Peterson's 12 Rules For Life, have you heard of this?

[bennyboy]

Who think that..somehow, by opposing those who advocate for social justice, the left will "win".

Nobody's opposing the advocacy for social justice.  They're opposing the fuckery with which you throw everyone who doesn't align with you 100% under the umbrella of opposition.  They're opposing the use of highly-charged language as a deliberate attempt to control which social issues may / may not be discussed in the open light of day.

I advocate for social justice too.  I mean. . . I advocated for the release of prisoners, and even threw in financial incentives as a way to help them get a fair start on life.  I advocated for health programs for poor kids (an idea which you, surprisingly, rejected because it wouldn't solve Real Racism™).  I even advocated takeovers of police stations, saying that black people had a constitutional right to bear arms against tyranny.

The problem is that because I am against the tactics of the PC Left, you declare me to be against the principles of the left. This is a non-sequitur, and is very rude. It's also going to prove ineffective-- do you really think marginalizing people like me is really going to help anything?

[The Grand Nudger]

Who think that..somehow, by opposing those who advocate for social justice, the left will "win".

Nobody's opposing the advocacy for social justice.  They're opposing the fuckery with which you throw everyone who doesn't align with you 100% under the umbrella of opposition.  They're opposing the use of highly-charged language as a deliberate attempt to control which social issues may / may not be discussed in the open light of day.

Are you everyone?  Are racists everyone?  Is scientific racism everything?  Is white victimization the sum total of all experience?

No, no..no..and no.  

You've been discussing this issue in the open light of day for pages and pages.  Whats the problem?  

I advocate for social justice too.  I mean. . . I advocated for the release of prisoners, and even threw in financial incentives as a way to help them get a fair start on life.  I advocated for health programs for poor kids (an idea which you, surprisingly, rejected because it wouldn't solve Real Racism™).  I even advocated takeovers of police stations, saying that black people had a constitutional right to bear arms against tyranny.

You do realize that all of those things can be simultaneously true with your having swallowed racist ideology, right?  

The problem is that because I am against the tactics of the PC Left, you declare me to be against the principles of the left.  This is a non-sequitur, and is very rude.  It's also going to prove ineffective-- do you really think marginalizing people like me is really going to help anything?

You aren't really against the tactics of the pc left.  You are -for- the picture of the pc left fed to you by alt right nitwits and those who've monetized them. I think that marginalizing some of the positions you've espoused will help..sure. Mostly in that the re-marginalization of those positions will devalue them as political currency. They've always been wrong, but being wrong never made them any less useful. It's a neverending task, because they just keep popping up with new names and new euphemisms every decade or so. They pop up within the left and the right, the whole race and iq and income thing has been around since the dawn of the eugenics movement. It was a progressive favorite before it became the conservative economic lodestar, lol. Much more recently, I could quote a bunch of Bill Clinton licking the hole of racist shitlords as he ambulated around to "winning" rightwing votes. It's a truly bipartisan effort, lol.

[bennyboy]

You aren't really against the tactics of the pc left.  You are -for- the picture of the pc left fed to you by alt right nitwits and those who've monetized them.

I don't believe in this picture of guilt by association of ideas that you keep talking about. Even if I heard some ideas from camps you consider unsavory, it doesn't mean that (a) the ideas are wrong; or (b) that I accept either all of part of the ideas common in those camps beyond that one idea.

This portrayal of you of camps feeding me ideas, you set up as a false dilemma: either I'm unwittingly picking up memes from bad source and I'm too stupid to know better; or I'm deliberately adopting memes from a bad source, because I secretly identify with that camp. It also begs the question-- by labeling say Jordan Peterson, and then turning directly toward me, you're begging the question. You do this: "Jordan Peterson is an alt-right apologist. And here you are. . . agreeing with something he says. So. . . " First of all, I don't think he IS that, and second, so what if I agree with some of his ideas? Does that make me an alt-right apologist? No.

How about this? I'm aware of very many definitions, of very many different things. And when my brain recognizes a match, I pull up the word that fits. You've done all the things which detractors of the PC left complain about-- ignored fact, used hostile rhetoric, etc. and done so in support of differential treatment among demographic groups. I can say, "Oh. . . that's the kind of person Peterson was talking about."

Now, if you have reserved in your mind a particular definition of the exact words "PC Left," this matters very little to me. Call it the "Kool Khemikal Klub" if you want. The point is that I dislike people who argue as you have argued, and one of the things I like about Peterson is that he's willing to stand up to people who argue as you have argued.

This isn't some meme that I picked up by touching a door handle or something-- I've met people like you before, and disliked the way they argued, before I'd ever heard ANY of these words.

