Exactly.

Giving up on your most sacred beliefs can't be part of a compromise. The proposition makes no sense.

With this Peterson assumes that leftism is good, rational, practical - except these silly fringe things that they can get rid of, and then we can get along.

But the things that are wrong with leftism are at the heart of it. No I'm not talking about calls for more empathy, equality, or solidarity. Look beyond the surface, before the rhetoric, at the motivational levels, at the points of origins. Look at the code the NPCs are running on.

They are not going to compromise with their core assumptions. They're not going to give up on blank slate theory, or consequentialism, or their absolute relativism, or stop reducing everything into foucauldian power struggles.

This is not about what they say they want. No one anywhere is against empathy. It's about what they actually want, which is power.

I'm not against leftism because I can't accept a welfare state. That's a compromise I would be willing to make. There are many functioning social democracies. But social democracies aren't built on postmodern ideas, they don't strive for equity, they don't try to redistribute power at all costs, or sacrifice their futures with hopeless attempts at rectifying their pasts, they aren't socialist, or globalist.

They're generally open, free market economies rooted in national traditions with a moderate amount of regulation - often less than the US. Ideologically they're not majority leftists, they're traditionalists and christians with a welfare state. They're fairly rational, and while I can dissagree with them on many points or believe it's a system that only really works in smaller and more homogenous populations, I don't think they're outright insane.

I'm aginst leftism after realizing that leftists have impossible goals and that they are willing to go to any lenght, no matter how authoritarian and dystopan, to try to achieve them - and since the goals are impossible there is no chance of them stopping before they've created hell on earth, as they've done each and every time before. I'm against it because unchecked liberalism promotes social climbers, sociopaths, bullies, grifters, charlatans, and worse over everyone else.

Leftism is a brain virus that makes the infected angry, miserable, hateful, sadistic, irrational, and turns them into slaves who will say or do anything to further the virus' agenda. How do you compromise with that? You can't.

Exactly.

Giving up on your most sacred beliefs can't be part of a compromise. The proposition makes no sense.

With this Peterson assumes that leftism is good, rational, practical - except these silly fringe things that they can get rid of, and then we can get along.

But the things that are wrong with leftism are at the heart of it. No I'm not talking about calls for more empathy, equality, or solidarity. Look beyond the surface, before the rhetoric, at the motivational levels, at the points of origins. Look at the code the NPCs are running on.

They are not going to compromise with their core assumptions. They're not going to give up on blank slate theory, or consequentialism, or their absolute relativism, or stop reducing everything into foucauldian power struggles.

This is not about what they say they want. No one anywhere is against empathy. It's about what they actually want, which is power.

I'm not against leftism because I can't accept a welfare state. That's a compromise I would be willing to make. There are many functioning social democracies. But social democracies aren't built on postmodern ideas, they don't strive for equity, they don't try to redistribute power at all costs, or sacrifice their futures with hopeless attempts at rectifying their pasts, they aren't socialist, or globalist.

They're generally open, free market economies rooted in national traditions with a moderate amount of regulation - often less than the US. Ideologically they're not majority leftists, they're traditionalists and christians with a welfare state. They're fairly rational, and while I can dissagree with them on many points or believe it's a system that only really works in smaller and more heterogenous populations, I don't think they're outright insane.

I'm aginst leftism after realizing that leftists have impossible goals and that they are willing to go to any lenght, no matter how authoritarian and dystopan, to try to achieve them - and since the goals are impossible there is no chance of them stopping before they've created hell on earth, as they've done each and every time before. I'm against it because unchecked liberalism promotes social climbers, sociopaths, bullies, grifters, charlatans, and worse over everyone else.

Leftism is a brain virus that makes the infected angry, miserable, hateful, sadistic, irrational, and turns them into slaves who will say or do anything to further the virus' agenda. How do you compromise with that? You can't.

Exactly.

Giving up on your most sacred beliefs can't be part of a compromise. The proposition makes no sense.

With this Peterson assumes that leftism is good, rational, practical - except these silly fringe things that they can get rid of, and then we can get along.

But the things that are wrong with leftism are at the heart of it. No I'm not talking about calls for more empathy, equality, or solidarity. Look beyond the surface, before the rhetoric, at the motivational levels, at the points of origins. Look at the code the NPCs are running on.

They are not going to compromise with their core assumptions. They're not going to give up on blank slate theory, or consequentialism, or their absolute relativism, or stop reducing everything into foucauldian power struggles.

This is not about what they say they want. No one anywhere is against empathy. It's about what they actually want, which is power.

I'm not against leftism because I can't accept a welfare state. That's a compromise I would be willing to make. There are many functioning social democracies. But social democracies aren't built on postmodern ideas, they don't strive for equity, they don't try to redistribute power at all costs, or sacrifice their futures with hopeless attempts at rectifying their pasts, they aren't socialist, or globalist.

They're generally open, free market economies rooted in national traditions with a moderate amount of regulation - often less than the US. Ideologically they're not majority leftists, they're traditionalists and christians with a welfare state. They're fairly rational, and while I can dissagree with them on many points or believe it's a system that only really works in smaller and more heterogenous populations, I don't think they're outright insane.

I'm aginst leftism after realizing that leftists have impossible goals and that they are willing to go to any lenght, no matter how authoritarian and dystopan, to try to achieve them - and since the goals are impossible there is no chance of them stopping before they've created hell on earth, as they've done each and every time before. I'm against it because unchecked liberalism promotes social climbers, sociopaths, bullies, and worse over everyone else.

Leftism is a brain virus that makes the infected angry, miserable, hateful, sadistic, irrational, and turns them into slaves who will say or do anything to further the virus' agenda. How do you compromise with that? You can't.

Exactly.

Giving up on your most sacred beliefs can't be part of a compromise. The proposition makes no sense.

With this Peterson assumes that leftism is good, rational, practical - except these silly fringe things that they can get rid of, and then we can get along.

But the things that are wrong with leftism are at the heart of it. No I'm not talking about calls for more empathy, equality, or solidarity. Look beyond the surface, before the rhetoric, at the motivational levels, at the points of origins. Look at the code the NPCs are running on.

They are not going to compromise with their core assumptions. They're not going to give up on blank slate theory, or consequentialism, or their absolute relativism, or stop reducing everything into foucauldian power struggles.

This is not about what they say they want. No one anywhere is against empathy. It's about what they actually want, which is power.

I'm not against leftism because I can't accept a welfare state. That's a compromise I would be willing to make. There are many functioning social democracies. But social democracies aren't built on postmodern ideas, they don't strive for equity, they don't try to redistribute power at all costs, or sacrifice their futures with hopeless attempts at rectifying their pasts, they aren't socialist, or globalist.

They're generally open, free market economies rooted in national traditions with a moderate amount of regulation - often less than the US. Ideologically they're not majority leftists, they're traditionalists and christians with a welfare state. They're fairly rational, and while I can dissagree with them on many points or believe it's a system that only really works in smaller and more heterogenous populations, I don't think they're outright insane.

I'm aginst leftism after realizing that leftists have impossible goals and that they are willing to go to any lenght, no matter how authoritarian and dystopan, to try to achieve them - and since the goals are impossible there is no chance of them stopping before they've created hell on earth, as they've done each and every time before. Because unchecked liberalism promotes social climbers, sociopaths, bullies, and worse over everyone else.

Leftism is a brain virus that makes the infected angry, miserable, hateful, sadistic, irrational, and turns them into slaves who will say or do anything to further the virus' agenda. How do you compromise with that? You can't.