"check your privilege"

[Liquor Box]

There's actually a fun little real-world variant on this, in music. They did exactly what you said, but they also set up the auditions so the candidate did not speak to the judges and was behind a screen so they were not visible. Basically the race and sex of the candidate were completely removed from the process. And the number of women and minorities who got jobs shot way up.

This is obviously not practical for most jobs, but it does suggest that even in the absence of widespread explicit bias there are effects.

Of course, the other hard part in resumes would be redacting some information would be hard. For example, I did my college degree at a religious school and was for a time employed at a religious institution. Both have names that I would expect most americans to identify as explicitly religious immediately.

the suggestion itself is real world, it has happened at an organisation I worked at without any apparent negative effect.

It's not perfect. In addition to your religious example, the amount of work experience a person has will suggest their age - so discrimination against older workers will not be prevented. But it seems to me to be something that would help, even if it does not resolve more issues.

[AMFV]

Couple of things here:

One, the whole concept of racism and sexism and other isms being societal problems is that they cannot be addressed solely on an individual level. Because they are cases where the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Bad things happen to everyone, but significantly more bad things of a certain type happen to people with a certain trait, by and large, and that creates a widespread unfairness. But if you insist on only addressing things on an individual level, you can't talk about that at all.

They can't be solved entirely on an individual level. But it's really important to remember that groups are composed of individuals if you solve the problem for enough individuals then you're going to make a pretty big dent in it in terms of larger groups. The other problem is that the groups "white", or "male" are so diverse that no one solution is likely to correct any sort of problem in that entire group. Also say "women" the reasons and methodology of harassment to use your example still, are pretty diverse as well. The problem is so complex because of each group involved that once you get on the macro level it is frankly insolvable. You can make dent in much smaller group environments, that's why that should be the focus.

Also to reuse the earlier bridge example, suffering as a result of prejudice does make you an expert in solving it any more than being on a collapsing bridge makes you an expert in fixing bridges. Now a bridge expert could probably use your account to figure out what happened or what steps could be taken to help that in the future. But being the victim does not make a person an expert in that field. I'm not an expert in poverty because I was poor. I'm not an expert on war because I was in one.

Two, part of the concept is that people engage in these behaviors without realizing it (and it's actually MORE common from people who claim they don't care about race or sex at all). So for example, a hiring manager may explicitly believe that race and sex don't matter, but when you give a bunch of them resumes that are identical except for the names, Daniel is rated as more competent than Susan or Jayden. And we're saying that also happens in discussions - people say and believe that they want a fair discussion, but their idea of fair is warped by being used to being the one in the spotlight when race/sex/etc comes up. So they may actually be talking over others and interrupting them and dominating the conversation and making it all about them and still fully believe that they are being fair.

Which is why I was fine with using "check your privilege" as a self-reflection exercise. I think that's actually a really good thing to do. But while that study may have been conducted, you can't assume that if somebody is rating you as less competent it's because of your gender or race. Because you aren't a mindreader, and you certainly can't jump to the conclusion that that is what's motivating somebody. So it's pretty meaningless for another person to use. Again self-reflection that's fine and good.

Also, were all of the researchers, peer reviewers, and professors who interacted in that study female, of a minority race, or the like? Because I bet they weren't, which shows that there's something to be said for people who are not in those groups contributing particularly those who are knowledgeable in those subjects.

Three, discussion that "treats everyone as an individual" in the way you're suggesting really doesn't work outside of very small groups (which always have some form of official or unofficial curation of who counts anyway). I've been trying to describe what happens - you get a large number of people who want the discussion to be about them and want to change it to that. Each one is convinced they have a new thing to add, even if it's largely the same as the last person. Emotions will run high on these topics no matter what. That was the point with my example about women being harassed versus men getting dates. If you try to run some sort of public or semi-public discussion on the topic of women being harassed in a mixed space, and open it up like you're suggesting, I guarantee that 95% of the time the discussion will end up being focused on how hard it is for men to get dates, with a good mix of how women are too sensitive anyway and most men would love to be harassed.

