harm. Most people are nice to you by default.

Another example: an outgoing, alone woman might be perceived as easy or sleazy by some Neanderthal-like person she talks to, and could end up with a lot of unwanted attention from saying hi to the wrong people. Again, unlikely, depends on the surroundings/crowd, but still.

As a white straight guy, going to a totally random party alone is a much safer proposition.

[tomp]

I assumed we're speaking about the first world. I totally agree that different people are treated differently by the (majority of the) society, but to speak of privilege... Maybe women are more likely to be touched by strangers in a club, but most of my male friends have already been assaulted, either in clubs or in the street. I was assaulted in broad dailght. I don't personally know any woman that had anything similar happen to her, which of course doesn't say much, but claiming that one sex (or race) has it uniformly better or worse than another seems a bit of a stretch to me.

[swombat]

Even the "first world" can vary greatly. You'll get a different risk profile in some small town in the middle of the bible belt in the US than you would in central London, for example. As I said, civilisation is rarer than you think.

[phillmv]

It's not that it doesn't apply, it's just not as straightforward.

As a white, cis, straight male (with a good job, I might add) there are few venues you aren't automatically welcome at and compatible with.

Flip any of those variables and "just get out there" is less applicable or harder. It's not like being a white male is a cheat code at life, but you spawn with a fuller inventory and a couple rings of +2 less bulshit.

[VLM]

In before the tired allusion to going out for skittles and tea after smoking weed at midnight (in florida)

Reality is it applies to everyone and its just a "woe is me" strategy. I "can't" socialize because I'm not pasty white, well there's a load off my back I don't have to be responsible for anymore.

[cobrausn]

As a former Catholic, when I read lines like that I can't help but be struck with the observation that this seems to be a feminist/progressive version of confessing your sins in order to be absolved of them.

[mindslight]

It's more of an original sin you can never be absolved of and are supposed to continually prostrate yourself for.

Of course there are people in situations for which the advice in this article is a non-starter. But does that preface actually specifically address them, or is it just a cargo-cult disclaimer to keep the responses from being derailed by feel-good plighties? And how should one feel if they are so "privileged" yet still cannot bring themselves to follow this advice?

[roflc0ptic]

Yeah, exactly. I'm deeply sympathetic towards lefty activists and activism, but I just cannot get over how much privilege "politics" [sic] sounds like original sin.

1. Being racist is bad 2. All white people are racist (by virtue of being born into a racist culture)

Ergo... all white people are bad. And I've seen several facebook posts by people of color that say things like "I'M DONE WITH WHITE PEOPLE." And I'm even somewhat sympathetic to that: All the evidence I've seen indicates I get treated better for being a tolerably handsome white dude. That must be kind of infuriating.

But at the end of the day, it's this culture that is often hostile to white dudes on principal, and just... okay? I guess I won't talk to you at parties if you don't want me to?

[phillmv]

>But at the end of the day, it's this culture that is often hostile to white dudes on principal, and just... okay?

So, the premise that this begins with starts not with the notion that you're a bad person who doesn't deserve to live but more from the notion, popular in lefty circles, that your opinion about the plight of less privileged people doesn't matter precisely because you have no experience in the subject matter.

There is a legitimate criticism that people have swung too far into these kinds of identity politics, and that they're ultimately more divisive than not. Ultimately, they prevent the formation of a communal polity that can work together on shared incentives rather than splintering into a fractal set of identities.

It gets trickier because a lot of white dudes parse this as a personal attack and thus get (appropriately, from their perspective) upset. I'm not personally, consciously responsible! What did I do wrong?

The key thing to keep in mind is, if you're not a white dude, you've spent most of modern history totally shut out of the conversation. It's extremely infuriating! And having white dudes complaining that they're not being listened to - with all the attending historical baggage that claim carries - only compounds that frustration. Which is why people lash out.

We're still in a state of flux; things will settle down one way or another. But I think it's worth keeping in mind the difference between "All white people are racist" and "We're really tired of only listening to the opinions of white people". Usually, people mean the latter and not the former.

