[jfarmer]

He's talking about the reflexive defensiveness many young dudes in the technology industry have when the topic of privilege is brought up. Often it's associated with a feeling of shame, as if the person using the word were trying to put a scarlet letter on the young dude's chest.

They fall prey to bad logic: "If privilege exists then I am a bad person. I am not a bad person. Therefore privilege does not exist." The problem is the first implication, that acknowledging one's privilege somehow makes one a bad person or that it is "bad" to be privileged.

The conclusion is worse than unsound, though, because it denies something which has a material impact on many people's lives.

His words are clear and concise, IMO.

[glenra]

If you think his quote is clear and concise, can you unpack it a bit? I find it opaque and confusing. Maybe focus on the part after the colon.

Suppose you accuse me of being a witch. I deny it. In response, you claim that my repeated, insidious denial of being a witch just reinforces my witchiness and allows it to feed on itself. do you see how you've just (a) changed the nature of the accusation in a way that makes it weird and meta, (b) unfairly rendered the attack unanswerable?

Or consider: "Only a witch denies being a witch - denying it just makes it worse! You have to first ADMIT you are a witch and come to terms with it. I admit I'm one and I struggle with it daily - so should you!"

[jfarmer]

You know your analogy is loaded and constructed in a way to make any rebuttal logically impossible. That's doesn't seem particularly sincere, especially given that the core element of what tptacek said was that one shouldn't feel ashamed to be privileged. It would be hard for me to think of a worse analogy, honestly, since it fails in the most single important dimension! There's also something poetic since claims of "witchery" are a centuries-old tool used to silence women.

The quality and provocative nature of your analogy not withstanding, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The comment to which you're replying is my attempt to unpack it. What about my comment wasn't clear for you?

For example, I see in your intentionally provocative analogy the same mistaken logic I described, that somehow the existence of privilege and the idea that you are privileged in certain ways is equivalent to being a witch and therefore that being privileged makes you a "bad person." I spelled out how that's a mistake many people make when thinking about privilege and yet you seem to be making it in this very comment.

Anyhow, I'll try to illustrate why privilege is not a scarlet letter but denying it can make one complicit.

Here's a hilarious Louis CK skit on the subject of racial privilege: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY

"I'm white. Thank God for that shit, boy. That is a huge leg up, are you kidding me? I love being white, I really do. Seriously, if you're not white, this shit is thoroughly good. Let me be clear, by the way, I'm not saying that white people are better. I'm saying that being white is clearly better. Who could even argue? If it was an option, I would re-up every year!"

Here's a way in which I am privileged: I can spend $1000 on a pair of glasses I really like and not have to think twice — or even once — about it. I don't think this makes me a bad person for doing it, let alone being able to do it. Nevertheless, most people would not just balk at paying that much, but wouldn't even consider the idea. Growing up my family couldn't really afford glasses (or doctors visits or dentist visits or....), so the situation still feels really weird to me.

Here's another way: I will never have to so much as think about being stopped and frisked in NYC, unlike, say, Forest Whitaker (http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2013/02/16/forest-whit...).

Here's yet another way: if I'm in a room with a female engineer I know talking to two other men that neither of us know, I would bet hard money virtually all of the technical questions will be directed at me. At that moment I have a choice. I could answer those questions and go on my way. I could point out what's happening, perhaps by asking, "Why are you asking me all the questions? Tara is just as capable of answering them as I am." I could maybe take a more tactful middle-ground and say something like, "I'm not sure. You should ask Tara those questions — she's the expert." And so on.

I am not a bad person for benefitting from that privilege, but if I were to deny it I would be complicit in reinforcing those patterns of behavior, abuse, and oppression.

So, yeah, totally like being a witch! Good analogy!

I'll end with this: http://www.harkavagrant.com/?id=341

[glenra]

You say the "core element" is that one shouldn't feel ashamed to be privileged. Well, fine: one also shouldn't feel ashamed of being a witch! And why would one?

If I were a witch, I wouldn't be ashamed of it. I'd be proud of being a witch. There's nothing inherently wrong with being a witch - witches are cool. The fact remains that the claim "if you deny being an X, that REINFORCES X-ness and lets X feed upon itself" is toxic and ridiculous. And the main other assertion I could think of that had this bizarre characteristic besides privilege was "you're a witch!" (I suppose "you're a racist" also has that attribute, but I didn't want to go there. Can you think of others?) "Witch" accusations are great for our purposes because it really has no moral characteristic at all. We all know witches don't exist and can't exist and I assume we don't collectively subscribe to religions that are afraid of them (or even if we do, we know that that fear is silly), so it's safe to use them as an example.

So. With regard to any particular person, if they say "I'm not a witch" that MIGHT just mean they're not a witch or they don't regard themselves as one. And that's OKAY. Even if the claim is MISTAKEN and they actually ARE a witch, it's not the case that denying it is uniquely evil. When witch-hunters claim it is, they're wrong. Any person denying that THEY are X doesn't really say anything about whether X COULD exist generally.

> There's also something poetic since claims of "witchery" are a centuries-old tool used to silence women.

Similarly, claims of "privilege" appear to be a modern tool used to silence men. The core essence of privilege seems to be that you have it when a bunch of people (of the right sort) SAY you have it (whether you agree or not) and it's considered rude/offensive/impossible to deny it.

You said: > I'll try to illustrate why privilege is not a scarlet letter but denying it can make one complicit.

...but never did anything to illustrate why denying it "can make one complicit" - you merely asserted this. So I assert the contrary: there is nothing wrong with simply being colorblind, gender-blind, every-other-characteristic-blind and treating people as HUMAN BEINGS first and foremost. Overemphasizing race/gender/handicap is at least as big a potential problem as underemphasizing it. If you always bend over backwards to make sure Tara gets asked what you feel are the appropriate number of questions given her gender, that is patronizing to her. Simply treating her as an equal would be more respectful and productive. Why would you need awareness of "privilege" to pass questioners to the person in the room who is the most relevant expert?

Nobody denies that some people have more advantages than other people. The only thing we're denying is that having some random set of advantages invalidates your opinion. The difference between privilege (what we're arguing about) and advantage (what you just gave examples of) is that privilege has the immediate additional connotation "and therefore you should shut up because it's wrong for you to express views on this matter". If it didn't, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

BTW, Louis CK's routine is funny but he's wrong. (Which is part of what makes it funny.)