I don't mean to pick on just you here with my rambling, Crankus, but what bothers me the most about the idea of white privilege, and indeed privilege in itself, is the tendency of those who believe in it to focus almost entirely on macro examples. — Buxtebuddha
Nobody but you said anything about epidemic levels. — andrewk
I think the major factors are fear, poor training and lack of psychological screening. — andrewk
More made-up irrelevant nonsense. Nowhere did I say that police who shoot blacks are all white, or even predominantly white.Good, progress. Notice these things have nothing to do with being white. — Thorongil
Sorry, but racism isn't anywhere near the most significant factor in why police shoot some black people. It's noteworthy, however, that you attribute the mere fact of a black man being shot by a police officer to racism. Do you realize how insane that is? — Thorongil
Sure, it's just clickbait, just like my own thread title - a marketing element.But I think the phrase 'the lie of white privilege' is silly. — andrewk
The problem here is that I don't think that being white, in and of itself, prevents a stranger from abusing you on the bus. First of all, it depends on the geographical area we're talking about. And it also depends on many other features - if you have something that stands out - a weird looking nose, etc. - you may get people abusing you, regardless of your skin color. If you're a super big, muscular, strong and tough-looking black guy, you most likely won't get people abusing you on the bus. That's why I say that it really depends - we can't frame it as "white" privilege, as if this sort of privilige belonged only to whites and not people of other skin colors too. I think that, instead, it ought to be framed as being a decent human being and not abusing others, regardless of why the perpetrators claim to do it.White privilege is simply not having to wonder whether a stranger will suddenly start to abuse you on the bus, just because of what you look like. — andrewk
Yeah, that is probably right, the US is a strange society in that regard.In the US it is also not having to fear a police officer every time one comes near, that they may stop and search you, or even shoot you, because of what you look like. One would have to live under a rock to think that such a privilege does not exist. — andrewk
I would say that over time the hierarchy always shifts towards competency. This doesn't mean that there cannot be cases, some of them even for hundreds of years, when incompetent people maintain positions of power. That is quite frequent - look at Justin Trudeau - no competency, he's there just because of his father.-How do you know the hierarchy is based on competency? Most people stay within their income bracket (and near where there parents were). So it could be that nearly everyone is incompetent, but it seems more likely that those who held power (whether political or economic) in the past has a strong relationship with who has it in the future. I'll just let you know that white people did not eliminate nepotism, not from politics nor in economics. — MindForged
Hierarchies cannot be eliminated, but sure, they can be changed.-Even if it is in fact the case that hierarchies cannot be eliminated, that does not entail that no specific hierarchy cannot be eliminated. Nor does competency need to entail privilege unless you are just something like social Darwinist ("those who succeed are the ones who are competent" seems to fit the bill) — MindForged
Sure.-So wait, you do acknowledge the existence of the Bourgeoisie??? Marxists define (it's not the full definition) that as the class which by whatever means necessary perpetuates their ownership of the means of production. — MindForged
Yeah, I excluded it because corruption is a problem and needs to be addressed separately from whether or not someone is successful in their business. Someone can be successful without being corrupt.-Oh, lol, so we just exclude corruption? Hm, I guess when businesses (all of the most successful of which) sprinkle campaign donations on dozens of politicians we can just exclude that as counting against the idea of them being competent (otherwise they needn't manipulate the political process to their benefit by using their money). — MindForged
Actually, he held the dialectical view, that advances in thinking and advances in production go hand in hand, and one spurs the other. Quantitative progress leading to qualitative progress in a loop sort of way. And sure, I agree with that view. When new possibilities of behaviour open up (that's what new technology does), then thinking changes to take those into account, which again opens up new possibilities of technology, etc. etc.Didn't Marx hold that advances in production, technology, and so on would result in new kinds of thinking? — Bitter Crank
The issue is precisely that the left campaigns on these points - they may not be responsible for them, but they certainly create unrest and add fuel to the fires. The left as it exists today, not the left in principle, because remember, I am somewhat left-leaning too as the many political tests I've done 1 year or so ago illustrate.Somehow, I don't think most members of "the left" who you consider to be behind all these identity schemes would recognize a communist or a socialist if their lives depended on it. It's a strange kind of Marxism, if you ask me -- perverse. — Bitter Crank
I think that the underlying issue is that people have grown accustomed to (or perhaps are forced to?) sell their labour instead of sell what they produce. For many, that is because they never learned how to produce anything. The social environment does a lot of harm here since it trains people to be handicapped. Basically, from the moment you enter the gates of your school, you are trained to sell your labour, not the products of your labour. You are told to stay in the schooling system, follow the path they lay out for you, get that degree, or get that job they help you to get, etc. You are never told "listen, you have useful things to give for society. You must concentrate on producing what is useful for your fellow human beings" - no, the message is always to trade your labour for money, instead of your products for money.It isn't the case that Marx focussed on conflict between haves and have nots: He focussed on the conflict between producers and owners -- the working class and the bourgeoisie. The WRONG that Marx identified wasn't that some people had more than others, it was that those who produce all wealth (the workers) do not benefit proportionately, and that those who benefit DISPROPORTIONATELY (the bourgeoisie) do no work at all. EDIT: They perform work putting things together, but once assembled, they hire people to make sure it stays put together. — Bitter Crank
I wouldn't say that those people aren't destructive once they exit University. Their attitudes influence elections, they influence workplace environments, and so on.Another thing we have to take into account about Peterson is his milieu: Peterson is a college professor. College campus are exactly the kind of place where one would expect ideological excess because on campus are thousands of students (well... hundreds, anyway) who are anxious to try on radical new theories in a relatively safe environment (they are, after all, paying customers).
