Since you turned this into a discussion about race, I am inclined to speak up. Racism and discrimination is about who has power. Caucasians in America have all the power and hence the struggle of the minorities for equality. I admire github for taking a stance in the diversity debate( although I have yet to fully familiarize with the details). I know that people from all demographics desire equality and a more fair world. I'll work towards that world and keep build things.
Racism and discrimination have nothing to do with power. You're redefining the word so that it allows a particular group to engage in discriminatory behavior while avoiding accountability.
The previous speaker, who is definitely involved in an agenda driven redefinition of a word, probably has no conscious desire to engage in discriminatory behavior while avoiding accountability. S/he is almost certainly a well intentioned enabler of those who do wish to engage in discriminatory behavior while avoiding accountability
Apologies if I misunderstood, but I think you are asking me to clarify that I'm making a distinction between (a) one person allegedly having dishonest intentions and a conscious motive to do X and (b) that same person having better intentions, and doing X by accident.
The phrasing of the parent was "You are doing A so that B can happen.", which I thought was presumptive and unfair towards the other party.
I've known a lot of people who participate in the subculture of SJWs, and I'm confident that many of them have no conscious desire to be enablers of hatred and bigotry, not even hatred and bigotry towards white males. They simply don't understand the consequences of their beliefs.
Racism and discrimination are not exclusively about 'who has power', unless you abandon the existing and widely accepted usages of those words in favor of an agenda driven re-definition of the terms.
> Caucasians in America have all the power
This does not excuse anti-white racism, and is often mostly irrelevant to situations involving individuals.
Many people, sadly, will use this observation to justify their personal bigotry against white people.
you already made up your mind that [white males] got
to where they are unfairly
Given the disproportionate amount of power that white males have in America, there are two possibilities.
One possibility is that white males really are that superior. We (white males) have the power because we're the best. Conversely, this would also of course imply that other groups like women and minorities are intrinsically inferior.
The other possibility is that the system really is tilted in the favor of certain groups, and that has affected the distribution of power and wealth that you see in America today.
I believe strongly in the second possibility and reject the first.
why would Caucasians desire equality if they benefit
from inequality
We (again, speaking as a white male here) might benefit in the short term from inequality, but I believe that in the long term we benefit a lot more from equality. I love my country and my country is much stronger if we have an equal playing field.
I respect the fact that many people feel that actions like minority hiring initiatives are in fact the opposite of a level playing field. In the most myopic possible sense, that is correct. In a broader sense, I do not agree.
> The other possibility is that the system really is tilted in the favor of certain groups, and that has affected the distribution of power and wealth that you see in America today
Wrong.
There is another possibility, which is that once upon a time the system was severely tilted, and for various complex reasons there is a _massive_ multi-generational delay between leveling the system seeing the results of leveling the system.
Consider how difficult and unlikely it is for a low income white male living in a trailer with, say, alcoholic anti-intellectual parents to, say, become one of the wealthiest people in the country.
If we eliminated racism, we would not eliminate all of the factors that work against black children who are born into poverty.
There is another possibility, which is that once upon
a time the system was severely tilted, and for various
complex reasons there is a _massive_ multi-generational
delay between leveling the system seeing the results of
leveling the system.
I think most people would agree that many of the effects of inequality are felt on a multigenerational scale, and that solutions will only fully be realized on a similar time frame. Nobody, even the people making slides at Github, think this can be fixed in an afternoon.
What's the functional difference between "living in a system that is severely tilted" and "living in a system that has allegedly been repaired, but in practice will remain tilted for a number of generations until this alleged new-found fairness has a chance to propagate through the system?"
To those affected, I think there would be no useful difference between the two. Long-term solutions do not preclude the need for short-term action.
Consider how difficult and unlikely it is for a low income
white male living in a trailer with, say, alcoholic anti-intellectual
parents to, say, become one of the wealthiest people in the
country.
Absolutely. Odds are definitely stacked against that guy. White males can have any number of horrible problems. And many people of color are born into relatively easy lives.
To be clear: nobody is claiming otherwise. Regardless of your feelings about white priviledge, please understand that it does not involve the idea that all things are always easy for all white people.
>> What's the functional difference between "living in a system that is severely tilted" and "living in a system that is severely tilted" and "living in a system that has allegedly been repaired, but in practice will remain tilted for a number of generations until this alleged new-found fairness has a chance to propagate through the system?"
The second half of your second quote does not at all reflect the intention behind my statements. When people go around thinking that a 'system' is broken, it is all too easy to be sloppy in one's thinking about what _exactly_ it is that is broken. The definition of the 'system' is easily, dynamically changed to meet the emotional needs or political goals of the thinker or speaker at that moment; and they lose sight of (or intentionally hide) the logical fallacies (or dishonesty) that occur as a result.
