Hacker News Reader

Comment by balls187 | Hacker News Reader

> Having non-economic privileges

I can't stand referring to my comment as "white privilege." It's just another way to discount a person simply because of their race.

Being white is like starting a race at the starting line. Being black can be like starting that same race 10 feet back.

Starting at the starting line, isn't a privilege--it's just how a race should be, in order to be fair for everyone participating.

What it also means is that being black means you just have to run faster to win.

> What it can do, for example, is help keep you from getting shot by the police on the way to your interview.

Which we should solve the problem, not badger whites to feel guilty by calling it a privilege.

View on HN

It shouldn't be a privilege, but that's how things worked out. History made it a privilege. If we ever reach a place in societal development where everyone starts at the same place, we can, and perhaps will, stop calling it that. Until then, it is a privilege, and people will continue calling it that.

No one should feel guilty for having it, and others shouldn't being trying to make others feel guilty for having it (both of those things obviously happen, and people should speak against that, too. Some in the social justice world do exactly that.) Social Justice language is sometimes used as a cudgel, used opportunistically, used cynically, and abused in half a dozen ways (non-identarian left vs identarian liberal fights are often over these issues.) That doesn't mean the language is all wrong, or the meaning is wrong, it means bad people can use tools just like good ones can.

Those with some privileges, but without economic privilege or other similar power can help by speaking out, and may change some minds; those with all kinds of privileges can help even more. When Sam Altman talks about diversity hiring, for example, he does the work of potentially thousands of non-Sam Altmans. It's not about guilt, it's about using power for purposes of a more equitable society.

Saying that someone is suffering from "black hinderance" sounds even more terrible.

Maybe it sounds more terrible but it accurately describes the problem. You shouldn't be guilt tripping white people, you should be encouraging black people to perform better. "White privilege" falls into a mentality that I call victimization, where instead of people looking at things through the lens of "how can I change myself and be better", they look at it through the lens of "how can others change themselves to help me be better". You need both mentalities for things to work out but there's a heavy focus on the second one, because it's a lot easier and more convenient.

> You shouldn't be guilt tripping white people, you should be encouraging black people to perform better.

White people are the ones in power in this country. You can't just expect people to pick themselves up by their bootstraps, because it'll never happen unless the people in power put in effort to change the status quo, which is exactly what some tech companies are trying to do.

Like I said, I think both mentalities are necessary but there's a heavy focus on the wrong thing. The message it sends to people is wrong. The signal is that there are systemic problems that can't be changed because people in power are guilty of having power. This is a hopeless signal that doesn't help anyone. What we should be saying to people is that they should strive to be better because that's the only sure way they can hope to improve their situations. Waiting for other people to help you isn't going to do anything. The only thing you have control over is your own life. If the public discourse around these issues focuses solely on how other people have control and how you have no control, then the situation only becomes worse because then people have an excuse to not try, and they don't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com