Last week I posted John MacArthur’s response to a seminary student’s question about social justice in the church. In that reply, MacArthur invoked the concept of intersectionality and defined it in a manner which echoed Jordan Peterson in his infamous lecture on white privilege.
Since I first heard Peterson on white privilege, I have considered writing a critical response. The MacArthur post provoked me to finally get to it. In the 10 minute clip below, Peterson explains why he doubts the privilege associated with “white privilege” is actually due to whiteness. Here is the clip. He begins with his views of intersectionality, followed by a critique of white privilege which starts at 4:45.
He doesn’t play fair here by only criticizing one theoretical article from 1988. Nearly all social science concepts start with a notion of some kind which then serves to generate testable hypotheses. As of now, there are empirical studies on the concept. However, his audience leaves thinking white privilege is only the idea of an isolated professor.
At 7:01, Peterson reads from a list of attitudes and behaviors taken for granted by white people. The list was crafted by Peggy McIntosh in a 1988 paper (the full list is here) titled, “White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences Through Work in Women’s Studies.” Note that she says it is a personal account.
Okay, so here’s her white privilege list, some of it, there’s like 50 things. ‘ I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.’ ‘If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.’ That’s actually a wealth thing, by the way. ‘I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.’ ‘I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.’ ‘I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.’ ‘When I am told about our national heritage or about “civilization,” I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.’ There’s 50 of those, I think, something like that.
Okay, is that white privilege, or is that, like majority privilege? Is the same true if you go to China, you’re Chinese, is the same true if you’re Chinese? Is it majority privilege, and if it’s majority privilege, isn’t that just part of living within your culture? So let’s say you live in your culture, you’re privileged in that culture, well obviously. That’s what the culture is for. That’s what it’s for. Why would you bother building the damn thing if it didn’t accrue benefits to you? Well, you might say one of the consequences is that it accrues fewer benefits to those who aren’t in the culture. Yeah, but you can’t immediately associate that with race. You can’t just do that. Say it’s white privilege. There’s many things it could be. Certainly could be wealth. And the intersectional people have already figured out there are many things it could be. So like, what the hell? Seriously, well, what’s going on?
Well, we let these pseudo-disciplines into the university because we’re stupid and guilty, seriously. And they have no methodological requirements and plenty of power and plenty of time to produce nonsensical research and produce like resentful activists and now we’re bearing the fruits of that. It’s not pretty, so white privilege.
So Like Seriously What’s Wrong?
Other than Peterson’s argument by exasperation, the main problem I see is his assumption that majorities of one kind or another build and own the culture. In America, that is silly, and an aspect of white nationalist fantasy. I realize he is Canadian but his arguments apparently appeal to Americans who like the majority white. In America, our history leads us straightaway to race. You can’t talk about majorities and minorities without talking about race.
Let’s apply his argument to America instead of China and see if it doesn’t sound like race is at least one of the important issues of privilege in America. Remember he is criticizing the idea of white privilege. Here is what he said in the video. After that I will substitute America for China.
Okay, is that white privilege, or is that, like majority privilege? Is the same true if you go to China, you’re Chinese, is the same true if you’re Chinese? Is it majority privilege, and if it’s majority privilege, isn’t that just part of living within your culture?
Now let’s substitute America for China.
“Okay, is that white privilege, or is that, like majority privilege? Is the same true if you go to [America]? If you go to [America], you’re [American], is the same true if you’re [American]? Is it majority privilege, and if it’s majority privilege, isn’t that just part of living within your culture?”
See the problem? He seems to be saying that the real, true Americans are the majority Americans. He solidifies this messages by asking, “isn’t that just part of living within your culture?” Jordan, what do you mean “your culture?” In America, the culture isn’t mine as a member of any majority. It is supposed to belong to all citizens. However, it is very clear to me that simply because I am white, I never have had to deal with some things that my African-American friends have had to deal with. By law, it is just as much their culture as mine but they contend with different social rules that they did not get to construct.
Peterson continues to talk about “your culture” as if it belongs to some unspecified majority alone. In what is the most shocking part of this rant to me, he justifies majority privilege as the right of the majority. Then he essentially excludes the minorities from the culture by saying they “accrue fewer benefits” and “aren’t in the culture.”
So let’s say you live in your culture, you’re privileged in that culture, well obviously. That’s what the culture is for. That’s what it’s for. Why would you bother building the damn thing if it didn’t accrue benefits to you? Well, you might say one of the consequences is that it accrues fewer benefits to those who aren’t in the culture. Yeah, but you can’t immediately associate that with race. You can’t just do that. Say it’s white privilege.
An American distinctive is the belief that people from all kinds of backgrounds can make good and have a better life. Many of us want to believe in the promise of America for everybody to realize the same benefits of being an American. Peterson appears to promote a backward view toward an America where the majority stores up benefits for themselves. In the end, he doesn’t refute the concept of white privilege as much as he tries to shout it down. For what purpose? I can’t think of any good one.
