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

[The Grand Nudger]

It's more of an issue of what you think is happening, which is what I keep trying to stress.  I can't actually -make- you fit the categorization, no one can...since no one has their hand up your ass operating your mouth (allegedly, lol).   When you think about the pc left and "whiteness"...

Do you think that there is significant discrimination?  
Do you think that there's an attempt to abrogate some right, the right to free speech, for example?  
Do you think that there is a campaign of stigmatization and pride denial?  
Do you think that the goal is to cause a loss of self or social esteem? 
Do you think that the goal is to make people such as yourself either effectively or actively disappear?   

or, conversely (and or additionally)

Are you convinced that the pc left threatens western civilization and values?  That if their ideology became more common than it already is, it would end in breadlines..for example?

Now, I don't know why we would waste a moment denying that each category above applies to your thoughts on the matter.  We've addressed each item..both as the basis of your complaints about the pc left and as a personal accusation of something I'm doing to you or an effect of what would happen if people like me got ahold of the levers of power.  Rather than bicker over whether or not any given item is incorrect (at least, for a moment), I'll just point out that this is the holstein miller model of victimization (or victimhood identification, if you prefer), and it's used, at present, as a normalizing device for white supremacy.  This is a fact..even if every item above is true.

The question I'm hoping to get you to ask yourself is not whether or not you are a racist....but why you affirm the message itself.  Obviously this will be an oversimplification, but I'm going to split the possible explanations for -why- you have come to affirm that narrative of victimization into three categories.

1.) You have independently arrived at the position that each item -is- true.
2.) You have been groomed to see each item -as- true
3.) Some combination of 1 and 2.

Now, can you understand why number one might present such an enormous coincidence that it could be rejected out of hand by a rational person?  Particularly, if..hypothetically speaking, each given item is significantly mistaken?  How often, as a teacher...do you find that two students get precisely the same items on a test wrong for precisely the same reasons, down to the very language of their answers... in the absence of any interaction between them?

As to possibility number two, can you understand why a rational person, knowing that there is and has been (as a point of fact) significant effort to groom people in this regard..and knowing that a person absolutely does frequent those venues in which this occurs and listen to people engaged in that effort, might consider this the most likely explanation for such high representation of those points in your personal take on the matter?  To rephrase the question even more simply; if a person begins a sentence in conversation "I was watching fox/cnn news last night" - are you then surprised to hear them communicate some position or contention common to a fox/cnn news commentator?  

Finally, the third. My personal favorite.  This one take a little reflection on the nature of one and two and how they might relate to each other.  Let's suppose that in the distant past..before you ever got around to having this discussion with me or anyone else, you were very sympathetic to a single item on that list.  Rights abrogation, for example.  If that were the case, and if both in a social setting and online, there were known correlations between that item and the others..or algorithms that drove traffic from that item to the others...would this not (or could this not) present a compelling explanation for how a non racist person finds themselves affirming the normalizing language of white supremacy?

Now..for a little commentary that I know you love so much.  I'm not sure that a person who is incapable of at least considering the strong possibility that they are in positions 2 and/or 3 can ever be ready to have a discussion of whether any of those contentions are factually accurate or..rather, significant and intentional misrepresentations.  Not, mind you, on the part of the person relaying them.  The initial lie (in that hypothetical case) is not one that said person tells others..but one that they've convinced themselves of or have been themselves convinced of.  By the time they get around to communicating the narrative above in it's entirety, they are sold, and csold earnestly not only in the truth of each contention but that they have personally and adequately vetted each item.  It's just The Truth™, and the PC left is suppressing that Truth™.  It's an impossible situation to find one's self in, I'd imagine.  Simultaneously feeling as though one needs to defend themselves against accusations of racism (in earnest) while affirming the core ideology of modern white supremacy.  Here again I'll stress that even if every item above was true..it is still the core ideology of modern white supremacy.  

-and that's a best case scenario...without any stonewalling or hissy fit throwing or foot in mouth nonsense or diversions into scientific racism.