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

[bennyboy]

I'm sorry, Benny, but this is just tired old speech that has been said by many a politician around the world many many times. "Reverse racism" is a joke. Don't buy into that nonsense.

I'm not talking about reverse racism, just racism. You are not right to predicate policy on skin color. It's a bad policy.

Repeat after me: The law should protect all citizens equally, without regard to race or economic background. End of story.

[GrandizerII]

I'm sorry, Benny, but this is just tired old speech that has been said by many a politician around the world many many times. "Reverse racism" is a joke. Don't buy into that nonsense.

I'm not talking about reverse racism, just racism.  You are not right to predicate policy on skin color.  It's a bad policy.

Repeat after me: The law should protect all citizens equally, without regard to race or economic background.  End of story.

You are agreeing with the concept of "reverse racism" being true.

Also, I'm predicating policy on privilege (or lack of it). It's a good policy because it doesn't indicate blindness to the extent of the injustices afflicted on the oppressed by the system.

And no, I won't repeat your mantra because to do so, in this context, is to implicitly agree that the current system is good and void of flaws that have harmed the oppressed and the unprivileged. It's similar reasoning to why I won't say "all lives matter" because, clearly, in this corrupt system of racism and privilege, all lives certainly are not treated equally.

Be blind, all you want. I don't care. You're still wrong, and you will continue to be wrong so long as you insist all lives are treated equally and accorded the same rights.

[bennyboy]

I'm not talking about reverse racism, just racism.  You are not right to predicate policy on skin color.  It's a bad policy.

Repeat after me: The law should protect all citizens equally, without regard to race or economic background.  End of story.

Be blind, all you want. I don't care. You're still wrong, and you will continue to be wrong so long as you insist all lives are treated equally and accorded the same rights.

I'm not blind.  I know black people have it bad.  But the solution to racism isn't more racism-- it's blanket policies that support the rights of all citizens equally.


The truth is, you and I live in a different universe because words just don't mean what you are trying to make them mean.  When you say, "A should be protected, and B doesn't need to be," then this is differential treatment-- which you claim to support because of your love of equality.  Do you not see the irony of trying to get people to be treated equally by endorsing a policy which is designed to treat them differently?

Instead of making it race-based, why not consider policies based on financial hardship? Then, black people, being disproportionately poorer than white people, will benefit more from those policies. Or, make a serious effort to find inmates whose sentences were disproportionately harsh, and reduce their jail time? Then, black people, being disproportionately harshly sentenced, they will benefit more from that effort.

[EgoDeath]

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.

Yes and yet this is not a thread titled Jordan Peterson's youtube channel and interview discussion. I, admittedly, have not watched too many of his Youtube videos. I've seen a few of his interviews and never heard him say something all that preposterous. Once again I think he's insanely disingenuous when it comes to religion; I suspect he's a closet agnostic, but that's just my gut feeling. You hear a lot of people talking about religion the way he does before they come out and admit, "I don't really know." But that's just my gut feeling and it could be totally off.

I wonder why ...

You wonder why what?

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?

Nope. Quote me something directly from Peterson that he's said that you think is sexist and please cite a source I can see/hear or read myself and I'd be happy to talk it over with you. And no, I do not think that trivializing white privilege further enables white supremacy. This is the type of absolute thinking that KILLS conversations on topics like this. I think trivializing white privilege makes you ignorant about white privilege, nothing more. This idea that - You trivialize white privilege therefore your enable nazis and skinheads is fucking insane. This is the type of talk on the left that sometimes makes me embarrassed to call myself a liberal.

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.

I'm not an economist and won't pretend to know too much about the wage gap. I think it's a complex issue that needs to be tackled on a case-to-case basis and needs to be examined within specific industries. Even me saying that is coming from a very rudimentary understanding of economics. So I don't know too much, if anything, about the wage gap or how all of that works.

[bennyboy]

I'd like a link for the stats Grandizer is claiming.

[Foxaèr]

When you say, "A should be protected, and B doesn't need to be," then this is differential treatment-- which you claim to support because of your love of equality.

A, whom I am assuming are black people who have suffered hundreds of years of abuse by B, white people, then explain to me how B is lacking equality by A gaining it?

