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

[GrandizerII]

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.

You are telling white people to accept unequal racist policies because they are oppressors and they have it coming to them, no?

That's clearly a caricature mischaracterization of what I said. I can't make you see anything if you're that blind.

Even if they are in trailer parks, according to you, they are so privileged that they should stand by while black people are extended opportunities they are not?

No, they are not so privileged. Did you read what I said? I didn't say poor white people are so privileged that they don't need help at all. I said they nevertheless have white privilege in the sense that their perceived skin color doesn't get in the way of their potential for success in life. It doesn't mean they have class privilege, though.

I've made this clear time and time again, and yet you fuckers still don't get it.

So. . . are you ready to accept that all citizens should be accorded the exact same privileges and protections without regard to the color of their skin, or do you want to keep being racist?

I'm totally ready. But are the powers that be ready? Is the current system, tainted by racism and sexism, fit to get this ready?

I chuckle everytime you label me a racist for all the wrong reasons. I don't have a problem being called out for saying something legitimately racist. But it's so hard to take "reverse racism" seriously, because it's nothing more than an expression of white person's persecution complex. White people are not victims of institutional racism, as much as you would like it to be (just to fit your narrative). Even if they're not all privileged in the exact same ways.

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?

Read the title of the thread, bud.

Yes, I can read the title. What about it?

I already said I'm happy to discuss the contents of the book. I don't have to read a whole book to do that, however. Here, read again what I said earlier (the bit which you conveniently chose not to quote or respond to):

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.

And I'm sick of Peterson apologists continually being misleading and acting like there isn't any taint of sexism in his book.

I'm so goddamn sick I actually just now downloaded Chapter 2 of his book just to see if I'm missing anything here.

Did you argue he never associated chaos with women? Because he sure as hell did. Here, read:

Chaos, the eternal feminine, is also the crushing force of sexual selection. Women are choosy maters (unlike female chimps, their closest animal counterparts). Most men do not meet female human standards. It is for this reason that women on dating sites rate 85 percent of men as below average in attractiveness. It is for this reason that we all have twice as many female ancestors as male (imagine that all the women who have ever lived have averaged one child. Now imagine that half the men who have ever lived have fathered two children, if they had any, while the other half fathered none). It is Woman as Nature who looks at half of all men and says, “No!” For the men, that’s a direct encounter with chaos, and it occurs with devastating force every time they are turned down for a date. Human female choosiness is also why we are very different from the common ancestor we shared with our chimpanzee cousins, while the latter are very much the same. Women’s proclivity to say no, more than any other force, has shaped our evolution into the creative, industrious, upright, large-brained (competitive, aggressive, domineering) creatures that we are. It is Nature as Woman who says, “Well, bucko, you’re good enough for a friend, but my experience of you so far has not indicated the suitability of your genetic material for continued propagation.”

Notice what I bolded. I bolded all instances of the word "woman" or "women" in this to emphasize the association he makes between women and chaos in this one paragraph.

I also bolded a part of a sentence that clearly directly relates women to chaos ("direct encounter with chaos"), and just for the kicks, a part of a sentence that incels will clearly say "Amen" to. Oh, how cruel women are to these men.

Two paragraphs before that, Peterson says:

Order, the known, appears symbolically associated with masculinity (as illustrated in the aforementioned yang of the Taoist yin-yang symbol). This is perhaps because the primary hierarchical structure of human society is masculine, as it is among most animals, including the chimpanzees who are our closest genetic and, arguably, behavioural match. It is because men are and throughout history have been the builders of towns and cities, the engineers, stonemasons, bricklayers, and lumberjacks, the operators of heavy machinery. Order is God the Father, the eternal Judge, ledger-keeper and dispenser of rewards and punishments. Order is the peacetime army of policemen and soldiers. It’s the political culture, the corporate environment, and the system. It’s the “they” in “you know what they say.” It’s credit cards, classrooms, supermarket checkout
lineups, turn-taking, traffic lights, and the familiar routes of daily commuters. Order, when pushed too far, when imbalanced, can also manifest itself destructively and terribly. It does so as the forced migration, the concentration camp, and the soul-devouring uniformity of the goose-step.

Putting aside the fact that he knows jack shit about Taoism, it's clear to me that order, overall, is perceived as better than chaos. Notice the number of sentences that place order in high regard compared to chaos in the other paragraph quoted. Chaos is begrudgingly seen as a necessity in Peterson's eyes, but he sympathizes for the poor men affected by the destructive power of chaos.

I mean, come on, this is sexist shit right there. All this nonsense is being borne out of Peterson's own chauvinistic mind, it's not based in Taoism (as he ridiculously argues).

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.

You make it sound like I just choose to not agree with Peterson. But I've seen the videos, I've seen the interviews, I've listened to what he has to say. My opinion of him is based on what he himself said, get it? You admitted, on the other hand, you haven't watched much of Peterson on YouTube. That's fine, but I have. So don't tell me I need to read his book to really get him.

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.

Perhaps, but excuse me if I'm skeptical.

Sure you don't agree with his views on religion, but so what? That doesn't automatically rule you out as a big fan or an apologist for Peterson. In fact, heaps of atheists disagree with him on religion and the nature of truth, but love him regardless because of what he has to say about feminism and all that. He says exactly what they want to hear when it comes to topics of social justice, so these atheists have put him on a very high pedestal irrespective of his religious views, lol.

To be clear, not saying this is definitely the case with you (maybe you really aren't a big fan of his), but just saying.

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.

So much wrong with that reasoning that I'm not sure where to start.

So you don't care what I'm arguing because of your perception of me? If I'm presenting to you some facts, you've chosen not to consider them because you find me too stubborn or something? Isn't that somewhat of an ad hominem fallacy? Even if I was set on my one opinion of whatever, and not willing to change my mind, you could at least examine my argument to see if there is any truth to it, right?

And since when is talking about someone, page after page, in response to other people's posts directed at me an automatic indicator that I highly respect that someone?

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.

Well, I just submitted to the typical Peterson "read the damn book" mantra and skimmed through the second chapter of the book, and also the part with the lobsters (that was such as a hilariously sad read, btw). And I saw exactly what other critics, who've read the book, were talking about.

So I've now read some of the book, and I have permanent access to it, would you like to point out what I'm missing or getting wrong?

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.

You will? Ok, we shall see.