While I believe the concept of white privilege does need more empirical support, I also believe there is a use of the term which is simply descriptive. It stands for the observation that race matters in American society and has mattered since the founding. One does not need to embrace identity psychology to simply recognize that racism has not been eradicated from our cultural institutions (e.g., the church, political parties, law enforcement, etc.) and that efforts to minimize that fact are corrosive to our culture. White guys stomping around yelling, “seriously, what the hell?” doesn’t get us any closer to treating others as we want to be treated or ensuring equal treatment under the law.
Like this article and want to see more like it? Support this blog at Patreon.com.
[email-subscribers namefield=”NO” desc=”Subscribe to receive notification of new posts.” group=”Public”]
Image: Dr.Jordan Peterson delivering a lecture at the University of Toronto in 2017. March 20, 2017, Source: Adam Jacobs, Wikimedia, Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.
You make several errors. Peterson did not say that the real, true Americans are the majority Americans. Your premise is completely off. I’m not surprised though because people keep getting him wrong because they don’t know how to comprehend English. Race only matters in America, to those using it to gain something. Example, Joe Biden. “If you don’t vote for me, you ain’t black” he assumes he owns black votes. If we all stop talking about race, then the left would have to move on to some other victimhood to exploit, whether real or imagined. White priviledge is imagined in this day and age. Asians do better than anyone in America. Why is that?
Intersectionality. The logical conclusion of intersectionality is individuality.
The individual is the ultimate minority.
Just saying I made errors doesn’t provide evidence I did. You argue like Peterson. I took his argument about Chinese culture and argued by analogy to the United States. His argument doesn’t work here, unless you define majority. The majority that has mattered since the founding is white male. History doesn’t lie on that point. Asians do better means nothing when they can be rounded up in internment camps or attacked because they are assumed to be the cause of COVID just because of their appearance.
Some individuals matter less than others to society.
Some individuals matter less than others to society.
Some individuals matter less than others to society.
https://youtu.be/nDsoyyJn1jU
Good post! I think Peterson is actually making a category mistake when conflating white and American. Your example substituting America for China demonstrates this well. I haven’t listened to or read Peterson, but it seems to me that a mistake this significant would warrant dismissal of the entire argument.
I doubt there is a greater basis for privilege and discrimination in America than attractiveness. A black individual with straight, white teeth will experience far less discrimination than a white person with horrible teeth. Same with other facial features, same with body type. Most upper middle class settings are uniformly composed of attractive and ordinary looking people. When there are stark exceptions, expect to meet a driven or brilliant individual. Conversely, when was the last time you saw a knockout working at Walmart?
Don’t jump on me too badly. I favor reparations. I just think this is a giant dead-end, and I have heard quite a bit of pushback online from blacks who really despise the notion that they need a white person’s privileged assistance. Much of the identity-driven ideology sounds like a religion.
You’re making this much too complicated, IMO. Is it easier being white or black, all other things being equal? At least in my experience, it has been easier being white than similarly situated black friends. Repeatedly, I have heard this from African-Americans over the years, no matter how attractive or wealthy they are. It doesn’t seem in dispute really. I also don’t see where opposition to what seems evidently true takes anyone. Where does the opponent of white privilege go? What alternative reality makes things better?
Complicated? If I wanted to make things complicated I would ask why minorities in Chicago are treated like 8th class citizens in a city which is operated virtually unopposed by Democrats who speak fluent White Privilege Newspeak® all day long. Answer that and maybe we can approach complicated. “Dead kids every week? Horrible schools? Inhumane prison system? That’s okay… we feel good about ourselves because we wear rainbow lapel pins, know the contrite and compassionate vocabulary, and vote Democrat.”
I completely accept the concept of white privilege. I just don’t think identity-driven ideology is the solution, and I think the proof is that our country is as racially divided as ever. Black lives DON’T matter. People are utterly antagonized and walking on eggshells. It will explode in violence.
I was at Thanksgiving dinner with a family, and one of them was a diversity-education/enforcement professional of some sort in a university setting. So we were talking about these things, and I explained that one of the best experiences I had in understanding what it was like to be black in our country was working on a machine in a factory with a black guy during college. For whole shifts, we were face to face, and talked while we loaded material. He told me what it was like seeing Bill Cosby on I Spy, or seeing black kids in toy commercials growing up. We talked about everything. He told me his white people jokes (we are uncoordinated and smell “stale”). This diversity champion guy was just shaking his head and saying, “Oh, I wouldn’t recommend THAT.” And I said, well, we became good friends and spent time together outside of work, and what’s wrong with that? “Color blindness” is not a stealth racist tactic for people who understand it as shorthand for exactly what MLK spoke about. You might look at military “brat” culture. It’s a glimpse at what is possible when everyone is treated as an individual with identical expectations and responsibilities regardless of race.