It is not possible to have a discussion on the scale you're describing. There's a reason that we don't have actual democracy in most places and we have representatives. Because you can't work through things in large groups. Hell, in large groups you have logistical issues like not even being able to hear everybody, because of physical limitations. Also discussions in mixed and public spaces with strangers are a horrible way to solve anything, you want to have knowledgeable people talking.

Also back up your 95% claim. Seriously. That's bull****. I call bull****. We've had several people here, who have never heard that claim. I have only heard it on the internet. I'm not doubting that you've heard it. But I doubt it's the common thread between men. Especially not men who have any kind of self-value, since you know they'd probably have dates.

Four, people aren't saying no man can ever express an opinion on women's issues, or whatever. We're saying, for example, men don't get to tell women that they shouldn't be upset because it's a compliment. Or change the conversation about how hard it is to get dates. Or just plain old tell women it can't possibly be that bad because they've never seen it. And we are saying that if we spent the time to answer and dialogue individually with every man saying that, we'd never have any time for anything else.

You don't get to tell other people what they can say. Period. You can decide not to listen or to leave, or to not invite them to the discussion next time. You don't get to quash other people's opinions that way, no matter how much you dislike them. And if the people engaged in the discussion are actually familiar with the topic, which if you're having a good discussion on it, they should be, they should know better.

Lastly, it is useful to examine absurd or ridiculous positions, even ones that are abhorrent. That's why playing devil's advocate is such a useful thing in philosophy and debates, because it can help you understand the position in a way that you could otherwise not.

[georgie_leech]

You don't get to tell other people what they can say. Period. You can decide not to listen or to leave, or to not invite them to the discussion next time. You don't get to quash other people's opinions that way, no matter how much you dislike them. And if the people engaged in the discussion are actually familiar with the topic, which if you're having a good discussion on it, they should be, they should know better.

Lastly, it is useful to examine absurd or ridiculous positions, even ones that are abhorrent. That's why playing devil's advocate is such a useful thing in philosophy and debates, because it can help you understand the position in a way that you could otherwise not.

You seem to have missed the point that these people are not always invited.

[WarKitty]

So here's what I think the most important thing is: Small, private discussion will never reach the vast majority of people who think the status quo is ok and that all this talk is not a big deal. A large part of the goal isn't even yet getting to a solution - it's getting people on board with the idea that there's a problem that needs a solution. But those small discussions, those are largely only taking place between people who are already convinced, because a lot of other people are sitting back and thinking "That's boring, let's go back to talking about video games. We already know it's not that big a deal, so why should we listen?"

It takes a bit of jarring, a bit of getting in your face, to get those people to stop and think, hey, just because this isn't a problem for me and my friends, doesn't mean it's not a problem for someone else. There's a saying that the moderate is often the enemy of progress - the person who says, I really do believe in equality, but I don't understand why minorities need to cause all this ruckus. Why can't they just be more patient? Even when patience has lasted for generations and made no change.

And if any legal change is to happen in a democracy, that is also critical, to get the attention of the moderate, not just those already familiar and on board.

[Goaty14]

or to not invite them to the discussion next time.

You seem to have missed the point that these people are not always invited.

I think he did. It only takes one sour experience for them not to get invited next time...

It takes a bit of jarring, a bit of getting in your face, to get those people to stop and think, hey, just because this isn't a problem for me and my friends, doesn't mean it's not a problem for someone else.

So then what's your philosophy on converting people to your side? In particular, I don't think a large portion of the screaming and shouting looks convincing as it is. I haven't read the whole thread if you've already said it, though.

[AMFV]

You seem to have missed the point that these people are not always invited.

You have people bursting into your political action group meetings and shouting at you? You should consider hiring security. Or like coming into your home and shouting at you?

You seem to have missed the point that right to invite people only exists in a private space. The right to exclude people only exists in private spaces. If you're in an area that is public and people can enter without any invitation then you don't get any rights to exclude and you shouldn't have the right to do so.

