Jordan Peterson

[miaasma]

i mean, typing overtly racist rhetoric and then posting it online uncritically is just naturally going to attract these sorts of responses. i don't know that you get to accuse others of willingly misinterpreting you to make you look racist when you get to that point

 

[Traitorfish]

"JayZ is asking "why does this happen to black people and not to white people [or Jewish people]?" And the answer to Jay is that white people, and especially Jewish people were forward looking, thinking generationally, and invested their money back into their community and their family, so that the next generation starts with a strong future basically assured."

Most white ethnics were similarly stereotyped as short-sighted spendthrifts. It's a classic way to justify poverty wages: why give them more when they will just fritter it away? Jews, Chinese and Japanese are the exception, not the rule, and forced their way through mostly because they were drawn from artisan-mercantile strata in their home countries, rather than peasant-labourer strata like white ethnics- and, of course, were consequently stereotyped as miserly, joyless scrooges as a result, because they weren't going to get away with being the exception unless they could be used to prove the more basic rule that "foreigners lack moral character".

They perceive a disrespect to their nation. To deliberately snub a tradition of honoring the flag is making a statement about America. But if you think that's hypocritical in light of that flag being used for casual purposes, feel free to ascribe it to whatever sinister motives you can dream up.

But we're not the ones who have framed this in terms of respect for the flag. If it's about respecting the flag in a specific ritual context, fine, then we can have a discussion around the place of popular rituals in public life. But the anti-Kaepernick crowd, these things aren't supposed to be discussed, they're just supposed to be upheld. If you start discussing it, you start bringing politics into it, and nothing upsets patriotic ritual like bringing political disagreement into it.

The purpose of highlighting the apparent contradiction between people raging at a man silently kneeling in front of the flag and people rubbing their sweaty nutsack up and down the flag is to highlight that it's not about the flag, it's about what is allowed to be said, by who, and where. The "flag" angle is supposed to maintain the assumption that there restrictions are apolitical, that they are not about power and the exercise of power, but the inconsistent zeal for the flag in itself demonstrates that this is precisely what it's all about.

Dammit, Scott wrote that review so we wouldn't have to!

I don't think that's how book reviews work.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Are there any flag lawyers who can tell me if American flag bunting is a respectful use of Old Glory?

Not a lawyer, but one of the proper ways to dispose of an old, worn flag is to burn it in a ceremony.

Oh crap I saw 'bunting' and thought it was 'burning'. Never mind.

 

[sophie]

Not a lawyer, but one of the proper ways to dispose of an old, worn flag is to burn it in a ceremony.

Oh crap I saw 'bunting' and thought it was 'burning'. Never mind.

This is good PC+1

 

[Mouthwash]

Most white ethnics were similarly stereotyped as short-sighted spendthrifts. It's a classic way to justify poverty wages: why give them more when they will just fritter it away? Jews, Chinese and Japanese are the exception, not the rule, and forced their way through mostly because they were drawn from artisan-mercantile strata in their home countries, rather than peasant-labourer strata like white ethnics- and, of course, were consequently stereotyped as miserly, joyless scrooges as a result, because they weren't going to get away with being the exception unless they could be used to prove the more basic rule that "foreigners lack moral character".

I honestly can't say if Jay-z is right or not. The family structure is what I'm interested in.

But we're not the ones who have framed this in terms of respect for the flag. If it's about respecting the flag in a specific ritual context, fine, then we can have a discussion around the place of popular rituals in public life. But the anti-Kaepernick crowd, these things aren't supposed to be discussed, they're just supposed to be upheld. If you start discussing it, you start bringing politics into it, and nothing upsets patriotic ritual like bringing political disagreement into it.

The purpose of highlighting the apparent contradiction between people raging at a man silently kneeling in front of the flag and people rubbing their sweaty nutsack up and down the flag is to highlight that it's not about the flag, it's about what is allowed to be said, by who, and where. The "flag" angle is supposed to maintain the assumption that there restrictions are apolitical, that they are not about power and the exercise of power, but the inconsistent zeal for the flag in itself demonstrates that this is precisely what it's all about.

Of course it's political. They're making a political statement, and doing so in a way easily interpretable as dismissing the entirety of American history and culture as immoral. How does that translate to 'they don't like darkies?'

I don't think that's how book reviews work.

Shhhhh! Don't let the Lesswrong crowd catch you saying that.

 

[Lexicus]

missing the entirety of American history and culture as immoral.

So the entirety of American history and culture is police violence against people of color?

When did you join the radical left?

 

[inthesomeday]

Tbh is it even radically leftist to recognize that anymore? It feels more like far right historical revisionism not to nowadays, like even rando liberals kinda are coming around on that

 

[Mouthwash]

So the entirety of American history and culture is police violence against people of color?

When did you join the radical left?

Did you read the first half of that sentence?

 

[inthesomeday]

So the meat of this discussion is whether or not America’s history is racist and violent towards the poor, really. Again. Only the specifics have changed.