I think minorities can decide for themselves what is offensive or permitted or whatever else, and I prefer just to opt out of this decade’s diversity cult craze. It’s an ideology, not a science. Apparently a lot of black people think it’s total bullsh** as well, and are happy to explain why on YouTube. Are they to be corrected by privileged white people who think they know better?
I think you have conflated the concept of white privilege with your disdain of Democrats. WP is baked into America’s culture and institutions, and is independent of, but not separate from, any political party affiliation.
I can’t imagine any diversity professional being displeased by the friendship you had in college as you tell it here. But your post is an odd mixture of glimpses where you almost get it and then lose the concept completely again.
Specifically what he objected to was our exchange of racist jokes that we both knew. While I have not been around people who tell racist jokes since high school, the reality is that I grew up in a rural setting and heard PLENTY. So we shared them. “Why does aspirin work? It’s white.” Horrible, regrettable jokes that I hate now, but we robbed them of any power by talking about them instead of pretending they weren’t real. Apparently that is outside of protocol.
I think you are 100% correct that my obstacle is the political aspect, because I find it exploitative, arrogant, and insincere. That may be because I lived in Chicago and was continually antagonized by the utter neglect and exploitation of minorities by Democrats. They are literally evil. Not because they are Democrats, but because they willfully and continually pander to the wealthy and step all over the weak and the poor, including children. They let them die. They let them languish in societal hell with no education, literally just a few city blocks away from wealth. But, it’s fine as long as they stay off of the Magnificent Mile and out of the loop. Evil, period, and they had a lock on everything. For my own sanity, I did pro bono work and gave money, but it was utterly futile.
I do believe I get it. But I reject the “systematic theology” that leftists have constructed on top of the problem, and I believe it will make the problem worse.
Odd, I have friends in Chicago and others who have lived there in the past, including people of color. None have ever described it as you have. Your experience sounds fairly uncommon.
I produced a fundraising website for a lady living in the Austin neighborhood whose son was shot as an innocent bystander TWICE, years apart. Once while riding his bike and once while playing basketball at SCHOOL. The violence, poor/closed schools, poor jail conditions, and the demographics of the areas in which these problems are concentrated, as well as the party overseeing this ongoing obscenity in Chicago, are facts.
Again, while I am certainly not claiming that Chicago has no problems, I also believe the assertion that its some sort of hell on earth is hyperbole. Chicago today is far safer than it was in the 90’s and before, the trendlines when extended further than the past few years show a city that has improved tremendously decade over decade. Again, not an excuse for ignoring the recent rise in crime and other issues, but pretending its somehow hell on earth when its far better than it was during the Clinton presidency is akin to climate change deniers pretending that any single year where the temperatures didn’t rise means global warming is false (ie: not looking at the longer term trends).
I think you are far too easily pleased when children live every day where you would not dare to drive. But beyond that, look at the changes in how “murders” are characterized and recorded statistically, and how those changes are used to manipulate the crime statistics in Chicago. Look up stories on the Chicago law enforcement “black site”. Look into the Crook County jail (which I am well acquainted with, as my Dad was in it, privileged as I am). Chicago is a lovely city, if you are not black, poor, or incapable of forgetting what you are seeing as you pass by the near west side on the Metra.
If you are going to attempt to put words in my mouth and straw man my points and positions then we have nothing more to discuss. Typically you debate in good faith, I’d appreciate if that trend continued. I am very aware of the things you mentioned. And I already acknowledged that there is a lot left to do, and some things that have gone backwards. It’s a looooong bridge from there to the statement’s you have made on the topic however.
On this point, I am unapologetically inflexible, and if I make people angry I am glad. I have watched the nation spring into action, if not with legistation then with compassion, private assistance and an outpouring of national grief, at the loss of any white children living in affluent areas of the country. If but ONE WHITE CHILD was gunned down in their yard in the north of Chicago, the entire city would be turned upside down. But the kids who die are poor, and they are black, and very few people give a shit if they live or die, are educated or uneducated, and they prove it every single day. Not sorry on this one. It’s an indictment of the entire country and Chicago Democrats in particular that Iraq is safer than black Chicago neighborhoods. Somehow we muster the money and will to assume some degree of responsibility for Iraq.
You put words in my mouth. That is my issue. You can argue till you are blue in the face that Chicago is hell on earth if you wish, I’d contend that a typical black person would find Chicago more welcoming than the vast majority of, say, Alabama, but hey focus your rage on Chicago because “OMG EVIL DEMOCRATS” if you wish, I know it suits your narrative more than the reality that even in supposed terrible places like Chicago a typical black family has more going for them than in the Republican controlled deep south. I’ll wait for you to give a damn about that.
Actually I won’t, you’ll never bring your righteous anger anywhere that does not reflect poorly on those your tribalism demands you criticize.
Of course I care about it. I live near Knoxville now, and you will find me doing a number of things that I hope will be helpful to minority communities here.
I think I made plain my stance on party as it relates to Chicago with this statement: “Not because they are Democrats, but because they willfully and continually pander to the wealthy and step all over the weak and the poor, including children. They let them die.”
