Peterson's 12 Rules For Life, have you heard of this?

[Amarok]

The problem is that you think an honest discussion of issues of race is "normalizing language of white supremacy."

If honest discussion is that, then I'll do that.  You can brand me however you want.

I don't..but you haven't been having one of those, so why would it be relevant?  "Just being honest" - also..in the links...

I've never tried to defend myself against "the notion that you're a racist," and you know that.  It depends what you mean by the word.  If you think I see differences among races, and that's racist, then that is correct: I think Asian people are smart, and black people are athletic.  If you think that the term involves justification of malice, as an obstacle to providing opportunity, then I think the proposals I've made (and you haven't bothered to make) show that not to be the case.

What you mean by the word...also...in the links.....

You can keep deputizing yourself to be the thought police if you want, and I'm not even disputing your positions on racism, especially in the southern states.  But I have to say that the way you have argued in this thread is very unlikely to bring any positive result-- if you really care about race issues, you should want to act in a way that will actually improve the facts.

Thought police complaining...also.......in...the links.

Case in point-- I keep making suggestions about how things might be improved.  You keep shooting my proposals down, without suggesting alternatives, and saying "Anyway. . . that won't work because racism."  I suggested health and welfare programs as a partial solution to the IQ problem, and you said, "Yeah, but anyway networking."

You mean, an honest conversation about race and racism?  Yeah..I've been trying to have one, lol.  

Okay, so let's say that horrible racists like me are oppressing the black population, who are nobly struggling (and not fucking things up at all) for a fair shake.  Fine. . . you have to put them in a position where resistance is not an option.  The constitution of the US accords citizens the right to arm themselves and to stand against tyranny.  Surely, the deliberate control of a large population of impoverished people by a few rich assholes constitutes tyranny.  So pick up a gun, and get yourself heard.

The racist golem.  Guess what, also in the links.  Fun fact, as an aside..the us constitution doesn't actually afford anyone that right.  That was something we talked about when we wanted to do some shooting, not when we got around to setting laws as the party in power.  Though I will say that this is one re-imagining of the tyranny being referenced that I actually do fuck with..and why I'm not a good leftist out to get all the guns.  

See, if you used all this big language, and you were actually willing to do something about it, then I'd respect you infinitely more than I do right now.  If you were writing letters to congress, holding a picket sign, beating the shit out of anyone with a confederate flag on their truck-- literally anything.

That's the conversation I'D like to have-- not deciding who's morally superior or inferior and shouting each other down, but looking at any of the problems, and saying "How might this problem be minimized?"

Morality power plays and righteousness points.  Also...meh, fuck it, you already know by now.

Or you would...had you read the links you've been given.

Holy hell he's gone through the whole encyclopedia by now

[The Grand Nudger]

Ah, but he's not doing any of that, don't you see.  The PC left is shouting him down and/or making him do all of that.

[Amarok]

Ah, but he's not doing any of that, don't you see.  The PC left is shouting him down and/or making him do all of that.

Yup it's our fault the Alt right exists and not the fact racism still exists and has become at wiggling it's way into the mainstream

[The Grand Nudger]

It's just the hard truth, man.  Everytime someone gets in trouble for spouting off a racial slur on tv, some perfectly normal person somewhere goes. "you know what, now that the left has victimized so-and-so..I can clearly see that the blacks -are- genetically inferior to whites!"

[bennyboy]

It's just the hard truth, man.  Everytime someone gets in trouble for spouting off a racial slur on tv, some perfectly normal person somewhere goes. "you know what, now that the left has victimized so-and-so..I can clearly see that the blacks -are- genetically inferior to whites!"

Yeah, show me that anyone has said this.

Look, man, I know you are in love with this narrative.  But I find you pretty insincere.  If you really see a problem, and you care about it, then you need to decide what steps you are going to take.

If you think the best contribution you can make to racial inequality in the US is to trade narratives with a Canadian in an atheist forum, then I gotta say-- your actions belie a real lack of conviction.

Get off your ass and do something about it.  Have a point, have a plan, and act on it. Or, just confess that you don't actually give a shit, but it gives you something to type about in your free time, and grab a beer.