 

[Lexicus]

Tbh is it even radically leftist to recognize that anymore? It feels more like far right historical revisionism not to nowadays, like even rando liberals kinda are coming around on that

It's pretty plainly wrong regardless of its ideological valences...as I already said, not even the people kneeling believe that. Colin Kaepernick and the other NFL players are not anarcho-communists who have read Settlers. Most liberals as far as I am aware are unencumbered by an intellectual and emotional commitment to fully and completely break with the past, and so are not writing off American history as entirely consisting of police violence against PoC.

Did you read the first half of that sentence?

Of course I did. It's only "easily interpretable" that way if you ignore their public statements about what they are doing. Since we know that you would never do such a thing we must conclude you believe that the "entirety of American history" is police violence against people of color.

.

 

[sophie]

Most white ethnics were similarly stereotyped as short-sighted spendthrifts. It's a classic way to justify poverty wages: why give them more when they will just fritter it away? Jews, Chinese and Japanese are the exception, not the rule, and forced their way through mostly because they were drawn from artisan-mercantile strata in their home countries, rather than peasant-labourer strata like white ethnics- and, of course, were consequently stereotyped as miserly, joyless scrooges as a result, because they weren't going to get away with being the exception unless they could be used to prove the more basic rule that "foreigners lack moral character".

This is all true. And none of what Jay-Z says in that song isn't also to say that a lot of the vicious cycle aspects that Jay identifies aren't also a direct result of the racist systems specifically designed to keep things that way. Segregation both de iure and de facto force minorities into ghettoes with fewer job, wellness, and educational opportunities. Hyper or spurious enforcement of the law on minority groups split families and deprive them both of primary breadwinners and legitimate access to avenues for income. High incarceration rates, shoddily built housing, predatory financial organizations, unfair, predatory policing practices (e.g. this), and high legal fees all serve to create a situation where minority communities have no choice but to live day-to-day. This too is all part of the message of the song: don't play the white man's game because their game is designed to make you dance for their amusement and then lose to their benefit.

 

[metalhead]

"JayZ is asking "why does this happen to black people and not to white people [or Jewish people]?" And the answer to Jay is that white people, and especially Jewish people were forward looking, thinking generationally, and invested their money back into their community and their family, so that the next generation starts with a strong future basically assured."

And you were asking, essentially, "Why is 'black culture' ruining black neighborhoods?" Which is an entirely different question, with entirely racist framing.

The answer to "why are people with less experience having property and wealth (due to social and legal hierarchies well outside their control) not as skilled in managing it" is self-evident. It's a learned skill. Jay-Z is observing a phenomenon but not assigning culpability for it to the race of the people involved. As noted by other posters, and by me in this post, the reasons for this are most certainly not being attributed by Jay to "Black culture."

Whereas you're specifically assigning the blame for this problem to the culture of Black people. I don't know how much better I can explain to you how what you're saying is racist. And turning to Black art to take hip-hop lyrics out of context to try to justify your racist post - ugh, man.

 

[inthesomeday]

Colin Kaepernick and the other NFL players are not anarcho-communists who have read Settlers.

:-(

Most liberals as far as I am aware are unencumbered by an intellectual and emotional commitment to fully and completely break with the past, and so are not writing off American history as entirely consisting of police violence against PoC.

It depends on your definition of police. Most liberals (and people) recognize that America wouldn’t exist without at least one genocide, and more are coming around on a second one. Making it “police” violence is a task of making conquistadores, cavalry, and overseers into police.

 

[Lexicus]

It depends on your definition of police. Most liberals (and people) recognize that America wouldn’t exist without at least one genocide, and more are coming around on a second one. Making it “police” violence is a task of making conquistadores, cavalry, and overseers into police.

Recognition that the US would not exist without one genocide is not what I meant by dismissing the entirety of US history as consisting of police violence against PoC. Of course, whether "conquistadors" have much to do with US history is another question.

 

[metalhead]

I mean they were a pretty terrible UU in Civ3

 

[inthesomeday]

Recognition that the US would not exist without one genocide is not what I meant by dismissing the entirety of US history as consisting of police violence against PoC. Of course, whether "conquistadors" have much to do with US history is another question.

I never said the US. And anyway, there’s never been a moment of history in the US in which its government wasn’t killing POC somewhere.

 

[Lexicus]

I never said the US. And anyway, there’s never been a moment of history in the US in which its government wasn’t killing POC somewhere.

That's probably true of a fairly wide majority of world governments today.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I never said the US. And anyway, there’s never been a moment of history in the US in which its government wasn’t killing POC somewhere.

If you leave off the "oC" and don't specify one particular nation that becomes a universal truism. Nations compete for resources, and life and death have always been at stake.

 

[inthesomeday]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ That’s one of their big problems yeah

 

[Lexicus]

So does world history consist of nothing but violence? I don't think so. I think humans have done a lot worthwhile. I try to like us. If you're intellectually committed to the idea of "the revolution" then you will write off the past as entirely worthless. So it goes.