Support NeoGAF

[Papa]

What is the mean to assume Asians are bad drivers or know martial arts or most black men play basketball?
Again, the idea that whites are as boxed into stereotypes as minorities on the basis of their race is ludicrous.
Attempting to act as if there is not a marked difference between the extent whites are stereotyped when compared to those of other racial backgrounds is either true naivety or willfully sticking one's head in the sand. Which one are you doing?


But as you said "means" are not privilege so we can just go with hard numbers instead of using our "feelings".

Literally posting feelings as facts

 

[Dontspeakforme]

Even as a minority it's a huge advantage to have light skin. I know how dark people get treated, I have alot of family that's dark. I just happened to come out lighter than normal, a random genetic chance (e.g. not something I actually worked for) has been a huge benefit all my life.

 

[Papa]

This screams "I didn't read your post before I came in screeching my arguments". Had you read further you would have seen this in the same post.



But you are right. You're done here. You only purpose was to come in and try to claim I was somehow wholesale ignoring the plight of white individuals who experience racism, yet didn't bother reading before screeching to the top of your lungs on an only gaming forum about naivety and misconstrued viewpoints. Yet not even reading the very thing you're complaining about....

Haha wat. His responses were calm and rational. Yours are the ones that come across as screeching.

 

[TheMikado]

Haha wat. His responses were calm and rational. Yours are the ones that come across as screeching.

Literally posting feelings as facts

Yes, because I definitely look forward to your contributions of actual value or worth in this thread. This entire thread and its basis are about feelings which is the point I was making. The poster you referenced complained about something I didn't say and responded to something he didn't read and got it wrong and he was called out for it. That's just plain fact.

But like I said I look forward to seeing something of value from you on the topic, but I can assume I will be sorely disappointed.

 

[Papa]

Yes, because I definitely look forward to your contributions of actual value or worth in this thread. This entire thread and its basis are about feelings which is the point I was making. The poster you referenced complained about something I didn't say and responded to something he didn't read and got it wrong and he was called out for it. That's just plain fact.

But like I said I look forward to seeing something of value from you on the topic, but I can assume I will be sorely disappointed.

Haha no. In your first post, you tried to assert that white privilege means being judged as an individual. That is the complete opposite of what it actually means and you have to live in fantasyland to believe otherwise. You were wrong from the get go and started throwing a bold words tantrum when the other guy calmly, rationally, and respectfully pointed out your errors.

I already made several contributions to this thread many pages back. I’ve said my piece and have nothing more to add at this point as it’s going in circles.

 

[TheMikado]

Haha no. In your first post, you tried to assert that white privilege means being judged as an individual. That is the complete opposite of what it actually means and you have to live in fantasyland to believe otherwise. You were wrong from the get go and started throwing a bold words tantrum when the other guy calmly, rationally, and respectfully pointed out your errors.

I already made several contributions to this thread many pages back. I’ve said my piece and have nothing more to add at this point as it’s going in circles.

I use bold words for emphasis. Because that's what bold words are for.

As for your claim, no. I disagree for the reasons that Jordan Peterson identifies.
You can disagree all you want, but you give absolutely no evidence to support your claim.
As much as I would like to give some value to your opinion, you've giving nothing worthy of value on the topic.
I've read your posts and the most tangible thing you've contributed to "debunking" or supporting the topic at hand.

Further, if I've made errors that this particular poster was pointing out, please explain them to me in detail.

The likelihood of you having something of relevance to say is slim because you have resorted to attacking on the basis of decorum rather than content. I'm genuinely encouraging you to explain yourself and you retreat and deflect like a coward.

 

[Papa]

I use bold words for emphasis. Because that's what bold words are for.

As for your claim, no. I disagree for the reasons that Jordan Peterson identifies.
You can disagree all you want, but you give absolutely no evidence to support your claim.
As much as I would like to give some value to your opinion, you've giving nothing worthy of value on the topic.
I've read your posts and the most tangible thing you've contributed to "debunking" or supporting the topic at hand.

Further, if I've made errors that this particular poster was pointing out, please explain them to me in detail.

The likelihood of you having something of relevance to say is slim because you have resorted to attacking on the basis of decorum rather than content. I'm genuinely encouraging you to explain yourself and you retreat and deflect like a coward.

Hahaha yes mate, I’m a coward. If you want to know my thoughts on the topic, go and read my posts on pages 2 and 3.

Here’s a hint: if you’re making assumptions about someone based on an immutable characteristic, you’re not treating them as an individual. Everything you said on the last two pages runs counter to this and shows you didn’t understand Peterson’s points in the video. You contradicted yourself in the first sentence of your first post

 

[TheMikado]

Hahaha yes mate, I’m a coward. If you want to know my thoughts on the topic, go and read my posts on pages 2 and 3.

Here’s a hint: if you’re making assumptions about someone based on an immutable characteristic, you’re not treating them as an individual. Everything you said on the last two pages runs counter to this and shows you didn’t understand Peterson’s points in the video. You contradicted yourself in the first sentence of your first post

Except, I didn't say anything counter to Peterson's points. He acknowledges all the same principles, he just takes issue with the "naming" which is a feelings thing.
That's why the claim that "White Privilege" doesn't exist based on the naming of it is absurd.
Because every single principle of what Peterson described exists. He literally just took the same concepts, separated them, and then renamed them.

That's why the debate about it's existence based on the name is ridiculous.

In no way did I say anything about how we should treat or view individuals, this is a discussion about its existence, not application or opinion which you seem to be conflating.
I have repeatedly explained that treating individuals is best practice regardless of race, but as a consequence of the social norms, wealth structure, cultural propagation of European views throughout the world as a result of imperialism, many things are quantified through that lens.

It exists. Its a real tangible phenomenon. Just like if you went to China you would be viewed through a certain quantified and stereotyped lens due to the leading culture. Just because you want to rename it because you don't like the name doesn't mean the thing suddenly ceases to exist.

 

[Papa]

Except, I didn't say anything counter to Peterson's points. He acknowledges all the same principles, he just takes issue with the "naming" which is a feelings thing.
That's why the claim that "White Privilege" doesn't exist based on the naming of it is absurd.
Because every single principle of what Peterson described exists. He literally just took the same concepts, separated them, and then renamed them.

That's why the debate about it's existence based on the name is ridiculous.

In no way did I say anything about how we should treat or view individuals, this is a discussion about its existence, not application or opinion which you seem to be conflating.
I have repeatedly explained that treating individuals is best practice regardless of race, but as a consequence of the social norms, wealth structure, cultural propagation of European views throughout the world as a result of imperialism, many things are quantified through that lens.

It exists. Its a real tangible phenomenon. Just like if you went to China you would be viewed through a certain quantified and stereotyped lens due to the leading culture. Just because you want to rename it because you don't like the name doesn't mean the thing suddenly ceases to exist.

The fact that you think it’s simply about wanting to rename it shows that no, you don’t get it. You think you do, but you don’t, and with the way you approach the topic, I don’t think you ever will.

 

[bigedole]

Except, I didn't say anything counter to Peterson's points. He acknowledges all the same principles, he just takes issue with the "naming" which is a feelings thing.
That's why the claim that "White Privilege" doesn't exist based on the naming of it is absurd.
Because every single principle of what Peterson described exists. He literally just took the same concepts, separated them, and then renamed them.

That's why the debate about it's existence based on the name is ridiculous.

In no way did I say anything about how we should treat or view individuals, this is a discussion about its existence, not application or opinion which you seem to be conflating.
I have repeatedly explained that treating individuals is best practice regardless of race, but as a consequence of the social norms, wealth structure, cultural propagation of European views throughout the world as a result of imperialism, many things are quantified through that lens.

It exists. Its a real tangible phenomenon. Just like if you went to China you would be viewed through a certain quantified and stereotyped lens due to the leading culture. Just because you want to rename it because you don't like the name doesn't mean the thing suddenly ceases to exist.

I take a different meaning from JP's thoughts. I take it as he's saying why stop at white privilege when privilege can be broken down to much smaller concepts such as wealth, beauty, location etc. He then goes on to say that this simple fact, that there is actually an innumerable forms of privilege makes it reductive and pointless as a measuring stick, and instead the only reasonable approach is to treat each person as an individual because that's the ultimate form of reducing one through their privilege characteristics, a unique combination of various group identities.

JP is certainly NOT advocating for using privilege as a measuring stick "just in different forms" the way you are putting it.

 

[TheMikado]

The fact that you think it’s simply about wanting to rename it shows that no, you don’t get it. You think you do, but you don’t, and with the way you approach the topic, I don’t think you ever will.

No you didn't even bother to consider for a moment that there is a tangible measure of that privilege. Meaning you do not get it as I will point out below.

