Pointless objections..since both "majority" and "wealth" directly map to white in societies with white privilege.

That white privilege existed in colonial society is an interesting note, but here again it directly maps to a majority with power and wealth, even if they were a demographic minority - and existed as a consequence of how those people expected to be treated within their own society pre-export. Had history gone the other way and we were all sat here talking about black privilege, or asian privilege..it's entirely likely that it would present itself the same way. One wonders whether we're so far away from the same situation in the US, where white privelege manifests itself in a blatantly colonial relationship, again, as our demographics shift.

Peterson gets white privilege as wrong as it can be gotten..but for better or worse it is traditional, so he has to carry that jug, lol.

(September 28, 2018 at 2:16 am)PRJA93 Wrote: To be completely fair, this obviously happens on the right as well. I consider myself a liberal and have always voted Democrat. It surprises me how differently many conservatives interpret simple liberal ideas. It happens on both sides.

These days, I'm not really seeing politics as a conflict between left and right. It's more like a conflict between dogmatism and careful thought. If a democrat says, "I totally agree we need a strong economy, but fracking is not worth the health risks," then that's great. If a republican says, "I'm fine with providing health care, but I'd like to see a program that can pay for it without raising our taxes to 30% like Canada has," then that's great.

When a leftist says, "By talking about power hierarchies as a product of evolution and scarcity of resources, you're obviously trying to justify the oppression of black people by white ones, and women by men," then those guys can fuck right off.

When a rightist says, "By supporting the right of gay people to be gay, and then telling me I can't shout 'burn in hell faggot' at the military funeral of a gay man, then you're violating my right to free speech," then those guys can also fuck right off.

(September 28, 2018 at 6:56 am)Khemikal Wrote: Pointless objections..since both "majority" and "wealth" directly map to white in societies with white privilege.

That's the point. It's a privilege reliant on majority, wealth and dependant on which society you live in yet is named a white privilage to see people of your race in the media and to be able to live where you want.

Continuing my prior post ...

From his interview with Cathy Newman, Peterson said:

Quote:There’s a personality trait known as agreeableness. Agreeable people are compassionate and polite. And agreeable people get paid less than disagreeable people for the same job. Women are more agreeable than men.

Problem is that research shows agreeable women are nevertheless paid less than agreeable men.

From this article:

Quote:People who are highly agreeable are often labelled as compassionate, polite and kind, which may seem advantageous to the career success. Women who are highly agreeable, however, received a wage penalty. This was especially prominent for women on high incomes. The impact on men of appearing agreeable was insignificant, giving them a significant wage advantage.

Also, here:

Quote:But the researchers also found that women who broke out of traditional gender expectations and acted more dominant and demanding, rather than nice and agreeable, managed to up their salaries. Nice women, on the other hand, got fewer promotions and lower salaries than everybody else.

Emphasis mine.

But that's not all:

Quote:But alarmingly, dominant women were still found to earn less than even the most agreeable men who aren't promoted

Further confirmation here:

Quote:“Now, the unfairness of it,” Judge continues, “is that when women ask for more, they are more likely to have their motives questioned, which can neutralize some of the advantages. So, I think women must present their requests in a non-threatening, gentle but firm sort of way. In essence, the way women communicate their demands matters more than it does for men.”

Seems clear to me that Peterson is underestimating the role sexism is playing when it comes to the gender pay gap.

(September 28, 2018 at 8:47 am)paulpablo Wrote:

(September 28, 2018 at 6:56 am)Khemikal Wrote: Pointless objections..since both "majority" and "wealth" directly map to white in societies with white privilege.

That's the point. It's a privilege reliant on majority, wealth and dependant on which society you live in yet is named a white privilage to see people of your race in the media and to be able to live where you want.

It's called white privilege because it directly maps to ethnicity...even in countries and neighborhoods where that ethnicity is not the majority.  Calling it majority privilege won't change anything about it, doesn't adequately describe it, and by any name you choose to call it..it will remain problematic.

Seeing predominantly white faces on tv (and even seeing white faces play ethnic characters in media crossovers,lol)..as well as being able to determine where you live are not white privilege...they are consequences of white privilege. A way we notice it. White privilege isn't even based on some biological category of whiteness...it's based on an identification. Honorary whiteness is a thing, as is the social demotion of "whites" to non-white status, lol.

A very simple definition...is that it is the polar opposite of racial discrimination.

(September 28, 2018 at 6:21 am)paulpablo Wrote: I've seen him argue against a specific article on white privilege. The article claimed that being able to see your race represented in the media a lot is a white privilege, his counterargument was that the majority race is usually represented most in the media. The article also states that being able to live where you want is a white privilege, and the counterargument to that is that it's actually more important how much money you have rather than what race you are as to where you can live.

In other words, don't make it about the white man's whiteness! It has to be those other things.

(September 28, 2018 at 10:39 am)Khemikal Wrote:

(September 28, 2018 at 8:47 am)paulpablo Wrote: That's the point. It's a privilege reliant on majority, wealth and dependant on which society you live in yet is named a white privilage to see people of your race in the media and to be able to live where you want.

It's called white privilege because it directly maps to ethnicity...even in countries and neighborhoods where that ethnicity is not the majority.  Calling it majority privilege won't change anything about it, doesn't adequately describe it, and by any name you choose to call it..it will remain problematic.

In relation to what Jordan Peterson was talking about, an article which describes white privilege though examples of living where you want and seeing people on tv who are the same race as you, majority privilege and wealth privilege perfectly relates to that privilege.

