Jordan Peterson

[inthesomeday]

Admittedly, yes, sometimes I am. Generally, when you are clearly in a back and forth with someone else, as you are here with TMIT, and I am immersed in a conversation with someone else, I might scroll past some stuff.

However, your statement that "the only thing subjective about justice comes from a difference in fundamental morality" is totally disagreeable. You provided an example, which is fine because you chose one that supports your premise. If that difference in fundamental morality exists, then yes those people will assign 'just' or 'unjust' differently to the same actions. But there are abundant examples that do not fit.

Despite some doubts that have been introduced, I think that all of us share the same fundamental morality with regards to killing and eating the tasty people. By agreement, we declare such actions unacceptable and meriting of punishment. But what punishment is just? Some might say that the violater should be slaughtered and chopped into steaks to provide for the victims family. Some others might say that they should write fifty times on a chalkboard 'I will not eat the neighbors.' Clearly there is a discrepancy in these people's understandings of justice, even though their fundamental morality in regards to the matter at hand is the same.

Once again, you misrepresent my position. I’m not saying that people might believe in different levels of justice or different means to achieve justice, but every single thing you proposed here follows my INCREDIBLY BASIC definition of literally the word “justice”. Every single response to the cannibalism follows what I said, as in each seeks to right past wrongs by achieving fairness.

God guys this isn’t rocket science. Like I feel like the word “justice” can be defined fairly non-controversially.

Social justice is not a "1 or 0" property. There is some that I agree with, and very likely at least some positions where you don't.

So, to go back to what originally started this debate, the thing I said that everybody flipped out over was “imagine telling someone without an ideological stake in this fight that ‘social justice’ was a negative phrase.” Social justice, literally the phrase. Do you disagree that people without years of conditioning to believe this phrase means white genocide or whatever other fascist myths would probably assign a positive value to this phrase?

You can't have literally everything equal. That's a falsifiable and false position in reality...the sun and shrimp are different things. So too with people. Maybe you want equal treatment before the law (very likely). I find it doubtful you would support everyone having "equal jobs" (IE everyone doing literally the same thing at all times w/o exception) with today's technology limitations. Maybe you would try to make everyone equal height? Maybe not.

Tfw social equality is just goddamn impossible to understand. I actually have a meme about this, I’ll post it in a sec.

The problem is that in practice when you force equality in some regards you wind up removing it in others. It is important to not run from the fact that this happens. It can be a bad thing, but it doesn't have to be. What matters are the priorities.

What about anti-racism is forcing equality? Is preventing people from forcing inequality forcing equality?

500 years of racism is wrong. Alleging a second generation immigrant to the USA somehow shoulders the burden of "500 of years of racism" more so than literally any other population subgroup is nonsense.

500 years of racism is very wrong! I wish it didn’t happen too.
Oh wait you’re intentionally misunderstanding what the word racism means. Oh well...

Putting consequences on said immigrant family for other peoples' racism is a wrong, yes.

What consequence is that? If that family has become wealthy on the back of racism then why does it matter how long they’ve participated in it? You have an incredibly limited concept of context, especially historical context.

I didn't say anything about race anywhere in the post you're quoting. There are lots of ways people differ to each other than race, and every single one of them interferes with the premise of "equal". Quite a few aren't fair. A subset of those are controllable.

Answer the following question with either yes or no: Does race have an inherent, biological effect on people’s abilities?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Or when the sun starts dying.

Nope. That will strengthen the "us versus them" because there will be some sort of desperate plan that will save "us" while leaving "them" to die with the sun. For all people to be "us" there has to be something that is different enough and threatening enough to fill the role of "them." Terminators is another candidate.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Once again, you misrepresent my position. I’m not saying that people might believe in different levels of justice or different means to achieve justice, but every single thing you proposed here follows my INCREDIBLY BASIC definition of literally the word “justice”. Every single response to the cannibalism follows what I said, as in each seeks to right past wrongs by achieving fairness.

No they don't. The fifty times on the blackboard punishment makes no pretense about "righting past wrongs" or "achieving fairness." It is rooted in the theory that punishment is intended primarily as deterrence, a forward looking view of justice. The chopping into steaks is rooted in the theory 'an eye for an eye,' a view of justice that places it as more important than morality.

