Forum menu
So criticizing the empty fear mongering and complete lack of any reference or evidence or context in your post constitutes behaving in an unreasonable manner?
No, it's just your unpleasant manner.
My opinion, equally valid, equally worthless.
Oh, I agree. I've stated mine, you've stated yours.
I've told you I'm willing to engage in debate. About anything, tbh, I enjoy it.
Which of his opinions and ideas would you like to discuss?
🙂
Tell me, does your white privilege travel with you? Do you enjoy white privilege in Asia, or the middle east, or Africa? If not why not?
So the entire premise is that it must be world wide in order to be so?
It certainly exists in western countries,and the majority of the developed world. Is there White privilege in the UK?
As for does it travel? it was very apparent in Indonesia, Singapore while I was there
I’ve told you I’m willing to engage in debate. About anything, tbh, I enjoy it.
That was one of mine, no idea how it ended up as a quotation, my mistake.
White Privilege is interesting.
Historical and Economic Privilege would possibly be a more accurate and inclusive description, as it's obviously not exclusive to skin colour.
What do you think?
But the quick way to tell which category somebody fits into is by skin colour - it happens a lot.
mikewsmith
So the entire premise is that it must be world wide in order to be so?
If it's not a problem in China or Japan or Egypt or Saudi Arabia (insert wherever) then why not?
It certainly exists in western countries,and the majority of the developed world. Is there White privilege in the UK?
By Western Countries I presume you mean Western Europe and the U.S.A? Why are they so racist? As for whether it exists in the UK, well I don't live in the UK.
As for does it travel? it was very apparent in Indonesia, Singapore while I was there
Presumably you applied for and got jobs where there were more qualified locals, and you noticed the political and legal structures where populated by White people as opposed to locals? Or were you just treated well because you were a tourist?
True Mike and it's the perfect term when used correctly.
It doesn't preclude or stop discussion of other types of privilege.
If it’s not a problem in China or Japan or Egypt or Saudi Arabia (insert wherever) then why not?
Do you need pictures?
By Western Countries I presume you mean Western Europe and the U.S.A? Why are they so racist? As for whether it exists in the UK, well I don’t live in the UK.
In reality I'd say from Russia to the Atlantic, the US and Australasia certainly
Presumably you applied for and got jobs where there were more qualified locals, and you noticed the political and legal structures where populated by White people as opposed to locals? Or were you just treated well because you were a tourist?
Only an observation...
But the central part is if you want to deny there is white privilege in the UK/US/Europe/Australasia be up front and say that.
It's a bit like trying to tell the mother of a black kid in the US who just got shot that it would have been the white guy if they had moved to Nigeria.
But the central part is if you want to deny there is white privilege in the UK/US/Europe/Australasia be up front and say that.
Absolutely.
Jimjam, what's your response to this?
If it’s not a problem in China or Japan or Egypt or Saudi Arabia (insert wherever) then why not?
Do you need pictures?
No I don't need pictures, I need you to explain why it doesn't exist in Japan. Do they have Japanese privilege? Do ****stanis have ****stani privilege in ****stan? Do Indians have Indian privilege in India or is it something that only occurs in "white countries"?
But the central part is if you want to deny there is white privilege in the UK/US/Europe/Australasia be up front and say that.
If you provide a definition of it, and explain the limitations of it then there'd be something to confirm or deny. If my grandfather was black but I look white, or light skinned do I have white privilege? If my grandfather was Greek, and I have causcasian features but darker skin am I the victim of white privilege? If I'm openly, flamboyantly gay and white do I enjoy white privilege? If I'm white and I identify as black am I the victim of white privilege or the beneficiary? If I'm Bulgarian do I enjoy white privilege in the UK? Irish traveller? Polish?
Do you accept that historical and economic privilege exists?
Jimjam, any chance of a response to any of my points?
Just let me know if not.
Thanks.
RustySpanner
Do you accept that historical and economic privilege exists?
You're using the word "privilege" as a synonym for majority.
Jimjam, any chance of a response to any of my points?
Oh sorry if I can't reply immediately. Could you answer any of these points? If my grandfather was black but I look white, or light skinned do I have white privilege? If my grandfather was Greek, and I have causcasian features but darker skin am I the victim of white privilege? If I’m openly, flamboyantly gay and white do I enjoy white privilege? If I’m white and I identify as black am I the victim of white privilege or the beneficiary? If I’m Bulgarian do I enjoy white privilege in the UK? Irish traveller? Polish?
If a child is born to dirt poor alcoholic, drug addicted benefit scrounging dole scum who happen to be white, then that child enjoys white privilege don't they?
Please be quick about - wink emoji.
Whiney middle class cockbag privilege?
You’re using the word “privilege” as a synonym for majority.
I'm not. I understand what both words mean and therefore, the difference between them.
