Peterson's 12 Rules for Life v2.0-- actual book discussion

[Rev. Rye]

Ok, there's the general sense of the word "racism" and there's the more narrow, specific sense. When I speak of racists in this context, I am talking about the latter sense, not the former. In this sense, racist refers to one who has bought into the system that harbors systemic prejudice and discrimination against oppressed groups, often treating them as inferior groups. Someone who's not a racist will typically oppose the injustices that stem from such system. So in this sense, you can't be racist against white people.

But I think black people can be racist against other black people, and Latino people (for example) can be racist against black people as well. I do think white people, on average, continue to be more racist than other groups, just a hunch.

I honestly think using just the term "racism" to refer to one specific type of racism ("instututional racism", as Stokely Carmichael called it) is extremely reductive, borders on being a sophistic word game, and likely causes more harm than good.

On a macro definition, if one specifically defines "racism" as being "institutional racism", then the statement about it not being possible to be racist against white people does, in fact, hold, since the social structures of the Western World are, in fact, jacked to favour white people and a suspect number of rich minorities. But on a smaller level, it's certainly possible for one to be racist against white people. Clearly, a white person having a bad run-in with a sufficiently pissed off member of one of those 233 SPLC-recognised Black Nationalist groups doesn't even come close to invalidating or even equalling the massive power structures that repressed them so badly that they were convinced they needed their own organization to be as bad as their oppressors (no matter what all the right-wing news outlets may make it out to be), but there's an even more basic problem at fault underneath all the complex power structures: Tribalism. It's the basic problem underlying everything and to shift it ALL to issues of power (which certainly does make everything worse) feels like entirely missing the point.

After all, even with a conclusive switch in who's actually holding the power (see the Hutus in Rwanda, the French and Russian Revolutions, and Mugabe for just a few examples), the transfer of power to the historically downtrodden does not necessarily make things better.

[bennyboy]

there's an even more basic problem at fault underneath all the complex power structures: Tribalism. It's the basic problem underlying everything and to shift it ALL to issues of power (which certainly does make everything worse) feels like entirely missing the point.

This is for sure the most important point to be got from all this:
1) Tribalism is one of the most central instincts to the human species.
2) Countering tribalism with more tribalism cannot possibly result in the cessation of tribalism.

It's pretty obvious that American politics has descended from any real attempt at rationale to heels-dug-in partisanship. The Democrats and Republicans will no more give up any advantage to each other than would have the Americans and the Japanese in WWII.

I'm kind of feeling that only blood in the streets, and lots of it, is the only way that the deadlock will ever be resolved. But I'm hoping that open discourse will lead to an interest in proper debate and an amicable resolution. Whatever people think about Peterson, I think we can all agree that having smart guys like him and Sam Harris debate in front of stadiums is better than listening to fucking Trump shouting "Fake News" about obviously true news 24/7.

[The Grand Nudger]

Peterson isn't making intelligent points, regardless of how smart he may be. He -is- screaming "fake news" at the camera....and some folks are just lapping it up, lol.

When he's not busy screaming "fake news"..he's busily producing his own fake news. That's what made him notable in the first place.

[GrandizerII]

But on a smaller level, it's certainly possible for one to be racist against white people.

Racist in the general sense, sure. But I'd like to emphasize one key thing from that page.

The black nationalist movement is a reaction to centuries of institutionalized white supremacy in America.

The bigotry/hatred in this case is reactionary, as opposed to being due to power and privilege. They're not favored by the current social/racial/economic/political/legal/religious systems that have been established, and continue to be maintained, for the benefit of white people in America and elsewhere.

I think it's important to make that distinction between this kind of racism and the institutional racism clear, because to suggest otherwise to the privileged is to continue to enable them to be blind to the extent of injustices against the unprivileged and to falsely [and dangerously] think that they can also be discriminated against as badly because of their whiteness.