[cobrausn]

The key thing to keep in mind is, if you're not a white dude, you've spent most of modern history totally shut out of the conversation.

The key thing you are forgetting when you say 'shut up, straight white boy'[1] is that throughout most of history (and still today), even if you were a white male, you were statistically speaking poor and fairly unimportant, and also shut out of 'the conversation'.

There is a fairly significant difference between accepting additional input from those with a different perspective (inclusive) and excluding input because of perceived privilege based on race/gender/etc (exclusive).

[1] I'm adapting this from the title of a feminist blog post critical of the term 'privilege' as a useful rhetorical device, which curiously cannot be found (404), don't take it literally...

[phillmv]

>even if you were a white male, you were statistically speaking poor and fairly unimportant, and also shut out of 'the conversation'.

Well, it's not about your individual, direct contribution but your place in that system of power.

Just because you're not directly related to powerful rich white men doesn't mean that their decisions - while mostly targetted at "rich" rather than "white and male" - haven't also and continue to benefit you to this day.

My great-great-great-grandfather may have been a penniless shmuck of no importance - but whoever he was he was still the head of his household and had some modicum of rights. His wife on the other hand, would have been largely considered to be his property. Had he died after her first born son came of age, she might not even inherit anything he leaves behind - or be forced to marry his younger brother, or etc etc.

And woe betide you if you were born black 50+ years ago.

I know the above isn't in question but what I'm getting at is - we still benefit in some way from all of this and the fact that our feelings get hurt, or we aren't personally responsible isn't particularly interesting.

I'm not defending the practice - I too lean towards saying "it's way too abrasive" but I fundamentally sympathize with the underpinning. Anything I say is likely to be in my interests.

[roflc0ptic]

>>here is a legitimate criticism that people have swung too far into these kinds of identity politics, and that they're ultimately more divisive than not. Ultimately, they prevent the formation of a communal polity that can work together on shared incentives rather than splintering into a fractal set of identities.

This is a really good articulation of my feelings about it; better than I've managed so far. :)

>>It gets trickier because a lot of white dudes parse this as a personal attack and thus get (appropriately, from their perspective) upset. I'm not personally, consciously responsible! What did I do wrong?

Often it is a personal attack. "SHUT THE FUCK UP CIS WHITE MALE" isn't satire; it's something I've seen written by someone I personally know to someone else I personally know. The hostility is exhausting and alienating. It's bad because people confuse that hostility with making the world a better place; it turns into a group bullying activity, and people form identities around performing their animus towards some individual members of a group.

That animus has been poison in my life and my community, and I'm taking steps to permanently separate myself from activism because of it. I know several other people who have quit for that particular reason. Capitalism is destroying the biosphere and immiserating most of humanity on its way out and this is the best we've got. I just. I can't deal with it.

[nollidge]

Your more astute social justice commentators tend to point out that everybody is racist (and sexist and transphobic and and and). Including people of color against their own race, because they are not immune to the constant messages that they are "the other".

I think it's good to read those frustrated messages with some sympathy. I don't think they're saying they're completely done with ever talking to white people for any reason (like at a party); I think they're just expressing their exhaustion with having to have the same Racism 101 conversations about race with white people. Because white people, as a whole, when hearing about the experiences PoC have, tend to dismiss or question or rationalize rather than listening and considering.

I'm white. I've only recently started paying attention to this shit and already I've seen the repetition of the same tired ideas put forth, especially in HN threads like this one. I can roll my eyes and stop having to think about it for a while (or forever, if I wanted to), but people of color don't really have that luxury.

[roflc0ptic]

"I can roll my eyes and stop having to think about it for a while (or forever, if I wanted to), but people of color don't really have that luxury."

This gets straight back to the guilt thing, though. This idea that it's a luxury that I have, sure. True. What actions does this observation imply, though? None, as far as I can see, except feeling bad. Should I go listen to people of color voice their experiences because they don't feel listened to? I do, you know, and I do listen with some sympathy, but I don't think it's ever done anyone a bit of good.

