• expired

12 Rules for Life by Jordan Peterson $12 (Was $19.99) + Delivery ($0 with Prime/ $39 Spend) @ Amazon AU


Great book especially with his new one coming soon. Beyond Order is being released on March 2nd, 2021.

If you haven’t read this, maybe now is the time? :)

Price History at C CamelCamelCamel.

Related Stores

Amazon AU
Amazon AU

closed Comments

        • Thank you, it's an honour. Though I was just paraphrasing Jordan Peterson :-)

      • Sarcasm?

  • +14

    12 rules for life is no different to the commandments in the Bible ….this book should be used for camp fires

    • firebans

    • -1

      The guy is a right-wing nutjob who doesn't follow what he preaches.


      • +6

        Right-wing nutjob… any evidence to support that claim?

        • +8

          Did you read the entire article before negging me?

          Here is another one for you: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/how-dangerou...

          • +11

            @DoctorCalculon: First link is behind a paywall so nope i didnt.

            How about you tell us what makes him a nutjob?

              • +11

                @Autonomic: Seriously?
                All I saw were some clips of Peterson out of context, coupled with clumsy attempts to purposely misconstrue with snarky comments (some of which seem to be outright lies? eg after a bit of googling, it seems there IS a lot of scientific evidence pointing to our colour vision evolving to help us spot fruit).

                Though I have to say, the 25 days of no sleep etc seems likely to be a bit over-dramatic.

          • +14

            @DoctorCalculon: There are a lot of people like you who just dismiss him as right wing due to poor journalism - like this article from 'The Guardian'.

            Perhaps you should read or watch a long-form video or read his book.

            Don't see much of a right wing in Peterson.


          • +2

            @DoctorCalculon: did you watch any of his hundreds of 1 on 1 interviews

            or watch in full one of his hundreds of lectures available freely online

            or did you just link some left wing biased cuck article?

          • +5

            @DoctorCalculon: If you're basing the premise of your argument on a heavily bias articles then you already lost, just look at the languages use, it has no credibility

          • +1

            @DoctorCalculon: The Guardian lol…

        • +3

          His truth hits home does it?

      • +16

        It must be true because the media never lie, misinform or twist the information they present 😂

        • -5

          Oh wait! Maybe it will be more believable if it came out of the orifices of the opinion hosts of Fox News or other Murdoch owned entities, because everyone else is "fake news". 🙄😜

          Here is another gem: https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/9991289/redir

          Guy gets owned by an Aussie comedian in less than 30 seconds! What a genius! 🤣

          • +9

            @DoctorCalculon: Owned? He conceded he was wrong, which I wouldn't have done talking to that excuse for a comedian.

            • @jt83: He conceded he was wrong about civil rights being a good thing. That's a self own.

        • +9

          "Here's a claim"
          "Got any evidence"
          "Sure, here's a sh*tload"
          "Something something MSM fake news white rabbit"

          • +18

            @GrueHunter: But there is literally no evidence there?

            Other than "the guardian" writing a hit piece on him being a "right wing conspiracy theorist", where's the actual evidence of that? Just because they say it, doesn't make it true.

            • +1

              @brad1601: Evidence? This is leftism, we have no need for evidence. If it makes me feel better, it is true!

      • +17

        Common sense and logic is considered "right wing" now?

        • +6

          I know right.. what an age to be alive in!!

        • +7

          Anyone telling folk they need to get off their arse and be responsible as an individual is right wing.

        • +3

          Haha this is actually funny because it's true. Something happened in the last 10 or so years when the left seemed to abandon any connection to reality and just went full retard, which left a gaping hole for the right wing to jump into.
          I remember when Obama was running for office and claimed (paraphrasing) "If I fail it is not because of my race, it's because I wasn't good enough". This was a message everyone could support. By 2012 this had devolved into "Everyone's picking on me because I'm black".
          This was roughly the same time as Julia Gillard blamed her vagina for people picking on her as PM, rather than her crap policies. The Left everywhere embraced victim politics and abandoned logic as a result.

      • +5

        Have you read the book? I bet not, typical. Also it's a bargain, that's what you are suppose to vote on, not personal opinion, dummy.

    • +5

      Why is okay to discuss burning the Bible but not the Gita or Quran? It's totally okay to offend white males and Christians but not anyone else.

      • because I have no knowledge of either of those? And Australia is more Christian then either of those?