I don’t believe that the answer to the problems of Chicago is the Republican Party. I believe it’s for Democrats to quit wrapping themselves in their sanctimonious, partisan narrative and get to work helping the people who are dying in their city under their watch. To date they have done virtually nothing.
You’ve said a lot more than that about Chicago. And you waste virtually no time railing against Republicans in the south. Hell, if I were to talk about terrible liberal/democrat cities in the north for minorities, Chicago wouldn’t even be in my top three (try Boston for instance). I can find no reason for your obsession beyond the possibility that you see it as conflating your politics with your social justice concerns, and the news cycle has been bad for the past couple years (despite extremely positive long term trends).
This exactly.
I agree with seashell. White privilege is a problem but the solution is up for discussion and may look different in different places. Surely, it doesn’t look like Chicago. I am not implying a “liberal” (and certainly not the Trumpian conservative) solution by invoking white privilege (which we agree about).
Peterson and those with him would be better to stipulate that white privilege exists, that race is at the heart of it, and then ask what are we going to do about it? However, I can’t tell what his end game is. Does he want a white majority? Is he pandering to a base to keep an audience? I don’t know what he is about.
I believe that Peterson recognizes the center of the leftist privilege (white, male, straight, etc) ideology as a sheer power grab and a desire for a reinforced leftist heirarchy, rather than a dismantling of structural obstacles that prevent individuals from being elevated for their own skills, talents, interests, etc. I don’t think “white majority” has any meaning or currency in Peterson’s thinking. I do think he believes in a broad, liberal “values majority” and that one of those values would be racial equality.
Intersectionality is a privilege randomizer. IMO, anyone who thinks they can determine their own privilege relative to someone else based on skin color is a flat-out racist. It’s a grotesque notion, full of presumption and arrogance.
the center of the leftist privilege (white, male, straight, etc) ideology as a sheer power grab and a desire for a reinforced leftist heirarchy
I disagree with your premise here. It is almost cliche in its use as a culture war talking point. I was rather surprised to see you wrote it.
My views are left of center, yet I recognize white (male, straight) privilege for what it is and not a means to an end. I’m sure someone, somewhere may see it that way but this has not been my experience. The concept is rather straightforward so I’m usually baffled with the vociferous objections I sometimes encounter.
I would also tend to agree with other commenters that you are interjecting partisan grievances which muddle rather than clarify, and this isn’t normally your habit.
I would be more concerned about that if I felt I could not identify it on the other end of the ideological spectrum. We are continually presented with problems, which unadorned are quite obvious to everyone. Both the left and the right seek to take these issues and recast them in their own ideological mold, and then proceed to insist that to reject their ideological barnacles is to not care/not see the issue. I do believe that, just as with the right, the left has a set of ideas and a vocabulary whose pedigree is utterly toxic. I believe they have conflated those particular ideas with universally recognized issues of race. Because of this, they commonly regard those who disagree with them as simple racists (or blind), as they have nowhere else to go with the argument.
This sounds too much like “a pox on both your houses” which I find far too easy and rarely does it help with a solution. I will agree that labeling someone a racist (or other things) for minor verbal infractions is unfair and counter productive. However, I also believe that it is less a product of ideology and more a result of the sort of instantaneous “mob mind” that social media and 24 hour news has unleashed.
It also implies both sides are equal on these issues (they aren’t), that there is no room for negotiation in the middle (there is), and that the language being used is of equivalent toxicity (it isn’t). Based on War-El’s posts, I don’t know that there is an acceptable middle ground given how he appears to define ‘socialism’ and the left in his posts. A middle ground that does not provide some policies in that space is unlikely to be accepted or effective.
I’m not sure what form he imagines reparations to take, but it won’t be (nor is it requested to be) a single lump sum payment to ‘black people’ and then we all forget about it and move on. It would require a multi-generational effort to improve the lives of African-Americans in the United States, specifically to overcome demonstrated disadvantages they have had for centuries in this nation, starting with slavery and on up and through the issues they face today. I am thinking of a comprehensive form of the GI Bill we give to soldiers and their families, but aimed at ethnic minorities who have been systematically disadvantaged. Think free college tuitions for a minimum of three generations, advantages in lending/interest rates for buying homes, strict regulations on hiring methodology and other employment actions to mitigate conscious and unconscious bias, health care subsidies to counter the effects of inadequate services to minority communities, etc etc.
And I would argue it needs to apply to native americans and possibly other minorities as well, albeit with modifications to suit their specific disadvantages (for instance increased land rights may mean more to tribes than to african-americans).
We do many of these things today for a variety of groups ranging from veterans to civil servants, but any time someone suggests perhaps including a minority with a history of discrimination in these areas of focus it suddenly becomes ‘evil socialism’. If its socialism to do these things for those dealing with the long term effects of racially biased policies, its also socialism to do these things for soldiers returning from war. Let’s not pretend we aren’t making an actual choice there on how we wish to advantage a specific class, and doing so by diverting the resources of other classes.
