The @lemmy.liberals in the comments here being flabbergasted that straight white men in positions of power are privileged and embarrassing is very funny
Keep it up dorks
Edit:
To the salty folks out there mad about people not stooping down and being your personal elementary school teacher to teach you basic lessons about the world we live in, and our friends from lemmy.world who are assuredly reading through posts like this one from defederated instances (hi!)
A word about what it is to be civil in conversation and Why Those Tankies Are So Mean (not a tankie but w/e):
I will definitely admit that I was very annoyed and could have been nicer about a lot what I went about saying throughout my posts in this thread. Here's the thing, 'being nicer about it' is a personal decision not a moral necessity, and not even necessarily beneficial at all. The "it" we're being "nicer" about is often something horrifying, like when people got upset at Aaron Bushnell for his self immolation, people who were more upset about THAT than they are about what's happening to innocent bystanders in Palestine. These are not positions that should be met with civility. No one is required to put up with someone's bullshit just for the purpose of helping them learn and grow. Its good to do in the few times when that is possible...
but here?
on the internet? On a not-reddit forum website in a science memes community? Its 1/10000 chance where that's possible.
We all know why you would feel attacked by seeing the mention of his white maleness and the implication that had anything to do with it. No unbiased person would see that and think "this is prejudice based on skin color!" or pretend they can see no connection between the guy in the tweet's old male whiteness and THE TWEET, A perfect encapsulation of the absurdity our nightmare culture which enshrines and systematically enforces the power of ignorant old white men. Its not a statement that all white people are bad, its not a statement that all old people are bad, its not a statement that all men are bad.
It's a recognition of the systemic rot inflicted on the scientific community by our current culture shaped by patriarchy, capitalism, and imperialism.
Add to that how sick I and many of us are of the constant bullshit, the harmful attitudes beliefs and inevitable whining and whinging when the least criticism lands near the fancy of the loser we run across on some post. We're leftists, but also most of us are either trans or queer or poc or neurodivergent etc etc or any combination thereof. We have been around for years just on lemmy, and years before. And over those years, have grown to recognize civility bullshit for what it always was. And recognize what it means when we see stuff like this post, where people are upset about criticism of privileged behavior that demonstrates an injustice inherent to our current system. So we see that bullshit, and we come down on it. To see that an not react harshly against it is no different than contributing to it yourself, to let it fester and grow, to let something horrible and unjust become simply 'normal'.
To hear incorrect views without rebutting them and instead to take them calmly as if nothing had happened is unacceptable.
That's why many people in this thread reacted negatively to the comments we did. Clear enough?
This is why I usually just say shut up, loser. It's way fucking easier, and taking the effort like this is never worth it, not on here, not with the .world et all crowd.
So shut up, losers.
Found an article referencing McCarty as a "fire scientist" which is a really cool title. Seems like human drivers of fire is exactly what it sounds like, motivations and causes for why humans set fires.
Not as confrontational, but had a similar experience with a collaborator. Due to the PIs' old habits, our collaboration meetings were telecons (telephone landlines, rather than zoom or other video conferencing). So at a conference, I see a poster from a member of the collaboration, having never seen the faces of many members, and go over to introduce myself. This other grad student was in poster presenter mode, so as I approach he immediately asks "So you are interested in [collaboration project], how much do you know about [project]" and I point to my name on the author's list and say "well, I am that guy".
I've been on both sides of that kind of interaction, though not in academia. I met my boss of six months for the first time like two weeks ago, tbh I'm not sure if I would recognize him (or anyone else on my "team" for that matter) if I saw him again right now.
It's not obvious? Because white males as a demographic are the most privileged people on the planet and not coincidentally also the ones most prone to petty, oblivious arrogance, tantrum-throwing, and egotistical man-splaining. The latter was demonstrated by the one in this NASA scientist's anecdote.
You are suggesting a poor mine worker from Romania is somehow more privileged based on how he looks.
You misunderstand the concept of privilege. It’s not linear. Intersectionality was devised to solve this exact contradiction.
Intersectionality is the idea that various forms of privilege and circumstance interact with each other to make an individual. Certain influences are more impactful upon a particular person's circumstances, and thus influence privilege to a much greater extent. The non-linear nature that DinosaurThussy is talking about can better be shown with examples.
If you're homeless and white it's clear that you're in a worse off situation than a billionaire who is black. Class status has a far greater influence on this situation. It would be fair to say that the black billionaire has more privilege due to his class status but not his ethnic identity. That being said, it's unlikely that the white man was denied a job due to his race in a way a homeless black person may be. Being poor and white and poor and black have many commonalities, but intersectional analysis allows us to understand the different ways and avenues that particular characteristics influences the ways that a person may end up in a particular circumstance.
