Comment by pietrovismara
6 years ago
That kinda shows you what privilege is and how it conditions the political discussion. If you never had to face a problem (never needed someone to protect you against greedy employers), it is so hard to understand why that it's relevant.
Doesn't this make the point of tech works who are against tech unions (not other unions)? We're all generally paid extremely well and are privileged. Why risk changing things?
I personally come from a pretty poor upbringing. I can see why it's scary for some to change something that 1. is working relatively well and 2. got them out of poverty.
Because at some point, things may change on their own.
It's offensive to see this valid point of view dismissed with such shallow accusations of privilege.
The point in bringing up trivial issues like moving monitors is to emphasize the greed and absurdity that ensure that even simple, quick tasks become cash sinks and long term blockers, directly because of common union practices. This is the inefficiency that unions tend to breed, and it is a direct consequence of their purpose: protect members even at the expense of nonmembers and the rest of the corporate collective.
No one is complaining that they aren't allowed to move their own monitors. We are explaining that these ubiquitous policies in sum do more harm than good to greater modern society.
Who exactly is the "rest of the corporate collective"? Also saying "ubiquitous policies in sum" seems like a stretch from extortionist monitor moving. There can be a balance.
New rule: similar to Godwin's law, first person to mention "privilege" loses the argument. It is an unwinnable and deeply toxic ad hominem strategy; discount any merit of the argument and accuse the opponent of simply being too "privileged" to ever understand. Well guess what - that hole just goes down and down. If you can speak english and afford a computer, you're way too privileged. Electricity! Privilege.
When it comes to identity politics, unless you are an illiterate, congenitally disabled, imprisoned, transgender veteran of color in a 3rd world country then I would ask you to respectfully step back and let our true heroes speak. Thanks
First off, that's not similar to Godwin's law. Secondly, telling to shut up because they used the word "privilege" is not very conducive to conversation. If you really think the word poses problems, could you explain what those problems are? Your sarcastic string of identities is not helpful for understanding what your point is.
> telling to shut up because they used the word "privilege" is not very conducive to conversation
I don't like it because it's an all-purpose "shut up" card itself. It discounts opinion and argument not because of any merit or logic, simply because of the arguer's socioeconomic situation - which is not even known! I feel it is a very lazy way to conduct a conversation.
I'm sorry if my original post came across sarcastically, i was just trying to "reductio ad absurdum" some of the arguments i've heard in the past.
What I hate about "privilege" is that it is an invitation to introduce the notion of personal virtue into what should be a dispassionate discussion. It turns into a competition which has nothing to do with the merit of the point. It is a personal thing, much like race, and it's not useful. When I hear "you wouldn't understand because you're privileged" i can just translate it to "because you're white" or "because you're asian" or "because you're X". Well great. Where does that get us? And since you're talking about me, let's look very closely at you?
I don't deny privilege exists. Of course it does. I daresay I see it more than most, living where I do. But like racism it is not to be tossed around lightly, or it will basically kill any discussion.