I take a different meaning from JP's thoughts. I take it as he's saying why stop at white privilege when privilege can be broken down to much smaller concepts such as wealth, beauty, location etc. He then goes on to say that this simple fact, that there is actually an innumerable forms of privilege makes it reductive and pointless as a measuring stick, and instead the only reasonable approach is to treat each person as an individual because that's the ultimate form of reducing one through their privilege characteristics, a unique combination of various group identities.

JP is certainly NOT advocating for using privilege as a measuring stick "just in different forms" the way you are putting it.

But that's not how I put it at all.
Jordan Peterson is absolutely correct in saying there can be any numbers or forms of privilege. But reducing it down to just individualism "priviledge" takes it into a "fantasyland" where none exists. This isn't the reality of the world we live in.
The fact is that power structures, cultural, wealth, and real actual entities exist.

Saying that anything could be seen as a privilege reduces the reality of the world today. Like I said as an example, it is European privilege which made the mens' suits the standard of business dress on a global scale. Trying to ignore and reduce the phenomenon as if it is not somehow unique or exists prevents discussion of it academically.

So summarize this,
Seeing people as individuals is the ideal view.
But that's not how the real world works or is.
Individuals who are part of the dominant culture will always be seen more as individuals than a stereotype because that's just what happens in majority cultures. The minority cultures are marginalized no matter who it is.
The reality is that imperialism has moved the majority culture across the globe with European standards which is a unique and real, existing phenomenon.
Acting as if this phenomenon doesn't exist isn't academic.

 

[bigedole]

No you didn't even bother to consider for a moment that there is a tangible measure of that privilege. Meaning you do not get it as I will point out below.



But that's not how I put it at all.
Jordan Peterson is absolutely correct in saying there can be any numbers or forms of privilege. But reducing it down to just individualism "priviledge" takes it into a "fantasyland" where none exists. This isn't the reality of the world we live in.
The fact is that power structures, cultural, wealth, and real actual entities exist.

Saying that anything could be seen as a privilege reduces the reality of the world today. Like I said as an example, it is European privilege which made the mens' suits the standard of business dress on a global scale. Trying to ignore and reduce the phenomenon as if it is not somehow unique or exists prevents discussion of it academically.

So summarize this,
Seeing people as individuals is the ideal view.
But that's not how the real world works or is.
Individuals who are part of the dominant culture will always be seen more as individuals than a stereotype because that's just what happens in majority cultures. The minority cultures are marginalized no matter who it is.
The reality is that imperialism has moved the majority culture across the globe with European standards which is a unique and real, existing phenomenon.
Acting as if this phenomenon doesn't exist isn't academic.

Do you think that same exact "European" or "White" privilege exists in the same exact fashion with the same exact definition if such a person were to suddenly be transported to Beijing? That's why this is reductive, the concept of privilege is one that attempts to ignore individual circumstances and context. A poor white boy from the deep south does not have more privilege than one of the Obama girls. All it takes is one such case to say "Nope, this is not a useful metric for determining social and cultural advantages in life". Anything else is just another attempt at stereotyping a race, which we both agree is not ideal so why go down that path?

A second point is that there is 0 evidence that race is the pre-dominant and most useful characteristic for predicting success in life. What about wealth and education? I would argue it's much more useful to start there. The attempt to paint this as a race thing is simply divisive and counter-productive and supported by nothing but feelings in academia.

 

[EviLore]

Jordan Peterson is absolutely correct in saying there can be any numbers or forms of privilege. But reducing it down to just individualism "priviledge" takes it into a "fantasyland" where none exists. This isn't the reality of the world we live in.
The fact is that power structures, cultural, wealth, and real actual entities exist.

The reality of the world can be described in broad strokes, yes. This ceases being a worthwhile approach on an individual level. That being the point.

Saying that anything could be seen as a privilege reduces the reality of the world today.

False. Granular metrics and concepts are a more accurate fit here on an individual basis, so the shift away from a broad strokes catch-all term to the more specific ones would more accurately represent reality at any scale, ipso facto.

Like I said as an example, it is European privilege which made the mens' suits the standard of business dress on a global scale.

Okay, let's provide that as a given and continue.

Trying to ignore and reduce the phenomenon as if it is not somehow unique or exists prevents discussion of it academically.

No relevance to the example provided and doesn't logically follow. You're offering a corollary to your first claim rather than proving either of your claims.

What's the mechanism of action supposed to be for preventing discussion of it academically? If more granular data/concepts/language are a better fit here on an individual basis, the shift away from a single broad strokes catch-all would improve and promote discussion of each of the specific concepts previously under the one umbrella, and can still be combined into one general metric if need be--with better understanding of what the previous catch-all umbrella was attempting to represent, and what the shortcomings of that framing specifically involve.

Precision of language and concepts that matches the precision of data? Great. One umbrella term trying to reconcile thousands of disparate sociological influences on its own? That's where your difficulty in productive academic discussion will arise.

 

[TheMikado]

The reality of the world can be described in broad strokes, yes. This ceases being a worthwhile approach on an individual level. That being the point.

False. Granular metrics and concepts are a more accurate fit here on an individual basis, so the shift away from a broad strokes catch-all term to the more specific ones would more accurately represent reality at any scale, ipso facto.

No, this statement is false. Claiming that individualism is the solution to metrics and concepts will result in no standards. You cannot avoid the ideas of grouping because pure absolute individualism means a wholesale erasure of standards. This is where you have to follow either of your concepts to its entire logically end. By claiming individualism is the absolute, then you cannot measure anything because everything can only be measured against itself and thus nothing can be compared.

No relevance to the example provided and doesn't logically follow. You're offering a corollary to your first claim rather than proving either of your claims.

There is absolute relevance because it manifest itself in our day to day lives.
The very idea of business suits.
Or straighten hair where braids are considered unprofessional.
Or daily shaving for men as a business standard are all centered around a standard created and born from the expansion of imperialism.
Attempting to ignore that our day to day operations on a global scale have been affected by this is the opposing of logic.

What's the mechanism of action supposed to be for preventing discussion of it academically? If more granular data/concepts/language are a better fit here on an individual basis, the shift away from a single broad strokes catch-all would improve and promote discussion of each of the specific concepts previously under the one umbrella, and can still be combined into one general metric if need be--with better understanding of what the previous catch-all umbrella was attempting to represent, and what the shortcomings of that framing specifically involve.
Precision of language and concepts that matches the precision of data? Great. One umbrella term trying to reconcile thousands of disparate sociological influences on its own? That's where your difficulty in productive academic discussion will arise.

The umbrella never dissolves. Nor is the purpose of the exercise. The purpose is recognition. Understand what is and why. As an example the concept of understanding that daily shaving actually adversely and medically affects individuals of particular hair types differently. Instead of stating a blanket business policy of "clean-shaven" no facial hair which is concept and standard which has disadvantages to specific individuals. That's the point. To ask and be aware of what is considered standard and whether that implementation is taken for granted. In the above example an individual who has a hair type which allows for them to shave daily will take for granted the idea of making a standard that requires daily shaving.

Again if you want to have pure individualism, then you would need to remove all standards all together. Which in my opinion and I'm sure others would agree is not a logical conclusion or solution. The solution as I would conclude is to view each policy or standard from the views as to make it most accessible for all. Thus understanding that a certain level of individualism exists within a standard. That's the point. You can't have standards and advocate for pure individualism in the same breath.

 

[TheMikado]

Do you think that same exact "European" or "White" privilege exists in the same exact fashion with the same exact definition if such a person were to suddenly be transported to Beijing? That's why this is reductive, the concept of privilege is one that attempts to ignore individual circumstances and context. A poor white boy from the deep south does not have more privilege than one of the Obama girls. All it takes is one such case to say "Nope, this is not a useful metric for determining social and cultural advantages in life". Anything else is just another attempt at stereotyping a race, which we both agree is not ideal so why go down that path?

No, at no point was any of this claimed. First, I explained multiple times in multiple ways that the exact scenario of a white person in Asia would put them at a disadvantage because they would be a minority against a majority culture.
It's just that simple and there is no ignoring individual circumstance and context. In you example the poor white boy is in the majority culture. His achievements are his own and not against some other standard. In your stand instance the Obama girls will be immediately weighted against other black girls because of the idea of what being a black girl means in society. It doesn't mean anything like a material advantage, it is about the ability have lesser degree of stereotyping applied to the expectation of what you should be. That's what I've said from the beginning.

A second point is that there is 0 evidence that race is the pre-dominant and most useful characteristic for predicting success in life. What about wealth and education? I would argue it's much more useful to start there. The attempt to paint this as a race thing is simply divisive and counter-productive and supported by nothing but feelings in academia.

