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

[bennyboy]

I downloaded the book and read the second chapter, just to see what the fuss is about. Here is a summary, and some comments at the end

Very nicely done.  Thank you for the legwork.  I'll have to let you know maybe tomorrow if I agree with it all.

As for the choice of dialectic, look to Nietzsche, I think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonian_and_Dionysian


For the etymology, then yeeeessss. . . kind of.  "Matter" comes ultimately from mater (mother), but this is through French/Latin words for wood (i.e. the material in a tree).  I don't know how they got from "mother" to "wood," though.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/matter#e...ine_v_9723

[GrandizerII]

But I'm saying that discrimination against non-white people by landlords and agents happens not because of "majority privilege" but because of racism.


Sure, that can happen. I'm not saying it can't ever. But in your case, that didn't happen like that, did it? And it's not like you've given me much context to go by here.


Um, in a way, it is. Black people aren't privileged so are despised wherever they go. Not generally the case for white people.

Black people aren't despised wherever they go. A lack of privilege has never been the cause of hatred.

Yeh racism doesn't exist, that's true.

You meant racism does exist, right?

I see you're good at pointless nitpicking, by the way. Good for you.

But my point overall still stands.

Black people are far more despised overall than white people. And part of it is fostered by lack of white privilege.

---

That's nice.  Do you consider yourself morally compelled to do so, or do you just do it because you're such a swell guy?

Neither. I do it to ease some anxiety of mine. It just makes me feel better when I see I have done something, albeit very little, for a select few who are less fortunate than me.

Well wait a minute.  If we're so deeply concerned about inequality, then there's an easy solution-- pure communism.  Either that, or we simply have rules intended generally to promote equality-- applications to school based only on test scores, for example-- and let those who perform better take their positions at the top.

There's no easy solution here, benny. We first need to acknowledge and address the elephant in the room before we can dream of enacting a proper solution. But there's too many privileged people in this world who aren't ready for that.

Have you read the book?

Why? Is there something Peterson said in his book he didn't say in his lecture on his trivialization of white privilege?

Well, you have my attention.  Have a sufficient number of white property owners requested that, even in the face of Indian or Asian black people who have a lot of money, dress nicely, and are well-educated?  Are you saying that these people would rather have some white bogan than say Barack Obama?

That's the thing. In the mind of the racist, there is no such thing as a wealthy, nicely-dressed, and well-educated who isn't white. They may spot a contradiction to that when they do encounter someone who does meet these characteristics, but such people don't pop up in their considerations.

When someone I actually know IRL actually told his agent he didn't want any Indians living in his house, the last thing on his mind was wealth and education. He just didn't want any Indians in his house, period.

This is just one of many reasons I don't get along with him, by the way.

---

If white people are identified as low-class (trailer park, bogan, whatever), then they will absolutely be barred.

You sure about that?

I'll tell you a story.  I managed to scrape up enough money to buy a little townhouse on Vancouver Island, which I rented out.  A single mom applies. . . she's on welfare, looks like a slob, but she gives a sob story about how nobody will give her a chance and she promises she'll take great care of the place.

Three months later, she's late on the fucking rent, her teenage daughter trashes the place, and she just moves out.  Never got even 10% of the damage she caused back.

That's unfortunate. And I can see how this might've been a traumatic experience for you.

Moral-- fuck poor people.  They are poor for a reason, and keep them the fuck off my property.  I want classy people only-- literate, educated, and responsible.  A black guy shows up in expensive glasses wearing a sweater vest, I'll suck his dick if he'll sign a lease.  Another fucking yokel shows up looking for compassion, and I'll drop-kick him off my porch and sick my dog on him, I don't care if he's an Aryan poster child.

Are you saying all this to try to convince me you're not really racist, but perhaps some other type of bigot?

Yeah, there is a moral to be learned here, but not that prejudice against poor people is a good thing.

---

Welcome to the forum, Belaqua. And great post.

Yeah, that's Peterson pretty much. Likes to say stuff without much basis to them, and tends to disregard what the experts say in various fields.

But no worries, Benny will be here soon to point out just how badly Peterson is being misrepresented ... once again.

[paulpablo]

Black people aren't despised wherever they go. A lack of privilege has never been the cause of hatred.

Yeh racism doesn't exist, that's true.

You meant racism does exist, right?

I see you're good at pointless nitpicking, by the way. Good for you.

But my point overall still stands.

Black people are far more despised overall than white people. And part of it is fostered by lack of white privilege.

Asssuming you're on board with Khem and you believe white privilege is an unearned tangible asset to those identified as white.

Why is a lack of unearned tangible assets to those identified as white fostering people's hatred of black people more overall?

[The Grand Nudger]

What are them, too?  lol

[bennyboy]

Well wait a minute.  If we're so deeply concerned about inequality, then there's an easy solution-- pure communism.  Either that, or we simply have rules intended generally to promote equality-- applications to school based only on test scores, for example-- and let those who perform better take their positions at the top.

