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

[EgoDeath]

Then by all means, share with us what you have learned from reading his book, and we can discuss. I'm sure you've done that with robvalue and perhaps a few others, but I wasn't here when this thread was first started, and I can't just go back and respond to everything that was said before I came in here. I did have a read of a lot of the posts that were made in this thread (and the other Peterson thread) before my initial participation here, so I still have an idea regardless of what you guys have been talking about. And from what I've read, I didn't see anything that would make me change my mind regarding Peterson. The sexism is implicit in his views, and it's exemplified by when he says that chaos is represented by (or associated with) femininity and order with masculinity. But it seems like you came prepared with some good apologetics for this, arguing it's not sexist, even though Peterson is just arguing out of his ass here (like he usually does), and order is clearly perceived as better than chaos. And apparently, according to this post, he does associate order with men and chaos with women.

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

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.

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Broken record.  You just don't understand Beetrootson...HAVE YOU READ THE BOOK!

Yes, I do, and yes..I've read what parts I choose to comment on.  I don't need to eat a whole turd to know that this or that piece is made out of shit.

You'd think the guy had already performed his three miracles and was on track for cannonization, lol..fuck.

[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.

[bennyboy]

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.

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

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?

---

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.

[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.

[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.

[bennyboy]

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.

Hmmmm. You seem to be doing quite the tap-dance right now. Did you or did you not say that white people are privileged, and that for this reason it was not possible for other groups to be racist toward white people?

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.

Why do you keep saying "reverse racism" in quotes, when nobody is using that term but you? There's racism, and it's wrong. Predicating beliefs, comments or actions based on the perceived race of another is wrong.

Your special pleading to allow some racism as merited and justified, but other racism as institutional and wrong, is pointless. Repeat after me: "Racism is bad." That's all we need to say.

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.

Well, let us know what parts, specifically, you've read for yourself, and what you think about them and why. Then I will welcome you back to the thread.

Until then, I will say that I find you to be quite racist, and unrepentently so, and that it has been quite unpleasant attempting to hold a discourse with you. Unless you are willing to say that all citizens should be extended the same privileges and protections, without regard to skin color, then I have little else to say to you.

[GrandizerII]

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

Hmmmm.  You seem to be doing quite the tap-dance right now.  Did you or did you not say that white people are privileged, and that for this reason it was not possible for other groups to be racist toward white people?

Something like that, yes (though I later clarified what I meant by "racist" in this case).

So how do you go from what I actually said to this:

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

Please help me with the logic here, because I'm struggling to see how this was derived from what I said.

Why do you keep saying "reverse racism" in quotes, when nobody is using that term but you?  There's racism, and it's wrong.  Predicating beliefs, comments or actions based on the perceived race of another is wrong.

Yes, it's called prejudice, and it's wrong. If you want to call that "racism" to make you feel better, be my guest. What does this have to do with the argument that white people cannot be victims of [institutional] racism, though?

Your special pleading to allow some racism as merited and justified, but other racism as institutional and wrong, is pointless.  Repeat after me: "Racism is bad."  That's all we need to say.

Do black lives matter? Or do all lives matter?

Well, let us know what parts, specifically, you've read for yourself, and what you think about them and why.  Then I will welcome you back to the thread.

Welcome me back? LOL!

Until then, I will say that I find you to be quite racist, and unrepentently so,  and that it has been quite unpleasant attempting to hold a discourse with you.

As your side likes to say:

Facts don't care about your feelings!

[GrandizerII]

Oh, regarding a point that Benny has made a number of times (on socioeconomic vs. race-based policies), here's a good study that addresses this issue:

Can Socioeconomic Status Substitute for Race in Affirmative Action College Admissions Policies? Evidence From a Simulation Model

The overall conclusion is that both types of affirmative actions may be necessary to balance out the playing field for both racial minorities and for low-income groups, which is contradictory to what Benny has been arguing.