The core problem with this idea is the gross scale assumptions we have to use

Your entire hand waving around this relies on your assumption that anything to do with privilege has to be some sort of useless generalization. You're literally generalizing how people discuss a concept in order to declare it useless. That's the worst kind of straw-man... You are declaring that it's used in a general way, and then shooting down the generalizations that you've created.

You may as well be saying "the problem with feminism is that not all women have every been discriminated against, it's just all based on a useless generalization and so it doesn't exist". You're very stubbornly putting up a mental wall here.

You don't get to make generalizations about how people will discuss or have discussed something, in order to undermine that discussion presently.

Has anyone in this thread used the tumblr-esqe "you are cis white man so you are wrong" type logic? No? Ok. Then you can calm down with the circlejerking.

Has anyone in this thread used the tumblr-esqe "you are cis white man so you are wrong" type logic?

This post sure sounds like it though:

It's all very well and good to throw the occasional bone to women folk and those coloured people but god damn it, not when it threatens the ability to extend my privilege unchecked. Surely someone in a wig and some black face would help students focus on the real problems facing people every day, like how to make more profitable leisure time pursuits.

This was in response to "industry is more important that perceived gender equality" and the post,yeah, basically boils down to "check your privilege, white cis man". Granted, the wig "joke" was tasteless and silly.

I agree however that Wavinator is kind of presenting a straw-man here: The "theory" I believe is that there are several "axes" of privilege and oppression that interact with each other; race and gender are two of them but not the end of them, though sometimes looking at social media you wouldn't know. Although I have to say I'm unsure how useful it is to infinitely divide into smaller groups, each one having to "check their privileges"(race,gender,sexuality,class,mental health,conventional attractiveness, body weight...where exactly does it stop?) without a solid plan on how to actually unite those and work towards solving problems.

Has anyone in this thread used the tumblr-esqe "you are cis white man so you are wrong" type logic?

This post sure sounds like it though:

It's all very well and good to throw the occasional bone to women folk and those coloured people but god damn it, not when it threatens the ability to extend my privilege unchecked. Surely someone in a wig and some black face would help students focus on the real problems facing people every day, like how to make more profitable leisure time pursuits.

This was in response to "industry is more important that perceived gender equality" and the post,yeah, basically boils down to "check your privilege, white cis man". Granted, the wig "joke" was tasteless and silly.

That's also farce... poking fun at conquestor's abhorrent comment.

And if Bregma was being serious, you could ask him wtf he meant, instead of all going on a 3 page circlejerk, patting each other on the back about how much you all hate a generalization that you brought into the discussion.

I don't think we had to "ask", Bregma didn't mention "privilege" in just one post, he was going about it in several, in a quite preachy manner, clearly using it as a rhetoric device.

The students were presented with plenty of valuable information in the form of the cancellation. Many will ignore the information as a learning opportunity because it is a threat to the exercise of their privilege.

Aka "the students that would be angry/disappointed about the cancellation cannot be anything other than privileged white males".

He could just argue why he thought the cancellation was correct without going all "privilege privilege privilege". I think we have all been around the internet and social media long enough to know how these discussions go when people start throwing around these terms in every opportunity. However, I'm willing to admit maybe some of us went a bit overboard with this, probably because of all the times we've seen people(and of the while male variety themselves) trying to shut down discussions using those terms, something Bregma didn't explicitly do here, so I take my share of responsibility for derailing the thread...but I think right now we *are* actually discussing rationally if the theory around "privilege" has any merit and practical value.

I don't think we had to "ask", Bregma didn't mention "privilege" in just one post, he was going about it in several, in a quite preachy manner, clearly using it as a rhetoric device.
...snip...

Aka "the students that would be angry/disappointed about the cancellation cannot be anything other than privileged white males".

He could just argue why he thought the cancellation was correct without going all "privilege privilege privilege". I think we have all been around the internet and social media long enough to know how these discussions go when people start throwing around these terms in every opportunity. However, I'm willing to admit maybe some of us went a bit overboard with this, probably because of all the times we've seen people(and of the while male variety themselves) trying to shut down discussions using those terms, something Bregma didn't explicitly do here, so I take my share of responsibility for derailing the thread...but I think right now we *are* actually discussing rationally if the theory around "privilege" has any merit and practical value.

Yeah, so you can reply to that and shut it down pretty easily by asking him if he means that the students that would be angry/disappointed about the cancellation cannot be anything other than privileged white males, and that this assumption is an unproven generalization, which makes his point flimsy. That achieves a point. Simply calling his point idiotic, citing no reason, only creates a division, and probably reinforces smugness on both sides -- "what an idiot!" and "what an idiot, had to resort to insults!".