Could you answer any of these points? If my grandfather was black but I look white, or light skinned do I have white privilege? If my grandfather was Greek, and I have causcasian features but darker skin am I the victim of white privilege? If I’m openly, flamboyantly gay and white do I enjoy white privilege? If I’m white and I identify as black am I the victim of white privilege or the beneficiary? If I’m Bulgarian do I enjoy white privilege in the UK? Irish traveller? Polish?
I have no idea. You've not provided enough contextual information.
Please be quick about – wink emoji.
Well, I posted my view on the subject over an hour ago. You chose to ignore that.
You've still not responded to my point.
If you're going to use the catchphrase du jour, it is hardly unreasonable to be asked to define it.
Pah! I remember when it was all dog whistle racism...
Well, I understand it as a situation where those perceived as 'white' are granted privilege.
Obviously, an infinite variety privilege exists.
We can discuss any or all of those if you like?
Jimjam brought the subject up, I'm extending him the courtesy of attempting to discuss it.
Well, I posted my view on the subject over an hour ago. You chose to ignore that.
You’ve still not responded to my point.
@rustyspanner - Is it raining where you are? Give me a break.
White Privilege is interesting.
Historical and Economic Privilege would possibly be a more accurate and inclusive description, as it’s obviously not exclusive to skin colour.
What do you think?
I think that White Privilege is a grossly simplistic term being applied to a myriad of complicated socio economic issues. Adding "white" to it helps no one. Historic or Economic privilege is probably a better definition of what some people are trying to describe as "white privilege" but there are still so many caveats and exceptions as to render it almost meaningless.
That's not to say that racism and discrimination aren't real, but to paint an entire society as being either inherently racist or subconsciously racist is wrong.
I think that White Privilege is a grossly simplistic term
I agree. 🙂
However, it's'a valid (if lazy) term, as it defines a certain type of privilege.
but to paint an entire society as being either inherently racist or subconsciously racist is wrong.
I'm not sure I agree with you there. There are circumstances where that would be valid, and those where it would not.
Is prejudice an inherent part of human nature?
Can it be eradicated, or reduced to a level where it has a minimal negative impact on those who are guilty of it and more importantly, those who experience it?
Big questions and not entirely within the remit of the thread, but fascinating nontheless.
Thanks for the response.
Happy to continue later but I'm at a wedding do shortly and have to get ready.
OP:
You say that he is refreshingly 'clear and objective'? This is where so many are in fundamental disagreement. I count myself among the cynical/skeptical. To me he comes over as hypocritical mystic/psychic/philosopher/political-agitator/preacher/motivational-speaker/dating-guru and aggressive self-promoter. But that could be just my cognitive bias at work 😉
From his Twitter a few days ago:
What shall I do with a torn nation? Stitch it back together with careful words of truth. From Coda, the concluding chapter of 12 Rules for Life
For a current example, how might one such as he respond to the recent terrorist-attack in Toronto where a young male misogynist (emboldened by this new 'incel/black-pill' internet-cult) took a van and murdered 10 and injured 14 (mostly women) because he felt that he couldn't compete in the mating process?
JP responds by claiming that 'enforced monogamy' is the solution to such violence? And that such young men are 'angry at God'?
Could you make that more 'clear and objective'? Because I'm literally agog.
JP responds by claiming that ‘enforced monogamy’ is the solution to such violence? And that such young men are ‘angry at God’?
He means enforced by cultural norms, in other words marriage. Not forced.
He means enforced by cultural norms, in other words marriage
I am not sure that really clarifies things. How exactly would marriage solve the issue of the young single male misogynist?
JP responds by claiming that ‘enforced monogamy’ is the solution to such violence? And that such young men are ‘angry at God’?
You’ve linked to the Indy100, which is the left and the Daily Mail is to the right. Whatever they're claiming he said, I am almost certain it's not remotely what he said. They tend towards pretty vile corruptions of fact that support their extremist views, just like the Daily Mail. But it's up to you what you read and enjoy.
To answer your question, using the example you've cited though, JP will usually take the approach of trying to explain why someone acts the way they do; he won't ever look to condone it. We see similar responses from other commentators as to why Muslim extremists commit the acts they do or why groups of young black men riot; if you create a group of disenfranchised, alienated and marginalised individuals, don't be surprised if they start enacting acts of barbarism to vent their frustration. That's not the same thing as condoning it, it’s simply trying to explain it.
The extreme left and others however do not like what JP has to say because he challenges their political ideology and it's always easier to corrupt the idea or resort to personal attacks because that way you can aim to dismiss them as being something you don't need to deal with. Far easier to paint them as idiots and ignore what they are saying but you do that at your peril. Look at what happened in the Brexit vote for instance when we labelled all those people expressing worries over immigration as being far right racists whose opinions we should dismiss.