[makomk]

Well, if you look at the comment you're replying to it's already telling you something concrete you can do beyond merely feeling bad: namely, being sympathetic to people of colour when they say things like "I'm done with white people" out of frustration, and not (for instance) immediately holding this up as proof that PoC are just as racist and so shouldn't complain. You may not like the idea of doing that, but it's definitely a concrete action.

[nollidge]

I think listening does a bit of good. Understanding does even more, and sharing that understanding so they don't have to does even more good. The unfortunate fact is that you'll be listened to better by another white person than a person of color, who'll be perceived as being "biased".

[theorique]

Nail on the head.

Since fewer people are religious and more people are cynically postmodern, different ideologies and beliefs (e.g. 'antiracism', 'social justice', 'Objectivism') creep in to fill the void which was formerly occupied by religion.

[king_jester]

Its not confessing for absolution, its a disclaimer: I'm a white dude, I have certain advantages/privileges, YMMV.

[cobrausn]

If YMMV, then why the need for the disclaimer?

Assigning 'privilege' to race and gender seems fairly lazy to me, considering there are so many ways that it may not actually be a privilege to everybody. You know what is always, without fail, a privilege? Coming from money. When I was growing up, the term 'privileged' could be used without argument that way.

[jskopek]

Do you disagree with the author? Depending on where you live, his point is very valid. As a resident of Canada, I feel that I live in a fairly progressive, culturally diverse society. Yet even here, I have heard friends of different ethnicities complain about racial issues.

Not all racial or gender divisions are obvious; exclusion or denial of privilege is harder to spot.

[Stealth-]

As another resident of Canada, I have to completely disagree with you.

I have to pay $20,000 for my schooling. My first nations friends pay nothing, it's covered by tax payers. This includes numerous other benefits that I do not get. In Canada, unfortunately it can often seem like the minority have more privileges. That's not equality, to me.

[shinratdr]

And all they had to do to get that was to be ripped from their homes and placed into residential schools, which existed into the 60s. What a sweet deal!

This smacks of tremendous ignorance of the history of First Nations people and what white Canadians have done to them. It's possibly the most concrete demonstration of white privilege I've ever seen.

"Well gee, I'm just a simple guy, but I don't think trying to balance out the horrible things that people of my race did to people of another race well into the 1900s that irreversibly affected their communities ability to survive is all that fair if I don't get those things too!"

It's all well and good to want a level playing field, but when you've spend the last century digging everyone else into gigantic holes, it kind of rings a little hollow.

[Stealth-]

Growing up in a poorer neighbourhood, the native friends I had were able to play football, have school lunches, go on fieldtrips, and go to university when I could not because they were paid for with tax payers' dollars.

My grandparents were not even in this country at the time, it was not my ancestors nor me that hurt anyone. So I should have less because of what someone with the same skin colour as me did decades ago? Doesn't that seem a little, I don't know, discriminatory?

[shinratdr]

> the native friends I had were able to play football, have school lunches, go on fieldtrips, and go to university when I could not because they were paid for with tax payers' dollars.

I don't know where you live but in Toronto with the exception of university tuition, all those things are provided for children that can't afford them regardless of their background. The concept of not letting a child go on a field trip or go hungry at lunch because they couldn't afford it is just insane to my ears.

> My grandparents were not even in this country at the time, it was not my ancestors nor me that hurt anyone.

Good thing this has little or nothing to do with punishing the descendants of those who may or may not have perpetrated injustice. It's about providing a leg-up to those that have been held down for decades. You had no such disadvantages so you don't receive the leg up.

> Doesn't that seem a little, I don't know, discriminatory?

Providing benefits to anyone while excluding anyone else is technically discrimination. That's doesn't make it bad. Not all things are equal. It's discrimination that students pay less than you to take the subway. Also discrimination, also not a bad thing.

[canistr]

> I don't know where you live but in Toronto with the exception of university tuition, all those things are provided for children that can't afford them regardless of their background. The concept of not letting a child go on a field trip or go hungry at lunch because they couldn't afford it is just insane to my ears.