        • +1

          Great logic. Let's use the Gita and Qur'an for camp fires too. You first, I suggest you do it in a place called Lakemba.

        • -1

          Or you can even start by burning Qurans in Saudi Arabia "cos it's more Islam than the others?".

          Let us know (if it's still possible) how your cowardly SJW views go in actual practise.


    • +6

      this book should be used for camp fires

      I haven't read this and I don't know much about this dude other than the fact he creates chaos in the comments here

      But I do know that burning books is wrong.

      Maybe take a step back and reflect on what you just said.

  • +6

    2077: Even More Rules for Cybernetic Organisms

    1: A cybernetic individual may not injure other human being or, through inaction, allow human being to come to harm…

  • +20

    Compilation of Jordan Peterson's greatest hits:


    • +5

      Jim Jefferies interview.. 🤣🤣🤣 yeah because he hasn't had any kind scandals about conducting interviews.

      • +1

        What's that got to do with that interview?

        • +9

          Someone else did a great job of explaining this..

          The court decision regarding the cake went something like this;

          CUSTOM CAKES are art, and you cannot force someone to affirm your beliefs with their art. Therefore the shop owner could decline the creation of the custom cake on the grounds that the store owner opposed the beliefs of the couple. The owner COULD NOT deny the sale of a standard cake to the couple.

          Further more.. the Court's decision was more limited. It was really based off of comments made by the Commission that showed a hostility toward the baker's religious beliefs. The Court basically found that the law, as applied, was not neutral toward the baker's beliefs and that tainted any decision as the Commission did not properly weigh the State's interest in prohibiting discrimination against the baker's First Amendment rights.

          As such, the Court's decision does not provide much in the way of value as a precedent on the core issues.

          Stupid Example: Lets pretend you are a member of the KKK and I'm a musician. You approach me and ask me to make a song filled with racist lyrics. I can, and should be able to, oppose creating art for a viewpoint that I do not support. After I refuse to make your music, you tell me that you want to buy one of the many songs I have already created. I cannot DENY the sale of these songs to you because I don't agree with your ideals, but I can refuse to create art that supports your viewpoints.

          • @vash5:

            I cannot DENY the sale of these songs to you because I don't agree with your ideals

            What? You absolutely can. White supremacists are not a protected class.

            • +6


              1. It's just an example and not mine.

              2. In that example you just took the side of JP and the baker in your response. You supported denial of a service based on your beliefs. The only difference is you changed the words gay couple to white supremacist.

              Out of interest, how do you feel about that?

              • -2

                @vash5: LGBT is a protected class so, no, it's not the same thing at all. If it's not your example maybe make that clear. Are we supposed to be mind readers?

                • +4

                  @Autonomic: The premise of the lgbt argument is that some people are born different and their viewpoint don't conform to social norms and that they should be allow to freely expressed their opinions and be respected

                  However, here, you completely disregarded the baker who is also entitled to his own viewpoint, so essentially if you don't believe it is okay for a baker to refuse to do something based on his belief, the singularly bullet proof argument of the lgbt community of a mental identity vaporised

                  • @ln28909:

                    The premise of the lgbt argument is that some people are born different and their viewpoint don't conform to social norms and that they should be allow to freely expressed their opinions and be respected

                    The premise is that they're an oppressed class and require extra protection under the law. End of. If you didn't have this law you would have widespread discrimination.

                    • +1

                      @Autonomic: Yes, but the reason for them being considered as an oppressed class is because of how they identify themselves hence my comment

                      • @ln28909: Not really sure what you're saying. They're oppressed because they're LGBT. It's not a choice. It can't be changed.

                        • +1

                          @Autonomic: Can't is the wrong wording, shouldn't is more appropriate

                          I'm explaining the reason for them being an oppressed groups and how that reason would be flawed if you were to not allow the baker to exercise his thoughts

                          • @ln28909: I don't think they get it.. I do and it's pretty much what I'm also trying to explain/question.

                            They either can't understand or don't want to amid their idea has some major flaws. Both make for a highly dysfunctional conversation.

                          • @ln28909:

                            Can't is the wrong wording, shouldn't is more appropriate

                            Again, no idea what point you're trying to make here. Are you saying being LGBT is a choice?

                            • @Autonomic: Everything you do is a choice, you can be born as male and choose to become a female etc. It's a choice

                              • @ln28909: You've lost me.

                                Did you choose what gender you were born as? What ethnicity you were born as? Or what your orientation was?