I also am troubled that people see the social safety net as a burden rather than an investment. Every new hire at every company I’ve ever worked for requires a period of training, new equipment, space in the office, etc, and yet companies continue hiring and training because there is an expectation that most of the hires will be profitable for the company in the end. There is little reason a government could not view its citizens the same way.
The problem is exasperated by “let them” figure it out. We are all made in God’s image. We all have the responsibility to love 1) God first and 2) each other. I am the first to admit that many Black people in inner cities have lost the vision and are on a downward spiral. As a teacher I attempted to address the need to have vision and goals. I was labeled “racist” against my own people! The problem in schools is inability to freely speak of Godliness in order to assess right and wrong. The problem is made worse by electronics that students use in classrooms for anything other than class focus.
We are all responsible for our mindset and how we treat people. There are many Black people that are as educated if not more than their white counterparts. Many of those white people feel threatened by their Black counterparts. They consider all Black people as getting welfare or other benefits that they are either not entitled to receive or gives them an unfair advantage.
Maturity in Christ and demonstration of the fruit of the spirit should eliminate the problem in the body of Christ. The election of Donald Trump widened the fissures of pride, divisiveness, arrogance and consider other people as less than. Why?
Black people, especially women, are considered less attractive. I discovered that the same is true in Hispanic culture. Those that are fair skinned are considered “white.” The Internet has hundreds of thousands of memes referring to Black people as apes and/or superhuman. When we aren’t considered human, it is easier to treat us as “less than.”
Is there a wealth privilege? Yes. Is there attractiveness privilege? Yes. But, I think there is overwhelming evidence for racial privilege as well. “Black” sounding names are less likely to get a call back for a job interview, a housing application, or get a mortgage. Black people are also stopped at a disproportionately high rate by a disproportionately white police force. When they are stopped, they are more likely to be searched, more likely to be arrested if something is found, their bail is likely to be higher, they are more likely to be convicted, and if they are, their sentence is more likely to be higher than their white counterparts.
As Warren said, knowing this, what can we do about it? To say “I have heard quite a bit of pushback online from blacks who really despise the notion that they need a white person’s privileged assistance.” is to miss the point. There is no one “person” who can help. And it is not a question of helping individuals either. If we know where racial bias occurs, we must change the rules of the system that either intentionally *or unintentionally* cause the system to be unfair. This requires the cooperation of many people.
Federal law. No names on employment applications, just a Social Security number. Names are disclosed when payroll gets involved. Done. Next. This does not require that all of America subscribe to an ideology.
That is absolutely one aspect. And I would 100% support this cause even if it unintentionally “disadvantages” me, since I had an implicit bias in my favor before that is being taken away. Right now though, it’s voluntary.
But, what about the justice system? This requires reform too. What about institutions like the police who stop minority at a disproportionate rate? This requires reform too. There are probably many other areas too.
And, I don’t understand. No one is saying America has to subscribe to an ideology. Only to recognize a problem, accept that something should be done about it, and work toward achievable solutions.
“No one is saying America has to subscribe to an ideology.” I disagree 100%. I doubt we’ll sort that out here, but I could not disagree more strongly with you on that point.
On other problem areas, propose specific reforms that address the issue, and people can support or not support those. But, for instance, if the vehicle of choice for the promotion is a particular incarnation of the Black Lives Matter movement, that may be a non-starter for me, as when I encounter explicit articulations of their goals, I find leftist/marxist nonsense.
I personally believe the solution to these things is percolating quite nicely apart from the usual party politics, so that’s where I’m investing my time and effort. I’m hoping for a new, more inclusive and disruptive political movement to emerge.
I would be interested to hear where you hear otherwise. One of the reasons I like Warren’s blog is this it has a good cross section of people who have different political views, but who are for the most part, respectful toward each other. So, for myself personally, I wouldn’t mind if you expanded on this.
As a white person, I see Black Lives Matter as drawing attention to the issue of (mostly) police violence against black people. Some of these people are no angels, but they still don’t deserve to die. It’s a protest against injustice in that regard. I’m not aware of the organization working toward specific national public policy goals. So, I’m not sure what you are opposed to, other than the form the message is delivered.
I basically agree with this take, and it squares with my experience.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq86Beh3T70
I have been literally red-face yelled at by adult lefties for simply saying something they disagree with (I believe three times, and once I didn’t even say it… the guy next to me at dinner did… haha). I have had the experience of attending both Pensacola Christian College (Christian fundamentalist, borderline cultic IMO) and Kent State University. PCC knew they were doctrinaire and rigid. Kent State was just about as doctrinaire on the other end of the political spectrum, but with virtually ZERO self-awareness about it.
I will watch the video when I am home, I’m at work now. But, I just wanted to address a few of your other comments first.
