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

[GrandizerII]

No, it isn't those other things. It really is white privilege.

For context, this is what Peterson argues:


He is saying that this thing we call white privilege isn't anything like that at all, but is really "majority privilege" because he can't fucking accept that race has something to do with it all (and because he's a fucking idiot). I don't know why you're making it out that he is only applying this "majority privilege" phrase to one or two examples of what some person listed.

What you're quoting him saying is his response to some examples someone listed, so that's why I'm making it out to be that.

Other than that I don't know about what he's said, I've seen the same thing you've quoted which is what I made it out to be.

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.

[paulpablo]

What you're quoting him saying is his response to some examples someone listed, so that's why I'm making it out to be that.

Other than that I don't know about what he's said, I've seen the same thing you've quoted which is what I made it out to be.

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.

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.  

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. 

There was a list like this posted quite a long time ago that was just as ridiculous.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-30515.h...=privilege

[The Grand Nudger]

Again, white privilege is a list of assets that a person has by being identified as white that even their economic peers do not.

Imagine me, and black me.  We both drive the same car.  We both work for the same pay at the same job.  We both went to the same school.  We live in the same neighborhood with identical cookie cutter houses.

Is white me or black me more likely to be pulled over?  Is white me or black me more likely to be fined higher? You know the answer, and you can put those two things into the list of assets that my being identified as white grants me over my otherwise identical peer. There are plenty of things that people might put on a list and call white privilege that really aren't. Notice that in the thread you found instructive...I pointed out that I wasn't getting those privileges.

Since they aren't..however, arguing against them is emphatically -not- addressing white privilege.

[bennyboy]

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)

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.

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.

For more evidence, we can look at every non-white country, and see if they are just living out their lives peaceably, what with not being oppressive white savages and all. And nope-- we can see two things: 1) race has nothing to do with the instinct to establish power-- if anything, it's worse in Africa, the Middle East and so on than in the US; 2) Western cultures have produced countries which lean far more toward equality and fairness than others have throughout history.

Now, look at predominantly black areas in the US. Do churches have power structures? Gangs? PTA meetings? Yep. As soon as you get two people in a room, they are going to start jostling for position.

As soon as you get two males in a room, they are likely to start flexing, verbally and possibly even physically. And if you get 7 billion people doing this, some will end up with a heck of a lot of privilege, and many we be slaves, either literally or practically.

This is important to understand because EVEN IF we tore the White Oppressor ™ from his supposed throne, and murdered every white person on the face of the planet, the result would be. . . you'd wake up and there'd be a strong-armed power hierarchy in place again, and you (statistically speaking) would most likely be at the bottom of it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Every organized group of humans (and lobsters, OMG the OP it LIVES!!!) will form a power hierarchy

They will, but this is no excuse for the institution of structural racism as expressed by white privilege, for example.  It's just flat out stating that people are prone to do shit like this. Yeah, no shit, that's why white privilege exists. The group at the top of the power hierarchy has amassed a set of tangible benefits conferred by identification with their group. Not by merit, not by earning it, not by having enough money. Identification with their group.

Saying "it happens, it's natural" is not a defense or a justification or an explanation. Yes, we know it happens. Christ. It doesn't have to, it doesn't fit our values, and the fact that power hierarchies arise doesn't say anything about how we should seek to arrange them when they do. I think that you and I can both agree that when a power hierarchy is explicitly and structural racist, shit has gone awry and needs to be fixed. What's not helpful, are wheedling excuses by way of lobsters and pretending they don't exist but are simultaneously natural.

[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.

[bennyboy]

Every organized group of humans (and lobsters, OMG the OP it LIVES!!!) will form a power hierarchy

They will, but this is no excuse for the institution of structural racism as expressed by white privilege, for example.  It's just flat out stating that people are prone to do shit like this.  Yeah, no shit, that's why white privilege exists.  The group at the top of the power hierarchy has amassed a set of tangible benefits conferred by identification with their group. Not by merit, not by earning it, not by having enough money.  Identification with their group.

That's right, and it's a problem. Many hording money and resources now don't have the same attributes of success that their grandfathers (for example) had. So the money grows stagnant, leading to a huge loss of potential productivity.

It seems to me that fitter individuals might arrive at the conclusion that those less fit rich people (thinking the rich trust-fund babies who buy a Porsche for every color of shoes they like wearing or whatever) should be challenged for those resources.

And while I say that if you removed the power hierarchy, a new one would turn up, I'd say two things: 1) the new hierarchy would be more closely mapped to real power-- maybe intelligence, maybe strength of character, maybe just a willingness to kill. For sure, it wouldn't be a bunch of rich fops taking selfies next to golden fucking cars all day.

Saying "it happens, it's natural" is not a defense or a justification or an explanation.  Yes, we know it happens.  Christ.  It doesn't have to, it doesn't fit our values, and the fact that power hierarchies arise doesn't say anything about how we should seek to arrange them when they do.  I think that you and I can both agree that when a power hierarchy is explicitly and structural racist, shit has gone awry and needs to be fixed.  What's not helpful, are wheedling excuses by way of lobsters and pretending they don't exist but are simultaneously natural.

First of all, power doesn't need any defense or justification. It only needs to be able to fight off challengers, or to sufficiently threaten challengers that they don't bother.

I wasn't being flippant when I said black people should use the killings of innocent kids as a pretext for taking over police stations or staging an insurrection. And I wasn't joking when I said I had hoped Occupy Wall Street would end up with a few bankers swinging from lamp posts. I say let those in power have their character tested-- see if they have the strength of personality, or the actual ability, to stand as King-of-the-Castle when it seems like to cost them their lives.

---

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. The Mongolian empire had Mongolian privilege, the Roman empire had Roman privilege, and the big-clawed-lobster has big-clawed-lobster privilege.

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!"

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

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.

Have you read the book? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you haven't. 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. 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.

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.

[paulpablo]

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.

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.

[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).

[paulpablo]

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.

---

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.

And going back to what Jordan Peterson is saying, wealth and being a racial majority are more important in relation to the things mentioned in that list.

A white and black clone go to buy a house, wealth is a more important to the seller of that house than race.

Skin colour won't directly get you the privilage of buying the nicer house.