                                • +1

                                  @Autonomic: The basis of lgbtq+ is that biology is irrelevant, and doesn't affect how a person feels, so if you don't based thing on biology then yes it's a choice

                                  Gender you were born as: biology, therefore not a choice

                                  Ethnicity: biology therefore not a choice

                                  Your orientation: not biology or at least not to my knowledge so yes it's a choice

                                  This is the reason why people still debate about lgbtq+, it's because you make argument points that go against the basis of your argument lol

                                  • @ln28909: But you just said

                                    Everything you do is a choice

                                    Now nothing is a choice? I genuinely have no idea what your argument even is.

                                    • @Autonomic:

                                      Everything you do is a choice

                                      The keyword here is do

                                      Also, if you want people to be more open to the idea then you shouldn't really use this argument approach. You're arguing on technicality and not the actual substance of the point made

                                      I'm not an expert myself but I'm very careful with my wording, if you look at Jordan Peterson for example, it would be impossible to win against him if you're focusing on technicality, it's just gonna make you look bad

                                      • @ln28909: I said:

                                        Are you saying being LGBT is a choice?

                                        You replied:

                                        Everything you do is a choice, you can be born as male and choose to become a female etc. It's a choice

                                        Forgive me for reading that as "being LGBT is a choice", especially when it sounds like at the very least your saying being trans is a choice. Or transitioning is a choice? Again, not sure what you mean.

                                        What a waste of time. You could have just said "no, being LGBT is not a choice" instead of this nonsense. I'm not arguing a technicality - I'm literally struggling to understand your position.

                                        • @Autonomic: No lgbtq is a choice, that's the point

                                          And that point is bullet proof, nothing can dispute that so if you accept the compromise then there would be nothing to talk about, if you wanna argue that lgtbq is not a choice, you're gonna lose

                                          Why, because, if it is not a choice, then any argument you make will be weaker than the biology argument

                                          • @ln28909: My mistake, you actually think being LGBT is a choice.

                                            • @Autonomic: Your orientation: im assuming you mean gay, bi, less, etc. And that's a choice

                                              Lgbtq is a choice

                                              So I'm not sure where the contradiction comes from

                                              • -1

                                                @ln28909: Yes, you're right. My mistake, you actually believe being LGBT is a choice.

                                                Can I ask then, did you choose your orientation? I never chose mine.

                                                • +1

                                                  @Autonomic: Yes, I'm a male and I choose to like female because to me it is important to produce offsprings

                                                  • @ln28909: So you could choose to be gay tomorrow, if you wanted?

                                                    Anyway, I understand your argument now. You're saying people choose to be LGBT therefore they shouldn't be a protected class. Because it's a choice, there's no difference between them and a homophobic baker.

                                                    Protected classes however are based on historical discrimination, for which we have plenty of evidence for. For homophobes, not so much.

                                                    • @Autonomic: Sure, don't see why not but I wouldn't want to because that would goes against what I believe and my value

                                                      • @ln28909: And you don't consider yourself bisexual? Do you ever feel attracted to the same sex?

                                                        • @Autonomic: I'll be lying if I say that Lee min ho is unattractive

                                                          • @ln28909: If you are sexually attracted to both men and women you are, by definition, bisexual.

                                                            • @Autonomic:

                                                              Bisexual: sexually attracted not exclusively to people of one particular gender

                                                              I'm definitely not sexualy attracted to Lee min ho though

                        • +1


                          They're oppressed because they're LGBT.

                          All LGBT people are oppressed? Like Tim Cook and Alan Joyce for example? Your definition of oppressed must be different from mine…

                          • @1st-Amendment: Do they have it easier in life than others due to their wealth? Yes.

                            Do they experience discrimination due to being LGBT? Yes.

                            • +1


                              Do they experience discrimination due to being LGBT? Yes.

                              Firstly discrimination != oppression.
                              Secondly you shouldn't ask a question then answer it yourself.
                              Thirdly, what examples can you provide of this discrimination?

                              • @1st-Amendment: Do you genuinely believe discrimination against LGBT doesn't exist or do you have some other point to make?

                                • +1


                                  Do you genuinely believe discrimination against LGBT doesn't exist

                                  No because I never said that.

                                  do you have some other point to make?

