This is something similar to what Sam Harris said.
Sam Harris advocates that empathy is the wrong metric by which to evaluate helping someone, and we should use compassion instead.
The difference? Empathy can be highjacked and relies on intuition. You see a news story about some little girl in your city who lost her arm in a dog attack, you feel more for empathy for her than a child in Africa whose whole family was just slaughtered by militant Christians.
So, instead, we should use compassion as our north-star. We can use logic to guide us to making choices which lead to preferable outcomes for those who need it most.
None of this relates to Kirk though because he’s a pseudointellectual grifter who failed to demonstrate empathy for anyone who doesn’t fit into his Christian nationalist world view. That’s my two cents.
As if Sam Harris isn’t a personally salient cause away from being Jordan Peterson. Dude has the same arrogance and flies in adjacent circles, so he could easily go full fascist grifter if some brainworms issue took hold.
That’s a lazy smear. Harris and Peterson are ideological opposites; atheist materialist vs. Christian traditionalist.
Sam regularly loses followers because he won’t bend to tribalism, which is the opposite of grifting. He’s not afraid to piss off his own base by saying the “wrong” thing.
You can call him arrogant, but suggesting he’s a fascist-in-waiting is stupid. His framework has always been about advocating for compassion and upholding the virtues of epistemology as a means of a more tolerant and equitable future.
Calling Peterson a Christian is wild. I strongly advise you to watch him react when asked about his belief. That man struggles to self identify as Christian, even when talking to his own people.
My point isn’t, peterson is a good guy (or a bad guy, while he totally is). But that positioning one as totally different as an atheist compared to the christian is wild, when the christian is struggling to call themself christian when talking to Christians.
The ideological divide between Harris and peterson might not be that big in their religious belief. Peterson might just believe that Christianity helps him in the causes that he cares about.
Well, it isn’t an important takeaway as the conversation is about that at all. And as it is a public discussion and you joined in to paint peterson as somewhat christian, you are moving the conversation from the topic of discussion to another topic that is more easily defensible. The classic goal post shift.
OK so what’s more important to take away from this thread? That Jordan Peterson himself refuses to say he’s a Christian, or whether his words and actions accurately paint him as a literal Christian Nationalist.
Sorry, I just thought the latter was more important.
This is something similar to what Sam Harris said.
Sam Harris advocates that empathy is the wrong metric by which to evaluate helping someone, and we should use compassion instead.
The difference? Empathy can be highjacked and relies on intuition. You see a news story about some little girl in your city who lost her arm in a dog attack, you feel more for empathy for her than a child in Africa whose whole family was just slaughtered by militant Christians.
So, instead, we should use compassion as our north-star. We can use logic to guide us to making choices which lead to preferable outcomes for those who need it most.
None of this relates to Kirk though because he’s a pseudointellectual grifter who failed to demonstrate empathy for anyone who doesn’t fit into his Christian nationalist world view. That’s my two cents.
As if Sam Harris isn’t a personally salient cause away from being Jordan Peterson. Dude has the same arrogance and flies in adjacent circles, so he could easily go full fascist grifter if some brainworms issue took hold.
That’s a lazy smear. Harris and Peterson are ideological opposites; atheist materialist vs. Christian traditionalist.
Sam regularly loses followers because he won’t bend to tribalism, which is the opposite of grifting. He’s not afraid to piss off his own base by saying the “wrong” thing.
You can call him arrogant, but suggesting he’s a fascist-in-waiting is stupid. His framework has always been about advocating for compassion and upholding the virtues of epistemology as a means of a more tolerant and equitable future.
Calling Peterson a Christian is wild. I strongly advise you to watch him react when asked about his belief. That man struggles to self identify as Christian, even when talking to his own people.
Christian or not, he is a supporter of white Christian nationalism
Of course, but that is a goal post shift.
My point isn’t, peterson is a good guy (or a bad guy, while he totally is). But that positioning one as totally different as an atheist compared to the christian is wild, when the christian is struggling to call themself christian when talking to Christians.
The ideological divide between Harris and peterson might not be that big in their religious belief. Peterson might just believe that Christianity helps him in the causes that he cares about.
I’m not the person you were originally talking to, so I didn’t move any goalposts. Just pointing out the important takeaway here.
Well, it isn’t an important takeaway as the conversation is about that at all. And as it is a public discussion and you joined in to paint peterson as somewhat christian, you are moving the conversation from the topic of discussion to another topic that is more easily defensible. The classic goal post shift.
OK so what’s more important to take away from this thread? That Jordan Peterson himself refuses to say he’s a Christian, or whether his words and actions accurately paint him as a literal Christian Nationalist.
Sorry, I just thought the latter was more important.