And even if you do have that right, you shouldn't exclude people with varying viewpoints, you should make an effort to hear from as many viewpoints as possible. Even those you're likely to reject, because it is edifying. Now that doesn't mean that you need to invite the jerk who keeps talking about how women should view it as a compliment to every discussion, but you should invite them to a few, so that you can properly understand.

So here's what I think the most important thing is: Small, private discussion will never reach the vast majority of people who think the status quo is ok and that all this talk is not a big deal. A large part of the goal isn't even yet getting to a solution - it's getting people on board with the idea that there's a problem that needs a solution. But those small discussions, those are largely only taking place between people who are already convinced, because a lot of other people are sitting back and thinking "That's boring, let's go back to talking about video games. We already know it's not that big a deal, so why should we listen?"

There are formats for formal discussion that can reach larger audiences. Debates, YouTube, newspaper articles. Once you have formulated you argument then you can present in a formal setting. That would be the next step. And again political action groups begin with small private discussion. Legislation begins with small private discussion. Change starts with coherent rational discussion, that is if it is to be good change.

As far as your other point, the video games one? I disagree with you vehemently, you have not convinced me, I was not already convinced. I am here on an internet forum having a discussion with you on this topic, which I don't think is too terribly informal. So your point falls apart. The people who would rather discuss video games are just going to go along with things anyways, and also would likely not be involved in the political process where change is enacted, in developing culture where change is enacted, and so that's not a meaningful area to be having your conversation.

It takes a bit of jarring, a bit of getting in your face, to get those people to stop and think, hey, just because this isn't a problem for me and my friends, doesn't mean it's not a problem for someone else. There's a saying that the moderate is often the enemy of progress - the person who says, I really do believe in equality, but I don't understand why minorities need to cause all this ruckus. Why can't they just be more patient? Even when patience has lasted for generations and made no change.

But I'm not saying any of those things. I'm saying that you should listen to those people as much as you should listen to the loud folks who are getting in people's faces. But you shouldn't get in people's faces, that makes them defensive. And can lead to nasty counterreactions. Like when somebody who formerly didn't care decides that because you were such an ass they're now on the other side. And that can be very bad.

Also there has been a HUGE amount of change in the treatment of minorities over generations. Are you ****ing serious? Like you know the 60s were literally like one generation ago, my parents were born in the 60s, most people my age had parents born in the 40s and 50s, who might have actually experienced segregation, possibly as adults. I mean maybe there's still problems but "no change" that's horsecrap, like actual horsecrap. And that's offensive, like you're diminishing the contributions of every person who brought about that change by basically denying its existence.

And if any legal change is to happen in a democracy, that is also critical, to get the attention of the moderate, not just those already familiar and on board.

This is true, which is why political action groups exist. They're much more effective than shouting at people generally. Normally you use ads.

[WarKitty]

Also there has been a HUGE amount of change in the treatment of minorties over generations. Are you ****ing serious? Like you know the 60s were literally like one generation ago, my parents were born in the 60s, most people my age had parents born in the 40s and 50s, who might have actually experienced segregation, possibly as adults. I mean maybe there's still problems but "no change" that's horsecrap, like actual horsecrap. And that's offensive, like you're diminishing the contributions of every person who brought about that change by basically denying its existence.

No my point is, those minorities got out. They didn't sit down and have polite discussions with those who were oppressing them. They marched, they shouted on the streets and from the steps, they got in people's way, they made it so people who had been quietly ignoring them had to see them. They didn't turn their protests over to have equal discussion time with those who wanted things to stay the same - they ignored them, they shouted them down. They got out and shouted over the noise so people had to hear them and would hear and see that there was a real problem, that the way things were was not ok and they wouldn't just go back to being quiet and civil.

[georgie_leech]

Also there has been a HUGE amount of change in the treatment of minorities over generations. Are you ****ing serious? Like you know the 60s were literally like one generation ago, my parents were born in the 60s, most people my age had parents born in the 40s and 50s, who might have actually experienced segregation, possibly as adults. I mean maybe there's still problems but "no change" that's horsecrap, like actual horsecrap. And that's offensive, like you're diminishing the contributions of every person who brought about that change by basically denying its existence.



