JoshuaZ comments on The Craft And The Community: The Basics: Apologizing - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (191)
There's a much saner form that's worth noting, when it is shorthand for "You overlap through at least one of the following categories:heterosexual, male, white, high socioeconomic bracket, and so you are less likely to have personal experience of the sort of problem that is going on here and might not notice when it occurs." This is essentially an issue of an illusion of transparency, in that often members of specific groups have issues that they are more aware of, and the amount of share experience leads to problems of inferential distance.
Essential agreement that the other two meanings are deeply counter-rational. Unfortunately, exactly what someone means by it isn't always clear.
You're right about the ignorance part of privilege-- and contrary to SJW, it's quite possible for people in the less privileged categories to be ignorant about at least some of the problems of people in the more privileged categories.
I'd love to find a way to disentangle the ignorance part of the idea of privilege from the power grab, but I haven't figured out how to do it.
My general tactic has been when people use the term to say more or less the version like what you quoted is "problematic" and then explain more or less the ok meaning. Most of the time if you do so, people will be more careful at least for the remainder of the conversation.
On the other hand, at least once when I did so, I was informed that what I was attempting to do was "mansplaining" and "coming from a position of privilege to control what it means to have privilege" and I more or less threw up my hands. I don't know if the individual in question was hopelessly mindkilled or not, but it exceeded my patience level.
I think that "privilege" (in its more reasonable forms) basically refers to a special case of the Typical Mind Fallacy, one where people are prone to dismissing or understating the problems of one group because they don't personally experience them in the same way. For a relatively neutral example, there's this bit in Yvain's post:
I would say that these are pretty much perfect examples of privilege: situations in which the perfectly reasonable problems of one party are completely invisible to the other, to the point that the other cannot even see what the problem is and thinks that the other person is just complaining about nothing.
Similarly, Eliezer has explicitly used the term "metabolic privilege" in pretty much this sense:
So "privilege" is a useful concept, one which has actually already seen use in the LW community. In this context, "check your privilege" is a call to re-evaluate one's assumptions and to take into account the factors which make the situation genuinely problematic for others but a non-problem for you.
Even the "privilege means you're not allowed to have any opinion other than the social justice consensus" sense can be a somewhat reasonable one - there are plausibly positions where people frequently and commonly become guilty of the Typical Mind Fallacy, and where a consensus of the people who've given the issue some thought agrees on this, and people who disagree are likely to just be flat-out wrong. (You could say that it's the SJW version of "read the Sequences".)
A classic SJW example of privilege that I think is justified is the case of sexual harassment of women, where men frequently react to cases of harassment with variations of "I don't see the problem here, if someone did that to me I'd just be flattered". In that case, the fallacy involves an inability to take into account the fact that a behavior that one might consider flattering if it only happened rarely will become unbearable if repeated sufficiently often (obligatory link), and also that men being stronger women creates a sense of accompanying danger that wouldn't be present in the case of women harassing men.
I thought Of Dogs and Lizards was also a nice illustration of these concepts:
That definition is incomplete without having power mentioned in it.
For example, it's culturally difficult for "straight cisgendered male Americans" to show weakness. It's not a problem for women. Take the stereotypical situation when a couple is lost and the man refuses to ask for directions. The woman is annoyed at him. Can he tell her "check your privilege"?
I strongly disagree. It cannot be.
Depends on who you ask. I would say yes, some would say no.
Right, a literal "never allowed to have" cannot be. What I meant to say was that positions that might easily seem like "you are never allowed to have this opinion" might actually be positions of "this position is so likely to be wrong as to not be worth wasting our time with", which can sometimes (though definitely not always) be reasonable.
Sure, there are lots of those. But notice the difference in accents: "I think you have no clue to the extent that I am not going to bother and waste my time" -- vs. " You have no right to your opinion", especially if there's an explicit or implicit "because you belong to a privileged class".
What on earth could it possibly mean for you to have (or not have) "a right to your opinion"?
One possibility that occurs to me is that the expression "I have a right to my opinion!" has to do with whether people will give you the last word — it's a claim to power over other people in conversation. Asserting "I have a right to my opinion" is a way of saying, "Shut up! I'm not talking about this with you any more!" Thus, to say "you have no right to your opinion" is a way of saying, "No, I won't shut up; I will go on trying to convince you that you are wrong."
Another possibility is that "I have a right to my opinion!" is a statement that one intends to continue to confidently assert a view which has been undermined by evidence or argument, without acknowledging or responding to the criticism. Thus, to say "you have no right to your opinion" is to say "you are being epistemically rude; stop it."
A third possibility is that "I have a right to my opinion!" is an assertion that some topics are too socially volatile to be exposed to much criticism. This seems to be what people mean when they bring up "the right to your opinion" in matters of religious doctrine. Thus, to say "you have no right to your opinion" is to say "I'm not going to stop publicly debunking your religion just because you don't like me doing it."