JP is refreshing in his clarity and objectivity to my intellect because he's willing to challenge received wisdom using data at a time when that seems to be deeply unfashionable. And the received wisdom he is challenging is the notion of identity politics, which appears to be the evolution/coming together of the very far, Marxist left (for reference I tend towards the centre left on some issues and centre right on others and voted Labour in the last election because I think Corbyn is similarly refreshing in his clarity, objectivity and, most importantly, his moral sincerity), third wave feminism and political correctness.
I like and admire what he says but then that should come as no surprise to anyone here because I'm on record for it many times. If that makes you agog, then that's a good outcome - at least I have your attention.
Oh and btw I've just read the Indy article and clearly you haven't understood anything he says in that interview if you think he's speaking literally. He isn't. I've read and listened to a lot of what he says and what he publishes and can connect everything he says in that interview with the metaphorical and intellectual analysis he routinely offers.
How exactly would marriage solve the issue of the young single male misogynist?
It would mean they don't feel rejected by the world.
How exactly would marriage solve the issue of the young single male misogynist?
It would mean they don’t feel rejected by the world.
We get them to marry each other?
dissonance
I am not sure that really clarifies things. How exactly would marriage solve the issue of the young single male misogynist?
In a nutshell stable long term relationships are better for a child's development and illustrate the value and utility of a loving long term monogamous relationship. The absence of a father can negatively impact a boy's development and drive them to seek alternative male role models, say from media.
In a society where people value casual sex over stable relationships they will become focused on the superficiality ie physical appearance or status. The upshot being that men who have one or both can command the attention of a disproportionate amount of women, and the men without either will become disenfranchised with, or withdrawn from society.
It would mean they don’t feel rejected by the world.
You will still be rejected, but others will now also be forced to lead a life where they don't feel fulfilled. Just because those in relationships are forced to be monogamous, doesn't mean those who are incapable of establishing relationships are suddenly going to be fighting of the opposite sex with a pointed stick.
And trying to pretend he didn't say what is there in black and white, or trying to pretend he is speaking in the abstract so you can read different meanings into clear statements is absolute bullshit.
It seems his believers have a religious fever.
In a nutshell stable long term relationships are better for a child’s development a
Compared to? Long term bad relationships? sticking together for the kids?
In a society where people value casual sex over stable relationships they will become focused on the superficiality ie physical appearance or status.
Which society is this?
Maybe all these poor rejected and oppressed white males could adopt a more ISIS approach, and remove the choice, and thus potential rejection from the deal
alternatively.... and this is a totally keraaaaazy whacky left-field idea: do a bit of self-analysis, ask themselves why nobody likes them, and maybe do something about it? Instead of whining on about everything being SOOOOOO NOT FAIR and looking to blame everybody else but themselves
Like i said.... totally mad idea!
"do a bit of self-analysis, ask themselves why nobody likes them, and maybe do something about it"
That's what the black pill is all about- you realise the obvious truth that it's a conspiracy by every woman in the world, and you deal with it by becoming a total ****.
Thanks for responding geetee. But let's do it one at a time. I'd prefer this doesn't descend into a L/R youtube grade suppositional slanging match. I'm look for evidence of clarity in a (to me confusing, obscure, unclear) statement that JP made in reference to a brutal terrorist attack. Regarding the killer, this is the full quote from the NYT, referenced in the Indy article:
“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”
Now at first glance that seems fuzzy enough on a number of levels, you may (must?) think differently, but reading it you would expect that Peterson already knows everything about the psyche/motivation of the killer.
I may have missed but The Telegraph report doesn't mention that the attacker was angry at God or a product of polygamy? Do you have a clearer view of Minassian's motives that we could use as a starting point to discuss Peterson's assertions?
This is what I can find at short notice:
OurWindsor.ca talked to neighbors of the Minassians in Richmond Hill. A woman across the street said the family had lived in the neighborhood for six to eight years. She said it was a family of four, with two parents and two young men.
The father, she said, was very friendly, but the sons weren’t so friendly and never really looked at her. Another neighbor who lives a street away, Ryan Baker, said he would see a man who looked like the suspect jogging in the neighborhood, but he never made eye contact.
However, neighbor Wes Mack had a different experience. He told the National Post that he occasionally saw Alek jogging and would sometimes talk to him.
Neighbor Elaha Jamal had yet a different story for the National Post. She said that the parents were always supervising Alek and his younger brother and didn’t let them wander alone. “They were an older couple but they took care of these boys like they were babies,” she said...
...
Sona Minassian was quoted in a 2009 story in the Richmond Hill Liberal, saying that she was concerned her son, who had Asperger’s, would lose access to a Helpmate program that helped prepare him for the workplace and helped him “work through his cognitive barriers.”
“My son would spend afternoons working with Helpmate. They were sensitive to his needs and now he has a job at Compugen here in town,” she said, according to The Globe and Mail.