And even if you're unwilling or unable to help in any way that matters, at least be willing to discuss HOW you might actually help.  You think you are doing the noble job of combating racist ideas, and turning the tide here?  I'd humbly suggest that so far, your actions as a PR man for the PC left have been a pretty epic failure.

[The Grand Nudger]

You can wonder about whether I can single handedly solve the problem of racism in this country from here to eternity, if you like.  It's silly, and it's not going to change any of the information in any of the links you've been given.  Meanwhile, a wider understanding of the information in those links will help to alleviate at least some of the problems we face in that regard.  As will constant pushback against the normalization of white supremacy.

Can you explain why any of those articles and studies could have been talking about you at every point in this discussion? From the discussion of peterson right up to your last post? As to your final comment..I don't actually believe that everyone whose bought in to this shit -can- be talked out of it. In that sense, my "job" as a pr man for pc isn't to convince you, but to provide others with information on the trend and the sorts of information they would need in order to diffuse these same arguments coming from someone else..who could be talked out of it.

80 some odd pages of option 2....lol.

This puts Natasha in a scenario we'll call the Racist's Dilemma. It's like the Prisoner's Dilemma but for potential racists, where the choices look like this: (1) admit you did something racist and be forced to do a walk of shame and get looked down on by all the "PC people," or (2) stonewall as hard as you can and maybe they'll go away. In Racist Prison, everyone was framed. You can see why people often go for (2).

[bennyboy]

You can wonder about whether I can single handedly solve the problem of racism in this country from here to eternity, if you like.  It's silly, and it's not going to change any of the information in any of the links you've been given.  Meanwhile, a wider understanding of the information in those links will help to alleviate at least some of the problems we face in that regard.  As will constant pushback against the normalization of white supremacy.

Can you explain why any of those articles and studies could have been talking about you at every point in this discussion?  From the discussion of peterson right up to your last post?  As to your final comment..I don't actually believe that everyone whose bought in to this shit -can- be talked out of it.  In that sense, my "job" as a pr man for pc isn't to convince you, but to provide others with information on the trend and the sorts of information they would need in order to diffuse these same arguments coming from someone else..who could be talked out of it.

80 some odd pages of option 2....lol.

This puts Natasha in a scenario we'll call the Racist's Dilemma. It's like the Prisoner's Dilemma but for potential racists, where the choices look like this: (1) admit you did something racist and be forced to do a walk of shame and get looked down on by all the "PC people," or (2) stonewall as hard as you can and maybe they'll go away. In Racist Prison, everyone was framed. You can see why people often go for (2).

If you think that's what's happening, then good luck with that.  Keep on sniffing, brother!

[The Grand Nudger]

It's more of an issue of what you think is happening, which is what I keep trying to stress.  I can't actually -make- you fit the categorization, no one can...since no one has their hand up your ass operating your mouth (allegedly, lol).   When you think about the pc left and "whiteness"...

Do you think that there is significant discrimination?  
Do you think that there's an attempt to abrogate some right, the right to free speech, for example?  
Do you think that there is a campaign of stigmatization and pride denial?  
Do you think that the goal is to cause a loss of self or social esteem? 
Do you think that the goal is to make people such as yourself either effectively or actively disappear?   

or, conversely (and or additionally)

Are you convinced that the pc left threatens western civilization and values?  That if their ideology became more common than it already is, it would end in breadlines..for example?

Now, I don't know why we would waste a moment denying that each category above applies to your thoughts on the matter.  We've addressed each item..both as the basis of your complaints about the pc left and as a personal accusation of something I'm doing to you or an effect of what would happen if people like me got ahold of the levers of power.  Rather than bicker over whether or not any given item is incorrect (at least, for a moment), I'll just point out that this is the holstein miller model of victimization (or victimhood identification, if you prefer), and it's used, at present, as a normalizing device for white supremacy.  This is a fact..even if every item above is true.

The question I'm hoping to get you to ask yourself is not whether or not you are a racist....but why you affirm the message itself.  Obviously this will be an oversimplification, but I'm going to split the possible explanations for -why- you have come to affirm that narrative of victimization into three categories.

1.) You have independently arrived at the position that each item -is- true.
2.) You have been groomed to see each item -as- true
3.) Some combination of 1 and 2.