[The Grand Nudger]

What guilt by association?  The only thing you're "guilty" of is repeating the normalizing language and positions of white supremacists.  I keep telling you that people do this on accident with a considerable amount of regularity.  I've even gone through the trouble of explaining why, and linked you to multiple studies on the subject. You're the one who decided that you were a racist...or don't you recall?

What you don't like..is that I've refused to center you as a white male..to make you comfortable with a conversation and subject that causes you anxiety. If I had to guess, that's what you don't like about pc and sj. Why a particular type of mouthpeice appeals to you, and that was probably the door to begin with.

Consider this, you're in the very nearly batshit position of complaining that I'm being rude to you, as you expound upon the virtues and accuracy of scientific racism. Did you expect deference..or a bunch of pleases and thank you's? If people like me have been mean to you on this subject...perhaps you should stop and seriously consider that there might be something that you're doing.

But what would I know, right, lol?

[bennyboy]

What guilt by association?  The only thing you're "guilty" of is repeating the normalizing language and positions of white supremacists.  I keep telling you that people do this on accident with a considerable amount of regularity.  I've even gone through the trouble of explaining why, and linked you to multiple studies on the subject.  You're the one who decided that you were a racist...or don't you recall?

No. I didn't just jump in waving my hands, proudly proclaiming to be racist. You kept calling me racist-- in fact, you challenged me to "own it," if memory serves correct-- and I decided I'd look at that idea-- to define it, and to own those definitions which belong to me (and all people). That's because I identified this tactic of yours right away-- you associate certain ideas with a cluster of ideas, and then attach them all in a giant bill of sale with a derogatory title. I'm not playing that game-- I'm not going to shy away from the truth as I see it in a cowardly avoidance of your epithets.

Talking about income inequality? Find correlations with IQ? "Normalizing white supremacy! Racist. Racissssst!" No. Those are facts which are relevant to economic disparity, and they must be understood. How would you even begin to establish good public policy if you are going to refuse to consider all available information?

Based on your stunning lack of positive ideas for solutions, the answer is-- you wouldn't. You're perfectly happy just slinging shit and sniffing farts.

Consider this, you're in the very nearly batshit position of complaining that I'm being rude to you, as you expound upon the virtues and accuracy of scientific racism.  Did you expect deference..or a bunch of pleases and thank you's?  If people like me have been mean to you on this subject...perhaps you should stop and seriously consider that there might be something that you're doing.

I'm not complaining about rudeness because you hurt my feelings. I currently give zero shits about what you think of me.

My complaint is that you are using epithets and logical fallacies as a substitute for fact and substantiation. You've done a shit job of arguing any point, and failed completely to support your rhetoric with anything but more hysterical rhetoric.

Nor, as the righteous white knight in shining armor that you portray yourself as, have you expressed any positive ideas about how to help minimize inequality of income, or to provide black kids with a start that wouldn't cripple their IQ scores in early grade school, or anything else. It's painfully obvious that your interest in the matter is more about drawing attention to the awesomeness of your personal values (at least to the degree that you're willing to type them out in an online forum), than about solving problems.

I cannot respect someone who talks so much, and is so unwilling to contribute.

---

But what would I know, right, lol?

I don't know what you know, but I can say what you seem not to: how to read, or how to argue points properly.

[EgoDeath]

This is what you get when two people who are not listening to each other refuse to stop arguing because they don't want to "back down." Seventy-something pages of complete nonsense. Jesus.

[Rhondazvous]

First of all I realize this isn't philosophy in the academic sense but we don't have a psychology section and I suppose this book fits in the lay sense of "philosophy of life".  Jordan B. Peterson practices and teaches psychotherapy and has been called the greatest Canadian intellectual since Marshal McLuhan.  (I don't have an opinion about that claim.)

So I finally got my turn to look this book over which came out this year (2018) after waiting through 8 people ahead of me with a hold on it at my local library.  This is not the sort of book I'm usually attracted to read.  And I don't intend to read it straight through or very thoroughly.  I actually thought I'd be ripping into it for being cheesy.  But I don't hate it.

Apparently it started as a response to a question online at Quora and originally included many more than 12 'rules'.  They really amount to something more like "12 points of advice for leading a satisfying life" and there is a chapter devoted to each one in the book.  Mostly I agree with him.

Some require more elaboration to see what he has in mind, but here are the twelve 'rules' if you're interested:

---

1. Stand up straight with your shoulders back
   
   
2. Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping
   
   
3. Make friends with people who want the best for you
   

   ---

Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today

---

Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them

Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world

Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)

Tell the truth – or, at least, don't lie

Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don't

Be precise in your speech

Do not bother children when they are skateboarding

Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street

I'm not real gungho about this but if anyone else has looked it over or read about them and wish to discuss it, I can currently.  I've been reading a good bit in his chapter 8 on truth telling which I have to agree with.