In no way did I state anything about success rates. This is about stereotyping. That's the point. You are stereotyped more when you are not part of the dominant majority or culture. There isn't a way around that discussion.

 

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Peterson isn't having a discussion about feelings.

When he puts forth that there are multiple advantages and disadvantages in life, he's not referencing just how one feels. Good health versus bad health is not a feeling. Being born blind is a disadvantage that exists on a real physical level. Attractiveness is an advantage in the world that exists on a real physical level. Intelligence predicts academic success and job capability. These are real world advantages.

I would add that most privileges come with their own drawbacks as well. Being attractive has been found to be an advantage across cultures. However, it also garners more attention than the individual may be comfortable with. Being in the nation's ethnic majority offers some advantages, but it also has trade-off. You can end up a bit more generic. There is advantages to being a minority. You have scarcity value. Being tall as a man has advantages, but it also can be a disadvantage as you do not fit the majority size ratio and will find physically awkward situations. Meanwhile, being tall as a woman can have drawbacks, but it is important in the modeling world.

Things get tricky and messy and tangled up once you're honest about the many things that impact the individual's life.

 

[TheMikado]

Peterson isn't having a discussion about feelings.

When he puts forth that there are multiple advantages and disadvantages in life, he's not referencing just how one feels. Good health versus bad health is not a feeling. Being born blind is a disadvantage that exists on a real physical level. Attractiveness is an advantage in the world that exists on a real physical level. Intelligence predicts academic success and job capability. These are real world advantages.

I would add that most privileges come with their own drawbacks as well. Being attractive has been found to be an advantage across cultures. However, it also garners more attention than the individual may be comfortable with. Being in the nation's ethnic majority offers some advantages, but it also has trade-off. You can end up a bit more generic. There is advantages to being a minority. You have scarcity value. Being tall as a man has advantages, but it also can be a disadvantage as you do not fit the majority size ratio and will find physically awkward situations. Meanwhile, being tall as a woman can have drawbacks, but it is important in the modeling world.

Things get tricky and messy and tangled up once you're honest about the many things that impact the individual's life.

But this is where I feel the discussion is about feelings and I will lay it out an an analogy.

I am building a public building. I, as am able-bodied person, am able to walk up and down steps as well as the vast majority of people I know. In fact, much of the population would not have trouble walking up and down steps.
I am building this public building from my personal view that the majority of people will not have an issue with this, which is true.

Now I argue, that this is a view of privilege because I do not have the disadvantage of being handicapped so I decide to make an elevator
Jordan Peterson seems to agree on that point that I have an advantage and this handicapped individual has a disadvantage.
But Jordan Peterson takes it a step further to say just because they are handicapped does not mean your solution will resolve the step issue.
This is also true, my solution of an elevator may not solve the problem for every type of individual, in addition some individuals labeled as handicap may not have an issue taking the stairs at all.

Jordan Peters seems to argue or imply, that because the handicap or disadvantage is so individualized, that any attempt to resolve the issue will result in individuals who will not benefit from the elevator in my analogy.
This is true.
So what the solution?
The idea solution would be to make a mechanism on a per-person basis to address each and every single individual handicap.
However this is not a realistic means of thinking and in my opinion it is justification for the attempt to not even try.

Thus when discussing the disadvantage, we view how it helps the most people in the most ways when developing policy in this analogy. The policy being a mechanism for handicapped individuals.

Now, back to the privilege aspect of it. In this analogy I, as an able bodied person, am the culturally majority. I am building the building and I have the power to set the rules thus I set them on my limited viewpoint.
My viewpoint consists of viewing others who are able bodied as the norm and thus their able-bodied "ness" is a secondary or tertiary thought ahead of other qualities they my have. Meanwhile I view handicap individuals as a monolithic group where an elevator should resolve all of this group's problems while ignoring every individual can be privileged or disadvantaged in different ways.
This is a fallacy which Jordan Peterson correctly identifies.
But the solution isn't to:
1) Build an individual mechanism for every individual.
2) Realize building an individual mechanism for everyone is impossible and not try at all.
3) Talk about how I have problems of my own and how poor I am.

I argue the third option to address privilege is just basic humanity.
To be considerate and empathetic.
Trying your best to understand your cultural perspective if through a specific lens.
Doing what you can, when you can to address the disparity
Realizing that you will never have the solution resolved 100% and someone will always complain.
Realizing that these factors are not what defines the individual, but it is still a factor that can have an impact on them and on groups.

Right now we are debating the existence of this idea of privilege, but EvilLore asked the most important question. When you do identify this privilege what is the action you take?
It's not for use to be shamed, nor should it be something to be ashamed of, especially to the point of wholesale discrediting its existence.
Its something that individuals take for granted and determine that because I don't think its a problem, its not a problem.
But it is and should be in my opinion an acknowledgement of an issue you as an individual may not face, but another individual might be challenged regularly on and having the understanding and empathy that should be shared through humanity.

 

[Derekloffin]

But this is where I feel the discussion is about feelings and I will lay it out an an analogy.

I am building a public building. I, as am able-bodied person, am able to walk up and down steps as well as the vast majority of people I know. In fact, much of the population would not have trouble walking up and down steps.
I am building this public building from my personal view that the majority of people will not have an issue with this, which is true.

Now I argue, that this is a view of privilege because I do not have the disadvantage of being handicapped so I decide to make an elevator
Jordan Peterson seems to agree on that point that I have an advantage and this handicapped individual has a disadvantage.
But Jordan Peterson takes it a step further to say just because they are handicapped does not mean your solution will resolve the step issue.
This is also true, my solution of an elevator may not solve the problem for every type of individual, in addition some individuals labeled as handicap may not have an issue taking the stairs at all.

Jordan Peters seems to argue or imply, that because the handicap or disadvantage is so individualized, that any attempt to resolve the issue will result in individuals who will not benefit from the elevator in my analogy.
This is true.
So what the solution?
The idea solution would be to make a mechanism on a per-person basis to address each and every single individual handicap.
However this is not a realistic means of thinking and in my opinion it is justification for the attempt to not even try.

Thus when discussing the disadvantage, we view how it helps the most people in the most ways when developing policy in this analogy. The policy being a mechanism for handicapped individuals.

Now, back to the privilege aspect of it. In this analogy I, as an able bodied person, am the culturally majority. I am building the building and I have the power to set the rules thus I set them on my limited viewpoint.
My viewpoint consists of viewing others who are able bodied as the norm and thus their able-bodied "ness" is a secondary or tertiary thought ahead of other qualities they my have. Meanwhile I view handicap individuals as a monolithic group where an elevator should resolve all of this group's problems while ignoring every individual can be privileged or disadvantaged in different ways.
This is a fallacy which Jordan Peterson correctly identifies.
But the solution isn't to:
1) Build an individual mechanism for every individual.
2) Realize building an individual mechanism for everyone is impossible and not try at all.
3) Talk about how I have problems of my own and how poor I am.

I argue the third option to address privilege is just basic humanity.
To be considerate and empathetic.
Trying your best to understand your cultural perspective if through a specific lens.
Doing what you can, when you can to address the disparity
Realizing that you will never have the solution resolved 100% and someone will always complain.
Realizing that these factors are not what defines the individual, but it is still a factor that can have an impact on them and on groups.

Right now we are debating the existence of this idea of privilege, but EvilLore asked the most important question. When you do identify this privilege what is the action you take?
It's not for use to be shamed, nor should it be something to be ashamed of, especially to the point of wholesale discrediting its existence.
Its something that individuals take for granted and determine that because I don't think its a problem, its not a problem.
But it is and should be in my opinion an acknowledgement of an issue you as an individual may not face, but another individual might be challenged regularly on and having the understanding and empathy that should be shared through humanity.

I think in this particular case it is better to address the issue on the actual problem, not on a broad category that happens to have an over-representation of the issue. You make the elevator for those that have trouble with stairs, not for handicap people in general. That's the vast majority of the issue with privilege arguments, they try to substitute a broad demographic group membership in place of the actual variable of interest, like income or family situation, or so forth. Yes, these things are biased by demographic groups, but they are not determined by demographic groups. So, when you make a policy based instead on the demographic group instead of the actual thing you want to address, you both spend resources on people who don't need it, and don't spend resources on people that do need it. Further, since we humans are not stupid, we see this and react in a lot of negative ways to this sloppy approach, and that negativity will likewise frame itself along those demographic lines.