Of course, I say this not simply from my own mouth, as you probably know. This is something that black people themselves have argued for, and I find their argument that white people cannot be considered victims of racism to be reasonable and compelling. White people can certainly still be hated and experience bitterness and anger from others, though.

And yes, I agree tribalism is at the root of all this, and pretty much every group is guilty of it. And I'm certainly not at all advocating for power to be transferred to "the other side".

[Rev. Rye]

The black nationalist movement is a reaction to centuries of institutionalized white supremacy in America.

The bigotry/hatred in this case is reactionary, as opposed to being due to power and privilege. They're not favored by the current social/racial/economic/political/legal/religious systems that have been established, and continue to be maintained, for the benefit of white people in America and elsewhere.

A point I myself brought up in the post, talking about "the massive power structures that repressed them so badly that they were convinced they needed their own organization to be as bad as their oppressors"

[GrandizerII]

Uh, I don't think that's a fair interpretation of what I said in that quote.

Last time I checked, "black" and "white" were colors.

To be more accurate, perceived colors. There are African Americans who have what you could call white skin, but are nevertheless perceived as black.

I believe that an egalitarian society should provide equal protections for all citizens without regard to the color of their skin.  But while you and I both agree that racism is one of the forms of prejudice from which a citizen should be protected, you have expressly defined racism in such a way that some individuals will fall under protection from race-based prejudice, and some will not-- and this difference in protection you've predicated not on individual merit or abilities, but on skin color.

I do not endorse any political position which expresses intent to treat individual citizens differently based on their racial identity.

White people don't need protection from race-based prejudice, even if there are groups that hate white people.

A quick relevant article for you to read:
Racism against white people doesn't exist in America, and here's why it never will

---

Could you be racist against a white Jewish person?  Or a white Syrian Muslim?  Or a white gypsy family?

This is somewhat tricky because it's not strictly about skin color per se, but rather about perceptions of color. As a Lebanese light-skinned guy from a Christian background and with a Christian and familiar name, it's rather confusing for me whether I do have white privilege or not. Most of the time, living in Australia, it feels like I don't have it as bad as (say) Indians and Asians (Chinese, Filipinos, Vietnamese, etc.) and definitely not as bad as Aboriginal people here in Australia. But I'm not really sure if people see me as white. I'm more identified as Middle Eastern, or Arab.

[paulpablo]

Last time I checked, "black" and "white" were colors.

To be more accurate, perceived colors. There are African Americans who have what you could call white skin, but are nevertheless perceived as black.

I believe that an egalitarian society should provide equal protections for all citizens without regard to the color of their skin.  But while you and I both agree that racism is one of the forms of prejudice from which a citizen should be protected, you have expressly defined racism in such a way that some individuals will fall under protection from race-based prejudice, and some will not-- and this difference in protection you've predicated not on individual merit or abilities, but on skin color.

I do not endorse any political position which expresses intent to treat individual citizens differently based on their racial identity.

White people don't need protection from race-based prejudice, even if there are groups that hate white people.



A quick relevant article for you to read:
Racism against white people doesn't exist in America, and here's why it never will

---

Could you be racist against a white Jewish person?  Or a white Syrian Muslim?  Or a white gypsy family?

This is somewhat tricky because it's not strictly about skin color per se, but rather about perceptions of color. As a Lebanese light-skinned guy from a Christian background and with a Christian and familiar name, it's rather confusing for me whether I do have white privilege or not. Most of the time, living in Australia, it feels like I don't have it as bad as (say) Indians and Asians (Chinese, Filipinos, Vietnamese, etc.) and definitely not as bad as Aboriginal people here in Australia. But I'm not really sure if people see me as white. I'm more identified as Middle Eastern, or Arab.

Well I dated a Syrian women and if it wasn't for her accent or her telling me I would have never known she was from Syria and she looked very much as white as I am, and I am white. Looking back at pictures she was around as pale as me if not more.