“He was able to take the experience provided by Helpmate and apply it,” she said. “This kind of service for my son wasn’t available elsewhere. I am convinced that if we didn’t have Helpmate, my son would not have had such an opportunity.”
She never named her son in the story, so it is not known if she was talking about Alek.
https://heavy.com/news/2018/04/alek-minassian-parents-family/
A lot more on the killers background at the above link. Some excerpts:
The Minassian family lives in a two-storey red brick house on a tree-lined street in the Toronto suburb of Richmond Hill, near sprawling green parks, well-ranked public schools and the David Dunlap Observatory.
Vahe Minassian and Sona Minassian purchased the home on Elmsley Dr. two decades ago for $330,000, according to property records.
Born on Nov. 3, 1992, Minassian grew up in the home with his parents and a brother, neighbours said. His father is a senior manager of software development at Rogers and an alumnus of the University of Toronto, according to his LinkedIn profile. Sona Minassian is on leave from her job at Compugen, an IT service provider, “for obvious reasons,” a company spokesperson told Metroland Media.
Neighbours said the Minassians kept to themselves, but that their private nature wasn’t unusual in a suburban middle-class neighbourhood of busy families.
In high school, Minassian would fidget and twitch, tap his head, hug his arms around his body, meow like a cat, sometimes spit on himself and repeat the phrase, “I’m afraid of girls,” Cornish and other classmates said.
As yet I can't find anything so far about Peterson's claim that he was 'angry at God' he did leave a Facebook message to the effect that he was taking 'revenge' on humans, on sexually 'successful' stereotypes whom he refers to as 'Chads and Staceys' (might those be what JP refers to as 'archetypes'?)
Malvern Rider
As yet I can’t find anything so far about Peterson’s claim that he was ‘angry at God’ he did leave a Facebook message to the effect that he was taking ‘revenge’ on humans,
He's not saying the killer was literally angry at God, or that his killing was religiously motivated in any way. He's saying that the killer was in such a malevolent nihilistic state that he wants to punish the world/society/god for hurting him. The worst pain you can inflict on society is to punish the innocent, or to kill innocence. Peterson is likely refering to Cain murdering Abel (God's favorite) in order to spite god.
on sexually ‘successful’ stereotypes whom he refers to as ‘Chads and Staceys’ (might those be what JP refers to as ‘archetypes’?)
Chads and Stacey's I believe is a reference to typical popular atheltic guys and good looking, popular girls. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_(slang)
Is it just me or are his tweets & quotes more like this
The extreme left and others however do not like what JP has to say
What does the "extreme left" look like? Genuine question, I have no idea. Can you give me an example perhaps?
Who knew stw was populated mostly by the extreme left !
It's a leftist echo chamber apparently.
Aside, this just popped up in a comment on a friend's Facebook feed.
https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/998234481134727168
Do you have a clearer view of Minassian’s motives that we could use as a starting point to discuss Peterson’s assertions?
Peterson has offered the following errudite explanation as to what he was talking about:
https://jordanbpeterson.com/uncategorized/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/
It's an interesting idea summed up simply by the fact that, based on evidence, men who marry and settle into a monogamous relationship are less prone to violence as a result.
What does the “extreme left” look like?
I think that very much depends on the position of the observer.
What does the “extreme left” look like? Genuine question, I have no idea. Can you give me an example perhaps?
Well any one who uses terms like 'white pviledge' or 'global patriarchy' are likely candidates.
It’s an interesting idea summed up simply by the fact that, based on evidence, men who marry and settle into a monogamous relationship are less prone to violence as a result.
Perhaps we could work on ways to curb male violence, nature vs nurture.
Jimjam wrote,
"Chads and Stacey’s I believe is a reference to typical popular atheltic guys and good looking, popular girls."
That's the common use but it's an awful lot more than that in incel terminology/mania. Basically they're the enemy- Chads are the men stealing the women that you're rightly due, Staceys are the women "denying" you. Being an attractive, sexually active woman is a red rag to these guys, it's like "but they're having sex with men! So there's no good reason they shouldn't have sex with me". It's the logic of "she was asking for it, wearing that skirt" taken to an even further extreme. And a Stacey sleeping with a Chad, well that's the worst of all- that's when the woman isn't just rejecting you, she's rejecting you wrongly. See also: gentleman.
"Private (Recruit) Minassian Infantry 00010, wishing to speak to Sgt 4chan please. C23249161. The Incel Rebellion has already begun! We will overthrow all the Chads and Stacys! All hail the Supreme Gentleman Elliot Rodger."
Monogamy is not the cure for this, any more than a move away from monogamy is a cause. Treatment is the cure for this. It needs to be handled like any other psychiatric disorder, with special consideration to its links to violent radicalisation.