Fourth, "I have a right to my opinion!" could be a demand to not be treated worse socially by others on account of one's opinion, even if others may fear that the opinion may lead you to treat them worse. This would seem to be a demand for unilateral disarmament: "I will go on being bigoted against Blues, and I demand that Blues not treat me badly, even if they fear that I will treat them badly." Thus, to say "you have no right to your opinion" is to say "Yes, I am going to treat your opinion as evidence about your character and your future actions, and treat you accordingly."
Lastly, "I have a right to my opinion!" could be an effort to tar one's (nonviolent) critics by associating them with some sort of (violent) censors — an Inquisition, a secret police — and to rally defenders of freedom to attack those critics. Thus, to say "you have no right to your opinion" is to say "I do not pose the kind of threat that you are claiming. You have no business invoking the defense of freedom on your opinion's behalf, since freedom is not threatened. This is not a matter of 'rights'; it is a matter of conversation, argument, and evidence. Stop trying to escalate it into a matter of 'rights'."
It's also possible that "I have a right to my opinion" can mean "I have a right to enough time to assimilate new information without being told I have to think differently because someone else is sure they're right."
It might be interesting, the next time you come across someone who says "I have a right to my opinion", to ask them what they mean.
For a trivial example, it turned out that Larry Summers did not have a right to his opinion about why women are underrepresented in certain fields.
After seeing your comment, I went and read what Wikipedia had to say about that incident.
I'd heard about Summers' resignation only at some remove, and only really from bloggers who had opinions on one side or the other on the women-in-science issue. As a result, I hadn't known that there were other contributing factors to Summers' resignation besides that one. It seems that there were — including other conflicts with the faculty ... and a corruption scandal involving Russia's post-Soviet privatization program that led to Harvard paying a $26.5 million settlement to the Federal government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Summers#President_of_Harvard
I guess that goes to show the consequences of getting news from partisan sources. The rest of the story is substantially less exciting to folks who care about the "Social Justice vs. Political Incorrectness" Blue-Green war, though, so it's no surprise it didn't get as much press.
Of course it didn't end there...
Sure. I didn't read the original as a literal quote but rather as a rough characterization of a perceived attitude, so I didn't pay much attention to the details of the exact wording, since I treated it as referring to a set of many different statements that include both of the variants in your comment, as well as others.
Are you simply going to say you disagree with Kaj here on this last part or actually respond to their comment, especially say the end of the sentence you cut off where Kaj said:
I am going to point out that "you're not allowed to have any other opinion" and "I believe your opinion is wrong because of A, B, and C" are very different statements.
How much depends on what one means by allowed? For example, it isn't unreasonable to say that I shouldn't have an opinion on whether or not sterile neutrinos exist- because I have nowhere near the physics background to remotely understand the question beyond at an extremely basic level.
That depends on who's doing the talking.
It's not unreasonable for you to decide that you shouldn't have an opinion on X until you found out more about X.
When another party tells you that you are not allowed to have an opinion on X the very first issue that pops up is what power/authority does that other party have to decide which opinions you are allowed to have and which not?
CYP doesn't come up in discussions of neutrinos, it comes up in discussion of sociopolitical issues and in that context allowing or not allowing people to have certain opinions has a long and ugly history.
Is it similarly true, if another party tells me that the very first issue that pops up under certain circumstances is X, that the very first issue that pops up is what power/authority does that other party have to decide what the very first issue is and isn't?
This seems to me a silly way to treat ordinary discourse.
When you tell me that X is the very first issue to pop up, I take that to mean you're more interested in discussing X than anything else. If someone tells me I shouldn't have an opinion about X, I take that to mean they're not interested in hearing about my opinion. Yes, in both cases they are expressing themselves as though their personal preferences were facts about the world, but I just treat that as a fairly basic rhetorical maneuver to establish their conversation status.
Generally speaking, no, it doesn't mean that I'm more interested in X. What it means is that the answer to X will influence and affect discussions of Y and Z so we might as well start with X because we'll end up there anyway.
I take that differently -- I understand that as containing a moral judgment as to which opinions are acceptable/allowed and which are not. After all in this case you can have an opinion as long as it is the correct "social justice" one. Any color as long as it's black.
So it sounds like on your account, if I were to rail against you for deciding that we're going to talk about X now and that I'm not allowed to talk about Y and Z, I would be missing the point, because what's really going on has nothing to do with who is deciding what and who has the power.
Rather, you're just pointing out that, since the answer to X will influence and affect discussions of Y and Z, there is a conversational failure mode we can avoid by talking about X first. On your account, you aren't expressing a moral judgment about what topics are acceptable/allowed, you're just saying that some topics will cause the conversation to proceed more usefully (by addressing the fundamental issues first) and others will cause it to proceed less usefully.
Yes?
By contrast, on your account, the "social justice" warriors who say that, for example, men aren't entitled to an opinion about the prevalence of sexism against women in our culture, aren't making any such claim. There is no model of conversational dynamics they operate from such that such expressions of opinion can be expected to cause a conversation to proceed less usefully. In that case it really is about who is deciding what and who has the power.