As insane as it may sound for a Torontonian, I grew up in Scarborough where many people didn't go on field trips simply because of the cost. Some kids had small lunches. And I grew up in a time where, because of cut backs in education costs, students were required to pay a "course fee" of about $50 at the beginning of the term in high school to pay for additional learning supplies for classes. Which usually amounted to the fee required to print workbooks, provide extra writing materials, or even art supplies.

[cobrausn]

Providing benefits to anyone while excluding anyone else is technically discrimination. That's doesn't make it bad. Not all things are equal. It's discrimination that students pay less than you to take the subway. Also discrimination, also not a bad thing.

Except for that it's discrimination based on need and not race.

[king_jester]

> Growing up in a poorer neighbourhood, the native friends I had were able to play football, have school lunches, go on fieldtrips, and go to university when I could not because they were paid for with tax payers' dollars.

Everyone should have access to these things, that some first nations people got this while you didn't isn't a problem with first nations people, but society at large not caring for its members. Of course, it is important to remember that first nations people experience that lack of care in unique and often violent ways.

> My grandparents were not even in this country at the time, it was not my ancestors nor me that hurt anyone. So I should have less because of what someone with the same skin colour as me did decades ago? Doesn't that seem a little, I don't know, discriminatory?

You or your immediate ancestors didn't have to be there to benefit from that past and the situation it fosters today. You frame this as you being targeted to get less, which is really far from the truth about how first nations people live in Canada today. Finally, no you are not being discriminated against, you are benefiting directly and indirectly from past and current colonialist policies in Canada if you are white.

[kyzyl]

> And all they had to do to get that was to be ripped from their homes and placed into residential schools, which existed into the 60s.

Just FYI, the last Canadian residential school closed in... drum roll... 1996. Sweet deal indeed.

[brian_cloutier]

Trust me, I know how you feel. I was a National Merit Semifinalist while my friend with far weaker academics was an Hispanic National Merit Finalist and won a full-ride to her college of choice. As a white male, it was a little annoying going down the list of scholarships and having precious few open to me.

The thing to understand about racism is that it's a societal thing, not an individual thing. Discrimination against an individual can be racist, but only if it contributes to the racism of a society. (I know, the academic usage of "racism" is unfortunately a little different than the colloquial usage)

In your individual case, you might not be as privileged as the students around you, but your race certainly is. I don't know much about Canada, but Native Americans have quantifiably rough lives. On average they make less, are more likely to become alcoholics, and are less likely to make it through college.

It's not about what your ancestors did. People bring that up a lot but you shouldn't be held accountable for the actions of people you never met just because you're related to them. In fact, you aren't held accountable. But you still have to deal with the society we live in as a result of the actions your ancestors took. That society is deeply inequal, and by providing things like scholarships we're accelerating progress in equality that traditionally takes decades to come about.

[victorhn]

Or you could have claimed you are a Hispanic white.

[canistr]

Look, I'm a Canadian myself. I paid the $20,000/year tuition for my schooling too (thank you Waterloo Co-op!). But frankly, it's very easy for the both of us to claim we are deserving of certain privileges or that we worked hard to get where we are based on our own family socio-economic situations.

But the reality is that to get to this point, many immigrant families and first nations families face enormous difficulty to meet their basic needs. To get to this country is one thing, to get here without anything is another. To have everything taken away and having to build it up without a strong support network is difficult. Equality isn't just about the money, it's about the community around you that helps create an environment that allows you to grow and succeed. By just pointing at the price tag, you're oversimplifying so many social factors and issues that play into how you get into university, get out, and start your career path in which, for families coming from difficult situations can simply be solved by some money.

Oh, and in case you were wondering, I am a visible minority myself. I didn't suffer and neither did my parents because the heavy burden was taken care-of by my great-grandparents and grandparents notwithstanding blatant racism by society and even government laws. I'm several generations removed from understanding the economic difficulties, but I'm still very much rooted in the cultural and social ones.

