Jordan Peterson Thread.

[dholliday]

@dholliday you said:

"Ultimately it's divisive to focus on who has what privilege, even more so to assign all people from that group with all possible privileges. It breeds contempt as the non-privileged & priviliged groups view each other with increased suspicion."

It's ridiculous to say that saying white privilege is divisive. It's only divisive to those who don't believe it exists.

It's divisive for those who are marginalized to not accept that they have more to overcome to achieve equality of opportunity.

See my comment above quoting the Tribune piece. Those comments I find divisive. Yours are more balanced.

 

[ilikecheese]

I have quite long forum breaks, few months at a time. Right now been on a nightshift which has been fairly uneventful. And I enjoy breaking subjects down with fellow blues to get to core meaning.




Well, you're more aligned then with me & JP than you are with Dahleen Glanton (the writer of that Tribune piece I linked). She is pushing the definition of white privilege which JP & myself are railing against. Here's some choice quotes:

--------------------------------------------------------
"If you are a white person in America, you were born privileged. That’s just a fact. "

"You have a head start over the rest of us."

"White privilege means that you were born with an inherent advantage over every other race of people. The whiteness of your skin alone allows you to leave the starting gate quicker and to run the race with fewer obstacles. "
--------------------------------------------------------





Maybe it's because I'm familiar with what apartheid meant in South Africa: it's hugely significant to not have race-privileges enshrined in law. Racism still exists in ZA, I've been there and seen it, and like you I spoke against it. But since apartheid ended racism (or white privilege) is no longer enshrined in law. It's a significant step in the right direction.




I'm also certain. This is also one of JP's arguments generally: that life is getting better for the less well-off every decade...worldwide. Less poverty, better education, more opportunities. We, as a world society, are improving and will continue to improve as long as we don't start hating each other for no good reason.

But he contradicts himself by saying white privilege doesn't exist but then say of course white people are privileged.

That is some mental gymnastics he's got going on there.

 

[ilikecheese]

See my comment above quoting the Tribune piece. Those comments I find divisive. Yours are more balanced.

Those comments are true for the majority of white people in America though. What am I missing?

 

[ilikecheese]

@dholliday your experience in apartheid SA should let you know that not 100% of white people agreed with it but were still born into white privilege. No idea why you or JP are trying to make it about absolutes.

 

[dholliday]

But he contradicts himself by saying white privilege doesn't exist but then say of course white people are privileged.

That is some mental gymnastics he's got going on there.

Well no, it depends how you define it.

There's Dahleen Glanton's definition: all whites are automatically priviliged in all aspects of life.

Then there's yours: I've experienced it, it is out there. Doesn't mean all whites are 100% privileged.

Then there's mine: it doesn't exist legally, but common subjective experiences of it are out there.

Then there's JP: white people have privileges, but it's not a collective crime.

When there's already differences in how we define what it is, then it's possible to say one definition of it doesn't exist, while another does.

 

[dholliday]

Those comments are true for the majority of white people in America though. What am I missing?

How do you know that? It's a big leap. And even if so (say if majority meaning more than 50%), what about the less than 50% of white people who don't experience this? Is it fair to penalise them with this burden of claimed privilege?

 

[dholliday]

@dholliday your experience in apartheid SA should let you know that not 100% of white people agreed with it but were still born into white privilege. No idea why you or JP are trying to make it about absolutes.

Yes they were...during apartheid. That's my point. After apartheid, no they weren't. Not by law.

Same in US with pre-and-post-1968.

 

[ilikecheese]

Well no, it depends how you define it.

There's Dahleen Glanton's definition: all whites are automatically priviliged in all aspects of life.

Then there's yours: I've experienced it, it is out there. Doesn't mean all whites are 100% privileged.

Then there's mine: it doesn't exist legally, but common subjective experiences of it are out there.

Then there's JP: white people have privileges, but it's not a collective crime.

When there's already differences in how we define what it is, then it's possible to say one definition of it doesn't exist, while another does.

The definition is simple. It is divisive to complicate it. Whether it be all or the majority dismissing it because not 100% of the time it's not true is absolutely infuriating and divisive to anyone who sees that it exists...especially those that are forced to overcome it for their own equal opportunity.

 

[ilikecheese]

Yes they were...during apartheid. That's my point. After apartheid, no they weren't. Not by law.

Same in US with pre-and-post-1968.

Laws do not change equality of opportunity overnight. A lightswitch was not flicked. These things take decades/centuries to fix.

You can't define human behavior and social behavior by a line of demarcation of a human law.

 

[dholliday]

The definition is simple. It is divisive to complicate it. Whether it be all or the majority dismissing it because not 100% of the time it's not true is absolutely infuriating and divisive to anyone who sees that it exists...especially those that are forced to overcome it for their own equal opportunity.

Disagree, for your definition & that of Glanton's are already different to each other.

And the "not 100%" is important. How much is not 100%?