Families, or people who can afford to buy houses where they want. there might be a majority of white people, less black people, but they will all be rich people.  Wealth privilege therefore describes the privilege of living in the house of your choice better than white privilege. 

I agree that calling it wealth privilege won't change anything about it.

Being able to afford to move to a nicer house is more dependent on the money you have rather than your race.

---

(September 28, 2018 at 10:41 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(September 28, 2018 at 6:21 am)paulpablo Wrote: I've seen him argue against a specific article on white privilege. The article claimed that being able to see your race represented in the media a lot is a white privilege, his counterargument was that the majority race is usually represented most in the media. The article also states that being able to live where you want is a white privilege, and the counterargument to that is that it's actually more important how much money you have rather than what race you are as to where you can live.

In other words, don't make it about the white man's whiteness! It has to be those other things.

In relation to what Jordan Peterson was talking about, it is.

Peterson intentionally uses weak and irrelevant examples in many of his comments precisely -because- he wants to argue against those items as a defense of a tradition that includes them. I'll refer you back to his "tampons, ergo the patriarchy is so-called oppression" bit I quoted from his book earlier.

This isn't rocket surgery.

White privilege -is- about whiteness. It's about an unearned package of assets that those who are identified as white have in a society where white hegemony is traditional - even in cases and places where white as an ethnicity is -not- a majority demographic. Grand, if I'm reading it right, was mocking the urge to center anxious whites, lol.

"Don't tell me I'm privileged just cuz of my skin!" - We all want to think that we got everything we have by our own pluck and daring. However, if you live in a society of white privilege...whatever you may have gotten through individual merit and accomplishment, and whatever you may lack...you also have that sack of tangibles based upon whether or not you are viewed as white...and can only lose those things by being demoted to non-white status.

Consider the white kid who puts 20 inch spinners on his monte carlo, and blasts gangster rap while cruising down the beach flipping his switches. Why does he suddenly become very white when pulled over? Why do we tell these people that if they act -like that-, they should expect to be treated as such? Why is typification of the white ideal -regardless of your actual ethnicity- likely to grant you increased access and enhanced personal and economic success?

The answer to all of these questions..is white privilege. This is why petersons comments on the matter are batshit insane. If anything, white privilege is a marxist -truth-, lol..because perceptual whiteness is being used as a privileged class. Two people, one considered white and one considered non-white..in precisely the same economic bracket, do not actually have the same bag of tangibles. I'll point out the black men pulled over in beamers...because someone..for some reason, thought they stole their own cars. Is a seemingly white hispanic fumbling around with his keys less likely to be taken for a carjacker than a jet black man doing the same?

(September 28, 2018 at 11:10 am)paulpablo Wrote:

(September 28, 2018 at 10:41 am)Grandizer Wrote: In other words, don't make it about the white man's whiteness! It has to be those other things.

In relation to what Jordan Peterson was talking about, it is.

No, it isn't those other things. It really is white privilege.

For context, this is what Peterson argues:

Quote:Okay, is that white privilege, or is that, like majority privilege? Is the same true if you go to China, you’re Chinese, is the same true if you’re Chinese? Is it majority privilege, and if it’s majority privilege, isn’t that just part of living within your culture? So let’s say you live in your culture, you’re privileged in that culture, well obviously. That’s what the culture is for. That’s what it’s for. Why would you bother building the damn thing if it didn’t accrue benefits to you? Well, you might say one of the consequences is that it accrues fewer benefits to those who aren’t in the culture. Yeah, but you can’t immediately associate that with race. You can’t just do that. Say it’s white privilege. There’s many things it could be. Certainly could be wealth. And the intersectional people have already figured out there are many things it could be. So like, what the hell? Seriously, well, what’s going on?

He is saying that this thing we call white privilege isn't anything like that at all, but is really "majority privilege" because he can't fucking accept that race has something to do with it all (and because he's a fucking idiot). I don't know why you're making it out that he is only applying this "majority privilege" phrase to one or two examples of what some person listed.

(September 28, 2018 at 11:41 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(September 28, 2018 at 11:10 am)paulpablo Wrote: In relation to what Jordan Peterson was talking about, it is.

No, it isn't those other things. It really is white privilege.

For context, this is what Peterson argues:

Quote:Okay, is that white privilege, or is that, like majority privilege? Is the same true if you go to China, you’re Chinese, is the same true if you’re Chinese? Is it majority privilege, and if it’s majority privilege, isn’t that just part of living within your culture? So let’s say you live in your culture, you’re privileged in that culture, well obviously. That’s what the culture is for. That’s what it’s for. Why would you bother building the damn thing if it didn’t accrue benefits to you? Well, you might say one of the consequences is that it accrues fewer benefits to those who aren’t in the culture. Yeah, but you can’t immediately associate that with race. You can’t just do that. Say it’s white privilege. There’s many things it could be. Certainly could be wealth. And the intersectional people have already figured out there are many things it could be. So like, what the hell? Seriously, well, what’s going on?

He is saying that this thing we call white privilege isn't anything like that at all, but is really "majority privilege" because he can't fucking accept that race has something to do with it all (and because he's a fucking idiot). I don't know why you're making it out that he is only applying this "majority privilege" phrase to one or two examples of what some person listed.

What you're quoting him saying is his response to some examples someone listed, so that's why I'm making it out to be that.

Other than that I don't know about what he's said, I've seen the same thing you've quoted which is what I made it out to be.