There can be no "incredibly basic definition" of the word justice in a discussion of justice. The high level abstraction inherent in that word merits such discussion, which I referred to earlier as the negotiation of what we are all willing to take it to mean when used in some immediate conversation. If we intend to discuss crime and appropriate punishment, attempts to redress centuries of immoral actions, the merciful nature of God, any number of subjects, then we probably should hash out an agreed 'meaning' for justice so we aren't just confusing each other. But if the topic is the meaning of justice, or its value, or how to measure it, or some other intrinsically related aspect, then starting from a universal acceptance of some gross simplification in terms of a definition just short circuits the conversation.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

So, to go back to what originally started this debate, the thing I said that everybody flipped out over was “imagine telling someone without an ideological stake in this fight that ‘social justice’ was a negative phrase.” Social justice, literally the phrase. Do you disagree that people without years of conditioning to believe this phrase means white genocide or whatever other fascist myths would probably assign a positive value to this phrase?

I disagree, yes. The first question crossing my mind is "how is social justice different from ordinary justice or justice in general". Before I'd started hearing the term regularly, my guess was actually that it meant punishing people socially for perceived wrongs. Something along the lines of shunning someone who is consistently a jerk, but with in-group and out-group bias. It turned out to mean something pretty different from that.

Tfw social equality is just goddamn impossible to understand.

3 = 3. A unit of measure is identical to that same unit of measure consistently. This is not a consistently applicable process to two different individuals.

What about anti-racism is forcing equality? Is preventing people from forcing inequality forcing equality?

Forcing inequality is inequality. I'm not sure why this has to be about race. You'd normally want to prevent inequality derived solely on the basis of non-relevant physical properties, and that should remain true both within a single race and between them.

500 years of racism is very wrong! I wish it didn’t happen too.
Oh wait you’re intentionally misunderstanding what the word racism means. Oh well...

Nobody has 500 years of racism on their hands. Unfortunately, nobody has lived long enough for it to be possible.

What consequence is that? If that family has become wealthy on the back of racism

That's quite the assumption. I reject it.

You have an incredibly limited concept of context, especially historical context.

That's my line. If we're going history route why the arbitrary cutoffs/haphazard application?

Answer the following question with either yes or no: Does race have an inherent, biological effect on people’s abilities?

No.

At best you have an increased probability of some things and a decreased probability of others. But knowing race alone does not inherently predict ability, and "race" as typically defined is...lacking in detail. People use stuff like "Caucasian" and "African American" as if this actually tells us much. Immigrants from Mali, Somalia, France, and Poland could broadly fall into these categories. While the country of origin is still a poor predictor, it's probably a better one than "X person's ancestors were in Y continent at some point over the last few centuries".

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I disagree, yes. The first question crossing my mind is "how is social justice different from ordinary justice or justice in general". Before I'd started hearing the term regularly, my guess was actually that it meant punishing people socially for perceived wrongs. Something along the lines of shunning someone who is consistently a jerk, but with in-group and out-group bias. It turned out to mean something pretty different from that.

It did?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It did?

Yeah. It ranges everything in the spectrum from reasonable discourse on how people should be treated to physically assaulting people on the grounds that they're nazis with no coherent reasoning for that conclusion. Some of it has become law, which separates it from basic social punishment.

It's apparently quite the wide umbrella depending on who is using it and who they're trying to describe. Maybe not as high level abstraction as the general concept of justice, but certainly not just a small group of people shunning one person for misconduct either.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yeah. It ranges everything in the spectrum from reasonable discourse on how people should be treated to physically assaulting people on the grounds that they're nazis with no coherent reasoning for that conclusion. Some of it has become law, which separates it from basic social punishment.

It's apparently quite the wide umbrella depending on who is using it and who they're trying to describe. Maybe not as high level abstraction as the general concept of justice, but certainly not just a small group of people shunning one person for misconduct either.

Ah. In this pass you introduced that the group is small. When you were just saying "in-group and out-group bias" I thought it was pretty accurate, since "social justice" seems very much an internet construct in which the "punishing people socially" is performed on a gigantic scale of audience. For example, to be branded as a "social justice warrior" on the pages of Breitbarf opens one to a wide variety of internet "assaults" from their million or so deplorable readers, an application of punishment that that "in-group" administers in their own effort to produce "social justice."

 

[inthesomeday]

No they don't. The fifty times on the blackboard punishment makes no pretense about "righting past wrongs" or "achieving fairness." It is rooted in the theory that punishment is intended primarily as deterrence, a forward looking view of justice. The chopping into steaks is rooted in the theory 'an eye for an eye,' a view of justice that places it as more important than morality.

This is a fair rebuttal to my original phrasing. Maybe instead something like: justice is the response to a wrongdoing.