Instead, you guys are just as bad, going on a three page preachy rant with equally fallacious but opposite rhetoric. Yay.

And also tbh, even if I don't agree with his posts, Bregma simply sounds like a man with a daughter, not some tumblr extremist :P

Okay, point taken. From my end, I apologize for derailing the thread; in deed I should just reply with arguments myself.

Your entire hand waving around this relies on your assumption that anything to do with privilege has to be some sort of useless generalization.

Ok, I'm willing to entertain that I may be wrong about this. In the specific examples I used after this portion you've quoted, what is the flaw in my thinking?

You're literally generalizing how people discuss a concept in order to declare it useless.

I disagree. I am citing specific failings in the concept itself and providing copious examples. If counter examples exist then I owe it to the argument to address them (and change my mind if warranted). I just haven't seen them so far and am unwilling to take it on faith.

That's the worst kind of straw-man... You are declaring that it's used in a general way, and then shooting down the generalizations that you've created.
You may as well be saying "the problem with feminism is that not all women have every been discriminated against, it's just all based on a useless generalization and so it doesn't exist". You're very stubbornly putting up a mental wall here.

I'm not sure you're reading what I wrote. As a core idea privilege is one lens through which to view the world. It is faulty, and the ideology that generates it leads to omission of those faults and undermines the very end goal (equality) it purports to strive for.
Is it possible that you misunderstood my view on inequity. I think when some hear pushback to the idea of privilege they assume by default the critic is maintaining that inequality does not exist. If so, please understand that this is NOT my position.

You don't get to make generalizations about how people will discuss or have discussed something, in order to undermine that discussion presently.

I'm not sure of the genus of this point. Anyone is allowed to make an argument, even (unfortunately) an incorrect argument, so 'you don't get to' doesn't make a lot of sense. If the argument is obviously incorrect, shouldn't it be easy to defeat it?

If your argument is, 'your criticism of privilege is inaccurate because individual variances do not matter when discussing large scale demographic problems' or something like that then great, that's something we can sink our teeth into.

But arguing that something is not permitted? I don't think that carries the day.

Has anyone in this thread used the tumblr-esqe "you are cis white man so you are wrong" type logic? No? Ok.

Multiple posts on page 2 started off on this footing. A demographic head count was demanded as a basis for validity of opinion. An unwarranted caricature that seemed to ascribe grotesque motivations to those that disagreed was made.

I would ask you to be even handed in your consideration here, especially if what I have written invoke emotion because of it's very wrong-headedness. Again, if the argument is invalid, then I invite you to refute specifics if you have the time.

Then you can calm down with the circlejerking.

This response is concerning. What do you mean by it?

Just to be clear in case I'm dramatically failing here: I'm from the school of thought that says, "Please God do not teach people that they are weak and need someone else to succeed." That is monstrously disempowering. I made it into the game industry, despite my demographic odds and despite deeply personal difficulties that are far beyond polite conversation. A cardinal rule for me is that knowledge is precious and contact with more learned minds incalculable in value. You DO NOT deprive students of that opportunity for any reason. Given how damnably difficult game development is, there is just no justification and I would be astounded that anyone would think there is were it not for the ideological trends at contest in the game industry and society at large.

A construct has been proffered as a reasonable justification for USC's decision: Some people do not have opportunities, and that is deeply unfair.

As someone who has faced this unfairness, I completely agree. But I vehemently disagree with an ideology which justifies decisions of being unfair to one group because unfairness exists with another.

The drift of the conversation into privilege is, I believe, a central tenet that justifies USC's decision. It is not simply the on-the-face-of-it well meaning "look, just consider how other groups see things." That I wholeheartedly welcome. But as it is practiced in the world at large (and as seen by the philosophical justification for this decision) the concept fails epically to empower students.

That's the worst kind of straw-man... You are declaring that it's used in a general way, and then shooting down the generalizations that you've created.
You may as well be saying "the problem with feminism is that not all women have every been discriminated against, it's just all based on a useless generalization and so it doesn't exist". You're very stubbornly putting up a mental wall here.

I'm not sure you're reading what I wrote. As a core idea privilege is one lens through which to view the world. It is faulty, and the ideology that generates it leads to omission of those faults and undermines the very end goal (equality) it purports to strive for.
Is it possible that you misunderstood my view on inequity. I think when some hear pushback to the idea of privilege they assume by default the critic is maintaining that inequality does not exist. If so, please understand that this is NOT my position.

