Premise after premise of yours, I disagree with. It's not just that I'm interested in less race-based solutions but that I see your race-based framing as being unreasonable and at times simply incorrect.

Talking about white privilege is required in order to understand the effects/affects of racism. The removal of white privilege would effectively be and/or signal the end of racism. That does not require taking anything away from white people. It requires cultivating a society where white privilege no longer exists because no one suffers the effects/affects and/or injuries stemming from racism. — creativesoul

I disagree with it all, I accept you don't see it that way but I thought that's where the discussion was. Now, I accept a response like Banno's where he has basically said, he doesn't find my reasoning compelling, his answer is better and he's satisfied with that conclusion. Most debates are going to more or less end that way and I always expect that conclusion.

I have broadened my understanding of the different ways in which white privilege is being applied and defended. Not a useless conversation.

The differences in our perspective are great enough that despite agreeing in the reality of systemic racism and the moral importance of resolving the issues it caused, I am as fearful of what you might propose based on your framing as I am of inaction. Where you see black people, I see people, where you see inequity, I see poverty. The injustice here doesn't need to be described in racial terms and I think that's our fundamental disagreement.

I disagree with some of the responses here, inaction can be morally wrong but the key issue is responsibility. As a bystander of an accident, you are likely one of the few people who can render potentially critical assistance. For some, this could mean that you have a responsibility to help. In other situations, perhaps it's because someone is a relative or a friend, so you should help. A responsibility to help a stranger who you've never met or would meet unless you tried to find them to give them help, almost nobody argues for that.

Actually, they do and it's called politics but that's politics so it doesn't count.

My interest in the subjective/objective framing is to distinguish between what @Number2018 has called "brute facts" and pretty much everything else. The importance of which is how it is relevant to my approach to understanding it. So if you drink coffee every morning then the claim that you do can be verified by the evidence alone. If the claim is that you like coffee then crucial elements of this statement are not verified by the evidence alone, it's not a brute fact. So I have come to like this framing, clearly signifying the dependence of the fact on institutions of thought.

Then with "social facts" for instance, we can see that although evidence alone is not sufficient for verification, to call it a matter of taste is simply unreasonable. Because someone born into an environment where this social fact exists is going to have a really tough time doing anything except accepting it although exceptions may apply. I suppose that other categories help to signify the nature of the claim and how it is NOT merely a matter of taste. It is just a very helpful framing which really embodies what I see as the correct way to see things.

What do you think about this?

Thx for the kind words and for accepting the apology.

Fair enough, you've shown there was an argument and my criticism was wrong.

@JerseyFlight and @Banno I apologise for my comments, I said there was no argument but I think I was being self-serving with my logic here, that or, perhaps didn't fairly assess what I was reading.

I think you completely misunderstood or misinterpreted what I tried to outline. My intention was to prioritize impersonal, collective social processes. In principal, I do not think that the process of formation of one’s opinion functions like processing ‘bits of information’. Bits of information, mere or brute facts, proceeding bits of information, are just virtual concepts, abstractions, isolated pieces of various conceptualizations, taken out of the determinant social contexts. — Number2018

Yes, I would agree that it doesn't really happen like that, I misunderstood, I could see how in some small contexts my response could be applicable but I don't think in general that things should be thought of that way. I didn't really mean to say that we input information and output opinion or anything like that. Since I misunderstood your intent, I will just leave it at that.

You assume that terms (a man) are primary, and relations (angriness as a relation between a man and his behaviour) is secondary. On the contrary, I think that the terms of the relation are completely undetermined until they enter into a particular relation: a man without emotion is a nonsensical being.
Further, if we start from a man as an essential fact, we should suppose a man's identity as a matter of an Ideal Essence, which is then somehow instantiated on the worldly plane. — Number2018

True, a man without emotion is nonsensical but even if we agreed on what anger is, the characterisation in reality functions without accordance with reality. You could say that I seem angry right now and I could reasonably deny it. It is not about primary and secondary. It's about how characterisations can be more or less contentious, it's about who has the authority to make the judgement.

In general, people do not distinguish between social facts and brute facts, but the identification of a complex social fact as a mere fact, and the processes of recognition are impossible without the inscription of the status of truth. — Number2018

Yes, of course.

