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

[bennyboy]

Look at how the English would mow down entire fields full of Indians with their shiny new machine guns, and it's not hard to see how this privilege was arrived at.

Umm... the first machine gun (the Gatling Gun) was invented in 1862 and was first used by Union forces during the American Civil War, long after the British were the ones killing the Native Americans. Firearms, maybe, but not machine guns.

The movie Ghandi lied to me?  Noooooooo.

[Rev. Rye]

Okay, even in that case, my point still stands as the British would only have used machine guns well after they “earned their privilege.” Although, of course, that’s far less because of some moral high ground and more because Richard Gatling didn’t invent it until the third and final stage of British rule over India, 250 years after the East India Company started to take over the area.

[bennyboy]

Intellectual enlightenment is often an outcome of having wealth and living a life of luxury, rather than a cause.

Yep, it's another one of those two-sides-of-the-coin situations.

If everything stays the same as it is now, of course black people wouldn't be proportionally represented in this overly simplistic scenario, and all because of such things as white privilege. The whole system needs change from bottom to top, not just impose an artificial enforcement (which, for now, is good enough nevertheless).

Change how? Don't be racist anymore?

It's a nice idea, but how would actual rules and action work?

[paulpablo]

Not only that, we get the best technology because a history of wealth and intellectual enlightenment has put us ahead.

Intellectual enlightenment is often an outcome of having wealth and living a life of luxury, rather than a cause.

The reason the dutch in South Africa established themselves as the local power was because they had a competitive advantage in every regard-- money, technology, communication, and so on.  Look at how the English would mow down entire fields full of Indians with their shiny new machine guns, and it's not hard to see how this privilege was arrived at.

Let's not forget they are also white.

And there's a problem with your idea.  There's already affirmative action in schools in the US.  What happens when you remove that artificial enforcement, and just let each kid apply on his or her own "merits and skills," and you find out that black people aren't proportionally represented?

If everything stays the same as it is now, of course black people wouldn't be proportionally represented in this overly simplistic scenario, and all because of such things as white privilege. The whole system needs change from bottom to top, not just impose an artificial enforcement (which, for now, is good enough nevertheless).

If you don't think it's instinct, then take a couple dozen kids in a room, and throw in about 100 red bouncy-balls and one green one.  Any guesses what's going to happen?  (hint: better have a first-aid kit ready)

Not sure. Could go any direction. Need to know more details.

---

It's nowhere near as significant.  It's all to do with what other people value.  The amount of people who value race over wealth is statistically insignificant.  A rich white person can buy up property in black majority places in Africa (he might have the disadvantage of being more of a target to crime or some type of con)  Nigerians who are rich enough buy up high end value property in London.  And they will face consequences of not being a majority race in London.
I can't think of a disadvantage a non white rich person faces unless they don't have the other privilege Jordan Peterson spoke of which is important, majority privilege.  For white privilege to have any effect it needs to be because someone values whiteness as superior.  This might happen in African countries for black people to value whiteness over their own race but in those rare circumstances I suspect it goes back to the other privilege of them valuing wealth.  Or they might just be black and racist against their own kind.

Note the subtle readiness to blame black people for their misfortunes instead of acknowledging that these misfortunes occur partly because of the racist attitudes against them by white people.

Almost everything you said here is contradicted by reality.

Which bit is blaming black people and which bits specifically contradict reality?

Glancing over what I said there's no unique thing I said about black people that doesn't apply to white people.

The privilege of wealth benefits black people in a white majority location and vice versa.
White people will face consequences of not having majority privilege in a non white majority country and vice versa.

[GrandizerII]

Okay, even in that case, my point still stands as the British would only have used machine guns well after they “earned their privilege.”

When I first saw this statement, I was like when did benny say that they "earned their privilege"? Then I went back to reread that post of his and it does seem like as if he was saying that they did earn that privilege. Anyway ...

Benny, I came here to elaborate a little on how full of shit Peterson is, not on how I can fix the problems of this world. People were in doubt when women started to fight for their rights to vote, and when folks wanted to get rid of slavery. And they had similar arguments to the one you're making.