---

[The Grand Nudger]

-aaaand we're back to complaining that a person who doesn't have the answer to the effect of centuries of institutional racism is somehow unqualified to educate you on the subject.

For what it's worth, we did actually have a solution that was working.  The noted gap in earlier studies was closing within a single generation (yet another indicator that the cause is not, ultimately, genetic...that level of change doesn't happen within a single generation - particularly if we maintain that the population in question didn't have the smart genes to begin with).  This effect plateaued, however, in the 80's as we began to cut those programs back...work that's still ongoing.  Care to take a guess what rhetoric was used to justify those cuts?  You wouldn't have to guess, mind..had you actually read any of the many links you've been given.

What, for example, do you think Charles Murrays job at AEI is, and why do you think a guy like Paul Ryan lauds him as an important intellectual?  

Again, a demonstration that this language and these positions and the people who spread them have real world effects, the programs that worked to eradicate achievement gaps caused by a racist stratification of society were cut, in parts large and small.. on the basis of scientific racism. That's some next level fuckery, eh? Hit poor whites, too..but I guess you gotta break a few eggs.

Reminds me of a line from Revs link, about the first step in any fruitful discussion of why we should take caution not to spread this sort of disinformation is an agreement that we care if people get hurt. Not their feefees, mind. Lives destroyed. Communities in ruin. That sort of thing. I think the two of us can agree to that. We both care. Right? We wouldn't want to find out that the positions we thought we were defending against pc culture where the ammunition in some racist dirtballs gun, and that this gun had been pointed and fired, and hit it's target. Right?

Well.......

As far as contributions, didn't sticking your foot fully in your mouth the last time teach you anything?

---

This is what you get when two people who are not listening to each other refuse to stop arguing because they don't want to "back down." Seventy-something pages of complete nonsense. Jesus.

You're completely right about precisely one thing up there.  It's not something I'll ever back down on.  That's how the racists win. All anyone has to do is shut up and let them dominate the narrative. We've been down that road before, it was a national embarrassment.

[bennyboy]

Again, a demonstration that this language and these positions and the people who spread them have real world effects, the programs that worked to eradicate achievement gaps caused by a racist stratification of society were cut, in parts large and small.. on the basis of scientific racism. That's some next level fuckery, eh?  Hit poor whites, too..but I guess you gotta break a few eggs.

Great. Quote the language, and demonstrate the effect. Let's get some Gipper videos up here.

Reminds me of a line from Revs link, about the first step in any fruitful discussion of why we should take caution not to spread this sort of disinformation is an agreement that we care if people get hurt.  Not their feefees, mind.  Lives destroyed.  Communities in ruin.  That sort of thing.  I think the two of us can agree to that.  We both care.  Right?  We wouldn't want to find out that the positions we thought we were defending against pc culture where the ammunition in some racist dirtballs gun, and that this gun had been pointed and fired, and hit it's target.  Right?

. . .

Black people score lower on IQ tests. True or false?
IQ test scores correlate with income. True or false?

Tell me, exactly what misinformation have I spread? Made-up statistics? Nope. . . that, so far as I can tell, was you.

Your position right now: "Don't tell the truth, because dirtballs will use it to do harm." Yeah, no shit. So know the truth better than they do, and have real solutions for leverage it to serve better goals.

As far as contributions, didn't sticking your foot fully in your mouth the last time teach you anything?

Didn't the chance to get money into the hands of poor kids teach you to use real facts and cite them properly?

[The Grand Nudger]

Again, a demonstration that this language and these positions and the people who spread them have real world effects, the programs that worked to eradicate achievement gaps caused by a racist stratification of society were cut, in parts large and small.. on the basis of scientific racism. That's some next level fuckery, eh?  Hit poor whites, too..but I guess you gotta break a few eggs.

Great.  Quote the language, and demonstrate the effect.

Already have, and I've already linked you.  You....should....read.......the links...you've thrown fits to get.

Black people score lower on IQ tests.  True or false?

False,  people in desperate socioeconomic stations score lower on IQ tests.  

IQ test scores correlate with income.  True or false?

True..within groups controlled for GxE like the one above.  False in literally every other context...even within the "races" (not a valid biological category) not controlled for GxE.

Tell me, exactly what misinformation have I spread?  Made-up statistics?  Nope. . . that, so far as I can tell, was you.

You've consistently spread complaints of white victimization..and most recently dived into scientific racism as both a diversion and defense of that behavior.  

Didn't the chance to get money into the hands of poor kids teach you to use real facts and cite them properly?

The money you still haven't donated, you mean?  Just stop...it's beneath you.

I'm going to ask you this again, because you avoided it like a dark man on a park bench at night. Do you know what Charles Murrays job at AEI is, why Ryan lauds him as an intellectual, or what the effect of the positions you've been espousing in the US has been?