When you state a fact, you (most often implicitly) effectuate some system (arrangement) of truth. — Number2018

I see. I mostly thought of the arrangement of truth as being more explicitly stated, consciously understood. Logically, I see what you're saying, the same explanation you gave of the social fact of money and how acknowledging the item means acknowledging the system. Truths are acknowledged and must also acknowledge a system and that system can be called an arrangement of truth. Is that correct?

The worldview cannot be separated from the results of socially determined processes of normative recognition. One lives life as grounded on a set of essential (true) social facts. Yet, any recognition or identification results from operations of socio-political institutions and apparatuses, incorporating and applying various regimes (arrangements) of truth. — Number2018

So you are saying that because one's worldview depends on social facts and social facts depend on an implied arrangement of truth and this arrangement of truth is determined by various social, economic and political factors, we can see these factors as restricting our capacity for types of worldviews? Influencing how we see things? Is that correct?

Any social fact that we accept and recognize as an accurate and correct is the product of particular arrangements' operations. When you merely start with the facts' truth, you run a risk of the unintentional effectuation of the hidden 'ideological' assemblage. — Number2018

I hope I have the above correct and that I now understand you properly. If so, then you've taken the concept in a very interesting direction. I need time to think about it and to see a response validating my interpretation.

To try to dismiss the problem of racist outcomes by saying that people should just "smarten up" and stop believing in race is like saying that the solution for our economic problems is for people to just stop believing in money. It is not that simple or surgical. Few people are able to cherry-pick their worldview in this way. — Pro Hominem

I do agree and have argued similarly to the rest of your points, just to make clear that my opposition to the white privilege framing isn't just because reinforces the importance of race. So the rest of your post, I agree with but obviously, you have highlighted this disagreement so I'll respond.

The white privilege framing isn't responsible for nor is alone responsible for holding up the importance of race, it's a small piece of what does that and so let's avoid hyperbole. My condemnation of this aspect of the framing is a component of my stance against emphasising the importance of race, which I consider to be a more important issue than whether people talk about white privilege or not. So I condemn it wherever I see it and you have to start somewhere.

Increasing the minimum wage won't solve economic inequality but it's not reasonable to counter doing it by saying that because it's a step in the right direction. Same applies here.

Imagine we had a different term which focused on the real issues, which is not how white people are doing well but how black people aren't by the same standards, "black underprivileged" or whatever. The term targets racial inequity, can the solution to racial inequity be anything but organised around race? Conversations about reparations for slavery? Policies which discriminate based on race? Prioritising help based on race?

If it's talking about more than just racial inequity, but like creativesoul says, how black Americans have to deal with racists, they have to deal with microaggressions or whatever else. It's not just about noticing race, it's about giving a meaning to race which allows you to prejudice against people based on race. Right now, you can discriminate based on white privilege, creativesoul condemns it but that's a logical outcome of thinking this way and we've seen others go that route.

I'm not going to go through it all but based on white privilege (I don't think a black-focused term would solve this) we have so many people thinking about so many race-based solutions. You can't be blind to how politically divisive it's already been, you can't think it's going to stop anytime soon. I don't just disagree with it on a moral level, it's just politically impractical and it leads to ridiculous solutions being validated. It interferes with a justice-based humanitarian message which doesn't mention race and therefore can't be disagreed with based on your opinions on race. Which just makes things simpler.

Let me briefly address BLM, I think the message of BLM (rather than the organisation) is fair. Why? Because they are talking about discrimination against black Americans, which you can't do without talking about the blackness of the black Americans being targetted. The solution requires talking about it and the same thing applies to racial inequity. The difference here is that I am happy to directly address police brutality towards black Americans but I am not happy to directly address racial inequity.

He probably didn't read your OP, if he followed his own advice and said "don't waste your time on Peterson" without giving any reason as to why and you said his attitude was that of a higher critical intelligence and you don't see that as meaningless and shallow? You guys then discussed his impact on culture - yet you still don't have the slightest clue of why he thinks you shouldn't waste your time on Peterson. If you want to have that kind of discussion, fine.

JerseyFlight - Dun like Peterson

Me - Peterson good

Okay, let's skip the lengthy paragraphs and agree to disagree.

That thought does not have the capacity to transcend narratives, this is something one could think differently about. Without any rules, can pretty much just assert whatever right?