The idea continues on. A person who is a billionaire may be significantly shielded from a lot of racism, or face it in a less extreme way. For example, that proverbial black billionaire likely wouldn't have many run ins with racist cops in impoverished neighborhoods. However, he still might face the unifying characteristic of being called a slur by his peers in the way that a poor black person might. His privilege of wealth may not complete inoculate him facing racism at all, even if he faces it in a less extreme way.
In essence, this situation is viewing individuals dialectic-ly. It seeks to understand how all of a person's identity and circumstances relate to the struggles and oppression certain groups or people may face in society.
I empathise with most of this and thank you for bothering to respond without resorting to 4chan energy.
The problem that remains unresolved is the refusal of some people to acknowledge that, like in science, observation is not without cost. What ends up happening is the observation of these trends then causes casualties of blame - in your example we could say the huge population of white people who dont fundamentally see black people in any light other than equal. An insult based on a black billionaire being a greedy billionaire gets called racially charged, when actually, it's entirely class based. This reliably means that (for example) white working class boys/girls are left to rot.
Personally I see most of these prejudicial issues being an exclusively American problem that has been exported abroad, to the extent now that its difficult to untangle.
Prejudice being exclusively a domain of America is a crazy hot take
This is what happens when you view the world through liberal idealism instead of doing any material analysis whatsoever
Systems aren't real, they're just imaginary, they can't hurt you, there's no such thing as systemic oppression just a few bad apples
Lmfao shut up
Personally I see most of these prejudicial issues being an exclusively American problem that has been exported abroad
Have you forgotten who colonised most of the world, including America? This is in no way an American centric issue. Racism exists in most countries on earth.
That poor mine worker is still in a better position than an otherwise identical minority would be in the same position.
A poor mine worker is in a tough place but at least he wasn't refused that job because the company doesn't hire non white people.
This exporting US culture shit has got to stop
We aren't talking about another mine worker. We are comparing 2 individuals with certain characteristics. You have instead decided to compare a third individual because the initial comparison made the concept break down
Just because someone is a certain color does not prescribe to them any specific value judgement. As soon as you do that, one of those categories becomes the ongoing scapegoat for everyone's problems, and it becomes fascist.
Does it ever occur to you that for your arguments to make sense you have to strip it of all context, historical perspecrive or material reality.
I literally didn't say anything about the us. I'm saying that Romanian is still better off than a minority in Romania that got discriminated again.
Any more reasons for you to smugly ignore everything everybody is repeatedly telling you.
For people who complain about how rude we are and how we're an echo chamber you're being shown an incredible amount of patience for how unbearably obtuse you're intentionally being.
For example, just because a queer person is white does not mean they experience the same privilege as a cis het white person
Or how all women are oppressed, but the tribulations of white women are Not the same as those facing women of color or trans women, they face more and more varied forms of discrimination, but it doesn't mean that one is more important or valid than others, just materially different for example
youre deliberately misinterpreting the concept of intersectionality, it includes class.
I'm not deliberately mistinterpreting anything, if I don't understand something, then explain it to me.
Incredibly privileged of you to assume everyone else has your spoilt middle class educational background
You're posting to a niche reddit-clone that you only could've reliably found out about through either reddit, twitter, or mastodon. You have access to Google, you disingenuous twit.
Not relevant, it's not my job to Google your arguments that I don't know exist. If you wish to correct me on something, please do!
LOOK IT THE FUCK UP WHEN YOU'RE CALLED ON FUNDAMENTALLY MISUNDERSTANDING SOMETHING RATHER THAN BEING A REDDITOR PEDANT, JESUS FUCKING CHRIST DO YOU NEED TYING YOUR SHOES EXPLAINED TO YOU THE SAME WAY??????
Y'know what, since I can't even trust you to do that right at this point, have a link for it! https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=intersectionalism
Incredibly privileged of you to assume everyone else has your spoilt middle class educational background
uhm, actually, it is in fact YOU who is the privileged one in this scenario, no I. check, and furthermore, mateif I don't understand something, then explain it to me.
ok so you have deliberately removed as many brain cells as possible from your brain, understood
Do you really think that you know all there is to know? Perhaps I know something that you don't, but you don't know what it is. What then?
This robs people of their individual context.
Is the context not that in STEM women often face sexism?
Is the individual context not that in STEM women often face sexism, not something else?
Do you think that the Prime Ministers wife is less privileged than the Romanian miner? How would you address the discrepancy with the group prescription?
No, no one thinks that, because part of the context there is that one of the people is married to a head of state, and one is a coal miner
You aren't misunderstanding anything here, loser, and we aren't dumb enough to fall for it
Do you think STEM women don't face sexism? Address what I said, not something else.
