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

[CapnAwesome]

I'm gonna call you out here. I don't think you've read the book, and you will say, "I don't even have to. . . "

If so, consider possibly fucking off, or referencing something IN the book, please.

---

That's right. And here's one of the ways they do it-- this thread is about to be 80 pages of shit, and I'll bet $150 (exactly, and to be donated to charity!) that some of the noisiest birds here haven't actually read the whole book. But they'll fill line after line with BS that they "know" is true without ever considering the actual facts of what was ever said.
Right, Khem?

---

What, in the book, in particular, did you find objectionable?  What words, actually, did he write, which you cannot tolerate, in this text which we are supposedly here to discuss?

---

Well, that's kind of the point of all this, and why Peterson in general is so popular, and so important. Nitwits see even a hint of something that could stand against the narrative of demographic victimization or oppression at the hands of white male cisgender capitalist pig-dogs, and start shouting bloody murder. No matter that Peterson didn't say any of the things they claim, or even imply them, they are so sure that the 10 keywords they've bothered to scan say the 80 pages of shit they're going to shovel that they don't even need to READ. . . THE. . . BOOK.

*my emphasis*

We are talking about the religious traditionalist that partitions his backwards ass ideas between speeches and books to cloud his actual ideals, and who advocated for forced monogamy as a solution to the issue of crazed incels? Right?

Forced monogamy is a term used in pychology. It doesn't mean what it sounds like. It's more about societal standards. I would actually say we have forced monogamy in America todsay, but much less than the past.

Like I said, barely familiar with Peterson, but I'd be surprised if he were talking about the state coupling random people together.