You’ve been yelled at by “lefties”. I’m sorry to break this to you, but people can be aholes, irregardless of political spectrum. I like to engage in ideas, but it takes two people. Some people can’t defend their ideas and a discussion can quickly devolve into shouting. I would even say, most people aren’t used to defending their ideas and when they want to try to, they realize they can’t. I think that reflects on the person though and not the ideas themselves. It’s the same thing as if I told you some conservatives made racist comments. Does that convince you conservatives are racist and therefore all their ideas are bad? No, just those people. So, I would entreat you not make too broad a generalization based on the conduct of individuals.
Certainly this is true. I think people who get kind of out of bounds in discussions about politics tend to be those who believe they have a righteous cause, or that they are the good guys and those they oppose are the bad guys. In all three of these situations, I believe that was the key issue. This is part of the danger of an oppressor/oppressed narrative. If one truly believes that they are being oppressed in an immoral way, almost any response, including violence, may be justified.
After watching this, I have some more comments. I guess, to me, this video is a lot of what’s wrong with current political discourse. First, he argues by labels, saying over and over “illiberal left”, “intolerant left”, “regressive left”. He spends little time actually defining what these term mean. His main point seems to be that liberals are bad, given the labels’ obvious negative connotation.
What he does say about them, it just doesn’t sound honest or fair. The “regressive left” allegedly believes that victim-hood is good and that all identity groups are competing for who can be the most oppressed and therefore most virtuous. Like, who believes this? It doesn’t make any sense first of all. And he doesn’t quote a prominent liberal leader or politician who says something close. He literally offers no evidence that this is what a specific prominent individual believes, let alone the majority of the Left.
His presentation that the Left thinks oppression is virtuous and that groups compete to see who can be the most oppresses is obviously *his* personal take on some liberal argument or idea. But, his presentation is made entirely without faith that what he criticizes is worthy of discussion. Like, he doesn’t present what the liberal idea is and how it leads to the logical conclusion he presents, so that his audience may judge for themselves. He only presents his distorted version of it and asserts this is what the Left believes. I can assure you, as someone who reads liberal blogs on occasion, I’ve never read or heard anything that can be remotely construed as what he says here.
Would you feel convinced to change your mind about something when someone has so little respect for your argument as to twist it beyond all recognition? Maybe if he said how he got there, we could start to have a discussion, but he doesn’t. So, this is a straw man.
His other argument seems to be how intolerant the Left is. Again, A) He asserts this without offering any evidence. What prominent liberal said there’s no space for differing views? B) Invokes it like intolerance somehow invalidates an argument. It doesn’t. C) Pretends like individuals being intolerant somehow paints the entire Left. Are all conservatives racist because some of their members are? Of course no. D) Ignores that other groups have members that are intolerant too. They obviously do, so even if he was correct on all the other points, it would obviously apply to his favored groups as well.
He’s just painting people in way too broad strokes. Even if there were screaming Leftist protesters who hate different opinions. That reflects on those individuals only. He should know that. He should be engaging in ideas.
After watching this, I have some more comments. I guess, to me, this video is a lot of what’s wrong with current political discourse. First, he argues by labels, saying over and over “illiberal left”, “intolerant left”, “regressive left”. He spends little time actually defining what these term mean. His main point seems to be that liberals are bad, given the labels’ obvious negative connotation.
What he does say about them, it just doesn’t sound honest or fair. The “regressive left” allegedly believes that victim-hood is good and that all identity groups are competing for who can be the most oppressed and therefore most virtuous. Like, who believes this? It doesn’t make any sense first of all. And he doesn’t quote a prominent liberal leader or politician who says something close. He literally offers no evidence that this is what a specific prominent individual believes, let alone the majority of the Left.
His presentation that the Left thinks oppression is virtuous and that groups compete to see who can be the most oppresses is obviously *his* personal take on some liberal argument or idea. But, his presentation is made entirely without faith that what he criticizes is worthy of discussion. Like, he doesn’t present what the liberal idea is and how it leads to the logical conclusion he presents, so that his audience may judge for themselves. He only presents his distorted version of it and asserts this is what the Left believes. I can assure you, as someone who reads liberal blogs on occasion, I’ve never read or heard anything that can be remotely construed as what he says here.
Would you feel convinced to change your mind about something when someone has so little respect for your argument as to twist it beyond all recognition? Maybe if he said how he got there, we could start to have a discussion, but he doesn’t. So, this is a straw man.
His other argument seems to be how intolerant the Left is. Again, A) He asserts this without offering any evidence. What prominent liberal said there’s no space for differing views? B) Invokes it like intolerance somehow invalidates an argument. It doesn’t. C) Pretends like individuals being intolerant somehow paints the entire Left. Are all conservatives racist because some of their members are? Of course no. D) Ignores that other groups have members that are intolerant too. They obviously do, so even if he was correct on all the other points, it would obviously apply to his favored groups as well.
He’s just painting people in way too broad strokes. Even if there were screaming Leftist protesters who hate different opinions. That reflects on those individuals only. He should know that. He should be engaging in ideas.
