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

[bennyboy]

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"...

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

1.  Absolutely.  PC is about establishing victim and oppressor status of demographic groups, and then providing (or even enforcing) preferential treatment for the victimize group as a whole.  You consistently mocked my requests for you not to make derogatory comments about white people-- because I'm white, I don't like them. This is, presumably, because since white men are clearly not a victimized demographic group, you don't have to extend to the members of that group the same considerations you would to a black person.
2.  I don't know about denial of rights, but certainly you, in this thread, have very much attempted to use every epithet under the sun as a threat against the free exploration and expression of ideas.
3.  Why are you grouping these?  Clearly, white males are stigmatized as the Big Bad Wolf.  I mean. . . how could it be claimed otherwise?  But "pride denial?"  I don't really know what that even means.
4.  You tell me.  I wouldn't say you've been particularly supportive of my "self or social esteem" in this thread.  Would you?
5.  What are "people like myself"? Canadians living in Korea?

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?

If the PC Left ideology was the norm, then it would pretty much be the end of critical thought.  As Peterson says (Holy shit!  The OP lives!), the purpose of the left is to stand up for the disenfranchised in a power hierarchy-- to make sure they have a voice.  If the Left ideology is the norm, then who's the little guy?

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.

This it the guilt by association of ideas technique that you've used all along.  You (I think) realize that I dislike white supremacists, so in an attempt to scare me away from any discussion of race as a problem, you conflate facts with motivations.

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?

This is a strange line of questioning.  We've been talking about the problem of black inequality for what? 50 pages now?

But when I brought up IQ, I specifically declared that I had gone to an alt-right site to see what they said.  I then researched the claims, and found them to be (to some degree) true.  Then I said so.

I'd say that in terms of process, the difference between a white supremacist with the same IQ and educational background as me would in fact be pretty minimal (unless malice toward black people was already evident), until the point of application: a white supremacist would use the facts to blame black people for all their difficulties, and to combat any attempt to help them.  I would use the facts to look for the causal factors in the problem, and attempt to address those causes as close to their roots as possible.

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?

Here's the thing, Khem.  I've never denied that racists would use this kind of language.  In fact, I suspect that if a million people were reading this thread, I'd be considered a great champion of the alt-right-- or if I'm overstating things, at least a sympathizer.

I don't believe in association by guilt of ideas.  Just because both White Supremacists and I take interest in IQ scores and their correlation with income, for example, does not mean I'm a White Supremacist.  So why do you keep talking about "normalizing language of white supremacy?"  Is it really a well-intended hope for my best interest-- that as a good buddy, you are worried that I won't unintentionally be used as a puppet for an ideology I don't believe in?

Or is it that by hanging this constant threat of implied demonization through guilt of association of ideas, that you can control the narrative without actually having to have positive ideas upon which policy might reasonably be based?  "Racism is baaaaaad" makes a great soundbite.  But what it doesn't do is provide anything more than a soundbite.

Here's in a nutshell how I see interactions:
1)  I try to find the truth, and then to consider policies that would either leverage it or mediate it in establishing a goal: improved income equality for black people in the US.
2)  You start rambling about "normalizing language of white supremacy," and then suggest no solution at all-- except, presumably, that you think people shouldn't normalize language of white supremacy.

See, here's what you've failed to get-- everything I've said follows the pattern: "Here's a problem, how would we fix it?"  If the problem is IQ, then we have to try and fix that problem.  That's where the discussion needs to be-- how do we fix this problem, so that the desired result (economic parity) will unfold naturally?

If the problem isn't IQ-- if it's just the way we distribute money, then we have to distribute the money more equitably-- super high taxes and welfare payments that will guarantee a good basic living standard.

I could go on, but you should get the point.  Solving abstract problems with words isn't going to lead to a solution for concrete problems.