@Wavinator: Dude, I sure hope to god you're not a white man, because otherwise you did a major whitemansplaining in that post. :P

LOL. Although I'd rather my ideas be judged based on what they are than who I am I think I'm safe.

@Wavinator: Dude, I sure hope to god you're not a white man, because otherwise you did a major whitemansplaining in that post. :P

LOL. Although I'd rather my ideas be judged based on what they are than who I am I think I'm safe.

I don't disagree entirely tbh with the idea that the group you belong to gives more credit to your ideas, in certain circumstances: A black man's opinion about racism or a black woman's opinion about racism and sexism carries more weight than my own, because they have life experiences I don't. Simply put, they have gathered more "data" in order to reach a more concrete conclusion - it's not 100% certain that they have, but it is much more likely. That seems reasonable to me. As I said, what I can't stand are white dudes that for all I know are more affluent than me doing the lecturing about "privilege". This kind of irritates me to no end.

@Wavinator: Dude, I sure hope to god you're not a white man, because otherwise you did a major whitemansplaining in that post. :P

LOL. Although I'd rather my ideas be judged based on what they are than who I am I think I'm safe.

That sums it up nicely. You have the privilege of simply being judged on the merit of your work. Others can work even harder and produce better quality, but that is still not good enough because they are judged on who they are rather than what they do.

That is what privilege is all about, for you guys who get triggered by the word and automatically turn a deaf ear. That is the root of the problem and why everyone is responsible for resolving the problem. It's not us vs. them, it's just us.

Like I said, there's nothing wrong with privilege, it's a desirable thing. It's your attitude towards those who don't have it that makes what you do offensive and what you all get so defensive about.

Instead of automatically rejecting the ideas raised by the discussion, just check what your reaction is and why. If you're capable, think on it. That's all that's being asked.

Great, now he's preaching privilege to a black man(as I gathered Wavinator is). We've reached top stupidity methinks.

"Privilege", "Trigger" and what looks like "white-splaing"... its like a game of SJW Bingo up in here!

@Wavinator: Dude, I sure hope to god you're not a white man, because otherwise you did a major whitemansplaining in that post. :P

LOL. Although I'd rather my ideas be judged based on what they are than who I am I think I'm safe.

That is what privilege is all about, for you guys who get triggered by the word and automatically turn a deaf ear. That is the root of the problem and why everyone is responsible for resolving the problem.

That may be what the concept is, but the way you're using it is more like "cancelling the panel was the right thing to do and if you think otherwise you are privileged and therefore wrong".

And as I said, coming from a white straight(I presume) dude, your overusing of the word has become *really* obnoxious.

What about the privilege of thinking the students(male and female, white or otherwise) should feel content with having wasted time and money, only to be "educated" about gender diversity by the means of a cancellation, that is, paying for the mistakes of the organizers? If I'd spend 500$ and/or took days off my work to attend I'd be pretty pissed off if some rich progressive kid said "well, we might have lost some time and money, but we got educated about gender diversity". Thank you, I guess I should be happy that I learned the organizers were morons that didn't think to invite more than 1 woman in the panel. Money, time, and work days off well spent.

privilege

I had a reply forming until I got to this.
Do you know what this word has become?
A Shut Down.
A single word to enforce "I don't agree and I don't think your views matter because of your background".

There is no debate to be had, no point to be made, because 'privilege'.

I guess I should thank you; it'll stop me wasting any further time trying to engage in any sort of conversation with closed minded "rah rah we are right!" people in this thread.

Um... you just fulfilled your own prophecy: you literally just chose to shut down in the presence of a word. Talk about being triggered :P

If someone mentions privilege as part of a discussion, and they're trying to ask people to consider how social/economic/racial/cultural/sexual/etc backgrounds could be influencing different viewpoints on the issue. If that line of thinking makes you so uncomfortable that you walk away with your fingers in your ears, then you're the problem.

If someone uses the word out of place or over-zealously, then they're giving you the opportunity to legitimately shut them down via superior debate, by actually calling their bluff and explaining why their ad hominem is irrelevant to your logical position. Or, more likely, privileged probably is a valid part of the discussion, so you can mention how it does impact your position and move on, leaving them disarmed.

Certainly not. The USC did for instance, and chose to demonstrate they were willing to break the cycle by not convening an even that was so exclusive.

What does that mean anyway? We go back to the root of the problem, which is that the USC failed to meet its own diversity standards, and then decided to punish the students for it. They wouldn't have to cancel an event that was exclusive, if they organized an inclusive event in the first place. Which is what they should have done. Talks about diversity have been pretty prominent the last years, they have no excuse of "ooops, we didn't know diversity was important until 4 hours before the event". They screwed up, and then students, many of whom probably spent money, time and took days off their jobs, paid the price. But it's alright, because they all got educated about how the organizers should have known better. Apparently we should applaud the USC because they showed their commitment to diversity by not inviting women, and then cancelling because they didn't invite women.

Um... you just fulfilled your own prophecy: you literally just chose to shut down in the presence of a word. Talk about being triggered :P

Yes, after running any counter arguments I might have had and doing simple analysis (based on previous posts in this thread) leading to the conclusion that anything I say, counter to the position of 'they did the right thing', was going to result in 'you are a white male; you are privileged, your opinion is wrong' response.

When someone pulls the 'privilege' card in a discussion their mind is made up; they are right.
Game over.
Do not pass go.
Do not collect £200 because you are privileged enough already.

(Also 'triggering' is a bullshit phrase too frankly... 'waah! someone said a thing I don't agree with! they have triggered me and should be made to go away!' is all I see when someone pulls that word out too...)

They wouldn't have to cancel an event that was exclusive, if they organized an inclusive event in the first place

I don't think anyone is in disagreement with this statement. Clearly, a more diverse panel would have avoided this issue.

However, it is worth reflecting that the panel as designed is roughly in line with the diversity in industry. The last figures I have to hand are from 2005, when the industry self-reported as 88% male. Which makes a 10 person panel with a single female member representative of the industry as a whole...