[bennyboy]

When you say, "A should be protected, and B doesn't need to be," then this is differential treatment-- which you claim to support because of your love of equality.

A, whom I am assuming are black people who have suffered hundreds of years of abuse by B, white people, then explain to me how B is lacking equality by A gaining it?

That's a weird kind of straw man.  Do you think I'm arguing against equality for black people?  It is my position that all citizens deserve equal privileges and protections-- including protections from verbal assault or prejudice based on skin color.

[paulpablo]

When you say, "A should be protected, and B doesn't need to be," then this is differential treatment-- which you claim to support because of your love of equality.

A, whom I am assuming are black people who have suffered hundreds of years of abuse by B, white people, then explain to me how B is lacking equality by A gaining it?

It would be way more complex than that.

Not every black person has suffered abuse , some black people have inflicted abuse, not all white people have inflicted abuse, some have had it inflicted on them.
Grandizer was just saying that Irish people weren't considered white, I think that's true of Italians.

So it's entirely possible you could be protecting a black person who has decended from ancestors who were warlords selling black slaves to white people, and you could be taking rights from people who weren't even considered to be white who were themselves oppressed.

Its one thing to say one race is on average more oppressed, but an entirely false thing to say you know how oppressed or not oppressed a person is because of their skin colour.

[GrandizerII]

Be blind, all you want. I don't care. You're still wrong, and you will continue to be wrong so long as you insist all lives are treated equally and accorded the same rights.

I'm not blind.  I know black people have it bad.  But the solution to racism isn't more racism-- it's blanket policies that support the rights of all citizens equally.

Policies aren't enough, buddy. Attitudes need to be addressed, privilege needs to be acknowledged, you can't just talk equality for all, when some of us are happily privileged in one or more ways, and many others are not. Address the root of the issue first before you try to solve the problem overall.

The truth is, you and I live in a different universe because words just don't mean what you are trying to make them mean.  When you say, "A should be protected, and B doesn't need to be," then this is differential treatment-- which you claim to support because of your love of equality.  Do you not see the irony of trying to get people to be treated equally by endorsing a policy which is designed to treat them differently?

If you mean affirmative action and such, these are necessary (albeit flawed) temporary solutions to swing the [symbolic] pendulum a bit more towards the center. Without enacting these "solutions", the pendulum is just going to continue to linger at one end and never hit the center.

It's not just a class/economics issue, benny. It's racism as well. You can't fix these with policies until you get at the core issue(s) first. Treating just the symptoms of a disease isn't necessarily going to make the disease itself go away.

---

Yes and yet this is not a thread titled Jordan Peterson's youtube channel and interview discussion.

Then by all means, share with us what you have learned from reading his book, and we can discuss. I'm sure you've done that with robvalue and perhaps a few others, but I wasn't here when this thread was first started, and I can't just go back and respond to everything that was said before I came in here. I did have a read of a lot of the posts that were made in this thread (and the other Peterson thread) before my initial participation here, so I still have an idea regardless of what you guys have been talking about. And from what I've read, I didn't see anything that would make me change my mind regarding Peterson. The sexism is implicit in his views, and it's exemplified by when he says that chaos is represented by (or associated with) femininity and order with masculinity. But it seems like you came prepared with some good apologetics for this, arguing it's not sexist, even though Peterson is just arguing out of his ass here (like he usually does), and order is clearly perceived as better than chaos. And apparently, according to this post, he does associate order with men and chaos with women.

I, admittedly, have not watched too many of his Youtube videos. I've seen a few of his interviews and never heard him say something all that preposterous.

Oh, well. For many of us, we see what we want to see, and we choose to not see what we don't want to see.

Once again I think he's insanely disingenuous when it comes to religion; I suspect he's a closet agnostic, but that's just my gut feeling. You hear a lot of people talking about religion the way he does before they come out and admit, "I don't really know." But that's just my gut feeling and it could be totally off.

Honestly, I couldn't give a shit about his views on religion. It's his views on social issues that are troubling to me, along with the arrogance to act like he knows more than the experts do in their relevant fields of study.

I wonder why ...

You wonder why what?

I wonder why his fans are typically to the right of the political/social spectrum. Actually, I lie. I have a pretty good idea why. His views, after all, align quite well with what right wingers believe, including the far right.