Yes, sometime you can't identify an actual cause, and instead only a close correlation, but even then you should be approaching things carefully, using the closest metric you can get, and studying to ensure it is having the proper effect. All to often, unfortunately, we don't, and instead you obviously sloppy metrics (like skin color or sex) and then don't seem to care if the approach doesn't work. Hell, if it doesn't work, people often double down on the approach saying they need to do more X even though it isn't working. It is kind of an appeal to desperation where people want to do something and just keep doing ineffective things, even negative things, on the grounds that there is a problem.

 

[TheMikado]

I think in this particular case it is better to address the issue on the actual problem, not on a broad category that happens to have an over-representation of the issue. You make the elevator for those that have trouble with stairs, not for handicap people in general. That's the vast majority of the issue with privilege arguments, they try to substitute a broad demographic group membership in place of the actual variable of interest, like income or family situation, or so forth. Yes, these things are biased by demographic groups, but they are not determined by demographic groups. So, when you make a policy based instead on the demographic group instead of the actual thing you want to address, you both spend resources on people who don't need it, and don't spend resources on people that do need it. Further, since we humans are not stupid, we see this and react in a lot of negative ways to this sloppy approach, and that negativity will likewise frame itself along those demographic lines.

Yes, sometime you can't identify an actual cause, and instead only a close correlation, but even then you should be approaching things carefully, using the closest metric you can get, and studying to ensure it is having the proper effect. All to often, unfortunately, we don't, and instead you obviously sloppy metrics (like skin color or sex) and then don't seem to care if the approach doesn't work. Hell, if it doesn't work, people often double down on the approach saying they need to do more X even though it isn't working. It is kind of an appeal to desperation where people want to do something and just keep doing ineffective things, even negative things, on the grounds that there is a problem.

Now this is something I certainly agree on, the idea that there are various problems to be solved is absolutely correct and that's the part I am trying to emphasize.
The problem is what do we call things where there are racial differences? West beauty standards for hair care which are largely incompatible for some members of different races for instance? I agree wholeheartedly that a blanket term isn't necessary for a bunch of different concepts, but when the issue is tangible one of race/sex are you not allowed to use the term?

If we can have all these forms of advantage/disadvantage and that advantage/disadvantage can shift based your surroundings then we can't deny that a concept such as white privilege exists, no more than we could deny something like "black privilege" or "Asian privilege" would exist in a situation where they are the cultural and racial majority. That's why the idea that these things do not exist does not make sense.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Now this is something I certainly agree on, the idea that there are various problems to be solved is absolutely correct and that's the part I am trying to emphasize.
The problem is what do we call things where there are racial differences? West beauty standards for hair care which are largely incompatible for some members of different races for instance? I agree wholeheartedly that a blanket term isn't necessary for a bunch of different concepts, but when the issue is tangible one of race/sex are you not allowed to use the term?

If we can have all these forms of advantage/disadvantage and that advantage/disadvantage can shift based your surroundings then we can't deny that a concept such as white privilege exists, no more than we could deny something like "black privilege" or "Asian privilege" would exist in a situation where they are the cultural and racial majority. That's why the idea that these things do not exist does not make sense.

There's a distinction between whether it exists and what we do about it.

Unfortunately, the groups who bring up "white privilege" forget or intentionally leave that part out. It is a simultaneous demand that you accept privilege exists and that you also accept their proposed remediation for it. And when they openly call for restitution based on skin color (I mean, you could at least follow your own logic and demand it from those born to historical slave owners, but who needs consistency?) you are going to ruffle some feathers. When said feathers are ruffled, they double-down and say "see? These white oppressors won't even acknowledge our plight?" as if they weren't rigging the game from the start.

I will stand by anyone facing injustice. I will extend a hand to those in need. I'll offer the food and clothing and help that I can manage. I'll even talk history and how groups were oppressed and how that affects us today. But don't flay it from my skin while insisting that "you owe us this". You might not get the best reaction...

 

[TheMikado]

There's a distinction between whether it exists and what we do about it.

Unfortunately, the groups who bring up "white privilege" forget or intentionally leave that part out. It is a simultaneous demand that you accept privilege exists and that you also accept their proposed remediation for it. And when they openly call for restitution based on skin color (I mean, you could at least follow your own logic and demand it from those born to historical slave owners, but who needs consistency?) you are going to ruffle some feathers. When said feathers are ruffled, they double-down and say "see? These white oppressors won't even acknowledge our plight?" as if they weren't rigging the game from the start.

I will stand by anyone facing injustice. I will extend a hand to those in need. I'll offer the food and clothing and help that I can manage. I'll even talk history and how groups were oppressed and how that affects us today. But don't flay it from my skin while insisting that "you owe us this". You might not get the best reaction...

This is again is something I agree with, that's why we have to separate its existence from any actions.
I agree the issue the acknowledgement leave open is the expectation of reparations for past wrongs which I don't find to be realistic and honestly assign no moral rank to the existence of privilege to begin with, it simply is what it is as a result of humanities shared history.

The conversation needs to at least be had about its existence. An interesting scenario I like to bring up is the history of the American Disabilities Act.
The Capitol Crawl was a display where disabled Americans crawled up the 100 steps of the Capitol building to advocate for the passing of the ADA.
This is an example where simple actions that individuals take for granted can cause a disadvantage. The entire protest was about perspective, about compassion, and empathy. There was also a lot of disagreement and controversy which came with the discussion of the ADA. The end result did provide policy change through the realties of what the simply task of attempting to climb the steps would be like for an individual with disabilities.

To be clear, I am not saying every disadvantage or even any disadvantage needs to have an action for equalization behind it. That's not at all what I am advocating. What I am stating is that we at least acknowledge that there are things which can cause disadvantages. This isn't a plea to toss standards out the window and bend over backwards to accommodate others. Its me railing against the insistence that we deny the existence of these advantages because we don't like or want to hear we have advantages and in that process we are focusing on the feelings it invokes rather than the tangible reality of what it means to be human and individuals and have different backgrounds and context and challenges.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

This is again is something I agree with, that's why we have to separate its existence from any actions.
I agree the issue the acknowledgement leave open is the expectation of reparations for past wrongs which I don't find to be realistic and honestly assign no moral rank to the existence of privilege to begin with, it simply is what it is as a result of humanities shared history.

The conversation needs to at least be had about its existence. An interesting scenario I like to bring up is the history of the American Disabilities Act.
The Capitol Crawl was a display where disabled Americans crawled up the 100 steps of the Capitol building to advocate for the passing of the ADA.
This is an example where simple actions that individuals take for granted can cause a disadvantage. The entire protest was about perspective, about compassion, and empathy. There was also a lot of disagreement and controversy which came with the discussion of the ADA. The end result did provide policy change through the realties of what the simply task of attempting to climb the steps would be like for an individual with disabilities.

To be clear, I am not saying every disadvantage or even any disadvantage needs to have an action for equalization behind it. That's not at all what I am advocating. What I am stating is that we at least acknowledge that there are things which can cause disadvantages. This isn't a plea to toss standards out the window and bend over backwards to accommodate others. Its me railing against the insistence that we deny the existence of these advantages because we don't like or want to hear we have advantages and in that process we are focusing on the feelings it invokes rather than the tangible reality of what it means to be human and individuals and have different backgrounds and context and challenges.

Thanks for replying with your thoughts. Didn't know about the Capitol Crawl; what an inspiring story!

I'm all for discussing advantages and "privilege" as long as it was handled academically and by-the-facts. Thing is, over the past several decades there has been a growing resentment towards facts that oppose political viewpoints, to put it nicely. Someone brings up counter-points to an accusation of being privileged and that can earn them shouts of "Racism" and "Nazi!". That nonsense needs to stop.

To be quite honest, though, I don't think we'll be able to have a genuine conversation about privilege in the way you're describing for another 30 years or so, at least not on the public stage. The pendulum is swinging really hard the other way which will make those sort of conversations -- even if done earnestly and honestly -- politically unpopular.

 

[TheMikado]

Thanks for replying with your thoughts. Didn't know about the Capitol Crawl; what an inspiring story!

I'm all for discussing advantages and "privilege" as long as it was handled academically and by-the-facts. Thing is, over the past several decades there has been a growing resentment towards facts that oppose political viewpoints, to put it nicely. Someone brings up counter-points to an accusation of being privileged and that can earn them shouts of "Racism" and "Nazi!". That nonsense needs to stop.

To be quite honest, though, I don't think we'll be able to have a genuine conversation about privilege in the way you're describing for another 30 years or so, at least not on the public stage. The pendulum is swinging really hard the other way which will make those sort of conversations -- even if done earnestly and honestly -- politically unpopular.

This also where I brought up the other tenant of the process:
"Realizing that you will never have the solution resolved 100% and someone will always complain."