I can see how someone would respond like that to his take. Rubin used to be on Young Turks, so maybe he’s bitter. But it’s just an arrow… if you’ve heard all you need to hear, I’m good with that, but there’s much more there if you want it, particularly on his channel.
Come on dude, Rubin is a total paid for hack. Are you gonna post Praeger U videos next? You seem to like right wing “intellectuals” and hate the left. Why? Thomas Sowell is a hack as well. Are you going to put up some Sam Harris also?
Your positions are basically the proud boy, incel, view with some self righteous animas.
I have no idea what you are referencing when you refer to these people as “hacks” or “right-wing”, but if you have specifics to point to I’m glad to consider them.
It might be better to just share your ideology yourself rather than using Dave Rubin. He does have some baggage and rather fell into the gig as a political commentator. Making statements like he “considers being politically progressive to be a mental disorder” doesn’t help either. It is better that your views be considered on their own merits rather than adding Rubin’s issues to the mix, or so it seems to me.
Sure… here’s my ideology: No ideology is reality. An ideology is a way of framing and understanding reality. Consequently, I try to identify the difference between facts and ideological structures built on top of facts.
Everyone engages in some form of constructive or reductive ideology, and Dave Rubin certainly has an ideology (classical liberal, libertarian, free market, pro-Bill of Rights, etc). The degree to which I find him useful or interesting is the degree to which he rejects both leftist and right-wing ideology. What is key is that he seems to comprehend that the left and the right will always, always co-exist. And they need to, because they counterbalance one another. Attempt to suppress either one, and you have lit the fuse.
Ideology is inescapable. But at the very least, I want to be able to detect when I am getting a “cops and robbers” narrative. IMO, modern leftism at its most pronounced (some universities, some media, some corporate cultures) is utterly comical in its conviction that it is right and everyone else is wrong. It polices language and vocabulary, it polices art, it polices the activities of its own adherents. It’s essentially a religion. When far left ideologues start getting all over me or others about identity politics, etc., they seem unaware of how impotent and small they are. They are like Christians who tell atheists that they are going to hell because the Bible says so, and are unable to grasp that the people they are talking to share none of their faith convictions. (I’m a theologically conservative evangelical in most respects, btw.)
Currently I am without a political home. I despise both political parties. I don’t believe that fully blossomed Libertarianism is the answer. So, I am just watching and waiting for a movement I can support to emerge. The likes of Dave Rubin, Sam Harris, and others who have been identified as part of the “intellectual dark web” are the only ones making much sense to me right now.
As an addendum to my previous response, let me say that I do not think it is as simple as what I described. We obviously can’t dissect and come to agreement/disagreement on all of this in the space provided. I just gave you a bit of my own thinking on when and why things started going south.
The bottom line is that I think we agree, as do most people I know, that we need both sides represented i.e. at least two parties that work together for the common good. We probably disagree about whether and which party is more dysfunctional and carries a greater burden for the present state of affairs.
I hope we can also agree that Trump represents, if not a worst case scenario (Lord I hope the bar goes no lower!), then certainly a step in the wrong direction. It still boggles my mind when I realize that a big chunk of voters still support him. What does that say about us?
I don’t think there is any disagreement there, certainly not from me. But I can remember a time when both parties did work together when necessary, and I have voted with both. Where I see the breakdown starting is with the Goldwater race against Johnson in 1964, and a vast acceleration during the Moral Majority days in the 1980s. The Right became intransigent and compromise was no longer seen as positive and necessary.
This is also the period when the new conservative economic doctrines which George H. W. Bush correctly called “voodoo economics” came into play. It was a perfect storm of religious leaders tapping into political power and nationalism becoming the new religion. Our budget has never been the same, and the GOP has morphed into a bizarre mess which is anything but conservative.
I realize that the Democratic party has gone through its own issues during this time, but having watched from both sides of the aisle over the years, it seems largely in response to the changes in the GOP. They certainly aren’t at their best now, and I don’t see that changing very soon unless they get a grip on priorities. The threat from this current administration goes beyond parties and requires a counterbalance of rival control in the Congress.
In order for this country to work, we need at least two functioning, healthy political parties that speak for the major views of the people. That’s not happening but from where I sit, I can’t equate the evils. I see far more damage coming from the Right, and it has been a long time coming.
Are you trying to suggest that structural racism isn’t a real thing? Or are you saying that racism exists, but calling attention to it (a la Black Lives Matter) is somehow making it improperly ideological?
Structural racism is absolutely real. We see it in everything from school funding to city zoning. I believe it is primarily a government problem, as most market-driven entities have virtually zero incentive to discriminate based on race, and are very easily impacted if they do. Jim Crow laws were government laws.
There are many practical ways to address these issues, and people can disagree strongly on what approaches are best (Thomas Sowell, anyone?). Unfortunately in the current political climate, there are groups who think anyone who disagrees with them about what should be done (or said, or thought) is “racist”, “alt-right”. “white supremecist”. I think this is the particular slice of the political pie that Jordan Peterson takes exception to (and I’m not in lockstep with Peterson).
