Jordan Peterson on White Privilege

[epronovost]

No, but it does create a villain for the narrative.

The narrative is your head, not in the Privilege theory. The later is an analytic framework. Note that you can't poor treatments of black people or oppression without an oppressor and an exploiter. The Privilege theory didn't "invent" the narrative you are referring to. Manichean thinking did it.

 

[Revoltingest]

The narrative is your head, not in the Privilege theory. The later is an analytic framework. Note that you can't poor treatments of black people or oppression without an oppressor and an exploiter. The Privilege theory didn't "invent" the narrative you are referring to. Manichean thinking did it.

The problems I see with the "white privilege" perspective are more
than just the label. But, when labeling a problem, one must consider
more than one's intent. There is also what inferences it will likely
engender. These will be influenced & perhaps exacerbated by usage.
The pushback you're seeing isn't useful to your cause....& it makes
that cause murky.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Dr Peterson is not making a fact-based argument. He is instead arguing that reason alone should lead us to his conclusion. His argument is closer in character to theology than to science. If you refuse to check your reasoning against empirical facts, you can reason your way to nearly any conclusion you want to.

Thank you. Knowing he's failed to live up to the hyoe in the past, that he has been the boy crying wolf, I didn't think I really wanted to watch it. Turns out I dont, because what you said sounds like him.

 

[SomeRandom]

Ahh good old Kermit the Philosopher






Sorry couldn’t resist

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Ahh good old Kermit the Philosopher






Sorry couldn’t resist

How dare you insult Kermit the Frog.

 

[SomeRandom]

How dare you insult Kermit the Frog.

Ahh I think Kermit is far more charming, don’t worry

 

[Thief]

I like J. Peterson

he makes good sense

hmmmmm
he's white
so am I

let's color the terms and reconsider

hmmmm
I still thinks he's right

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No.
But that answer would express both perspectives.

Please explain more. I know I don't quite get your point, so please elaborate.

 

[Revoltingest]

Please explain more. I know I don't quite get your point, so please elaborate.

From your post.....

2 people are competing for a job. Do you think they are always total equal down to just purely personal individual differences?

Both perspectives, white privilege & black disadvantage would explain
disparate outcome with whites faring better, & blacks faring worse.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

From your post.....

Both perspectives, white privilege & black disadvantage would explain
disparate outcome with whites faring better, & blacks faring worse.

Yes, they are equal in your perspective and not equal in my perspective. So our perspectives are equal and not so.
All perspective are exactly the same, yet different because better and worse are equal, yet different. And so in circles we go.
I get your relativism. I do it differently.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, they are equal in your perspective and not equal in my perspective. So our perspectives are equal and not so.
All perspective are exactly the same, yet different because better and worse are equal, yet different. And so in circles we go.
I get your relativism. I do it differently.

"Equal" seems the wrong word.

 

[Thief]

equally opposite
like black and white

but the numbers play to the majority
so.....not equal

and there are other attributes dealt to the individual
also not equal

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"Equal" seems the wrong word.

In your perspective, not not mine.

I get what you are saying. I just do it differently as me.

 

[Quetzal]

I have an observation about this debate that I have thought about for the last day or so. Starting with the terms 'white privilege' & 'black disadvantage' as @Revoltingest suggests, they are each identifying a potential problem. If you ask random internet uses if the term 'white privilege' is a positive or negative idea, many would probably respond by saying it is a negative idea. The same could easily be said about 'black disadvantage'. Perfectly fair conclusions.

Here is the key difference that I tried to explain before but may not have done a very good job. One term creates a villain in the narrative: 'white privilege'. This is my primary protest because the creation of a villain isn't necessary, much less a villain that encompasses as entire race of people. What can you do with this idea? Well, woke users on social media use this as a platform to attack from. When you attack something you want to marginalize and destroy it. This is a dangerous game, it creates negative energy that is predicated on the group in question being white and nothing else.

Now the perspective of 'black disadvantage' is a bit different. It points to a widely accepted and universal (while unfortunate) truth: black individuals are at a disadvantage in certain areas that can cause considerable damage to their livelihood. This is a call to action to fix something. It is a very difficult and complicated problem. We could use all the help we can get because it is that messy. The BLM movement is having success because they are calling for action to lift a group of people up, not dragging a group of people down. Justice is a flexible concept, but one that always carries a strong meaning. By framing the problem as one group being disadvantaged (instead of vilifying another), it allows justice to occur. Genuine calls for societal progress should always be considered.

 

[Thief]

like the report from Indianapolis of recent days....

some one had a street scene.....an argument over BLM and ALM

it got nasty and the white guy had to draw a gun to back off the the aggressors
protecting his fiancé and three year old child

THEY came back a short time later
and shot the mother

snipered

so yeah
it's going to get dangerous

the labels are inappropriate
and the flags are taken too serious

 

[Tambourine]

Yes, if we deliberately misread the concept of privilege in order to claim persecution, then we are creating a villain narrative. Of course, people have a vested interest in misreading privilege theory to protray themselves as the victim of unfair persecution, as there are plenty of incentives to do so, but very little in the way of incentives to acknowledging real injustice.

 

[Quetzal]

but very little in the way of incentives to acknowledging real injustice.

That depends on how you view the world, right? If you are someone who views the world strictly through the lens of the individual, then that may be the case. But if we expand our view on include others within our culture, there are plenty of incentives.

 

[Tambourine]

That depends on how you view the world, right? If you are someone who views the world strictly through the lens of the individual, then that may be the case. But if we expand our view on include others within our culture, there are plenty of incentives.

For example?

 

[Quetzal]

For example?

Sure. If you are someone who views the world exclusively through the lens of an individual, it is difficult to understand why raising the net value of an entire neighborhood by 5% is a good thing, even if you don't see a personal financial kick back. You see this a lot in the minimum wage debate. Those opposed might argue that those they deem "unworthy" don't deserve it or it'll crush small business or whatever convenient excuse they can think of to support withholding additional resources from those who may need it most.

If you are someone who expands their views to include the collective, you might reason that this can mean more tax revenue, which can lead to those pot holes (finally) getting fixed, it can increase the funding to education, it can raise the property value as folks have more disposable income to invest on their property, it can help foster community through leisure activities that may have not been financially viable before, it could help improve the mental health of those around you because you have more spending money, etc.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes, they are equal in your perspective and not equal in my perspective. So our perspectives are equal and not so.
All perspective are exactly the same, yet different because better and worse are equal, yet different. And so in circles we go.
I get your relativism. I do it differently.

I think instead of focusing on how good white people have it, he's suggesting we focus instead on how poorly black people have it. It is, afterall, supposed to be about black people and their problems.
It's also more universal. Not all white people will have the same experiences with police. But anyone who isnt white must beware the police because they all they have to do is have the wrong skin color. White people more often need to be young men, women, or the mentally ill to be high risk in a police encounter. But to be another skin color, there is all that, plus being a young male, or female, or mentally ill, or anything else. I would say the concepts aren't necessarily equal, but I see use in both of them (especially as guilt is often associated with and attached to those who speak of privilege).