> It's jargon but many people try to wedge it as a normal word

Yes, this is a problem. If you push back on it, some people will say "this is Social Justice 101", completely missing the fact that an intro course spends a lot of its time teaching jargon.

> Which literally nobody does ... > A lot of what defensive people see as "shut up" when the concept of privilege is invoked is really

Well, having been in many of these conversations, I can say that yes, there are people who use the word privilege to mean "shut up". There are people who genuinely exhibit more of an interest in clawing people down than in spreading understanding.

Understanding how privilege operates and recognizing ones own is still super-important. It is particularly important when trying design solutions (like hackerspaces, bootcamps, tutorials, etc) to social problems.

But it is also important to recognize that sometimes people just use social justice discourse as a way to feel righteous while carelessly insulting people they just don't like. It is important to be able to recognize when someone has no interest in problem solving and to disengage from conversations with those people.

Thanks for the link by the way.

Trying to maybe teach a few people a few things is most of why I hang out around here--it's not good for my sanity to go "oh hey, that thread's going to have a bunch of people shitting on poor people/black people/immigrants", but maybe once in a while some sense can work its way into somebody.

And there are definitely assholes who use the concept as a bat--one can be an asshole and still be on the right side of history, of course. "Literally nobody does" was referring to the strange bugbear of "you are privileged and thus deserve nothing you have earned," which is generally a (defensively or politically motivated) misreading of "you've been really lucky, you should pay it forward."

> "Literally nobody does" was referring to the strange bugbear of "you are privileged and thus deserve nothing you have earned,"

Except that I have met many people who hold exactly this belief.

> And there are definitely assholes who use the concept as a bat--one can be an asshole and still be on the right side of history, of course.

How can they be on the right side of history if they hurt the cause they claim to fight for by being an asshole? If you've moved the needle in the wrong direction, you're worse than the people who sit idly by and do nothing, IMO.

> Trying to maybe teach a few people a few things is most of why I hang out around here

Ugh.. gross. You're here for the wrong reasons.

Teaching and learning things of interest to hackers is totally a good reason to be here

If I were a demon from Hell, tasked by Satan himself to ruin discourse about opportunity and egalitarianism, I could scarcely do better than calling people "privileged".

Think about it from the accused's point of view. Yes they were lucky in many ways, but they also worked hard to get to where they are. Then someone belittles their efforts, claiming it's simply because they are privileged. Privileged? Even an average person has to overcome a ridiculous amount of adversity to be successful. Calling someone privileged immediately makes the conversation antagonistic.

Instead, I think it's much more effective to use "lucky" or "fortunate". People won't shy away from those adjectives. If anything, they'll readily accept them. This starts the conversation on a much friendlier note and makes people more likely to work with you.

Edit: Looking up Danilo, I see he perfectly fits my example of ruining discourse by being overly antagonistic. When Y Combinator posted about their efforts to improve diversity in startups[1], he chastised them and misconstrued Sam Altman's words.[2] When Altman asked him for advice and help, Danilo just got angry and accused Altman of trying to get him to work for free.[3] This sort of behavior is extremely counterproductive. It polarizes the conversation and alienates large swaths of potential helpers.

1. http://blog.ycombinator.com/diversity-and-startups

2. https://twitter.com/_danilo/status/492764323874222081

3. https://twitter.com/_danilo/status/492840606054363136

Nobody is accused here. Let's not get too excited.

Privilege is a loaded word so I should have used another one perhaps. Privilege is strategic position of advantage. You have or have access to time, money, wealth, power, super-power etc that other don't have. And it is relative.

I'd say tech people have that power compared to workers in an Amazon warehouse. We can work from home, can demand our own salaries, jump to cool exciting companies. Don't have to break our backs. Instead of thinking about what to feed the children with we think what type of Apple watch to buy etc.

So far we haven't talked how each individual or cohort as a whole reached that level. Some worked hard, some didn't. Some got lucky by picking the right field to go on. Some were just passionate about a hobby (me). Some were bullied and got to spend more time inside (me) and apparently OP.

> Privileged? Even an average person has to overcome a ridiculous amount of adversity to be successful.

And now if they live in a Western country, with a great healthcare, good weather, police protection. They are privileged compared to those that are being bombed, raped, or are starving in many parts of the world.

And my point is, looking back those people will say "I am here because I worked hard and everyone one else who is complaining is kind of lazy and should have worked hard as ". I say "it's complicating" and people will often attribute too much to their hard work and discount luck, and other factors -- family connections, good neighborhood, safe area, a good health insurance, maybe a specific literacy program promoted by their government, or other factors (even negative ones like "I was bullied nerd so I was in the house more and that gave a me a chance to focus more on study").

> Instead, I think it's much more effective to use "lucky" or "fortunate".

Those are good to describe how they got to the position of privilege. Which often has a mix of things like luck, hard work, and others. That is why used the word. Using something like "strategic life advantage" sounds a bit odd though.

> And my point is, looking back those people will say "I am here because I worked hard and everyone one else who is complaining is kind of lazy and should have worked hard as

That's a ridiculous straw man. I don't think anyone in this thread would agree with that statement.

