Identity Politics and Autistic Guilt

Post Reply New Topic

Neither am I; but it sure seems that way to me.

Saying that BLM has been hijacked by Marxists is utterly absurd and has zero truth to to it. What in the world are you basing that on? I assume you are basing it on false information, which is also the reason you believe it has lost credibility, because you have believed the falsehoods that are circulated about it.

It's very ironic that you would say I am generalizing, given what you have posted, which is a generalization, but I will respond. The BLM movement is a movement. It has specific positions and goals. Saying that it has positions and goals and saying what they are is not generalizing. It is making a factual statement. If there is someone who is saying things that are at odds with those positions, even if they claim to be speaking on behalf of the movement, they are not, and what they say doesn't count as something that BLM is saying.

Used that way by whom? Just because some annoying person says something annoying and wrongheaded, that doesn't make it a thing or point of view that is being used in a particular way. I'm not aware of anyone who has credibility or a platform, like a well-known activist or author or professor or journalist, who has used the concept of white privilege in the way that you describe.

BLM is not an organization and not everyone who is in the coalition agrees, but they certainly have a common goal and a common position, which can certainly be stated and pointed out, and if someone says something completely at odds with it, they can't claim to be speaking for BLM.

This is what the phrase "Check your privilege" is about.

This is 2020 and many important things happen not by official authorities but on social media.

I'm not sure how it's a problem to tell people who haven't lived an experience to listen to those who have when they describe their experience.

Then just tell people to listen to people who have the experience instead of the hostile accusatory expression "Check Your privilege". Personal example. A few years ago you had a bunch of people in comment sections demanding people on the spectrum describe themselves as a "person with autism" because they claimed "autistic" is offensive. When that happened I could have told them to Check their neurotypical privilege. What I did was inform them I likely have 60+more years experience of being autistic then they do so my opinion of what is offensive to me carries more weight than theirs. I made it centrally about them and me not centrally the groups we were born into. I never got any response that I can recall. Many others used similar tactics. That demand rarely happens anymore. The conversation stays related to the video or blog people are commenting on. If we all told them to check their privilege or just used the phrase "privilege" my guess is the person first - identity first flame wars would still be going on because instead of getting to the point we would have offended them.

Related what I also never do is demand they use "autistic". I let them use "person with autism" to their heart's content while I use "autistic" to my heart's content. I will only get offended and react if they demand I use person-first language.

That is not what the phrase "check your privilege" means, nor how it is meant to be used. What it means is that when someone says something that they don't know about from first hand experience (like a white person spouting opinions about what race relations are like), maybe they should stop to listen instead to those who have experienced it first hand (like black people who are confronted with racist attitudes every day of their lives).

I didn't say anything about official authorities, I only referred to people who have a platform (which would include someone with a significant social media following) or are well-known in the movement, etc.

White privilege is easy to disprove. Take, for example, the economic, health, and educational outcomes of Americans and see if they are the same regardless of race. If they are, then white privilege is not a thing. Individual cases and anecdotes cannot disprove it. It really is whether there is a bias in the system.

If you want to do well in life in the US, being born white will give an edge. Just as gender and socioeconomic background (class) can tip the scales. This should not come as a surprise.

Let us agree to disagree.

Ah ok.
I think because a lot of WP is right wing & buys into people like Jordan Peterson. Or considers 'Marxist' a dirty word akin to stalinist.

In our current society, autistic guilt would be more like self hate for being Black.

White guilt is pretty useless though, it just makes everything about white fragility. I've read from Black people that they don't want this. Same as I don't want a neurotypical making prejudice against autistic people all about them and how 'bad they feel for me' etc.

Very few people on WP are conservative,WP is very liberal,and no one takes Jordan Peterson seriously,really,everyone knows he's a nut job.

Jordan Peterson used lobsters to study dominance and social hierarchy in humans,or what I mean is his theory of dominance and social hierarchy in humans is based on his study of lobsters,enough said.

Jordan Peterson describes himself as a liberal and says he’s often mistaken for right wing.

He’s an anti Marxist and correctly points out that Marxism has failed in every country that has tried it out and enslaved and killed more people than both world wars combined.

Of course marxists hate him as he is always calling them out

Marxism is the ideology of the firing squad and has nothing to do with liberal values despite sometimes using them as a vehicle for undermining and gain.

I like the way he uses metaphors and simple analogies sometimes based on the simplest old children’s tales to allow people to make sense of a complex world and make decisions to overcome personal insurmountable problems.

He has helped and guided many millions and is recognized the world over.

Jordan Peterson obtained bachelor's degrees in political science and psychology from the University of Alberta and a PhD in clinical psychology from McGill University.  After teaching and research at Harvard University, he returned to Canada in 1998 to join the faculty of psychology at the University of Toronto.  In 1999, he published his first book, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief, which became the basis for many of his subsequent lectures.  The book combined information from psychology, mythology, religion, literature, philosophy, and neuroscience to analyze systems of belief and meaning.

In 2016, Peterson released a series of YouTube videos criticizing the Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (Bill C-16), passed by the Parliament of Canada to introduce "gender identity and expression" as a prohibited grounds of discrimination.  He argued that the bill would make the use of certain gender pronouns into compelled speech, and related this argument to a general critique of political correctness and identity politics.

He is eminently qualified to expound on the topic of Identity Politics, and is opposed to the concepts of compelled speech and political correctness.

You can be qualified to speak on topics and still be wrong. Certainly, an appeal to authority does not actually mean the ideas the authority is stating are valid. Charles Murray and his ideas on race he articulated in his book The Bell Curve are very questionable, even though he is a well educated person. I am not sure that anyone here would support eugenics, an idea still being forwarded by very educated people.

Are there still Marxist in the world?

But the idea that Marxism has failed when it was never actually never implemented is hardly evidence. And the dictatorships put in place under the Soviets and Chinese were horrible. But neither were Marxist.

However, how many people has capitalism enslaved and killed? Just in the Atlantic slave trade between 10 to 12 million people were transported from Africa. Between 10% to 25% of those were estimated to have died in the crossing. Add to the losses in the wars fought over that trade and institution. This does not obviously include the entire colonial period that exploited people around the world.

Being popular is not an indication of anything except popularity. QAnon is a popular person/movement, but hardly credible. And conspiracy theories tend to be popular by their nature, which speaks more to human biases than validity of information.

Nice try.  Very nice.

You have established doubt against the credibility of a well-trained and intelligent expert without actually pointing out (and proving) where you think he is wrong.

Please try again.