White privilege isn't real - Jordan Peterson

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not. It was just an example, like I said. Let's pivot then to a more complicated example.

Think of the masses of angry far-right voters. They have lost faith that they can get what they want materially. So, instead, they do what they can to ensure others get even less, or that those "others" get treated even worse than they feel like they are.

They get a sense of superiority.


And what is ever not about power for small fry who resent not being big fish?


There are racist people from all walks of life (some are more likely than others of course, but still), but even ignoring that, there's a simple question: What if it's company policy? It can't officially be, of course, but, like "hey, newbie, I wouldn't do it like that if I were you, I heard people who do it this way instead get promoted more often".

You can even assume that no one in banking, at any institutional level, is particularly racist (and they're just unscrupulous instead -- I mean... it's banking we're talking about...). They could still be the main vector of structural racism anyway. If there's an established notion that "the presence of non-white people lowers the value of a neighborhood", then it's very clear how real-estate investors can protect their assets from depreciating. So turning down certain small-time customers lets them earn greater profits from bigger fish.

I don't know if people know how or why exactly unfair credit-refusal happens at a structural level, I imagine it's something that demands thorough investigation to really pinpoint. But it happens consistently, that much is well-known and well-documented, and so investigation (and subsequent correction by regulation and/or enforcement) is needed.

Last edited by toadsnail on 24 Feb 2021, 10:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Whites in South Africa still have privilege.

Bending over backwards to find instances of whites being mistreated doesn't negate that fact. Let's look at how non-whites have been treated in South Africa.

They were usually treated like cattle under Apartheid.

Exactly.

And, to reiterate, white privilege doesn't mean nothing bad can happen to you.

If we're going to go world-wide and cite examples of white people being mistreated, then we also have to examine the context. We also have to take into account the instances of whites being mistreated verses the instances of non-whites being mistreated.

Yeah that was some extreme out-of-context cherry-picking there if we're talking about it globally.

That said, South Africa really is a complicated case. I mean... how does a country recover from that kind of (very recent) past with composure? I guess it's not impossible (Rwanda, for one, seems to be doing surprisingly well today), but it's still very hard to imagine.

For anyone interested in the subject, I thought this documentary I watched the other day was very interesting and very well-made:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba3E-Ha5Efc

(If anyone's going to comment on it though, then please watch the whole thing first. Don't just comment on it based on the title.)

Not the last IQ test I did.
No human was involved in the assessment.

And how are multiple-choice questions dependant on a subjective assessment?

A rather long bow you are drawing there.
You must have super strong biceps.



As I said. Loooooong bow you are drawing.



"Company policy" in these days of political correctness on steroids?
Maybe things are different where you are, but one of the 4 biggest banks in Australia has folded under the woke yoke of political correctness and will now refuse to give loans out to any company connected with the coal industry.

The pendulum has turned, and it is the weak woke who have inherited the earth.
This is why I say things have changed and that while there may be are pockets of white privilege, it is not ubiquitous.

Get on the wrong side of the SJWs and your profit bottom line may suffer big time.
Well, that is what is happening here in Australia.



I have made this point several times.
I consider big business to be greedy, corrupt and self-serving.
Why on earth would they want to diminish their profit margins?



As I said, 'Profits' and bonuses above all else.



Interesting point, but I think you are overthinking it.
The banks need customers.
All they care about is gaining clients.

Also, if a person of colour is so rich they can hobnob with mansion dwellers, I think the bank manager's might take that into consideration.
Think 'Tiger Woods'.



Sorry, your logic doesn't cut the mustard add up, in my book.
Not here in Australia, at least.

Privileges that entail having their land taken away from them and being assaulted and murdered in their beds?
There was a lot said in the news, here in Australia, about that not that long ago.

Bending over backwards to find instances of whites being mistreated doesn't negate that fact. Let's look at how non-whites have been treated in South Africa.[/quote]

You miss my point.
If there are exceptions to the binary rule, that white privilege is across the board universally, it invalidates your binary.
Not rocket surgery.

I don't understand why you lefties have this obsession with binaries?

Anyway, it has been demonstrably annulled.

I think you will find Afrikaner groups like "Afriforum" are spreading misinformation about farm attacks
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-41807642

There is no evidence whites are being specifically targeted because of their race. Try diversifying your news sources rather than relying on Andrew Bolt.

I'm actually surprised you're contesting this. Really wasn't expecting it. I thought it was self-evident.

If you need a clear example, then just take a quick look at these lightweight tidbits about our current dear leader (I mean, just look at his freaking face, for crying out loud...):

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/29/brazil- ... uotes.html

Those aren't rumors or "stuff people say he said" or anything, those are things he said publicly. It was public knowledge all along. If you asked his supporters, they would say "oh but he didn't mean it", or "he just has a strange sense of humor, that's all".

Do you think people voted for him because they actually expected anything good to come out of it? They'll rationalize that they did, but... come on. There's a whole wave of people going "yeahh we're going to put [some person / social group] in their place, better watch out, punks!" It was the whole pitch all along.


That's PR. If PR concerns really outweigh the costs of ignoring them and those concerns demand internal change, then things change. But if they don't, then things don't change.


Everything you say really seems to reinforce the impression that you really don't grasp the fact that you can't just generalize to the US what you know from Australia. The two countries have incredibly different histories.


