[jfarmer]

IMO, folks on HN need to do much less discussing on this topic and a lot more listening. For the most part, HN is collectively blind to issues of power and privilege.

For those interested in learning more about privilege, read these two essays by John Scalzi, Being Poor (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2005/09/03/being-poor/) and Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-th...).

Try to read them without being reflexive or poking holes in them. If you find yourself getting riled up or defensive stop and ask yourself why you're feeling the need to respond that way.

[yetanotherphd]

On the contrary, I would suggest listening to Ram Z Paul (http://www.ramzpaul.com/)

You claim that people at HN experience privilege, and in some sense I agree most of us do. And yet as proponent of a progressive agenda, you also have a different kind of privilege. Most normal people will automatically identify you with the "right" side. You will never have to fear being labelled a racist, sexist or anti-Semite. For example, why is it that you automatically turn to very patronizing language when addressing people you consider insufficiently educated in their privilege? Could it be that you are used to having your sense of moral superiority go unchallenged?

[jfarmer]

You got me.

[Dewie]

> For those interested in learning more about privilege, read these two essays by John Scalzi, Being Poor (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2005/09/03/being-poor/) and Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-th...).

I don't know what you want to achieve by posting the first one, since I have never seen anyone with any good arguments who argues that being poor is not a significant disadvantage when it comes to things like social mobility. HN seems to lean more to the idea that structural/systemic issues on a societal scale does matter and hinder individuals, as opposed to the thought that an individual can forge his own way and make himself into whatever she wants to be no matter the circumstances, which is another school of thought.

I was hoping the second one would give some arguments for how being a straight white male (emphasize male since being white is pretty obviously an advantage all things considering) is a ridiculous advantage. But then it turned out to just start with the initial assertion, explain it with an RPG analogy and then ... return to the initial assertion. But it's all so clear to me now that I can relate things like leveling up and playing through a game on maxed attributes to my own sex... not.

By the way, is the difficulty the same for white geeky males?

[jfarmer]

> Try to read them without being reflexive or poking holes in them. If you find yourself getting riled up or defensive stop and ask yourself why you're feeling the need to respond that way.

So, why did you feel the need to respond as you did? If that's your response, it seems to me like you should really grapple with the challenges they present before jumping in here to comment. As someone who grew up very poor, it makes me chuckle that you can't see the connection. They're deeply, profoundly related. Some of my other comments on this thread might make it more clear how — I don't want to retype them here.

If you find this comment grating, well, let me translate it into geek-speak: before jumping in to comment, please Read The Fine Manual. :)

[Dewie]

> So, why did you feel the need to respond as you did?

Yes, I know you set up that preemptive shield against dissent. Or preemptive shield against dissent that seems reactionary, or angry, or something of a similarly negative emotive kind. I felt the need to respond because I found it objectionable.

> If that's your response, it seems to me like you should really grapple with the challenges they present before jumping in here to comment.

Challenges. Let's see..

As for the first article, as I've already said, I already knew (in an intellectual sense) that being poor is a disadvantage. So yeah, not as if my worldview was shattered there, or that I shake my fist against the skies over not having a harder lot so that I could brag about having overcome it later or something else that might make want to not be from the middle class for some reason. What challenge? I already agreed...

As for the other one, well it didn't really challenge any of my beliefs about gender (in)equality since it actually doesn't give any arguments, anecdotes or data. It's an assertion. With an analogy. If anything I'm mad because of how thoroughly unchallenged I was, and how I don't know anything more about how it might be a woman (which I am not, surprise). If I want to know how it might be to be a woman (or not be a man with my specific attributes), I want to read about other peoples experiences, not a fucking video game metaphor. How is that going to enlighten me in any way? But I've found that men in particular are just supposed to sit down and be handed the immutable facts about gender and society (and from a man no less).

> As someone who grew up very poor, it makes me chuckle that you can't see the connection.

I'm in dire need of enlightenment it seems.

> If you find this comment grating, well, let me translate it into geek-speak: before jumping in to comment, please Read The Fine Manual. :)

Honestly not sure what that last reference is. mmm, something-something console game/board game, I think. -1 geek point to me.

[Crito]

> > If you find this comment grating, well, let me translate it into geek-speak: before jumping in to comment, please Read The Fine Manual. :)

> Honestly not sure what that last reference is. mmm, something-something console game/board game, I think. -1 geek point to me.

http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/r/RTFM.html

[jfarmer]

> As for the first article, as I've already said, I already knew (in an intellectual sense) that being poor is a disadvantage.

This is not the point of the essay.

> I'm in dire need of enlightenment it seems.

Heh. Ok, I'm out! :)

[Dewie]

> Heh. Ok, I'm out! :)

Well I've said what I wanted to say about my impressions. If you found my tone too hostile, which I'm guessing why you're saying 'bye', it might be because I found you to be too patronizing, which is just my impression. And from how you've engaged some other people in this thread it seems that you don't simply "bow out" because you're a gentleman that don't want to get tangled up in a messy argument, but because you don't find them to be willing subjects to be educated without protest. So gg I guess.

[jfarmer]

I don't find your tone too hostile. I think you're being insincere and aren't actually interested in having a conversation about any of this.

I wrote what I wrote in my original comment not as a preemptive "defense" — as if I was gearing up for a fight — but as a way to get whoever read those essay to hold back from replying reflexively and actually spend time trying to understand them as the author intended them to be understood.

Likewise, I'd ask you to do the same for my comments. Can you imagine a world in which what I am saying makes sense or would even be the "obvious" thing to believe? Can you imagine several? Are some of them more plausible than others? Why or why not?

I bow out when the conversation starts to feel like the Monty Python "Argument Clinic" sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y&t=1m18s