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

[GrandizerII]

Yeah, in response to a bunch of examples, not just one two. He doesn't acknowledge that being white is a factor that directly provides that privilege. He mistakenly thinks it's just a correlate.

There's about 7 altogether that Jordan Peterson directly addresses, out of a list of about 50 things.

He lists about 7, but it's not like he's only addressing those few examples. I'm pretty sure he was responding to the whole list in general. The whole point of his lecture was to argue that white privilege isn't a thing, at least not in the way that is conventionally argued.

Even the writer of the list says the privileges aren't directly from skin color, that it's intertwined with other factors that support it.  And she says at the start of the list that it's a personal to just her.

Here's what she actually said, for context:

I decided to try to work on myself at least by identifying some of the daily effects of white privilege in my life. I have chosen those conditions that I think in my case attach somewhat more to skin-color privilege than to class, religion, ethnic status, or geographic location, though of course all these other factors are intricately intertwined. As far as I can tell, my African American coworkers, friends, and acquaintances with whom I come into daily or frequent contact in this particular time, place and time of work cannot count on most of these conditions.

So no, it's not true that she is saying that the examples aren't directly from skin color, only that privilege is cumulative. That if you're white (or perceived as white), you have white privilege. That if you also happen to be a man, you have both white and male privilege. And if you happen to be neurotypical or Christian or heterosexual, you have even more privilege.

Which really makes it a list of her privileges.  She can buy houses wherever she wants, I can't, a lot of black people I know can't, some black people I know live in a nicer place than me, some don't.

Her point is that, given all else equal, she is more likely to buy or rent in a place where she can afford to and desire to live. Maybe this is not so obvious once you go up the hierarchy in terms of wealth, but I can easily imagine the difference being obvious in lower socioeconomic classes.

---

If there's something specifically white about establishing power hierarchies, then the resulting privilege can be called "white."  If the particular European people involved have just done what people as a species ALWAYS do, and which other species ALWAYS do, then it's a privilege of power in general, not specifically of a uniquely white trait.  (keeping in mind that I've actually said in our other shit-flinging thread that I think it's possible that white people tend toward belligerence in a way that black and Asian people might not)

It's called "white privilege" because, for whatever reasons that led to all this, white people (just for being perceived as white) enjoy privileges that others don't. South Africa is an even better example of this than a country like the USA.

Every organized group of humans (and lobsters, OMG the OP it LIVES!!!) will form a power hierarchy, because individuals compete and some end up on top, and because groups compete and some end up on top, and nations compete and some end up on top.

But it doesn't mean that these power hierarchies must be exactly the way they are now. Evolution doesn't fix things in stone. Just because we've evolved in a certain way doesn't mean that we are forever doomed to be such way. And just because other species evolved a certain way doesn't mean we must necessarily evolve in that way as well.

What a stupid thing to compare human beings with a highly complex nervous system to fucking lobsters.

For evidence that this is due to ingrained instincts, I would point to Trump.  He had the shittiest ideas, the crudest and most uncivilized approach to politics, he is racist and he is sexist and he is a liar, and obviously so.  Why is he in power?  It's because the rules that humans have (programmed in them) for determining the top male have to do with physical appearance and behavior-- bellow the loudest, act the most dominant, and you will likely be chosen.  He wasn't chosen because his "simple speech was a refreshing change."  He was chosen because a man who doesn't need to bother to self-censor, who will shout out obvious lies and challenge the media to call him out on it, is seen as so powerful that he's above the rules.

He was elected primarily due to racism and sexism and such things. But even with that, if it weren't for the outdated system of voting, Hillary would've been the president right now, since she got far more popular votes than he did. So what you're arguing here doesn't really serve your point at all.