There's no easy solution here, benny. We first need to acknowledge and address the elephant in the room before we can dream of enacting a proper solution. But there's too many privileged people in this world who aren't ready for that.

Hmmmm, I've heard this song before.  We can literally float every conceivable solution to the problem, and you'll keep saying, ". . . but still racism."

You aren't going to get these supposed people of privilege in line if the only plan of action is for them to demonize themselves.  What actual plan would you suggest?  I've suggested two-- either allow true liberty and accept the results, or enforce equality of outcome without regard to merit.  What else have you got?

Have you read the book?

Why? Is there something Peterson said in his book he didn't say in his lecture on his trivialization of white privilege?

. . . because this thread is titled "actual book discussion," so I think it's reasonable that participants in this thread be willing to actually discuss the book.

That's the thing. In the mind of the racist, there is no such thing as a wealthy, nicely-dressed, and well-educated who isn't white. They may spot a contradiction to that when they do encounter someone who does meet these characteristics, but such people don't pop up in their considerations.

Let me ask you-- is racism the domain exclusively of white men?  Would you say that white people are, on average, more racist than black or latino people?

If white people are identified as low-class (trailer park, bogan, whatever), then they will absolutely be barred.

You sure about that?

Yes, I'm pretty sure.  No landlord wants low-quality tenants.  They want money, and at least a reasonable attempt to preserve their property.  If an applicant looks like he is professional and disciplined, the landlord will be grateful to have him.

I'll tell you a story.  I managed to scrape up enough money to buy a little townhouse on Vancouver Island, which I rented out.  A single mom applies. . . she's on welfare, looks like a slob, but she gives a sob story about how nobody will give her a chance and she promises she'll take great care of the place.

Three months later, she's late on the fucking rent, her teenage daughter trashes the place, and she just moves out.  Never got even 10% of the damage she caused back.

That's unfortunate. And I can see how this might've been a traumatic experience for you.

No, it's not "unfortunate." I let emotions and a desire for fairness lead me to making a mistake. Don't sign a contract with someone unless you believe they have the financial and personal capacity to fulfill it.

Moral-- fuck poor people.  They are poor for a reason, and keep them the fuck off my property.  I want classy people only-- literate, educated, and responsible.  A black guy shows up in expensive glasses wearing a sweater vest, I'll suck his dick if he'll sign a lease.  Another fucking yokel shows up looking for compassion, and I'll drop-kick him off my porch and sick my dog on him, I don't care if he's an Aryan poster child.

Are you saying all this to try to convince me you're not really racist, but perhaps some other type of bigot?

Yeah, there is a moral to be learned here, but not that prejudice against poor people is a good thing.

"Prejudice."  I made the mistake of entrusting someone with the care of my property who didn't have her life together enough to make good on damages.  That was a bad decision.  In order to prevent losing many thousands of dollars, then I should make sure renters CAN make good on damages.

You gonna start talking about how owning property (I no longer own it due to the depression about 8 or so years ago, btw) was a privilege, and how I should therefore have been happy to let irresponsible people walk all over me?

[EgoDeath]

It's strange to me when a thread titled "Actual book discussion" is filled with folks who seemingly have not read the book, but rather seem to be basing their opinions on Peterson from OTHER opinion pieces written about him.

I think you guys are getting caught up in the anti-Peterson hype as much as the hardcore Peterson fans are getting caught up in the pro-Peterson hype. Interestingly enough, Peterson's hardcore fans seem to fall farther to the right than Peterson himself.

I consider myself a liberal but I in no way shape or form would consider Peterson to be some right-wing extremist. Right-leaning? Sure. Too far right-leaning for my taste? At times yea. But I don't see what is so detestable about the man and no one here has yet to demonstrate anything of value that proves he's some kind of bigot.

[bennyboy]

Interestingly enough, Peterson's hardcore fans seem to fall farther to the right than Peterson himself.

I think that's the fear-- that in standing against the extreme PC left, there's a lot of collateral damage to the left in general.  A vote against being compelled by law to call a dude in a dress "zhe" is a vote for white supremacy, eh?

[GrandizerII]

Asssuming you're on board with Khem and you believe white privilege is an unearned tangible asset to those identified as white.

Why is a lack of unearned tangible assets to those identified as white fostering people's hatred of black people more overall?

Well, to be clear, by fostering, I mean enabling/encouraging, not causing. I think without the "social/image protection" afforded by white privilege, it's easier to be judged in a negative light for relatively trivial faults. People look down on you and, therefore, will take a shot at you if you mess up in any way. Hence, the disproportionate killings of black people (and other racial groups) by the police, and the racial disparities when it comes to imprisonment rates due to nonviolent crimes.

[paulpablo]

Asssuming you're on board with Khem and you believe white privilege is an unearned tangible asset to those identified as white.

Why is a lack of unearned tangible assets to those identified as white fostering people's hatred of black people more overall?