I don't consider this a time issue or even something that needs to wait for the political climate to change because its human nature that someone will inevitably be dissatisfied with the outcome. I'm specifically commenting on Jordan Peterson's approach to the problem because it seems to try to remove action and acknowledgement of any and all attempts to work to address different issues. Something may never be fixed or even need to be fixed, but we can't talk about things that we can't even agree exist in the first place. More importantly, I disagree that this is a conversation that needs to wait 30 years. It only took 15 pages in an online forum to be able to say: "OK, maybe having a perspective and view that is privileged exists." It doesn't make people bad for having struggles that someone else may or may not have. Just a little empathy and understanding goes a long way to the discussion and helps us relate to each other as human beings so I'm glad to be able to have these discussions.

 

[strange headache]

I'm specifically commenting on Jordan Peterson's approach to the problem because it seems to try to remove action and acknowledgement of any and all attempts to work to address different issues.

But Peterson is doing the exact opposite by highlighting the fact that reducing social inequalities to the simplistic notion of "white privilege" is incredibly detrimental to tackling said issued in a constructive manner. It's exactly that sort of reductionist thinking that is fanning the flames of racial divides in the US and cultivating an us-vs-them mentality that is among other things contributing to the growing political extremism and tribalism in american society.

Because american culture has an enormous global influence, that mindset is spilling over to other parts of the world, where these notions are applied in a context where they don't even belong.

 

[TheMikado]

But Peterson is doing the exact opposite by highlighting the fact that reducing social inequalities to the simplistic notion of "white privilege" is incredibly detrimental to tackling said issued in a constructive manner. It's exactly that sort of reductionist thinking that is fanning the flames of racial divides in the US and cultivating an us-vs-them mentality that is among other things contributing to the growing political extremism and tribalism in american society.

Because american culture has an enormous global influence, that mindset is spilling over to other parts of the world, where these notions are applied in a context where they don't even belong.

But that’s not what Peterson said. His argument basically amounts to the idea that privilege can be anything, thus a focus on individualism is necessary. But Peterson leaves his premise at just that, individualism as a solution to social inequalities.

This is why Peterson’s assertion is nothing but fantasy, because it is logistically impossible to erase all standards and treat every single person as an individual, nor is that an efficient means of solving inequalities.

He claims that these categorizations give no value, yet his solution when followed to its end is impossible to implement in the real world. But Peterson wasn’t looking for answers he was looking to discredit the idea of the validity of any kind of privilege. Because in order for Peterson’s solution to work it requires infinite time and resources to individualize every aspect of society.

This gives rise to the idea that if this is virtually impossible then pursuit of social change to inequality is not a worthy pursuit. But history has shown us repeatedly that social inequalities can be corrected and changed for large groups of categorized people. The very history of humanity shows that Peterson’s claim is false and that change focused on specific types of disadvantages can be effectively implemented. This is why Peterson is wrong. Not because he didn’t identify the issue correctly, but because his solution isn’t an actual solution.

Now, what the world does with these categories has no effect on its existence, anymore that the application of what humans do with atom splitting has any bearing on whether it’s possible. Saying something doesn’t exist just because you don’t like the effect it has on society doesn’t mean it doesn’t cease to exist.

 

[strange headache]

His argument basically amounts to the idea that privilege can be anything, thus a focus on individualism is necessary.

Well yes, privilege can be anything (class, money, looks, inherited wealth, fitness, IQ, etc...).

He claims that these categorizations give no value...

No, he claims that the notion of "white privilege" is too much of a broad brush to effectively measure social inequality when other factors play a much bigger role. He also takes issue with its unscientific application, since "white privilege" compared to other factors like wealth for example cannot be measured and/or determined at the individual level. Like, to what extend does your white privilege contribute to your success? People just assume, they don't know.

But Peterson wasn’t looking for answers he was looking to discredit the idea of the validity of any kind of privilege.

First you argue that Peterson says that "privilege can be anything" and now you're claiming that he wants to refute "any kind of privilege".

Because in order for Peterson’s solution to work it requires infinite time and resources to individualize every aspect of society.

Peterson says that modern western democracies have already developed adequate structures and procedures to deal with social inequalities on an individual level. They may not be perfect, but they work as intended. If you take a look at the capitalist social democracies in Europe for example, you can see that those systems are perfectly able to cope with inequalities on an individual level without resorting to abusive generalizations. You know why? Because those systems don't focus on people's privileges, but their quantifiable disadvantages. The societies that tried to get rid of all sorts of privilege usually didn't end up well, like communism for example.

You're just being hyperbolic for the sake of making an argument.

This gives rise to the idea that if this is virtually impossible then pursuit of social change to inequality is not a worthy pursuit.

That's just plain wrong and you know it. Peterson is not making any such claims at all so stop putting words into his mouth.

 

[Shifty]

A fair and balanced opening post with absolutely zero personal rhetoric or bias whatsoever, as we've come to expect from Alfadawg threads.

 

[TheMikado]

Well yes, privilege can be anything (class, money, looks, inherited wealth, fitness, IQ, etc...).

And that's the point, Jordan Peterson attempts to use privilege being "anything" as a way to remove the exceptionalism of "white privilege" as I will explain below.
Just because a car can be broken down in to much smaller parts doesn't mean its not a car.

No, he claims that the notion of "white privilege" is too much of a broad brush to effectively measure social inequality when other factors play a much bigger role. He also takes issue with its unscientific application, since "white privilege" compared to other factors like wealth for example cannot be measured and/or determined at the individual level. Like, to what extend does your white privilege contribute to your success? People just assume, they don't know.

No he is trying to downplay a very specific sociology and historical event:
This is a series of yes and no questions?

Did a imperialist and colonialist event occur which stemmed primarily from Europe which is what is considered predominantly white?
Did this event set up systems of class, money, cultural standards, inherited wealth, beauty standards, land acquisition, etc. which were primarily to benefit European interests?
Was this event unique in its reach and speed of occurrence in human history?
Has this event shaped our modern global society today, i.e. the look and development of nations, global standards, etc.?

This historical and sociology event isn't just some localized phenomena. It is an event which effects almost every single human being on this planet which the effects of which still permeate throughout the globe today.
Attempting to act as if this cannot be quantified is the opposite of scientific and academic.

First you argue that Peterson says that "privilege can be anything" and now you're claiming that he wants to refute "any kind of privilege".

Yes, Peterson's attempts to make "white privilege" in its historical and sociology context seem unexceptional and the norm by saying privilege can be anything is a very common and wholly misguided stance.
As has been repeated many times in history and pop culture: When everyone is special, No one is..
Peterson does this by taking it and literally saying the first part: When everyone is privileged,... while leaving the second part to the listener to fill in the blanks which will lead them to minimize the impact of what "white privilege" constitutes.

That's just plain wrong and you know it. Peterson is not making any such claims at all so stop putting words into his mouth

I moved this one up because it ties in with the above. First I never said Peterson made any of those claims, it is you who needs to stop putting words into other mouths. What I did say is that Peterson advocates for individualism as a solution. While offering absolutely no logistically means of explaining what that looks like. Peterson is a very intelligent guy. The concept of individualism sounds fantastic on paper and allows us to pat ourselves on the backs on our own enlightenment and sleep better at night. However whenever you try to translate pure individualism into any tangible societal results you find it impossible. Peterson lead's his listeners to the very edge of implementation with an idea and stops. He, like you can see above, lets the listener fill in the gaps. As they began to try to apply pure individualism to the real word they began to come to certain conclusion, that's what I said. You put words in other's mouths not I.

Peterson says that modern western democracies have already developed adequate structures and procedures to deal with social inequalities on an individual level. They may not be perfect, but they work as intended. If you take a look at the capitalist social democracies in Europe for example, you can see that those systems are perfectly able to cope with inequalities on an individual level without resorting to abusive generalizations. You know why? Because those systems don't focus on people's privileges, but their quantifiable disadvantages. The societies that tried to get rid of all sorts of privilege usually didn't end up well, like communism for example.
You're just being hyperbolic for the sake of making an argument.

Except I'm not, if the structures and procedures were truly already solved wouldn't the the solution look the same everywhere? This goes back to my analogy above where I as the non-disabled individual claims that my solution resolves the issue for all disabled people and that it's good enough. Thus I say it from a place of privilege in my analogy where I declare issue has been resolved. In addition, you are somehow claiming that a description of societal and historical events is now somehow an abusive generalization?? This makes no sense in the academic or scientific sense. It simple is what happened. You can argue the semantics of the name all you want, however you cannot argue the effects of colonialism and imperialism on the world and humanity as a whole.

You can even name it whatever you want if it helps you sleep better at night, I don't care you call it, but it is a real and tangible historical and sociological event with real and tangible effects on our present day society. You cannot deny that and no amount of feelings makes that truth go away. And if you don't like the name call it colonial privilege or imperial privilege or whatever you want.

