Peterson's 12 Rules for Life v2.0-- actual book discussion

[The Grand Nudger]

They certainly do, but they certainly don't need a political troll telling them and every other regressive that they're righter than right because he has to carry water for traditionalism.  

That's the opposite of helpful.  Self or otherwise.

[bennyboy]

-You- might come to that conclusion...but peterson argues for "so-called oppression"....and hey, wasn't it men that found a way to plug the holes of their domestics!  Checkmate, libtards.

Petersons view, more than a little bit contradictory since he doesn't think it's a real thing, is that it's natural and it works and it benefits Teh Ladiez.   So stop complaining and bootstrap yourself!  The world is too feminized nowadays, donchaknow?

I'm gonna call you out here. I don't think you've read the book, and you will say, "I don't even have to. . . "

If so, consider possibly fucking off, or referencing something IN the book, please.

---

Incels can't really make up that big of a percentage of his audience. I'm not super familiar with him really, other than his name seems to be in the zeitgeist, so to speak, but I don't think there are enough if them to make a book a best seller or make someone so popular.

I also don't think there is anything wrong with being anti-PC unless you are also a racist. Political correctness is just another way of trying to censor people.

That's right. And here's one of the ways they do it-- this thread is about to be 80 pages of shit, and I'll bet $150 (exactly, and to be donated to charity!) that some of the noisiest birds here haven't actually read the whole book. But they'll fill line after line with BS that they "know" is true without ever considering the actual facts of what was ever said.
Right, Khem?

---

What part of that triggered you? I don't see anything that bad. There ar feminine and masculine traits. Do people actually deny this?

Wouldn’t say triggered, as it’s not a vitriolic response on my part. I also don’t claim there aren’t feminine/masculine traits. Though I’d argue about their relevance and subjectivity in modern times.

What caused my reaction is his religiously couched traditionalist views that he’s marketing to the anti-pc/incel crowd.

On your first look, not knowing anything about him, it seems like it’s not a big deal for him to be making these references in a self help book. An odd choice in my opinion but not a big deal.

On a second look, after seeing what he’s about, I find it’s a bit more nefarious than that. I don’t think it’s accurate to say “Oh, he’s just making a common, if not antiquated, reference to illustrate a point.”. There’s a rhyme and a reason to it when you place it in line with his views on other subjects.

What, in the book, in particular, did you find objectionable?  What words, actually, did he write, which you cannot tolerate, in this text which we are supposedly here to discuss?

---

He DOES seem to value order, tradition and authority a little more than I personally do. I find myself too expressive and rebellious to subscribe 100% to that type of thinking. However, YOU seem to be the one assuming he is writing something other than what he is saying.

Well, that's kind of the point of all this, and why Peterson in general is so popular, and so important. Nitwits see even a hint of something that could stand against the narrative of demographic victimization or oppression at the hands of white male cisgender capitalist pig-dogs, and start shouting bloody murder. No matter that Peterson didn't say any of the things they claim, or even imply them, they are so sure that the 10 keywords they've bothered to scan say the 80 pages of shit they're going to shovel that they don't even need to READ. . . THE. . . BOOK.

[LadyForCamus]

What's actually happening, in my opinion, is Peterson is (probably unwittingly) projecting himself all over the book. He's clearly experienced hurt and rejection from women, and he's taking it out on the text.

Eh.  That's far from clear.

---

If that fails, being turned over a parent's knee might be required. For the child who is pushing the limits in a spectacularly inspired way, a swat across the backside can indicate requisite seriousness on the part of the responsible adult. There are some situations in which even that will not suffice, partly because some children are very determined, exploratory, and tough or because the offending behaviour is truly severe.

It seems that you are quite certain that spanking is always wrong, and that anyone recommending is therefore revealing an abusive nature.  Is that your intent?

I’ll take on that position:

https://www.sciencealert.com/science-why...k-children

[Rev. Rye]

Eh.  That's far from clear.

---

It seems that you are quite certain that spanking is always wrong, and that anyone recommending is therefore revealing an abusive nature.  Is that your intent?

I’ll take on that position:

https://www.sciencealert.com/science-why...k-children

And even in the situation where "even spanking will not suffice," it might suffice to send him to a psychologist who can actually ferret out the problems. Who knows, the kid might actually end up a bit more well-adjusted in the long run.

[Amarok]

Spanking is never justified and yes recommending it is abusive

[Bob Kelso]

-You- might come to that conclusion...but peterson argues for "so-called oppression"....and hey, wasn't it men that found a way to plug the holes of their domestics!  Checkmate, libtards.

Petersons view, more than a little bit contradictory since he doesn't think it's a real thing, is that it's natural and it works and it benefits Teh Ladiez.   So stop complaining and bootstrap yourself!  The world is too feminized nowadays, donchaknow?