Not the "I know of this one poc that's in a position of power and so white privilege doesn't exist" argument lol
lemmy.zip
Edit: this slap fight below this comment is the reason for this comment originally, that is why it was a joke to point out the instance, Thanks for demonstrating my point lol
They dont have to you assholes wont stop offering up reasons.
Seriously look at the comments there's damn near 100% overlap with the people bitching about how this is unfair to old white dudes and people with lemmy.something for a username
I really couldn't have asked for a better demonstration lmao
They seem pretty God damn determined to prove they're exactly as disingenuous and intentionally ignorant as possible.
Lot of MLKs Whote Moderates in here.
lol. There is no point in bickering further now that you have started with the insults and ascribed me views that I do not hold, I am not the terrible person you think of, and I will not stoop down to your level and fling insults at you.
So instead I am just going to wish you a pleasant weekend and hope you realize that not everything is as you believe it to be, much less so on the internet.
There never was any fucking point I really dont know why I even bother waste my fucking time trying to talk to you dumbshit liberals who are more concerned with tone policing than acknowledging that racism and sexism exist.
I feel like the incomplete explanation should have been more than you expected in the first place
I get and accept that you may dislike me based on my comments in this thread, I am more confused as to what the lemmy.zip instance has done to dismiss it outright.
Because everybody makes the same shitty comments and it's almost more tiring than anything.
If you so graciuosly "accept that we may dislike you" why can't you understand we wouldn't like people like you especially when it's always the same tired bullshit from people like you.
It happens to be an instance federated with several idealogy-heavy instances, while itself being a general use instance with simple account creation procedures.
It makes it a popular choice for people who want to make multiple accounts for trolling, as well as people who have unpopular (as far as lemmy goes) ideologies. You can hopefully understand the kind of friction that could create and the reputation is the outcome.
You probably could have figured this out yourself if you just... Looked around. You shouldn't expect people who are in disagreement with you to explain everything.
Being white is a huge risk factor for unearned confidence. So is male. Being both just multiplies the chances.
It's a reminder than people that have always been in a privileged position often don't realize they do.
It’s an American reality. Race still influences much of American life.
All you losers acting like you dont understand why the fact it was a white male that was being the ignorant self righteous asshole just shows you aren't actually serious with engaging with material realities.
You should all really look up what MLK Jr has to say about you white moderates and make an effort to remind yourself people like MLK Jr and Malcolm X think you're literally worse than white supremacists.
It's an American obsession.
Are you just going to pretend that there is no racism anywhere else? It was the Europeans that colonised half the planet and invented the concept of "whiteness", and proceeded to divide and carve Africa up. Are you just going to pretend that this action has had no influence on modern European ideas around race and class? And I haven't even mentioned the Roma people. Or the ongoing genocide in Palestine, which has a racial component. Or the rise of Hinduistic fascism in India. Or the issues around race in my own country in South Africa. Racism is a global issue.
It is just mentioned. Just a description of what happened. What's wrong about saying it was a white male when it was a white male? Why jump to the opinion that mentioning the gender or complexion has any other purpose than being descriptive?
What's wrong about just mentioning it was a post doc asking the question?
And then everyone applauded..
But seriously if I witnessed this, I might actually applaud because that is a pretty badass bit of trivia to get to whip out.
They're mentioning the race and gender basically to say "a privileged person". Having privileges obviously influences your character. And race+gender correlate with privileges.
So, while there's no direct causation, and us white males who aren't chumps don't need to be offended, it's often good enough of an explanation why a particular white male might be a chump.
Removing things for their comfort but not having spiritual fortitude enough to cop to why they're removing it. tl;dr revealing how the sausage is made. They've at least got it up enough to casually admit to believing it's possible to be 'racist' against the dominant oppressor; but that def doesn't explain anything else...
I'm also seeing them remove stuff worth removing, and most of my comments are still up, to give credit where it's due
Same kind of "even-handedness" Reddit deployed to get rid of CTH when the outcry against TD got too hot afaic. You're more charitable than me.
While I perfectly agree with your position on that the "privilege" talk has become a weapon in and of itself, and that a lot of bullshit stories come out of it, I'd love it if you could change the tone of conversation.
Americans are different, and they may have cultural reasons to behaving this way. That's not to say they're right - but seeding anger this way is not gonna magically change their minds.
I'm glad we have a common ground here
Hope it didn't turn out mean on my part - I just want to keep this place nice :)
Why's she flexing about a paper that a white male couldn't understand?
Also science is full of arrogant people, both males and females.
Why's she flexing about a paper that a white male couldn't understand?
???
She wrote a book. Then the arrogant white male read it. And referenced it while arguing with her, quoting the book. How he would argue with her if he did understand the book correctly
No, like, I get that he evidently didn't understand it, but I find your question strange as it presupposes that she is "flexing" about a paper rather than complaining about how presumptuous some of her fellows can be.