This is true, which is why political action groups exist. They're much more effective than shouting at people generally. Normally you use ads.

You're undercutting your point a bit when that particular era had a rather famous black rights activist making a stir and drawing attention to the plight of black minorities. Martin Luther King Jr was many things, but quiet is not one of them. Going further into details would likely fall afoul of no politics.

[WarKitty]

You're undercutting your point a bit when that particular era had a rather famous black rights activist making a stir and drawing attention to the plight of black minorities. Martin Luther King Jr was many things, but quiet is not one of them. Going further into details would likely fall afoul of no politics.

He's also the source of the comment I paraphrased about moderates.

[georgie_leech]

He's also the source of the comment I paraphrased about moderates.

Mm, I wanted to make the allusion a bit more explicit.

To be clear (for other readers), his message was not about demonizing moderates or the uninformed. Rather, it was about being loud enough to be heard by the uninformed, and that a "wait and see" attitude was enabling abuse and oppression. Such a movement is about changing the political realities that underlie what counts as rationalism in the halls of power; cynical rationality enabled Jim Crow, but It's as vulnerable to changes in society as anything else.

[AMFV]

You're undercutting your point a bit when that particular era had a rather famous black rights activist making a stir and drawing attention to the plight of black minorities. Martin Luther King Jr was many things, but quiet is not one of them. Going further into details would likely fall afoul of no politics.

He was making a stir, but he wasn't excluding people who wanted to support him who were not of his racial group. He included them in his discussions. And that was a big part of his success, he was willing to involve more people and have a better more reasoned discussion than some of his peers, who I will not name to avoid that.

I'm not saying that making a stir is a bad thing. Making a stir at specific groups and excluding people is a bad thing. That way always goes bad. If you're saying "I have a dream that we can solve these problems together" that's different than saying "This race is bad, it is oppressive, they are the enemy" That's a different thing.

What I am saying is that making a stir without being very sure of what you are talking about is dangerous, it can lead to fascism, totalitarianism, mob rule, that sort of thing. That's why you have rational small discussions first. That's why you outline the problem. That's why you need all groups involved in discussion of the solutions, so that no group is being oppressed by your solutions, which can certainly happen.

He's also the source of the comment I paraphrased about moderates.

That's a considerable bit of paraphrase there. And in any case, the fact that you paraphrased him and then ignored his contributions is pretty shocking to me, that seems considerably more insulting than had you been unaware of his contributions.

Edit:

No my point is, those minorities got out. They didn't sit down and have polite discussions with those who were oppressing them. They marched, they shouted on the streets and from the steps, they got in people's way, they made it so people who had been quietly ignoring them had to see them. They didn't turn their protests over to have equal discussion time with those who wanted things to stay the same - they ignored them, they shouted them down. They got out and shouted over the noise so people had to hear them and would hear and see that there was a real problem, that the way things were was not ok and they wouldn't just go back to being quiet and civil.

Martin Luther King DID NOT EXCLUDE PEOPLE. You're thinking of a different far less effective set of people who did that, and wound up being vilified and creating greater problems. The problem is that your foundation is bad. And the discussion the thinking the careful examination of ideas, that's the foundation.

I mean in France in the 1700s, they had oppressed people go out into the streets and protest, and we know how that ended. In a Reign of Terror. Because they didn't sit down and think about things properly first. They didn't evaluate that's extremely dangerous.

[Fiery Diamond]

Here's my two cents:

1) You should never exclude someone from a conversation based on what they are.
2) It's perfectly acceptable to exclude someone from a conversation based on what they say.

Unlike AMFV, I think there are plenty of viewpoints and opinions that aren't worth giving even a cursory thought to. A pro-slavery or anti-women's rights stance, for example. But you should never assume that someone will have those views and therefore exclude them just based on the fact that they belong to a group that you've experienced other members of having those views. Let people speak, and if what they say is nonsense or trash, tell them that and move on.