From the moment you made your anti-Peterson stance clear and I made my pro-Peterson stance clear, you had to have known that you couldn't take your base presuppositions for granted and expect that to fly. I will be frank, I think many of those you've agreed within this thread would not be able to paraphrase your position in a way that would satisfy you, simply because have skipped crucial steps in explaining your views. Most of the discussions you've had on this thread are really just shallow and meaningless. Two people don't like Peterson, they agree he is a bad influence on people, the end.

My advice: don't waste any time on Jordan Peterson, whether as criticism or not. Better off digging a ditch and filling it back up. — Xtrix

This is indeed the proper and initial response, but there is a serious problem here. The attitude you embody, though it truly does come from a place of higher critical intelligence, fails to see that Peterson is doing damage in culture. Whether one likes it or not, he has become relevant, people are influenced by him, they look up to him and see him as the very thing he is not, an intellectual example. When intellectuals like yourself withdraw from the advancing public discourse, the narrative is lost to people like Peterson, it regresses. What is required is an intellectual fight. Those who actually read literature across the domain of the social sciences, know that this fella is a charlatan, the problem is that we expect other people to know it as well, but they cannot connect the dots. In the shadow of religion's collapse many have become Nihilistic, they feel the weight of reality without the crutch of God. Peterson comes along and says, "don't worry, I feel the same Nihilism that you do, but I have real answers, I know the way forward." Tragically, his answers are entirely reactionary, conformity to authority, "go back to the old slave masters and you will feel safe again." People are so intellectually bankrupt and frightened that they will take anything they can get, hence the strong man doctrine, hence a return to authority, the mindless affirmation of delusion on the basis of pragmatism: religion, because it helps us cope with our Nihilistic feelings of terror. — JerseyFlight

There is no previous response from Xtrix, really, this is what you are responding to. "Don't waste any time on Jordan Peterson".

From this you assert:
1. Proper initial response but there is a serious problem here
2. The attitude you embody, though it truly does come from a place of higher critical intelligence fails to see that Peterson is doing damage in culture
3. Xtrix is an intellectual withdrawing from the advancing public discourse

Can you see how utterly meaningless and pathetically shallow your response is? You have absolutely no idea what Xtrix thinks about Peterson, there's a fair chance he didn't even read your OP and just said "fuck Peterson" because he saw the thread title. The basis of your agreement is so shallow that all subsequent conversation between the two of you is a joke because neither of you could even attempt to paraphrase the position of the other, you don't even know the extent of your agreement or disagreement. It is reasonable to assume that I think Newton is a man and men are mortal and so you don't have to explain it.

Going back to the comments you made to me, the list of assumptions you make are just staggering, only someone who really hated Peterson could agree with your characterisations. However, because you don't explain your reasoning or make any argument for your positions, the burden of proof is shoved entirely on me to dislodge or challenge every claim you made and honestly, I can't even do that because I'm not entirely sure what you're even referring to. It's just a narrative you constructed based on your interpretation and feelings on Peterson. You are free to just rant on Peterson all you like, call those who agree with you esteemed intellectuals and those who disagree ignorant and inept but you are deluded if you think you can have an actual conversation of substance with this type of behaviour.

We agree that it can dictate any narrative, thus,

It has the capacity to transcend narratives, even to correct itself. — JerseyFlight

this too and the opposite. Wouldn't you agree?

Sure.

I did not refute my original objection but it is certainly quite similar to the response it was criticising, which I admit, there is a sense of irony to that.

Do you agree that all men are mortal? — JerseyFlight

Sure.

Yes, indeed, that is not an argument, it is just an opinion. I am not trying to have a debate with Banno, his opinions on what I said aren't of interest to me. It does seem to me that you can see the difference between argument and opinion, why then, do you need it explained? I am not saying that your argument isn't "actual" I'm saying that you've merely given your opinion without justifying it or giving your reasoning in any way. What Peterson has said that you're even characterising remains in the dark. It's basically just a narrative that you've written and you've yet to prove it has any validity or value. I don't even understand your opinion, I just know your conclusions.