> Those are good to describe how they got to the position of privilege. Which often has a mix of things like luck, hard work, and others. That is why used the word. Using something like "strategic life advantage" sounds a bit odd though.

Of course we all rely on a bit of luck and help from others. But the problem with telling someone you've never met before that they need to "check their privilege" is that you don't know a thing about them. It's offensive in exactly the same way that accusing the poor of being lazy is. If you don't take the time to get to know someone and learn about what they've been through and why they are where they are then you don't get to say things like "you're lazy" or "you're privileged". If you'll pardon my French, "you don't fucking know me".

As a male, I do not fear being date-raped, I do not fear being accosted walking alone at night, I do not worry that I am paid less because of my gender, I do not fear that my career path will be harmed because an employer is afraid to hire or promote me because I may choose to have children. And a white person in the United States, I am likely to get more callbacks on a resume for a job. I can walk down the street, and not have a very tangible fear fill the pit of my stomach that I may hassled by a passing cop. If a cop does wish to speak to me, I do not have to adopt a subservient posture out of fear of being harmed by an official of the state because of the color of my skin.

They don't need to know you to point out that the hand you are dealt becomes the hand you play--and that, statistically and sociologically speaking, the hand of a white man is overwhelmingly superior, almost without exception, to that of a black woman in the United States. It is not, to borrow a phrase, about you. It's about systems, and it is largely accepted that the rush to personalize situations is done by people in a position of relative privilege. Because you want it to be about you, so you diminish that privilege. It's a natural reaction; I've done it too. But it's wrong, and you are punching downward at people who have it worse than you, and you should stop.

So if I say statistically and sociologically speaking, black people have lower IQ's, have a more destructive culture of crime, and are more likely to abuse social programs than white people am I somehow protected from scrutiny? Is my generalization any more offensive than yours, really?

> It's about systems, and it is largely accepted that the rush to personalize situations is done by people in a position of relative privilege.

It's about systems and it's about individuals. People who fight for social justice personalize situations all the time. When statistics come out that don't favor their agenda, they shift the focus to the personal level as well. And they should, because we need to all remember that it is about the individual. As much as sociologist and statisticians would like to believe, we do not all fit neatly into well defined groups. It's insulting to insinuate that we do.

> "I am here because I worked hard and everyone one else who is complaining is kind of lazy and should have worked hard as

Nobody here does but it is a common attitude, I have heard it many times from conservative acquaintances and family. This phenomenon was epitomized by the "welfare queen" PR term in US in the 90s and early 2000s, and to some extend I believe "unwed single mother" in UK. It as a figure put up a prototype of how poor people are just waiting for handouts, are lazy and if they just work harder would be successful business owners.

> to "check their privilege"

I didn't say that. Is that a strawman I see ;-) ?

> If you don't take the time to get to know someone and learn about what they've been through

I didn't direct my comments at anyone in particular. I responded to a comment because they brought an interesting point my mind but I didn't accuse or insult them.

What I said in general is that there is a tendency for people who have made it to ascribe their results to their hard work and willpower even if in reality it was a complicated mix of country they were born, parents, good networking (friends), etc.

> If you'll pardon my French, "you don't fucking know me".

Alrighty then...

It does seem like you've somewhat oddly-defined the word. Would you also apply it to a chess player who has even material and two passed pawns 35 moves into a game? That would be a strategic position of advantage.

Or how about a Roman general picking apart less nimble Greek phalanxes with a manipular legion? Would you apply the word there?

That's why I generally start with "lucky" or "fortunate", indeed! But the concept of privilege is a sociological one, and does eventually need to be addressed. Because this isn't about you, or me, it's about the systems that put people in the places where they are and work to keep them there.

"I am incredibly privileged" is not a statement that offends me, because I actually know what it means.

As per your edit: I don't necessarily agree with the level of vitriol, because I have had good interactions with Altman, but I'm not in Danilo's head and I am not part of the groups who YC was (not so much anymore, to their credit) and HN is (routinely even today, despite the very good efforts of people like dang) marginalizing and attacking. HN is a business asset for YC, and if you want somebody's help to improve your business asset, you pay them. Especially when you screwed up in the first place.

>Privilege is referring to the difficulty slider.

It is more often used to try to stereotype and discriminate against someone, insisting their setting as being higher than others. And when this brought up, the general response is to then say the issue is really a bunch of different sliders, such as one for race, one of gender, one for sex, one for sexuality (and all of these are still simplified to stereotypes). It is often accompanied by an insistence that we pay extra attention to some sliders are more important than others, with the side bringing it up tending to shift focus to the sliders that minimize the view point of the one being told they are privileged.

Privilege is an attempt to simplify complex issues in a manner that benefits certain positions and it can be used as a thought terminating cliche.

For example, privilege being brought up here to detail how it is privilege for some to have turned to computer as a coping mechanism for the abuse and exclusion of their peer groups; that they had free time to focus on computers because their peers didn't want to spend time with them is a privilege.