Why do you assume they would be diminishing profit margins? I've said it: they're protecting valuable assets from depreciating. Real-estate speculation is HUGE business. Mortgages? Probably not so much in comparison.


Do you actually think the finance sector is simple and straightforward? It is the most convoluted thing in the world.


No, all they care about is making money [from their clients, presumably, but... not exactly]. Clients aren't all equal.


He'll be preapproved for any and everything in the world. But you know we're not talking about Tiger Woods.


Well, duh. I'm not talking about Australia. As far as I know that whole pattern with mortgages and stuff is not even a thing in Brazil either. But I thought it was clear we were talking about the US.

"Withdrew for further consideration."
Now that doesn't sound like a country where the white farmers have white privilege.
There is a good chance the land will be confiscated at some point in time.

"The sword of Damocles" sort of thing.

I see you are into psychological arm-wrestling.
I reject your presumptuous implied assertion that you have a 'lay down misere'.

What you have presented is mere supposition.
Nothing more.

Don't get me wrong, the land grab threatened by the ANC isn't really ethical, but this is being stirred by opportunistic "Robert Mugabe type" politicians who make millions while their people starve. Instead of leadership they simply blame the white farmers to take attention away from their incompetent and corrupt government.

I was stating a fact: I didn't expect you would contest the example. Otherwise I would probably have used a different one. I was actually surprised that it's not self-evident for you. I'm not saying there's no reason why it is for me but not for you. Hence my subsequent explanation of why it is for me. The explanation may not automatically make it [the assumption that far-right voters seek primarily to demote others] self-evident to you, but I think it does make it abundantly clear why it seems self-evident to me, no strong biceps required. You may disagree with me on this, but that doesn't matter. It just means the example I chose wasn't as effective as I thought it would be.

Isn't this all kinda besides the point anyway? You insist that "my logic doesn't cut the mustard add up". I was presenting possible mechanisms that could be behind the unfair credit phenomenon. The argument about far-right voters was only part of the argument about how anyone can potentially be racist (potentially acting against their own immediate economic interests), which in turn was only a small part of the broader argument. The main conclusion is still this:


...which you seem hellbent on denying, just because the possible mechanisms presented to you haven't been proved, and you have some kind of preconceived idea that doesn't jibe with documented phenomena. The whole point is that it warrants investigation.

Or... maybe you don't actually have that preconceived idea and you're just testing me. In that case, I have better things to do.

Just because the problem isn't quite as blatant as slavery & lynchings used to be doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Slavery may have ended, but the exploitation of black American labour just shifted to within prison walls. Criminalize a bunch of stuff, selectively arrest black/non-white people for it, put them to work making prison made goods. Pretty good racket. Then there's all the rest of the legalized discrimination in every aspect of American society - ever heard of "red lining," in the mortgage industry? Black people couldn't be approved for mortgages in white neighbhourhoods for many decades. etc. This is not ancient history and everyone's on an even playing field today. Not even close. Hence the BLM Human Rights protests of 2020.

It's not collective ancestral guilt. It's collective guilt for continuing to perpetuate systemic racism. In the employment market, academia, judicial system, healthcare, society in general.. etc.

100% of white presenting caucasians have white privilege. Indian people (of India), who are technically caucasian by biological classification, may not have "white privilege," if their skin colour is pigmented too darkly - but other than that, yes, 100% of white appearing people have white privilege whether they choose to acknowledge it or not.

I'm not binary, thanks. Also not boxing at shadows, whatever the F you mean by that.

There is no agreeing to disagree here. I am correct, and you are incorrect. Full stop. I acknowledge that we disagree, but there is no agreement & will not be any that your position is valid or correct.

"If EvEn OnE wHiTe pErSoN On ThE EnTiRe PlAnEt sUfFeR EvEn tHe SlIgHtEsT InCoNvEnIeNcE, tHaT PROOVES wHiTe PrIvIlEgE DoEnSnT eXiSt!! !"



White privilege is already being so privileged that you think "privilege" makes life "perfect", and devoid of all inconvenience and suffering.

Electricity is a privilege. Food is a privilege. Safety is a privilege. But seeing those as privileges makes people feel uncomfortable, cos they prefer to mistakenly think these things are rights. Too many people don't even understand how rights work, let alone being able to differentiate between rights and privileges.

@ Pepe - You're as funny as ever. Whining about all-or-nothing thinking, but acting like "white privilege" either applies equally everywhere, or doesn't exist at all - as opposed to the reality that it is not a hard and fast rule, but rather a factor that can affect things in various situations. Pointing out that white privilege can't exist in america cos white people were treated poorly in south africa, seems to fail to notice that america is not africa. I don't know if you know that, but america and africa are different places. It would be like saying kangaroos don't exist cos you never see them in siberia.

It's weird how nuance either does or doesn't matter to you, depending on the situation. When it comes to things like "nazis" or "fascism", you're all jive and philosophical, "what IS fascism anyways... words are just words... nothing is knowable for certain..." - but then when you're trying to defend your narrative, suddenly reality goes all rigid, snaps hard into place, and things just are the way you say they are, because you say they are, because you say they are, because you say they are...

HoNkA hOnKa!