The way I read this is “Until they agree with me politically I refuse to attempt to solve the acknowledged issues of white privilege, bias and racism.
What their political, economic or social opinions are (and they vary person to person) is irrelevant to working with them to solve the identified issues you have stated you agree with. It is, in fact, a point of privilege that you are in a position to assist yet refuse to do so without those you claim to want to help agreeing to your conditions on their beliefs and rights to assert them. You are putting conditions on them for righting a wrong you acknowledge, conditions that are themselves another form of bondage and which inherently reinforce racism and white privilege.
Of course. First, it’s not just white people who don’t agree with Black Lives Matter, or at least with particular facets of it. But agreeing that a problem exists does not mean we agree about the solution or that I have to be precluded from opposing their solution because I think it will end in greater strife and violence.
Perhaps, but you are not predicating your solution on a generally accepted proposal, instead you are drawing lines in the sand and your own statements are referring to their perceived beliefs rather than agreed upon proposals which are typically some form of a middle ground between the extremes.
Skin color is a large part of perceived attractiveness. There is an enormous market for skin whiteners, hair straighteners and cosmetic surgery to subdue natural racial signifiers specifically because of this. Your point is inverted, the issue for a white person with bad teeth is that they are not the perceived ideal white person, not that they are lower than those seen as black/asian/hispanic/etc.
I also don’t know where you get the data to back the assertion that people with bad teeth are discriminated against more than african-americans.
I was spitballing. While there are surely studies on attractiveness and perception/advancement, I’m no expert on them.
Thank you for covering this. Peterson’s uneducated, ill-informed critique of White Privilege will be attractive to Peterson’s uneducated White followers who know nothing of Intersectionality and have never heard of Critical Race Theory and live far from the scholarly spheres of actual research in the humanities and social sciences. It’s telling that Peterson’s two peer-reviewed books are not on the subject of White Privilege. Will Peterson next decide to critique a 1988 paper on plant cell biology, another topic he has no training in?
Peterson’s embarrassing “What about China?” whataboutism attempt at derailment illustrates nothing other than his ignorance. Peterson’s strategy is akin to John MacArthur’s self-serving non-argument: “My-ignorance-is-superior-to-the-informed-knowledge-of-others.”
Thank you Dr. Throckmorton for your considerate, helpful response.
Don’t write off Peterson’s followers as uneducated. His primary audience is young white men starting college and is designed to reset the framework of what they will learn about culture there. A good article about this: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/intellectual-dark-web.html
This is why Peterson and his peers are dangerous. I’m very disappointed to see Michael Shermer among this group, I have long respected him and recommended his books.
Reflex, I’ll have to revise my statement above in light of your added context:
“Peterson’s uneducated, ill-informed critique of White Privilege will be attractive to Peterson’s White followers who are likewise uneducated and ill-informed about Intersectionality, Critical Race Theory, and actual researchers in the humanities and social sciences who produce such scholarship.”
So I agree with you, Peterson’s followers may certainly be pursuing an education in one of the numerous strands of Psychology that don’t study intersectionality or systemic racism, just like so many other academic fields that are likewise uninformed and ill-informed about intersectionality and systemic racism. Peterson can post all the YouTube nonsense he wants, but he’ll never be accepted as an authoritative voice by actual scholars who produce peer-reviewed scholarship on intersectionality, critical race theory, systemic racism, and so forth.
I am not sure how to reply to this. He certainly does take advantage of people who’s education is about to begin to ensure they enter it with a biased point of view, but Peterson is absolutely not uneducated or ill-informed. He is a PhD with strong academic credentials. In my opinion, he is using his skills in psychology to manipulate the unprepared into viewing the world in a way he prefers before they have the critical thinking skills to see through it. Quite frankly its evil.
Peterson is educated, but he is using his education for intentional evil. His followers are largely educated as well, but due to his influence their education is subverted to advance his goals rather than any conclusions they would have drawn on their own. Dismissing both as uneducated misses the point, which is why I linked the article I did about how several leading authorities are using high levels of education to subvert the education of the young and unprepared.
Peterson’s argument might make sense if applied to the Amish as a subculture which has chosen to be separate.
Yes, there is a difference between African-American culture and white American culture. But I see this difference as mostly a result of a history of discrimination. Using that difference to justify continued discrimination seems seriously wrong.
There are some differences but they all go together to form American culture. Neither culture has any claim to be a privileged American culture. However, white culture appears to me to be privileged by institutions in American culture.
I doubt Peterson would say he justifies discrimination but the doubt he throws onto obvious privilege gives cover for all kinds of white nationalists.
One can’t divert from the truth for fear that it will be abused by ignorant bigots. Deal with the bigotry on its own terms.
Dr. T didn’t say the doubt was reasonable or true, he said the doubt gives cover to white nationalists. Two different things,
Good job. Thanks!