Home Forums General General Sexism in Rules? Reply To: Sexism in Rules?


no idea what ‘troll’s mate in 3’ or ‘intro to pub rhetoric’ is/means

I think Jonathan was saying that the points he was referring to are/were commonly used in argumentative traps used by trolls online and prior to the internet it was used in other venues.

I’m privileged, let me check my calendar to see who I’m oppressing in the afternoon slot.

I hear statements like this from time to time from people I know. I don’t know your intent, so I won’t presume it. I do know their intent from having spoken with them, so I will address it. They have used it as a sarcastic statement to indicate that they aren’t oppressing anyone, thus, any criticism or reference to their privilege is invalid.

The notion that a privileged person is oppressing others is a logical falsehood. Essentially a misrepresentation of the argument being opposed, i.e. a straw man argument.

I happen to have privilege. It is a matter of happenstance. It really isn’t something I can shed, presuming I wanted to. The problem with privilege isn’t that I oppress anyone, but that other people have less, i.e. they are not privileged. It isn’t that *I* oppress anyone, it is that they are oppressed and a demonstration of that is that I don’t have to worry about their problems.

Privilege can be practically defined in two clear ways:

1) Privilege means that a person is more likely to be less screwed than someone without privilege, i.e. There is always someone more likely to be worse off.

2) Privilege means that a person can deny the validity of someone else’s complain, concern, or gripe, because they themselves do not have to worry about that issue, i.e. Your problem doesn’t happen to me, so I don’t think it is really a problem.

I think there are larger two issues at play:

A) Is there an improvement to be made and are there tangible gains to be had from it in the market and community at no cost.

Yes. And such will require community discussion to take place.

B) Are there people who oppose discussion of any change, including that of (A) for a vaguely articulated “But what is *their* problem anyway?”

Yes. And what is problematic is whenever anyone who doesn’t immediately voice agreement with (A) is assumed to be part of (B), that, to my mind, is not useful or practical.

There’s a good example of someone in this thread, doing “the wrong thing” for a reason that was not wrong: [paraphrased] “We wrote in our own voice and didn’t consider it.” That isn’t malicious intent and it is important it is not conflated with malice.

At the same time, people who actually are doing (B) have to be called out on it, else the community just participates in willful blindness and ignores positive change.

This can be difficult and is typically messy.


The Bandit