 

[JordanN]

Just a small bump.

Over the past few days, I've updated my sources on IQ testing. Even though this thread is not about IQ differences anymore, my post now serves as a tremendous resource anytime someone asks where's the proof that IQ varies or why is it "genetic". And yes, I have also taken the Flynn effect into account. So whenever you have time or still feel skeptical about validity of IQ and genetics, you now have no excuse. I've compiled a ton of [scientific] papers for you to go through and read them all.

And one more time. I only care about facts, not emotions. I am not a racist for believing the evidence science has found between groups of people. It's not about supremacy. I actually want to see this research be used as a force for good. Do not listen to anyone who deliberately misinterprets my posts and call me a fascist. I am only sharing facts.

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/jord...white-privilege.1464114/page-7#post-253360667

 

[Dragonburn]

The reality of the world can be described in broad strokes, yes. This ceases being a worthwhile approach on an individual level. That being the point.



False. Granular metrics and concepts are a more accurate fit here on an individual basis, so the shift away from a broad strokes catch-all term to the more specific ones would more accurately represent reality at any scale, ipso facto.



Okay, let's provide that as a given and continue.



No relevance to the example provided and doesn't logically follow. You're offering a corollary to your first claim rather than proving either of your claims.

What's the mechanism of action supposed to be for preventing discussion of it academically? If more granular data/concepts/language are a better fit here on an individual basis, the shift away from a single broad strokes catch-all would improve and promote discussion of each of the specific concepts previously under the one umbrella, and can still be combined into one general metric if need be--with better understanding of what the previous catch-all umbrella was attempting to represent, and what the shortcomings of that framing specifically involve.

Precision of language and concepts that matches the precision of data? Great. One umbrella term trying to reconcile thousands of disparate sociological influences on its own? That's where your difficulty in productive academic discussion will arise.

Peterson is right about the idea that anything can be considered a privilege. However, this doesn't take into account what percentage of the population is racist, how much influence those racists have, and the degree to which racists will refuse to see POC as the same individuals Peterson claims both POC and whites should be seen as. Racists absolutely resort to tribalism and instead choose to define individuals by the color of their skin instead of the individualism Peterson claims we should strive for. In America, there are significantly more white racists than there are black ones simply due to the virtue of the increased number of white people that live in the United States, just as there are a greater number of Chinese racists in China. White Privilege is a result of the demographics of the White world. Examples of such privilege include:





If the POC in the videos were white, they wouldn't have been harassed in the first place. That is a prime example of what white privilege is. You don't agree with racists. Of course you don't. But you have to agree that racists exist. The argument being made about the concept of white privilege is that enough racist people exist, and more important, enough of those racist people have endeared racist attitudes into the thoughts of minds of non-racists and society at large, that white privilege becomes the de-facto law of the land. People MAY certainly be privileged for their wealth, the colors of their clothes, their haircuts, but nothing of that scale exists on the level of white privilege because of how ever-present whiteness is. Certainly, we can look at things like on an individual basis like wealth, beauty, location, etc., but there's nothing that impacts the lives of people and quality of life they live more than their race and this is solely due to the overwhelming number of racist attitudes still prevalent in American society today.

If all the racists in the country vanished, then yes it would be easier to focus on the privilege of wealth, beauty, location, etc. However, we cannot do that while racists exist who refuse to see people of color as individuals. That is where the precision of language lies. We must defeat tribalism before individualism can succeed.

 

[JordanN]

If all the racists in the country vanished, then yes it would be easier to focus on the privilege of wealth, beauty, location, etc. However, we cannot do that while racists exist who refuse to see people of color as individuals. That is where the precision of language lies. We must defeat tribalism before individualism can succeed.

Do you believe in Japanese privilege? That the majority of Japanese people of Japan don't see non-Japanese people as individuals?

That's why white privilige sounds so dumb. Take any majority group that is like each other, and of course there will be privilege.

If I go to a Wendy's or Tim Hortons today and ask for the best service, they're not going to give it to me. But if they see another Tim Hortons or Wendys employee go up to the cashier, they're going to be nice to them and take their time.
They're the majority that work at that workplace. I'm just a customer who they only know for 5 seconds, and then I'm gone forever after that.

 

[Dragonburn]

Do you believe in Japanese privilege? That the majority of Japanese people of Japan don't see non-Japanese people as individuals?

That's why white privilige sounds so dumb. Take any majority group that is like each other, and of course there will be privilege.

If I go to a Wendy's or Tim Hortons today and ask for the best service, they're not going to give it to me. But if they see another Tim Hortons or Wendys employee go up to the cashier, they're going to be nice to them and take their time.
They're the majority that work at that workplace. I'm just a customer who they only know for 5 seconds, and then I'm gone forever after that.

Yes. Japanese people can receive Japanese privilege in Japan. It's pretty well documented how xenophobic as a culture Japan is. They're particularly racist towards the Chinese and Koreans.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...in-three-foreigners-experience-discrimination

But to the larger point that you and EvilLore have raised, we're both in agreement there is such a thing as white privilege in the United States. But suggesting that white people should only receive "best service" and that other people of color should settle for something worse is flat out racist and I doubt EvilLore would agree to that at all. What's more is that the majority of white people vehemently disagree with you, which is why we have affirmative action laws, hate crime laws, voting rights acts, support for gay rights, and so on.

Just because privilege is the current standard doesn't mean it can't be addressed and reformed. We didn't settle for the Nintendo Entertainment System. We didn't settle for the Playstation 1. We kept reforming and incorporating advances until we are where we are today with groundbreaking technology. Why should we settle for the current society when we can make things better for everyone?

 

[Durask]

We must defeat tribalism before individualism can succeed.

You are kidding right? This will never happen.

 

[Bill O'Rights]

There is a difference between preferential treatment based on nepotism or profession, and that based on prejudice or stereotype.


While the first can be seen as a 'perk', the other can be seen as xenophobia/bigotry. You can't equate the two based on an expectation. You would also need to define 'privilege'.


If I moved to a country where I did not speak the language fluently, I might walk into a shop and just pay for my goods with a broken, muttered interaction. A native may then come in and have a jovial full on conversation - does that equate to privilege?


Let's avoid making this back and white if possible please.

 

[Dragonburn]

You are kidding right? This will never happen.

Can we kill tribalism? Of course not. Should we strive to diminish its effects as much as possible? Of course! It's like saying we have to defeat disease. Of course we're never going to get rid of all diseases. But does that mean we shouldn't even try? No. We work every day to eradicate every ailment to man no matter how impossible it may seem.

 

[JordanN]

Yes. Japanese people can receive Japanese privilege in Japan. It's pretty well documented how xenophobic as a culture Japan is. They're particularly racist towards the Chinese and Koreans.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...in-three-foreigners-experience-discrimination

But to the larger point that you and EvilLore have raised, we're both in agreement there is such a thing as white privilege in the United States. But suggesting that white people should only receive "best service" and that other people of color should settle for something worse is flat out racist and I doubt EvilLore would agree to that at all. What's more is that the majority of white people vehemently disagree with you, which is why we have affirmative action laws, hate crime laws, voting rights acts, support for gay rights, and so on.

It's not that I'm saying white people should be treated the best, I'm saying I'm not surprised that as long as they are the majority, whites will see themselves closer to each other than they do to other groups and as a result, they may have more positive experiences with each other than they do with non-whites.

But I don't necessarily view this is a bad thing. Again, all groups where people make up the majority have preference for each other than those who are not exactly like them.

Just because privilege is the current standard doesn't mean it can't be addressed and reformed. We didn't settle for the Nintendo Entertainment System. We didn't settle for the Playstation 1. We kept reforming and incorporating advances until we are where we are today with groundbreaking technology. Why should we settle for the current society when we can make things better for everyone?

I'm not sure if those are the best comparisons. When NES came out and dominated, it enjoyed the lions share of the game market because surprise, NES was the only console at that time that had any serious backing and a large userbase.
When Playstation 1 took over we saw the same thing. It wasn't privilege why it got all the games. It was just so successful, developers could afford to ignore any other system on the market. That's what happens when you quite clearly sell the most units. A lot of support will follow with it, because people are always out to make the most money.

 

[TheMikado]

While the first can be seen as a 'perk', the other can be seen as xenophobia/bigotry. You can't equate the two based on an expectation. You would also need to define 'privilege'.

If I moved to a country where I did not speak the language fluently, I might walk into a shop and just pay for my goods with a broken, muttered interaction. A native may then come in and have a jovial full on conversation - does that equate to privilege?