Difficulty dealing with what? Your argument is rehashed material, you should already know what I think. You say the privileged need their "privilege" pointed out but your perspective is uniquely insidious and "privilege" is a subjective characterisation, it is not a truth to be pointed out, it's based on an ideology that I reject. Then you say "Peterson reinforces and justifies privilege" full well knowing that I disagree with the privilege conceptualisation to begin with. You actually thought this was new material and that I'm having difficulty with it after we've already argued about it. I wasn't lost for words then, but you were, you had really nothing to say except to restate your beliefs. It makes me wonder why you even bother being here but then I remember the smug one-liners.

You're such a joke.

Quote the argument.

It was pretty good because you agree with it or it was a pretty good argument?

The validity of your observations and how you use them are separate things. You should never use your opinions about a class of people to inform yourself about an individual, I fail to see how your justification doesn't also justify racism, classism, sexism and any other kind of bigotry. Really, your entire response to me wasn't an argument at all, you just first questioned whether I had any idea what I was talking about, then started guessing my demographics. You've written two lengthy responses and neither of them contained any actual argumentation, just a heap of unfounded assertions and some ad hominem. If I wanted to play the same game, what could you do about it jerseyflight? How does the power of thought stack up against bigotry?

I think that thought has the power to dictate any narrative, whether it be to argue that thought itself is the superior power to any god or the opposite. As thought answers to nothing but itself.

Suppose we agree that social facts are in the cyclic relations with mere facts, and a particular arrangement of truth is crucial for the maintenance of this cycle. — Number2018

What I understand is that interpretations, characterisations and the like certainly mesh with facts by being so closely attached to the fact being interpreted or characterised, they become indistinguishable to some. The "angriness" of the man as I said in my OP becomes the angry man but that he is a man is a fact while his angriness is a characterisation of something - his behaviour, tone of voice, whatever else. Seeing as social facts are more of the same but with widespread acceptance, the same rules apply.

And the process I see you as describing is "the system does x, y, z" (brute facts)--> the system is unfair (social facts) --> what should we do about the unfair system? (mere facts). I do think that it might be sufficient to just say that brute facts + (add subjectivity) + widespread acceptance could = social fact and the social fact is not distinguished from a brute fact. After all, I don't think people often do distinguish between social facts and brute facts, that's not a widespread concept from my experience. So I may have misunderstood something because I wouldn't have said a particular arrangement of truth was crucial for this process.

The task is challenging. It is possible to assume that arrangement of truth does not merely govern our discursive practices but is also related to our behavioural patterns — Number2018

Certainly, I think what we describe as culture is in some circumstances an arrangement of truths. Our values dictate how truths are characterised, which truths are emphasised, included or excluded and likewise, an arrangement of truths is surely going to be at the heart of your worldview and to some extent helps to inform your values.

I talked a while back about a concept I believed in that I called interpretative relevance. Which said essentially that potentially relevant bits of information are weighted by individuals based on how much they're using these pieces of information to formulate their opinions. So if we decided to rate a mutual acquaintance's intelligence, even with the same information, you might rate them lowly due to how you recall them being bad at maths and I might judge them highly because I think they're articulate. Even though I knew that this person was bad at maths, that wasn't something I thought was relevant to their intelligence, so it was excluded from my interpretation.

So when you combine these two concepts (and undoubtedly more which we aren't talking about), you have your arrangement which is implicitly personal and then your usage of your arrangement to come to conclusions based on what you think is interpretatively relevant in the specific context. I think information goes through such a process to become a functioning opinion or perspective that examining this process becomes more important than anything else. As their opinion, while using their arrangement of truths and based on what they consider to be interpretatively relevant is possibly correct. So whatever impact the opinion or perspective has on their thinking, there is no reason for it to be challenged, regardless of what behaviour becomes logical or justified.

I am not sure to what extent this understanding should be used to understand the behaviour of others but I believe it should have an impact.

No, Australian.

Nice posts Creativesoul, I was looking for someone to attempt to defend the white privilege framing and finally, someone did. I have to admit, I wasn't expecting to see it but I'm pleasantly surprised. Perhaps the other thread wasn't useless after all? Particularly your post after the first is what I was looking for.

I accept the separation between how the white privilege conceptualisation can be applied. Banno mocks people and asks them to check their privilege, you are looking for a serious and respectful discussion on how racism functions. All of the instances where white privilege is used to be anti-white, to be disrespectful and hateful, are misuses and anything can be misused.

