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

[GrandizerII]

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.

You can insert the dominant demographic in any situation, and put the word "privilege" after it.

No shit, but this doesn't address what makes privileged groups "dominant" in the first place.

But on what basis should those in power be expected not to act on it? If there really IS white privilege, why shouldn't every white person say, "Wow man. Thank God I was born white, my life is fantastic!"

Because it makes one a shit person to only think about oneself, and fuck the sufferings of others. Plus, the world would be heaps better when everyone is happy and living a productive life, and all are treated with basic dignity and respect (not just a select few).

That's the part in all this discussion that nobody has ever brought up-- if it IS white oppression, and if black people can't or won't challenge that oppression, then what of it?

Black people have been doing this for quite a while now. Where have you been, man?

Is there something intrinsically wrong with taking advantage of favorable circumstances, or in preventing others from turning the tables?

Of course. Why would you want to make it difficult for others to enjoy some success in life?

The comparison made is that competition for resources is so fundamental  to the process of evolution that it is found among lobsters-- a particularly ancient species.

What's the point? No one is asking for every single human being on this planet to spread their genes around. It's about making sure all people are treated equally in society. Or, if not equally, fairly.

The interesting thing is how conflicts are mediated by behaviors to avoid harm to the participants--biochemical changes in the brains of both species that affect behaviors greatly.

I'm pretty sure lobsters don't have much of a brain, if any ...

Plus, even if they did, you do realize the same neurotransmitters can cause different bodily/behavioral changes depending on the type of receptors being acted upon, right? And between lobsters and human beings, there's a world of difference in terms of neuronal structure and functioning, so that the effects of such chemicals as serotonin are not going to be the same in lobsters as they are in human bodies.

If you doubt that humans are animals, and particular vicious and self-serving ones who will fight to the death for power, then I'd argue that you haven't met enough humans.  This "complex nervous system," in the end, is mainly used as a tool for communicating new ways in which to establish and maintain genetic fitness-- justifying oppression, triggering challenges, getting women pregnant, and so on.

I'm sorry that you feel this way, but let's be accurate here. Humans are of course animals, but it's not like their brains are purely "reptilian". We are advanced primates with a highly complex nervous system that cannot be dismissed so easily as just a tool to act like vicious beasts. We have evolved to a point that we can really think about the things we do, and we can (and should) do better as a result.

---

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.


Here's what she actually said, for context:


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.

The things she lists, such as buying a nice house,  resulting from privilege are without a doubt not directly from white skin colour.

Non white people own nicer houses than her so there has to be other factors involved.
If whiteness directly resulted in owning the best property there would be no non white people owning any nice property.

I think this is why she includes other factors as being intertwined, purely because saying people get a nice house directly as a result of being white is ridiculous.

No one, including her, is arguing that being white means you will always live a better life than people who aren't.

White privilege means, that all else equal (this is a key phrase here that you keep ignoring over and over again), you are statistically more likely to enjoy benefits in life than your equal who happens to not be white. It means you are less likely to experience obstacles to success that are faced by other groups, all because you are perceived as white.

Do not think in absolutes, because no one is speaking in absolutes. This is all statistics talk, nothing more.

And yes, intertwined with other factors, of course. A white woman will have white privilege, but because of her sex, will not have male privilege, and so is less likely to enjoy the benefits enjoyed by her equal male counterpart (this counterpart could even be a black man instead of white).