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

[EgoDeath]

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.

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.

How insane that you did exactly what I thought you'd do. Funny.

And no, I'm willfully ignoring parts of your post because I have no interest in having this discussion with someone so set on one opinion. The funny part is, I'm not even that big a fan of Peterson's work. I read 12 Rules, found it enjoyable, interesting and helpful. Nuff said. There's actually a LOT about Peterson I don't agree with or find to be positive.

I honestly don't care what you think because you seem to have zero interest in changing your view. NOTHING could prove to you that Peterson is anything but a bigot who apparently doesn't deserve your respect. And yet here you are, page after page, talking about him.

But this is a thread talking about a book which you haven't read, and yet you're chiming in with a level of zeal that makes me skeptical.

Go ahead and reply, I will willfully ignore it, again, because our views on the subject seem to be too far about. Have a good one.