The wannabe radicals may be right, wrong, or not even wrong, but they can't, don't, and won't affect society very much. Once they get out of college and get hired to work in a large corporation, they will find they are not allowed anywhere close to the levers of power. If they attempt college stunts at work they are likely to get fired.
Peterson has perhaps been overly influenced by what happens on his (and other) campuses. It's a very lively but unrepresentative school playground. — Bitter Crank
I would say that over time the hierarchy always shifts towards competency. This doesn't mean that there cannot be cases, some of them even for hundreds of years, when incompetent people maintain positions of power. That is quite frequent - look at Justin Trudeau - no competency, he's there just because of his father.
Many people look at things in this way, but it's just a short-term thing. It's not sustainable - and when I say sustainable, I'm referring to the fact that it's not sustainable over many generations.
Regarding the concrete example you provided. Statistically, people may stay within their income bracket, but that isn't what interests me. What interests me is the possibility of moving from one income bracket to another. That isn't something that you can assess statistically because it presupposes that all people (or at least most people) are willing to do what it takes and desire to move from one income bracket to another. And of course, this just isn't true. Most people grow comfortable in their income bracket over time, and this is a personal observation I've made.
I never said competency entails privilege. But competency naturally translates in greater power to influence your surrounding environment. That's why things fell apart in the Eastern Soviet bloc, because people were promoted solely based on political connections and ideological reasons, and not on competence. Such a structure cannot survive in the long-run.
Yes, the Marxists claim that the bourgeoisie maintain a certain social and economic structure because they are the ones who have power, and since it benefits them, they use their power in that direction. But as Peterson explains in the video, it's not power, but competency, that allows them to be the privileged social class. There is a hierarchy, hierarchies cannot be eliminated, and that hierarchy is based on competency. The bourgeois are at the top because they have shown themselves to be the most competent at taking care of their society.
Yeah, I excluded it because corruption is a problem and needs to be addressed separately from whether or not someone is successful in their business. Someone can be successful without being corrupt.
More made-up irrelevant nonsense. Nowhere did I say that police who shoot blacks are all white, or even predominantly white. — andrewk
White privilege is simply not having to wonder whether a stranger will suddenly start to abuse you on the bus, just because of what you look like. In the US it is also not having to fear a police officer every time one comes near, that they may stop and search you, or even shoot you, because of what you look like. — andrewk
Are you suggesting that despite a 99% confidence in the statistical significance, the fact that they're black is just a coincidence? — Pseudonym
Well, it's a difference of attitude. One claims that suffering is part and parcel of the nature of existence as we experience it now, and thus cannot be eliminated completely (it can only be fought against, held at bay, etc.) while the other party thinks that someone is responsible for the badness of existence, and if those people or agents are removed, then existence will be good.Can you expand on this? — Noble Dust
There were no admissions. You're making stuff up again.These are excellent admissions. — Thorongil
So I think there is a cold, dark despair lurking in America’s collective heart about the whole thing.
White people are largely invisible to themselves in a way that different toned ethenticities can never be. I don't think many white people consider themselves privileged because their view of themselves in aggregate is too entwined in the culture they dominate. — Cavacava
White fathers worry about their children too but they don't have this kind of worry. White people are largely invisible to themselves in a way that different toned ethenticities can never be. I don't think many white people consider themselves privileged because their view of themselves in aggregate is too entwined in the culture they dominate. — Cavacava
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.