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

[GrandizerII]

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?

I never suggested for anyone to demonize themselves for being white or whatever. See, that's the misunderstanding people continue to have regarding topics like this. Acknowledging that you have white privilege (or whatever other type of privilege) does not mean that you therefore must feel guilty or shame for being white. It means that you finally accept you have often unfair advantages over people who don't share that privilege in the sense that you are more likely to succeed in life and enjoy the benefits granted to you by society without worrying about your skin color being an obstacle. And that's a good thing! Because when people continue to be in denial of their privilege(s), they're not likely to want to do anything to address the injustices and they'll continue to be blind to what's really going in this reality, thus not granting the unprivileged a chance to be on equal grounds with them. And the problem is that when the unprivileged fight for their rights, they're hated and despised even more by the privileged. So there really is no easy quick fix solution here.

In an ideal world, I'd all for equal opportunity rather than equal outcome. But in this real world, definitely not going to go for "equal opportunity" because it really can't be such (not as long as racism and racial privileges continue to be a thing).

. . . 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.

And I'm happy to do that. One need not read the book itself to participate in a discussion about the book. After all, I have you to tell you and others to tell us what is in the book.

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?

Ok, there's the general sense of the word "racism" and there's the more narrow, specific sense. When I speak of racists in this context, I am talking about the latter sense, not the former. In this sense, racist refers to one who has bought into the system that harbors systemic prejudice and discrimination against oppressed groups, often treating them as inferior groups. Someone who's not a racist will typically oppose the injustices that stem from such system. So in this sense, you can't be racist against white people.

But I think black people can be racist against other black people, and Latino people (for example) can be racist against black people as well. I do think white people, on average, continue to be more racist than other groups, just a hunch.

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.

And they have a good past record. They're not manipulative and all that. Because even otherwise financially comfortable tenants have been a nightmare to landlords. That should've been the moral of your story (or part of it, at least). Not you hating on poor people.

"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.

I agree, but you seem to think only poor people would do such a thing.

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?

Not at all, why would I tell you that? All I'm pointing out is that your expressed prejudice against poor people is unwarranted and has clouded your mind and attitude towards them.

---

It's strange to me when a thread titled "Actual book discussion" is filled with folks who seemingly have not read the book, but rather seem to be basing their opinions on Peterson from OTHER opinion pieces written about him.

Peterson has videos on YouTube, and there are interviews with him as well. I have listened to some of them. So, as much as you would enjoy the narrative that I am, I'm not going by just opinion pieces about him.

I think you guys are getting caught up in the anti-Peterson hype as much as the hardcore Peterson fans are getting caught up in the pro-Peterson hype. Interestingly enough, Peterson's hardcore fans seem to fall farther to the right than Peterson himself.

I wonder why ...

I consider myself a liberal but I in no way shape or form would consider Peterson to be some right-wing extremist. Right-leaning? Sure. Too far right-leaning for my taste? At times yea. But I don't see what is so detestable about the man and no one here has yet to demonstrate anything of value that proves he's some kind of bigot.

You don't think he espouses views that encourage sexist attitudes against women, and that his trivialization of white privilege further enables white supremacist positions and attitudes?

I do believe Peterson's a bigot, and maybe I did call him that here somewhere (can't remember), but I was sure to point out some of his mistakes as well. For example, that sexism itself continues to contribute to the wage gap between men and women, as seen by the studies that show even agreeable men earn more than agreeable women. Hell, men who score high on agreeableness still often fare better in the workforce than women who score low on agreeableness.