There can be no "incredibly basic definition" of the word justice in a discussion of justice. The high level abstraction inherent in that word merits such discussion, which I referred to earlier as the negotiation of what we are all willing to take it to mean when used in some immediate conversation. If we intend to discuss crime and appropriate punishment, attempts to redress centuries of immoral actions, the merciful nature of God, any number of subjects, then we probably should hash out an agreed 'meaning' for justice so we aren't just confusing each other. But if the topic is the meaning of justice, or its value, or how to measure it, or some other intrinsically related aspect, then starting from a universal acceptance of some gross simplification in terms of a definition just short circuits the conversation.

But this isn’t a discussion of justice, ever since everyone flipped their **** over the idea that “social justice” is probably a positive phrase to people who’ve never heard it before. It’s been a discussion of incredibly basic definitions.

I disagree, yes. The first question crossing my mind is "how is social justice different from ordinary justice or justice in general". Before I'd started hearing the term regularly, my guess was actually that it meant punishing people socially for perceived wrongs. Something along the lines of shunning someone who is consistently a jerk, but with in-group and out-group bias. It turned out to mean something pretty different from that.

That’s weird. You have a funny way of interpreting words.

Nobody has 500 years of racism on their hands. Unfortunately, nobody has lived long enough for it to be possible.

So in your mind can justice only be enacted against individuals? What about systems?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

For example, to be branded as a "social justice warrior" on the pages of Breitbarf opens one to a wide variety of internet "assaults" from their million or so deplorable readers, an application of punishment that that "in-group" administers in their own effort to produce "social justice."

Even when used in a derogatory/ironic manner to describe other people someone doesn't like, even under THAT constraint "social justice warrior" can be used to describe people taking very tangibly different actions (violence vs complaining loudly vs pushing for legal reform). And yes, some people acting in response to this are essentially fighting "social justice" with a mostly indistinguishable "social justice" and seem to lack the self reflection to notice. On both sides of the tomato flinging fence too.

That’s weird. You have a funny way of interpreting words.

Weird is probably fair, but I feel the same way about how other people interpret things. Though seeing how often people approach things differently than me is nice reinforcement for relying on empirical evidence whenever I manage to pay attention.

So in your mind can justice only be enacted against individuals? What about systems?

If a system is broken, it makes sense to fix it. If it was broken in bad faith, you probably have some individuals to hold responsible.

Applying the concept of "justice" to the context of systems is awkward.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Even when used in a derogatory/ironic manner to describe other people someone doesn't like, even under THAT constraint "social justice warrior" can be used to describe people taking very tangibly different actions (violence vs complaining loudly vs pushing for legal reform).

Consider that taking tangibly different actions may be more a reflection of capability and access rather than being associated with any aspect of justice. For example, hardly any level of outrage someone here on this forum may inspire in me has any chance at all of leading to violence, no matter how much my understanding of justice may incline me to feel it is warranted. Lack of capability and access drives that.

At another level, let's say that you get in some fender bending event in a parking lot. Two people are involved, and they have wildly different views not only on what is a "just outcome," but on what actually even happened. They may agree that their access to justice is through a neutral arbiter and call a cop. But if one of them is an undocumented person that access to justice isn't available, and perhaps "settling it like men" seems more appropriate than it normally would.

Which brings us to the violent "social justice warrior." How much futile "pushing for legal reform," how much futile "complaining loudly" has to be invested before justice demands violence?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

How much futile "pushing for legal reform," how much futile "complaining loudly" has to be invested before justice demands violence?

No idea. On the flip side, how much of the violence actually occurring over this changes the law or even day-to-day interactions on average? Usually the people highlighted on either side of this tend to be the least rational.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No idea. On the flip side, how much of the violence actually occurring over this changes the law or even day-to-day interactions on average? Usually the people highlighted on either side of this tend to be the least rational.

Ah. Consider how rooted your statement there is in the assumption that violence (or the more general 'extreme behavior') is inherently irrational.

To expand on what I asked, let me more clearly define how I used the word futile. In asking how much futile complaining loudly is required there are a couple of built in statements.

First, complaining loudly has been tried. Describing the complaining loudly as futile means that we are not in some hypothetical "well, no point in complaining loudly" or "I'm too lazy to complain loudly" or whatever. There is actual complaining loudly that did occur so can be described.

Second, complaining loudly not only has not worked (that would just be ineffective complaining loudly) but has not worked either long enough or in some spectacular fashion that demonstrates that it just is not going to work, or even help in any way towards making something else work.

So, to some extent the question is a cheat. The only rational answer is zero. As soon as the complaining loudly has reached the point where it is accurately described as futile there is no point in any further complaining loudly. There is no point in any futile pushing for legal reform. Now, there may be some debate over whether the point of futility has actually been reached, but if it has than the only available, rational courses of action are extreme actions such as violence, or abandonment of the pursuit of justice altogether.

