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.