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

[bennyboy]

Well wait a minute.  If we're so deeply concerned about inequality, then there's an easy solution-- pure communism.  Either that, or we simply have rules intended generally to promote equality-- applications to school based only on test scores, for example-- and let those who perform better take their positions at the top.

There's no easy solution here, benny. We first need to acknowledge and address the elephant in the room before we can dream of enacting a proper solution. But there's too many privileged people in this world who aren't ready for that.

Hmmmm, I've heard this song before.  We can literally float every conceivable solution to the problem, and you'll keep saying, ". . . but still racism."

You aren't going to get these supposed people of privilege in line if the only plan of action is for them to demonize themselves.  What actual plan would you suggest?  I've suggested two-- either allow true liberty and accept the results, or enforce equality of outcome without regard to merit.  What else have you got?

Have you read the book?

Why? Is there something Peterson said in his book he didn't say in his lecture on his trivialization of white privilege?

. . . because this thread is titled "actual book discussion," so I think it's reasonable that participants in this thread be willing to actually discuss the book.

That's the thing. In the mind of the racist, there is no such thing as a wealthy, nicely-dressed, and well-educated who isn't white. They may spot a contradiction to that when they do encounter someone who does meet these characteristics, but such people don't pop up in their considerations.

Let me ask you-- is racism the domain exclusively of white men?  Would you say that white people are, on average, more racist than black or latino people?

If white people are identified as low-class (trailer park, bogan, whatever), then they will absolutely be barred.

You sure about that?

Yes, I'm pretty sure.  No landlord wants low-quality tenants.  They want money, and at least a reasonable attempt to preserve their property.  If an applicant looks like he is professional and disciplined, the landlord will be grateful to have him.

I'll tell you a story.  I managed to scrape up enough money to buy a little townhouse on Vancouver Island, which I rented out.  A single mom applies. . . she's on welfare, looks like a slob, but she gives a sob story about how nobody will give her a chance and she promises she'll take great care of the place.

Three months later, she's late on the fucking rent, her teenage daughter trashes the place, and she just moves out.  Never got even 10% of the damage she caused back.

That's unfortunate. And I can see how this might've been a traumatic experience for you.

No, it's not "unfortunate." I let emotions and a desire for fairness lead me to making a mistake. Don't sign a contract with someone unless you believe they have the financial and personal capacity to fulfill it.

Moral-- fuck poor people.  They are poor for a reason, and keep them the fuck off my property.  I want classy people only-- literate, educated, and responsible.  A black guy shows up in expensive glasses wearing a sweater vest, I'll suck his dick if he'll sign a lease.  Another fucking yokel shows up looking for compassion, and I'll drop-kick him off my porch and sick my dog on him, I don't care if he's an Aryan poster child.

Are you saying all this to try to convince me you're not really racist, but perhaps some other type of bigot?

Yeah, there is a moral to be learned here, but not that prejudice against poor people is a good thing.

"Prejudice."  I made the mistake of entrusting someone with the care of my property who didn't have her life together enough to make good on damages.  That was a bad decision.  In order to prevent losing many thousands of dollars, then I should make sure renters CAN make good on damages.

You gonna start talking about how owning property (I no longer own it due to the depression about 8 or so years ago, btw) was a privilege, and how I should therefore have been happy to let irresponsible people walk all over me?