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

[bennyboy]

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.

I'll spare you the narrative right now, but I've had a life that would be considered pretty rough by almost anyone's standards. Be careful before you start telling me about the "often unfair advantages over people" that I have had bequeathed to me due to my status as a white person.

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.

It sounds like you are suggesting that some individuals should be treated differently than other individuals, predicated not on their personal merit or abilities, but on the color of their skin and the group membership this automatically implies. I recognize this as a position of the PC left, and I discard it on the basis that it is prejudicial, and not fit for consideration in a society that pretends to principles of equal treatment.

[GrandizerII]

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.

I'll spare you the narrative right now, but I've had a life that would be considered pretty rough by almost anyone's standards.  Be careful before you start telling me about the "often unfair advantages over people" that I have had bequeathed to me due to my status as a white person.

I hope that's not a threat.

I don't doubt for a second that you've had it rough. It still doesn't change the fact that you have privilege by cirtue of your skin color. Doesn't mean you will necessarily exercise them whenever you want, but at least your skin color doesn't get in the way of you reaching for your goals, am I right?

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.

It sounds like you are suggesting that some individuals should be treated differently than other individuals, predicated not on their personal merit or abilities, but on the color of their skin.

Uh, I don't think that's a fair interpretation of what I said in that quote.

[bennyboy]

It sounds like you are suggesting that some individuals should be treated differently than other individuals, predicated not on their personal merit or abilities, but on the color of their skin.

Uh, I don't think that's a fair interpretation of what I said in that quote.

Last time I checked, "black" and "white" were colors.

I believe that an egalitarian society should provide equal protections for all citizens without regard to the color of their skin. But while you and I both agree that racism is one of the forms of prejudice from which a citizen should be protected, you have expressly defined racism in such a way that some individuals will fall under protection from race-based prejudice, and some will not-- and this difference in protection you've predicated not on individual merit or abilities, but on skin color.

I do not endorse any political position which expresses intent to treat individual citizens differently based on their racial identity.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, we certainly think that people should be treated differently based upon a history of endemic and institutional discrimination.  By we, I mean we the people, at least oifficially.

That's what a protected class is.  That's what civil rights legislation is for.

One wonders why we would need it if there weren't.....you know...a history of endemic and institutional discrimination.

Privilege being the polar opposite of discrimination, yadda yadda yadda.

[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.

[The Grand Nudger]

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

What is racism and how does it work!?!

1 not white.
2 not white.
3 not white.

You're welcome.

#Trivia! One of the more amusing things that 23 and me has found, completely by happenstance..is that people do not identify as a minority until they reach very nearly 30% non n. european genetics.
(in n. america, that is, no clue what weirdos do elsewhere)

[paulpablo]

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

What is racism and how does it work!?!

1 not white.
2 not white.
3 not white.

You're welcome.

#Trivia!  One of the more amusing things that 23 and me has found, completely by happenstance..is that people do not identify as a minority until they reach very nearly 30% non n. european genetics.
(in n. america, that is, no clue what weirdos do elsewhere)

Surely if a white person can be born in Syria then a white Syrian can exist.

[The Grand Nudger]

What is racism and how does it work!?!

1 not white.
2 not white.
3 not white.

You're welcome.

#Trivia!  One of the more amusing things that 23 and me has found, completely by happenstance..is that people do not identify as a minority until they reach very nearly 30% non n. european genetics.
(in n. america, that is, no clue what weirdos do elsewhere)

Surely if a white person can be born in Syria then a white Syrian can exist.

A syrian muslim is nonwhite according to white racists.  Racism is not based upon any biological or geographical fact of ethnicity.

I know that you know this. I know that you don't actually need racism explained to you as though it were a black box you had never before encountered. You can imagine how tedious this gets?

[paulpablo]

Surely if a white person can be born in Syria then a white Syrian can exist.

A syrian muslim is nonwhite according to white racists.  Racism is not based upon any biological or geographical fact of ethnicity.

I know that you know this.  I know that you don't actually need racism explained to you as though it were a black box you had never before encountered.  You can imagine how tedious this gets?

So all white racists agree that Syrian Muslims are non white, was there a vote?

[bennyboy]

Racism is not based upon any biological or geographical fact of ethnicity.

Really? Then on whose behalf are you fighting?