[Stealth-]

My point is that the people that get the benefits are not necessarily the people that need them the most. I've seen many families with status that did not need the money, but took advantage of it. I've also seen many families that needed the money, but could not get it because they were not status.

I completely agree with a support system for people who need it, but I do NOT think that system should be based on racial background.

[canistr]

If you agree, then we should start with the top (e.g. bankers/corporations) who get away with tax loop-holes. And you're mistaking the long-tail of different minorities who face various socio-economic problems with a myopic scenario.

[mkr-hn]

It has a lot more to do with financial status and social standing than any other factor. A white guy growing up and living in a poor part of the southeast has a very different experience from a white guy who grew up in a mansion. Race and gender are poor guides to figuring out how much a person struggles.

[FD3SA]

Precisely. It never ceases to amaze me how splintered the socioeconomic classes become via interest groups. Men vs. women, Black vs White vs Hispanic, Christian vs Muslim vs Jew vs atheist, Democrat vs Republican, gay vs straight vs trans, etc etc.

Socioeconomic status is the only real differentiator, and these factions only serve to divide the people whose interests are in reality, quite aligned. Unsurprisingly, this tends to greatly assist those at the top of the socioeconomic ladder in maintaining political deadlock on issues which greatly assist the majority at the expense of the tiny minority. Issues such as the social safety net, healthcare, education, infrastructure, and democratic process.

A cursory review of history shows that this is not a novel strategy.

[sp332]

There's a big difference in perspective between saying "the majority is privileged" and saying "the minority is disadvantaged". When the majority is heterosexual, white, and "cis-gendered", isn't that the baseline instead of privileged?

[king_jester]

Having your status considered the baseline is a part of privilege. Folks who fall outside of that baseline face real negative consequences for it. Both "the majority is privileged" and "the minority is disadvantaged" are true at the same time.

[sp332]

OK so the majority has some privilege just from being the majority. But that isn't a moral failing, something they should be ashamed of, something they shouldn't take full advantage of, or something they can change. So it doesn't seem to have anything in common with, say, racism or sexism.

[shinratdr]

That depends entirely on the direction you're observing from.

[sp332]

Let's say things are set up to pander to the majority, even when it puts a minority at a disadvantage. What is the argument for making things harder for the majority, to equalize things for the minority? On average, society would come out worse, so you'd have to argue that equality itself is more valuable than any advantage for the majority.

[king_jester]

> What is the argument for making things harder for the majority, to equalize things for the minority?

Nobody is arguing to make things harder or worse for those with privilege. Generally people are asking for equal consideration and opportunity and a recognition of past and existing injustice.

[sp332]

Well you may not be, but many people are.

[rsml]

Taken to its logical extreme, you could argue that sometimes it is advantageous for a society to harvest the organs of a healthy person, so that multiple people can have their lives extended through transplantation. Eugenics can also be argued for by saying that there's a net benefit to society.

One argument against this is based on the philosophical concept of a Veil of Ignorance[1]. We should create the rules of society as if we don't already know what our position in society will be. No one wants to live in a society where they could be randomly selected for organ harvesting, for example.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance

[phillmv]

Well, by your own metaphor on _average_ society would come out the same, by definition. (I suspect you meant median).

As a result, it sounds like you're saying "screw you, I got mine". We can flip the question around: why does this majority deserve better opportunities? There aren't very good answers to that question.

The main thing I'd point out is that unlike your metaphor society is not a zero-sum game.

[sp332]

Well, by your own metaphor on _average_ society would come out the same, by definition.

No, if you make things worse for 90% of the population, and make it better for 10% of the population, the total is worse and therefore the average (mean) is worse.

Edit: an example. Let's say the first 9 people rate society at 10 points, and the last one rates it a 4. Total 94, mean 9.4, median 10. Now change things around so everyone is equal and ranks things a 9. Total 90, mean 9.0, median 9. Even though the majority is almost as happy as before, and the minority is much happier, most measures come out worse.