Well, to be clear, by fostering, I mean enabling/encouraging, not causing. I think without the "social/image protection" afforded by white privilege, it's easier to be judged in a negative light for relatively trivial faults. People look down on you and, therefore, will take a shot at you if you mess up in any way. Hence, the disproportionate killings of black people (and other racial groups) by the police, and the racial disparities when it comes to imprisonment rates due to nonviolent crimes.

What unearned tangible asset that non white poeple dont get affords social image protection?

[GrandizerII]

Hmmmm, I've heard this song before.  We can literally float every conceivable solution to the problem, and you'll keep saying, ". . . but still racism."

You aren't going to get these supposed people of privilege in line if the only plan of action is for them to demonize themselves.  What actual plan would you suggest?  I've suggested two-- either allow true liberty and accept the results, or enforce equality of outcome without regard to merit.  What else have you got?

I never suggested for anyone to demonize themselves for being white or whatever. See, that's the misunderstanding people continue to have regarding topics like this. Acknowledging that you have white privilege (or whatever other type of privilege) does not mean that you therefore must feel guilty or shame for being white. It means that you finally accept you have often unfair advantages over people who don't share that privilege in the sense that you are more likely to succeed in life and enjoy the benefits granted to you by society without worrying about your skin color being an obstacle. And that's a good thing! Because when people continue to be in denial of their privilege(s), they're not likely to want to do anything to address the injustices and they'll continue to be blind to what's really going in this reality, thus not granting the unprivileged a chance to be on equal grounds with them. And the problem is that when the unprivileged fight for their rights, they're hated and despised even more by the privileged. So there really is no easy quick fix solution here.

In an ideal world, I'd all for equal opportunity rather than equal outcome. But in this real world, definitely not going to go for "equal opportunity" because it really can't be such (not as long as racism and racial privileges continue to be a thing).

. . . because this thread is titled "actual book discussion," so I think it's reasonable that participants in this thread be willing to actually discuss the book.

And I'm happy to do that. One need not read the book itself to participate in a discussion about the book. After all, I have you to tell you and others to tell us what is in the book.

Let me ask you-- is racism the domain exclusively of white men?  Would you say that white people are, on average, more racist than black or latino people?

Ok, there's the general sense of the word "racism" and there's the more narrow, specific sense. When I speak of racists in this context, I am talking about the latter sense, not the former. In this sense, racist refers to one who has bought into the system that harbors systemic prejudice and discrimination against oppressed groups, often treating them as inferior groups. Someone who's not a racist will typically oppose the injustices that stem from such system. So in this sense, you can't be racist against white people.

But I think black people can be racist against other black people, and Latino people (for example) can be racist against black people as well. I do think white people, on average, continue to be more racist than other groups, just a hunch.

No, it's not "unfortunate."  I let emotions and a desire for fairness lead me to making a mistake.  Don't sign a contract with someone unless you believe they have the financial and personal capacity to fulfill it.

And they have a good past record. They're not manipulative and all that. Because even otherwise financially comfortable tenants have been a nightmare to landlords. That should've been the moral of your story (or part of it, at least). Not you hating on poor people.

"Prejudice."  I made the mistake of entrusting someone with the care of my property who didn't have her life together enough to make good on damages.  That was a bad decision.  In order to prevent losing many thousands of dollars, then I should make sure renters CAN make good on damages.

I agree, but you seem to think only poor people would do such a thing.

You gonna start talking about how owning property (I no longer own it due to the depression about 8 or so years ago, btw) was a privilege, and how I should therefore have been happy to let irresponsible people walk all over me?

Not at all, why would I tell you that? All I'm pointing out is that your expressed prejudice against poor people is unwarranted and has clouded your mind and attitude towards them.

---

It's strange to me when a thread titled "Actual book discussion" is filled with folks who seemingly have not read the book, but rather seem to be basing their opinions on Peterson from OTHER opinion pieces written about him.

Peterson has videos on YouTube, and there are interviews with him as well. I have listened to some of them. So, as much as you would enjoy the narrative that I am, I'm not going by just opinion pieces about him.

I think you guys are getting caught up in the anti-Peterson hype as much as the hardcore Peterson fans are getting caught up in the pro-Peterson hype. Interestingly enough, Peterson's hardcore fans seem to fall farther to the right than Peterson himself.

I wonder why ...

I consider myself a liberal but I in no way shape or form would consider Peterson to be some right-wing extremist. Right-leaning? Sure. Too far right-leaning for my taste? At times yea. But I don't see what is so detestable about the man and no one here has yet to demonstrate anything of value that proves he's some kind of bigot.

You don't think he espouses views that encourage sexist attitudes against women, and that his trivialization of white privilege further enables white supremacist positions and attitudes?

I do believe Peterson's a bigot, and maybe I did call him that here somewhere (can't remember), but I was sure to point out some of his mistakes as well. For example, that sexism itself continues to contribute to the wage gap between men and women, as seen by the studies that show even agreeable men earn more than agreeable women. Hell, men who score high on agreeableness still often fare better in the workforce than women who score low on agreeableness.