[AMFV]

Here's my two cents:

1) You should never exclude someone from a conversation based on what they are.
2) It's perfectly acceptable to exclude someone from a conversation based on what they say.

Unlike AMFV, I think there are plenty of viewpoints and opinions that aren't worth giving even a cursory thought to. A pro-slavery or anti-women's rights stance, for example. But you should never assume that someone will have those views and therefore exclude them just based on the fact that they belong to a group that you've experienced other members of having those views. Let people speak, and if what they say is nonsense or trash, tell them that and move on.

You don't think that if you're fighting for women's rights, it might be useful to understand people who think that women should have less rights? That seems counterproductive.

[Fiery Diamond]

You don't think that if you're fighting for women's rights, it might be useful to understand people who think that women should have less rights? That seems counterproductive.

No, I don't. If they themselves cannot be convinced, they should be steamrolled right over in the effort to effect change. If someone is willfully being an oppressor, I don't need to understand the inner workings of their minds, they are an acceptable target for being treated as inferior if they are unwilling to change. If you think you can change their minds, then sure, talk to them. But that's a completely separate conversation than the larger conversation aimed at the moderates in order to effect change. They have no place in that larger conversation. Period.

[AMFV]

No, I don't. If they themselves cannot be convinced, they should be steamrolled right over in the effort to effect change. If someone is willfully being an oppressor, I don't need to understand the inner workings of their minds, they are an acceptable target for being treated as inferior if they are unwilling to change. If you think you can change their minds, then sure, talk to them. But that's a completely separate conversation than the larger conversation aimed at the moderates in order to effect change. They have no place in that larger conversation. Period.

The thing is that if you want the best change, you want change that a large group of people aren't going to resent. That way can lead of bad things. Like civil war, in one instance. Vicious militant hate groups in others. And sometimes those are not from the group that was doing the oppressing in the first place. So this is why it's critical that you humanize even the worst here. If you're really looking to make social change. Because they aren't asphalt, they're people. Even if they have ideas that are bad.

[WarKitty]

I want to correct one thing.

No one is saying that these discussions should never ever include anyone who isn't part of the oppressed group, or that anyone who isn't part of that group is part of the problem and can't be helpful. We are saying a couple of things:

(1) By and large, the oppressed group are the experts on their own life experiences. Therefore their stories in their own words should be taken more seriously than what outsiders are saying about them. A common feature of oppression is that the oppressing group insists on telling their own narratives about how the oppressed group is thinking or feeling.

(2) The conversation should be and stay focused on fixing the problems of those who are the oppressed group working for change, and this will necessarily de-emphasize the discomfort of those outside. It is unfortunate, but too much pressure to be conciliatory and consider everyone often turns into asking those who have been oppressed to cater to those who are merely uncomfortable with change.

(3) Not every discussion is for and about everything. Changing the subject to be about you is just plain rude, even if you have a legitimate problem.

[Fiery Diamond]

The thing is that if you want the best change, you want change that a large group of people aren't going to resent. That way can lead of bad things. Like civil war, in one instance. Vicious militant hate groups in others. And sometimes those are not from the group that was doing the oppressing in the first place. So this is why it's critical that you humanize even the worst here. If you're really looking to make social change. Because they aren't asphalt, they're people. Even if they have ideas that are bad.

As has been brought up on these forums by me before, I don't think all people deserve to be treated equally at all times regardless of their behaviors. I think we all have the same inherent value, but that there are certain actions people can take that devalue themselves and we should respond accordingly. We strip away certain rights from criminals, for example. I can't really go into any specifics on historic or present day examples with my personal opinions on how certain people should have been/should be treated without violating the forum rules on politics, but suffice to say that I think the negative, violent groups spawned from the no-longer-in-power-oppressors should be brutally crushed. If you perform enough of certain very bad actions, then no, you don't get to qualify as human anymore.

[Douglas]

The Mod Radiant: As much as I think this issue deserves discussion, it just got very clearly political and I don't think that's likely to change. Thread closed.