The problem I have with the concept of privilege, is that in practice it’s used as a way to avoid responsibility and rationalize failure. And not to infrequently guilt trip those who have achieved success, your article’s professions that invoking privilege is not about guilt notwithstanding.
Rationalist should win, not sit around whining that they lost because of bad luck/someone else’s privilege..
I do not doubt that there are plenty of people sitting around complaining about society rather than accomplishing their goals. But the discussions of privilege I’ve seen were written from a position of (at least moderate) success, and the point wasn’t to identify reasons they failed, but to identify flaws in a system and try to fix them.
The existence of people who use it to complain isn’t relevant to whether the problem exists and how to fix it if it does.
Sometimes you win via trying to influence social mores such that a previously disadvantaged group is treated more fairly. Remember, “win” refers to your entire utility function which can include the wellbeing of others.
This thread is about understanding what objectification is, in order to avoid offensive behaviors, understand why those behaviors are offensive, and better empathize with people who find them offensive.
The fact that people use it as an excuse (what would feminists be excusing?) isn’t really relevant, and dismissing the validity of those feelings (especially on the grounds that they wouldn’t be acting like rationalists to complain) seems counterproductive. On top of that, I still think that understanding how the concept of objectification works would still be important in understanding what to do about it.
This thread is about understanding what objectification is, in order to avoid offensive behaviors, understand why those behaviors are offensive, and better empathize with people who find them offensive.
I don’t think “avoiding offensive behaviors” is a worthy goal. Especially when you consider that a lot people tend to get offended by truth. Should we stop promoting atheism in the name of not offending theists?
This is not just an abstract question. There are currently people using arguments based on privilege (something like ‘western’ privilege in this case) to argue that people should avoid saying or doing anything that would offend Muslims.
There’s a difference between being offensive because someone is fundamentally opposed to something that you’re trying to do, something you are, or something you think, and being offensive simply out of your own ignorance about what people find offensive.
A lot of times people aren’t offended by the truth so much as how its told. And when someone is actually fundamentally offended by my being an atheist, then whatever, I’m not changing that.
Rationalists should win, and that involves not shooting yourself in the foot for no reason.
The problem I have with the concept of privilege, is that in practice it’s used as a way to avoid responsibility and rationalize failure. And not to infrequently guilt trip those who have achieved success, your article’s professions that invoking privilege is not about guilt notwithstanding.
Rationalist should win, not sit around whining that they lost because of bad luck/someone else’s privilege..
I do not doubt that there are plenty of people sitting around complaining about society rather than accomplishing their goals. But the discussions of privilege I’ve seen were written from a position of (at least moderate) success, and the point wasn’t to identify reasons they failed, but to identify flaws in a system and try to fix them.
The existence of people who use it to complain isn’t relevant to whether the problem exists and how to fix it if it does.
Sometimes you win via trying to influence social mores such that a previously disadvantaged group is treated more fairly. Remember, “win” refers to your entire utility function which can include the wellbeing of others.
This thread is about understanding what objectification is, in order to avoid offensive behaviors, understand why those behaviors are offensive, and better empathize with people who find them offensive.
The fact that people use it as an excuse (what would feminists be excusing?) isn’t really relevant, and dismissing the validity of those feelings (especially on the grounds that they wouldn’t be acting like rationalists to complain) seems counterproductive. On top of that, I still think that understanding how the concept of objectification works would still be important in understanding what to do about it.
I don’t think “avoiding offensive behaviors” is a worthy goal. Especially when you consider that a lot people tend to get offended by truth. Should we stop promoting atheism in the name of not offending theists?
This is not just an abstract question. There are currently people using arguments based on privilege (something like ‘western’ privilege in this case) to argue that people should avoid saying or doing anything that would offend Muslims.
I think it is a worthwhile goal.
There’s a difference between being offensive because someone is fundamentally opposed to something that you’re trying to do, something you are, or something you think, and being offensive simply out of your own ignorance about what people find offensive.
A lot of times people aren’t offended by the truth so much as how its told. And when someone is actually fundamentally offended by my being an atheist, then whatever, I’m not changing that.
Rationalists should win, and that involves not shooting yourself in the foot for no reason.