Now, can you understand why number one might present such an enormous coincidence that it could be rejected out of hand by a rational person?  Particularly, if..hypothetically speaking, each given item is significantly mistaken?  How often, as a teacher...do you find that two students get precisely the same items on a test wrong for precisely the same reasons, down to the very language of their answers... in the absence of any interaction between them?

As to possibility number two, can you understand why a rational person, knowing that there is and has been (as a point of fact) significant effort to groom people in this regard..and knowing that a person absolutely does frequent those venues in which this occurs and listen to people engaged in that effort, might consider this the most likely explanation for such high representation of those points in your personal take on the matter?  To rephrase the question even more simply; if a person begins a sentence in conversation "I was watching fox/cnn news last night" - are you then surprised to hear them communicate some position or contention common to a fox/cnn news commentator?  

Finally, the third. My personal favorite.  This one take a little reflection on the nature of one and two and how they might relate to each other.  Let's suppose that in the distant past..before you ever got around to having this discussion with me or anyone else, you were very sympathetic to a single item on that list.  Rights abrogation, for example.  If that were the case, and if both in a social setting and online, there were known correlations between that item and the others..or algorithms that drove traffic from that item to the others...would this not (or could this not) present a compelling explanation for how a non racist person finds themselves affirming the normalizing language of white supremacy?

Now..for a little commentary that I know you love so much.  I'm not sure that a person who is incapable of at least considering the strong possibility that they are in positions 2 and/or 3 can ever be ready to have a discussion of whether any of those contentions are factually accurate or..rather, significant and intentional misrepresentations.  Not, mind you, on the part of the person relaying them.  The initial lie (in that hypothetical case) is not one that said person tells others..but one that they've convinced themselves of or have been themselves convinced of.  By the time they get around to communicating the narrative above in it's entirety, they are sold, and csold earnestly not only in the truth of each contention but that they have personally and adequately vetted each item.  It's just The Truth™, and the PC left is suppressing that Truth™.  It's an impossible situation to find one's self in, I'd imagine.  Simultaneously feeling as though one needs to defend themselves against accusations of racism (in earnest) while affirming the core ideology of modern white supremacy.  Here again I'll stress that even if every item above was true..it is still the core ideology of modern white supremacy.  

-and that's a best case scenario...without any stonewalling or hissy fit throwing or foot in mouth nonsense or diversions into scientific racism.

[bennyboy]

See, if we were having this kind of discussion from the start, I might actually have been inclined to take you seriously.

[bennyboy]

It's more of an issue of what you think is happening, which is what I keep trying to stress.  I can't actually -make- you fit the categorization, no one can...since no one has their hand up your ass operating your mouth (allegedly, lol).   When you think about the pc left and "whiteness"...

1. Do you think that there is significant discrimination?  
2. Do you think that there's an attempt to abrogate some right, the right to free speech, for example?  
3. Do you think that there is a campaign of stigmatization and pride denial?  
4. Do you think that the goal is to cause a loss of self or social esteem? 
5. Do you think that the goal is to make people such as yourself either effectively or actively disappear?

1.  Absolutely.  PC is about establishing victim and oppressor status of demographic groups, and then providing (or even enforcing) preferential treatment for the victimize group as a whole.  You consistently mocked my requests for you not to make derogatory comments about white people-- because I'm white, I don't like them. This is, presumably, because since white men are clearly not a victimized demographic group, you don't have to extend to the members of that group the same considerations you would to a black person.
2.  I don't know about denial of rights, but certainly you, in this thread, have very much attempted to use every epithet under the sun as a threat against the free exploration and expression of ideas.
3.  Why are you grouping these?  Clearly, white males are stigmatized as the Big Bad Wolf.  I mean. . . how could it be claimed otherwise?  But "pride denial?"  I don't really know what that even means.
4.  You tell me.  I wouldn't say you've been particularly supportive of my "self or social esteem" in this thread.  Would you?
5.  What are "people like myself"? Canadians living in Korea?

Are you convinced that the pc left threatens western civilization and values?  That if their ideology became more common than it already is, it would end in breadlines..for example?

If the PC Left ideology was the norm, then it would pretty much be the end of critical thought.  As Peterson says (Holy shit!  The OP lives!), the purpose of the left is to stand up for the disenfranchised in a power hierarchy-- to make sure they have a voice.  If the Left ideology is the norm, then who's the little guy?

