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

[paulpablo]

Hmmmm, I've heard this song before.  We can literally float every conceivable solution to the problem, and you'll keep saying, ". . . but still racism."

You aren't going to get these supposed people of privilege in line if the only plan of action is for them to demonize themselves.  What actual plan would you suggest?  I've suggested two-- either allow true liberty and accept the results, or enforce equality of outcome without regard to merit.  What else have you got?

I never suggested for anyone to demonize themselves for being white or whatever. See, that's the misunderstanding people continue to have regarding topics like this. Acknowledging that you have white privilege (or whatever other type of privilege) does not mean that you therefore must feel guilty or shame for being white. It means that you finally accept you have often unfair advantages over people who don't share that privilege in the sense that you are more likely to succeed in life and enjoy the benefits granted to you by society without worrying about your skin color being an obstacle. And that's a good thing! Because when people continue to be in denial of their privilege(s), they're not likely to want to do anything to address the injustices and they'll continue to be blind to what's really going in this reality, thus not granting the unprivileged a chance to be on equal grounds with them. And the problem is that when the unprivileged fight for their rights, they're hated and despised even more by the privileged. So there really is no easy quick fix solution here.

In an ideal world, I'd all for equal opportunity rather than equal outcome. But in this real world, definitely not going to go for "equal opportunity" because it really can't be such (not as long as racism and racial privileges continue to be a thing).

. . . because this thread is titled "actual book discussion," so I think it's reasonable that participants in this thread be willing to actually discuss the book.

And I'm happy to do that. One need not read the book itself to participate in a discussion about the book. After all, I have you to tell you and others to tell us what is in the book.

Let me ask you-- is racism the domain exclusively of white men?  Would you say that white people are, on average, more racist than black or latino people?

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.

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

To me the definition you provide along with the statement that you can't be racist against white people means that white people cannot be in systemically oppressed groups.

I remember dating a white Syrian woman who was always worried about her family back home, if her family was ok and talking about oppression by the government.  Gypsies often claim systemic oppression, newspapers at least in the UK report what they call racist attacks against these white people.