I have complained about the unpleasant consequences of calling something a "privilege" but it's an unpleasant reality and so here it might be appropriate, so let's put that aside as well. First, I'll give my comments on what you've written. then I'll write some sort of overall.

This is clearly an emotionally charged topic. It's best for white privilege to be clearly defined, because it seems that many people hereabouts and elsewhere have differing thought, beliefs, emotions, and subsequent ideas regarding it. The mere invocation of the term "white privilege" can instantly and completely change one's emotional state of mind, and that holds good for whites and non whites alike. — creativesoul

I agree, it is an emotionally charged topic, it is one where a single misstep can draw out strong emotions. Much of your response has characterised white privilege as mostly a tool for educating people on how racism functions. To look objectively at how systemic racism clearly creates a "white privilege" and this is backed up by too many experiences, too many statistics, it's just the obvious logical conclusion. What I want to do is not only separate the facts being characterised by white privilege, which I mostly see as being true but also the importance of educating people about these facts from the term white privilege.

One of the reasons is simply because we're dealing with such a difficult topic, a term which invokes a race "white privilege" possibly already makes it inappropriate. I would have as much an issue with it as if "black unluckiness" or "coloured misfortune". I really have to challenge whether "white privilege" is a good name for something which is merely supposed to educate people and whether we shouldn't try to sidestep the inevitable controversy.

White privilege is the direct, demonstrable, and inevitable result of systemic and/or institutional racism. Put simply, it is what white people do not have to deal with on a daily basis that non whites do. It is the injury because one is non white that white people avoid suffering because they are not. The negative effects/affects that racist people, policies, belief systems, and social practices created remain extant in American society. They continue to directly impact the lives and livelihoods of the people that they were originally designed to discriminate against. — creativesoul

As I said previously, we do not get to choose an infinite number of framings, we only get the chance to choose a handful. At some point, they get in the way of another. Systemic racism clearly discriminates based on race, it's in the name, one of the most controversial approaches to racism is to conceptualise white people as the beneficiaries of systemic racism. The very term "white privilege" implicitly contextualises systemic racism as a positive thing for white people, that's what a privilege is.

A lot of what you're talking about is a hard sell, "not being harassed by police" is not a white privilege, being harassed by police is a terrible and scary thing that happens disproportionately to coloured people. Wouldn't it be easier for "white people" to stand up against injustice than to their own privilege? Is conceptualizing that as a white privilege even a reasonable thing to do?

Shouldn't any mention of the injustice focus on the causes of the injustice? How much should white people even be involved in a conversation about how coloured people are disproportionately harassed by police?

Honoring them goes a long way towards building a movement to end racism. — creativesoul

I am not sure that the term "white privilege" honours black people. It's clearly a concept centred around the "white" experience. Which is another criticism, I am not saying I want a concept centred around the "black" experience because I don't think the correct way to talk about racism as being through race.

Effectively ending racism requires understanding white privilege. — creativesoul

I hope you can see that my criticism is really directed at the choices made by people as opposed to the underlying facts. I am not preaching ignorance.

If they feel like non whites are attacking them personally because of the fact that they are white, it is very hard to convince them that those non whites are not racist, regardless of whether or not they actually are. — creativesoul

I am not convinced that the perpetuators of the white privilege framing are mostly non-white but I agree with the general sentiment.

Such frameworks using white privilege do not promote the kind of cohesion that's necessary for ending racism. — creativesoul

Sure, that's a fair distinction and I certainly prefer your proposed usage of white privilege in comparison to what you've criticised and I believe your criticisms are relevant.

However many times when non whites begin talking in terms of "white people" they are guilty of the exact same gross overgeneralization fallacy that underlies white racist mentality about non whites. Multiplying the error does not serve to correct the underlying problems. Rather, it further reinforces deep seated racist beliefs rather than helping to defuse them. — creativesoul

I agree although I don't agree with the white/non-white distinction here, anyone can talk incorrectly about "white people" in this way.

Putting white privilege to good use as a means to help end systemic racist takes mutual respect of the participants in the discussion about racism and it's effects/affects. Shedding light on white privilege does not require attacking whites because of it. — creativesoul

The solutions to ending white privilege are necessarily race-based, where most of the problems with systemic racism are legal, cultural and economic. What kind of response to systemic racism are you hoping for? Of course, we call out racism when we see it but besides that, what are you trying to achieve?