Yes it does. You're arguing semantics at this point. Members of the dominant group typically will always enjoy a wider array of social benefits/advantages that a non member of the group will not. That's how it works.

So again, attempting to argue the naming and semantics of a real sociological phenomenon is the opposite of academic and the focus on the "name" rather than the concept loses sight of the argument put forth to begin with. That member of a dominant culture group generally enjoy more benefits than those outside this group. The name or the reasons behind it do not change the tangibility of the concept.

 

[TheMikado]

It's not that I'm saying white people should be treated the best, I'm saying I'm not surprised that as long as they are the majority, whites will see themselves closer to each other than they do to other groups and as a result, they may have more positive experiences with each other than they do with non-whites.

But I don't necessarily view this is a bad thing. Again, all groups where people make up the majority have preference for each other than those who are not exactly like them.

And this is exactly the point. The entire problem in this thread and this discussion is that people are ascribing a moral weight to a natural occurring and well documented human concept and rather than acknowledging it's existence, are attempting to pretend as if it doesn't exist. It happens, its a natural thing. The question is what, if anything, do individuals want to do on a personal level.

 

[Blood Borne]

How can you debunk something that doesn’t exist

 

[AaronB]

This post did the most from what I've seen to put forward arguments for "white privilege", so I'll try to move the debate forward from here.

And that's the point, Jordan Peterson attempts to use privilege being "anything" as a way to remove the exceptionalism of "white privilege" as I will explain below.
Just because a car can be broken down in to much smaller parts doesn't mean its not a car.


No he is trying to downplay a very specific sociology and historical event:
This is a series of yes and no questions?

Did a imperialist and colonialist event occur which stemmed primarily from Europe which is what is considered predominantly white?
Did this event set up systems of class, money, cultural standards, inherited wealth, beauty standards, land acquisition, etc. which were primarily to benefit European interests?
Was this event unique in its reach and speed of occurrence in human history?
Has this event shaped our modern global society today, i.e. the look and development of nations, global standards, etc.?

This historical and sociology event isn't just some localized phenomena. It is an event which effects almost every single human being on this planet which the effects of which still permeate throughout the globe today.
Attempting to act as if this cannot be quantified is the opposite of scientific and academic.


Yes, Peterson's attempts to make "white privilege" in its historical and sociology context seem unexceptional and the norm by saying privilege can be anything is a very common and wholly misguided stance.
As has been repeated many times in history and pop culture: When everyone is special, No one is..
Peterson does this by taking it and literally saying the first part: When everyone is privileged,... while leaving the second part to the listener to fill in the blanks which will lead them to minimize the impact of what "white privilege" constitutes.


I moved this one up because it ties in with the above. First I never said Peterson made any of those claims, it is you who needs to stop putting words into other mouths. What I did say is that Peterson advocates for individualism as a solution. While offering absolutely no logistically means of explaining what that looks like. Peterson is a very intelligent guy. The concept of individualism sounds fantastic on paper and allows us to pat ourselves on the backs on our own enlightenment and sleep better at night. However whenever you try to translate pure individualism into any tangible societal results you find it impossible. Peterson lead's his listeners to the very edge of implementation with an idea and stops. He, like you can see above, lets the listener fill in the gaps. As they began to try to apply pure individualism to the real word they began to come to certain conclusion, that's what I said. You put words in other's mouths not I.




Except I'm not, if the structures and procedures were truly already solved wouldn't the the solution look the same everywhere? This goes back to my analogy above where I as the non-disabled individual claims that my solution resolves the issue for all disabled people and that it's good enough. Thus I say it from a place of privilege in my analogy where I declare issue has been resolved. In addition, you are somehow claiming that a description of societal and historical events is now somehow an abusive generalization?? This makes no sense in the academic or scientific sense. It simple is what happened. You can argue the semantics of the name all you want, however you cannot argue the effects of colonialism and imperialism on the world and humanity as a whole.

You can even name it whatever you want if it helps you sleep better at night, I don't care you call it, but it is a real and tangible historical and sociological event with real and tangible effects on our present day society. You cannot deny that and no amount of feelings makes that truth go away. And if you don't like the name call it colonial privilege or imperial privilege or whatever you want.

Yes, there's a strong case to be made for a "European miracle" or "Great Divergence" when Western Europe moved ahead of the other regions and empires of the world somewhere between the 15th and 18th centuries. This intertwines with the age of exploration and then colonization. This is more logically a regional powers thing than a "white people" thing, since Spain and Portugal were among the leading colonial powers while the white eastern Europeans were not.

In any case, the benefits of setting up a monetary system, claiming of land, and so on were done mainly to benefit the elites of those societies; not "white people" in general. It's not just a minor thing to change the term you're using. The race-based chattel slavery of the new world was a horrific injustice done to black people; not a privilege for the white masses who had to go on unpaid anti-runaway slave patrols and had to compete with slave labor. There are lesser injustices that still go on (say, higher likelihood of being targeted by police), but I don't think I've seen any convincing arguments that those are privileges given to whites as opposed to injustices against blacks or other poc that should simply be stopped.

Calling it "White privilege" implies a need to take away from white people. Even in the constantly-repeated LBJ quote "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket", notice that it's the elites that are actually benefiting, while the masses of whites are getting played.

 

[TheMikado]

This post did the most from what I've seen to put forward arguments for "white privilege", so I'll try to move the debate forward from here.



Yes, there's a strong case to be made for a "European miracle" or "Great Divergence" when Western Europe moved ahead of the other regions and empires of the world somewhere between the 15th and 18th centuries. This intertwines with the age of exploration and then colonization. This is more logically a regional powers thing than a "white people" thing, since Spain and Portugal were among the leading colonial powers while the white eastern Europeans were not.

In any case, the benefits of setting up a monetary system, claiming of land, and so on were done mainly to benefit the elites of those societies; not "white people" in general. It's not just a minor thing to change the term you're using. The race-based chattel slavery of the new world was a horrific injustice done to black people; not a privilege for the white masses who had to go on unpaid anti-runaway slave patrols and had to compete with slave labor. There are lesser injustices that still go on (say, higher likelihood of being targeted by police), but I don't think I've seen any convincing arguments that those are privileges given to whites as opposed to injustices against blacks or other poc that should simply be stopped.

Calling it "White privilege" implies a need to take away from white people. Even in the constantly-repeated LBJ quote "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket", notice that it's the elites that are actually benefiting, while the masses of whites are getting played.

Thank you for engaging on the subject, I disagree that only recipients of the benefits of wealth acquirement and proliferation of cultural standards were only the European elite. This is evident in things as benign as business standards around the world, or the proliferation of languages, the setting up of class systems along racial lines in geographically diverse locations. This in no way takes away from individual struggles as I've said many times, but this also does not mean there was not systematic systems of class, wealth, or segregation along racial lines which conferred privileges to those who who were considered White.

Colonization and imperialism was initially an elite endeavor, however as colonies began to operate independently of their European origins they no longer identified as "European", however self identified ethnically as "White" while also making laws and systems surrounding this identification. To be clear the benefits which resulted from all the items listed did not end with only the European monarchs being enriched and the systems in the colonized regions developed systems of hierarchy specifically to benefit a racial class. The effects of this historical event are still felt today throughout the world. The idea of "white privilege" is not a discussion of what occurred on a micro-level for individuals, but as you point out its growth on the macro-level for large groups.

The idea of white privilege is not a modern invention, It was the basis for system of government and discrimination wherefore legalized discrimination of racial groups was permitted and enforced around the global which the benefactors of such systems being those in charge of those systems. I'm not really debating the name because there's nothing tangible for me to debate on other than the fact that people just don't like it.

 

[dragonfart28]

Jordan Peterson's recent speaking engagement in Hamilton prompted Coun. Matthew Green's observation that Peterson is inflammatory and popular with the alt-right. And yet Peterson is frequently lauded as today's most important public intellectual. In fact, Peterson is less an intellectual than he is a gifted motivational speaker for racists and misogynists.

Take, for example, an argument from his YouTube video "The Marxist Lie of White Privilege." He criticizes the assertion that white people are more likely to be able to afford a place where they actually want to live than minorities. Peterson dismisses this as a wealth issue, and not a race issue, because what about China? He moves on, as if China were all the proof he needs. OK: it's true that there are many countries in which the place you live is more a matter of money than race. It's also true that in the Western world (where Peterson and his fans live), white people have more wealth due in large part to their inheritance of racial privilege. But that's the sum total of his objection: it's a wealth issue (because China!), ergo the idea of white privilege is simply a red herring to confuse us into thinking that we need to change our society so that it's more equitable.