Nope. Quote me something directly from Peterson that he's said that you think is sexist and please cite a source I can see/hear or read myself and I'd be happy to talk it over with you.

There's no quote of Peterson saying something explicitly sexist such as "all/most women are nasty" or something like that. The sexism is implicit in the chauvinistic views he holds of men vs. women. If you failed to see that in his book and interviews, you're not going to magically see it in my responses.

And no, I do not think that trivializing white privilege further enables white supremacy. This is the type of absolute thinking that KILLS conversations on topics like this. I think trivializing white privilege makes you ignorant about white privilege, nothing more. This idea that - You trivialize white privilege therefore your enable nazis and skinheads is fucking insane. This is the type of talk on the left that sometimes makes me embarrassed to call myself a liberal.

How on earth do you not think that trivializing white privilege is lending support to the views held by white supremacists? It's pretty obvious that it does ...

And I couldn't care less about you being embarrassed to call yourself a liberal. That's your problem, not mine, buddy.

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.

I'm not an economist and won't pretend to know too much about the wage gap. I think it's a complex issue that needs to be tackled on a case-to-case basis and needs to be examined within specific industries. Even me saying that is coming from a very rudimentary understanding of economics. So I don't know too much, if anything, about the wage gap or how all of that works.

It's not just a question of economics. It's a question of sociology and social psychology as well. The gap is there, on a global scale, and in several industries, that's not debatable. What's debatable is the exact set of factors that contribute to that gap, and to the extent of contribution of each factor. Peterson argues that sexism doesn't play much of a role (surprise, surprise) when it comes to the pay gap between men and women. Peterson's explanation for the gap is that women happen to be more agreeable than men (which is generally true), therefore less likely to negotiate, ask for higher pay, promotion, etc. And that, to Peterson, isn't a big deal anyway (this bit is what screams sexist to me in this case).

The problem with his explanation? Studies clearly show sexist attitudes play a bigger role here than mere personality factors.

See my post here that contains some relevant links:
https://atheistforums.org/thread-56585-p...pid1821747

[bennyboy]

I'm not blind.  I know black people have it bad.  But the solution to racism isn't more racism-- it's blanket policies that support the rights of all citizens equally.

Policies aren't enough, buddy. Attitudes need to be addressed, privilege needs to be acknowledged, you can't just talk equality for all, when some of us are happily privileged in one or more ways, and many others are not. Address the root of the issue first before you try to solve the problem overall.

Right now, the root of the problem is largely the dickish stance of the PC left. If you make self-demonizing a moral criterion, or expect individual citizens to extend rights to others that they are not afforded themselves because of their skin color, then you are doing it wrong.

Do you really think you're going to reduce racism overall by telling people that because of the color of their skin, you expect them to accept differential treatment from other citizens? Is that really your solution to the problem of racism? This is so obviously wrong that it shouldn't even need to be mentioned.

The truth is, you and I live in a different universe because words just don't mean what you are trying to make them mean.  When you say, "A should be protected, and B doesn't need to be," then this is differential treatment-- which you claim to support because of your love of equality.  Do you not see the irony of trying to get people to be treated equally by endorsing a policy which is designed to treat them differently?

If you mean affirmative action and such, these are necessary (albeit flawed) temporary solutions to swing the [symbolic] pendulum a bit more towards the center. Without enacting these "solutions", the pendulum is just going to continue to linger at one end and never hit the center.

I'm clearly talking about your assertion that since white people are privileged, they do not require or deserve protection from racism. What's the harm in extending equal privileges and protections to ALL citizens?

As for affirmative action-- what happened to your pleading that people be valued according to their personal merits and abilities? Why doesn't some white kid in a trailer park get the same scholarships that a black kid in the projects can get?

How about this, and I'll keep saying it, and you'll keep not getting it-- if you target for socioeconomic issues, you can improve the plight of black people preferentially without actually having to make a racist policy. Make scholarships for poor kids. Rich black kids aren't particularly disenfranchised. Yale accepting one of the Obama kids to fill a quota isn't really going to do much for the problem, is it? Let Bubba Smith Jr. have a chance, right along with Shaniqua Jones.

Overall, since black people are poorer, then making policies that tend to reduce the advantages of wealth WILL in fact benefit black people more. So do that. Why do you have to make it a race thing?