What I seek is the dissolution of the importance of race, to view the major problems faced by black Americans as problems faced by people, while condemning racism where it is seen. We need to challenge how poverty is dealt within the US, how crime is handled, how the justice system functions, practices of policing, the lack of economic redistribution and so on. I see these responses as being more direct and practical responses to the problems faced disproportionately by black Americans but without adding the controversy of race. Even if everyone agreed with white privilege, you'd have to do these things anyway to actually do something productive.

Is the white privilege framing just detracting from more humanitarian, justice-based narratives which sidestep the controversy of race and promote humanitarian ideals? After someone acknowledges white privilege, they're still hopelessly uneducated on what to do about it. Even just one of the aforementioned issues is complex enough, by the time you've diluted them all into the concept of white privilege, they're just miniatures of the actual problems, interpreted through the lens of race. I want to minimise the relevance of race to systemic racism - because I think that mirrors the race-based perspectives that we describe as being racist.

I just don't think you can correctly condemn racism while still addressing people based on their whiteness. That's the whole problem with racism to begin with, you shouldn't care about whether someone is white or black yet people do and the result is immoral, unjust, stupid and wrong.

Overall, I can see that you are capable of presenting a defence of the usefulness of the white privilege framing and that's what I wanted to see.

I thought I'd make it clear because others have complained about "removing race" from racism and how that doesn't make sense. The idea is to see racist people as being racist people, to view racism like any other kind of crime or injustice. Let racists care about your skin colour, I care about people being treated fairly and treating others fairly. In short, I don't see race as being a crucial issue in racism, the real concern is dismantling racist policies, institutions, belief systems and so on.

I would be shocked if you were not an American, and even more, are probably one that escaped poverty, the projects, etc. (Indeed, let us try to sell Peterson's ideology to Syrians). — JerseyFlight

Is this how thinkers should think? Prejudice and stereotyping?

If one only asserts, instead of argues and justifies, then since I can't tackle the argumentation all I can do is assert back in the opposite direction. Which is pretty much your entire response. Try to stick to one or two topics at a time, explain why you're talking about it and what it means.

The only reason I accepted Asif's banning was because he engaged in personal attacks in a large majority of his posts. Personal attacks, repetitive, lack of philosophical content, goodness, how about some self-awareness? How could YOU give those reasons for having someone banned, I was amazed to hear it. You go around smugly mocking people from the perspective of the same ideology and with bare-bones (if any) argumentation. Your contribution to nearly every thread you're involved in is some smug one-liner that puts someone else down.

How could one distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' social facts? — Number2018

Well, I haven't understood social facts to function differently in how truth is arranged, I was just searching for a boundary with regards to how social facts can range from benign to having potentially significant implications. The method would depend on the individual I suppose, for better or worse.

Usually, social facts disguise themselves as mere facts or brute facts. To understand it, one should endeavour the process of deconstruction, and the disclosure of the arrangement of truth could be one of the possible strategies. — Number2018

I believe I can see where you're coming from, this is certainly an interesting way to conceptualise the previously blurred boundary between different kinds of truths. I do think that by recognising how or whether the truth was arranged, we can detect the presence of "human institutions" and how the choices made by people were necessary for the "truth' to exist or function. Which would apply to language also, I certainly prefer to look at it this way as opposed to the objective/subjective conceptualisation.

Looking into other useful strategies may be of use to me as well.

Recent discussions about systemic racism and white privilege could provide us with examples of the mobilization and function of particular dispositions of truth. Also, they can exhibit the cyclic process of transforming brute facts into complex social facts and then back into the mere facts. — Number2018

Yes, I agree. I think you have nailed the correct way of conceptualizing the process, it is quite sneaky and while I am happy to hear about this better way of conceptualizing it, somehow, the resulting explanation makes the process appear far more efficient and difficult to handle than I had already believed.

Sure, I mean to ask if one's arrangement can be assessed or evaluated on the same basis as the truths it arranges. It seems that arrangements are generally for a purpose (not just a random selection of facts or presentation method), if that's right, then whether they'll achieve that purpose is more or less an empirical fact and therefore truth evaluable in the same way the facts it constituted were. — Isaac

I agree, we can certainly try to evaluate the effectiveness of the arrangement using empirical evidence although how successful that will be could vary across different contexts.