So it would be impossible for her or her family members back in Syria to be discriminated against by people who bought into a system who oppresses them? I am making an assumption that there's some family resemblance between her and her family.

In the case of Gypsy families in the UK also they're definitely perceived as white.  I mean whiter than white, their kids are often ginger and pale with freckles.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...t-mps-poll

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...-prejudice

[Rev. Rye]

To be more accurate, perceived colors. There are African Americans who have what you could call white skin, but are nevertheless perceived as black.

Like Dave Matthews and Charlize Theron? Both were born in Johannesburg (technically, Theron's from Benoni, which is about 17 miles from Johannesburg, which is the distance between Chicago and Glenview, so not that far.) Oh, wait, "percieved as black," which neither are.

[bennyboy]

I believe that an egalitarian society should provide equal protections for all citizens without regard to the color of their skin.  But while you and I both agree that racism is one of the forms of prejudice from which a citizen should be protected, you have expressly defined racism in such a way that some individuals will fall under protection from race-based prejudice, and some will not-- and this difference in protection you've predicated not on individual merit or abilities, but on skin color.

I do not endorse any political position which expresses intent to treat individual citizens differently based on their racial identity.

White people don't need protection from race-based prejudice, even if there are groups that hate white people.

You talk about black people like they are an endangered species. They are citizens, accorded the same liberties and rights as other citizens. If they feel their rights aren't being fulfilled, then they can sue, or protest, or pick up arms against tyranny. And if you feel like supporting them in any of those endeavors, then I respect your right to do so.

But when you take it upon yourself to support a position by which unequal treatment of individual citizens is not only allowed but required, and this unequal treatment is predicated on race (real or apparent), then you are trying to get two wrongs to make a right.

You're wrong on this one, man. You're a racist using special pleading and tunnel-vision definitions to justify your racism. Don't do that. Repeat after me: "One law for all."

[GrandizerII]

Well I dated a Syrian women and if it wasn't for her accent or her telling me I would have never known she was from Syria and she looked very much as white as I am, and I am white.  Looking back at pictures she was around as pale as me if not more.

So it would be impossible for her or her family members back in Syria to be discriminated against by people who bought into a system who oppresses them?  I am making an assumption that there's some family resemblance between her and her family.

In the case of Gypsy families in the UK also they're definitely perceived as white.  I mean whiter than white, their kids are often ginger and pale with freckles.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...t-mps-poll

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...-prejudice

Too many things to untangle here. Are Syrian people with pale skin considered white? Are gypsies, irrespective of their "objective" skin colors, seen as white?

In the past, Irish people weren't considered white in America. Did you know that?

https://history.howstuffworks.com/histor...-white.htm

So white isn't referring simply to the literal objective color of your skin. If anything, you could be on the browner side and still pass off as white. It's how you are perceived in terms of color, not what color is seen on your skin.

And as for discrimination in Syria, I really doubt it's whiteness that they're discriminating against over there. In fact, in my homecountry, whiteness isn't much of a privilege there because it's basically Christian and Muslim people of Phoenician and/or Arab descent. I suspect something similar with regards to Syria.

---

White people don't need protection from race-based prejudice, even if there are groups that hate white people.

You talk about black people like they are an endangered species.  They are citizens, accorded the same liberties and rights as other citizens.  If they feel their rights aren't being fulfilled, then they can sue, or protest, or pick up arms against tyranny.  And if you feel like supporting them in any of those endeavors, then I respect your right to do so.

But when you take it upon yourself to support a position by which unequal treatment of individual citizens is not only allowed but required, and this unequal treatment is predicated on race (real or apparent), then you are trying to get two wrongs to make a right.

You're wrong on this one, man.  You're a racist using special pleading and tunnel-vision definitions to justify your racism.  Don't do that.  Repeat after me: "One law for all."

I'm sorry, Benny, but this is just tired old speech that has been said by many a politician around the world many many times. "Reverse racism" is a joke. Don't buy into that nonsense.