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

[bennyboy]

Even if I were a dirty, filthy racist...you would still be affirming the normalizing language of white supremacy.  The one thing wouldn't modify alter or excuse the other.   If that's not something you want to do, only you can stop it.  

Your whole view of "affirmation" is typical, but malformed.  A single statement can be construed as affirming any number of positions or narratives.  "I don't like you saying racist things about me just because I'm white" might mean I'm a white supremacist, and I'm trying to flip the script on the well-meaning PC who are just trying to look out for real victims in an oppressive culture.

OR could could mean that I do not like the politics of demographic division, in general-- and I'd very much like "no racism" to actually mean "no racism."

(You: Seeeeee!?  In refusing to accept racism toward yourself, you are being racissssst!)

Political correctness is about the way we speak to each other and about each other.  Complaining about it being a bunch of talk is pretty silly.

PC is about controlling the things we can talk about, and in particular, which demographic groups should be seen as victims or as oppressors-- despite the intent or merit of individuals in either group.

My plan is to avoid the normalization of white supremacy.  I think that's a good plan.

Do you really think this is a good plan if the goal is to reduce income disparity?  You don't think that my plans: heath care and drug programs in impoverished areas, release of prisoners with financial incentives, early-school programs EVEN IF heritability is ultimately 80% for adults, because dammit 20% matter.  You don't think these are all better plans than yours?  I totally disagree.  Your methods not only won't achieve your goals, but I believe they will tend to prevent them from being achieved.

You really sure you want to promote enforced division as the best plan to achieve unity?  Good luck, bro.

The goal is to prevent the consequences of casual racism.  Failing that, to provide some measure of resistance in the face of the same.
You can avail yourself of the facts at any point by clinking da links.

If you have a point you want to make, you can make it.  If you want to EXCHANGE links, and read an equal number of papers that I will provide for you, then I'll do it: I'll go page for page, with no limit at all-- entire books if you want.  I've already demonstrated that I've read your papers on IQ-- by quoting them, or summarizing them.

I know you will flounder around with some BS narrative rather than actually do the same amount of work you are asking me to do, but I will still give you the offer:

Are you willing to go 1:1?  If yes, let's do it.  We will go deeeeep down the rabbit hole, and come up with a strong understanding of both sides.  If not, then you will have to conform to the ordinary standard-- make a point yourself, and when asserting facts, quote them and cite them properly.

My prediction: You'll flounder around with some new angle on your narrative, dump a few more links as a red herring, and then play Socrates: "Why do youuuuu think what you're saying could be construed as blah blah blah?"


Make a point.  Support it.  That's how it works.