So taking white privilege as an example, you could the 'facts' of racism have been presented by the left in such a way as to sow harmful division. But the left haven't presented them in that way deliberately to sow harmful division have they? So if you're right, then this would give you, and they, some mutual ground for evaluating arrangements. — Isaac

I think the same way, I've been trying to have this kind of conversation but to no avail.

The grounds for my disdain for the white privilege conceptualisation are not on the basis of truth. I am not rejecting the evidence used by those who argue for white privilege. My rejection is on the basis that when I examine "white privilege" as a label, as a concept, as a framing all I see are net negative consequences. When you divorce "white privilege" from the facts it characterises then all you're left with is a shallow, divisive, racist term. Defend white privilege as an arrangement, as a characterisation rather than reiterating the facts that you're arranging or characterising.

Because you have said that the questions I asked were nonsense and complained about why I can't comprehend white privilege. Which pretty much is the antithesis of OP, you are back to arguing a rejection of white privilege as an arrangement of truth and just asserting that it is a truth and one that I'm ignorant of.

Therefore the conversation is back to "is white privilege a truth" and that is really a conversation about white privilege than arrangements in general.

EDIT: Btw, I have already been talking about the issue of arrangements/framing in the privilege thread. I've made my arguments and don't wish to rehash them all here. I am just saying, you haven't even addressed the arguments over there, I have little more to say on the matter.

I have been waiting for the response you said you were working on in the privilege thread, respond there if you wish to continue talking about the white privilege framing. I have already extensively argued against white privilege there and this thread isn't about white privilege.

EDIT: Actually can you clarify what is "it" here?

Real empowerment, based on your real position and abilities within society. He argues that you should take care of yourself, then if you get that right, try to take care of your family, if you succeed there then try to play an active role in your community. He merely points out that if you can't even get your own shit together then how are you qualified to be explaining to the rest of the world how the economy should function or how law or society should function. Isn't that just common sense? Your value isn't determined by how much you change the course of the nation, one should focus on things in their immediate area first where you can actually make a difference and when they're able to handle that kind of responsibility.

That truth is only important because I have decided it is important, this is something you could dispute.

Peterson advocates for the empowerment of the individual while acknowledging the difficulty of life as well as the wonderment of life. I think his framing is well designed to give the individual resilience as well as hope, promoting competence and taking responsibility. What power do you think he avoids questioning? Also, are you interested in debating this or would you prefer to give a sermon?

My OP is actually very simple, I consider it to be stating the obvious. So if it seems for you to be simple and stating the obvious then don't think you need to do more. The "effect" of the arrangement I've described as an unavoidable consequence of intelligence, I am not trying to avoid it, I'm resigned to it.

That being said, I distinguish between the "truth" of the arrangement, it's bearing on the truth of the conclusion and the relevant truths important to how I've chosen to evaluate the arrangement. The difference is that if the arrangement is a truth because it includes the truth then we can only really debate its true/false value. Whereas if we are debating my evaluation, you are free to disagree with it without having to deal with the "truth" of whether the superficial disagreements turn people away. If you choose to deal with it then you can, if not then that's fine too.

The truth of the arrangement is a yes/no, my evaluation is just one way of many possible ways to evaluate the arrangement.

If the arrangement is true then we accept it regardless of the consequences, if we acknowledge the choices that were made and evaluate them in a different way then at least there's a chance to negate the negative consequences we'd otherwise have to accept.

Moreover, I think these truths function differently and the "truth" of the arrangement is illegitimate while my usage of truth in evaluation is within the rules of how to reasonably use the truth in argumentation.

It is crucial to my OP but it is not crucial to understanding my OP. You asked why and I answered.

It really depends on the context, what you are trying to achieve and for me, that's true as well. For instance, my refutation of white privilege is due to how it conceptualises economic issues as race issues, it emphasises the importance of race, it turns people away from caring about important issues due to superficial disagreements. So all of that, it's based on a set of complicated desires from me. I am looking to maximise outcomes that I see merit in and if we moved to a new context then I would have to ask myself what outcomes I want and I'd evaluate the effectiveness of the arrangement at delivering those outcomes.