I'm gonna call you out here. I don't think you've read the book, and you will say, "I don't even have to. . . "

If so, consider possibly fucking off, or referencing something IN the book, please.

---

Incels can't really make up that big of a percentage of his audience. I'm not super familiar with him really, other than his name seems to be in the zeitgeist, so to speak, but I don't think there are enough if them to make a book a best seller or make someone so popular.

I also don't think there is anything wrong with being anti-PC unless you are also a racist. Political correctness is just another way of trying to censor people.

That's right. And here's one of the ways they do it-- this thread is about to be 80 pages of shit, and I'll bet $150 (exactly, and to be donated to charity!) that some of the noisiest birds here haven't actually read the whole book. But they'll fill line after line with BS that they "know" is true without ever considering the actual facts of what was ever said.
Right, Khem?

---

Wouldn’t say triggered, as it’s not a vitriolic response on my part. I also don’t claim there aren’t feminine/masculine traits. Though I’d argue about their relevance and subjectivity in modern times.

What caused my reaction is his religiously couched traditionalist views that he’s marketing to the anti-pc/incel crowd.

On your first look, not knowing anything about him, it seems like it’s not a big deal for him to be making these references in a self help book. An odd choice in my opinion but not a big deal.

On a second look, after seeing what he’s about, I find it’s a bit more nefarious than that. I don’t think it’s accurate to say “Oh, he’s just making a common, if not antiquated, reference to illustrate a point.”. There’s a rhyme and a reason to it when you place it in line with his views on other subjects.

What, in the book, in particular, did you find objectionable?  What words, actually, did he write, which you cannot tolerate, in this text which we are supposedly here to discuss?

---

He DOES seem to value order, tradition and authority a little more than I personally do. I find myself too expressive and rebellious to subscribe 100% to that type of thinking. However, YOU seem to be the one assuming he is writing something other than what he is saying.

Well, that's kind of the point of all this, and why Peterson in general is so popular, and so important. Nitwits see even a hint of something that could stand against the narrative of demographic victimization or oppression at the hands of white male cisgender capitalist pig-dogs, and start shouting bloody murder. No matter that Peterson didn't say any of the things they claim, or even imply them, they are so sure that the 10 keywords they've bothered to scan say the 80 pages of shit they're going to shovel that they don't even need to READ. . . THE. . . BOOK.

*my emphasis*

We are talking about the religious traditionalist that partitions his backwards ass ideas between speeches and books to cloud his actual ideals, and who advocated for forced monogamy as a solution to the issue of crazed incels? Right?

[Rev. Rye]

To be fair, at first glance, enforced monogamy seems to be a decent hypothesis. Unfortunately, when you look into it, it falls apart like a gold leaf being touched by anything more substantive than the static electricity of a squirrel hair brush.

[The Grand Nudger]

-You- might come to that conclusion...but peterson argues for "so-called oppression"....and hey, wasn't it men that found a way to plug the holes of their domestics!  Checkmate, libtards.

Petersons view, more than a little bit contradictory since he doesn't think it's a real thing, is that it's natural and it works and it benefits Teh Ladiez.   So stop complaining and bootstrap yourself!  The world is too feminized nowadays, donchaknow?

I'm gonna call you out here.  I don't think you've read the book, and you will say, "I don't even have to. . . "

If so, consider possibly fucking off, or referencing something IN the book, please.

Already have, would you like to take a crack at it?

[robvalue]

To be fair, at first glance, enforced monogamy seems to be a decent hypothesis. Unfortunately, when you look into it, it falls apart like a gold leaf being touched by anything more substantive than the static electricity of a squirrel hair brush.

He later reveals that what he meant by "enforced manogamy" is "our society encouraging manogamy", and that people have misunderstood him. It's pretty clear to me he was deliberately trying to be misunderstood to generate outrage, so that he could then back pedal to a more reasonable stance and play the victim. For a man who apparently chooses his words well, those are some awfully loaded ones. He's playing both sides as usual.

[Rev. Rye]

To be fair, at first glance, enforced monogamy seems to be a decent hypothesis. Unfortunately, when you look into it, it falls apart like a gold leaf being touched by anything more substantive than the static electricity of a squirrel hair brush.

He later reveals that what he meant by "enforced manogamy" is "our society encouraging manogamy", and that people have misunderstood him. It's pretty clear to me he was deliberately trying to be misunderstood to generate outrage, so that he could then back pedal to a more reasonable stance and play the victim. For a man who apparently chooses his words well, those are some awfully loaded ones. He's playing both sides as usual.

From what I've seen of Peterson, that's pretty much his main schtick: say something provocative that it'll "trigger the libs", but innocuous enough that he has plausible deniability, and when they react, he'll say "I didn't say that" and accuse the other person of deliberately taking what he said out of context.