We don't tar an entire race of people with the same brush. This is a basic liberal tenet instilled in us since we were small. And it's a good tenet.

Laws do not change equality of opportunity overnight. A lightswitch was not flicked. These things take decades/centuries to fix.

You can't define human behavior and social behavior by a line of demarcation of a human law.

Agreed. But these law changes are hugely significant. As you said yourself: you're certain things are improving. So why focus on the opposite? It's regressive.

 

[ilikecheese]

Disagree, for your definition & that of Glanton's are already different to each other.

And the "not 100%" is important. How much is not 100%?

We don't tar an entire race of people with the same brush. This is a basic liberal tenet instilled in us since we were small. And it's a good tenet.




Agreed. But these law changes are hugely significant. As you said yourself: you're certain things are improving. So why focus on the opposite? It's regressive.

It's regressive to try to simplify human behavior and human law as some sort of equal thing and a line of demarcation. Equality of opportunity is something I totally agree with. It's regressive to assume that everyone has equal opportunity because the law was changed in the 60's. It's denial.

To your other reply regarding white victims of the phenomenon of factual white privilege. I suppose some white folks (me) have a responsibility to accept my people have made mistakes and try to be better for it and more inclusive than those before me.

 

[dholliday]

It's regressive to try to simplify human behavior and human law as some sort of equal thing and a line of demarcation. Equality of opportunity is something I totally agree with. It's regressive to assume that everyone has equal opportunity because the law was changed in the 60's. It's denial.

Who said that?

I said I support equal opportunity, that we should work towards that. I never claimed nor implied that everyone already has it.

I said white privilege is not lawful since 1968. That's not the same thing as saying we've had equal opportunities since 1968. Today, the white working class may have less opportunites than the asian middle-class. The black christian in a stable home may have more opportunites than the white meth addict living in a trailor park.

We don't have equal opportunities for all, maybe never will. But our law should at least reflect it (it does) and we as a society should always work towards it (most of us do).

To your other reply regarding white victims of the phenomenon of factual white privilege. I suppose some white folks (me) have a responsibility to accept my people have made mistakes and try to be better for it and more inclusive than those before me.

Your people? I don't see all white people as my people. I know my skin is pale as milk, so racially I'm classed as a white man. But my people are my friends, my family, Evertonians, psy-ravers, colleagues etc. My people are very mixed: some as black as night, some paler than me, and all sorts in between.

I have zero responsibility for hundreds of millions of white people I'll never know, many of whom are long dead, for I'm not defined by the colour of my skin and neither do I define others that way.

I remember a certain Dr King said something similar a while ago...

 

[ilikecheese]

Who said that?

I said I support equal opportunity, that we should work towards that. I never claimed nor implied that everyone already has it.

I said white privilege is not lawful since 1968. That's not the same thing as saying we've had equal opportunities since 1968. Today, the white working class may have less opportunites than the asian middle-class. The black christian in a stable home may have more opportunites than the white meth addict living in a trailor park.

We don't have equal opportunities for all, maybe never will. But our law should at least reflect it (it does) and we as a society should always work towards it (most of us do).





Your people? I don't see all white people as my people. I know my skin is pale as milk, so racially I'm classed as a white man. But my people are my friends, my family, Evertonians, psy-ravers, colleagues etc. My people are very mixed: some as black as night, some paler than me, and all sorts in between.

I have zero responsibility for hundreds of millions of white people I'll never know, many of whom are long dead.

I would love for you to support your first argument statistically.

My people. White Americans. You seem to keep forgetting that I make statements from a white male American viewpoint. I only use the my people term loosely. I am finding as I get older that I feel more and more in a state of being embarrassed by them as a people.

 

[ilikecheese]

The more I think about it, the long form debate is a way for the right wing to silence the left through submission. Never accepting their logic flaws while pinpointing absolutes to support their own logic.

 

[dholliday]

My people. White Americans. You seem to keep forgetting that I make statements from a white male American viewpoint. I only use the my people term loosely. I am finding as I get older that I feel more and more in a state of being embarrassed by them as a people.

I'm not forgetting that. I'm saying I have zero affiliation/responsibility for white people, today or throughout history. They're not my people: be they German, English, American whatever. We share a similar skin tone, and that's it.

I don't group people by race, nationality or gender, so cannot judge any such group because they can have nothing significant in common with each other. Grouping by chosen (or forced)-affiliation (religion, political party, football team etc) is more acceptable in my view:

- oft-critical of Islam, but not Arabs.

- scathing of Israeli-government-policies, but not Jews.

- concerned about black-on-black London knife crime, but not concerned about black people full stop.

- lambast racist communites like Stormfront, but not American white males generally.


Maybe the chief difference between how we see things is that you group based on race/gender (identity politics). For you, it's significant that a person is a white male, or a black female. It's a strong part of their identity before you even get to know that individual. Is that about right?