And in today's American politics, we hear quite a bit of "pie in the sky" arguments as well regarding certain "nice ideas" for healthcare and college education and minimum wage. These arguments often (but not always) coming from folks who secretly don't want these policies to be implemented but pretend they care just to "save face". Republicans especially do this quite a lot (though some Democrats are guilty of this as well).

But again, I'm not here to provide solutions to the world's biggest problems. One ideal way is to raise awareness that privileges such as white privilege is a thing to take serious consideration of, because when enough people acknowledge that this is a thing, then enough people will acknowledge that radical change needs to occur in order to eradicate (or further minimize) racist attitudes. However, as I said before, this isn't going to be happening anytime soon, as a lot more time is needed for humankind to mature enough to get to such a point. We only just started to accept marriage equality when this was not the case at all in the past, and this took a major change in collective societal attitude for this to occur.

To Paul, you were all too willing to say black people are racist against their own kind after putting in effort to deny white privilege is a thing of significance. I just found that very curious. Then again, I still remember the exchanges you had with abaris on topics like this, so to be honest, it doesn't surprise at all that you would go out of your way to argue against the significance of white privilege and white racism (which, btw, is not the same as white privilege).

And, again, you're repeating statements that just aren't true. And I have already addressed some of them. It's just not true that white privilege doesn't play much of a role in the domain of real estate purchase/rent or in other domains. Please do some serious reading on this subject, and don't just let your biases get the better of you. It's ok to acknowledge that you are privileged because of the color of your skin, your world is not going to end if you do.

[Rev. Rye]

Okay, even in that case, my point still stands as the British would only have used machine guns well after they “earned their privilege.”

When I first saw this statement, I was like when did benny say that they "earned their privilege"? Then I went back to reread that post of his and it does seem like as if he was saying that they did earn that privilege.

Technically on some level they did, but "earned" implies a level of honestly meriting that privilege and not getting it because you conquered a less technologically advanced group. Perhaps "seized" is a better word? Seriously, if we stop assuming the world is a just place where things are the way they are because those in power have proven themselves legitimately more deserving that power, things would make a lot more sense. I mean, there's a reason that, if I have to say something like that, I tend to add a "why, yes, that does suck" at the end. I know how to differentiate between "what is good" and "what is happening and not likely to change because the people in power aren't likely to let it."

[GrandizerII]

Yeah, Benny is clearly a bright guy, but I don't get the impression that he is bothered much that there are people less fortunate who are struggling because men in power won't bother to fix the problems they themselves have contributed to and worsened.

[Rev. Rye]

Yeah, Benny is clearly a bright guy, but I don't get the impression that he is bothered much that there are people less fortunate who are struggling because men in power won't bother to fix the problems they themselves have contributed to and worsened.

Yeah, I’m the first to admit I don’t have much faith anymore in the forces of good defeating the forces of evil, or even being all that different from them deep down, but I still have the presence of mind to not think “well, these unjust hierarchies are a good thing.” Inevitable, perhaps, and certainly difficult to take down, but not good by any means.

I’m pessimistic to a fault and maybe fatalistic (if fatalism technically encompasses the idea that what’s fated is still terrible), but I still understand that there’s a lot of people getting ground underfoot by all this horseshit we live in and it’s not a good thing.

[GrandizerII]

Yeah, Benny is clearly a bright guy, but I don't get the impression that he is bothered much that there are people less fortunate who are struggling because men in power won't bother to fix the problems they themselves have contributed to and worsened.

Yeah, I’m the first to admit I don’t have much faith anymore in the forces of good defeating the forces of evil, or even being all that different from them deep down, but I still have the presence of mind to not think “well, these unjust hierarchies are a good thing.” Inevitable, perhaps, and certainly difficult to take down, but not good by any means.

I’m pessimistic to a fault and maybe fatalistic (if fatalism technically encompasses the idea that what’s fated is still terrible), but I still understand that there’s a lot of people getting ground underfoot by all this horseshit we live in and it’s not a good thing.

Well, I'm a bit of a cynic myself in the sense that I don't think that we have what it takes to fix much shit up at this stage of the species "life span" (I mean, too many people in denial of their privilege is just one of the many attitudinal problems of this world), but I do believe that at some point far beyond our lifetimes, "we" will get to a point that we currently consider to be too ideal to actually occur.

[Rev. Rye]

That may be, but that’s still far beyond our lifetimes.