                                  I made the point, I can't help you if you can't read. Maybe that's another oppressed class that need special treatment?
                                  Feel free to post examples of how Tim Cook or Alan Joyce are being oppressed right now…

                                  • @1st-Amendment: Do you think Tim Cook and Alan Joyce would have had it easier growing if they were straight or if they were gay? It seems what you're trying to say is that if you're an uber rich CEO then the effects of homophobia are minimized. So? We shouldn't then worry about homophobia for the remaining 99.99% of the LGBT community?

                                    • @Autonomic:

                                      Do you think Tim Cook and Alan Joyce would have had it easier growing if they were straight or if they were gay?

                                      Tim Cook had wasn't oppressed regardless of his sexuality, that is the point. Thinking that all gays are x or y is exactly the same logic that homophobes and racists use.

                                      It seems what you're trying to say is that if you're an uber rich CEO then the effects of homophobia are minimized. So? We shouldn't then worry about homophobia for the remaining 99.99% of the LGBT community?

                                      What homophobia, you're yet to provide any evidence for this claim.

                • +1

                  @Autonomic: No mind reading required.. all you had to do was read my comment and the very first thing I said was "Someone else did a great job of explaining this"

                  So you saying LGBT class should have a different set of rights to those who are not protected?

                  • @vash5:

                    So you saying LGBT class should have a different set of rights to those who are not protected?

                    All Western democracies agree.

                    • +1

                      @Autonomic: Care to share a link to back up that statement? Please use official gov sites not news reports.

                      And you didn't personally answer my question.

                      • @vash5: I'm not going to dig through the websites of dozens of countries - that's a complete waste of time. If you don't think LGBT are protected classes then say so. If you have a point to make, then make it.

                • +1

                  @Autonomic: <duplicate post>

                • @Autonomic: <duplicate post>

  • +11

    Got these rules mixed up with some other rules, and now I got kicked out of fight club…

    • rule #8: if this is the first Jordan Peterson deal you have read on Ozbargain, you have to argue.

  • +2

    Kmart also sells this for $12

  • +13

    I thought it was called 12 Steps To Get Off On Benzos Or Cry Trying.

    • -8

      I logged in just to reply.

      Show some respect to this competent and wise man. He is facing one of the most difficult times of his life. You go and get a life your loser, achieve at least 10 percent of what he did, prior to vomiting this.

      • +9

        I agree it's one thing to disagree with the content someone produces…but to make fun of addiction is fairly pathetic thing.

        You would have to be a fairly miserable person (toasty and a few others) to poke fun at someone almost dying. We're all human at the end of the day, someone that derives joy from someone struggling with addiction says more about them than the person they're shitting on.

        • -1

          nah, the real miserable person is the one who can't poke fun at things, even if it something as macabre as death

        • Thanks man. Sensible words.

      • People typically are shown the respect they deserve.

  • +1

    'Clonazepam is used alone or in combination with other medications to control certain types of seizures. It is also used to relieve panic attacks (sudden, unexpected attacks of extreme fear and worry about these attacks). Clonazepam is in a class of medications called benzodiazepines. It works by decreasing abnormal electrical activity in the brain….

    Clonazepam is also used to treat symptoms of akathisia (restlessness and a need for constant movement) that may occur as a side effect of treatment with antipsychotic medications (medications for mental illness) and to treat acute catatonic reactions (state in which a person does not move or speak at all or moves or speaks abnormally).'

    easy to see why his thinking is so popular in a world full of MADness…

    • +10

      How could you expect anyone to know that benzos are addictive. Especially a practising psychologist, with a focus on addiction…

      • +6

        His magic meat and water diet was supposed to protect him

    • -3

      Thats funny. It doesn't say take Clonazepam for 2 years for made-up food allergies .

  • +13

    thanks but the toilet paper shortage has been over for a while

  • +13

    rule 13: dont get hooked on benzo's

  • +5

    This deal's comments is a copy & paste from the deal's comments of his upcoming book.

  • The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules. And tonight you're gonna break your 12 rules.

  • +4

    People, it’s just a $1 a rule..

  • +3

    Pseudo intellectual IYI

  • +7

    I remember this Jordan said in an interview that women in the workplace are to be blamed for sexual harassment because they wear makeup. He thinks women wear makeup to sexually attract men so sexual harassment is justified. He doesn't believe women should be in the same workplace with men because of it. That's the most disgusting thing I have ever heard and I really hope people can resist giving this demon more money.

    • +21

      This is not what he said

Login or Join to leave a comment