Firstly, let's call near-infinite a hyperbole.

Secondly, why evaluate anything? Because you discriminate between outcomes. How one discriminates is not really crucial to understanding my OP, just that one does.

The distance between us here comes before the issues of racism and racial inequity and back to my OP. If white privilege is an arrangement of truth, filled with choices to emphasise, include/exclude information, characterise and narrativize then how should it be evaluated? Should we ask if it is true? Should we ask if it is reasonable? Should we ask if it is effective? Whether it makes things better or worse? How do we evaluate these choices?

So, if I have Judaka right, he's talking about situations where everyone agrees that a group of statements are all true, but he's also saying that the way those statements are used, and what they're used for(the arrangement?), can vary remarkably. — creativesoul

Yes, this is most of what I was pointing out.

Does the following count as one of those arrangements we agree on? — creativesoul

Yes, that is a good example of an arrangement, you can see a lot of what I was talking about in OP here.

So, I take it that you and I agree that systemic racism remains inherent, to some extent or another, within America.

However, when it comes to the notion of white privilege, it seems that we're nearly at complete odds.

So, to me... if I've got it right... that is a prima facie example of what the OP is getting at. Would you agree? — creativesoul

Yes, much of my discussions about privilege get stuck at people failing to understand the concepts talked about in my OP.

I have told you, this is not an issue about what the truth is, it's an issue of framing and interpretation. Just like Banno, you want to validate the framing by the fact that what you're saying is true but that's not actually a justification that explains why you choose this framing over the others... because there are many options and none of them are disputing the facts.

Again, technically speaking, white privilege isn't saying anything untrue - the statistics back up most of the claims being made. How we look at attractiveness and intelligence is changed when we describe it or even refer to it as an "unearned advantage" and in this way your framing becomes a philosophical position.

All that is clear to me is that you don't realise that and you believe you are kind of just stating facts when you're not. You're simply showing that you cannot tell the difference between facts and characterisations, interpretations and framing. — Judaka

In reality this is an admission that one doesn't actually know what to do and so they retreat to the idyllic past, but here the image of the past is itself distorted, projected as a kind of utopia from which mankind has departed. Such a response to the increase of cultural sophistication, which is a response of fear, makes one out to be a reactionary. — JerseyFlight

I have listened to Peterson quite a bit and I am not entirely sure what values you think he is preaching, common decency and personal responsibility mostly?

Further, when Peterson posits that life is dismal, he very likely means something more by it than the fact we have made it dismal. For Peterson, there is a God behind the world, and mankind is in a fallen state, this means humans are, in one sense or another, predestined to the production of negativity — JerseyFlight

Peterson talks quite a lot about how the "left is not negative enough" and the most horrific aspects of life can be viewed to not be human constructs but an interplay of forces that goes beyond human civilisation. That is "the lobster" which aims to prove that hierarchies are not a human construct, he likens wealth inequality to how the tallest trees acquire the most sunlight. He posits that many forms of inequality are just the natural results of people making choices which are in their best interests which he uses to argue against equality of outcome. He suggests many of the problems which are conceptualised as the deficiency of civilisation are in fact badly conceptualised and thus the solutions offered are poorly thought out. So I am finding it difficult to see where you're coming from here, seems to be the antithesis of his views.

The reader needs to be clear, Peterson is a Nihilist, which simply means he accepts the false presumption that value must be rooted is some kind of Eternal, Absolute Idealism in order for value to exist at all. — JerseyFlight

Interesting usage of the term nihilist here, I consider this to be the antithesis of the nihilistic position. Though, I reject the interpretation of "nihilism" talked about by Nietzche as actual nihilism - which is the position that there is no truth value to the meaning of life. The various consequences of can be reasonably disagreed on. I would warn against arguing with me on this term "nihilism", it is not a great term to begin with and I can see that your usage is different, I am happy for you to just consider my usage wrong if it pleases you.

I am not really surprised to see Peterson being unpopular on a highly left-leaning platform but while I don't agree with him on everything, I find his criticisms of the left to be very useful and instructive. I think most of what he says is fairly common sense and likely to produce the good results he claims it will.

Slow down there Jerseyflight, I believe one can know the truth, however, we need to scrutinise which claims of truth are valid and which are misleading.