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

[GrandizerII]

Right now, the root of the problem is largely the dickish stance of the PC left.

Yeah, clearly, it must be that. It's not fuckers like Peterson, Yiannopoulos, Shapiro, etc. ... or God forbid ... the Trump administration and the Republican politicians (and the mentality of the far right). Nah, it must be the "PC" left.

If you make self-demonizing a moral criterion, or expect individual citizens to extend rights to others that they are not afforded themselves because of their skin color, then you are doing it wrong.

I clearly have not advocated for either. Quit the strawmen. You have been twisting what I said for a while now to suit your arguments.

Do you really think you're going to reduce racism overall by telling people that because of the color of their skin, you expect them to accept differential treatment from other citizens?  Is that really your solution to the problem of racism?  This is so obviously wrong that it shouldn't even need to be mentioned.

The problem that you keep failing to see is that they're not treated as equal in the first place. Hence, such policies as affirmative action. Again, to be clear, I am not arguing these are perfect policies, but to level the playing field, they become necessary in a corrupt racist (and sexist) system.

I'm clearly talking about your assertion that since white people are privileged, they do not require or deserve protection from racism.  What's the harm in extending equal privileges and protections to ALL citizens?

Jesus Christ, they already have these privileges granted them by society. White people don't have to worry about their skin color being an obstacle to them in life. I mean, really, benny, you still don't get it?

As for affirmative action-- what happened to your pleading that people be valued according to their personal merits and abilities?  Why doesn't some white kid in a trailer park get the same scholarships that a black kid in the projects can get?

Poor kids do get scholarships aimed at people of low income. At least here in Australia. If that's not the case in the USA, they should address that then.

But what even these poor white kids have (which is white privilege) is not granted to other racial groups. Hence, the differential treatment based on race.

How about this, and I'll keep saying it, and you'll keep not getting it-- if you target for socioeconomic issues, you can improve the plight of black people preferentially without actually having to make a racist policy.  Make scholarships for poor kids.  Rich black kids aren't particularly disenfranchised.  Yale accepting one of the Obama kids to fill a quota isn't really going to do much for the problem, is it?  Let Bubba Smith Jr. have a chance, right along with Shaniqua Jones.

Not gonna happen ... because, like I said before and keep saying, racism is still an obstacle. That thing called racism is partly behind why black people are disproportionately poor (compared to white people). You're living in a dream world where racism isn't much of a thing and with not much of an influence. I'm looking at reality here and seeing it for what it is.

Overall, since black people are poorer, then making policies that tend to reduce the advantages of wealth WILL in fact benefit black people more.  So do that.  Why do you have to make it a race thing?

You know what else will in fact benefit black people? Getting rid of racism by first acknowledging it's a thing (along with white privilege). But we don't live in la-la land. We live in reality.

---

So not only do you admit to not reading the book, you completely get the quote wrong about Order and Chaos.

Well, you didn't address the post (I linked to) made by someone who actually did read the book, in which the poster read Peterson associating men with order and women with chaos. Benny directly responded to him and didn't deny that bit. So ... did that poster just read it wrong, or what?

Or could it be that you skimmed over that bit in the book?

You also conveniently ignore that Peterson believes, per his words from 12 Rules, that a meaningful life requires a balance somewhere between order and chaos. That chaos represents potential, success and a yearning for the unknown, the strive for knowledge. But I'm sure you'll still find a way to paint this as "sexist."

And what you conveniently ignore is that order is perceived as better than chaos. So even in the case that Peterson never associated chaos with women, but with femininity only, it's at best borderline sexist. Especially since what he's saying is not clearly truth.

Then you go on to say that Peterson doesn't say anything explicitly sexist, but it's just so clear that if I don't see it I'm never going to get it.

Ha, wow.

Do you think sexists and misogynists, these days, go around telling people publicly that they think men are superior to women in many ways, or that women suck and all? Have you not heard of covert/subtle/implicit sexism at all? What do you think that means?

Since you love reading so much, perhaps you should do some reading on that as well.

Listen I'm sick of trying to explain these things to people who HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK only to have the ignore what I say and double down on their own views. We're clearly too far apart in our view about this. And yes, you're right, some of us see what we want to see. I suppose that explains your wildly inaccurate view of some of Peterson's ideas. Read the book, then maybe I'll continue to discuss the book with you. Til then, see ya.

I'm not ignoring what you're saying. I see what you're saying, and I then explained why I disagree. If anything, you are the one who doesn't want to see what you don't want to see.

And no, I'm not going to read a whole book by someone I have no respect for. Would you like it if I told you to read a whole book by some radical feminist before you can discuss the pros and cons of radical feminism? I could tell you what it says in some book, without you having to read it, and this itself would be enough to make for a good book discussion. But instead, we get Peterson fans throwing tantrums instead because some of us strongly disagree with his views on social issues.