Why would anyone support a system that explicitly dis-empowers them in preference to other identity groups who themselves are perfectly fine to pursue their own self interest?
After years of this, are the "privileged" getting the picture yet? You are a target for elimination in popular society. Either you take your own side, or no one will. There is a clear zero-sum aspect to this.
The cultural brainwashing that there is virtue in supporting this against your own interests is just Nietzschean slave-morality propaganda. You don't have to apologize for or pathologize being capable, successful and doing what is best for yourself, dare I say even for your own identity group. You can simply reject this nonsense; the emperor truly has no clothes here.
Related: my most recent submission [0] titled "Wikimedia is funding political activism" received over 20 points in 30 minutes, but of course was quickly flagged without discussion. Quite a bit of censorship around these parts regarding these particular topics with huge impact on all of us within the tech industry.
Even though you're advocating for your own submission and a bit hot-tempered about it, now that I've followed the link, I'd say it does deliver quality factual content about an important topic. Thanks.
Thanks and yes, not good form to complain about forum meta, was just very frustrated that something so quickly supported by many voters could be blocked so easily, because it has a particularly verboten point of view amongst SV elite. It was definitely a whiny comment.
No, you can't. Not without becoming ostracised in many cases. My younger self made the poor decision to commit himself to a creative field. I cannot reject the nonsense or I will more-or-less be blackballed socially and professionally.
Setting aside the connotation/framing of the word itself, tell me, is not having privilege good or bad?
One could define "privilege" as the accumulation of inheritance of ancestors, economic, culturally, biological, geopolitical, power. All coming together in "good ways" for descendants.
But back to the question, is bad to not have it and good to have it yes? Then why would anyone support not having it, willingly giving it up, expect those who take it from you to not then also abuse power against you etc etc. If bad, why choose not to keep it?
In terms of abstract ideological values, I support merit, some sort of meritocracy. But in concrete terms this will never avoid conflict of group interests. That is politics and an unavoidable aspect of human competition over resources, wealth, power, prestige. So let's stop pretending, is my point, that there is some achievable neutrality in all this. Because we all agree not being on top is bad. The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must. At the very least having cultural power like those implementing all these policies throughout Western corporations is a good thing to have. It is bad not to have it. What else is there to say?
After years of this, are the "privileged" getting the picture yet? You are a target for elimination in popular society. Either you take your own side, or no one will. There is a clear zero-sum aspect to this.
The cultural brainwashing that there is virtue in supporting this against your own interests is just Nietzschean slave-morality propaganda. You don't have to apologize for or pathologize being capable, successful and doing what is best for yourself, dare I say even for your own identity group. You can simply reject this nonsense; the emperor truly has no clothes here.
Related: my most recent submission [0] titled "Wikimedia is funding political activism" received over 20 points in 30 minutes, but of course was quickly flagged without discussion. Quite a bit of censorship around these parts regarding these particular topics with huge impact on all of us within the tech industry.
[0] https://twitter.com/echetus/status/1579776106034757633