Then you can calm down with the circlejerking.

This response is concerning. What do you mean by it?

The second point refers to the "anti SJW-esqe" nature of a bunch of recent posts here.

In my experience with groups of these people on the internet, they follow the same pattern as most fear-based groups: take a sliver of truth - there are a small number of people who happen to share an extreme view - blow it up into a big bogey monster - these people are a mass movement that's ruiining my country / attacking my culture / influencing society, rant about them and tear down their position (which is easy as their position is extreme, but also futile, as all of your attacks are actually straw-man arguments due to the initial assumption that this boogy man even exists).

Both the initial extremist group, and the counter-group spawned by their beliefs are small and irrelevant, but seem big to themselves and each other due to them living inside echo chambers and circlejerking themselves into self-reassurance that their imagined foes are indeed worth obsessing over.

The SJW/anti-SJW echo chambers are unfortunately familiar with a lot of gamedev people these days, thanks to the whole #gamergate thing... which btw is kind of a banned topic here now due to how controversial it is.

In my experience and opinion, it's not necessary to debate that taboo subject anyway, as both sides of it are actually much smaller than they think they are, more extreme than they think they are, and more irrelevant than they could imagine... so when the terms came up in this thread it made me immediately wary of stepping into the echo chamber of hate.

As for your views on privilege -- you're consistently talking about an ideology, a philosophy, a lens... which is fine, but I don't believe in it. Not that I don't think it's right or wrong, but that your entire view on the subject is orthogonal - a boogeyman to me that I don't have to believe in.

I'm sure there's some tiny minority somewhere that does believe in this ideology that you're tearing down -- but to me, that's not what the word means, and this minority doesn't even show up on my radar except as a caricature.

The concept of privilege is much greater than this one caricature that you're focused on. Within that concept, as with any concept backed by a common word, there's a near endless set of meanings. Within those meanings, there is the small sub-section of "Privilege theory", which mostly fits the thing that you're deriding... However, this just happens to be an academic model that provides a context for social analysis. As a sociologist, you can use that tool when appropriate, and use other models when appropriate. You can also use it quite sensibly, for example, a recent study on non-conscious racism here found that people with foreign-sounding names are less likely to be granted an opportunity to inspect a rental property outside of the advertised inspection times, while people with "normal" sounding names were more likely to be given that favor. That's a completely boring normal bit of psychological research into how people function, which happens to be well described within the context of privilege theory - not something that requires the researchers involved to become indoctrinated into a narrow and inadequate world-view. Sure - the responses to the research could be extreme, or sensible, but that's irrelevant to the work itself.

Just because some minority has their own weird little internet subculture that's abusing the word, that doesn't mean that I've got to put on academic blinkers myself. I can just choose to let them do their thing without me.

So what you're actually ranting against is people who are not academics who have adopted certain sociological frameworks into their vocabulary without having the required understanding of, training or even desire for rational thought required to be able to make proper use of this tool within their daily interactions with strangers on Tumblr.

I deal with this problem by not having a Tumblr account - not by attempting to tear down the ideas that they've misappropriated and perverted.

Privilege theory, at least to me, basically seems to be garbage. At least in relation to this specific subjects, and specifically to the USA.

Computer sciences don't care what race/gender you are. Men and women are on an exactly level playing field that can be judged solely by their own merit. Girls aren't discouraged from working with computers anymore, and computers can be bought for so cheap that most people below the poverty line have a TV's/Computers

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/census-americans-poverty-typically-have-cell-phones-computers-tvs

People have been saying (for a few years now) that SWJ-like shutdowns of dialogue is killing people's educational experience, but I thought that was overblown until a token female backing out of a discussion caused a school to kill an educational experience for both males and females.

How do we know it was a token female instead of someone worthwhile? Because the female in question wasn't even worth including on the poster for the event

What we have here is an event that tried to include a token female, she backed out, so they pulled the event. Then, in response to that, people defend the school since they're starting a discussion about how they included a token female, so they should be considered the good guys.

Approach it from another angle, one where the school closed down an event that had a 50% female attendance rate. The person who cancelled it came from a rich family, owned a game development company that got contracts for wheel of fortune/jeopardy games.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracy_Fullerton

According to Privilege theory, a privileged person just shut down the education of hundreds of underprivileged students. But it's ok, because some of the attending students were white males. In fact, a whole 33.7% of them are white, and 50% are male.

http://about.usc.edu/facts