[shinratdr]

> On average, society would come out worse

That's a massive leap in logic. Society isn't a simple one in, one out metric.

[FkZ]

"What is the argument for making things harder for the majority, to equalize things for the minority?"

That is an argument no one is making. What are you talking about?

[twelvechairs]

the majority isnt all those things and male.

[sp332]

White women are still privileged over other women (in the US and Canada anyway). You don't have to be male to be privileged.

[jrs99]

Do you know what it feels like to be a 5'1" white male or a 7'2" obese white male or a 6'5" white female? Race problems do exist, but because you're white doesn't mean you don't have problems with society.

[nollidge]

Nope, it doesn't, but does mean you don't have some particularly common ones!

[strathmeyer]

As a heterosexual white male it was very interesting to learn that all the thing I have been denied because of my race and gender should have been a privilege and that I have never actually been an outsider and have actually been the cause of everyone's loneliness instead of legitimately feeling it myself.

[xacaxulu]

What a sad life we've been leading!! CAN'T....GO.....ON.....

[volaski]

"I'm a white guy, I am so more privileged than most black guys" "I'm a guy, I am so more privileged than most girls" "I'm a white guy, I am so more privileged than most asian guys" "I'm a straight guy, I am so more privileged than most gay guys"

How do these make you feel?

Also how about someone went up to an old man and said, "You are an old man in your sixties, and I'm a college kid in my twenties. You will die much earlier than me. That's pretty much close to fact. Do you disagree?"

[jrs99]

I think it depends on how rich the target person is.

[altero]

I am European, but to me that sounds racist "I am white and heterosexual, I have the privilege". Like other people are worth less because they do not have privilege?

I understand there are bonus points for this in America. But it also means that rest of the article is very likely going to be a political rant

[nooron]

Since I just moved to the Bay and spend a lot of time alone, the article really resonated with me.

I'm all of these things except heterosexual. As as adult, I'm also not readily identifiable as homosexual. But as a kid my perceived lack of masculinity (among many other things) definitely made me a target.

I can confirm that being alone now, by my choice, is much more pleasant and gratifying than being alone, by the choice of others.

He's on to something.

[kanja]

It's no wonder he has such trouble socializing. When you wear self loathing on your sleeve like that, people will respond accordingly. It's wonderful to want to make a better world, but when everything you say, think, or do needs to be excused and caveated you can't help but internalize that.

[icebraining]

Stopped reading your post after "Stopped reading".

[throwmeaway2525]

Stopped not laughing when I read your comment.

[aristomc]

lol

[aristomc]

haha 4 downvotes for finding a comment humorous, I think the first paragraph of the article is quite powerful and a good contextual way of starting things off. Worth a read.

[nadiaks]

I can see contextually how you didn't mean any harm but I guess it was misinterpreted.

No need to downvote 4 times for an "lol".

It was the second paragraph that was equally as powerful for me.

Cheers

[jakecarpenter]

Your loss, it is a good read. Tumblr can't possibly be the only place you're exposed to uncomfortable opinions on the interwebs, can it?

[angersock]

Despite the rather silly checking of privilege at the beginning of the article, it's kind of sweet read (like, "dawwww :3").

[xacaxulu]

Agreed! Way to apologize for your sex, race and orientation in one swell foop and act like it seriously informs someones decisions to go to parties, get out there, whatever. "Should I just go out tonight? Hmm, am I white, straight and male?" Derrrrrrrrrrp

[mjgoins]

When you learn new things you stop reading?

[Tehnix]

Why? or are you stating that social interactions have nothing to do with race, gender and sexuality? 'Cause then you and I simply do not live in the same world...

As much as we all do want racism etc to go away, prejudices are a very real thing. The preface is relevant to his story.

[egypturnash]

There are lots of people who are aware of the concept of privilege but do not make it one of the major subjects of their conversation. Some of them are even white het cis males.

There are even people in technology who are not white, het, cis males.

[electronous]

You're making HN awesome. Keep up the good work!