My first point is this: At any point in time, manifest inequality of results does NOT logically require that there is necessarily either inequality of ability or, at PRESENT, inequality of treatment by 'the system'. This over simplifies the situation and you presented it as a nice, tight, seemingly irrefutable logical argument from which one _must_ conclude that the system is presently tilted. (Either that, or own the identity of the particularly terrible kind of racist who thinks one race is intrinsically superior to another). This is not just logically wrong onto itself, it forms the foundation for bigoted thinking on a larger scale.
To answer your question, the critical difference lies in developing an accurate understanding of the true nature of the problems. If we walk around thinking "group X has less money then group Y, therefore there MUST be a problem of Xism towards group X which benefits group Y" we are not only being irrational, we are missing out of important opportunities to more effectively improve the condition of the world for all involved.
> Long-term solutions do not preclude the need for short-term action.
I don't see how this really applies, on the face of it. If theoretically there were _no_ racism in the US, it would take generations for blacks and whites to have equal results, for a variety of reasons including the effects of inter-generational poverty and classism. But what types of 'short term' race-related actions might be needed in the hypothetical world in which there is no longer any racism? Reparations?
I mentioned the example of some poverty afflicted white male to emphasize the difficulties that _poor_ people have, not to draw attention to the plight of any white males as a group. I used a white male as an example to really drive the point home about the lingering consequences of generations of racism; the racism of the past has left many of today's black people in poverty, and not even a (presumed advantaged) white male can easily overcome some of the effects of poverty.
> please understand that it does not involve the idea that all things are always easy for all white people.
Who gets to decide the one true meaning of white privilege? I've discussed this topic with hundreds of people, and can confidently say there is a small but still frighteningly large group of people out there who disagree with you.
> The definition of the 'system' is easily, dynamically changed
Right. "The system" is merely shorthand for the totality of institutional and cultural factors that affect one's experience. Laws, cultural bias, hiring practices, etc. It's not meant to be a specific term, ever. I've never heard anybody claim otherwise.
> At any point in time, manifest inequality of results does NOT logically
> require that there is necessarily either inequality of ability or, at
> PRESENT, inequality of treatment by 'the system'.
Again, let me ask you: from the perspective of somebody experiencing this "manifest inequality of results," what's the difference?
To a young black woman in America in 2016 feeling every possible effect of centuries of (allegedly corrected) mandated inequality and familial discontinuity in America, what do we say? Do we just tell her that all those problems have been fixed, and it's terribly unfortunate for her that she was born before that effects of those (alleged) corrections bear any kind of fruit for the majority of black people in America?
> If we walk around thinking "group X has less money then group Y, therefore
> there MUST be a problem of Xism towards group X which benefits group Y" we
> are not only being irrational, we are missing out of important opportunities
> to more effectively improve the condition of the world for all involved.
Obviously, long-term solutions are key. Again: short-term action is often necessary unless you're willing to simply allow people to suffer in the meantime.
In the long run, sure, they really ought to improve the roads in my neighborhood so that I don't get so many flat tires. But in the meantime I'm not going to let my car sit there with four flat tires.
> I mentioned the example of some poverty afflicted white male to emphasize the
> difficulties that _poor_ people have
Right, you were very clear about that. Your point was obvious and I don't think anybody would disagree. I don't think anybody disputes the enormous amount of overlap between the problems of poverty (which obviously spans all races) and other problems such as racism.
And hey, just so we're clear: my car doesn't really have flat tires, and the roads in my neighborhood are pretty good.
> But what types of 'short term' race-related actions might be needed in the
> hypothetical world in which there is no longer any racism? Reparations?
What if people in positions of privilege, such as highly-paid white males working at places like Github, helped to ensure that members of minority groups enjoy the opportunity to become highly-qualified job seekers, and give qualified members of minority groups access to stable, well-paying jobs? Like those at GitHub?
> Who gets to decide the one true meaning of white privilege? I've discussed this topic
> with hundreds of people, and can confidently say there is a small but still frighteningly
> large group of people out there who disagree with you.
I think you said it yourself: a proportionally "small" group believe that all white people live inside a magical force field where literally everything is easy for every white person. Obviously with a large enough sample size you can find people that believe any damn thing. But that is generally not what people mean when they talk about white privilege.
Though I do question if maybe you misunderstood them. White privilege does not make everything easy, but it does actually suffuse most things. To take your theoretical example of an impoverished white male raised in an alcoholic household: while life certainly is not easy for that theoretical person, there are additional challenges he would face if he were black, female, etc.
And of course, one can certainly think of some situations where being white and male is actually a disadvantage. Again, not incompatible with the notion of white privilege or male privilege existing.
Please stop using HN to conduct ideological flamewars. The other comments are bad too but at least they aren't hauling in entirely new barrels of talking-point petrol.
