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...