So the two aren't comparable.
Yes?
I think you may want to see Kaj's comment here, which I think clarifies what is going on.
An interesting set. So let's see who doesn't overlap at least one category -- it got to be a lesbian (or at least bi) poor non-white woman.
So everybody who is not a lesbian poor non-white woman (which I would estimate to be 98-99% of the population) is vulnerable to the cry of Check Your Privilege! Interesting...
Well, in the sane version this isn't about vulnerability or conversation point scoring/status but actually trying to make an observation.
And in the sane contexts, most of them aren't going to be relevant. If for example, one discussing say voting rights issues, I don't think (sane) people are going to argue that sexual orientation matters, even as race and income might.
Although, if you do want to focus on how narrow it can get, I've also seem to the term in the context of people who are Christian not realizing how uncomfortable people from other religious backgrounds can easily be in parts of the US, and especially how that applies to atheists. But again, I don't think the argument would be made that all the issues are relevant at the same time.
So, maybe, make it? There is, of course, the trivial point that for any issue there are people who had personal experience with it and people who had not, but "check your privilege" is very much not about personal experiences but about treating people solely as members of a certain class.
There is a reasonable way to put what you're trying to say -- it would go along the lines of "You are making assumptions X, Y, and Z and they don't work in this situation because of A, B, and C and so what you expect to happen doesn't". But "check your privilege" is not that -- it's a shorthand for "sit down, shut up, and feel guilty".
Or it can be shorthand for "You are making a long list of implicit assumptions, and it will take time to go through all of them, but you can conclude from someone who has actually been in the relevant situation that you are wrong about the actual situation on the ground." That's a common enough sentiment in many different contexts where inferential distance matters, and it may help to think in terms of this thread which tried to expand most of those issues in other contexts.
It helps to not try to interpret every statement people who make as the most irrational possible just because you already disagree with them or have seen other irrational aspects that particularly irk you.
It can. But for me to accept this requires me to grant A LOT of credibility to the speaker.
Well, we can talk empirics, then. I've had "check your privilege" card pulled on me numerous times. In the great majority of the cases it was done to shut me up and shame me. In the great majority of cases people saying that had zero idea about my personal experiences and were just assuming what it was convenient for them to assume. In most cases this card was pulled when people were badly losing a rational argument.
So while in theory "check your privilege" can mean various things, I am pretty certain about what it means in practice.
Inferential distance issues is actually very high on the list of things that can make someone think that someone else is "badly losing" an argument. On at least one occasion I've had someone who was insisting that .9999... !=1 come away from a conversation with me convinced that they had "clearly won".
But your point does have some validity, and if you look back at the original comment you replied to, I agreed with Nancy that it can be used in irrational ways. My point was about the more rational ways people can and do use the term. So what precisely are you trying to argue here?
My feeling is that the term is irretrievably tainted. I see its use as an ideological marker.
I accept that what it tries to express can be a useful point but this particular phrase by now carries way too much baggage.
This sounds then like an assertion not that people don't use the phrase more rationally, but that you or others are unlikely to treat it as having a more rational meaning even when it does, because it has a history of being used more often in a more irrational fashion by people you politically disagree with. Is that a fair summary?
It is an assertion that in my personal experience people do not use the phrase rationally. YMMV and all that, of course.
This personal experience leads me to consider this particular phrase as an indicator of certain characteristics of people who us it, both with respect to their ideology and their rationality.
If you have interesting examples of such a relatively positive use of "check your privilege", I'd like to see them.
My experience is the same as Lumifer's - I have only seen this phrase used to shut down unwanted opinions or unwanted participants. Theoretically, it could stand for what you said, and I'd love it if it did, but in practice it doesn't seem to happen.
(Interestingly, the same seems to be true about the obnoxious -splaining family: "mansplaining", "cissplaining" etc. That is, I can well imagine their uses that, while rude, seem somewhat justified. But I don't think I've ever actually observed such a justified use; all the uses I've seen were always as a way to attack an opinion based on race/sex/identity of whoever offered it).
FWIW, in my social circle it's often used in the first person. As in, "my first response was to dismiss X as completely unnecessary; then I checked my privilege and reconsidered what X might offer to groups G1, G2, and G3." I don't necessarily claim that these sorts of uses are interesting or positive (that's a discussion I don't choose to get into here), but I don't quite see how it involves shutting anyone down.
As for "-splaining", I more often see it used as a way to attack a conversational strategy than directly to attack an opinion... though of course many people will choose to attack a conversational strategy as an indirect way of attacking the opinions being expressed using that strategy, or the individuals expressing them.
Similarly, many people will choose to attack word choices in such an indirect fashion, as well, in order to indirectly attack the opinions being expressed using those words or the individuals expressing them, but that doesn't mean it's inappropriate to challenge inappropriate word choices.