Here's another: Peterson's a great fan of hierarchies that preserve patriarchal power. He believes in the idea that women are linked to chaos while men are ascribed reason and logic: "It's been represented like that forever. And there are reasons for it. You can't change it. It's not possible. This is underneath everything. If you change those basic categories, people wouldn't be human anymore." Yes! It's always been that way, so it must be right! If we treated women as logical, reasonable beings, we simply wouldn't be human anymore!

It gets better: he says that a world where white men are in charge is "predicated on competence." Ahem: 2008 financial crisis, anyone? Brexit? Men have been at the helm of a vast number of incompetent decisions (nevermind all the wars). And yet we should stick with the beliefs of 1400s clerics and other witch hunters and say it's women who create chaos? Progress, he says, is an "assault" on the "masculine spirit." There is no logic here — only misogyny.

https://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/8769016-jordan-peterson-s-intellectual-hucksterism/

 

[SatansReverence]

https://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/8769016-jordan-peterson-s-intellectual-hucksterism/

Couldn't even get passed the first paragraph before the screeches of "alt-right" "misogynist" and "racist" came out.

I.e how to make people know your article isn't worth reading because your counter points, if you even have any, are going to be garbage.

 

[EviLore]

It gets better: he says that a world where white men are in charge is "predicated on competence." Ahem: 2008 financial crisis, anyone? Brexit? Men have been at the helm of a vast number of incompetent decisions (nevermind all the wars). And yet we should stick with the beliefs of 1400s clerics and other witch hunters and say it's women who create chaos? Progress, he says, is an "assault" on the "masculine spirit." There is no logic here — only misogyny.

 

[infinitys_7th]

https://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/8769016-jordan-peterson-s-intellectual-hucksterism/

It gets better: he says that a world where white men are in charge is "predicated on competence." Ahem: 2008 financial crisis, anyone? Brexit?

Isn't Brexit currently failing because Teresa May is mishandling it? I didn't know she was a white man.

 

[SatansReverence]

Steven Crowder did a pretty entertaining video on that appeal to authourity falacy.

 

[dragonfart28]

Isn't Brexit currently failing because Teresa May is mishandling it? I didn't know she was a white man.

It was a failed idea to begin with when the guy before her decided to put something that complex to a yes or no vote.

 

[EviLore]

It was a failed idea to begin with when the guy before her decided to put something that complex to a yes or no vote.

It's her responsibility to see it through properly. She made assurances to the public when she took the job. There's nothing wrong with a yes/no choice on a referendum about EU membership. Negotiations on the details are intended to begin after article 50 is formally invoked.

 

[Bryank75]

It was a failed idea to begin with when the guy before her decided to put something that complex to a yes or no vote.

The European project is already a failure, how many financial crises, in how many countries now? It’s systemic because they have separated key economic controls from national entities.
So now countries cannot print their own money, cannot control interest etc.
The next step will be tax harmonization, which will again hurt peripheral for obvious reasons.... companies moving to more central nations with better infrastructure, access to markets now that tax benefits are of no consequence.
Net result.... another round of recession for various peripheral nations and bailouts, years of austerity.

Anyway addressing “white privilege”..... I think people have it backwards.
How I see it is: European whites are basically responsible for the vast majority of modern society.
They are responsible for nearly all great works of art, the renaissance, roads, acquaducts, cuisine, architecture, democracy, philosophy, astrology, music, the industrial revolution, the printing press, banking, religious institutions and the reformation, the automobile, the submarine, modern farming techniques, modern medicine, the legal system. Even the push for atheism and a secular society in the recent past... headed by four white men, two of them British.
I could go on and on.....

A list of just British inventions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_innovations_and_discoveries


Where would the world be without these things?
Should white people not be loved for sharing all of this with the world?
What if white people had been less merciful? With weapons far more advanced, they could have wiped out every non-white population in the world.

All societies and all races have benefited greatly from European whites and the breakthroughs they have made and therefore are privileged due to white peoples gracious nature.

I think this is a valid and acceptable point of view and portrays the facts relevant to the discussion... I’m interested to hear how some of you react.

 

[strange headache]

And that's the point, Jordan Peterson attempts to use privilege being "anything" as a way to remove the exceptionalism of "white privilege" as I will explain below.

There is no reason why "white privilege" should be any more "exceptional" than any other form of privilege. On the contrary, those who are defending that notion can't even quantify it properly, making it a wholly inaccurate, unscientific and meaningless measure, just like original sin. Sorry, I don't deal in ephemeral metaphysical notions when it comes to explaining reality.

No he is trying to downplay a very specific sociology and historical event... Did a imperialist and colonialist event occur which stemmed primarily from Europe which is what is considered predominantly white?

Stop shifting goalposts, this is a discussion about "white privilege" and not imperialism. You know as well as me that from a historical standpoint forceful expansion and conquering wasn't an exclusively European or "white" thing but is part of every culture's history. Besides, it's not like white people of the past enjoyed vast privileges, when most of them had to suffer serfdom and lived in abject poverty. Or what about WWII, when most of Europe was in absolute ruins? Where was the white privilege then?

Nobody is denying that history hasn't shaped our modern lives, but you're conveniently cherry picking a few historical events in order to construe a skewed picture of the present. Human history has been a history of the rich and powerful dominating the weak and poor, no matter the color of their skin.

"White privilege" is used to explain inequalities of the present in a reductive manner and I highly doubt that most middle-class people of today are still profiting from the fruits of colonialism. Until you provide some clear cut evidence as to how exactly and to what extent those historical events have influenced people's lives of the present, all you're doing is saying that those events were a thing and have somehow kinda maybe sorta influenced modern day lives. Great, nobody is denying that, but it is also not very conducive to accurately explain social inequalities of the present when other factors are probably much more important (like class and wealth).

It is an event which effects almost every single human being on this planet which the effects of which still permeate throughout the globe today. Attempting to act as if this cannot be quantified is the opposite of scientific and academic.

And there we have it. Go ahead and quantify it, I implore you! But I can already tell you that screeching "white privilege" sure as sh*t isn't it.

Yes, Peterson's attempts to make "white privilege" in its historical and sociology context seem unexceptional and the norm by saying privilege can be anything is a very common and wholly misguided stance. As has been repeated many times in history and pop culture: When everyone is special, No one is..

Oh so you just want to feel "special" is that it? I'm sorry that Peterson isn't catering to your particular whims, but "white privilege" is entirely unexceptional considering the fact that other privileges have a much bigger impact on people's lives. Do you really think the color of your skin matters that much if you're born into a rich family? That's just daft. Besides, most rich black people in America live in the same gated communities away from the poor and downtrodden, just like every other rich American family.

I moved this one up because it ties in with the above. First I never said Peterson made any of those claims, it is you who needs to stop putting words into other mouths.

Then why even bring this up in this particular thread about Peterson? If you want to twist around Peterson's words in order to construe some slippery slope fallacy so that they better fit your narrow view about Peterson, that's your prerogative, but don't present it as fact.

What I did say is that Peterson advocates for individualism as a solution. While offering absolutely no logistically means of explaining what that looks like.

Again, why should he offer a "solution" when current western democratic systems already apply individualism in practice? Individualism, not democracy, is what sets modern societies apart from the collective tyrannies of the past. Peterson argues that the resurgence of extremist collectivist ideologies are undermining the individualistic underpinnings of western societies and not the other way around. So why should he present a solution to something that's already been solved?

Except I'm not, if the structures and procedures were truly already solved wouldn't the the solution look the same everywhere?

Why should they? People, just like their societies are irrational and many societal realities are the result of culture, values, traditions and environmental influences. Hence why societies do not develop everywhere the same. Democracy for example seems to be a good solution against tyranny, hence why it has been adopted by many countries, yet dictatorships still remain! By your logic, we should have democracies everywhere, when you and me both know that that's far from the truth.

This goes back to my analogy above where I as the non-disabled individual claims that my solution resolves the issue for all disabled people and that it's good enough. Thus I say it from a place of privilege in my analogy where I declare issue has been resolved.

Except nobody, not me and not Peterson is claiming that social inequalities have been resolved. Nice strawman and false equivalency.

You can even name it whatever you want if it helps you sleep better at night, I don't care you call it, but it is a real and tangible historical and sociological event with real and tangible effects on our present day society. You cannot deny that and no amount of feelings makes that truth go away. And if you don't like the name call it colonial privilege or imperial privilege or whatever you want.

Are we now so desperate for relevancy that we have to dissolve the meaning of words in order to make a point? We are talking about "white privilege" here and not about "imperial/colonial privilege", both are really not the same. "White privilege" is a privilege based on the pigment of your skin, colonialism/imperialism is not! Words and their definitions matter you know, so please stick to the issue at hand. Seems to me as if the only thing that has to appease someone's feelings is your dictionary.