People in general and USians in particular are very "extreme averse." The demand to keep doing something futile because it is "reasonable" or otherwise "acceptable" is very strong.

 

[Lexicus]

But anyone who wants to "dismantle masculinity" certainly isn't trying to maintain all the existing pillars of civilization so you can see why someone as triggered as Jordan Peterson is to the totalist language of some left-wingers as authoritarian,

What JP doesn't see is that the "existing pillars of civilization" consist, upon close inspection, of layer upon layer of corpses.

Applying the concept of "justice" to the context of systems is awkward.

Only if you're wearing the blinders of methodological individualism...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Ah. Consider how rooted your statement there is in the assumption that violence (or the more general 'extreme behavior') is inherently irrational.

It's not. Sometimes it gets exactly the desired effect. But the most commonly referenced people are intentionally referenced because theirs isn't going to work that way. If you're going to use it, you need it to be a lot more coordinated and effective.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's not. Sometimes it gets exactly the desired effect. But the most commonly referenced people are intentionally referenced because theirs isn't going to work that way. If you're going to use it, you need it to be a lot more coordinated and effective.

Maybe. Coordinated, in the modern world, presents a lot of difficulties. Too much monitoring, too many rats.

 

[inthesomeday]

Is it simple lack of imagination that keeps people so enamored with the existing pillars of civilization?

 

[Hygro]

Is it simple lack of imagination that keeps people so enamored with the existing pillars of civilization?

I think it’s the other way around.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think it’s the other way around.

I'm not following...

Are you saying that the existing pillars of civilization are keeping people enamored with lack of imagination?

 

[Ryika]

But this isn’t a discussion of justice, ever since everyone flipped their **** over the idea that “social justice” is probably a positive phrase to people who’ve never heard it before. It’s been a discussion of incredibly basic definitions.

I think you're mixing topics here.

The "Do people think this is a positive word?"-discussion was about the word "Extremist", not the phrase "Social Justice".

I think it's pretty obvious that most people who really don't know anything about "Social Justice" would see the phrase as something positive, and I would also say that Social Justice IS mainstream in some parts of the world. But that does not mean that everything you do under the guise of achieving Social Justice - no matter how genuine you believe that's what you're doing - is inherently justified, or something that people will agree with.

Your views on how to achieve Social Justice, and your attitude towards what is "just" in the pursuit of "Social Justice" goes against what many people would understand as "just", hence your views are not at all mainstream, even in places where people will generally be in favor of taking actions that make society more "socially just".

 

[Sommerswerd]

I'm not following...

Are you saying that the existing pillars of civilization are keeping people enamored with lack of imagination?

I think what @Hygro means is that the fact that people are enamored with the existing pillars of civilization is what creates disinterest in imagining ways to bring them down.

More simply put, @inthesomeday asks "Are people too stupid to fix their societies?" and Hygs replies "Nah, they're too comfortable with their societies to want to fix them." At least that's my take.

FTR I don't think either of those is the whole story. I'm gonna borrow from Orwell and say that I think the people who are benefiting the most from "the pillars of civilization" love said pillars and don't want them changed much, if at all. For those folks, their "imagination" is focused intently on keeping those beneficial pillars in place and if any more changes are to be made, crafting in such a way to increase the benefits to themselves, or at least minimize their losses. (ie tax cuts for "job creators", deregulation)

I think that dynamic stays in place proportional to the perceived benefit folks are receiving from the system, until you get to a place where folks feel like they are not yet at a place where the system is benefiting them all that much, but they can see a high degree of potential for them to reach that status, where the system will be greatly benefiting them. For those folks, their "imagination" as it relates to the system, is more so on creating avenues for themselves to gain access to the status where they will benefit more, by supplanting those who are already there if necessary. (ie bring down "big oil" in favor of "green energy", free college, more minorities/women in Congress) That dynamic in turn stays in place, again proportionally, with some folks reaching a degree of ambivalence or contentment with some form of state subsidy, food, housing, unemployment, social security, etc., with the hope that this will help tide them over until they win the lottery or "get back on their feet".

Finally you get to folks who feel completely shut-out, ignored, marginalized by the system with no hope of benefiting from it. This is not simply about income, and can have more to do with their own subjective perception. But this is where folks hate "the system" and want to bring down those "pillars of civilization". The problem is that they have neither the time, nor the resources, nor the access, etc., to effect the change they are seeking. So they complain, march, protest, riot, vote for demagogues... that sort of thing... in the hopes of being noticed/heard.