Re: Jordan Peterson
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (42)
sorted by:
They only want no individual identity if it's only under their ideology and everyone is a drone. No identity but everything has to stand up by its merits alone, they crumble.
The big thing many ignore is the importance of religious morality in these discussions. As John Adams famously said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” This was not a fringe viewpoint among those who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
One of the more pathetic arguements I've heard recently was Matt Walsh on Joe Rogan trying to argue against legalized gay marriage without invoking the Bible or God; Rogan smoked Walsh. Moreover, it was disingenuous from Walsh: he is a devout Catholic, and had even said so earlier on the podcast, yet his ego made him think he could make a moral argument without using the foundation of his views.
Individuality without the bounds of something like Christian morality cannot build a cohesive society, as it just leads to everyone doing what is right in his own eyes. There needs to be a collective set of moral rules that everyone in a society agrees upon for that society to be both free and civil. If not, the only way for structure is through authoritarianism, like how Saddam held Iraq together. Not ideal, but it was better than pretending that splintered society was capable of self governance under an elected government.
The problem with this is married filing jointly exists, and married filing jointly is why a lot of gay people wanted to get married, because the government wouldn’t allow that tax benefit unless they were officially married. I personally say remove income tax and this isn’t an issue but that’s just me.
Western civilization. lecture series from an Orthodox Christian priest.
The whole series is very good, but the parts dealing with the 18th/19th/20th century european politics are in line with your comment: mainly about how the French revolution was not necessarily the wonderful thing that we are told to view it as today because of the excessive individualism
I'd say you've got it right. When I went Christmas shopping, I spotted a card game with a French Revolution theme. It was called Guillotine. That tells you something.
Where did I mention politics, I said everything has to stand on merits alone.
An idea in itself has to stand on merits which is what the post is taking about. By introducing politics you necessarily involve a group identity, a label to the conversation in order to identify yourself. If you just examine based on merits alone, you'd see democracy is flawed, communism only works in an insect hive, monarchy works only with restraints and dictatorships can be extremely feasible but are more likely to crumble when the leader dies unless there is a clear line of progression which evolves it into a pseudo monarchy.
One may as well say that everything requires the intervention of armed government agents, since policy without the backing of organized violence is worthless.
I like to think of the "diversity" that Dems want as the same as the It's a Small World Ride at Disneyland. Lots of colorful costumes and the appearance of variation, but they're all singing the exact same song.