Now, I don't know why we would waste a moment denying that each category above applies to your thoughts on the matter.  We've addressed each item..both as the basis of your complaints about the pc left and as a personal accusation of something I'm doing to you or an effect of what would happen if people like me got ahold of the levers of power.  Rather than bicker over whether or not any given item is incorrect (at least, for a moment), I'll just point out that this is the holstein miller model of victimization (or victimhood identification, if you prefer), and it's used, at present, as a normalizing device for white supremacy.  This is a fact..even if every item above is true.

This it the guilt by association of ideas technique that you've used all along.  You (I think) realize that I dislike white supremacists, so in an attempt to scare me away from any discussion of race as a problem, you conflate facts with motivations.

The question I'm hoping to get you to ask yourself is not whether or not you are a racist....but why you affirm the message itself.  Obviously this will be an oversimplification, but I'm going to split the possible explanations for -why- you have come to affirm that narrative of victimization into three categories.

1.) You have independently arrived at the position that each item -is- true.
2.) You have been groomed to see each item -as- true
3.) Some combination of 1 and 2.

Now, can you understand why number one might present such an enormous coincidence that it could be rejected out of hand by a rational person?  Particularly, if..hypothetically speaking, each given item is significantly mistaken?  How often, as a teacher...do you find that two students get precisely the same items on a test wrong for precisely the same reasons, down to the very language of their answers... in the absence of any interaction between them?

This is a strange line of questioning.  We've been talking about the problem of black inequality for what? 50 pages now?

But when I brought up IQ, I specifically declared that I had gone to an alt-right site to see what they said.  I then researched the claims, and found them to be (to some degree) true.  Then I said so.

I'd say that in terms of process, the difference between a white supremacist with the same IQ and educational background as me would in fact be pretty minimal (unless malice toward black people was already evident), until the point of application: a white supremacist would use the facts to blame black people for all their difficulties, and to combat any attempt to help them.  I would use the facts to look for the causal factors in the problem, and attempt to address those causes as close to their roots as possible.

Finally, the third. My personal favorite.  This one take a little reflection on the nature of one and two and how they might relate to each other.  Let's suppose that in the distant past..before you ever got around to having this discussion with me or anyone else, you were very sympathetic to a single item on that list.  Rights abrogation, for example.  If that were the case, and if both in a social setting and online, there were known correlations between that item and the others..or algorithms that drove traffic from that item to the others...would this not (or could this not) present a compelling explanation for how a non racist person finds themselves affirming the normalizing language of white supremacy?

Here's the thing, Khem.  I've never denied that racists would use this kind of language.  In fact, I suspect that if a million people were reading this thread, I'd be considered a great champion of the alt-right-- or if I'm overstating things, at least a sympathizer.

I don't believe in association by guilt of ideas.  Just because both White Supremacists and I take interest in IQ scores and their correlation with income, for example, does not mean I'm a White Supremacist.  So why do you keep talking about "normalizing language of white supremacy?"  Is it really a well-intended hope for my best interest-- that as a good buddy, you are worried that I won't unintentionally be used as a puppet for an ideology I don't believe in?

Or is it that by hanging this constant threat of implied demonization through guilt of association of ideas, that you can control the narrative without actually having to have positive ideas upon which policy might reasonably be based?  "Racism is baaaaaad" makes a great soundbite.  But what it doesn't do is provide anything more than a soundbite.

Here's in a nutshell how I see interactions:
1)  I try to find the truth, and then to consider policies that would either leverage it or mediate it in establishing a goal: improved income equality for black people in the US.
2)  You start rambling about "normalizing language of white supremacy," and then suggest no solution at all-- except, presumably, that you think people shouldn't normalize language of white supremacy.

See, here's what you've failed to get-- everything I've said follows the pattern: "Here's a problem, how would we fix it?"  If the problem is IQ, then we have to try and fix that problem.  That's where the discussion needs to be-- how do we fix this problem, so that the desired result (economic parity) will unfold naturally?

If the problem isn't IQ-- if it's just the way we distribute money, then we have to distribute the money more equitably-- super high taxes and welfare payments that will guarantee a good basic living standard.

I could go on, but you should get the point.  Solving abstract problems with words isn't going to lead to a solution for concrete problems.